Requests last October (red) and actual grants (green) in millions of US dollars (percentages of the original request are in parentheses). The foundation's $4.5M request, granted in full, is excluded for easier scaling.
How US$8.4M in donors' funds is being spent: first reports in
Late last year, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) awarded $8.4 million in donors' money to 11 Wikimedia entities, including the Wikimedia Foundation and 10 nationally defined chapters. Under this arrangement, these organisations are required to issue quarterly reports on how far they have progressed towards their declared programmatic and financial goals. The FDC has announced that all 11 completed and submitted their reports by the 1 April deadline; FDC staff have responded to each report and made broad comments about the body of reports.
Basic issues
The staff made several basic points about the chapter reports. Low volunteer participation is a general problem, and where chapters employ staff, how to establish an effective balance between them and volunteers "in leading, coordinating and implementing activities" is an open question. FDC staff were encouraged by chapters' development of "a diverse set of funding partners [and] opportunities for collaboration and learning across the movement and with other allied organisations". Staff were pleased with progress on building and sustaining successful GLAM partnerships, and with new phases in education activities, "including primary and secondary schools as well as universities. These activities seem to be generating excitement and gaining momentum."
Suggestions for improvement
After reviewing the reports, the staff have published suggestions related to issues they found in most or all of the reports:
Transparency and "learning": Some entities were not sufficiently open about the challenges they face, or about communicating what they are learning to the movement as a whole.
Spending: Some reports of programs or spending were inconsistent with the written proposals on which the Committee based its decision to recommend funding. Some reports provided insufficient financial information for the FDC to determine spending rates. For reports that did contain sufficient information, spending was on average only 14% of the grant, for the first 25% of the 12-month duration of the funding (19% on staffing; 10% on non-staffing costs). The staff therefore "expect to see a significant increase in programmatic spending in future quarters". The Signpost notes that this may be a signal to future applicants for FDC funding that early internal planning on the timing of expenditure over the 12-month period would be an advantage.
Growth: By implication, the staff were not entirely satisfied with the concrete information provided, and pointed to Wikimedia France's report as an example of good reporting.
Metrics: Lack of solid data on growth was reflected in staff dissatisfaction with metrics more broadly in the reports: "We ask FDC entities to report in depth on metrics so we may all better understand and quantify progress." It is now clear that the staff are encouraging entities to express indicators in both quantitative (numerical) and convincing qualitative terms, starting with big-picture visions, expectations, and planning, as a foundation for deriving and interpreting specific quanta. Metrics should be couched within explanations of unique contexts, if appropriate.
Specific praise and criticism
Wikimedia Germany—by far the largest non-WMF recipient of funds in Round 1 ($1.8M) and with more than 40 employees—came in for staunch criticism of the insufficient detail and metrics it provided for most activities. FDC staff pointed out that the chapter also faces challenges in managing the relationship between its volunteer and staff roles. Wikimedia Austria drew criticism for providing no "concrete metrics" and for failing to "show staff expenses separately in their financial report", although the chapter was praised for achieving its fundraising certification ("a significant accomplishment"), and for its progress in forging institutional partnerships. The Hungarian chapter received a back-handed compliment—that its report included "some metrics". Wikimedia Sweden was told that "in future reports, we hope WMSE will deepen its metrics and tie them more closely to the objectives of each program."
WMUK was upbraided for providing no correspondence between its 37 "programs" and budget line-items, and for failing to report on related metrics that appeared in the original funding proposal. Low volunteer participation in events, microgrant programs, and institutional framework was noted.
Wikimedia France was singled out for praise regarding its metrics and the openness with which it reported its successes and failures: the report "is filled with examples of sharing 'what worked' and 'what didn’t work', and we believe their challenges will help other entities avoid similar problems". On the other hand, the staff expressed surprise and regret that Wikimedia Netherlands "seems reluctant to share lessons learned about challenges or activities that did not work". Sweden was praised for its "admirable approach to sharing learning in its report".
Interestingly enough, the Foundation itself is eligible for FDC funding, and was awarded more than $4.5M in Round 1. FDC staff noted that "the WMF does not provide details about its expenses by program area", and that the numbers in its report indicate "a risk of a significant underspend". The WMF has dropped the technical distinction between core and non-core activities (no doubt greeted with relief by entities who found these categories problematic).
