The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
2 October 2013

Op-ed
Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership
Discussion report
References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more
News and notes
WMF signals new grantmaking priorities
Featured content
Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia
Arbitration report
Infoboxes: After the war
WikiProject report
U2 Too
 

2013-10-02

Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

Contribute  —  
Share this
By James Heilman
James Heilman edits as Jmh649 or "Doc James" on Wikipedia. In real life, he lives in Canada and works as an academic professor and emergency room doctor.
The views expressed in this op-ed are those of the author only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section. The Signpost welcomes proposals for op-eds at our opinion desk.
The featured medical image that is up for deletion on Commons

Medical images have transformed many aspects of modern medicine. Over the past two decades the increasing sophistication of MRI, CT-scanning, and X-ray techniques has made these technologies the cornerstone of diagnosing a range of conditions, replacing what used to be largely guesswork by doctors. They can be the difference between life and death for a patient, and their importance is underlined by the tens of billions of dollars spent on them annually just in North America. For Wikimedia Foundation projects, advanced images are now a powerful tool for describing and explaining, and educating our worldwide readership of medical articles.

But somehow these images have fallen through the copyright crack because each image potentially involves a raft of stakeholders—both individuals and institutions ...

This legal fuzz was brought home with a thud on September 16 on Commons, when User:Eleassar nominated for deletion a featured image of the human brain, generated by a CT scanner. The image had been uploaded by a long-standing Wikipedian who is the subject of the image. Eleassar’s argument is that copyright for the scan belongs with the X-ray technician. If this position is upheld by Commons it may result in the deletion of the great majority of radiological imaging, which has been contributed by the patients or the physicians involved in their creation. To make matters worse, open-access publishers do not require release by the X-ray technologists, so we would likely lose those images as well.

This nomination for deletion has brought up a fundamental question: are diagnostic images copyrightable, and if so, who owns the copyright? Is it the patient, the technician, the radiologist (a medical specialist), the doctor who ordered the creation of the image, the hospital, the first person who publishes the image, or are such images by default in the public domain.

The law says very little on the question and a bunch of us have been playing amateur lawyer now since this case arose. A WMF legal intern provided an opinion which was more or less "the law has no idea": "The copyright office takes the position that X-rays are not copyrightable". Complicating matters further, some degree of creativity is required not just in the United States but in nearly all countries, yet "Anyone who has prepared a photographic picture has an exclusive right to make copies of that picture".

Wikimedians have put a number of arguments, including:

1) Diagnostic X-rays are the same as photos, and thus the person who presses the button owns the image. 2) Copyright requires "intellectual creativity". Radiological images are created on the basis of strict guidelines. No creativity is allowed. And thus they are not copyrightable. 3) Similar arguments used to support the deletion of X-rays can be made for ECGs—both types are created on the basis of electromagnetic waves at the press of a single button. Will we need to delete the thousands of ECGs on Commons? 4) What about the sculpture your plumber has created under your sink or your electrician within your walls? Are you allowed to take and upload a picture of that without his or her consent? Or do you need copyright release?

So what does the publishing world do? I have asked multiple publishers and academics from many countries. They all agree that copyright is not owned by the tech. Publishers state that they just assume that the author has "taken care of it". Authors state that they simply publish and do not feel they needed permission from either tech or hospital as long as the images were anonymized.

Is it country-dependent? Some are arguing that the laws pertaining to this in Sweden and Germany are different from those in the US and the UK; so while images might be allowed from some countries, they might not from others. The experts I asked from Sweden, however, viewed the laws the same as those from the US and UK. More opinions are being sought.

A number of radiological images have been deleted on the basis of the precautionary principle over the years.

  1. File:Foot_xray.jpg
  2. Image:Sacrococcygeal-teratoma-001.jpg

With tens of thousands of images at stake, representing thousands of volunteer hours of time, the discussion has become heated, with a few insults beginning to fly. To solve the dilemma, I have started a request for comment on Commons to bring more voices to the table. Having asked at least a dozen lawyers and getting an even greater number of opinions, the question is: how do we resolve the unknown?

Reader comments

2013-10-02

References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Pine
The Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress of Brazil


This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 2 October 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC, recent watchlist notices and SiteNotices. The latter two are in bold. Items that are new to this report are in italics even if they are not new discussions. If an item can be listed under more than one category it is usually listed once only in this report. Clarifications and corrections are appreciated; please leave them in this article's comment box at the bottom of the page.

Style and naming

A Wikipedian has started a request for comment about naming conventions for tornado outbreaks.

Policies and guidelines

The United States federal government has "shut down" amidst political disagreements among federal legislators and the President. Similarly, some Wikipedia requests for comment end in "no consensus", although this has never resulted in Wikipedia shutting down.

WikiProjects and collaborations

Technical issues and templates

Proposals

English Wikipedia notable requests for permissions

(This section will include active RfAs, RfBs, CU/OS appointment requests, and Arbcom elections)

Meta

Upcoming online meetings

There is an upcoming IRC meeting about Flow. According to the project page, "Flow will replace the current Wikipedia talk page system and will provide features that are present on most modern websites, but which are not possible to implement in wikitext. For example, Flow will enable automatic signing of posts, automatic threading, and per-thread notifications."

Wikimedia blog posts


Students in the Wikipedia Education Program in Nepal meet with the Member Secretary of the Pashupati Area Development Trust. The Nepal WEP pilot project is discussed in a Wikimedia Blog post.


