Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-11-13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
13 November 2013

 

2013-11-13

Google Doodlebugs bust the block

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Serendipodous

The numbers this week are beyond anything that has been seen since this report began. The top view count beats the average by an order of magnitude. Usually the appearance of numbers this big on the list is due to spamming, but in this case it seems they are due to honest interest; more specifically, Google Doodles, which for the first time claimed all five top slots. This column has raised numerous times the power of a Google Doodle to shine light on Wikipedia, but the wattage has never been as high as this.

For the full top 25 list, plus exclusions, see WP:TOP25.

For the week of 3 to 9 November, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:

Rank Article Class Views Image Notes
1 Shakuntala Devi Start-class 9,135,919 Since this project began, nothing has generated views like this Indian mental calculator and novelist. Is it spam? Possibly; however, it's important to remember another phenomenon oft mentioned in this column- the influence of Indian viewers, which has often driven articles to the top in the past. That, combined with the fact that Devi died this year, might be enough to explain the magnitude of this view count. But of course we can never be sure.
2 Hermann Rorschach B-Class 4,506,507
In any other week, the inventor of the projective, amorphous blot that bears his name would have claimed the record for the most views since the start of this project. But this is not any other week. Even if you add the additional views for his eponymous test (see below), the numbers don't come close.
3 Raymond Loewy B-class 2,697,107
The industrial designer contributed to Google Doodles' hegemony over the top of the list this week.
4 C. V. Raman C-class 1,207,929
The Indian physicist, Nobel Prize winner and namesake of the light phenomena of Raman scattering and the Raman effect is another who owes his berth to a Google Doodle, though the same bump from Indian viewers probably contributed as well.
5 Rorschach test B-class 828,642
Rorschach's eponymous test concludes the list of Google Doodle-driven trumps this week.
6 Desmond Tutu B-class 724,701
A one-day spike on 5 November with no discernible trail might suggest a bot; however, since it occurred on the same day as the Nobel Peace Prizewinning anti-apartheid activist's delivery of the inaugural Janagraha L.C. Jain Memorial Lecture at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library in New Delhi, it is probably real.
7 Deaths in 2013 List 568,154
The list of deaths in the current year is always quite a popular article.
8 Krrish 3 Start-Class 561,758 Bollywood's homegrown superhero movie franchise opened its latest instalment on 1 November to take advantage of the Diwali holiday, and earned Rs 728 million (US$11 million) in its first three days.
9 Climatic Research Unit email controversy C-class 540,216 This controversy, better known as "Climategate", has crawled back up into the limelight after the initial release of the IPCC's fifth report, although eight committees have already acquitted the scientists in question of any wrongdoing.
10 Richie Incognito B-Class 531,404
This football player's inclusion is likely due to his reported racial abuse of his teammate Jonathan Martin.


Reader comments

2013-11-13

1244 Chinese handscroll leads nine-strong picture contingent

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Cdtew, Hahc21, Planet Herald and The ed17
This photo of Solovetsky Monastery in Russia is now a featured picture
This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 3 November 2013 through 9 November 2013.
A 1797 illustration of Chalciporus piperatus, now the subject of a featured article

Five featured articles were promoted this week.

