Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-04-02

Single-page Edition

WP:POST/1

2 April 2012

Interview
An introduction to movement roles

Arbitration analysis
Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

News and notes
Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

WikiProject report
The Signpost scoops The Signpost

Featured content
Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

Arbitration report
Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

Technology report
Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

2012-04-02

An introduction to movement roles

Contribute —

Share this

By Tilman Bayer, Nathan and Jan eissfeldt

On Sunday, the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation published several resolutions concerning movement roles (following the publication of a resolution on the related subject of fundraising, see the other report in this issue). This concluded a process that started in October 2010, with predecessors going back to at least 2009. The details of the model are discussed in this week's "News and notes" column, but the Signpost also caught up with community-elected board member Samuel Klein (Sj) to discuss the background of these debates, the long-term importance of their subject, and why it has taken so long to arrive at this conclusion.

"What really matters is how we define what direction to head in, which new initiatives to try, and how we define which ones worked and which did not. Those are all specifics in which all editors and contributors have a direct stake and should have a voice." Community-elected member of the Board of Trustees Samuel Klein (Sj), pictured here by Joi Ito.

Today, eleven years after its inception, Wikipedia is still the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but there is a growing number of activities in which volunteers interact with the outside world in a way that requires their being legitimized in some form as official representatives of the Wikimedia movement. This legitimization can be as simple as an @wikimedia email address, or access to donor funds (raised under the official assurance that it would be used to advance Wikimedia projects). If I'm a Wikipedian who needs this kind of formal support for my project, whom do I need to turn to? Can we say that the movement roles discussion is largely about who should have that kind of authority to grant projects this kind of legitimization? What would be your concise definition of the concept of "movement roles"?

First of all, thanks to the interviewers for organizing this. This is an important topic related to our shared community identity, and how we make long-term decisions together. Everyone should reflect on these topics, if only once in a while.

'Movement roles' refers to defining the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the active groups in our movement—to improve communication and trust, and to help people get support for important work with minimal bureaucracy.

If you need support for a single project, you can apply directly to the Grant Advisory Committee; and can also apply to a chapter near you for support.

If you manage an ongoing project or group, and regularly need basic support – from reimbursement for running small events to getting approval to use the trademarks to identify and promote local projects – then you can become a user group. Eventually this may be as easy as filling out a form online; in the near future, groups should directly contact the Chapters Committee (which is expanding its scope and may soon rename to become the Affiliations Committee).

Is the English Wikipedia editing community also considered one of these "active groups in our movement", for example? Where does it fit in the list given in the new resolution?

The affiliation models identified so far cover formal groups that interact with the world off-wiki. These are generally groups with explicit members and contact people. Other roles not yet 'recognized' in this way include individual contributors (who can take on many different roles, some quite significant to a project, and are indeed recognized in various ad hoc ways on their projects; the post of Featured Article Director comes to mind) or Projects and their communities (with are defined by scope or as spaces for collaboration, with membership defined implicitly rather than explicitly, and generally lack 'contact information' or legal status in any jurisdiction). That said:

Any editing group could name a contact person and be recognized as a user group. This is easier for small, focused groups than for large, amorphous ones.
Groups focused on a major theme that develop a formal organization to support their work, both online and offline, can also apply to be recognized as a thematic organization. I could imagine such a group focusing for instance on lexicographic knowledge, and including editors of Wiktionary and OmegaWiki. There are long-standing technical and coordination needs in that area of focus, which they might organize initiatives and members to pursue. As thematic organizations are intended to be limited in number, the Affiliations Committee might suggest that they support all languages within their theme, the way that chapters are expected to support all Projects within their geography.

Can you describe some of the problems that sparked this conversation and the establishment in 2009 of the "movement roles" task force and the following year of the movement roles workgroup (Signpost coverage, board vote)? Why did these attempts to arrive at consensus recommendations falter?

At one level, groups that did not qualify as chapters but were doing work at a similar scale with national or international partners and large groups of community members wanted to know how to let others know about their work and to promote their work in line with our trademark policies. At another, there was concern that not all chapters were living up to the same standards.

During the process, the working group articulated a few tough topics that needed clarity: reducing overlap in roles and activities (e.g. between the WMF and individual wikiprojects or chapters), recognizing new group models other than chapters, strengthening accountability and legitimacy of groups, normalizing and tracking the flow of funds across the movement, and increasing transparency and communication about our movement work.

Many national chapters have now been established or are in development, but for now they still represent only a very small slice of the Wikimedia community. Can you explain why chapters are the best organizational unit for Wikimedia users, why they uniquely have earned representation on the Board of Trustees (2 seats guaranteed) and the Funds Dissemination Committee, and the role you see chapters playing in a democratic, transparent global movement?

Chapters are not the "best" organizational unit—individual language Projects are the most natural unit of identity and organization, and have traditionally been the first way that we grouped people and synthesized their ideas into policies and proposals. And projects and editors certainly need better large-scale organization to parallel that of national chapters, which directly synthesizes and articulates the work and needs of editors, curators, and other contributors.

But Chapters tend to focus on off-wiki partnerships, physical event coordination, and outreach to regional and national governments and civic bodies—most of which are naturally grouped by language and many of which map neatly onto geographic regions. They also tend to be interested in initiatives requiring an incorporated group to maintain infrastructure, and focus on grants and local fundraising. These are valuable parts of our movement, especially if you think of existing networks such as national governments and local civic groups as potential movement members.

Historically, how has the understanding of movement roles evolved, from the founding of the first chapters in 2004 until now? Has the general opinion of what chapters are for changed since then, and how?

The original global concept of chapters was very freeform, and was defined after the German chapter had already begun to organize itself. For a time, they were imagined as groups that would focus primarily on work within their country. That has shifted over time to regional groups who are each focused on the global mission, but committed to local outreach and partnerships in pursuit of that goal.

Klein observing proceedings at Wikimania 2010 in Gdansk.

Leonhard Dobusch, a Berlin-based scholar who has studied the relationship of the Foundation and chapters since at least 2010 (Signpost coverage), has observed about the fundraising debates that "the whole conflict is fought out by representatives of the formal organizational bodies. The majority of Wikipedians – editors and administrators – seem to be rather uninterested in these governance issues." Would you agree that this a problem with respect to the movement roles question? Has it had an effect on the state of the debate?

From the perspective of the editors and administrators he mentions, it hardly matters whether the distribution of funds and the coordination of partnerships is handled by a single global Foundation or by a network of chapters, or some combination of the two. So it is not so surprising that many are uninterested. As was noted a few times in recent discussions of which bodies process payments, the technical details of how we get and transparently manage fund should hardly matter—what really matters is how we define what direction to head in, which new initiatives to try, and how we define which ones worked and which did not. Those are all specifics in which all editors and contributors have a direct stake and should have a voice.

That said, there are many issues of empowering editors and project contributors, and organizing their voices on a larger scale, which are still unsolved. Movement roles to date mainly focused on identifying and recognizing the work of groups that don't fall into any of [foundation / chapters / individual contributors]—which will help amplify the input of some of these editors and small groups.

I wouldn't say that editors are apathetic about governance—they care a lot about the project-level governance of edits and contributions. The lack of interest to date of editors on large-scale community governing bodies has prevented a similar sort of "role" discussion from happening on the projects themselves. The MR working group limited its scope to addressing the role of organized and incorporated groups; while noting that there was an equally complex set of questions about individual contributors which need to be resolved in the future.

