Lawyer goes to court to discover Wikipedian's identity; Storming Wikipedia; Wikimedia UK Secretary in conflict-of-interest controversy; Does Wikipedia need a "right to reply" box?

The National Law Journal reported on September 9 that lawyer Susan L. Burke has been taking legal steps to discover the identity of Wikipedia editor Zujua. Zujua had edited her biography, allegedly adding misleading content about various lawsuits in the process:

Zujua's edits to Burke's biography are still available in the page history, and appear to bear out her complaint.

The Wikimedia Foundation itself is protected from legal responsibility for Wikipedia content by the safe harbor of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The legal protection of the Act has been tested several times in court, most notably in 2008 in Bauer v. Wikimedia. Legal responsibility for edits rests solely with the editor who makes them. Burke therefore subpoenaed the Wikimedia Foundation for information on Zujua and CapBasics359 after filing suit in September 2012. CapBasics359 did not contest the subpoena, but all Burke's lawyers learned was that the edits had been made by an unknown person from a Starbucks in California.

Zujua on the other hand challenged the subpoena. The Center for Individual Rights (see their comments on the case) argued on Zujua's behalf that his edits were protected free speech about an issue involving a public figure: "We view this as having the effect of chilling the free speech rights of other Wikipedia editors who will hesitate to edit on matters of public concern for fear of being sued if they make a mistake."

The judge, however, disagreed:

Zujua has appealed. Arguments were scheduled to be heard in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals later this month—first of all, to decide whether Zujua in fact has the right to appeal the decision—but according to a September 12 post on the blog of the Legal Times, the court has asked for additional briefs and said it would reschedule the hearing.

After positive coverage in the past weeks (see Signpost coverage two weeks ago and last week), Fox News, FrontPage Magazine and Patheos.com took a more skeptical view of FemTechNet's "Storming Wikipedia" this week, portraying it as an effort to insert feminist and left-wing propaganda into Wikipedia, rather than an effort aimed at addressing Wikipedia's existing gender imbalance.

Fox News quoted Katherine Timpf, a reporter for CampusReform.org, "They're more concerned with making it politically correct than factually correct. This is the opposite of what [students] should be taught."

Gene Veith on patheos.com asked,

FrontPage Magazine published two pieces commenting on the initiative, "Wikipedia and left's propaganda innovations" by Daniel Greenfield and "Colleges recruiting students to propagandize Wikipedia" by Ben Shapiro.

An article on TheDrum.com published on August 27 reported that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), a professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK, has appointed Alastair McCapra, the current Wikimedia UK Secretary, as its new chief executive, replacing Jane Wilson.

The appointment, due to become effective in November 2013, has been discussed at the Wikimedia UK Watercooler page and on Jimmy Wales' talk page. Wales said,

Alastair McCapra has posted a statement and a further response at the Wikimedia UK Watercooler, stating that "... my commitment to working for WMUK is undimmed, I wish to continue to serve on the Board and don't feel, on the basis of what has been said above, that there is a strong case for my not doing so."

In an article on MarketingLand.com, writer Danny Sullivan asserts that Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"—anyone who is not the subject of the article, that is.

He proposes that Wikipedia should include a "right to reply" box that would allow subjects of biographical articles to correct misinformation about themselves, and further suggests that Wikipedia should introduce verified identities, following the example of Twitter, Google and Facebook—and indeed the German Wikipedia, which has operated a user verification scheme for some time now. This, Sullivan argues, would enable biography subjects to claim their "right to reply" box.

Responding to the idea of verified identities, Wikimedia Foundation Product Manager Steven Walling said on Twitter that "Orgs like TW, FB, GOOG have way more money and manpower to throw at it, and they still fail all the time."

Told by Walling that subjects are always free to use the talk page, Sullivan countered that "Talk pages aren't friendly to Wikipedia outsiders". Walling conceded that "Improving usability and friendliness of discussion pages is a key project for us this year" (referencing Wikipedia:Flow); Sullivan responded that he hoped his idea would be given consideration:

