Our regular Editor-in-Chief, Smallbones, has been taking a well-deserved holiday around publishing time. Staffer Bri has filled in this month, and has approved the content of much of the December issue. Smallbones approved the content of this column.

In the latest addition to the long series of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia incidents, The Wall Street Journal has written an article showing how a public relations firm has operated for years "cleaning" articles for paying clients. We have covered this WSJ article briefly at In the media, and examine their claims more closely in a Special report provided by Newslinger.

The community has faced this issue before, as documented in the article Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. Several community discussions about paid editing were held, including the 2014 Terms of Service change which required paid editors to declare their status for proper community oversight of their contributions.

Wiki-PR and its successor companies are community banned. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) sent them a cease-and-desist letter in 2013,^[1] yet the activity of Status Labs on English Wikipedia has continued; can we now consider those avenues to be ineffective? What is the WMF's next step?

This issue also has more reports of the use of Wiki pages as a battlefield for political viewpoints between UK newspapers. Other credible reports in the media this month are related to the biography for a US presidential candidate by one or more possibly connected people. Some of these details have been suppressed from our In the media report while under development, and we can't provide our readers as much information as we would have preferred. We wonder if the seemingly accelerating pace of these incidents will merit more changes in the future, by the community, the WMF, government regulators, or all three in concert.

In addition to the above, we have regular coverage of new content, readers' interests, on-Wiki discussions and debate, tech and research – as well as a touch of whimsy for a lighter side of the community. We hope you enjoy all of it and look forward to hearing back from you in the reader comments.

For deeper background, see "Administrator cadre continues to contract" from the July issue, or other items in the Reforming RfA series.

This December, for the first time since the list was established in its current form in 2014, the tally of active administrators has been under 500 for the entire month.^[2] It does not appear likely to rise above 500 again, unless there is a major change in trend.

WereSpielChequers sent us this commentary on the request for adminship process:

Just before we went to press, the Constitutional Court of Turkey ruled the block of Wikipedia in Turkey invalid. We will have to cover the full implications of this in more detail in a future issue. Suffice to say that we (Wikipedians) think that it is important for people to be able to access our content, and the fact that a national court agreed is significant. To our knowledge, this is the first time any court has found there exists a constitutional right to read Wikipedia specifically.

• New language: Sakizaya Wikipedia (szy.wikipedia.org) launched in November.^[3] The Sakizaya people are one of sixteen Taiwanese tribes recognized by the Council of Indigenous Peoples. One of the prerequisites for the new wiki was the January registration of an ISO 639-3 language code for Sakizaya by SIL International.
• Administrators:

  The Signpost welcomes the English Wikipedia's newest administrators, Dreamy Jazz (December 2); and Rosguill and Newslinger (December 23). All had approvals above 90%. Adminship was procedurally restored to Spartaz, Deor, and Xeno (a bureaucrat). This year saw a total of 22 new sysops by RfA compared to only 10 in 2018. 22 new sysops in one year is below replacement levels, but the highest annual total since 2014.

  Angusmclellan passed away in November. He is missed.

  Edgar181 was desysoped by Committee motion. clpo13 and Athaenara both requested the voluntary removal of their admin rights while NCurse and Matthewedwards were dysysopped under inactivity rules in December.

• Article milestone: The English Wikipedia will reach six million articles by January 15, according to our estimate. Previous milestones were noted in last month's news and notes.
• Wikispecies milestone: In early December, Wikispecies exceeded 700,000 articles. Good work: its editors created the last 100,000 pages during about 13.5 months.

Five and a half years have passed since the Wikimedia Foundation changed its terms of use to prohibit undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia and most of its sister projects – a measure enacted in response to the infamous Wiki-PR's alleged use of 300+ sockpuppets to "directly edit your page" for a starting price of $500 to $1,000. Recently, The Wall Street Journal ran into Wiki-PR's successor, a Texas firm known as Status Labs.

Wiki-PR managed to keep itself out of the public eye after being banned by the English Wikipedia community in 2013 and being involved in a bizarre piñata store demolition in 2015. That changed on 13 December 2019, when The Wall Street Journal published a report titled "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online". The story implicated several notable figures, including U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and billionaire financier Kenneth C. Griffin, as well as the fraudulent blood testing company Theranos.

Former employees of Status Labs, a reputation management firm closely connected to Wiki-PR, shared their insight into the companies' operations with The Wall Street Journal. After establishing Wiki-PR in 2010, two of the co-founders launched Status Labs in 2012 with a third partner. These executives of Status Labs became embroiled in controversy in the company's home city of Austin, Texas: in 2015, they demolished the family-run Jumpolin piñata store – including all of the inventory inside – to the consternation of the local Hispanic community, inflaming tensions related to gentrification. The CEO was subsequently ejected from the company, which led to a round of legal infighting. Despite the conflicts, Wiki-PR and Status Labs continued to operate without attracting the attention of Wikipedia editors; the most recent investigation of the Wiki-PR sockpuppet ring is dated 20 July 2013, but both firms have continued to offer services online for the past six years.

Individual clients and specific tactics are mentioned in The Wall Street Journal's story. Status Labs has a broader scope than Wiki-PR: in addition to whitewashing Wikipedia articles, Status Labs uses search engine poisoning to conceal negative news coverage of their clients. When financier Jacob Gottlieb wanted to hide his connections to Visium Asset Management LP, a hedge fund that was destroyed by an insider trading scandal, Status Labs created a network of fake news websites – including "Medical Daily Times" – to flood search engines with press releases of Gottlieb that were disguised as news articles. When Betsy DeVos wanted to distance herself from Blackwater (now Academi), the military contractor founded by her brother whose employees shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians in 2007, Status Labs constructed blogs like "Enable Diversity" to bury negative coverage of DeVos under a mountain of puff pieces in search engine results pages.

Status Labs charges substantially higher rates than Wiki-PR, with Gottlieb paying $4,000 to $5,000 monthly. In comparison, Wiki-PR demanded less than $1,000 per month for article "management" in 2013.

Today, we take a deep dive into the editing history of one of the articles mentioned in the Journal's latest report: Theranos.

Olga Tokarczuk, 2018 Nobel laureate in literature, gave her Nobel Lecture, The Tender Narrator, on December 7, 2019 . Her references to Wikipedia, both to the promise of Wikipedia and the "disappointing" fulfillment of that promise, are close to the heart of the lecture's message. Extracts of the passages are given below. Wikilinks added.