According to one Wikimania submission, the Foundation "is regularly accused [of imposing] a US-centric cultural model", which together with the predominance of the English Wikipedia generates "power tensions" (exacerbated by the financial success of the Wikimedia movement), which in turn "nourish nationalist approaches ... Wikimedia chapters claim their role in providing a more balanced cultural approach and in managing decentralised outreached programs. In reality the fund-raising campaign mirrors last century geopolitics with the US and few European countries sharing the cake; Switzerland with a rather independent position and Italy unable to keep a proper slice." Do you agree with this criticism of the Foundation and chapters? Otherwise could you explain how the new movement roles resolution will help to address such problems?

I think that expressly recognizing non-national thematic organizations that are doing great focused long-term work will also help address this concern in the medium- to long-term.

But I do not agree with the criticism above. If one is looking for such power dynamics, one may be able to find matching patterns in many places; and it is true that we were founded in the US and have found the most enthusiastic community of encyclopedists in Germany. But with the FDC we are moving away from a world in which how much money is donated from a country is tied to how much is invested within that country; and away from the US having direct control over 90% of all programmatic investments.

As the annual fundraiser approaches the $30 million mark, distribution of funds has become the hottest controversy within the Wikimedia community. The issue of control over funding has arisen in the last year or two largely as a result of the recent ability of some chapters to retain large amounts of money from the fundraiser by acting as a payment processor for donors from certain geographic regions. An observer reading about the debates might wonder which is truly the core of the dispute: concerns over decentralization and cultural diversity, or simply who gets to control the money? If the former, can you describe for Signpost readers what these concerns are, and any specific events or problems that might exemplify them?

The two primary concerns about how donations flow through the movement are accountability and equitable distribution. For the sake of accountability, all funds should be processed by groups with demonstrated competence to distribute them to good projects transparently and effectively.

For the sake of equitable distribution, funds should be allocated in a way that supports communities that do not have wealthy donors, and that promotes effective and impactful projects regardless of where they originate.

The recent resolutions were an effort to address the inflamed tensions over movement roles and funding priorities; to what extent do you think the process the resolutions outline will resolve these tensions? Are we looking at a long-term solution, or will the debates of the last year prove to be a preview of inter-organizational relations for years to come? In what way might tension and conflict between the Wikimedia Foundation and national chapters affect the projects, their users or the uninvolved reader?

I expect the recent decisions will be part of a long-term solution; though some specifics may change with time. Many tensions have been addressed, and others have been identified even where no solution is in place. There is some unhappiness among Chapters around the recent decision on who can directly process donations in the annual sitewide fundraisers, but aside from this the feedback from the past weekend's Chapters Meeting suggests that some long-standing tensions at the organizational level have been resolved.

Of course the creation of a strong funds dissemination committee, precisely by empowering more of the community to engage in new decisions, may create new tensions that did not exist in the past. I do not expect any of this tension and resolution to affect most users or readers; but it will affect what sorts of initiatives we launch in the future; and how decentralized or bold our experimentation is.

Reader comments

2012-04-02

Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

Contribute —

Share this

By Lord Roem

As part of the continuing Signpost series on analyzing the work of the Arbitration Committee, its work and its membership, we take a closer look this week at the committee's deliberations over the ban appeal of TimidGuy. This case dealt not only with important principles of jurisdiction (as it concerned the appeal of a block imposed by Jimbo Wales), but a deeper look at committee discussions over the appropriate remedy in the case can serve as a case study of how the committee crafts a consensus opinion. Over more than 60 days, the committee worked tirelessly to reach a decision—a decision that will now have a lasting impact on arbitration work as a whole.

The case

On 14 December 2011, the Arbitration Committee opened TimidGuy's ban appeal as a full case. At the onset, arbitrator Roger Davies opined that the committee would have to review "the [extent] to which [Jimbo] may develop policy by fiat", a reference to newly created conflict-of-interest rules. Other arbitrators accepted the case on the simple basis of reviewing possibly disruptive editing by the editor in question.

After weeks of evidence submissions and workshop proposals, the Committee sat down to hammer out a proposed decision. What would result would be a series of procedural guidelines that the Committee would use in the future, and a clear statement of its jurisdiction.

Proposed decision

The proposed decision in the case was posted on 20 February by drafter Roger Davies, who wrote the proposals alongside colleague Jclemens. Over the next week, other members of the Committee discussed and debated a series of principles which would guide decisions on remedies in the immediate case and cases in the future. A discussion of some of the more important principles follows below.

Jurisdiction

The Committee voted unanimously to approve a principle which clearly defined the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. Taken from the recently amended arbitration policy page, the Committee included "the resolution of private matters unsuitable for public discussion" as a responsibility for oversight. This principle is important in the context of the TimidGuy case, where some material was unsuitable for public discussion—several issues touched on in the Committee's findings had to be discussed behind the scenes on the Committee mailing list.

Unique posture of review

TimidGuy was in a unique position for Committee review, as the Committee was revisiting a ban decision made by Jimbo Wales. The Committee affirmed past policy that Jimbo Wales "retains the authority to ban editors" and that an appeal from such a decision may not be appealed back to Jimbo. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad added a note in discussions that this principle did not change any existing policy: "When it was decided (with Jimbo Wales' concurrence) that his actions involving individual users...were subject to review by this Committee, it was also decided that Jimbo Wales' reserved power to review this Committee's decisions could not apply where we reviewed one of his own rulings". Arbitrator Jclemens added a different note, pointing out that this principle "is interesting" because "[this power of Jimbo Wales] is one of the few direct powers [he] still maintains as founder, most of the rest having been given up over the past few years". Jclemens also added a historical reference to older arbitration policy which expressed that this power of Jimbo's was "theoretical" and "not intended for use".

Future impact

While TimidGuy related to a very special instance of a ban appeal, the case, taken in context of other historical notes on Jimbo Wales' authority as 'Founder', is an intriguing study of the ArbCom–Jimbo relationship. While it is not landmark in the sense that it has changed something, this case does demonstrate a clear indication of ArbCom's authority in relation to its own cases and to other entities—a statement that is likely to evolve over time as the encyclopedia grows in the future.

If you have a suggestion for a future 'Arbitration analysis' article, let us know in the comments, or feel free to drop a note on the writer's talk page. Ideas for new Signpost features are openly welcomed for proposal and discussion in newsroom.

Reader comments

2012-04-02

Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

Contribute —

Share this

By Jan eissfeldt, Resident Mario, Mathew Townsend and Skomorokh

Berlin annual conference heralds sweeping movement reforms

Wikidata: a bold new step in collecting human knowledge

Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Paul Allen, whose Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence provided a significant chunk of the funding for the ambitious Wikidata initiative

This week saw a press release by Wikimedia Deutschland on the topic of their latest pursuit, Wikidata. The newest addition to the Wikimedia Foundation family tree, Wikidata aims to be "a free knowledge base about the world that can be read and edited by humans and machines alike...[that will] allow for central access to the data in a way similar to what Wikimedia Commons does for multimedia files." With the potential to be the first Wikimedia family expansion in six years, the initial construction of Wikidata, if successful, would be the largest project a single chapter has ever undertaken.

So, how will it work? According to its current technical description, development will proceed in three stages. The first, expected to end by August of this year, will overhaul the language system by providing a central interwiki repository. The second, to finish by December, will use a similar method to standardise the content of infoboxes, allowing editors to add and use the data within the framework and allowing smaller wikis to share in localised versions of this data for their own infoboxes. Finally, the third stage of development will see the automation of list and chart creation based on Wikidata data, at which point Wikimedia Deutschland plans to hand over operation and maintenance to the Wikimedia Foundation itself, hopefully by March 2013.

In addition to the obvious internal benefits of the project, the Wikidata team has been keen to stress the benefits of a central data repository that could surpass existing Wikimedia-scraping data wiki dbpedia, attracting numerous donors in the process. One half of the €1.3 million raised (equivalent to US$1.87 million) will come from the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, founded by Microsoft co-founder Paul G. Allen, a supporter of long-range activities that have potential to accelerate progress in the development of artificial intelligence. A further quarter is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, established by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, in the hopes that it will be an "easy-to-use, downloadable software tool for researchers, to help them manage and gain value from the increasing volume and complexity of scientific data." Google provides the last quarter of funding, stating that "[our] mission is to make the world's information universally accessible and useful."

The money raised has been used to hire a team of eight developers (plus four support staff). The development team itself will be led by Karlsruhe Institute of Technology alumni Dr. Denny Vrandečić and Dr. Markus Krötzsch, the two co-founders of the Semantic MediaWiki project. Vrandečić stated on the foundation-l mailing list that although support staff have been in place for several weeks, the development team itself will first come together on Monday; following Wikimedia Deutschand's credo, he expressed his hope that "in the future we will be communicating about Wikidata much more, as the development is finally starting." Indeed, according to its timeline, previews will be presented as soon as feasible, probably in May or June, as a way to engage community discussion. In July, the team hopes to present at Wikimania 2012 on the topic of language links and to give updates on the project. Community communications will be handled by dedicated manager Lydia Pintscher, who has already introduced a communications roadmap. Look forward to an interview with Pintscher in next week's Signpost!

In brief

Justin Bieber RfA unsuccessful: This year's April Fools' festivities continued a rich Wikipedian tradition, with a raft of frivolous and off-colour blocks, requests for adminship, and nominations for deletion. The Main Page continued the project's venerable tradition of arch and misleading characterisations of its showcased content, with pigeon photography as the featured article, a host of amusingly unedifying did you know? hooks, and historical events (including Edible Book Day) served with a dollop of nonsense. The inevitable rancour from those less humorously inclined saw the thwarting of efforts to banish Jimbo Wales on his own command and either delete or bestow upon fellow co-founder Larry Sanger the august honours of an accountcreator flag, and spilled out into a host of ANI discussions (1, 2 and 3), and prompted the perennial village pump proposal to ban the ritual celebration of the wiki's wilder side. The candidate's participation in the April Fools pranks pushed the result of Mabdul's RFA from an unclear 75% to a failed 68% during the last half day before closure.
Teahouse Project update The Teahouse project has released its latest metrics, indicating among other things that emailed invitations continued to enjoy success in attracting guests.
Triage and Feedback development continues apace Work continues locally on the New Page Triage initiative, encouraged by the active engagement of WMF community liaison Oliver Keyes. Editors continue to sign up for the newsletter and provide feedback, and the developing team holds regular office hours, for which the latest logs are posted at Meta. Discussion on the latest iteration of the Article Feedback Tool continues at Article Feedback Tool/Version 5, also with active engagement by Keyes, who has presented an evaluation of feedback for the community's consideration.

Reader comments

2012-04-02

The Signpost scoops The Signpost

Contribute —

Share this

By Mabeenot

WikiProject news

News in brief

The April Wikify Drive has begun. Start earning your barnstar today!
WikiProject History is looking for new members to improve articles and participate in discussions on the project's talk page
The Teyler's Museum in the Netherlands is sponsoring a contest from now until May with real-world prizes as part of the Teylers GLAM project

Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.

The *Signpost* newsroom at the 2009 New York City Wiki-Conference

Originally named The Wikipedia Signpost, the newspaper shortened its name in June 2010

Audio recordings were provided for some early issues of the Signpost, like this overview of the 14 August 2006 issue

In a hard-hitting exposé that will surely garner a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism, The Signpost delved into the dark and twisted world of Wikipedia's most powerful media institution: The Signpost.

Founded by Michael Snow on 10 January 2005, the Signpost was created to "spare people the effort of trying to be everywhere and read every discussion" by centralizing Wikipedia's news and announcements. The Signpost has been published by a staff of volunteers on a weekly basis with few breaks in publication. Over the years, the community newspaper has developed recurring sections dedicated to reporting news, watching the way Wikipedia is portrayed in other media, highlighting material promoted to Featured status, exploring WikiProject communities, following arbitration cases, and discussing technological matters. Other sections have come and gone while new features are occasionally introduced.

Michael Snow served as the newspaper's first editor-in-chief from its inception until August 2005, when he passed the baton to Ryan Lomonaco (Ral315). After serving over three years in that capacity, Ral315 retired in December 2008 and was followed in February 2009 by Sage Ross (Ragesoss). When Ragesoss left the Signpost in June 2010, Tilman Bayer (HaeB) took up the reins. Since HaeB's departure in July 2011, the newspaper has been led by a team of interim editors. We interviewed all four former editors-in-chief (editors emeritus) and asked our current editor, Skomorokh, how Wikipedians can become involved in their community newspaper.

When did you first become involved with the Signpost and what initially motivated you to contribute? How did you wind up in the position of editor-in-chief? What have you done since moving on from that position?

Michael Snow: I think my reasons for getting involved are best explained with reference to the message I wrote for the original issue of the Signpost—I was interested in things that were happening on Wikipedia even though I didn't have time to be personally involved in everything, and the concept seemed to fill a glaring need. In starting the project, obviously I was editor-in-chief simply by default. I moved on, if you will, mostly because I couldn't keep up with the organizing and publishing in addition to writing most of the stories. I'm still immensely grateful and a bit flattered that people stepped in to fill the void and keep it going, which let me be more of just a reporter for a while. Since being active in that role I've been more directly involved in the Wikimedia Foundation, spending a couple years on the Board of Trustees and now serving on the Advisory Board.

Ral315: I first got involved in the Signpost when Michael had to step away temporarily due to time commitments. I wrote one issue completely by myself, and recruited a few other users to help out in subsequent weeks (including Michael, who continued to write stories). I didn't really know what I was getting myself into—I figured I'd just help out temporarily, and ended up as editor-in-chief for over three years. I wanted to do it because I felt like the Signpost was an incredibly useful tool that I had referred to many a time, and I thought it should continue. Since leaving the Signpost, I've largely retired from Wikipedia due to real-life commitments.

Ragesoss: Since becoming a Wikipedian in late 2005, I was always interested in the intersection of Wikipedia and the academic world, and I first got involved with the Signpost doing some reporting on how people talked about Wikipedia on academic mailing lists. I guess I impressed Ral315, because he would sometimes chat with me about how best to cover controversial issues. At the end of 2008, after a few weeks without a new Signpost, I started trying to get publication back on track. A few weeks later, in the do-acracy tradition, Ral315 passed on the editor-in-chief to me. I stepped down when I took a 15-month job with the Wikimedia Foundation as "Online Facilitator" for the education program pilot. Since that ended, I've been accumulating a backlog of wiki-things I want to do, but I've not had time to do much more than work on the scholarships committee for Wikimania 2012.