• Virginia State Corporation Commission: The Virginia-based Connection Newspapers outlet published an article on September 5 about a dispute concerning the Wikipedia article on the Virginia State Corporation Commission. Pr geeks, identified as Virginia State Corporation Commission Director of Information Resources Kenneth Schrad in the Connection Newspapers article and on the Wikipedia article's talk page, had made a complaint on behalf of the Commission that parts of the article content were not factual. At the time of writing, the Wikipedia article carries neutrality and copyright warnings.
• "Wizards of Wiki" launch commercial Wikipedia article translation service: A press release by SEO and marketing experts Stardom Alliance, dated September 6, announced that its "Wizards of Wiki" are launching "a translation service after taking on a number of additional writers. They are beginning their focus on French, Spanish and German articles aiming to provide this service to western companies and individuals who want their article listing in more than English."
• Guy Fieri "genocidal", according to Wikipedia: The Daily Meal, part of the Spanfeller Media Group (SMG), reported on September 6 that TV personality Guy Fieri was described in his Wikipedia biography as a "genocidal member of the U.S. Supreme Court", illustrating its piece with a Google search screenshot prominently featuring that wording. The content was only in the biography for 14 minutes, although there has been an attempt to re-introduce it since in modified form, by an IP address stating it refers to Fieri's portrayal in web comic Homestuck.
• "God less visible" in Wikipedia: HuffPost Religion featured a piece by Matthew L. Skinner on September 9, arguing that the deletion of the biography of Antoinette Tuff, a school employee widely praised for preventing another U.S. school massacre—she talked the gunman into surrendering—"made God less visible". A previous article on The Daily Kos had also commented on the deletion discussion, expressing the hope that the article would be kept: "According to Wikipedia policy, Tuff may be stricken from its record because her accomplishment is a 'one-off'—something she is unlikely to do again and which is unlikely to make her remarkable going forward. That's wrong. This woman put her life on the line to protect her school, its students, the first responders, and even the gunman. She proved Wayne LaPierre wrong in no uncertain terms. Antoinette Tuff deserves a permanent Wikipedia entry, at least. She is an exclamation mark in today's gun debate; she proved that a bad man with a gun can be stopped by a good woman with a heart." Antoinette Tuff currently redirects to DeKalb County School District#Shooting and hostage situation, which dedicated three sentences to Tuff at press time.
• Editor accused of "partisan promotion", identified through his social media accounts: New Rochelle's Talk of the Sound reported on September 9 that an editor allegedly associated with the campaign of local politician Noam Bramson had turned his Wikipedia biography into "partisan promotion". The journalist, Robert Cox, identified the Wikipedia editor, Concretebeachri, through his social media accounts; Concretebeachri appears to have acknowledged the identification on-wiki. Cox followed up with another article reporting on progress on September 10.
• Google Maps drops Wikipedia: Search Engine Roundtable reported on September 10 that Google appears to have dropped the Wikipedia layer from Google Maps. So far Google does not seem to have released an official statement in response to user complaints.
• Harvard expects alumni to have a Wikipedia biography: An article in Business Insider reported on September 10 that compilers of a Harvard alumni directory are asking alumni to provide a link to their Wikipedia biography: "If applicable, the link you provide should be to a source with some permanence, such as Wikipedia."
• Fascists running the Croatian Wikipedia?: An English-language article on inserbia.info, based on a story that first appeared in Croatian newspaper Jutarnji list, alleged on September 11 that the Croatian Wikipedia has been taken over by right-wing extremists. According to Wikimedia stats, the Croatian Wikipedia has for the past year had fewer than two dozen editors making more than 100 edits a month. The controversy is described in the English Wikipedia’s article about the Croatian Wikipedia, which has seen a major edit war over inclusion of the content.
• Partnership between York Museums Trust and Wikimedia UK results in new paid position: An article in the Yorkshire Post reported on September 11 that the York Museums Trust, in a partnership with Wikimedia UK, has created a temporary part-time paid position to expand Wikipedia content on York adventurer Tempest Anderson. The trust has a wealth of material on Anderson. Candidates have until Sunday to apply for the position. Further information is available on the www.yorkmuseumstrust.org.uk website.
• "Everything You Wanted to Know about Wikipedia and Your SEO": Search Engine Journal provided advice on September 11 on "how to get your small business involved in Wikipedia".
• Support for Wikimedia from open access publisher: A September 11 press release by the Macrothink Institute, a publisher of open access journals, announced Macrothink's support for the Wikimedia Foundation.
• Festival of Wikipedia: Computer Weekly reported on September 11 that "BCS Women, part of the Chartered Institute for IT, will be holding a Festival of Wikipedia to celebrate Ada Lovelace day this year. The festival will see volunteers adding and update Wikipedia entries on women in computing." Events are planned in October, in London, Edinburgh and Southampton. More information is available on the bcs website.
• Malta music wiki: The Times of Malta reported on September 12 on the Maltese Wikipedia (174th out of 285, according to the Times) and an editathon for the Malta Music Memory Project (M3P), a music wiki run by the M3P Foundation, scheduled for this Saturday.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Technology report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Opinion

2013-09-11

As deadline approaches, Individual Engagement Grants looks for ideas

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By The ed17

The deadline for proposals to the Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) volunteer committee on Meta will pass on 30 September. The program is designed to fund projects that tackle long-term problems and have a significant editing community impact; it has previously supported solutions like The Wikipedia Library, which improves Wikipedian access to online reference sources like JSTOR (see Signpost coverage).

The WMF grantmaking scheme was introduced in January 2013 after a community consultation-period in late 2012. It aims to enable volunteers—individuals or in teams up to four—to tackle chronic on-wiki problems. The funding period is six months, with an opportunity to renew it for six more; it is capped at US$30k, which can be used for living costs and expenses like travel and project materials.

Interested users can either submit complete proposals or outline rough ideas in an open collaborative space, IdeaLab, which is designed to help think through and improve potential projects together with the committee and other community members. The committee itself is composed of eighteen community members from several different projects and advises the WMF's grantmaking department. The English Wikipedia's Anne Delong, Pine, Hahc21, Steven Zhang, and Ocaasi—himself a grantee last round—are among them.

