Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-12-30
WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee
In an unprecedented move that has sent shockwaves across the movement, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees voted 8–2 to remove James Heilman (Doc James) from the board effective immediately, citing "serious consideration", but no specific evidence. The resolution was published on the Foundation's wiki, and Heilman was removed from the list of trustees within hours. Fellow community-elected representative Dariusz Jemielniak was the only board member other than Heilman to oppose the motion; notably, the third community-elected trustee, Denny Vrandečić, supported the removal of his colleague. The standard appointment resolution for community-elected trustees includes a clear reference to the possibility of dismissal – in the case of Heilman, his term was "for a term of two years beginning on July 15, 2015, and continuing until September 1, 2017 or until the Board appoints a replacement for that seat, whichever comes first."
The announcement was made on the Wikimedia-l mailing list by chair Patricio Lorente, who said that the board is exploring its options to fill the vacant seat. For his part, Heilman also declined to specify any details about his dismissal, either publicly to the mailing list or in response to Signpost inquiries. Heilman was elected to the board in 2015 for a two-year term.
According to the Board's bylaws, any member may be removed by a majority vote of the trustees at any time, with or without cause. In this case, no explanation has been offered by either the Board or by the WMF’s chief communications officer Katherine Maher, who shared with the Signpost only that to her knowledge this is the first time that the Board has removed a member, while not answering our question as to whether the removal was related to unauthorized disclosure of information.
It is now clear that Heilman had come under pressure from his fellow trustees for some time. He wrote on Jimmy Wales' talkpage:
| “ | Yes I was given the option of resigning over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I see such a move as letting down those who elected me to do a difficult job. | ” |
Although the Board has promised a statement detailing the reasons for the Heilman dismissal, as of publication none has been released, and the Board is under no legal obligation to provide those reasons. The Signpost understands that Lorente has been negotiating a joint statement with Heilman, but that a result is not imminent.
Jimmy Wales, who holds the founder seat on the Board and supported the motion to remove Heilman, responded to an inquiry on his talk page:
| “ | I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV explanation. Why didn't that happen? Because James chose to post about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even begun to discuss what an announcement should say. WMF legal has asked the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what can be said – this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues. Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For now, please be patient. Accuracy is critically important here, and to have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more likely to give rise to confusions. | ” |
In response to allegations that he was blaming Heilman, Wales replied:
| “ | In what way did I do that? I did not. I merely gave you a very clear, transparent, honest and NPOV explanation of why this was announced in this fashion. We were having a meeting about it, and hadn't begun to discuss how to give the full explanation to the community in fairness to everyone, and James decided to simply announce it without explaining anything. That's just what happened, it's a fact. If you take it as "blaming" him in some way, you are reaching beyond what I said ... He's the one who went public without warning in the middle of the meeting. | ” |
It remains unclear what prompted the meeting, which appears to have been specially called, and whether Heilman had any foreknowledge of the proceedings. Former WMF trustee Phoebe Ayers told the Signpost that the chair, vice chair, or any two trustees can call a meeting pursuant to guidelines on timing and notification in the bylaws, and that votes that are not going to be unanimous are conducted either in person or on the phone for a formal voice vote.
Shortly after the announcement, we spoke by video link with Heilman, who was in a Japanese ski resort, seemingly in good spirits but urgently awaiting a day of downhill skiing after significant overnight snowfalls. He cautioned that he was under an obligation not to speak openly about specifics. Heilman is a known advocate of transparency and openness in Foundation practices. We asked what he sees as his contributions during his short membership of the Board. He replied:
| “ | The most concrete example was my advocacy for the removal of superprotect – collaborating with fellow Wikimedians on that issue has been one of my successes. ... And when I started my position, I found that communication between the staff, the executive, and the Board were not as good as I expected, and the level of secrecy was greater than I expected. I have definitely tried to improve that. ... I believe my actions were always in the best interests of the movement, even though not always perfectly performed. My impression is that it takes all new trustees a while to learn the ways of a board of a large organization. | ” |
Should certain things remain confidential? "Yes, there are definitely certain aspects that need to be kept confidential, but this should not extend to the overarching strategy at the WMF. In a movement like ours these discussions need to be public." Does he think voters were attracted by his achievements in medical content on WMF sites? "Yes, but more than that, I believe I have a good understanding of large parts of the movement; I share its values; and I'm outspoken. I think many voters probably expected that I'd say and do what I've done."
Reaction
There was immediate reaction to the announcement on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, on Wikipedia, and in third-party forums, including the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group.