PRISM prompts Foundation response
Emails to the Wikimedia-l mailing list this week regarding Edward Snowden's recent revelations on the United States' PRISM program have drawn a response from the Wikimedia Foundation.
PRISM is a recently revealed electronic surveillance program initiated by the United States National Security Agency under the Patriot Act of 2001. According to its Wikipedia article, PRISM collects data from "email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice over IP conversations, file transfers, login notifications and social networking details". The program was first exposed by Glenn Greenwald of the UK Guardian newspaper.
One of the more obvious implications for the Wikimedia movement involves its servers, all of which are located in the US. As Liam Wyattasked, "Does [this fact] now compromise our mission either in a technical, privacy or an ethical sense?" With the internal discussion ongoing, the WMF's legal team stated that:
“
[W]e have not been approached to participate in PRISM, and we have never received or honored an NSA or FISA subpoena or order. If we were to be approached in the future, we would reject participation in any PRISM-type program to the maximum extent possible and challenge in court any such demand, since this sort of program, as described in the press, contradicts our core values of a free Internet and open, neutral access to knowledge.
”
The interest from the public in Wikipedia's related articles can be measured with Henrik'spage view stats tool. National Security Agency and related redirects have seen some of the starkest jumps, soaring from about 1,250 views per day to a maximum of over 31,000. The Patriot Act went from 3,000 per day to 14,000 or more. Glenn Greenwald's article has been receiving 5000–10,000 additional views per day, while the article on the individual responsible for releasing the information (Edward Snowden) has received more than half a million views since its creation on 8 June. Also worthy of note is the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, which portrays a dystopian world with all-seeing government surveillance overseen, with a large bump from 8,000 to more than 20,000 views per day. This increase in interest has been mirrored by the book's sales, which have surged by 7000% on Amazon.com alone.
The PRISM program has collected a large amount of online data from at least nine prominent companies.
In brief
UK chapter board elections: Four new trustees have been elected to Wikimedia UK, the national organization devoted to promoting the Wikimedia movement in the United Kingdom.
Trademark discussion: The WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy team has opened a discussion regarding the WMF's current trademark practices. The suggestions garnered here will be considered and possibly incorporated into a new trademark policy, similar to the terms of use changes in 2011. The team hopes that "this could be the most collaborative, creative, and international drafting of a trademark policy to date."
Wikisource gets attention: A recent post on the WMF's blog focused on Wikisource, the Wikimedia sister project devoted to hosting free textual content.
Foundation report: The WMF's monthly report for May 2013 has been published on Meta, the coordinating website for the Wikimedia movement.
A satellite view from the United States Geological Survey with annotations by user:Stratosphere of the "mixing bowl" interchange of Interstate Highways I-96, I-696, and I-275 and Michigan Highway M-5. Interstate 96 is a new featured article.
This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 2 June 2013 through 8 June 2013.
Featured articles
German physicist Jürgen Ehlers studied gravitational lensing with Peter Schneider.
The cast from the 2012 Canadian tour of She Has a Name.
Seven featured articles were promoted this week:
Jane Joseph (nom) by Brianboulton. Joseph (1894–1929) was an English musician. She was a pupil of English composer Gustav Holst, and was associated with his works during her short-lived career, which ended with her premature death. Many of Joseph's original compositions have been lost, but two of her published works received much critical acclaim.
Everything Tastes Better with Bacon: 70 Fabulous Recipes for Every Meal of the Day (nom) by Cirt. This 132-page book by American author and food journalist Sara Perry was published in 2002. Other journalists praised the book in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Denver Post. The Chicago Tribune reported that the book sold 30,000 copies in its first month.
Russula virescens (nom) by Sasata. Russula virescens is an edible basidiomycete mushroom. Its pale green cap measures up to 15 centimeters (6 inches) in diameter. It is a popular food in Spain and China. It can be found growing in Asia, North Africa, Europe, and Central America.
SMS Thüringen (nom) by Parsecboy. Thüringen was a 22,808 metric ton Helgoland-class dreadnought battleship of the German Imperial Navy. The ship's keel was laid in 1908 and it entered fleet service in 1911. Thüringen served in World War I in the North Sea against the British Grand Fleet. After the War, Thüringen was transferred to France and used for target practice. She was eventually broken up.
Jürgen Ehlers (nom) by Markus Pössel. Ehlers (1929–2008) was a German physicist. His research focused on general relativity and its applications to astrophysics. He proved what is now known as the Ehlers-Geren-Sachs theorem. He was interested in the philosophy and history of physics, and was a popularizer of science. He received numerous awards during his lifetime and posthumously; the Jürgen Ehlers Thesis Prize of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation is named in his honor.
2012 tour of She Has a Name (nom) by Neelix. The play She Has a Name by Andrew Kooman went on a fringe theatre tour of Canada in 2012. The plot of the play includes human trafficking as a major element. After Saturday matinée performances, panel discussions were held to raise awareness of the problem of human trafficking. The play received generally positive reviews, earning some awards but also negative comments from critics. Audiences often reacted very emotionally to the play, and standing ovations were common.
Interstate 96 (nom) by Imzadi1979. Interstate 96 (I-96) is an interstate highway. Freeway construction on the route was first proposed in the 1940s, and construction began in 1956. I-96 was completed in 1977. Additional lanes and interchanges have been added since that time. In a 2011 study, the average number of vehicles each day on the route between 6 and 7 Mile roads in Livonia was 201,200.
Featured lists
Two featured lists were promoted this week.
Timeline of the Manhattan Project (nom) by Hawkeye7. The Manhattan Project was a research and development project that produced the first atomic bombs during World War II. Deployed from 1939 until 1945, it was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves, and produced two types of atomic bombs. The Manhattan Project was replaced by the Atomic Energy Commission two years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
List of songs recorded by Scissor Sisters (nom) by Underneath-it-All. American pop music group Scissor Sisters have released four studio albums since the beginning of their career in 2002 under the independent record label A Touch of Class. After the release of their debut single "Electrobix", the band joined the ranks of Polydor Records in 2003. The Scissor Sisters have recorded a wide array of songs, though they have yet to record with featured artists.
Featured pictures
Long-tailed Broadbill
Red-bearded Bee-eater
Charles Baudelaire
Julie Delpy
Five featured pictures were promoted this week.
Long-tailed Broadbill (nom) created by JJ Harrison and nominated by JJ Harrison. The Long-tailed Broadbill (Psarisomus dalhousiae) is found in the Himalayas, Southeast Asia, and Indonesia. It is a forest bird and highly sociable. Adults are approximately 25 centimeters (10 inches) long.
Red-bearded Bee-eater (nom) created by JJ Harrison and nominated by JJ Harrison. The Red-bearded Bee-eater (Nyctyornis amictus) is found in the Indo-Malayan region of Asia. Their diet includes bees, wasps, and hornets.
Hotel Astoria (Saint Petersburg) (nom) created by Florstein and nominated by Tomer T. Hotel Astoria opened in 1912 and was refurbished in 2002. The original architect was Fyodor Lidval. Many notable guests have stayed at the hotel.
Charles Baudelaire (nom) created by Étienne Carjat and nominated by Crisco 1492. Charles Pierre Baudelaire (1821–1867) was a widely influential French poet. He is best known for his volume of poetry Les Fleurs du mal (The Flowers of Evil), first published in 1857.
Julie Delpy (nom) created by Fabrice Lévêque and nominated by Cowtowner. Julie Delpy (born 1969) is a French-American performing artist. She has directed, written, or acted in more than thirty films. She has won a number of awards, and has been nominated for three César Awards and an Academy Award.
Hotel Astoria in Saint Petersburg, Russia, in a new featured picture.
Featured topic
One featured topic was promoted this week.
Maya Angelou (nom) nominated by Figureskatingfan. Maya Angelou (born Marguerite Ann Johnson in 1928) is an American writer. She is best known for her autobiographies, including I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969). At the inauguration ceremony of United States President Bill Clinton in 1993 she recited her poem "On the Pulse of Morning". She has been involved in the civil rights movement and politics.
Maya Angelou received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama in 2011.