John Amos Comenius, the great seventeenth-century pedagogue, coined the term “pansophism,” by which he meant the idea of potential omniscience, universal knowledge that would contain within it all possible cognition. This was also, and above all, a dream of information available to everyone. ... Will not knowledge within easy reach mean that people will become sensible ... ?

When the Internet first came about, it seemed that this notion would finally be realized in a total way. Wikipedia, which I admire and support, might have seemed to Comenius ... the fulfillment of the dream of humanity — now we can create and receive an enormous store of facts being ceaselessly supplemented and updated that is democratically accessible to just about every place on Earth.

A dream fulfilled is often disappointing. It has turned out that we are not capable of bearing this enormity of information, which instead of uniting, generalizing and freeing, has differentiated, divided, enclosed in individual little bubbles...

–S

See this month's Special report for more analysis of the claimed article whitewashing by Status Labs.

The Wall Street Journal published a 2,000 word article by Rachael Levy on December 13 titled "How the 1% scrubs its image online" (paywall) detailing efforts of Status Labs to control media and Wikipedia coverage of its clients. The subtitle was "Prominent figures from Jacob Gottlieb to Betsy DeVos got help from a reputation management firm that can bury image-sensitive Google results by placing flattering content on websites that masquerade as news outlets". The article named specific Wikipedia editor or editors.

According to The Wall Street Journal, articles edited by Status Labs operatives included bank executive Omeed Malik,^[1][2] biomedical company Theranos,^[3] and hedge fund Citadel LLC.^[4]

An account named in the WSJ report as a related operative, Jppcap is now indefinitely blocked for "advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines". The publishing of this article by the Journal also led to the opening of a discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. –B

Business Insider has reported on a less nefarious instance of editing on behalf of a wealthy and powerful individual, namely technology businessman Elon Musk. After perusing the Wikipedia article about himself "for 1st time in years", Musk took to Twitter to suggest some edits, including the removal of the label "investor" from the short description, since he insisted "I do basically zero investing." Musk also apparently jokingly supported the replacement of the word with the term "business magnet"—as opposed to business magnate. User:TechnologicalScribe subsequently altered the short description accordingly and added in the edit summary that the changes were made "as requested by Elon Musk". The phrase "business magnet" has since been removed from the short description.

The Signpost story occupying this space cited The Washington Post which linked to another reliable source. We were essentially accused of outing for linking to The Washington Post and thus threatened with censorship by some oversighters. Rather than put our existence at risk, we have withdrawn the story and will pursue the matter via ArbCom in the New Year –S

Mother Jones lists Heroes and Monsters of the 2010s including Wikipedia – but only as a hero.

Perhaps the 2016 Nobel Laureate in Literature can explain this choice. –S

BBC Radio interviewed British physicist Jess Wade on her efforts to create more articles on women experts in science, math, and technology, with specific focus on the sudden, recent tagging of many articles she has edited for notability concerns by an IP address editor (the portion of the broadcast relevant to Wikipedia begins at 9:30). Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Katherine Maher was also reached for comment. She expressed concern about the gender imbalance in Wikipedia's content and editing community, but praised the community response to the taggings, including the blocking of the IP editor. More details at this issue's Op-Ed by Wade. –Ib

Reported by virtually all major media including BBC, Reuters, The New York Times, Le Monde, etc. – just before we went to press, the Constitutional Court of Turkey ruled the block of Wikipedia in Turkey to be unconstitutional. –B

• Santa tracker used Wikipedia: As of 2019, NORAD Tracks Santa displays details of "overflown" cities using data scraped from Wikipedia (24/7 Wall Street).
• Experts see more opportunities for growth for Myanmar Wikipedia: Founded 14 years ago and now boasting 45,000 articles and 30 regular editors, Myanmar Wikipedia hopes to graduate from the incubator stage.
• Acoustics Group Project Looks to Improve Sound-related Wikipedia Pages: The Acoustical Society of America (which likes to emphasize its global scope) is working with Wiki4YearOfSound2020.
• 'A way to keep our language alive': How the Atikamekw Nation uses Wikipedia to promote its language in Manawan, Quebec.
• "Wikipedia for waste" launched as knowledge sharing platform
• The Cincinnati Art Museum Hosts an Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon
• These Bitcoin skeptics want to kill Wikipedia's Lightning page: Robert Stevens of Decrypt worries about the views expressed in the deletion discussion (now closed as keep) for Lightning Network, a payment protocol for blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. –Ib
• Fortune reports on London edit-a-thon and UK elections go to the dogs: about eight editors gather in Shoreditch on election night. Fortune concentrates less on the political writings of the edit-a-thoners, and more on their other interests such as the British Kebab Awards, The North London Literary Festival, and the somewhat more political Citizens for Undead Rights and Equality, Boris Johnson’s dog Dilyn, and Dogs at polling stations.
• The Dumbest Wikipedia Edit War of the Dumbest Decade: Witney Kimball of Gizmodo is unimpressed by a "bitter and petty and senseless" edit war taking place on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States over the height of Donald Trump.
• Slate is impressed by how civil Wikipedia editors are. The Very Respectful Wikipedia Battles Over "OK Boomer" –H
• AI overlords? Maybe not.: "Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales is Taking on Facebook and the Dangers Lurking in the Rise of Artificial Intelligence", Newsweek, December 12. Jimbo gives Newsweek some thoughts on the rise of surveillance capitalism and the future of alternative funding models, drawing from Wikipedia's success.
• Dalit deletions: In The Asian Age, activist Sanghapali Aruna writes about the outcome of an edit-a-thon at MIT for Dalit History Month: 82 out of 105 edits were deleted. She says that "knowledge creation in India is traditionally dominated by 'upper caste' scholars who create knowledge for a primarily 'upper caste' audience" and says that Wikipedia's notability and other policies have institutionalized the same imbalance.
• Battle over newspaper editor's bio Morning Star mentioned contentious editing culminating in page protection of the article Tom Newton Dunn. Dunn is political editor at another UK paper, The Sun.
• Indigenous language Wiki: The Taipei Times noted the launch of a new language Wikipedia – Sakizaya, the language spoken by the Austronesian Sakizaya people who are indigenous inhabitants of the island of Taiwan. See News and notes for more.
• Online assault?: According to The Washington Post and The New York Times, the Wikipedia page of journalist Kurt Eichenwald falsely reported his death, and suffered other anti-Semitic vandalism, at about the same time he was sent a tweet that induced a seizure.
• Indispensable: "How Wikipedia Became an Indispensable Part of the Internet" at Big Tech podcast, produced by The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Several discussions have transpired (or are underway) regarding the integrity of information presented by Wikipedia as well as the processes and people who ensure it remains trustworthy.