HaeB: I had joined the German and English Wikipedias at the end of 2003. My own active Signpost involvement built up gradually, from submitting suggestions, to writing one-off stories, to more regular reporting. (I think that many Wikipedians still don't realize that the Signpost is open to everyone's contributions, just like Wikipedia itself!) When Sage left as editor in June 2010, I first only volunteered to take over the Signpost's social media feeds (Twitter, Identi.ca) that he had started, but then got persuaded to act as editor-in-chief as well. Since July 2011, I have been working as a contractor for the Wikimedia Foundation, supporting movement communications. That function includes several tasks that contribute to the same broad goal of keeping the community informed and where the experience from my Signpost work is very useful: I am editing and publishing the monthly WMF reports, worked on the 2010-11 annual report and form part of the group that takes care of the Foundation blog. As time and conflict-of-interest allows, I am still contributing to the Signpost and have helped out with various things, but my only regular commitment remains co-editing the monthly "Recent research" section, which is co-published by the Wikimedia Research Committe as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

What role does the Signpost play in the Wikipedia community? How does this role differ from Wikipedia's myriad talk pages, village pumps, and WikiProjects? Is the Signpost expected to live up to the same journalistic standards as other print, broadcast, and online media?

Michael Snow: I called it a newspaper originally, to the extent that term still means anything in a digital world, and reporting the news is still the core function as I see it. There are plenty of other places where Wikipedia news happens, announcements get made, or discussions about news take place, but the Signpost can collect information about all of that in one place. In terms of standards, yes I think on a fundamental level the journalistic approach is appropriate. The setup is unusual, given that it's a volunteer effort, we may not have formal journalism training, and because we're all working on Wikipedia, there's a sense in which a fully detached outsider perspective to reporting is impossible to achieve. However, I think because we've learned by editing Wikipedia articles and embracing the neutral point of view approach, we naturally want to try anyway, and can end up doing a creditable job.

Ral315: I think the main role that the Signpost plays is to recap everything that's gone on across the projects. Just on the English Wikipedia, to keep up with everything that's going on, users might have to watch a wide range of pages, including the Village Pump, Administrators' Noticeboards, Arbitration pages, WikiProjects, and countless others. The Signpost was an attempt to condense the important stories of the week into an easily-readable format. Speaking for myself, I would not consider myself a journalist, and have no formal training—but I feel that we've done a great job in reporting issues in a neutral fashion.

Ragesoss: I agree with everything Michael and Ral315 said. I would add that in my view, an increasingly important role for the Signpost is to serve as a watchdog, holding the Wikimedia Foundation and other influential actors accountable to the community. WMF in particular is much larger, better funded, and more capable of driving major social and technical changes than it was even just a few years ago. A strong adversarial press (analogous to the relationships between governments and major newspapers) is in the best interest of both the WMF and the volunteer community.

HaeB: I also agree with all of Michael's, Ral315's and Ragesoss' observations. Another way to understand the Signpost's role and importance is to see it as something that helps to connect different parts of a large and diverse community. Seen more prosaically, readers draw much value from the Signpost simply because it saves them the time of reading village pumps, mailing lists, etc. — indeed most of the information has already been published elsewhere, but we condense it in a readable format and add context. This often took up all the writing time, leaving little for original reporting. But this lack of investigative writing is about the only significant difference I see to traditional media. Also regarding journalistic standards, let me add that as a German Wikipedian, I am intrigued by the comparison of the Signpost with its sister publication there, the "Kurier". It was started in the end of 2003 with the tagline "nicht neutral, nicht enzyklopädisch" ("not neutral, not encyclopedic"), which still remains in essence, although an additional tongue-in-cheek self-description as tabloid was been removed not too long ago. The Kurier has run a lot of great stories as well, but it constantly suffers from canvassing, too much opinionated and biased coverage, and insider details lacking context—in short, it lacks an editorial process such as that which the Signpost has formed in its weekly cycle.

Share with our readers the most challenging aspects of writing and editing the Signpost. Do you have any suggestions for how the newspaper can better cope with deadlines, recruit talent, and engage readers?

Ral315: For me, the challenge was two-fold, and you've mentioned both issues: Recruiting volunteers to help, and publishing on-time. My tenure as editor-in-chief was notable for consistently late publication—because I live in the United States and generally couldn't get most of the work finished until Monday afternoon or evening, our Monday issue often didn't publish until early Tuesday UTC. It was an unfortunate side-effect of my real-life obligations, which left me unable to do much work over the weekend. As for volunteers, I found it toughest to find volunteers to write one-off stories (the type of stories that aren't features, like, for example, a story about a controversial AfD request).

Ragesoss: On-time publication was a challenge for me as well. I found that when I was pro-active in getting things ready to publish, other writers got things done on time too. But the more I would slack off, the later others would push their deadlines.

The things that caused me the most stress, though, were the times when individual Wikipedians would get upset about how the Signpost covered them and drama they were involved with. I always tried to be sensitive to the people involved, and not to offend unnecessarily, but also not to avoid covering a story just because it might upset someone. Still, it's never fun to face the wrath of an angry encyclopedist.

I also felt a tension between promoting the Signpost more widely (which I think could create a stronger sense of community) and being self-promotional. For example, I think a link to the Signpost ought to be in the sidebar. It's at least as important as community portal. But I didn't feel comfortable proposing that while serving as editor-in-chief.

HaeB: I share Ragesoss' observation that issues of, let's call it COI and BLP, can consume a lot of energy of the editor-in-chief. As for recruiting good writers: During my tenure, broad appeals to become involved, directed at all readers, did not appear to have much effect. It was much more successful to keep looking out for suitable candidates, and then invite them—letting them know specifically why one thinks they might have the skills for the task. Still, I often had to fill in myself as main writer for the "In the news" and "News and notes" sections, because no regular editor committed to work on these consistently. And accordingly, these two sections caused the most publication delays. As for deadlines, I tried to stick to the natural Monday midnight UTC deadline (natural because it corresponds to the date in the URL of each story), and succeeded not always, but often—also thanks to the prodding of editors of regular sections which were unhappy of their punctually completed work going stale because of other sections missing the deadline. I do think that having deadlines and a regular publication schedule is a huge factor in the Signpost's success. Again this can be compared to the "Kurier", where new stories can be posted at any time, which has the advantage of timeliness, but the disadvantage of not generating that important "now or never" sentiment for writers when publication time is approaching ("The Signpost is going out in five hours, and we still don't have <important topic X> covered!"). I find it interesting to muse about whether there might be a valuable lesson for Wikinews somewhere in here, although I don't know this sister project well enough to draw it myself. What the Signpost does share with Wikinews is the somewhat un-wiki-like notion of discouraging non-trivial edits to stories after publication, which has to be explained to Wikipedians often, but is a good principle to stick to. The bylines are another Signpost custom not shared in normal Wikipedia work (although they are not meant to convey ownership, just to indicate responsibility).

Michael Snow: The reason I set things up with a Monday publication schedule was because I did the bulk of my Signpost work on weekends (my goal really was to publish Sunday night my time, when it would already be Monday in most of the world anyway). I usually considered it an achievement if I managed to get stories pre-written during the week for the next issue. In terms of recruiting volunteers, I agree with the observation that it was easier to get people who would do a stint handling a particular beat, since you could follow a familiar template to write those stories. As a reporter, that was okay because I preferred bringing out things that seemed newsworthy beyond a particular beat, so I was fine letting other people recap arbitration cases or outside news coverage. With my editor hat on, though, there's certainly more stuff that could be covered if more people wanted to cover one-off stories, we've pretty much always had news events and story suggestions that get left on the table.

I think the most important thing is writing stories that are thorough, neutral, and interesting. By doing so, readership will naturally come, and with increased readership brings new volunteers who are interested in helping out.

In your opinion, what are the most important sections of the newspaper? How frequently should the Signpost run special reports, opinion pieces, book reports, and experimental sections? Does the paper need an occasional shake-up to keep it fresh?

HaeB: I felt that the "News and notes" section was the most important and at the same time most difficult to write section, but after I became editor I appreciated each of the other sections more and more as well. It would be nice to have more book reviews.

Ral315: I always found the most important sections to be the special reports, particularly those that covered off-wiki news that affected Wikipedia (articles about the GNU licensing update that allowed us to switch to CC-BY-SA, the John Seigenthaler incident, etc.). Book reviews and experimental sections are always fun; one of my favorite odd sections was the WikiWorld section that ran from late 2006-2008.

While I was editor-in-chief, we didn't run opinion pieces. I was critical of the idea of running opinion pieces, because I felt NPOV was important. However, from what I've seen, it looks like they've done a good job of keeping the opinion pieces from tainting the neutral point of view that the rest of the paper embodies. As for a shake-up, I think the best shake-up comes from adding strong contributors who can provide a different perspective.

Michael Snow: Not to cop out on this, but as with any newspaper, every section is important to a certain audience, even if those people may not care as much about the other content. That was pretty clear in the way people paid attention to certain areas, stepped up to cover different beats, and suggested new ones. In addition to following the talk page for each story, early on I would pay attention to how stories were getting linked to and discussed, to get a feel for what the community was interested in. Obviously, occasionally one big story might dominate, but usually it seemed like interest was well-distributed across different topics. In general, I think that if somebody understands the Signpost and feels like a particular type of content is worth bringing to its readers, their motivation indicates that some of the audience is likely to be interested. New experiments keep the Signpost fresh in a sense, although I would say the point is not so much to shake things up as simply to keep things growing. Oh and I too loved the comic strips.

Ragesoss: I'll agree with both Ral315 and Michael here. Good, in-depth coverage of the big stories is probably the most important overall, but different readers care about different sections. Regular reports on ongoing policy discussions are also important, but that's one area that the Signpost has always struggled to keep up with. Book reviews were always among my personal favorites. (I too loved the comic strips. I had a few leads for new comics, but they never panned out.)

At various times, there have been discussions about expanding the Signpost to a multi-wiki or multi-language format. What are your thoughts on changing the paper's scope and audience? Should the Signpost build stronger connections to existing newspapers on the other languages of Wikipedia?

Ral315: As long as the original audience is not left out in the dust, I think it's a good idea. When I was editing, the only comparable publication of any note was the German WikiKurier, so we never really did much in that respect. Partnerships with other languages and projects via the Signpost and their related papers are a great way to bring the projects together, but I think the Signpost's main audience – the English Wikipedia – should not be forgotten.

Michael Snow: The Kurier actually predates the Signpost, for what it's worth, although I don't recall being aware of it when I started. At one point we had a regular series consisting of reports from other Wikipedia languages (although obviously that's not a "beat" you can handle with just one person). I tried to occasionally pass on stuff from other wikis that I thought might be interesting to an English Wikipedia audience. And just like many people who work in other languages also edit on the English Wikipedia, many of them also read the Signpost. I don't know that any one publication can manage to be a universal international news source, so I wouldn't necessarily try to merge all of these efforts together. But being freely licensed does mean you can translate and crib from each other if ever you need to.

HaeB: Shortly before I became editor, a discussion had been started to make the Signpost more "international", contributing to the rename from "Wikipedia Signpost" to "The Signpost". I do think we managed to broaden the scope of e.g. the "News and notes" section to encompass notable Wikimedia topis outside the English Wikipedia, and we introduced the distribution of the Signpost to other projects—today, over 100 subscription pages (project pages and individual users) exist outside the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, the "Sister projects" series has long been dormant. As for translated versions, I think a Signpost issue contains way too much text for this to be sustainable. The Wikimedia Quarto was a great newsletter in 2004/2005 which faltered soon, presumably due to its high ambition "to publish quarterly in 10 languages". The much more concise Wikizine enjoyed translations into a few languages for a while. Some months ago, at the Foundation we introduced the "Wikimedia Highlights", a short excerpt of the monthly WMF report combined with brief news from the rest of the movement, which has seen translations of up to over 10 languages per issue. As for collaborations of the Signpost with newsletters from other Wikimedia projects, I would love to see more translations of interesting news articles from other languages.

Ragesoss: I'd love to see stronger connections between the Signpost and other language communities. But it's hard. The volunteers who are interested in cross-project issues and translation tend to be stretched pretty thin.

The Signpost has developed its own lore, ranging from inside jokes about the initialization of several sections to rumors that the editor in chief position has become a training ground for future Wikimedia Foundation volunteers and employees. Can you respond to some of these stories? Do you have any other interesting tall tales to add to the mix?

Ral315: Well, thus-far, I'm one of the few who wasn't hired by the Wikimedia Foundation, so take from that what you will! Seriously, the Signpost may have raised the profile of Michael Snow and Sage Ross, but the fact is that they are incredible contributors who were incredibly committed to the projects—and ultimately, that's why they were appointed to their positions.

When it comes to the sections, some older users may remember the Arbitration report being named "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" (acronym: TROLL). That pre-dated me, but when I created the Technology report, I took a page from the same book and named it "Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News" (acronym: BRION). I don't know if there are any other stories or tall tales, but I'd sure be happy to respond if anyone has any fun ones.

Michael Snow: Ha, TROLL was the name I came up with. I figured it was at least arguably a neutral joke—even if you take the acronym as a criticism, it's not explicit about which parties that applies to, and the full title can be as much a swipe at the arbitrators for being too deliberative as anything else. Nobody is spared. If you want other examples of humor from back in the day, there's always this story about a featured article candidate (I won't promise that the humor is particularly clean or high-quality, but if you can tolerate puns you may enjoy it).

As for rumors, well most of that is pretty much verifiably true, although it's not by any particular design, either by me or the Foundation. Editing the Signpost involves a certain level of dedication as a volunteer, and to do it well also requires a good understanding of the overall landscape—Wikipedia as a project, the editing community, the Wikimedia Foundation, and how different pieces of the picture connect to each other. It's pretty natural that the Foundation would also be interested in people who've demonstrated commitment and a good high-level perspective of how things work around here. But there are also many ways to show that outside of the Signpost.

Ragesoss: To add fuel to the fire, I'll add that for most of my tenure as editor-in-chief, I worked closely with the tireless Phoebe Ayers... who ended up with a board seat. And several other people who've written for the Signpost have gone on to work as staff or contractors for the Foundation. Also, I know a number of people who've never worked for the Foundation and also never written for the Signpost. Coincidence?

HaeB: Well, all I can say that preparing for a job at the Foundation was most certainly not among my motivations for taking up the editor position! I value the independence of the Signpost and made it clear upfront during the hiring process that I would need to step down as Signpost editor to avoid a conflict of interest, and the Foundation was perfectly supportive of that; there was no effort whatsoever to "buy" the Signpost.

What is the most important thing you have learned from your Signpost experience? What do you hope readers will take away from each issue of the Signpost?

Ragesoss: I came to appreciate a much wider swath of what goes on throughout Wikipedia and the broader Wikimedia movement. Even as an experienced Wikipedian and admin (and avid Signpost reader), there was a lot I didn't know about before I turned to the project with a journalistic eye.

Ral315: I think the most important thing I learned was that the community is incredibly supportive of our work. I hope that every issue, readers get a feel for the most important news happening around Wikipedia and Wikimedia. I think we've done a great job of that over the years.

HaeB: I think I learned a lot about journalism in general, and acquired certain skills (e.g. regarding the use of Twitter/Identi.ca for news reporting), but it was also a nice way to achieve a more thorough understanding of Wikipedia and the whole Wikimedia movement. I hope that each week each reader gains a bit of that as well, and that it helps them in their work on Wikipedia.

Michael Snow: For me, the Signpost was an important lesson in what I could contribute to the community and the impact that could have. At the same time, it taught me things about the limitations of how much I personally could take on, but one of the great things about working collaboratively as a community is that the impact we have drives us to keep contributing and we compensate for each other's limitations. I think even in controversy a good news story, like a good Wikipedia article, can help us understand all sides of the picture. So I hope readers will feel like they're staying informed, but also developing an appreciation for the richness of our community.

Anything else you'd like to add?

Ral315: Thank you for doing this, and to the readers: Please consider helping out, too! It's not at all hard, and it's a lot of fun. Help out with a feature, or write your own story on something happening around the community. The more people involved, the better the Signpost can be.

Michael Snow: Likewise, thank you for putting this together. Just like Wikipedia, the Signpost is a collective effort, so it is whatever we make of it. I'm glad that it's still moving steadily forward after all this time.

Ragesoss: I've been incredibly impressed with Signpost since I left. HaeB, Jarry1250, SMasters and Skomorokh, as well as the many other contributors, have done and continue to do a fantastic job.

HaeB: I am glad that others like Jarry1250, SMasters and Skomorokh have stepped in after I left, and kudos to everybody who is currently contributing to the Signpost!

What are the Signpost's most urgent needs? Are there any new features or revived sections you'd like to see in future issues? How can new writers and editors get involved today?

Skomorokh: It's been touched upon above by several of my predecessors, whom I thank sincerely for agreeing to participate in this valuable retrospective of the institution, but I cannot overemphasise the need of the Signpost for interested, curious and dedicated writers. There is little end to the ambition and willingness to see ideas through to execution of the existing tireless and over-extended team of journalists—the single greatest limitation that constrains what the Signpost can achieve is that its ideal volunteer journalists are reading this edition right now rather than asking themselves are they inspired to face the challenge of exploring what really matters to Wikipedia in the newsroom from week to week.

Although I had been a contributor to the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and an ardent Signpost reader for years, it had never even remotely occurred to me that I could or should get involved in the newspaper's production until one of the journalists suggested it to me. A few hours later I had written the bulk of two entire articles and a few weeks after that was one of the managing editors overseeing weekly development and publication. I'm writing this at 7:00 AM having stayed up to edit the paper because there simply aren't enough hours in the day for so few editors to deliver the standard of coverage the community expects and deserves; even a handful of additional contributors can make a highly significant impact.

At a point in the movement's history when the greatest challenges we face – notably strained community-Foundation relations, inertia and paralysis in the face of needed reform, and most of all a contributing environment hostile to outsiders – are cultural, the tone and sustained focus of the debates we have as a movement are critically important, as cultural changes such as the BLP issue and the ongoing debates on controversial content show. In times such as these, the Signpost offers to those who care passionately about our future an unrivalled platform in terms of structure, access and most of all audience to drive the community's understanding of the critical issues at hand.

If you're passionate about Wikipedia, we want you; if you're dedicated to its success, we want you; if you have any skills to offer, from outright reporting to background research, engaging readers in social media to reviewing proposals, to illustration or subediting or copywriting, we want you; if you've ever muttered to yourself or a fellow editor that some concern doesn't get the attention it deserves or some problem is improperly understood, here I offer you your opportunity and challenge: step up to the task of advancing our collective understanding, volunteer to write the Signpost today!

Next week, we'll interview some nutmeggers. Until then, revisit Signpost history in the archive.

Reader comments

2012-04-02

Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

Contribute —

Share this

By Mathew Townsend and Crisco 1492

This edition covers content promoted between 25 March and 31 March 2012

Featured articles

Snake handling service held in Lejunior, Harlan County, Kentucky at the Pentecostal Church of God, 1946 from the new featured article George Went Hensley, who popularized snake handling. Photo by Russell Lee.

Seven featured articles were promoted this week:

George Went Hensley (nom) by Mark Arsten and Astynax. George Went Hensley (c. 1880 – 1955) was an American Pentecostal minister credited with popularizing the practice of snake handling in the Southeastern United States. A native of rural Appalachia, Hensley experienced a religious conversion around 1910: he came to believe that the New Testament commanded all Christians to handle venomous snakes. In 1955, he was bitten by a snake and became violently ill. Refusing to seek medical attention, he died the following day.
Thomas Blamey (nom) by Hawkeye7. Field Marshal Sir Thomas Albert Blamey (1884–1951) was an Australian general and the only Australian to attain the rank of field marshal. He was promoted to general in 1941 and in 1942 to Commander in Chief of the Australian Military Forces and Commander of Allied Land Forces in the South West Pacific Area under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. He signed the instrument of Japan's surrender on behalf of Australia on 2 September 1945. He was promoted to field marshal in June 1950.
John de Gray (nom) by Ealdgyth. John de Gray (died 1214) was a medieval English Bishop of Norwich, and the elected but unconfirmed Archbishop of Canterbury. He was employed in the service of John of England even before John's coronation as king, and was rewarded with a number of ecclesiastical offices. In 1205 King John attempted to further reward de Gray with a translation to the archbishopric of Canterbury, but a disputed election process led to de Gray's selection being quashed by Pope Innocent III in 1206.
Blakeney Chapel (nom) by Jimfbleak. Blakeney Chapel is a ruined building on the Norfolk coast of England. Despite its name, it is in the parish of Cley next the Sea, not in the adjoining village of Blakeney, and was probably not a chapel. The building stood on a raised mound or "eye" on the seaward end of the coastal marshes, less than 200 m (220 yd) from the sea. It consisted of two rectangular rooms of unequal size; it appears intact in a 1586 map, but is shown as ruins in later charts. Only the foundations and part of a wall remain.
William McKinley (nom) by Coemgenus and Wehwalt. William McKinley (1843–1901) was the 25th President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his death by assassination in September 1901. McKinley led the nation to victory in the Spanish-American War, raised protective tariffs to promote American industry, and maintained the nation on the gold standard, rejecting inflationary proposals. His presidency, marked by rapid economic growth, began a period of over a third of a century dominated by the Republican Party.
Roy Dowling (nom) by Ian Rose. Vice Admiral Sir Roy Russell Dowling (1901–1969) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). He served as Chief of Naval Staff, the RAN's highest-ranking position, from 1955 until 1959, and as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, from 1959 until 1961, when he retired from the military. In 1963 he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and became Australian Secretary to HM Queen Elizabeth II, serving until his death in 1969.
Carmen (nom) by Brianboulton. Carmen is an opera in four acts by the French composer Georges Bizet. The libretto was written by Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halévy, based on a novella of the same title by Prosper Mérimée. First performed at the Opéra-Comique in Paris on 3 March 1875, it was not initially successful, but gained its reputation through productions outside France. Not revived in Paris until 1883, thereafter it rapidly acquired wide celebrity.