Reader comments

2013-10-02

WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tony1, Crisco 1492 and The ed17
Members of the volunteer FDC in April 2013, who have since been joined by two new community-elected members
Executive director Sue Gardner ... new realism in funding affiliated organisations

In what will be remembered as a game-changing week for Wikimedia grantmaking, the Foundation's executive director, Sue Gardner, published a forthright and in places highly critical statement, Reflections on the FDC process, and grantmaking staff revealed that the WMF will significantly strengthen its targeting of optimal impact in funding. These clear signs of the Foundation's intention to shift grantmaking strategies come just after 11 WMF entities placed on-wiki their applications for the October round of Funds Dissemination Committee allocations—the first of two rounds in the 2013–14 financial year in which the combined maximum budget will be US$8M. (The FDC is the volunteer committee, supported by a team of WMF specialist staff, that administers annual grants to chapters and other eligible entities.) The FDC also published the annual report for its first year of operation, 2012–13.

Straight talking from the executive director

Sue Gardner's statement emphasised the successes of the new system, but went on to express significant concerns about how the WMF's affiliated entities are developing: "too large a proportion of the movement's money is being spent by the chapters [whereas] the value in the Wikimedia projects is primarily created by individual editors: individuals create the value for readers, which results in those readers donating money to the movement. ... I am not sure that the additional value created by movement entities such as chapters justifies the financial cost".

While stating her confidence in all FDC members, Gardner wrote: "I am troubled by the FDC being disproportionately chapters-centric, and my concern increased rather than decreasing following the 2013 FDC member elections, which resulted in the two open FDC seats being filled by chapters Board members. ... the FDC process, dominated by fund-seekers, does not as currently constructed offer sufficient protection against log-rolling, self-dealing, and other corrupt practices. I had hoped that this risk would be offset by the presence on the FDC of independent non-affiliated members".

"With such a high proportion of [resources] now funding [chapters' staff and offices], we need to ask if the benefits are turning out to be worth the cost. It's possible that a well-managed shift to some staff support can help a volunteer community stay energized and enthused, but the risks and costs of setting up bricks-and-mortar institutions also dramatically increase, alongside sometimes difficult dynamics between staff and community".

In Gardner's view, we lack evidence that this spending "is significantly helping us to achieve the Wikimedia mission. I believe we're spending a lot of money, more than is warranted by the results we've been seeing. I am concerned by the growth rates requested by the entities submitting funding requests to the FDC." She challenged Wikimedians to ask themselves "whether there are more imaginative and agile ways of organizing our movement that will support our work better".

FDC staff: chapter allocations and the global south

Anasuya Sengupta, senior director of grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation
Katy Love, senior program officer, FDC
Asaf Bartov, head of WMF grants and global south partnerships

Gardner's comments were, in part, reinforced and extended in presentations of unusual candour by FDC staff at the Foundation's regular Metrics Meeting last Thursday, streamed live and now available on YouTube (starting at about 37 minutes). WMF senior director of grantmaking, Anasuya Sengupta, said that analysing the impact of grants will be a priority in the coming year. One of her main points concerned the asymmetry in chapter allocations: "Last year, of the $5.65M we gave out, about $3M went to three chapters: Germany, France, and the UK. ... there are questions to be asked by all of us around where's the money going, for what, to whom, and how are our individual contributors being supported as best as we can".

Katy Love, the FDC's senior program officer, pointed out that the FDC guidelines generally allow a maximum annual increase of 20% in the funds allocated to any one chapter. Yet most of the 11 applicants are asking for considerably greater increases: Germany, the largest recipient—which already has access to generous levels of funding from German donors—is asking for 36% more ($2.43M). The UK's claim is up 32% from last year, Argentina's 34%, Switzerland's 38%, Austria's 41%, Serbia's 111%, Israel's 204%, and India's 401%. Only the bids from the Netherlands (up 20%) and Sweden (up 21%) were within the guidelines. This will present the FDC with "a very interesting process", Love commented.

Returning to the issue of asymmetry, the disparity between the allocations to the global south and north are more dramatic. Last year, Sengupta said, the global south received just 8% of WMF funding (from all sources, not just the FDC), with an average grant of $1554. The global north received 92% of the funds, and by the Signpost's calculation an average grant of $79,780. Despite this, reaching into the global south is a key priority for the Foundation. Asaf Bartov, head of WMF grants and global south partnerships, explained the rationale: "When our GS editorship is low, we are missing important voices, with different contexts, knowledge maps, hierarchies and categories." This leads to systemic bias from "the paucity of GS editors". More strikingly, Bartov pointed out that in terms of page visits "we are reaching 7% of the planet with our free knowledge – 7%! – so there's a way to go."

But the situation is complicated. In relation to grantmaking, he said, "it's actually hard to spend effectively in the global south. We are very eager to fund work in the global south, but it has actually been hard finding fundable projects that align with our global mission ... So that is a major component in the low number of funds that make it to the global south – it's not like we say 'no' a lot."

Lessons learned

So just what has the Foundation learned about the criteria for funding successful activities? Bartov first talked about a fundamental prerequisite:

"The sine qua non of most programs is a core of self-motivating active editors. Most of the things you want to do, most of the things chapters in the global north are doing, depend on this core. It can be as small as four or five people, but those people need to be actual active editors ... who edit because they like it, they enjoy editing Wikipedia or Commons, they get it, and they are inherently committed to our principles like NPOV; not people who are editing because there's a contest on and they want to win the laptop.

"Where that core doesn't exist, it's very hard to deploy any other type of program. If you want [a GLAM partnership] with the National Museum of Cameroon ... how are you going to deliver on what you promise the museum if you don't have local editors who will do the work – write the articles, show up to meet the curators. So this is the big, big challenge for which we don't have an answer: how do you grow such a core ... in a certain country? ... we're now cautious about active investment where there is not an active community—although it's still possible if you give us a really great idea."

The WMF's primary formula, Bartov said, is now that "growth happens when community and outside resources come together", although he pointed out that "we are in disagreement with some parts of the community, with some chapters, about this conclusion: some people think we should still do work where no community exists."

What has been learned more specifically, then? He listed six critical advances in the Foundation's understanding that will be of interest to all Wikimedians who are engaged in practical projects:

"Single-session, general-audience outreach has negligible impact everywhere (for example, just giving a single talk about Wikipedia to whoever shows up—the conversion rate to editors is tiny, and yet we keep doing it". This, he said, is distinct from multi-session programs, or very carefully selected audiences, which yield slightly better results.

"WMF contractors operating "on the ground" are too complicated and not effective enough ("we now only partner with grantees").

"Sustained attention to local communities yields actionable plans (a major focus in India and Brazil at the moment, which "has yielded actionable plans in those countries").

"WP Zero is effective, but it's still a challenge to get people to use the resource you make available".

"Just making offline resources [like software] available in the GS is not enough; distribution is the key".

What the WMF has been learning from its role in grantmaking appears to be leading to definite changes in its funding priorities and methodologies. While this is likely to be met with controversy in the movement, there will be inevitable implications for affiliated entities in terms of how they shape their own priorities and the way they achieve their goals. During the Metrics Meeting, Katy Love encouraged all interested members of the community to review and comment on the FDC applications.

Chapter governance under the spotlight

Recent news concerning a related issue—the standards of governance required of FDC grant recipients—was first raised in the Signpost two weeks ago. In that edition we linked to an anonymous tip-off on the Wikimedia India mailing list on 15 September. The post claimed that two returning members of the chapter's executive committee, Pranav and Karthik Nadar, were in the paid employment of a third, Moksh Juneja, who joined them as a new member at the August election. This information did not appear to have been disclosed to voters, despite the obvious potential for conflict-of-interest in having a block of three members in mutual employment relationships out of a total of nine members.

The incident took a new turn yesterday when Moksh Juneja confirmed the employment relationships "have ended / [are] in the process of ending", and denied that this had any connection with the anonymous tip-off. Former president of Wikimedia India Arjuna Rao Chavala served on the chapter's election committee for the August election; his current membership of the FDC means that this information is likely to be discussed on the Committee during the current round, in which the Indian chapter has applied for US$178k for a predicted total budget of $217k .

An additional point of debate may involve another matter raised in the same edition of the Signpost: the allegation by one candidate, Santosh M. Shingare, that the chapter's election committee had failed to release the list of eligible voters 21 days before the election as required by the chapter's rules. In making the allegation that he would no longer participate in the election, Shingare declared he would no longer participate as a candidate.

Two weeks ago, we also reported on a conflict-of-interest issue in Wikimedia UK—that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR—a professional body for public relations practitioners in the UK) has appointed current Wikimedia UK Secretary Alastair McCapra as its new chief executive. WMF general counsel Geoff Brigham has just published an opinion that "if a substantive issue arises at CIPR with respect to Wikimedia or its projects, I understand that Alastair intends to recuse himself from discussion and decision and appoint someone else at CIPR to act as the final decision maker on that issue within CIPR to avoid any appearance of a conflict of duty of loyalty. Alastair would also recuse himself on the WMUK board from a discussion and decision on any issue concerning CIPR. If an issue is particularly contentious and critical to the very fabric of either organization, Alastair may need to make a decision of resignation to address the potential conflict on that question, but such decisions can be handled on an issue-by-issue basis. The mere possibility of such a scenario does not necessitate resignation today."

Chris Keating, Chair of the WMUK board, has posted this message: "If there is a widespread view that, even with the steps we've outlined, it's not in the charity's best interests for Alastair to continue, then we will listen to that. However since Alastair posted the details of how he will handle this situation, only 5 people (myself included) have taken part in the resulting discussion. Some have posted at some length and in strident terms, but I don't yet see the picture I would need to see to be persuaded we are taking the wrong course of action here."

Discussion continues at the WMUK water cooler, beneath Brigham's statement.

In brief

  • Data security: On 3 October 2013 the WMF's deputy director and VP of engineering and product development, Erik Möller (Eloquence), revealed that there had been a four-month window between 29 May and 1 October 2013 in which the private user information (user email addresses, password hashes, session tokens, and last login timestamp) of 37,000 Wikimedia users had been accessible to some 228 individuals who had LabsDB access.
The LabsDB program, initiated in May, is intended to allow tool builders access to certain data from Wikimedia databases, data which is—or, in this case, should have been—automatically redacted before reaching tool builders. According to Möller, redaction failed in 30 databases owing to a schema incompatibility, allowing this user data to be read by anyone with a LabsDS account. Since this was caused by the addition of new wikis with different schemas (a column unused in earlier wikis was removed in the newer ones), affected wikis are only those added after May 2013. This means many smaller wikis, as well as Wikidata and Wikivoyage, were affected; the English Wikipedia and Commons were not.
There is no vetting process for who can become a LabsDS user. According to Krinkle: "anyone can sign up for an account and start developing software (within their own space)"; this means that anyone could also have accessed a read-only copy of the database, and therefore the personal information. The upshot is that the data could be used for illegitimate means (although, as Möller emphasises, there is no evidence that it has been).
Access to the data was revoked within 15 minutes of the bug report, and affected editors have been informed via email and required to change their passwords. People who use their Wikipedia password on multiple websites are urged to change their password on these other websites as well, preferably to a different password than the new one they choose here. According to staffer Marc-André Pelletier, in the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will add a layer of redundancy to the checks to prevent this from happening again.
  • Wikimedia France: The chapter has announced that it has hired a new executive director, Nathalie Martin.
  • Arbitrator resignation: English Wikipedia arbitrator NuclearWarfare has resigned with immediate effect. He is the third arbitrator to depart in this year.
  • Quarterly update: The Quarterly update of the changes to the English Wikipedia's content policies has been released.
  • Openings: Several positions related to the Wikimedia movement have opened or remain open, including a Software engineer for the mobile team, an Operations engineer for the WMF Labs, a Fundraising coordinator, and a Tester for Visual Editor.
  • Australian politician copies Wikipedia: The Canberra Times has profiled an Australian representative who copied and pasted from Wikipedia and other online sources to report on a four-day trip to the United Kingdom.
  • Editing Wikipedia for credit: The New York Times (among other sources) has reported on the University of California, San Francisco's offering of course credit to students for editing articles on diseases. The effort comes as a result of WikiProject Medicine's outreach to medical communities.
  • Engineering report: The Foundation's engineering report for September has been published on-wiki, on the WMF's blog, and in summary form.

    Reader comments

2013-10-02

Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Cdtew and Dank
A fantasia exhibition in Tan-Tan, Morocco is depicted in one of this week's new featured pictures
This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from September 22, 2013 through September 28, 2013.
The Rhodesian Platoon of the King's Royal Rifle Corps in 1914. One of this week's featured articles focuses on the participation of Southern Rhodesia in the First World War.
The storm path of Hurricane Nadine in 2012.

Six featured articles were promoted this week.

  • Nintendo DSi (nom) by Ryūkotsusei. This handheld game console with two screens was first released in 2008 as an update to 2004's Nintendo DS. The Nintendo DSi XL, with a larger screen and overall size, was introduced in 2009. As of June 2013, Nintendo had sold over 41 million DSi and DSi XL units combined.
  • Roger Norreis (nom) by Ealdgyth. Norreis, an abbot of Evesham who lived in England in the 12th and 13th centuries, was often embroiled in disputes with his colleagues and superiors. Despite being judged as energetic and enterprising, the abbot turned to making a tidy profit for himself through his religious office before being deposed by a papal legate.
  • Bobby Gibbes (nom) by Ian Rose. Gibbes was an Australian fighter ace who scored at least 10¼ aerial victories during World War II. He served primarily in the Middle East and South Pacific, and after the war's conclusion, continued flying civilian aircraft, even going on to found an airline. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in 2004.
  • Benjamin Disraeli (nom) by Tim riley and Wehwalt. Disraeli was a noted Conservative British prime minister, and the only one of Jewish descent. His stints in office were dominated by foreign policy issues. He also authored 18 works of fiction and 8 non-fiction books before his death in 1881.
  • Hurricane Nadine (2012) (nom) by 12george1. The fourth longest-lived Atlantic cyclone on record, Hurricane Nadine lasted for 24 days in 2012. Nadine made two passes at the Azores, causing some damage on the island of Pico, before dissipating and causing heavy rainfall in the United Kingdom.
  • Southern Rhodesia in World War I (nom) by Cliftonian. As a territory of the British Empire governed by the British South Africa Company, Southern Rhodesia contributed to the Allied war effort in World War I primarily by providing recruits to serve in the British Army. Although there was no conscription, more than 8,200 Rhodesian soldiers served, and more than 800 lost their lives in war operations.

Two featured pictures were promoted this week.

  • Pelagia noctiluca (nom) created by Hans Hillewaert and nominated by Tomer T. Pelagia noctiluca is a jellyfish found throughout the world in warm, temperate waters. Despite being known in Europe as the "mauve stinger", the jellyfish can be found in colorations varying from pink to golden yellow.
  • Fantasia (culture) (nom) created by Priest Maxim Massalitin and nominated by Tomer T. A fantasia, also known as a lab el baroud ("the gunpowder play"), is an exhibition of horsemanship performed traditionally in Morocco. Symbolic of Berber and Arabic desert warfare, the fantasia culminates typically in a simultaneous discharge of antique guns.


Pelagia noctiluca, or the "mauve stinger", a particularly destructive, yet attractive, jellyfish.


Reader comments

2013-10-02

Infoboxes: After the war

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Neotarf
Editor's note: To go beyond the mere facts of cases, the "Arbitration report" invited several editors who participated in the recent Infoboxes case to comment on infoboxes: what they are, where new users can go to find out about them, specifications and protocols, best practices, and how the upcoming community discussion recommended by the Committee in the case decision should be framed.

The war is over, declared one music editor preparing to return to editing classical music articles in the wake of ArbCom's Infobox decision. The editor had spent two years away from music topics, "I could see I would get involved in this long-running controversy on infoboxes and it would be an unproductive waste of time."

Another music editor, who had stopped editing in June, and who asked not to be identified, told the Signpost that even though the current guidelines say infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited, and the committee cannot decide a content issue, the arbitrators did well with the case, by calling a halt to the disruption, and calling for a community discussion for clarification of the guidelines.

What was settled

"The decision to include an infobox in an article is a content decision," wrote arbitrator Worm That Turned. Worm further clarified the reasoning behind this, in a way that should put to rest any lingering questions about the role of WP:OWN in the debate:


Worm delineated the difference between "content creation" edits and "maintenance" edits. Maintenance tasks should not change the meaning of the article for the casual reader, he explained. These tasks include categorisation, stub sorting, adding wikilinks, formatting and stylistic changes such as number and position of headers or placement of images, and simple copy-editing such as grammar and spelling fixes.