  • Maurice Leyland (nom) by Sarastro1. This English cricketer competed in the sport between 1920 and 1946, and played 41 Test matches between 1928 and 1938. Leyland scored over 1000 runs in 17 consecutive seasons while representing Yorkshire. The article notes that although the subject was not among the best batsmen, he "had a reputation for batting well under pressure". One obituary for Leyland stated that "no more courageous or determined cricketer ever buckled on pads for England."
  • Operation Crossroads (nom) by Hawkeye7 and HowardMorland. A series of United States nuclear tests conducted at Bikini Atoll, Operation Crossroads included the first detonation of nuclear devices since the bombing of Nagasaki in August 1945. The Crossroads tests, which took aim at 95 target ships, were the first tests to be observed by an invited press corps. The second test conducted, code named Baker, was an underwater detonation, which led to what the longest-serving chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission called "the world's first nuclear disaster."
  • Samuel Merrill Woodbridge (nom) by ColonelHenry. This 19th century Reformed Church in America clergyman and theologian was Dean and President of the Faculty of the New Brunswick Theological Seminary in New Brunswick, New Jersey from 1883 to 1901. Woodbridge taught classes for 44 years in ecclesiastical history and church government, publishing three books on those subjects. He was appointed Dean of the Seminary due in large part to being the eldest professor in the institution.
  • Chalciporus piperatus (nom) by Sasata and Casliber. The peppery bolete is a small pored mushroom found generally in Europe and North America, although it has also been found in Brazil and Tasmania. First described in 1790, the peppery bolete was initially thought to be a member of the genus Boletus, but was later moved to the genus Chalciporus. The mushroom's flavor is very peppery, hence its name, and it is suspected of being parasitic to another mushroom, the fly amanita.
  • 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team (nom) by TonyTheTiger. The Wolverines, a college basketball team associated with the University of Michigan, finished as the National Runner-up at the 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, achieving a 31–8 record in the process. The team's 19–1 start notched the best finish in the school's history. The Wolverines were led by 2013 Player of the Year Trey Burke, and coached by John Beilein, who was in his sixth year as head coach. The team lost to the Louisville Cardinals in the National Championship game, 82–76.

Two featured lists were promoted this week.

  • 68th Academy Awards (nom) by Birdienest81.. The Academy Awards are an annual awards ceremony that honors the best picture in the past calendar year. The 68th incarnation assessed the films of 1995; Braveheart took the most awards, with five.
  • Fractional currency (United States) (nom) by Godot13. This paper money was issued soon after the beginning of the American Civil War, in response to a shortage of coins caused by hoarding. The complete type set is held by the Smithsonian Institution, who allowed the nominator to scan all of the currency used in the article.

One featured topic was promoted this week.

  • God of War franchise (nom). This long-lasting video game series is inspired by Greek mythology and features a Spartan warrior sparring with the various gods and goddesses. The first game came out in 2005, and it continues today with seven installments, a possible film, and a comic book adaptation.
The Nine Dragons scroll, now a featured picture - this one's worth opening up to full-size.
A Shortfin mako shark's jaw
An 1899 U.S. $5 silver certificate

Nine featured pictures were promoted this week.

CN Tower is now a featured picture


Reader comments

2013-11-13

FDC staff raise the benchmarks for activities, impact, planning, and governance

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Tony1
Figure 1: total scores awarded by staff for the round, in descending order.

The supporting staff of the Wikimedia Foundation’s powerful volunteer Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) have released their assessments for the third half-yearly round of funding applications. Staff assessments are a key preparatory stage before the Committee itself sits in San Francisco, which for this round will be from 17 to 22 November. The applications for the newly named annual plan grants were submitted by affiliated entities on 1 October, and comprise a total of more than US$5  million in bids—most of them by returning applicants that had gained one-year funding from the very first FDC round in October 2012.

Two nation-based chapters have joined the bidding for the first time—India and Serbia—as has Amical Wikimedia, the newly affiliated thematic organisation, which focuses on the Catalan language and culture in coastal regions of the western Mediterranean. The Hungarian and Australian chapters did not re-apply, and the French chapter successfully moved into the March round for each year after funding was declined in the initial October round. The Wikimedia Foundation did not make an application in this round.

As the grantmaking process evolves, it is clear that the Foundation's assessment of applicants is becoming more sophisticated. The assessments now include a detailed statement of methodology, a financial summary table, and an overview of each application's strengths, feasibility, risks, and concerns. Summaries of expert opinions and community commentary are presented for each application, although only Wikimedia Germany's application garnered one of the former—by Erik Möller, the WMF's Vice President of Engineering and Product Development. This time, the staff's nearly-final draft assessments were shared with all applicants a day ahead of their release, to provide lead-time for initial responses, which were then taken into consideration for any required factual changes and clarifications.

Summary of focus

In summary, the staff looked "for direct and indirect impact ... on Wikimedia projects; for example, growth in contributors and content donation. ... and board, staff and volunteer leadership that is committed, effective and engaged with these communities and practising movement values of openness and transparency." A frequent concern was that "in this round, only two returning applicants asked for funds within the recommended maximum growth rate in movement resources (annual plan grants/FDC allocations) of 20%, which is itself a significant rate in many contexts. In addition, many organizations are underspending on previous grant allocations ...". Other common concerns were budget and staffing growth, lack of demonstrable impact on WMF sites, and governance.

Numerical scoring

The staff's numerical scoring is based on 13 criteria that score from 1 (low) to 5 (high). The totals for each applicant are shown in Figure 1 in descending order, comparing this year's round (red) with the round 12 months ago (blue). The minimum possible total is 12 (1 for every criterion), and the maximum 65 (5 for every criterion). Last year the average total was 43.2 (standard deviation 6.2), excluding the WMF's ratings; this year's average was broadly the same, at 42.1 (SD 6.6). These criteria are grouped into five thematic areas: impact, ability to execute, funding efficiency, the applicant's construction of measures of success, and benefits to the movement. Figure 2 at the bottom shows the breakdown of these areas for each applicant in this round. They show averages of 9.5 out of a possible 15 for "impact" (last year 10.7), 10.3 out of 15 for "ability to execute" (10.2), 5.5 out of 10 for "funding efficiency" (6.6), 9.4 out of 15 for "measures of success" (8.8), and 7.3 out of 10 for "benefit to movement" (7.1).

Applicant by applicant

Argentina came first, rising slightly from last year to 49 despite concerns about high administration costs and overheads (the planned increase in staffing from 1.5 to 3.5 FTE was specified), too-rapid growth, and difficulty of tracking the impact of some aspects, such as "outreach with printed materials". The chapter's strengths are that it is "well-positioned for impact on a global scale" and has a good profile for regional cooperation. Sweden was equal-second, having risen slightly to 48; while there was praise for its clear metrics, innovations, and good management, the chapter was criticised for high growth relative to underspending, limited global impact, and poor levels of cohesion in its plan, which "lacks focus and detail".

The Netherlands was also equal-second, having dropped from a score of 51 to 48. The chapter has "strong community involvement, steady and effective leadership," an engaged board, good reporting practices, and a "thoughtful planning process that includes pilots, needs assessments, and community surveys", and "has improved in its willingness to reflect and share". The staff highlighted that "WMNL is beginning to think about improving and strengthening its relationship with the Dutch Wikipedia community, including facilitating discussion on the social climate of the Dutch Wikipedia, and measures to welcome new editors". However, the Dutch proposal was "not focused enough on programs that will have strong online impact; more than 50% of its budget is dedicated to administration and travel". There was concern about the small number of active volunteers and the small size of the community compared with the size of the chapter's request.

The Catalan language is spoken in France, Spain and Andorra. It and the culture of the area are the focus of Amical, which has made the first application for FDC funding by one of the new classes of affiliates, thematic organisations.
New players Serbia and Amical did well, on 46 points each. The staff were pleased with Serbia's "innovative small-scale projects that test new ideas" and that "work is volunteer-led, and volunteer and staff commitment is strong". The organisation's record of effective grant execution and reporting played in its favour, as did positive prospects for global impact and regional collaboration. However, there was concern that the plan is not cohesive in terms of strategy or programmatic structure, that non-FDC sources of finance need to be explored, and that the scope of budget and plan may be too ambitious. Amical's strengths were that it is community-driven and -focused, has a good programmatic track-record, and focuses on content and outcomes on the Wikimedia projects. There were warnings that "proposed growth is too rapid in the context of underspending" and that the plan may be "too ambitious". The fact that an independent donor told the FDC that the organisation "is committed, engaged and professional, as well as effective and frugal" was well regarded.

Austria, at sixth, increased its score from 42 to 45, with improved scores for "ability to execute" and "benefits to movement"; but its "impact" rating went down. The chapter was praised for its joint volunteer–staff leadership and "clear focus on a limited number of programs", although there was disappointment that "not all programs have a strong focus on impact on Wikimedia projects", and particular concern that some "funds allocated for travel for volunteers and staff [have] no clear outcomes related to the Wikimedia projects." Overall, "the potential impact of programs is not high enough relative to the cost of this proposal."

Common to the next four applicants was a crash in scores since last year—particularly by the two biggest chapters, Germany and the UK. Germany went from an enviable 53 last year down to 44, falling significantly in ratings of "impact", "ability to execute", and "measures of success". There was praise for its four priority areas, including software development, and the significant potential of its Wikidata program for global impact on Wikimedia projects. However, the proposed 2014 budget of more than US$7.5M "may be unsustainable", and the request for $2.4M from the FDC needed "strong direct impact" on quality and participation in WMF online projects. The chapter's committed and resourceful staff was seen as a positive, although "relationships among board, staff, and community have been challenging". Indeed, staffing was a serious concern in the assessment:


The Swiss chapter's ratings dropped from 42 to 37. The staff reacted positively to "useful and innovative work like Wikipedia in Jail and thematic programs like The Alps" and the support of a diverse language community within and outside the country. But the "proposed funding is too high, especially when the active community is very small [and the] potential impact of these programs on global Wikimedia projects is low or unclear". Some targets, the staff believed, "seem extremely low with respect to the funds requested. For example, 5 new active editors in the Community Support program or 10 participants in Edit Togethers in the Community Support program". The chapter came in for strong criticism about its poor record of reporting and its lack of coordination with other affiliated WMF organisations. There were complaints about "conflict of Interest issues, with community members asking about the relationship between Board and staff members".

Israel scored well last year at 41, but sagged to 36 with reductions in thematic assessments almost across the board. The staff noted "strong commitment of board and volunteers and the onboarding of a new ED", past programmatic successes rather than "institutionalization" (singling out for praise the partnership with the National Library of Israel and a related Wikipedian in Residence program), and improved reporting. Two local donors' positive opinions were mentioned. But there was concern at the proposed growth in budget and staffing ("ill-considered"), the number of activities planned at this stage, and the perennial complaint that "the impact on Wikimedia projects is not proportionate to the resources being requested." In addition, "Wikimedia Israel is increasing its operational costs and proposing a large amount for international travel and events, diluting its strong emphasis on effective programs (including editor recruitment, retention and content donation) [and] has a mixed track record of budgeting effectively and spending consistently."

Wikimedia UK's score plunged from a respectable 43 last year to just 33.5, falling significantly in all thematic areas but "ability to execute". The pluses were success in addressing governance challenges, "not growing its current staff of nine", and that its events appear to be popular and well-attended. But the complaints were many, from the all too typical "potential for impact on Wikimedia projects is too low in proportion to funds requested", to a diffuse and unfocused programmatic strategy and a plan that "lacks clear metrics or a feasible plan to evaluate work". There were complaints of significant underspending. Opportunities for global and further UK impact were suggested, given perceptions that "the impact of the proposed activities on Wikimedia projects is unclear." In particular, "WMUK has not yet been able to effectively set and measure long-term goals around outcomes such as editor retention."


The Indian chapter's first foray into a centralised funding application yielded a score of 30, and while the plan used "good contextual data to highlight opportunities", there was valuable advice for future planning. The staff pointed to success in the education (OER) program and the high potential for "significant global impact on Wikimedia projects", including "high potential for global impact", and said that "an environment with many potential new contributors and readers as well as currently active volunteers could enable programmatic success." There was reference to "past successes in contests (Wiki Loves Monuments work) and content donation (NCERT work)". In several respects the grantmaking assessment showed just how valuable the goal of success on the subcontinent is to the Wikimedia movement. "Language communities in India", for example, "are gaining momentum and have some committed volunteers." However, the staff believe that the requested funding is too high and the plan too ambitious for the context of the chapter at this stage. The focus on conferences and other events "may not yield high impact, [with] too large a portion of the budget for operational costs." There were complaints that financial approval was sought on a number of counts after the fact. Of significant concern was that:


The FDC will make its recommendations to the WMF’s Board of Trustees on 1 December; the Board will make the final decisions on 1 January.