In an article published by the Huffington Post's United Kingdom edition, writer Thomas Church asserts that the new VisualEditor will change history, literally. It says that Wikipedia's mark-up language has been to its advantage, as most people didn't bother trying to learn it:
“
Unknowingly, this learning-barrier has been to Wikipedia's advantage for many years. People with ulterior motives have been put off from re-writing history, because the pen doesn't work. So far, those who do have the patience to make the pen work are faced with a team of Wikipedia volunteers (hawks) criticising and verifying their words. And to date, that's been enough.
”
When VisualEditor is released, however, anyone will be able to edit, without having to climb over the barrier that is wikimarkup. Church argues that Wikipedians will be swamped, and false information will last longer in Wikipedia. Mirroring concerns ("Citogenesis") made by cartoonist Randall Munroe in November 2011, he outlines a four-step process that he believes those with ulterior motives will employ, though it goes against Wikipedia policy:
Write a "fact" in Wikipedia.
Write the same fact in an article citing Wikipedia as the source.
Go back to Wikipedia and cite the article as the source.
The fact now has a citation and becomes true for all eternity.
Though Wikipedia will undoubtedly attract more editors, the web can be a double-edged sword. If Church's nightmare scenario comes about, and "marketers" are successful in enforcing some of their views and ideas into Wikipedia articles, he believes that the marketers will only hasten their own demise, because people in general are aware of their tactics and will simply "trust them less."
As for when this might occur, Tech2.in.com, citing a Wikimedia Foundation blog post, is reporting that the VisualEditor will be rolled out soon to randomly selected new accounts, tracking new information and additional bugs, as a beta test (a wider rollout is planned for the first week of July). The alpha test, which lacks some core functionality, has been available to registered users for some time and has garnered mixed reviews.
In Brief
Siri for iOS 7 updated with Twitter, Wikipedia, and Bing integration: Engadget.com reports that Siri in iOS 7 will be integrated with Wikipedia. No word how …
Scholars citing Wikipedia?: New Testament scholar James F. McGrath, writing on patheos.com, ponders the age-old question whether scholars should cite Wikipedia.
The coolest Wikipedia app: bgr.com reports on the Wikiweb iPhone and iPad app, launched last July by a Baltimore-based team of developers and recently updated. The app enables a novel way of browsing Wikipedia, presenting related articles visually as a web.
Kanye West factoids from Wikipedia: XXLput together "a list of 16 lesser known things" about Kanye West they learned from his Wikipedia biography.
Gigs is an English Wikipedia editor who has been on the site since 2005.
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.
I've long thought that we should get rid of the Commons as we know it. Commons has evolved, through the actions of a tiny group of people, into a project with interests that compete with the needs of the various encyclopedias that are the primary users of Commons, and the reason it was created. It's also understaffed, which results in poor curation, large administrative backlogs, and poor policy development.
First, some background information. Commons was primarily created so we could share media between various wikis, with a secondary goal of being a free media repository. When Erik Möller proposed the idea of Commons, he also proposed an inclusion criteria, "Material would be eligible for inclusion in the Commons if it is useful to at least ONE Wikimedia project [including potential future use]."
At no point during initial discussions was it proposed that the inclusion criteria basically be the mere fact that an image was free. There was an implicit assumption throughout that the files would be free, and also encyclopedic in some way.
From inception until 2008, the main inclusion criteria at commons was the media be "useful or potentially useful" to a Wikimedia project, reflecting Möller's initial proposal comments. In 2008, a replacement policy was proposed and implemented by User:MichaelMaggs, with half a page of feedback from about six other editors. These six editors (some seemingly unwittingly) redefined the scope of Commons from a repository of files useful to Wikimedia project, to files "useful for an educational purpose".
This unchallenged action by a tiny group of people changed the scope of the project such that any media file with a free license can be included, since it is extremely easy to argue that any media is "useful for an educational purpose", no matter what it is. Even a file of white noise could be a study in tests for randomness.
In proposing Commons with a dual mission, Möller conflated solving a technical problem with a new project that turned out to be of very niche interest, a image/media gallery project that's similar to wikisource for images. If it weren't for the interwiki sharing function of Commons, it would probably enjoy a similar level of success as Wikisource; limited. So now we have a niche project with limited volunteers effectively dictating policy across all our projects.