Requests for comment were open during October–November concerning possible resysop criteria for administrators and a proposed binding desysop procedure. Results are visible at those pages and summarized below:

• New RfCs were endorsed around resysop
  1. Before restoring the administrator flag a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor.
  2. Should there be doubt concerning the suitability for restoration of Admin permissions, the restoration shall be delayed until sufficient discussion has occurred and a consensus established through a bureaucrat discussion (also called "crat chat").
  3. If an editor has had at least two years of uninterrupted inactivity (no edits) between the removal of the admin tools and the re-request, regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to instead request through the WP:RFA process.
• No conclusion has thus far emerged regarding the proposed binding desysop procedures.

An RfC at Meta proposes serious actions on the Croatian Wikipedia. The RfC was begun by GregorB (talk · contribs) in October. Gregor also wrote The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia last August for The Signpost. Activity on the case has continued, up to within a few days of Christmas. A proposal to close has been made, but is not expected to be adopted soon.

PR whitewashing by operatives linked to Wiki-PR is under discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard (permanent link) (also see this issue's "In the media" section and the "Special report").

Discussion of how to notify the community about mainstream media reporting on identified Wikipedia editors is ongoing at venues including the oversight mail list, the village pump and Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Suppression has been invoked on The Signpost in connection with this issue, and this is part of the discussion.

Other notable discussions included:

• In a request for comment at the reliable sources noticeboard, the U.S. magazine Newsweek, published since 1933, was deemed not generally reliable post 2013.

Results of ArbCom election at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Results - 8 2-year terms, 3 1-year terms. –S

The Portals case was accepted unanimously^[1] by the Arbitration Committee on November 26. –B

Administrator TonyBallioni requested a new case concerning administrator RHaworth on 19 December 2019. As of writing deadline, it is on course for being taken up by the Arbitration Committee, with six accept votes to zero opposed or abstaining.

There are over 40 uninvolved editors commenting on the request as of writing deadline. Probably due to the case involving review of controversial deletions, only visible to administrators, many of the comments are from other administrators.

Frequency analysis of the words used involved in the case shows these uncommon words appeared most frequently: "deletion", 49 times; "checkuser" 47 times; "speedy" 42 times; "csd" 40 times. –B

The Disney+ show that led for the past two weeks has been ousted by a release in the bigger streaming service, as Netflix got Martin Scorsese's latest crime epic The Irishman, and the historical figures there also get entries, including the top one. Netflix also brought in recent history from across the pond, with all the views for British royal family members who come along with The Crown. Movies in actual theaters also have royals (Anna and Elsa of Arendelle in #5) and re-enactments of real events (#6, #9). Thanksgiving (#10) and wrestling (#8) close off the list.

I believe I can see the future, 'cause I repeat the same routine. Or at least readers do, given half the subjects of last week have returned, including the whole top 4 and most of the top 10, including two entries that had been #13 and #16 in the extended list. The only thing that is brand new is an Asian multisport events (#5), showing the sizeable amount of English-speaking Filipinos can push an entry here.

I can't remember how this got started, but I can tell you exactly how it will end.

The year is ending, and in some good news the topics here are renewing. Even if the ever-present death list (#10) is responsible for the top entry with a dead rapper. There is also a TV event (#3), a British election (#5), a beauty pageant (#9), and people finding a way to escape religious persecution (#7) to counter the return of a biopic subject (#2), a streaming series (#4) and film (#6, #8).

• These lists exclude the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.

Have you forgotten to send your holiday wishes to all your friends on Wikipedia? Feel free to borrow these cards sent to you by the staff of The Signpost.

• 
  To our readers, staff, and occasional writers: All of us at The Signpost wish all of you health, happiness, and prosperity for the New Year and firmly resolve to meet the highest standards of journalism in everything we publish.
• 
  Of course we're not always successful.
  Editor-in-chief Smallbones

A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

Reviewed by Bri

This online presentation hosted by the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America^[1] discusses Wiki4YearOfSound2020 (at meta-wiki), co-sponsored by Acoustical Society of America, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and others. The Year of Sound is an attempt "to make content in acoustics one of the better-developed areas within Wikipedia". The presentation lauded Wikipedia's scope and reach, comparing NIOSH's 150,000 web pages and 8 million visits per year to English Wikipedia's 5.5 million articles and 260 million views per day. The presentation referenced the results of an engagement for World Hearing Day 2019 in which hearing-related topics garnered tens to hundreds of thousands of views, with the article tinnitus receiving over 340,000 views. It also discusses NIOSH's many other engagements with Wiki Ed since 2015 in which students expanded occupational safety and health content.

Overview by Tilman Bayer

The fifth annual "Wiki Workshop", a section of The Web Conference, was held in San Francisco in May this year. Wiki Workshop 2020 will take place in Taipei, Taiwan in April. The call for papers closes on January 17.

Papers presented at Wiki Workshop 2019 included:

From the abstract:^[2]

"The Thanks feature on Wikipedia [...] is a tool with which editors can quickly and easily send one other positive feedback [....] We study the motivational impacts of “Thanks” because maintaining editor engagement is a central problem for crowdsourced repositories of knowledge such as Wikimedia. Our main findings are that most editors have not been exposed to the Thanks feature (meaning they have never given nor received a thank), thanks are typically sent upwards (from less experienced to more experienced editors), and receiving a thank is correlated with having high levels of editor engagement. [...] We empirically demonstrate that receiving a thank has a strong positive effect on short-term editor activity across the board and provide preliminary evidence that thanks could compound to have long-term effects as well."

See also research project page on Meta-wiki

From the paper:^[3]

"we retrieved about 40,000 deletion discussion content from Wikipedia web pages, cleaned and stored the content of 39,177 discussions into a structured discussion database. With this cleaned and structured dataset, the automatic processing and analysis of the discussion content becomes more manageable to the researchers. With this database, we developed interactive visualizations that offer insights on how the outcomes of the articles are related to different aspects of the discussions, including the types of votes, the mentioned policies, and the categories of the articles (e.g., art, people, sport, etc.). [...]

According to Wikipedia's AfD policy, the decision regarding a proposed article should be based on the participants' rationales in their votes, as opposed to simply following the majority vote based on the total number of different opinions in the discussion. Curious to find out whether the actual decision-making of AfD discussions follows this policy, we visualized the AfD discussion outcomes and the number of keep/delete opinions in the discussions through an interactive heat map. [...] This interactive visualization is accessible at http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/view/diagram1.php . [... The resulting figure] indicates that the outcome of an AfD decision is in general consistent with the majority vote rule: the more keep votes than delete votes a discussion has, the more likely its outcome is to keep the article. [... However, part of the diagram] illustrates that the decision is not made simply by majority vote in the discussion. [...]

To better understand the distribution of the AfD discussions according to the number of keep and delete votes, we developed another interactive heat map that paints the color of the cell according to the total number of the discussions in the cell (http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/view/diagram2.php ). [...]

We developed an interactive visualization to offer an overall understanding about the policies that the participants mentioned during the AfD discussion (http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/view/diagram3.php ). Specifically, we used a sunburst diagram to represent the policies mentioned in the discussion content and their relative frequencies. [...]

Interested in the distribution of various categories in the proposed articles, we developed another sunburst diagram that shows the categories of the articles proposed for delete (http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/view/diagram4.php ) [...]

We developed an interactive visualization to offer an overall mapping between the articles' categories and the policies mentioned in their AfD discussions (http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/view/diagram5.php )."

See also video of a related presentation by one of the authors at the July 2019 Wikimedia Research showcase

From the abstract:^[4]

"Understanding how various external campaigns or events affect readership on Wikipedia is important to efforts aimed at improving awareness and access to its content. In this paper, we consider how to build time-series models aimed at predicting page views on Wikipedia with the goal of detecting whether there are significant changes to the existing trends. We test these models on two different events: a video campaign aimed at increasing awareness of Hindi Wikipedia in India and the page preview feature roll-out—a means of accessing Wikipedia content without actually visiting the pages—on English and German Wikipedia. Our models effectively estimate the impact of page preview roll-out [as independently determined via A/B tests], but do not detect a significant change following the video campaign in India."

From the abstract:^[5]

"Whether political bias affects journalism standards appears to be a debated topic with no clear consensus. Meanwhile, labels such as “far-left” or “alt-right” are highly contested and may become cause for prolonged edit wars on the Wikipedia pages of some news sources. In this paper, we try to shine a light into this phenomenon and its extent, in order to start a conversation within the Wikipedia community about transparent processes for assigning political orientation and journalistic reliability labels to news sources, especially to unfamiliar ones, which users would be more likely to verify by looking them up."

See also our coverage of a related recent paper involving one of the authors: "The Importance of Wikipedia in Assessing News Source Credibility"

From the abstract:^[6]

"While [Wikipedia is] a scientific treasure, the large size of the dataset hinders pre-processing and may be a challenging obstacle for potential new studies. This issue is particularly acute in scientific domains where researchers may not be technically and data processing savvy. On one hand, the size of Wikipedia dumps is large. It makes the parsing and extraction of relevant information cumbersome. On the other hand, the API is straightforward to use but restricted to a relatively small number of requests. The middle ground is at the mesoscopic scale, when researchers need a subset of Wikipedia ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of pages but there exists no efficient solution at this scale.

In this work, we propose an efficient data structure to make requests and access subnetworks of Wikipedia pages and categories. We provide convenient tools for accessing and filtering viewership statistics or “pagecounts” of Wikipedia web pages. [...] The dataset and deployment guidelines are available on the LTS2 website https://lts2.epfl.ch/Datasets/Wikipedia/ "

See also coverage of an earlier paper by the same authors

From the abstract:^[7]

"News agencies produce thousands of multimedia stories describing events happening in the world that are either scheduled such as sports competitions, political summits and elections, or breaking events such as military conflicts, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, etc. When writing up those stories, journalists refer to contextual background and to compare with past similar events. However, searching for precise facts described in stories is hard. In this paper, we propose a general method that leverages the Wikidata knowledge base to produce semantic annotations of news articles."

This paper^[8] presents a method to automatically identify online articles (e.g. in news media) that report negatively about a brand, by starting from the dataset of citations in the "Criticism" section of the Wikipedia article about that brand (e.g. Uber#Criticism). The stated purpose is to use "an online user’s history of viewed articles" (which, as the authors observe, is typically accessible to "online advertising platforms [which are] in partnerships with media companies") to target ads to those users who have been exposed to negative sentiment about the brand.

From the abstract:^[9]

"Given a piece of text, [an entity disambiguation and linking system (EDL)] links words and phrases to entities in a knowledge base, where each entity defines a specific concept. Although extracted entities are informative, they are often too specific to be used directly by many applications. These applications usually require text content to be represented with a smaller set of predefined concepts or topics, belonging to a topical taxonomy, that matches their exact needs. In this study, we aim to build a system that maps Wikidata entities to such predefined topics. [...] we propose an ensemble system that effectively combines individual methods and yields much better performance, comparable with human annotators."

The resulting tool is part of a "system for information extraction from noisy user generated text such as that available on social media" by the company Lithium Technologies (now Khoros), the authors' employer at the time the research was done.

From the abstract:^[10]

"... we evaluate and compare the quality of medicine-related articles in the English and Portuguese Wikipedia. For that we use metrics such as authority, completeness, complexity, informativeness, consistency, currency and volatility, and domain-specific measurements [...]. We were able to conclude that the English articles score better across most metrics than the Portuguese articles."

From the abstract:^[11]

"... we are interested in extracting specific Wikipedia entities associated with hospitality and travel along with relevant metadata. [...] For a hotel, that would mean, we extract the parent company, say ‘Wyndham’, and then the list of establishments owned by the parent such as ‘Days Inn’, ‘La Quinta’, ‘Ramada’, ‘Super 8’ and ‘Wyndham Grand’. For each of these, we extract their tier of service such as ‘upscale’, ‘mid scale’, ‘boutique’, and ‘economy’. [...] We start with the Wikipedia page: ‘List of lists of lists’, which points to several other lists. [...] In addition to the lists, we also used the Category pages such as ‘Category:Vehicle rental companies’ [sic] and ‘Category:Travel and tourism templates’ as secondary starting points [...]. These pages yield the company names and the brand names. Next, we derive info such as the tier of service and the locations, where appropriate, using the sections, info boxes and subcategories within the pages for each of the brands we extracted. [...] Remarkably, the travel activities annotated using Wikipedia extractions agreed with [human] editorial review over 65% of the time."

From the abstract:^[12]

"we present a proof-of-concept of a visual navigation tool for a personalized “sandbox” of Wiki pages. The navigation tool considers multiple groups of algorithmic parameters and adapts to user activity via graphical user interfaces. The output is a 2D map of a subset of [the] Wikipedia pages network which provides a different and broader visual representation – a map – in the neighborhood (according to some metric) of the pages around the page currently displayed in a browser."

See also previous coverage of other papers from Wiki Workshop 2019:

• "Understanding the Signature of Controversial Wikipedia Articles through Motifs in Editor Revision Networks"
• "Finding Prerequisite Relations using the Wikipedia Clickstream"

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Research team has published an overview over its activities during the past six months, intended to become the first in a series of biannual reports published every June and December.
• Researchers' concerns about masking or abolishing IP edits: A recent proposal by Wikimedia Foundation staff to hide the IP addresses of users who choose to contribute without an account (known as "IP editors" or "anonymous editors") has been met with community concerns that such a change will harm abuse mitigation, and even some calls to rather altogether abandon the option to edit without an account. In turn, a group of eight academic researchers around Benjamin Mako Hill published an open letter presenting evidence for their belief "that the negative consequences of blocking edits from non-accountholders would far outweigh the benefits." Separately, there are also concerns about the effect of IP masking on research that uses IP edit data (e.g. to geolocate anonymous edits).
• See the page of the monthly Wikimedia Research Showcase for videos and slides of past presentations.

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research, are always welcome.

Compiled by Tilman Bayer

From the "Conclusion" section:^[13]

"This article has found that the Wikipedia entries on the war between China and Japan in the 1930s and 1940s differ substantially from the narratives in traditional technologies of memory, such as museums, in that they do not focus to the same extent on particular experiences or episodes. In this sense, Wikipedia shows greater conciliatory potential as it apparently fulfils the first of the two steps necessary for reconciliation, namely that the two sides remember more or less the same events and episodes."

From the abstract:^[14]

"... for a plurality of Wikipedias, almost fifty, Romeo and Juliet is number one in pageviews, while in many, but fewer others, it is Hamlet. In seven Wikipedias, on the other hand, Macbeth is number one, while Julius Caesar is first in still several others. Othello, King Lear, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, As You Like It, and Antony and Cleopatra are the only other rare leaders in specific Wikipedias. In short, this article will present the basic popular global reception information about all of Shakespeare’s works, filling a lacuna in critical research ..."

From the "Highlights" section:^[15]

"We analyze how scientific knowledge is established in the field of the Humanities. ...

The citation average to Humanities articles in Wikipedia is lower than the general. ... Of the 25 most cited journals on Wikipedia, none is open access."

This issue brings with it the work of HaeB, Strange Passerby, and Ohconfucius; presented is a snippet of an article which originally ran back in 24 January 2011. A chapter of the long running Jimbo–Larry feud is well-documented with this piece concerning the origins of Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. It stands perfectly timeless, so it always makes for good reading.

A recent interview has shed new light on the 2002 fork of the Spanish Wikipedia and the influence it may have had on the development of Wikipedia as a whole, and ignited a controversy between Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales about the stance on advertising in the early phase of the project.

Edgar Enyedy, an early activist on the Spanish Wikipedia who describes himself as "some sort of unofficial leader together with Javier de la Cueva" of the fork Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, was interviewed by Nathaniel Tkacz of the "Critical Point of View" (CPOV) Wikipedia research initiative, on whose blog the interview was first published on January 15 ("'Good luck with your WikiPAIDia': Reflections on the 2002 Fork of the Spanish Wikipedia". See also the recent Signpost interview with Tkacz and fellow CPOV member Johanna Niesyto).

Concerns about possible plans to use advertising on Wikipedia are often named as the main reason for the fork. Enyedy confirmed that remarks about ads in a February 2002 announcement by Larry Sanger triggered the exodus of the Spanish Wikipedians ("Bomis might well start selling ads on Wikipedia sometime within the next few months, and revenue from those ads might make it possible for me to come back to my old job"), but insisted that several other issues played an important role, including concerns about the insufficiently international nature of Wikipedia – an "American shadow [that] marked the first point of contention between myself and Sanger and Wales." As examples, he named the fact that "the basic pages ('what Wikipedia is not', 'be bold', 'how to start', 'sandbox', etc.) were all in English; we had the American logo in English and so on", but also referred to issues that are in some form still relevant today, such as the internationalization of the interface: "The software, for example, was not translated at all and it cast an English (language) shadow over the entire project", and cultural differences between Europe and the US regarding sexual images ("Former AOL users used to remind me that explicit biology images are widely accepted among us, but would be considered inappropriate on the American version"). The Spanish Wikipedians also differed from their English counterpart by introducing a stylebook, and an index based on the Universal Decimal Classification.

A main reason for the fork was objections to the leadership of Wikipedia's chief organizer Larry Sanger:

Also contributing to the decision to fork was a distrust of Jimmy Wales' intentions, who to Enyedy seemed reluctant to steer Wikipedia into a non-profit direction.

Asked by Tkacz how the right to fork (granted in principle by the Wikipedia's free license) looked in detail in this case, Enyedy said that the activists had to download and transfer the articles one by one. (The accessibility of timely Wikipedia dumps continues to be a point of debate today.)

Enyedy said that the Enciclopedia Libre, while still active today, "was not intended to last. It was merely a form of pressure. Some of the goals were achieved, not all of them, but it was worth the cost", and emphasized its continuing influence:

According to Tkacz, Enyedy said "that he has been approached several times a year since 2002, but has never shared his story because the people contacting him were either mainstream journalists or people from wikimedia and he wasn't convinced they would let him tell his version of the story".

The abstract of a talk about the fork given at Wikimania 2005 also mentions issues that led to its creation.

On January 20, Wired UK published an abbreviated version of the interview ("The Spanish Fork: Wikipedia's ad-fuelled mutiny"), which included reactions by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger.