Content creation would include addition and removal of text, images, tables, references and so on—and infoboxes—and should be done by an editor who has some knowledge of the subject.

Starter templates are fine, and general recommendations by a WikiProject are fine, says Worm, but editors should not go through a group of articles, adding infoboxes to each systematically.

A hasty RFC

Before the case had even been closed, a new RFC was started on the talk page of WikiProject Quality Article Improvement by Chedzilla, an alternate account of Ched, who had initiated the original Infoboxes case request. The RFC drew immediate protests from music editors. The RFC should be in a neutral area, not on the pages of a project that was home to the two topic-banned editors, they said. The language of the proposal should be neutral. And the music editors were already exhausted by years of acrimony. Time was needed.

Arbitrator Carcharoth agreed: "My suggestion, for those who want to sort through their thoughts on this while they are still fresh, would be for people to make notes or mini-essays offline or in their userspace, and to leave articles and talk page discussions well alone for a bit. Don't rush into post-case discussions, but let things calm down, and find other things to do in the meantime. It's not like the issues are going to go away."

As a followup to this, the Arbitration report has compiled a partial listing of essays and previous discussion at the end of this report.

Framing the community discussion

"I don't think the discussions should be hurried", agreed Quiddity. The RFC should run for many months to avoid fatigue, he told the Signpost, and needs a large amount of preliminary research, adding that Sphilbrick and Kleinzach have some of the best ideas . "I believe that all of the objective problems with infoboxes can be fixed", he said, "and all of the subjective problems can be minimized." He added, "I do think WikiData needs to be taken into account; there will soon be more facts and stats than could reasonably fit in an infobox."

"Structuring the discussion is important", music editor Kleinzach told the Signpost. Kleinzach calls for a drafting committee of three or five members to structure the questions. Interested parties would submit topics to the committee and all meaningful questions would be included.

In the past, community discussions have been muddled, and issues have been conflated. The problems need to be separated, said Kleinzach, and detoxified, one by one. The discussion should distinguish between publishing issues and technical issues.

"Any future discussion needs to be much broader than that defined by ArbCom", Kleinzach told the Signpost. "Looking just at how infoboxes are ‘used‘ (i.e. inclusion/exclusion disputes on article pages), but not at how the templates are created, means concentrating on effects rather than causes. Fundamental issues about template design and MOS guidance should be faced."

Objections to infoboxes

The German approach to biographies: German Wikipedia's image box for Angela Merkel. Caption: Angela Merkel (2013)

Infoboxes have been controversial, explained Kleinzach, because they have often been edited behind the scenes, without content contributing editors being involved. The idea that there are two ‘stances', "pro-box" and "anti-box", is not really correct. "There is a spectrum. Objections to infoboxes have been localized, and focused on particular topics and particular infoboxes.

One particularly controversial infobox is the 'bio-box' or biographical infobox. Another infobox that received a particularly negative reaction from serious music editors was Musical artist infobox with anachronistic, pop music derived fields such as 'birth name', 'genres', 'occupations', 'labels', 'associated acts', and 'past members' —misapplied to classical music articles.

An example of a positive response to an infobox was the Template:Infobox classical composer, which according to Quiddity was the result of a 2010 discussion which clarified problem areas in the documentation, and has been uncontentiously used in a few articles.

"Rather than trying to force them on the unwilling," recommends Brian Boulton, "improve them by returning to their original principles ('a few key facts'). I have recently added an experimental infobox to an opera article I have written." The sample infobox proposal was intentionally introduced in a relatively low-profile opera article, to minimize controversy.

Monsterboxes

English Wikipedia infobox for Angela Merkel
Chancellor of Germany
Incumbent
Assumed office
22 November 2005
PresidentHorst Köhler
Christian Wulff
Joachim Gauck
DeputyFranz Müntefering
Frank-Walter Steinmeier
Guido Westerwelle
Philipp Rösler
Preceded byGerhard Schröder
Minister of the Environment
In office
17 November 1994 – 26 October 1998
ChancellorHelmut Kohl
Preceded byKlaus Töpfer
Succeeded byJürgen Trittin
Minister of Women and Youth
In office
18 January 1991 – 17 November 1994
ChancellorHelmut Kohl
Preceded byUrsula Lehr
Succeeded byClaudia Nolte
Member of the Bundestag
for Stralsund-Nordvorpommern-Rügen
Incumbent
Assumed office
2 December 1990
Preceded byConstituency Created
Personal details
Born
Angela Dorothea Kasner

(1954-07-17) 17 July 1954 (age 70)
Hamburg, West Germany
Political partyChristian Democratic Union
Height1 m (3 ft 3 in) 65 / 1.65 m
Spouse(s)Joachim Sauer (1998–present)
Ulrich Merkel (1977–1982)
Alma materUniversity of Leipzig
Signature

While there are a few uncompromising ‘pro-box' editors who believe there should be a box on every article, no-one has taken up the opposite position: that there should be no infoboxes at all, says Kleinzach, a music editor who has added hundreds of infoboxes to articles. "Unfortunately many current boxes are not fit for purpose because of poor design."

In particular, some 'monsterboxes' have been created with far too many fields, unfamiliar abbreviations etc. that are actually longer, bigger, more prominent and more difficult to read than the articles they are supposed to summarise."

German Wikipedia in particular is known for its minimalist approach to infoboxes. They are particularly unpopular on biographies. Even the article for Angela Merkel has no infobox, only a photo and signature (see above). In contrast, the infobox for Merkel's English Wikipedia page (right) would extend well past the fold in most browsers.