Commons has come under attack many times in the past for hosting low-quality images of nudity and sexual acts, mostly uploaded by apparently exhibitionist editors, with the subjects being themselves or their partner. To even discuss removing them is framed as censorship. I'm not offended by nudity. What I am offended by is people abusing the encyclopedia for their own ends, to the detriment of the project.
Nearly all our policies are driven by the need to prevent this sort of abuse of Wikipedia. Policies on biographies of living people are driven largely by those who would abuse Wikipedia for purposes of defamation. Policies on neutrality and verifiability have been largely driven by the need to address those who were here to push a political agenda or promote their fringe viewpoints. What Wikipedia is not is pretty much a chronicle of all the things that people have tried to use Wikipedia for that the community has decided are detrimental to a quality encyclopedia.
Preventing uses of Wikipedia that are detrimental to our mission is the entire reason that most of our content policies exist. This isn't censorship, it's curation. There is no reason we should indulge exhibitionists who spew copious nude or sexual pictures of themselves or their partner across dozens of keywords for their own gratification, any more than we should tolerate the link spammer who spews their links across Wikipedia.
Commons has consistently failed to develop a reasonable policy on this matter. To me, this is just one more example of the failure of Commons due to lack of participation and conflicting mission. A small group is more likely to develop a self-reinforcing delusion that their position is reasonable, even when a large number of people outside the group are telling them otherwise.
Some have challenged my titling of this work "Wikipedia's commons", pointing out that the proper name is Wikimedia Commons. The encyclopedias have a dependency and tight integration with Commons, which would like to govern itself as a separate project with a completely different, and potentially conflicting mission and policy. Whether either project likes it or not, right now Commons is part of Wikipedia.
There is a fairly simple technical solution to the problem. Commons, for the purposes of interwiki sharing, doesn't need to be a project with separate administration. What we know today as "commons" can simply be a feature of Mediawiki, it doesn't need to exist outside of some computer code. When a picture or media file is uploaded to an encyclopedia, if its license is compatible, it will be registered as sharable, but still "owned" by that wiki. If the media violates that wiki's policies, it can be deleted. If another encyclopedia makes use of it in their article space before it's deleted, they will become the owner of the media. Search should easily allow the option of only searching locally owned media, or all media including interwiki media. I'm sure there are some details of this proposal that are not fully fleshed out, but I don't think any are insurmountable. The point is that the interwiki media function is a technical problem that can be solved by technical means.
The free repository function of today's Commons could still exist as a separate project, call it WikiGallery or something. In no case should it be a part of the encyclopedia interwiki media system, however, which should only include encyclopedic media.
The title of this is an homage to the tragedy of the commons. I don't know if it's hilarious, ironic, or sad that Erik Möller chose the name commons, citing the "positive connotations" of the word. Little did he know it would foreshadow the eventual lack of maintenance and resulting lack of policy maturity that would result.
Luke Ravenstahl, Mayor of Pittsburgh, seen voting in the 2008 Pennsylvania primary election. Wikipedians are now voting in the 2013 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and the Funds Dissemination Committee.
This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 11 June 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC, and recent watchlist notices and CentralNotices. 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.
Last week's most popular article list was dominated by the massively popular TV series Game of Thrones, which claimed six slots in the top 25, including the top three. Its popularity was likely stoked by the most recent episode, The Rains of Castamere. Bollywood continued to increase its share of views as well, aided by the tragic suicide of star Jiah Khan.
For the week of 2 to 8 June, the ten most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:
Viewing figures for the third season of this epic fantasy TV series are up by a million, and reaction to this week's episode augurs high ratings for next week's finale.
The young woman who fell more than 10,000 feet from a disintegrating plane and survived, only to have to walk several miles though jungle, became a talking point as a result of a Today I Learned thread on Reddit.
Despite appearing on course to box-office bombhood, having grossed only $50 million worldwide in ten days against a $130 million budget, this remains the most-viewed American movie on Wikipedia.
This social allegory/home invasion thriller had a strikingly good opening weekend, taking in ~$36 million on a $3 million budget, despite poor reviews.
This list is derived from the WP:5000 report. It excludes the Wikipedia main page (and "wiki"), non-article pages, and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Please feel free to discuss any removal on the talk page if you wish. Standard removals this week include:
Cat anatomy: explanation still unknown for its continuing high view counts
G: This, or alternately G-force, has been in the Top 25 since the list was started at the beginning of the year. The continuing popularity of this article, which jumped in June 2012, has been without explanation.