Featured lists

Five featured lists were promoted this week:

Keri Hilson discography (nom) by Ozurbanmusic. In her eight-year singing career, American R&B singer-songwriter Keri Hilson has released two studio albums, twelve singles as a solo artist, seventeen as a featured artist, and twenty-nine music videos. Her debut album In a Perfect World..., released in 2009, topped the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums and was certified gold; the follow-up No Boys Allowed (2010) was certified platinum. Her highest charting single "Knock You Down", peaked at number 3 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.
CZW Iron Man Championship (nom) by Wrestlinglover. The CZW Iron Man Championship was a professional wrestling championship owned by the Combat Zone Wrestling (CZW) promotion, now inactive. Being a professional wrestling championship, the title was won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline. Established in 1999, the title was held by 24 different different wrestlers in 37 reigns before being retired in 2009.
Nebula Award for Best Novel (nom) by PresN. The Nebula Awards are given each year by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for the best science fiction or fantasy fiction published in the United States during the previous year. The award has been called one of "the most important of the American science fiction awards" and "the science-fiction and fantasy equivalent" of the Emmy Awards. In the 47 nomination years, the works of 159 authors have been nominated; 34 of these have won, including co-authors and ties.
Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent (nom) by HonorTheKing. Since their founding in 1878, the English football club Manchester United have played against 87 teams. The team are undefeated against York City, Long Eaton Rangers, and Wigan Athletic, while they have never won against Accrington. The team's most frequent opponents are Arsenal, against whom they also have their greatest number of wins and losses (77 and 67, respectively). Their most draws (50 in 147 games) have been with arch-rivals Manchester City.
List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall (nom) by Jowaninpensans and Zangar. There are 167 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall (including the Isles of Scilly) in the south-west of England. A site is chosen based on its fauna, flora, geological or physiographical features. Of the 167 sites, 81 have been designated for their biological interest, 54 for their geological interest and 32 for both. The first sites were recognised in 1951, while the most recent was recognised in 2009.

Featured pictures

Fourteen featured pictures were promoted this week:

Coiled ladder snake (nom; related article), created by Benny Trapp, edited by Papa Lima Whiskey 2, and nominated by Tomer T (pictured above). Ladder snakes, members of the Colubridae family, can measure up to 160 centimetres (63 in) long and eat mice, eggs, and insects. This specimen was shot in Portugal.
The Dog (nom; related article), created by Francisco de Goya and nominated by Crisco 1492. This untitled work by Spanish artist Fransisco Goya, often referred to as The Dog, is one of fourteen works Goya painted on the walls of his house between 1819 and 1823. The work, which measures 131.5 cm × 79.3 cm (51¾ in × 31¼ in) and depicts a small dog's head in vast emptiness, was described by reviewer Aaadddaaammm as the "most beautiful painting in the world".
The Princess from the Land of Porcelain (nom; related article), created by James Abbott McNeill Whistler, brightened by Papa Lima Whiskey 2, and nominated by Crisco 1492. Whistler's Princess, painted between 1863 and 1865, depicts an Anglo-Greek model in a kimono in front of a Japanese-style folding screen. It is a part of the Peacock Room at the Freer Gallery of Art.
Gippsland Water Dragon in Mitchell River National Park (nom; related article), by Jjron. This new featured picture depicts a Gippsland Water Dragon (Physignathus lesueurii howittii) in Mitchell River National Park, Gippsland, Victoria, Australia. The Gippsland Water Dragon, which can grow to over 3 feet (36 in) in length, is a subspecies of the Australian water dragon.
Rokeby Venus (nom; related article), created by Diego Velázquez and nominated by Crisco 1492. The Rokeby Venus, probably painted by Velázquez during a trip to Italy between 1647 and 1651, depicts the Roman goddess of love Venus looking at her reflection in a mirror held by her son Cupid. The painting is the only surviving nude by the artist.
Western Terrestrial Garter Snake (nom; related article), created by Steve Jurvetson and nominated with modifications by Papa Lima Whiskey 2. The Western Terrestrial Garter Snake is an ovoviviparous snake native to southwestern Canada and the western United States. The animals live in coniferous forests and can measure 46–104 cm (18–41 inches).
El pintor Francisco de Goya (nom; related article), created by Vicente López y Portaña and nominated by Crisco 1492. This portrait of Francisco Goya (1746–1828), a painter who spent several years as court painter for the Spanish crown, measures 95.5 × 80.5 cm (37.6 × 31.7 in) and is held in the Museo Del Prado in Spain. It depicts Goya holding a palette and was painted when the subject was 80 years old.
1899 Michigan Wolverines football team (nom; related article), created by Fred Rentschler and nominated by Tomer T. The new featured picture depicts the 1899 season lineup of the Michigan Wolverines, the college football team for the University of Michigan. Consisting of 20 players, the team started their season with six shutouts, but went 50–50 in their last four games.
The Third of May 1808 (nom; related article), created by Francisco Goya, edited by Papa Lima Whiskey 2, and nominated by Crisco 1492. The Third of May 1808, an 1814 oil on canvas work which measures 268 × 347 cm (106 × 137 in), commemorates Spanish resistance to Napoleon's armies during the occupation of 1808. Acknowledged as one of the first paintings of the modern era, the painting has inspired works by Édouard Manet and Pablo Picasso.
Mating Common Lime Butterflies (nom; related article), created by Jkadavoor and nominated by Crisco 1492. The new featured picture, taken in Kadavoor, India, depicts a male and female Common Lime in intercourse. The Common Lime's lifespan is generally around two months, and an average of eight generations occur yearly.
Church of St John the Baptise, Harescombe (nom; related article), created by Saffron Blaze and nominated by Jjron. Harescombe Church, a grade 2* listed building also known as Church of St John the Baptist, was built in the thirteenth century and consecrated in 1315; iron crosses were added in the 1800s.
Nintendo GameCube (nom; related article), created by Evan-Amos and nominated by Crisco 1492. The GameCube, a video game console by Nintendo, was the first Nintendo console to use optical discs. The newly featured image is of an indigo system; black, platinum, and orange systems were commonly available as well.
Wheelchair basketball – LE Roma vs Toulouse (nom; related article), created by PierreSelim and nominated by Crisco 1492. Wheelchair basketball, one of the major disabled sports, is played by both disabled and able-bodied persons while in wheelchairs. The new featured picture comes from the first pool tour of the 2012 Euroleague of wheelchair basketball.
Khalsa Heritage Memorial Complex (nom; related article), by Sanyam Bahga. The new featured picture depicts the Virasat-e-Khalsa, formerly known as the Khalsa Heritage Memorial Complex, a museum in Anandpur Sahib, India. The museum, which opened in 2011, details the events leading to the birth of Sikhism.

Featured topics

One featured topic was promoted this week:

Grand Prix motorcycle racing World champions (nom), with six featured lists. The topic covers all champions of the motorcycle Grand Prix, the premier championship of motorcycle road racing, from all classes, from the organisation's establishment to the present.

Reader comments

2012-04-02

Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

Contribute —

Share this

By Lord Roem

The Arbitration Committee neither opened nor closed any cases this week, leaving one review open.

Open cases

Race and intelligence review (Week 3)

A review was opened of the Race and intelligence case as a compromise between opening a new case and ruling by motion. The review is intended to be a simplified form of a full case and will cover conduct issues that have purportedly arisen since the closure of the 2010 arbitration case. Over the last week, several editors submitted specific evidence at the request of the committee. The posting of the proposed decision is expected on 2 April.

Other requests and committee action

Seven requests for clarification and three requests for amendment are being actively discussed.