Pete Forsyth, who was briefly a candidate for the WMF Board in 2015 before withdrawing and ultimately endorsing each of the three community-elected representatives, expressed grave concern at the Board’s decision. He wrote on the mailing list: "With this action, eight Trustees with little accountability overruled several hundred volunteers and another Trustee who literally earned the most support votes of any Trustee in the organization's history."
He went on to tell the Signpost:
| “ | There are a great many unanswered questions in this situation; those of us who care about the Wikimedia Foundation should be open to reassessing how effectively every member of the board, up until and including yesterday's vote, has upheld that duty ... There is no small irony in this incident happening [close to] the expiration of the five year strategic plan developed in 2010, at a cost of about 5 to 10% of the organization's budget at that time, with the input of 1,000 stakeholders. ... In my view, Trustees elected by the community do indeed have a duty to maintain lines of communication, and to inform the community of important events. That duty is secondary to their duty to the organization, but it is still of vital importance. | ” |
This raises an issue that commonly leads to tension where the boards of corporations, non-profits, and public entities include elected stakeholder seats. It is typical for board members to be required to sign a pledge of personal commitment, and this is the case for all WMF trustees. That can leave elected representatives of stakeholder groups who elected them in a difficult position: should they consult with their constituents when there's a risk it might be seen as breaching confidentiality? (Editor's note: the original version of this story stated that board members were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement.)
Several commenters on Facebook were more outspoken, including statements such as: "I am very unhappy with the board's weak statement and the fact that this was opposed by ⅔ of the elected members of the board. It sounds like this was a purging of community voices that disagreed with the majority or in West Coast newspeak 'culture fit'. This is why appointing a majority of the board is a mistake."
Within a day of the Board's action, a page was set up on Meta entitled WMF Transparency Gap, with several WMF accounts among the contributors. The brief page points readers to the talkpage for "developing topics", and links to a WMF Board resolution in 2013 on transparency. The Signpost understands that muted reports of staff discontent within the organization have been circulating, although the matters at issue are unclear. Former trustee Samuel Klein told the Signpost: "A discussion in detail with interested staff would not be a bad idea."
This story has been characterised more by what we do not know than what we do. A fast-moving situation is likely to remain in high profile for some time, with broad and far-reaching ramifications for the movement in terms of organizational process, transparency, and community relations.
Brief notes
- New administrators: The Signpost welcomes the English Wikipedia's newest administrators, BethNaught and 78.26.
Second Arbitration Enforcement case concludes as another case is suspended
For the last Arbitration Report of 2015, we have the Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed. Meanwhile, the Kevin Gorman case has been suspended.
Arbitration Enforcement 2 case closes
On 25 December, Arbitration enforcement 2 concluded. The Committee affirmed that restrictions were made to Eric Corbett during the Interactions at GGTF case and that he has been blocked multiple times for violating those restrictions. The Atlantic article that focused on, in part, the Lightbreather case prompted a discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Corbett participated in that discussion and posted comments "which could be reasonably construed as violating his topic ban". As a result, administrator Kirill Lokshin blocked Corbett for a month. Yngvadottir unblocked Corbett and was desysopped because that action "violated the standard procedure for appeals and modifications of sanctions". The filing party of the case, Black Kite, was found to have "cast aspersions against, and made personal attacks on other users" after Corbett's block, and another named party, Giano, was also found to have "repeatedly cast aspersions against, and made personal attacks on editors and administrators involved in enforcing Eric's restrictions".
The remedies of the case confirm Eric Corbett's sanctions imposed as a result of the GGTF case, "but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours." Black Kite was also admonished for their actions, though Black Kite is currently retired. And for the last remedy:
- In brief
- Kevin Gorman case suspended: The Arbitration Committee voted 7–0 to suspend the Kevin Gorman case. The suspension will be from 22 December 2015 to 2 January 2016.
- Nadirali's topic ban is suspended: A 7-0 motion by the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment was made to have Nadirali's topic ban from "India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed", which was part of their unban conditions, be suspended for one year.
- Rich Farmbrough case amended: A motion by the Committee on 27 December was made to have remedy 2 of Rich Farmbrough's restrictions, which prohibited him from using automation, "not apply in Rich Farmbrough's user space, his user talk space, or any subpage of Wikipedia:Database reports."
- Soap desysopped and banned: On 30 December, for off-wiki harassment, Soap had their admin rights removed and was indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.
- Checkuser and oversight permissions restored: On 30 December, DoRD had their CheckUser and Oversighter statuses re-granted after resigning earlier this year.
The post-Christmas edition
Text may be adapted from the respective articles and lists; see their page histories for attribution.
Featured articles
Five featured articles were promoted:
- Andrew Sledd (nominated by Dirtlawyer1) (1870–1939) was an American theologian, university professor and university president. Sledd first gained national recognition after he wrote a 1902 magazine article advocating better legal and social treatment of African-Americans, and is also prominently remembered for his role in founding the modern University of Florida.
- William Sterling Parsons (nominated by Hawkeye7) (1901–1953) was an American naval officer who worked as an ordnance expert on the Manhattan Project during World War II. He is best known for being the weaponeer on the Enola Gay, the aircraft which dropped the Little Boy atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. To avoid the possibility of a nuclear explosion if the aircraft crashed and burned on takeoff, he decided to arm the bomb in flight. While the aircraft was en route to Hiroshima, Parsons climbed into the cramped and dark bomb bay, and inserted the powder charge and detonator. He was awarded the Silver Star for his part in the mission.
- Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca (nominated by Sasata and Casliber) is a species of fungus in the family Hygrophoropsidaceae. Commonly known as false chanterelle, it was first described by Franz Xaver von Wulfen in 1781. It is found across several continents, growing in woodlands and heathlands, and sometimes on woodchips (used in gardening and landscaping). The fruit bodies are yellow–orange with a funnel-shaped cap up to 8 cm (3+1⁄8 in) across that has a felt-like surface. The thin, often forked gills on the underside of the cap run partway down the length of the otherwise smooth stipe.
- Marilyn Monroe (nominated by TrueHeartSusie3) (1926–1962) was an American actress and model. Famous for playing "dumb blonde" characters, she became one of the most popular sex symbols of the 1950s, emblematic of the era's attitudes towards sexuality. Although she was a top-billed actress for only a decade, her films grossed $200 million by the time of her unexpected death. Monroe's troubled private life received much attention. She struggled with addiction, depression, and anxiety. She had two highly publicized marriages, to baseball player Joe DiMaggio and playwright Arthur Miller, which both ended in divorce.
- The Oppenheimer security hearing (nominated by Figureofnine and Hawkeye7) was a 1954 proceeding by the United States Atomic Energy Commission that explored the background, actions and associations of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the American scientist who had headed the Los Alamos Laboratory during World War II, where he played a key part in the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. The hearing resulted in Oppenheimer's Q clearance being revoked. This marked the end of his formal relationship with the government of the United States, and generated considerable controversy regarding whether the treatment of Oppenheimer was fair, or whether it was an expression of anti-Communist McCarthyism.
Featured lists
Six featured list were promoted:
- Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (nominated by Dudley Miles) is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts across the United Kingdom, which manages over 40 nature reserves covering nearly 810 hectares (2,000 acres) north of London. The Trust's activities include managing nature reserves, advising landowners on how to manage their land for wildlife, commenting on planning applications, advising planning authorities and campaigning to protect wildlife. The Trust also encourages people to be active volunteers helping to maintain nature reserves.
- Tinashe discography (nominated by Azealia911) Tinashe (born 1993) is an American singer, songwriter, dancer, actress and former model. She has released one studio album, four mixtapes, and fourteen singles. Her debut album, Aquarius, was released on October 7, 2014.
- List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga (nominated by GagaNutella, FrB.TG, and IndianBio) Lady Gaga (born 1986) is an American singer and songwriter who has received 194 awards from 435 nominations for her contributions to the music industry. In addition to music awards, Gaga has earned several awards and nominations for her artistic and philanthropic efforts to society, such as a Do Something! Award. In 2015, she became the first woman to receive the Digital Diamond Award from the Recording Industry Association of America, the first artist to win the Songwriters Hall of Fame's Contemporary Icon Award and was named Woman of the Year by Billboard.
- World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional (nominated by PresN) The World Fantasy Awards are a set of awards given each year for the best fantasy fiction published in English during the previous calendar year. The World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional is given to individuals for their non-professional work that are not covered by other World Fantasy Award categories. These have included editors of magazines and novels, publishers, and authors of non-fiction works. It has been awarded annually since 1975, with 47 people and 2 organizations winning the award.
- List of accolades received by Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara (nominated by FrB.TG) Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is a 2011 Indian coming-of-age film directed by Zoya Akhtar, who also co-wrote the film along with Reema Kagti. The film narrates the story of three friends on a bachelor trip and how each of them discover themselves and overcome their problems and insecurities. The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction, screenplay, and the performances of its cast. It has won 33 awards from 66 nominations.