Sanger objected sharply to Enyedy's statements, saying that "the only sort of person who could seriously describe my role as an Orwellian "Big Brother" is a radical anarchist, for whom even the slightest possible exercise of authority is outrageous oppression. To be sure, Wikipedia had quite a few of such vocal characters in its early days. The story has not yet been fully told just how they essentially took over with the blessing of Jimmy Wales". But Sanger agreed that the fork "might well have been the straw that finally tipped the scales in favor of a 100% ad-free Wikipedia."

Jimmy Wales issued a much shorter statement:

Sanger objected even more sharply to Wales' statement, questioning the veracity of the first sentence, first on Twitter ("He was long in favor; I long opposed. Apologize, pls!"), then on his personal blog, recalling or citing various statements by Wales about ads from 2000 to 2002 ("From the beginning, Wales let me know in no uncertain terms that, once it garnered enough traffic, Nupedia would become ad-supported"). Sanger said that in December 2001 (when all other Bomis employees had to be laid off and his own position appeared to hinge on possible advertising revenue), he "was still uncomfortable with the idea of ads being run to support me, even in a non-profit context". The discussion then continued on Jimmy Wales' user talk page, where Wales said that "I don't see what the discrepancy is supposed to be", and Sanger accused him of lying.

There are many opportunities to discuss bad news, problems, and concerns in the Wikiverse, and I think that having candid discussions about these issues is often important. Many days I spend more time thinking about problems than about what is going well. However, also I think that acknowledging the good side and taking a moment to be appreciative can be valuable.

The content of this Signpost piece is adapted from email threads titled "What's making you happy this week?" that are sent to Wikimedia-l.

I encourage you to add your comments about what's making you happy this month to the talk page of this Signpost piece.

There was no regular content for this week. There was a discussion on Wikimedia-l regarding the design of WMYHTW emails that took place during the last week of November.

In the light of recent suggestions that these emails become shorter (see the discussion from the last week of November 2019 in the Wikimedia-l archives), this week I will share only two comments of my own.

• I am thankful for useful feedback regarding these emails.
• I am thankful to someone who did a random act of kindness for me. Their action felt like gentle sunshine amidst many challenges.

• 
  An earlier building of what was then known as the Washington State Museum
• 
  The newest Burke building, seen under construction in 2018
• 
  Early Autumn by 钱选

I recently visited the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture. The museum opened a new building this year. Although I wish that the exhibits were larger, I enjoyed seeing the museum staff at work and talking with them.

Also, I happened to see a piece of art that I liked, called Early Autumn on English Wikipedia. The piece was made in the 13th century by 钱选 (on English Wikipedia: Qian Xuan).

For those who celebrate these occasions, I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I am happy to learn about holidays from diverse origins, and I would welcome people sharing information about holidays that they celebrate.

Wikimedia Commons hosts several audio recordings of Christmas carols that have Polish or German associations. Here are a few selections. Any corrections to English translations would be appreciated.

"El desembre congelat II" / "December Frozen II"; organ solo performance by User:Metzner

"O Tannenbaum" / "O Christmas Tree", sung in German and English by the U.S. Army Band. According to the English Wikipedia article for the carol, the lyrics to the modern version were written in 1824, and the history of the lyrics can be traced to a 16th century folk song.

"Wśród nocnej ciszy"/ "The Silence of the Night"; produced in association with Wikimedia Polska (the Wikimedia Poland chapter). Vocal performances by Magdalena Wasylik, Natalia Piotrowska, Wiktor Korszla, Kuba Jurzyk, and Marta Rytter. Musical arrangement by Marcin Kuczewski. Direction and implementation of recordings, mixing and mastering by Bartłomiej Kozielski of Studio Accantus. According to the article on Polish Wikipedia, the original authors of the lyrics and tune are unknown, and the carol was first published in the year 1853.

I'm happy with the generally positive effect that I think that WMYHTW emails have in Wikimedia-l and that "On the bright side" has in The Signpost. I would like these publications to continue. As we approach the new calendar year, and mindful that the Lunar new year starts on the 25th of January, I respectfully request that someone replace me as the main writer for these pieces. Maybe more than one person would like to volunteer. I can continue to contribute periodically while someone else has the lead writer role. So, colleagues and friends, please consider volunteering to replace me as the lead writer for WMYHTW emails and for "On the bright side". (I intend to continue with two other initiatives, NavWiki and the Wikimedia Café.) If you would like to volunteer for WMYHTW and "On the bright side", then please leave a message at The Signpost's newsroom talk page.

Skillful translations of the sentence "What's making you happy this week?" would be very much appreciated. If you see any inaccuracies in the translations in this article then please {{ping}} User:Pine in the discussion section of this page, or boldly make the correction to the text of the article. Thank you to everyone who has helped with translations so far.

What's making you happy this month? You are welcome to write a comment on the talk page of this Signpost piece.

We invited the Op-Ed presented here from Jess Wade (Jesswade88), a working physicist, award-winning "ambassador for STEM" and one of Nature's 10 people who mattered in 2018. You can read more about the incident described below at this month's In the media report. – Ed.

The weekend after Thanksgiving (November 30, 2019) I headed over to my Wikipedia Watchlist, excited to check out my unread notifications. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost two years, creating articles everyday about women scientists and engineers. Usually my notifications are to alert me about the latest activity over on WikiProject Women in Red, or to let me know a page has been nominated for Did You Know, or to make suggestions about people who need biographies. But this time the notification was different – an anonymous editor, using only their IP address, had tagged 50 of my recent articles as not meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The user had, at a rate exceeding 1 biography per minute, deemed this group of professors, award-winning journalists, best-selling authors and well-respected policy makers as not notable.

The notability criteria for academics to be worthy of a Wikipedia page are pretty self-explanatory – and if you've written a biography before, they won't be new to you. Researchers who have had a big impact on their academic discipline, hold a prestigious academic award, are an elected Fellow of a prestigious learned society, hold a named chair, serve as Editor-In-Chief of an important journal or have contributed to the world in their academic capacity are all deemed worthy of a spot on the site. Of course; thanks to academia's own built-in bias (white Western men are more likely to be interviewed and quoted by the press, more frequently cited in academic literature and more often awarded important fellowships or prizes), these notability criteria contribute to Wikipedia's gender gap. But even when women fulfil them, it's hard to substantiate with independent reliable sources – often the only place that writes about them is their employer. When Professor Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize she didn't have a Wikipedia page – not because she hadn't been notable before winning, but because the only place that wrote about her being President of the Optical Society of America was the Optical Society of America, and that was deemed as not an impartial enough reference to prove she had held this position.