Loss of nuance

One of the major criticisms of infoboxes is the loss of nuance, when complex information about a subject is forced into an abbreviated infobox format.

"I feel strongly that it is poor form to use an infobox entry, which almost by definition is extremely short, to summarize situations which might be too complicated for a one word or short phrase, says SPhilbrick. "That is exactly what well-written prose is for—to explain nuance, in as many words as it takes to explain the issue."

The articles best suited to infoboxes, says Smerus, in an essay provided to the Signpost, may be in scientific and geographical topics. "The arguments over infoboxes seem to have occurred in articles relating to history, biography and music." Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader, or include a vast amount of irrelevant or inappropriate information from the article.

Smart boxes?

The metadata question may well be obsolete. If you Google La traviata , Giuseppe Verdi, and Johann Sebastian Bach, you will find that it now creates its own small infobox on the subject, even though none of the corresponding Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. [screenshot] Quipped one user, "The Google box is better than the WP ones!" Perhaps Google has spent time and money identifying what their customers want.

Appendix A: A crash course in infoboxes

Anyone who attempts to read any of the infobox discussions will quickly come up against some specialized terms.

What exactly is an infobox? A navbox? A template? A header or a footer? And where can new users turn to for assistance? Is there a place to "shop" for infoboxes, where you can see what is available and how it will look in a new article? The answer to the last question is no; apparently new users who are creating articles outside of a WikiProject have little to go on.

According to Kleinzach and Smerus, an infobox offers a quick summary of the article, sometimes with an illustration. It is normally in the right hand corner position. A navbox (navigation box) offers links to related articles, and is often found at the bottom of the page. All infoboxes are templates, but not all templates are infoboxes.

Quiddity provides a crash course in all things infobox and navbox, along with examples and links to the help files:


Note: The natural place to look is [[Wikipedia:Infoboxes]], but that is a redirect to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes]] which is of more interest to someone interested in designing a new infobox. There are also various options at Category:Infobox templates.

Appendix B: Previous discussions

Infoboxes

  • Proposed Decision September 2013—the 66,392-word talk page, with proposals for framing the infobox discussion

Essays

RFCs

Template deletion discussions

All infoboxes are templates, but not all templates are infoboxes. People create new ones unnecessarily all the time, hence many editors bring them to TFD to get them merged.

2013-10-02

U2 Too

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Mabeenot
Your source for
WikiProject News
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.
The band in 2005

This week, we revisited the enthusiastic editors at WikiProject U2. Started in June 2007, the project has grown in spurts, resulting in a collection of 8 Featured Articles and 24 Good Articles. The project maintains a to do list, portal, and a list of references. We interviewed Melicans, Pjoef, and Miss Bono.

What motivated you to join WikiProject U2? Have you contributed to any of the project's Good or Featured Articles?
Melicans: I've been a fan of U2 since I heard "Two Hearts Beat as One" a decade ago. I edited the U2 articles sporadically after joining Wikipedia, so when the first iteration of the project opened it was a natural thing to become part of. Over time the numbers dwindled to only about two or three active editors in the WikiProject, but with the recent push to rejuvenate it I am excited about what new blood can bring to these articles. I hope to be a part of that again in the near future. I've been a primary contributor to four Featured Articles in the project, and an additional six Good Articles; and I hope to add to both those categories in the future.
Pjoef: I have joined the WikiProject U2 in February 2008, but haven't been as active as I wanted to be. I first knew of this band when a LP dropped on my turntable, it was their debut album, Boy in late 1980, … and decided that "I Will Follow" this band with interest. The first impression is often the best impression, and Boy was followed by October (1981), War (1983), and The Unforgettable Fire (1984), just some favourites of mine. I am a long time member of the WikiProject U2, but, except for marginal and sporadic interventions, I have not contributed much to any of the project's best articles. Maybe one day some of our newest collaborative efforts will become featured articles.
Miss Bono: I've been a U2 fan for quite a while... I wasn't aware that people could edit articles in Wikipedia when I first heard about it, it was in 2007 or 2008 – can't remember exactly the year – I found the Spanish Wikiproyecto U2 when I was wandering around at the Spanish Wikipedia and start asking questions about why it was inactive and how could it been reactivated, but no one was interested. – apparently, U2 draws attention when they are on tour – I started looking for information about the band, – again at the Spanish Wikipedia – but soon after I discovered the English Wikipedia and noticed that there was a whole lot more of information about Bono, and other related subjects. I created an account in 2011, but then I did nothing until I found WikiProject U2... and I joined the movement almost immediately. It appeared to be semi-inactive, I was so dissapointed that I made a few attempts to bring it to life. Finally with a huge help from many users, members and non-members of the WikiProject - (TheOriginalSoni and Mark Miller are two of the no-members that helped me a lot) – we could activate it and revamp it. I wanted to say thank you to my mentor and Pjoef for their entire support. I've been involved in one Good Article, in fact, it was my very first article – with the help of several users – Morleigh Steinberg was promoted very fast to GA. Now Ironholds is making a full revision to Ali Hewson to see if it can reach FA-Class.
How much has changed since we last visited the project three years ago? What are the project's current goals and initiatives? How have you kept the project's momentum going?
Melicans: The last time WikiProject U2 was visited by the Signpost there was still a large amount of interest in the band because of the ongoing U2 360° Tour; edits, and the number of editors making them, were relatively high. Featured Articles more than doubled to 8 total (9 with a Featured List), and the number of Good Articles increased from 16 to 24 (which I'm very happy about, as some of the current FAs were GAs back then). Momentum definitely stalled though; I think that once the tour came to an end and U2 all but vanished from the news the amount of interest in the band naturally waned as well, so most of the activity was left to just two or three active editors. I was unfortunately not one of them, but I hope that my interest reaches peak levels again when the next album is released. The biggest initiative I can think of is Miss Bono's efforts to reactive the Project so that editors work together as one unit, rather than as individuals. The Project's goals will always remain the same; to share our love and knowledge of U2 with the world.
The street U2 Way in New York City
Pjoef: The activities in the main namespace has been already described very well by Melicans. On the obscure side of the project things have not gone as well as we would expect. Except for 2007, when the project was started, our members have not been fully active for years. Things seem to have gotten better here since the arrival of Miss Bono in late 2012 – early 2013. In April 2013, there was a roll call, in order to keep the project up-to-date on our number of active members. Project's pages and portal have been redesigned and reorganized. Finally, after many years, a new newsletter has been published and other newsletters are in preparation. Also, there have been several good results in the main namespace: some articles have seen a marked improvement and new articles have been created while others are in the process of being published. We need to do much more, but the vast majority of the credit goes to Miss Bono, without her active participation, and the hard work she put into it, this would never have happened.
Miss Bono: Three years ago – as Melicans said before – there was this euphoria because of U2 360° Tour (the highest grossing concert tour of all time, with gross revenues of $736,137,344), and Bono's spinal injury. So, Melicans is right about the activities in the main space. Since 2011, the end of the tour, things settled down. I wasn't here by that time, so I am not familiar with the percentage of edits reduction. You could say that WikiProject U2 did change a lot, it is better organized now, thanks to Pjoef, who is always fixing and updating everything, taking care of technical matters and making sure everything is in the right place. We owe him that, and also the roll call in April. Also, we have a couple of new articles – eight since March 2013, one of those currently a GA-Class –, Pjoef updated, automated and improved Portal:U2, two existing articles were promoted to GA, we had a TFA on 9 August, two of the top importance articles were updated and we are working on an upcoming one. We have several things left to do, but that's a good start. Well, what else can I say? The goal is elevation...
Are some eras of the band's existence better covered than others on Wikipedia? Has it been difficult to find sources for the production details of albums or tours that occurred years ago?
Melicans: There are definitely some eras that have more coverage. The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby, arguably U2's best albums, have much more overall detail for their eras than, say, October or Pop. Half of our FAs and a hefty chunk of GAs come from those two albums alone. Because of their popularity it is not very difficult to find information on them, even though they are from the pre-internet era. Would "Mothers of the Disappeared" be FA if it was from The Unforgettable Fire? I really don't think it would; Fire may be one of their better known albums, but it simply isn't a Joshua Tree in terms of press coverage. There is always information to be found for the big songs ("Sunday Bloody Sunday", "Pride (In the Name of Love)", etc.), but for hidden gems like "Mothers", "Gloria", and even internet-age songs like "Original of the Species", that information can be very hard to come by; even for the most well-equipped U2 fan.
Pjoef: The project currently has eight featured articles but only two are from the “eighties”, and more precisely two songs: "One Tree Hill" and "Mothers of the Disappeared", both from the album The Joshua Tree (1987), which is itself a good article. All other albums released before The Joshua Tree are rated as "B-Class", except for October (1981), which has been assessed as C-Class. With the exception of the War Tour, which took place in 1982–1983 and is a good article, all articles about their tours until The Joshua Tree Tour are Start-Class articles. And that says it all! But the problem of finding source and materials for articles regarding albums and torus released before the “Internet era” (circa 1991 onwards) is not a problem that only affects our WikiProject, but it is common to many other projects and articles about music, entertainment, popular culture, and many other area.
A U2 concert in Mexico City during their "Vertigo" tour