Ernst Litfaß: The inventor of advertising columns has seen periodic spikes in views since this project began. Since the German Wikipedia shows no such spikes, the reason for them is a mystery.
Specific removals this week (those articles for which no reason for any sudden popularity could be located):
Jim Lovell: This astronaut, made famous by Tom Hanks in the film Apollo 13, got a massive spike in views on June 2 and 3, for reasons unknown.
Rosetta Stone: This article saw an anomalous 1-day spike on June 7. Since this was the day after Rosetta Stone Inc. announced the pricing of its stocks, it was likely due to an adware bot.
Second Congo War: Why this war, which has been largely ignored outside Africa, should get a spike in views this week has not been determined as yet.
Two cases, Race and politics and Tea Party movement have been suspended. Argentine History remains open, and a proposed decision was posted on 12 June.
The Race and politics case, brought by UseTheCommandLine and dealing with sourcing methods in articles pertaining to race politics, has been suspended, after one of the editors central to the case withdrew from editing. The case will remain open for two months from the passage of the motion to suspend (May 26, 2013); if by that time the editor has not returned to editing, the case will be closed, and a topic ban imposed.
This case involving an American political group, brought by KillerChihuahua, was suspended until the end of June, pending a moderated discussion. Pages related to the Tea Party movement are placed under discretionary sanctions. The case, along with any progress towards resolution, is to be reevaluated on 1 July 2013.
In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles involving former Argentine president Juan Manuel de Rosas to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentine "nationalists" or "revisionists".
The evidence stage closed 12 April, the workshop stage closed on 19 April, and a proposed decision was scheduled to have been posted by 26 April. The latter was published on 12 June.
Other requests and committee action
Block appeal:Cla68: A block appeal by Cla68 was successful. The block was lifted with some restrictions on the use of external links. Cla68 had been blocked indefinitely after posting a link to an external website that contained information about an editor whose identity was not known on Wikipedia.
Clarification request: Climate Change: A request, brought by the editor Phoenix and Winslow, for clarification of the use of sources as part of the ArbCom remedy in the climate change case, was closed with the advice that the wording of the remedy regarding sources did not preclude asking for a review of sources at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal: A 29 April 2013 request, initiated by MastCell requested the release of voting information for the rejection of Will Beback's ban appeal. (Note: this is not the same as the request of the same name brought on April 5, 2013, by IRWolfie.) The committee declined to post results of their internal deliberations, citing the confidential nature of the reasons for the ban, the potentially disruptive nature of public deliberations, and a prior understanding of the arbitrators that they would be communicating with the expectation of confidentiality. However, there was no similar objection to arbitrators making individual statements in situations where the community had expressed concern, and all ten committee members made statements about their own roles in the case.
Postponed actions: discretionary sanctions: Three requests involving discretionary sanctions remain postponed. The discretionary sanctions portion involving notices and warnings of a request filed by NewsAndEventsGuy was moved elsewhere in order to solicit community comment. A request for clarification of several issues relating to arbitration enforcement brought by Gatoclasswas archived with the comment that a review of the issues of arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions was scheduled for May 2013. A request to clarify the appeal process for discretionary sanctions warnings filed by Sandstein was scheduled for May of 2013.
The new WikiProject Contributor Clean-up has been created to audit edits performed by banned contributors who were "found to have substantially violated the spirit of good faith editing", with Qworty serving as the project's initial focus
This week, we spent some time with WikiProject Computing. Started in October 2003, the project has grown to include 17 featured articles, 11 featured lists, 3 pieces of featured media, and 80 good articles. The project still has a heavy workload, with a relative WikiWork rating of 5.44. Members of WikiProject Computing follow Article Alerts, keep track of recent changes, maintain a style manual, and work on a variety of articles under the scope of WikiProject Computing and its child projects. We interviewed Trevj and KvnG.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Computing? What computing topics do you tend to focus on? What is your preferred device and operating system?