I made the mistake of tweeting a screenshot of the tagged pages, and for a week or so, Twitter was a frenzy of animated discussion, spurred by Wikipedia's apparent sexism. Whilst several misinterpreted the problem (after all, we all know that Wikipedia content is created and deleted by a network of volunteers, and that other than training and supporting new editors, the Wikimedia Foundation are not involved), plenty replied to say this was why they had given up. To the untrained editor, interactions like the ones I found in my notifications the weekend after Thanksgiving can sting. To beginners from underrepresented groups, the encyclopaedia can feel less like a team effort and more like an elitist members club, where those with experience throw their weight around – their opinions and power dictating what stays online and what doesn't.

We should all be doing more to tackle Wikipedia's gender and knowledge gaps. We should all be more active in editing, training and supporting new editors. We should all be encouraging journalists to cover more stories from and about those from minority groups, helping awarding bodies to recognise the outstanding work of scientists and engineers who are traditionally underrepresented and unearthing the stories of those who are all too often overlooked. We should all make more effort to edit and improve articles rather than deem them not notable. Wikipedia's a gift to the world – the whole world – and the information on here should reflect the diverse communities who benefit from it.

Wikiproject Tree of Life has been active since the early days of Wikipedia while working on articles related to biology. They recently began a newsletter that goes out to members of the WikiProject which highlights accomplishments, goals, and general WikiProject news. To highlight their work, we interviewed five members of the WikiProject: Enwebb, AddWittyNameHere, Plantdrew, Starsandwhales, and FunkMonk. Here are their answers to our questions.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Tree of Life? Do you have any degrees or experience in biology? Are you a member of a kingdom/genus/species sub-project?

Enwebb: I have a MS in wildlife ecology and my thesis was about a species of bat. I learned how to edit Wikipedia through a Wikipedia writing assignment in a graduate-level biology course. While completing my assignment, I noticed that a lot of bat articles are underdeveloped. I thought, someone should fix those, but realized that not a lot of people have the knowledge, time, and willingness to do so...so here I am. I'm very active at Bats Task Force.

AddWittyNameHere: I've spent a fair portion of my childhood looking for moths and butterflies with my father, so joining WikiProject Lepidoptera was a natural extension of that. Joining WikiProject Tree of Life was a practical decision: it's the easiest way to stay in contact with folks working on other taxa. When you want to figure out how to make a taxonbar work or what parameters to use to get a taxobox to display the information you want it to, it doesn't really matter whether the article subject is a moth, a spider or a plant. Better to share our knowledge than to each separately try to invent the wheel.

Plantdrew: I have a life-long interest in plants, an MS in botany and work as a botanist. I started editing Wikipedia to fix issues I noticed when reading articles, and became more involved over time. I mostly work on plant articles but dabble in other organisms from time to time, which led to join ToL. I can do the most good working on topics where I have interest and expertise.

Starsandwhales: There used to be an event in Science Olympiad called herpetology, where students had to create a field guide of every single animal on a given list. This field guide had to include distribution, behavior, etc., pretty much everything a good Amphibians and Reptiles article is supposed to have. Wikipedia was always our starting point, and whenever I noticed that some of this information was missing, I would add it in. I'm still in high school (also still in SciOly), and I'm still a member of the subproject for amphibians and reptiles.

FunkMonk: I have been interested in animals, and particularly extinct ones, since I was a kid. Though I don't deal with them professionally (unless I have to draw or animate them), I like reading about them, and always wanted to make books about them. Wikipedia was the perfect place to realise this, as I can write about them and illustrate their articles. So I have been active in a few ToL related projects, such as the bird, dinosaur, and palaeontology projects, contributing articles, text, and images, but I also like reviewing articles (at GAN, FAC, or peer-review) about organisms I don't really know that much about, and thereby learning more about them.

Does the project's scope differ from other large umbrella projects? If so, how? Does WikiProject Tree of Life have a relationship with the numerous biological sub-projects?

Enwebb: I think of Tree of Life as a central watering hole for all the descending subprojects. A lot of editors have a particular niche they're interested, but TOL is how we stay connected to each other for making decisions. Ultimately a species article should look the same and be categorized the same, whether it's a mollusc or moth. I try to keep the subprojects connected via writing the Tree of Life Newsletter.

AddWittyNameHere: It's probably the closest thing to a central noticeboard and help desk for everything taxonomy-related, especially if it involves matters that impact more than a single subproject (e.g. templates, categories & MOS) or if the relevant WikiProject has few or no active members.

Plantdrew: I'm not aware of any other umbrella WikiProject that is as successful in serving as a hub for discussion. Some of the subprojects never really got of the ground, so ToL is a good place to get discussion from a larger number of people than may be watching the talk page of an inactive project.

Starsandwhales: I feel that Tree of Life is the centralized location for information on things such as templates (like the speciesboxes on every article), resources for research, and what an ideal article looks like. It also how the community of all of the subprojects is kept united-- with the newsletter and occasional contests. ToL is also the most visible, and the page itself has a massive diagram showing how the subprojects are all related. It's a good starting point for people to find their niche; whether you're interested in turtles or pterodactyls, there's probably a project or taskforce under ToL for it.

FunkMonk: As touched on above, we strive for shared standards across taxonomy articles, therefore discussions about changing various conventions should be held at the most centralised and all-encompassing venue, which is the ToL. Here, people writing about insects, plants, or dinosaurs, have a common ground to coordinate their efforts.

Do you think that there is a bias towards particular kingdoms/species within the project (or more generally, on Wikipedia?) If so, towards what kindom(s)/species?

Enwebb: Oh, absolutely. People self-select for their interests, which often happen to be charismatic megafauna or birds rather than bats and bugs. In the June 2019 issue of the Tree of Life Newsletter I looked at relative WikiWork across subprojects, and it's about what you expect: higher quality is found in articles about cats and dogs than about beetles and spiders.

Plantdrew: Assuming "bias"=has better/more articles, Wikipedia as a whole is biased towards charismatic mammals and birds, but reader interest is also biased the same way. I don't think there's any great mismatch between the taxa that Tree of Life editors (collectively) are interested in editing and readers are interested in reading.