Reader comments

2012-04-02

Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

Contribute —

Share this

By Jarry1250 and Skomorokh

Questions about Gerrit dominate developer discussions

The change in the core version control system from Subversion to Git, insofar as it can be separated from the change in code review systems, seems to have settled in well after last week's switchover (Signpost coverage). By contrast, the new code review tool Gerrit continues to prove controversial, spawning dozens of threads on developer mailing lists.

The issues raised (many of which seem, at least on the surface, to be fairly minor) are both too numerous and in many cases too technical to be adequately summarised in a couple of lines; nevertheless, in doubtlessly a positive sign, developers seem to be treating the vast majority of the problems encountered (such as an awkward system for responding to comments and the overly personal nature of the autogenerated taglines that accompany certain types of review) simply as issues – bugs needing to be fixed – rather than internalising them as complaints with the fundamentals of the new code review process. Indeed, work on a number of these issues has started already; others will however require changes to Gerrit itself. On the whole, developers seem to be hopeful that all their issues with the new code review process can be resolved, given enough time. Nevertheless, a handful of the the issues raised do seem to have real sticking power, including concerns that Gerrit's code review paradigm may be fundamentally ill-suited to the review of large or complex changes (wikitech-l mailing list), too difficult for new contributors to come to grips with, or overly conducive to the kind of endless bar-raising that would see the gap between old and new contributors continue to widen.

Though the current trend suggests that issues will continue to be either resolved or ameliorated over the coming weeks, a potential future fly in the ointment is a planned audit of Gerrit's performance in three months' time. Such an audit, a pre-switchover concession to those who initially disliked Gerrit, has the potential to lead to the code review system to being abandoned in favour of a competitor system such as Phabricator. Needless to say, should grievances with Gerrit be unresolved by then – with or without great appetite for a second difficult migration – the audit could be a difficult one to manage.

Chennai hackathon

Write-ups of the Chennai Hackathon (held in the Indian city on March 17) began to be posted online this week, giving an insight into the success of a hackathon with a deliberately broad remit. Overall, thirteen projects were demonstrated at the end of the day, including a "text-a-quote" service, a hand-held device-based pronunciation recorder and work on an instant image rotate function accessible from file description pages (wikitech-l mailing list). The quality that WMF localisation team member Gerard Meijssen perceived in many of the projects prompted him to comment how they "deserve attention [from the wide] public—they represent missing functionality or they have a different approach to something we are struggling with. They are all by people who have a keen interest in the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation and as such they represent our 'latest generation'".

In total, the hackathon (one of an increasing number of tech-focused Wikimedia meetups being scheduled across the globe) attracted some 21 programmers, overwhelmingly but not exclusively male. In writing up the event, WMF developer and attendee Yuvi Panda described why he thought coders at the "super awesome and super productive" event were able to get so much done in a single eight-hour day:

“

The event started with us sailing past security reasonably easily, and getting setup with internet without a glitch... Since this was a pure hackathon, there were no explicit tutorials or presentations. As people came in, we asked them what technologies/fields they are familiar with, and picked out an idea for them to work on from the Ideas List. This took care of the biggest problem with hackathons with new people—half the day spent on figuring out what to work on, and when found, it is completely outside the domain of expertise of the people hacking on the idea. Talking together with them fast to pick an idea within 5 minutes that they can complete in the day fixed this problem and made sure people can concentrate on coding for the rest of the day.

”

In brief

Signpost poll

Git Switchover

Vote now on next week's poll: If you were responsible for selecting Google Summer of Code proposals to go forward with, what would be your top priority?

Not all fixes may have gone live to WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.

Google Summer of Code proposal deadline approaches: Time is running short for students wishing to vie for one of the small number of Google Summer of Code (GSoC) places available at the Wikimedia Foundation this summer. Students, of which eight were accepted last year, have until Friday to make proposals for development projects that they would like to work on over the summer months in return for a stipend provided by Google and worth up to US$5000. This year's WMF-GSoC coordinator, Sumana Harihareswara, described the selection criteria that would be used to whittle down the 20 or more applicants (of which your author is one) as "quantity over quality... [and] promising continuing contributors... [over] specifics of their proposals" (MediaWiki.org). Those only just realising that the programme might be for them are advised to make contact immediately; the list of accepted proposals will be made public by April 23.
Wikidata scheme launched: The Wikimedia movement's first new project in six years was launched this week by Wikimedia Deutschland with funding from prominent donors. Wikidata, a machine-readable central repository of data accessible to all, is the culmination of years of discussions and plans on how best to co-ordinate updated statistical information and metadata across multiple Wikimedia projects. To learn more on this "Commons for data", see this week's "News and notes" report.
Performance problems: Performance issues for certain users (beginning on March 21) were traced this week to a network connection problem at EQIAD, Wikimedia's Virginia-based datacentre (wikitech-l mailing list), allowing them to be resolved with immediate effect on March 24. This did not stop separate problems developing on March 29, however, which had to be resolved by power cycling a deficient server (also wikitech-l). In unrelated news, search functionality was broken for some time on March 31; the problem has since been traced to a single host issuing dozens of search queries simultaneously. It is not known whether they did so deliberately or accidentally.
Toolserver lag to end soon... possibly...: Over the last week, Toolserver lag problems have continued to prove problematic for visitors. Toolserver admin DaB has however disclosed on VPT that the slower-than-expected restore of the database is hoped to conclude sometime on April 3. The Toolserver is normally able to catch up at about 2–3 times the rate of generation, so for each day the backup is old, catch-up will take eight to twelve hours. Based on these estimates, once the database restore completes, it will be less than a week before the lag is resolved and normal toolservice returns.
Berlin hackathon registration now open: Registration is now open for the fourth annual Berlin hackathon, being held in the German capital on June 1–3 (wikitech-l mailing list). Over 100 guests are expected for the "premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community", drawn from the "user scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data [and] template" communities. The hackathon last year brought together some 96 attendees from four continents; no closing date for registrations has yet been announced.
Non-WMF-deployed extensions to begin migration to Git: The first non-WMF-deployed extensions sitting in the WMF Subversion repository will be migrated to Git on April 6 (MediaWiki.org), the permission of their principle maintainer(s) notwithstanding. Extension maintainers will then be able to choose between pre- and post-review models for their extensions, and be given control over who is allowed to review code submitted to it. In the case of over 500 extensions, it is yet to be decided whether or not they will follow in the footsteps of their WMF-deployed counterparts, who were migrated on Git day itself; eventually, some will be converted, others will "move out" and continue to use Subversion, while other (mostly abandoned) extensions will be left in the WMF Subversion repository, frozen in read-only mode.
Five bots approved: 5 BRfAs were recently approved:
1. SD5bot's 2nd BRfA, replacing {{ndash}} with {{spaced ndash}}
2. PALZ9000, updating orbital data on space stations and other satellites
3. Thehelpfulbot's 12th BRfA, tagging templates that are up for discussion at TfD when requested, such as for this task on Bot requests
4. MadmanBot's 14th BRfA, changes host of (dead) external links to www.zerozerofootball.com to www.footballzz.co.uk. Replaces links to http://www.zerozerofootball.com/jogador.php with {{Zerozero profile}} to accommodate any future changes in domain name
5. Helpful Pixie Bot's 49th BRfA, links "Expand language" tags to their correctly interwikied counterpart

At the time of this writing, 14 BRfAs are active. As always, community input is encouraged.

Reader comments

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

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About