Upcoming topics for review include an attempt to create a standardized way to handle backlog pages for WikiProjects on Wikipedia and introducing a mechanism to export content into LaTeX. However, proposals with technical focus have to be able to deliver on their own and cannot rely on the WMF's tech-departmental resources, due to its narrowed focus on key projects like VisualEditor and the upcoming Flow project—which aims to replace talk pages and is currently undergoing community consultation on MediaWiki. At the time of writing, 12 draft ideas, mostly aiming at improved outreach in developing countries like Bangladesh and Uganda, are under development in the IdeaLab. One formal proposal has already been filed.

The community comment period on IEG proposals ends on 22 October, while the committee will review both the ideas and community input on them until 19 November. Based on the findings and recommendations, the WMF will announce its funding decisions on 15 December and distribute resources in early 2014.

In brief

• Individual Engagement Grants committee expands: In addition to the lead story, the committee overseeing the IEG process has announced that it has expanded by seven members.
• Quarterly review: The editor engagement experiments (E3) team's third quarterly review has been published on Meta. The E3 team is looking for improved ways to attract and retain new users; quarterly reviews are aimed to ensure accountability and allow senior Foundation staff to offer specific guidance to their proliferous and diverse initiatives.
• WMF openings: Three new positions have been advertised by the Wikimedia Foundation this week: a QA tester for the Visual Editor, Program officer, Project & Event Grants program, and a Paid internship in Program Evaluation and Design.
• Wikimedian in Residence position: The Royal Society—the British-based and oldest learned society still in existence—is asking for a Wikimedian in Residence. The position will require one day a week and will be paid.
• Wiki Q&A?: The folks over at Stack Exchange have proposed a new Q&A website for users of wikis.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/In focus

2013-09-11

Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute; Infoboxes case closes

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Neotarf

Discussion over the Manning title dispute was off to a running start as evidence and workshop phases continued in the Bradley/Chelsea Manning naming dispute. The Infoboxes case closed with topic bans for two users, and a recommendation for community discussion of infoboxes.

Open cases

Manning naming dispute

The evidence and workshop phases are now open in the Manning naming dispute case. The case involves the move of the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning, after Manning's attorney announced Manning's wish to be known as Chelsea.

The scope of the case has been described as "broad": the committee is "willing to review evidence regarding any aspect of the naming dispute in question." There is particular interest in evidence regarding derogatory statements towards transgendered individuals, accusations of transphobia, whether WP:BLP concerns are being handled properly, and evidence of possible misuse of admin tools.

The evidence phase closes 19 September, and the workshop phase closes 26 September. A proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 3 October 2013.

Closed cases

Infoboxes

The Infoboxes case was closed. Arbitrators agreed unanimously that infoboxes are neither required nor discouraged, and that decisions regarding infoboxes should be made by consensus on an article-by-article basis. They also recommended a community-wide discussion on infoboxes. Findings regarding conduct were passed for four users. In addition two users received topic bans: Pigsonthewing (also known as Andy Mabbett) was indefinitely banned from using or discussing infoboxes, and Gerda Arendt was restricted from discussing or adding infoboxes to articles but not from participation in broader policy discussions.

The following remedies were announced by the committee:

1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

The proposed findings of fact against Smerus were added to the case two weeks after the workshop had closed, after members of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement complained that the decision as written was too one-sided, that one-sided rulings "never calm things down", and that anti-box editors "deserve smacking".

Since little or no evidence had been submitted against these editors, a request was made for more diffs. Since the evidence and workshop phases were already closed, there was no discussion of this new evidence. Smerus offered to provide diffs if an arbitrator was willing to take them into consideration, but did not receive a response. While no centralized discussion took place on the case pages, comments elsewhere speculated that "ArbCom wanted to punish two users from each side of the dispute to demonstrate fairness".

A similar situation occurred in the Tea Party movement case (see Signpost coverage), when fourteen editors were proposed for topic bans after discussion had already closed in the evidence and workshop phases. However, while there was no centralized discussion in that case, the discussion did continue on various arbitrators' talk pages. In a post-mortem on that case, concern was expressed that "anything that might end up in the proposed decision should, first, be displayed at the workshop… because it gives the Committee a chance to get their gut feelings reviewed by editors outside the Committee."

Other requests and committee action

• Discretionary sanctions review: An updated draft of the discretionary sanction process is now available for review and comment.
• Clarification request: Race and Intelligence: A clarification request has been made regarding topic and interaction bans.
• Amendment request: Scientology: An amendment request made by The Devil's Advocate requests the lifting of a restriction imposed regarding the mention of an editor's previous username, the removal of claims of misconduct from the discretionary sanction log of warnings, and restoration of a previously oversighted edit to avoid the appearance of misconduct implied by a suppressed edit.
• Amendment request: Locke Cole arbitration case: A request was made by Locke Cole for the lifting of a seven-year-old interaction ban.
• Clarification request: Pseudoscience#Principles: A request was made by IRWolfie- for clarification of the {{ArbComPseudoscience}} template. Archived here.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-11/Humour

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

Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions