Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/From the editors
Summary: A slow week, with low overall views and the Top 10 dominated by longstanding pages. Gravity, Alfonso Cuaron's outer space-set action art film, not only held its position at the top of the US box office but climbed to the top of the Wikipedia chart as well, showing that it has become a major talking point. The only new entry into the top ten this week was youngest-ever Nobel nominee Malala Yousafzai, who, despite being hotly tipped for the Peace Prize, failed to win.
For the complete Top 25 report, including articles excluded from the list, see: WP:TOP25.
For the week of October 6 - 12, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:
Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Gravity (film) | 638,019 | Alfonso Cuaron's outer space opus is shaping into the critical/commercial blockbuster of the year, earning over $190 million worldwide in its first ten days. | ||
2 | 536,286 | A perennially popular article | |||
3 | Breaking Bad | 525,210 | People still want to know about this show, even though it ended last week. | ||
4 | Lorde | 449,871 | The not-quite 17-year-old singer-songwriter from New Zealand released her modestly titled debut album, Pure Heroine, on 27 September. | ||
5 | List of Bollywood films of 2013 | List | 370,116 | An established staple of the top 25. | |
6 | World War II | 363,648 | Another perennially popular article. (The 16th most popular article from 2010–12, in fact, see Table 2 here.) | ||
7 | Malala Yousafzai | 362,657 | The 16-year-old (and youngest ever) Nobel Peace Prize nominee made the talk show rounds to promote her autobiography, I Am Malala, released on the 9th of October, the first anniversary of her shooting by a Taliban fighter for speaking out for women's education in her native Pakistan. Despite being the "star" of the 2013 Nobel Prizes, she didn't win, but then, neither did Gandhi. | ||
8 | Miley Cyrus | 342,994 | Another young woman of note, though for somewhat different reasons. | ||
9 | Deaths in 2013 | List | 341,523 | The list of deaths in the current year is always quite a popular article. | |
10 | Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. | 330,950 | Joss Whedon's extension of the Marvel Cinematic Universe into television has been met with mixed reviews but (to date, anyway) fairly stellar ratings. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/In the media Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Technology report Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Essay Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Opinion
Media coverage of Wiki-PR continued this week with a feature story by Martin Robbins in the British edition of Vice magazine. Wiki-PR is the multi-million-dollar US-based company that has broken several policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia in its quest to create and maintain thousands of articles for paying clients. Robbins writes that in recent months:
“ | insiders have encountered something altogether more worrying: a concerted attack on the very fabric of Wikipedia by PR companies that have subverted the online encyclopaedia’s editing hierarchy to alter articles on a massive scale – perhaps tens of thousands of them. Wikipedia is the world’s most popular source of cultural, historical and scientific knowledge – if their fears are correct, its all-important credibility could be on the line. | ” |
Vice repeated the Signpost's discovery last week of a tweet from Wiki-PR's Vice President of Sales, Adam Masonbrink, announcing Viacom and Priceline.com as clients. (Interestingly, accessibility to the tweet was barred shortly after the publication of last week's edition, but had been captured by the Signpost in a screenshot.) Viacom is a global conglomerate of media companies, operating "approximately 170 networks reaching approximately 700 million subscribers in 160 countries" according to its Wikipedia article; Priceline.com is a website that gives users discounted rates on trips and hotel bookings. Its stock is one of the few that retails at more than US$1000 per share.
Robbins obtained responses from several of Wiki-PR's clients. Priceline.com told him that "We are using them to help us get all of our brands a presence because I don’t have the resources internally to otherwise manage". Emad Rahim, the Dean of the College of Business and Management at Colorado Technical University, blasted the company in emails to Vice after a disastrous series of events surrounding his article.
Special:Undelete/Emad Rahim, which is visible only to Wikipedia administrators, reveals that the now-blocked Jaleel487 created Rahim's page in Wiki-PR's typical fashion: by exploiting a "bug" publicized by the Signpost last week. When a Wiki-PR employee created the initial draft on 6 July as a user subpage before moving it into the article space the next day, they bypassed the gatekeeping new page patrol. A different Wiki-PR employee added a picture on 12 July, which was only deleted after this article was published.
Unfortunately for Wiki-PR and Rahim, DGG noticed the new page on 15 July and quickly nominated it for deletion. Seven days and three comments later, it was gone.
Rahim told Vice that he emailed Wiki-PR on 17 July, just after seeing the notice of possible deletion. Michael French, the company's CEO, curtly replied, "You're covered by Page Management. Not to worry. Thank you for your patience with the encyclopedic process." After it was deleted, French told Rahim that his page would be re-created shortly. When Rahim presciently asked what would stop Wikipedians from deleting it a second time, French replied "it wasn't rejected. It was approved and went live. ... Your page was vandalised."
This re-creation consisted of one sentence. Rahim's US$1500 investment ended in a 30-word stub—or, seen another way, $50 per word. Rahim's article was deleted again after this article was published.
These responses are a small sample of the total number available—around 60 companies and individuals contacted by Robbins did not reply to his request for comment. These included Wiki-PR and Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, despite commenting last week that "I'm very eager that we pursue this with maximum effect".
The Vice article included a significant amount of information from a former Wiki-PR employee, and also from Kevin Gorman, a Wikipedian with several thousand edits.
The Wikimedia Foundation contributed a surprisingly bland statement, given the depth of the problem. Saying that they were "monitoring" the issue, the Foundation advised that entities and people should not "edit their own Wikipedia pages or hire other organisations to do so for them. Editing Wikipedia articles through sockpuppets or where there is a conflict of interest isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia and can have unintended consequences for those organisations."
Robbins was able to obtain a much stronger statement from the president of the Washington DC chapter, James Hare, who called the case "heinous" and continued: "[you should] be transparent about who you are and who you work for. Wiki-PR acted in gross violation of this basic community expectation, and I regret that volunteer administrators will have to clean up after them."
The Wiki-PR saga attracted further international coverage from such publications as Boing Boing (US), Calcalist (Israel), Der Standard (Austria), Heise (Germany) and Kaldata (Bulgaria).
An experimental request to purchase Wiki-PR's Wikipedia service, which the Signpost emailed through the company's standard website facility more than a week ago, has gone unanswered.
This week, a vote to select two new delegates for the featured list candidates process has started. The nominations period of the elections closed on 14 October, and saw six Wikipedians, all familiar with the featured lists process, put their names on the table. Only two will be chosen to join the current team when elections end on 31 October.
Six candidates put forward their names:
Featured list candidates (commonly referred to as FLC) is a consensus-based process where users evaluate the quality of lists against the featured list criteria and thus support or oppose the list to reach featured status. Before supporting or opposing a list, reviewers usually hold a lengthy and detailed discussion with the nominator, usually the major contributor, to address all issues a list could have before becoming featured. The process was established in 2005 and has produced more than 3,000 featured lists since then.
The responsibility to evaluate consensus and, accordingly, promote nominations lies on the shoulders of the directors and the delegates. They are also tasked with keeping order and maintenance of all FLC pages and subpages, as well as taking care of the lists nominated to have their featured status removed (known as Featured list removal candidates, or FLRC), and to report new featured lists to the community, among others. The director also has the responsibility of scheduling Today's featured lists, which appear every Monday on the Main Page.
2013's elections mark the second time such an event has been held at FLC. Usually, new delegates are appointed individually after a short community consultation held on the FLC talk page, and after approval of current delegates and directors. However, after the recent resignations of Dabomb87 and The Rambling Man, and the unavailability of current delegate NapHit (who is on a long-term trip to Australia), the FLC team has experienced a need for new hands.
The first delegate elections were held in 2009, and resulted in Dabomb87 and Giants2008 being promoted to directors. At that time, Matthewedwards, The Rambling Man and iMatthew were the only editors serving as delegates/directors. As of today, Giants2008 and Hahc21 are covering the FLC duties, but a shortage might arise if either go inactive.
The main reason for the 2013 elections, according to Hahc21, is to avoid a shortage of delegates and guarantee that the FLC process is kept as smooth as possible.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Serendipity Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Op-ed Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/In focus
The Committee closed the Manning naming dispute case with a strong and unanimous statement against disparaging references to transgendered people. Sanctions were enacted against six editors.
The workshop phase of the Ebionites 3 case has finished, although the formal closing date of the workshop phase has been extended to October 19, and the date for the proposed decision to October 20.
A final decision has been posted in the Manning naming dispute case, which involves the move of the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning, after Manning’s attorney announced his client's wish to be known as Chelsea. The article was moved back to Bradley Manning, then to Chelsea Manning again, after reaching consensus in a discussion that included a comprehensive survey of sources.
The committee has unanimously endorsed a statement that:
“ | While a majority of the participating editors expressed their views reasonably and appropriately during the community discussion on the "Bradley/Chelsea Manning" page title, a number did not. Poor commentary included disparaging references to transgendered persons' life choices or anatomical changes. These comments, along with excessively generalized or blanket statements concerning motivations for wishing the page title to be "Bradley Manning", significantly degraded good-faith attempts to establish a consensus on the issue. | ” |
The following findings of fact were passed regarding individuals:
- During the course of the dispute, Hitmonchan engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("Only when his testicles are ripped out of his scrotum ... will I call Manning a 'she'").
- During the course of the dispute, IFreedom1212 engaged in discriminatory speech on the basis of gender identity ("He is clearly mentally unstable and his ... desire to be called Chelsea should not be regarded with any merit", "I will continue to refer to him as a male as long as he has a dick").
- During the course of the dispute, Tarc intentionally engaged in inflammatory and offensive speech ("Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe", "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so") in a self-admitted attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
- Josh Gorand has adopted a problematic battleground approach to the discussion
- Phil Sandifer has exhibited signs of having a battleground mentality, feeling that all who oppose his position are transphobic.
- During the course of the dispute, Baseball Bugs frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice; engaged in discriminatory speech based on his personal view of the article subject's actions; and needlessly personalised the dispute.
- During the course of the dispute, David Gerard used his tools to protect the article from being moved back to "Bradley Manning", mentioning "MOS:IDENTITY, WP:BLP" and, after another administrator moved the article back to its original title, he reversed that administrator's action. Finally, after getting involved in the content dispute on the article's talk page, he reversed the full edit protection imposed by another administrator. After acting in his capacity as an administrator, at first, David Gerard failed to provide a detailed explanation of why he thought the title "Bradley Manning" would have violated the biographies of living persons policy and, when questioned, replied in an uncivil manner, accusing his interlocutors of disruptive behaviour. David's actions violated the administrator policy sections on accountability, wheel war and involved administrators.
The committee passed remedies against six individuals. Editors Hitmonchan, IFreedom1212, Tarc, Josh Gorand, and Baseball Bugs were banned from pages relating to transgender topics. David Gerard was admonished and restricted from using administrator tools on topics pertaining to transgender. The discretionary sanctions adopted in the Sexology case are now to apply to articles dealing with transgender issues.
The Ebionites 3 case, initiated by Ignocrates involves a long-running dispute between two editors over a 2nd century religious document. The workshop phase of Ebionites 3 has finished, but the closing date has been extended, since the drafting arbitrator wants to post parts of the proposed decision on the workshop page for comment. Participants have been requested not to add large amounts of additional material to the workshop page at this point, as it may be missed by the arbitrators.
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/Humour