Miss Bono: I think that Joshua and Achtung's eras are better covered than the others. The Joshua Tree was a decisive step for the band, it sets U2 in a high position in regard to their previous albums; several of U2s hits not all of them comes from that album: "With or Without You", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and "Where the Streets Have No Name"; same happens with Achtung Baby. After Rattle and Hum, the band had been misunderstood, because of their foray into the American music, so at the end of Lovetown Tour they decided to "go away and... dream it all up again". The result was one of the best albums of the band – in my opinion – I guess that's why it is easier to find on-line sources about the two of them, and therefore they are better covered on Wikipedia. I do think that we at WikiProject U2 and editors in general must work towards covering others not so well known eras of the band as well, like in 1981 when October was released and U2 went through this "faith vs. being in a rock and roll band" conflict. It is good to have well covered gems like "One", "Still...", because when people who are not familiar with U2, comes looking for information about the band, they surely will look for those songs, but what about those who are already steeped themselves and want to go deeply into the band's career? What about those who wants to know about "Fire", "Kite", "A Man and A Woman", "Miami", "If You Wear That Velvet Dress" or "The Wanderer"?, that's one of the goals I am personally pursuing.
WikiProject U2 also covers philanthropic ventures launched or supported by the band. Have you seen other music-related projects include philanthropy in their focus or is this unique to WikiProject U2? How is the format and focus of these articles different from the project's music-related articles?
Melicans: I don't know of any other musical WikiProject that includes philanthropic projects in their areas of focus. That isn't to say that WikiProject U2 is unique in this regard; there are obviously many philanthropic musicians and multiple ventures launched by them, and I admit that I've never really looked to see if other band or singer WikiProjects cover these ventures or not. If the WikiProject is unique in this regard among bands, it may be because this philanthropy has been so essential to U2's character since the mid-1980s (and yes, that means more than just Bono; every U2 member has been significantly involved in philanthropy). Not covering this aspect of U2, including the criticisms, would be detrimental.
Pjoef: Philanthropy, intended as "love of humanity", the intention of increasing the well-being of mankind, is a generic term that, for better or for worse, belongs to all. For this reason many music-related projects include this kind of "philanthropy" in their focus. Charitable foundations are also covered by many projects, but WikiProject U2 has a really impressive quantity — relative to the total number of articles covered by the project — and often quality, of articles and informations on this subject. ONE for all. To come across philanthropy, as well as history, biography and economy or having to deal with the spiders of the Colorado Desert is not a problem for many editors. I think that it is very difficult that a wikipedian will contribute only on a single subject; maybe when he was a novice, but on a long time scale, he/she will have to face every days things. All the "few" things we know. Most likely an editor is also a reader, remember that there are more Wikipedia's readers than editors. Readers and editors often use Wikipedia as a starting point of their researches and studies expanding their knowledge and also the number of contributions to Wikipedia in the fields of their everyday life. And, as in everyday life, you cannot live on U2 alone.
A Trabant automobile from U2's Zoo TV Tour
Has the project run into any issues with neutral point of view or notability with regards to U2-related subjects? What can be done to help the band's fans contribute to Wikipedia in constructive ways?
Melicans: Any issues with neutrality usually centre around the article for Bono. There used to be a criticism section in the article, but having that is as much a violation of neutrality as a section centred on recognition (which was also present). So both were merged into the most applicable pre-existing section, and I think that helped to give the article a more neutral balance. Articles on albums, songs, tours (so basically everything not-Bono) have rarely had issues with neutrality. Notability is certainly a more problematic issue for the WikiProject, and a few years ago most of the song articles were redirected to their respective parent albums because there was so little information available. That isn't to say that the coverage isn't out there; "Exit (song)" was one of the redirected articles, and it is now a GA that is not far from an FAC. If there are any fans reading this who would like to contribute, adding information to an article is never a bad thing! If there are fans out there who aren't reading this, we'd still like your help! Everyone reads Wikipedia, so try a little editing every now and then. It's fun! And taking an article from a stub to an FA is an incredibly rewarding experience.
Pjoef: There are no special issues regarding a "neutral point of view" at the moment, except for Product Red that has a NPOV dispute started in March 2011. It is a criticism or contorversy about its Criticism or Controversy section; in fact, a matter of controversy. Joking a part, no "notability" issues are known currently. U2's fans that want to contribute to Wikipedia (and to Wikipedia's articles related to U2) can ask for help at the project talk page or by contacting any of the active members of the project — we would be glad to help in any way we can.
Miss Bono: Bono has been, in my opinion, the most controversial article as far as issues with neutrality is concerned. As Melicans said, articles on songs, albums and tours don't have the same problem, or at least not much as Bono's. As for notability, when I first came here there were, and still there are, a lot of redirected songs because of the lack of information about them. One of the goals I want to achieve for WikiProject U2 is covering those songs and turning them into GA-Class articles, like editors did with "Exit (song)". We still have work left to do, and it is not easy, but several non-members editors of WikiProject U2 , such as Theroadislong, Wasted Time R, Anna Frodesiak, TheOriginalSoni, and Fylbecatulous, have done a lot of great work, and I am taking this opportunity to thank all of them for their help and support. Regarding fans of the band, I believe it is possible to be a fan and contribute to Wikipedia in constructive ways, believe me. We would like having fans sharing their knowledge with the world and helping us to cover U2 related topics. So, if you are out there and you are a fan and you would like to be part of this great adventure, do not hesitate we need you. You can make the difference!
What are WikiProject U2's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
Melicans: The number one need is constructive activity. We've done a lot of impressive work over the years, but WikiProject U2 is small in number and there is too much to do. So even the little things like fixing typos, formatting references, fixing dead links, and of course the ever-necessary addition of information, would be a huge help. Your efforts could be what we need to make "With or Without You", "One", or "Lemon" (just to throw an incredibly obscure song into the mix) into the FAs that they deserve to be.
Bono and The Edge in 2009
Pjoef: WikiProject U2 currently covers 253 articles that belong to the main namespace. There are 8 featured articles plus a featured list, and 24 good articles. All these articles (especially the band's main article, and articles about the four members and the main albums) must be maintained or improved to FA-Class. At the moment, we have 67 articles rated as top or high importance; some of them list editors who are available to help with them and have specific "to-do" lists; you can find both of them in their talk pages. New contributor, and all other editors, are encouraged to contribute and review articles within the scope of the WikiProject U2, and also to share their thoughts, ideas, suggestions and concerns via discussions on talk pages. A to-do list for WikiProject U2 is also available. Please consider joining us, WikiProject U2 needs your help!
Miss Bono: Editors underestimate little but important details like fixing typos and dead links, merging one-sentence paragraphs, formatting quotations and keeping punctuation marks before references, those are great ways to start. We are a small community and we are doing our best, but we have a lot of things to do. Focusing on related topics is also a good idea; Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois, Michka Assayas, Eve Hewson, Arthur Fogel, Mark Fisher, Live Aid, Live8, EDUN, Chernobyl Children International, among several others. Looking for free pictures on-line and adding them to the articles. There are so many things left to do. We need your input, your enthusiasm and your ideas. Let's start turning stubs into FA-Class stuffs!


Next week, we'll head off on a road trip in the outback. Until then, take a pit stop in the archive.

Reader comments

If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.
It's your Signpost. You can help us.

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-10-02