Trevj: I grew up with computers in the 1980s, as a result of the BBC Computer Literacy Project, and so have a long-standing interest in them. I tend to focus on areas in which I have some experience (both general and specific), finding sources to verify information added. My currently preferred device for practical reasons is a tablet running Android, with my preferred operating system being RISC OS.
WikiProject Computing is the parent for an array of other tech-related WikiProjects and task forces. Do you participate in any of these projects? How much collaboration exists between the computing-related projects? What can be done to improve communication and teamwork between these projects?
KvnG: I do more for the networking task force than anywhere else in WP:COMP. Having an overarching project for all these computing-related topics definitely makes working on WP a more social activity and having others around to watch and help improves the quality of the final work.
Trevj: I have participated in WikiProject RISC OS, which I will pick up again when real life is a little less busy for me. I've not experienced a great deal of collaboration between the computing-related projects, although I've always found other members to be helpful when opinions are asked of them. I think that more collaboration would be desirable in order to reduce the possibility of task force members effectively claiming ownership of articles by citing what may amount to only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. (This issue is not confined exclusively to WikiProject Computing.) Some projects have been merged, which may be appropriate where levels of interest are low. I believe that communication and teamwork could be improved by something like a Collaboration of the Month, but this would require more commitment from editors, which understandably presents difficulties.
Are there any significant gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of computing? What can Wikipedians do to improve coverage of neglected computing topics?
KvnG: I've been amazed from the beginning that something almost always turns up when you search obscure technical topics on WP. There are neglected articles but there are not neglected topics.
Trevj: There are probably some significant gaps in quality coverage of some computing topics, although I'm not familiar with most of the thousands of articles within the scope of the project. There will be key documents which serve as reference material for a number of topics; consolidating these into some kind of sortable format may help editors to improve coverage. I've noticed that some of the coverage present is unreferenced, and in some cases content breaches WP:NOTHOWTO.
Does the project deal with many NPOV issues regarding hardware, software, or the history of computing? What can be done to prevent manufacturers from using Wikipedia to promote their products?
KvnG: I've made some contributions to other areas of WP but what I like about computing and other technical topics is the relative absence of drama and POV disputes. We don't want to prevent manufacturers from contributing to WP. Promotional articles can either be a useful and workable starting point for an improved article or they can be deleted.
Trevj: I've come across only 2 or 3 cases I recall where I questioned the POV and a satisfactory outcome wasn't evident. Maybe I'll revisit them some time. There must be an amount of promotional material present in articles, but this can probably be dealt with as part of the normal editing process (maintenance tagging, removal and noting on article talk pages).
How useful are articles that compare different devices, operating systems, or programs? Where does the project draw the line between providing encyclopedic material and serving as a catalog?
KvnG: Not very useful and not easy to maintain. But that's just my personal opinion. I work on stuff that I personally believe is useful. The other stuff only detracts from WP if it is wrong or has POV issues etc.
Trevj: I agree with KvnG on this. Unless a number of unbiased reliable sources have made comparisions then such comparisons are unlikely to be neutral. However, I do think that tables of features etc. generally are encyclopedic and serve as a useful reference.
Have you contributed to any of the Portals overseen by WikiProject Computing and its child projects? Why haven't portals had as much visibility and importance on the English Wikipedia as the Portals on other languages of Wikipedia? What can be done to make portals more relevant to Wikipedia's average visitor?
KvnG: The only work I've done here is fixing embarrassments. I have seen very few if any contributions to these by other editors. I don't personally find portals to be useful and so I don't contribute to improving them.
Trevj: I agree with KvnG on this one too. I find categories, wikilinks within articles and the general search facility to be more than adequate. Perhaps I'm missing the point of Portals.
For more previous editions of the WikiProject Report, visit the archive.
What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new contributor help today?
KvnG: It is not hard to find obvious gaping room for improvement. I would suggest visiting the WP 1.0 assessment for a topic of interest and have a look at higher importance articles with lower quality ratings.
Trevj: Seconded. Additionally, new members could note their areas of interest, knowledge and skills at WT:COMP, and discuss with others there. Maybe working to consolidate a few templates wouldn't go amiss, although I confess to not having spent much time recently investigating this.
Next time, we'll head off to the Southwest Territory. Until then, sip some local whiskey in the archive.
.png){kind=logo}
.png)