Starsandwhales: There is definitely a bias towards mammals, birds, and extant organisms. Non-dinosaur extinct organisms have very little coverage. People also tend to write many stubs about individual species, rather than improving more general articles. For example. Turtles is only C class despite being one of top importance.

FunkMonk: Yes, birds and fungi are probably over-represented when it comes to quality articles, for example, simply because we have more editors interested in those groups. But there are a few editors who write about very diverse groups, and take on some pretty challenging articles about higher level taxa, and I think we're all thankful someone is doing that.

One of the goals of Wikiproject Tree of Life is to get more editors writing more articles about living things. How close is Wikipedia to providing a stub about every known creature? What will be the next step once that goal is achieved, if the goal is achieved?

Enwebb: Very far. There are 400,000 described species of beetle, for example, but only ~36,000 articles tagged as WikiProject Beetles. I don't know how many decades it would be to have an article on every described species. I focus more on usefulness for the articles I work on. I find stubs very unsatisfying. I think I'd rather have concurrent goals of simultaneously writing missing articles and improving existing ones rather than sequential goals of one and then the other.

AddWittyNameHere: Please no. WikiProject Lepidoptera has traditionally had a fairly strong focus on stub creation over article expansion. The result of that is that we currently have ~100k stubs around that no one can manage to keep up with for maintenance, much less actual expansion. Let's focus on getting our existing stubs to something remotely resembling useful before focusing on adding several hundreds of thousands of additional stubs ToL-wide.

Plantdrew: I don't think that is achievable; we're not even keeping pace with the rate at which new species being described. Wikipedia added about 10,000 articles on taxa from June 2018 to June 2019. Around 18,000 new species are described each year. About 9,000 of those are insects and 2,000 are plants. New plant articles are been written at about the same rate that new species are being described, but less than 20% of plant species have articles. Insect article creation is running far behind the rate of species descriptions. Wikipedia has essentially complete coverage for birds, mammals and dinosaurs. There are articles for more than half of the species of the other vertebrates (fish, reptiles, amphibians), as well as gastropods, and the pace of article creation for these seems to be outpacing the rate of species description.
I'd rather see more effort in improving existing articles than creating more stubs. Most species lacking articles are pretty niche topics mostly of interest to people with a solid taxonomy background. We have some articles of high interest to the general public that are pretty terrible (taro is basically a list of recipes popular in different parts of the world).

Starsandwhales: I don't think that is or should be the goal of Tree of Life. Yes, it's a noble idea to someday eventually cover every known species, but it is better to have 1,000s of high quality articles than 100,000s of stubs. Few people need information on obscure species with very little research, and if they do, should probably just read the research instead. Because Wikipedia is so well known, on search engines like Google, articles are often promoted above other websites that may have more/better information. If, if, this goal is achieved, I suppose the next goal would be to have images and recordings of every organism.

FunkMonk: Unless we get bots to do some of the work, I am unsure we will get articles about every living species any time soon. As for every described species, when it comes to the palaeontology project at least, it is preferred that prehistoric species are covered at the genus level, since such species are often named on pretty shaky grounds, and little can usually be said about them individually that doesn't apply to all species in their respective genera.

Does the Project face any problems today? If so, is there a solution?

Enwebb: We have much more garden than gardeners. The volunteers we have are phenomenal, but there's just a lot of work to do. I'd love it if we had more new editors with the enthusiasm to revive some of the defunct subprojects. I'm not sure where to find these would-be Wikipedians, though.

AddWittyNameHere: Let me echo everyone else here: we could really use more editors.

Plantdrew: The article:editor ratio continues to grow. There are many microstubs that have gone years without being expanded. Taxonomy isn't fixed; new studies lead to updated classifications. I've become very enthusiastic about replacing manual taxoboxes with automatic taxoboxes as a partial solution for the need to update classifications. With the {{Taxobox}} infobox that was established in 2004, if a genus is transferred to a different family, every species article will need to be updated to reflect the new classification. With the automated taxobox system, a single edit to a template for the genus will update the classification for every species.

FunkMonk: Yes, we simply need more editors. While those we have are very enthusiastic about the subjects they work on, there is only so much a few people can do. But that also means there are plenty of very high profile subjects that need to have their articles expanded and improved, so it is a bit of a playground right now, where editors can pick between whatever they want to write about.

How can a new/inexperienced editor help out with the project?

Enwebb: Ultimately, however they want. We have room for content creators who want to get articles started or expanded. We have lots of taxoboxes that could be replaced with speciesboxes. Lots of articles are missing images. Several of our subprojects are dormant and waiting for someone to come along and get the ball rolling. I think we're a welcoming community. There's not a lot of conflict and I feel we're inclusive (or at least I have never felt excluded).

Plantdrew: So many ways. There are plenty of task for gnomish editors to work on, and many red-links and stubs for content creators.

Starsandwhales: Tree of Life is very friendly to new editors. People can start however they want: starting/expanding articles, working on rating articles, reviewing good article nominees, etc. There's many links to accurate resources on the project and subproject pages, and people are always willing to help look over an article. There is a bit of a knowledge gap with all of the rules and bureaucracy of Wikipedia, but there's always someone willing to help. ToL (other than the occasional but heated taxonomy debate) is relatively conflict free, since no one's going to delete a species because it isn't notable enough.

FunkMonk: An easy way to contribute would be to simply create missing articles for taxa, and what's missing can be found in the various lists of taxa within higher level groups which are often full of red links. But yeah, anyone can do whatever they want, since there is so much left to do, there should be plenty of tasks of any kind for anyone.

Do you have any last words you would like to share with our readers?

Enwebb: Put Tree of Life on your watchlist! We've started having more contests lately, which have been a lot of fun to coordinate and participate in. We had one for Halloween and we're currently doing one for winter holidays. You can work on articles like Christmas emerald dove, Santa Claus melon, Candycane pygmy goby, and more!

Starsandwhales: Subscribe to the Tree of Life Newsletter for updates on the project! It is very satisfying and motivating to see how many DYKs and Good Articles the project has every month. Also, anyone can join the ToL wikiproject, you don't need to be a professional field biologist or have an ecology degree.

FunkMonk: I'd like to thank Enwebb for making the project more like a community by starting the ToL newsletter and organising contests!

We asked these same questions eight years ago to a different group. You can view their answers here. To join Wikiproject Tree of Life, click here and add your name to the list.