Figure 2: breakdown of each scores in this round.


Reader comments

2013-11-13

Trademark at issue again with the Italian Wikipedia and wikipedia.it

Contribute  —  
Share this
By The ed17

The Italian-language Wikipedia community has overwhelmingly voted to request the Wikimedia Foundation's assistance in recovering wikipedia.it, a website that has been frequently confused with the Italian Wikipedia. While wikipedia.it currently redirects to the Italian Wikipedia, it could be altered immediately by the current domain owner and was formerly an advertisement-laden mirror. With 132 editors in support to just one oppose, the former Wikimedia Italy board member Federico Leva stated that the measure had passed with the largest-ever poll margin on the site.

The public's bewilderment is surprisingly substantial, with Italian-language contributors documenting many instances of the Italian media listing the wrong web address. Even the authorities get confused: according to Leva, when wikipedia.it was a mirror site, the Italian police "seized a page about Roberto Fiore (due to alleged libel) on wikipedia.it rather than it.wikipedia.org ... the actual article was left alone by the police and 'fixed' by the community itself."

One media mistake in January 2009 prompted Italian-language Wikipedia contributors to measure how many people visit wikipedia.it. Their calculation of 43 hits per minute during April 2009, or almost 62,000 per day, measures more than the typical daily hit rate on an English Wikipedia today's featured article. It also comprises a surprisingly high percentage of the Italian Wikipedia's main-page hit rate of 600,000–800,000 per day (in April 2009; the current figures are staggeringly lower—almost universally in the 200,000s—for unknown reasons).

Wikipedia.it purports to be operated by "Associazione Wikipedia Italia", though the site itself is operated by a company named Yepa. This Italian company's Linkedin profile describes itself as a "leading provider of Dedicated and Shared Hosting Solutions" that "offers unsurpassed reliability, redundancy and connectivity to four major internet backbone providers around the world." Yepa appeared to be mirroring Wikipedia while adding advertisements using frames.

Italian-language Wikipedians circumvented this with "sabotage": a Javascript hack that was activated when the Italian Wikipedia was mirrored inside a frame on an outside site, redirecting readers to the actual Wikipedia page. Leva told the Signpost that this "trick" was not countered until a small note was added asking users to use the actual Wikipedia address. "In a matter of days", he said, "the domain owner instituted a redirect himself, overriding ours, [so] we can't do anything to prevent him from showing his company's ads for some seconds to all visitors." The site currently redirects to the Italian Wikipedia after several seconds of seeing "hosted by Yepa" in a top frame, though this could be changed by the domain owner at any time.

The problem stems from the large differences in registering a .org and a .it website. .org was one of the original generic top-level domains. At the time the Italian Wikipedia was started, the suffix would have been granted by VeriSign Global Registry Services, a US company. On the other hand, .it is the country code top-level domain for Italy, and individuals looking to register a website with that suffix must do so with Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, an independent organization formed in 1923 to promote scientific and technological research. It appears that no one registered wikipedia.it in Italy, possibly as a consequence of the ad hoc basis of Wikipedia's operations in its early years. While some attempts were made by Italian-language editors to contact the domain owner in 2004, "official" organizations were either in their infancy or non-existent: the Wikimedia Foundation was not founded until halfway through 2003, and the local chapter followed in 2005.

But with this problem stretching back years—and the unbalanced poll result indicating what Leva called a "state of deep frustration and anger in the community at large"—why ask for the Foundation's assistance only now? The answer lies deep within the Foundation's most recent budget, which allocates US$700,000 for issues related to the Wikimedia trademark (p. 11, footnote iii). The Italian-language contributors hope that a small portion of this will be devoted to the €2–4000 cost of mounting a challenge to domain ownership.

In brief

  • Monthly reports: The Foundation's monthly report has been published on Meta, with highlights also available. In addition, its October engineering report has been placed on Mediawiki, and a simpler summary is available on the same site.
  • Quarterly review: The Foundation's VisualEditor and Parsoid teams have had their third quarterly review. Notes are located on Meta. Quarterly reviews aim to ensure accountability and allow senior Foundation staff to offer specific guidance to their proliferous and diverse initiatives. This review, in particular, was notable for being the first since the English Wikipedia rejected the VisualEditor (VE). Fallout from this was evident in the meeting's notes, with VE project manager James Forrester saying that the English Wikipedia "can't turn VE off and then demand to be the main focus of development ... it's likely our attention will focus on active users, even if we try to keep the wider focus".
  • English Wikipedia
    • Stub contest: A two-week-long stub contest is being organized by Cas Liber. According to the linked page, "the idea is to focus on expanding as many of Wikipedia's stub articles as possible, particularly the most linked or viewed, and see what the community can do at chiselling away at the huge backlog of articles needing expansion to some significant coverage." There will be prizes in the form of Amazon vouchers.
    • Nominations open for Arbcom: Nominations for the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections are open. Candidates must meet several requirements and submit their opening statements by 23:59 UTC on 19 November. Seven candidates are running at the present time, while at least three current arbitrators are retiring.
  • Why all the hate for Wikipedia?: A provocatively titled article in The Kernel examined Wikipedia's strengths along with its limitations, including this amusing quote:
  • GLAM: The October GLAM newsletter has been published on Outreach.
  • South Africans want free access to Wikipedia: As previously covered in the Signpost, a group of South African students have started a Facebook campaign to allow free access on their cellphones. The issue has now been highlighted by a Foundation blog post and a video, seen below.



Reader comments

2013-11-13

The world of soap operas

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Mabeenot
Your source for
WikiProject News
  • WikiProject Good articles will be holding a special backlog drive in December. Several users have pledged to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation for every Good Article nominee reviewed during the backlog drive. You can jump into the action by reviewing Good Articles or pledging to donate a few cents/pence/whatever you can spare for each article reviewed by your fellow Wikipedians.
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.

This week, we followed the intricate storylines of WikiProject Soap Operas. The project started in June 2004 and has grown to include 4 Featured Articles and 103 Good Articles maintained by 47 active members. WikiProject Soap Operas is a child of WikiProject Television and the parent of subprojects covering the programs Coronation Street, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Holby, and Hollyoaks. We interviewed livelikemusic.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Soap Operas? Do you follow a particular soap or telenovela?
I think my motivation to join was just because of my love of soap operas. I watched them growing up, as a third generation watcher of CBS soaps. And then my affection went to those on ABC and NBC soaps. There's just something about that, and seeing the state the articles were in (specially those of American soaps) was devastating to me. And to join a project about promoting those articles and seeing them blossom, and knowing that I had a hand in that? That was motivation, to spread my love and bring the best to articles.
Have you contributed to any of the project's 100+ Good Articles or the Featured material? What are the challenges to improving soap opera articles to Good and Featured status?
I've contributed to some over time, but I have not had a major playing hand in making them good and / or featured material articles. I think the most challenging parts are A The sources. Sources for American soaps can be a bit harder to target. And B is storyline sections! Those can become quite overwhelming, especially when editors and contributors feel that every detail is important. Storyline sections are the one section within an article that is known to become quite over-empowering, and making it too point centric and fan-dictated. I think those two are the things that make it difficult to take an article to that kind of status of recognition.
How plentiful are secondary sources about soap operas? Are there any particularly useful resources that can be used to source soap opera articles?
Secondary sources for soap operas can be plentiful, if you work your resources right. The UK has more resources than the US does, since the American public within the past 10-15 years have lost their focus on soap operas. I think some major sources for soap articles (US) can be the published magazines (Soap Opera Digest, Soaps In Depth) and then some online websites that are highly credited.
WikiProject Soap Operas is the parent of several subprojects, all of which are focused on British soaps. Is there a stronger following for soap operas in the United Kingdom? Are soaps from other countries receiving less coverage on Wikipedia? What can be done to ensure that soaps in other parts of the world are not neglected?
I think it has A LOT to do with marketing, support and funding. US soaps don't have the big budgets and support that they used to have in the 1980s and even 1990s. Plus, US soaps air during the daytime when most women and men work. UK, to my knowledge, airs their soap operas during prime time hours, etc. And I think that draws a bigger attraction. More attention is given by UK networks to their soap operas than American networks are giving to theirs, which has also resulted in the decline and unfortunate cancellation to some soap operas in the past few years. US soaps used to be these really amazingly publicized programs in the '80s because they had the budgets to do some amazing storylines, and within the past decade, those budgets have been cut. And it's unfortunate. I think if US soaps had the same-level of attention that UK ones get, there would be more sub-projects for them.
Does the project ever have to deal with the kind of fancruft that the science fiction projects typically see? What are some of the most common things new editors add to soap opera articles that don't belong in a neutral, general interest encyclopedia?
Always!!!!!! Soap articles can really fall subject to fancruft situations when it comes to editing, especially with editors that haven't come to understand the project, or even the unfortunate IP edit. Whether it be a character's relationship, a rumour about the character and / or its portrayer, even the comings and goings from the series. Most commonly, new editors (and even some IP's) will add senseless, fan-only details to articles. They'll add marriages that were invalid and storyline points that don't necessarily pertain to the character at hand! And a lot fail to source things within the article, and just go by day-to-day editing from storyline plots, which can heavily clutter an article.
Has WikiProject Soap Operas collaborated with any other WikiProjects? Are there any events or competitions that could be held in conjunction with the various television and entertainment WikiProjects?
Like the prior question, I have not noticed any collaborations between other WikiProjects. I know the soap project is kind in conjunction in a way with our parent project, WikiProject Television. That is about the only collaboration that I am fully aware of currently.
What are the most urgent needs for WikiProject Soap Operas? How can a new contributor help today?
I think all new contributors are welcome. I think right now urgent needs are for American soap opera character pages, especially those of past (and unfortunate cancelled serials) that have suffered from no reliable sources, or fancruft storyline additions. The American soap pages have really expanded within the past year, but I'd love to see it happen with not just current soap characters or even new characters on the canvases.
Anything else you'd like to add?
I think this project is really gifted and special. Soap opera, at one point in time, were a landmark and staple in history. They broke boundaries and made new molds. They've always been at the forefront of cutting edge drama and storytelling, and I would love to see it expand into something it hasn't been yet! Soap operas are a really beautiful medium, where its actors, crews and writers are some of the hardest working people in the entertainment business; busting their asses to put together an hour of programming a day is incredible!

Until next week, explore our previous reports in the archive.

Reader comments

2013-11-13

Commas, draft namespace proposal, education updates

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Pine

This is mostly a list of Non-article page requests for comment believed to be active on 15 November 2013 linked from subpages of Wikipedia:RfC, recent watchlist notices and SiteNotices. The latter two are in bold. Items that are new to this report are in italics even if they are not new discussions. If an item can be listed under more than one category it is usually listed once only in this report. Clarifications and corrections are appreciated; please leave them in this article's comment box at the bottom of the page.

Style and naming

Aldus Pius Manutius developed "the modern appearance of the comma". There is a proposed amendment to the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding commas.

Policies and guidelines

WikiProjects and collaborations

Technical issues and templates

Televisions for sale. The television infobox template is under discussion.

Proposals

English Wikipedia notable requests for permissions

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

The entrance to the London Court of International Arbitration. English Wikipedia Arbitration committee nominations are open for the 2013 elections.

Meta

Upcoming online meetings

Wikimedia blog posts


Students in South Africa read a petition for free mobile access to Wikipedia


Reader comments
If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.
Make sure we cover what matters to you – leave a suggestion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2013-11-13&oldid=1183872913"