- The 60th Academy Awards (nominated by Birdienest81) ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, took place on 11 April 1988 at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles. During the ceremony, Academy Awards in 22 categories were present honoring films released in 1987. The Last Emperor won nine awards including Best Picture and Best Director for Bernardo Bertolucci.
Featured pictures
-
-
-
-
-
(created and nominated by Charlesjsharp) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,_S%C3%A8te_01.jpg)
_Bali_I.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_2.jpg)
The Force we expected
Not surprisingly, Star Wars: The Force Awakens tops the list, with over five million views, one of the highest weekly view counts we've seen this year. And eleven of the Top 25 entries are Star Wars-related, clearly one of the top pop culture events of the year. (The record of related topics on a single report is 15, which the Super Bowl did in February.) Outside the Star Wars universe, Yoga master B. K. S. Iyengar hit #3 on the strength of a Google Doodle, and MMA fighter Conor McGregor came in #4 after a big win at UFC 194 (#12). And Adele is still going strong, rising back 10 spots this week up to #5 in her ninth consecutive appearance on the chart.
Followers of Wikipedia article statistics should be sure to check out the new Hatnote Top 100, a daily report of the 100 most viewed articles for thirteen different language Wikipedias. This daily report includes mobile data (which stats.grok.se does not), and is updated daily just a few hours after midnight UTC. As an automated report, it does not exclude non-human entries (as this report strives to do), so beware oddities like Java (programming language) which get afflicted by bots. I enjoyed using the Hatnote reports this past week to know in advance that Star Wars: The Force Awakens would top the chart this week. The Hatnote report is derived from Wikimedia's new pageview API, and WMF Labs has already released a Demo Article stats tool that is worth checking out, as it also includes the mobile views which are now a large segment of all Wikipedia views.
For the full top-25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions. For a list of the most edited articles of the week, see here.
For the week of December 13 to 19, 2015, the ten most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the most viewed pages, were:
Rank Article Class Views Image Notes 1 Star Wars: The Force Awakens 
5,164,168 
Over 38 years after the release of Star Wars in 1977, the pop culture domination that the franchise has enjoyed is undeniable, now again reinforced by the debut of the latest film. Many people who saw the first film as teenagers could well be grandparents by now. Though just released, this is already the article's ninth appearance on the Top 25 in 2015. It is hard to think of any other pop culture franchise that has had such a long lasting and pervasive effect as Star Wars. For example, the stories of Sherlock Holmes appeared over a forty year period as well (1887–1927), and have generated a large legacy, but cannot compete with the powers of our mass media age. The Force Awakens has already grossed $517 million worldwide in its opening weekend (as of December 20) – just shy of the worldwide opening record of $524 million set by Jurassic World earlier this year. The U.S. opening of $238 million easily beat the $209 million which Jurassic World racked up. The movie has also received very good reviews, though it should be kept in mind that many reviewers in 2015 probably saw the first film as children, creating a powerful force of nostalgia. 2 Star Wars 
2,643,442 See #1 3 B. K. S. Iyengar
1,165,101 
Iyengar, who died in 2014, was one of the foremost yoga teachers in the world, and is often called "the father of modern yoga." A Google Doodle celebrated what would have been his 97th birthday. 4 Conor McGregor
1,139,804 
Up from #17 last week. On December 12, at UFC 194 (#12), the Irish MMA star became the UFC Featherweight Champion after knocking out José Aldo in 13 seconds, capping a pretty good last few weeks for his country in combat sports. 5 Adele
863,442 
"Hello, it's Adele, if you're wondering, after nine weeks yes I'm still here." And will no doubt stay in the Top 25 for a bit longer. Up from #15 last week, with over double the views of the prior week, primarily propelled by the American TV special Adele Live in New York City which aired on December 14. 6 Dilwale (2015 film) 
841,772 
This Indian film, including Kajol (pictured) among its starring actors, debuted on December 18. Dilwale grossed around ₹150 crore (US$22 million) worldwide in its opening weekend, the third highest of the year for an Indian film. 7 Martin Shkreli
772,581 On December 17, the then-CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals was arrested by the FBI on charges of securities fraud. The 32-year-old Shkreli was already the prime target for dissatisfaction with corporate greed these days. Shkreli received widespread criticism in September when Turing obtained the manufacturing license for an antiparasitic drug and jacked up the price by over five thousand percent. 8 Daisy Ridley
765,459 
The English actress stars in #1 in the role of Rey. 9 Star Wars (film) 
750,021 
See #1. The first movie in the series, released on May 25, 1977 in only about 30 movie theaters. 10 Donald Trump
720,311 
The improbable U.S. Presidential campaign of Mr. Trump continues. Every Republican party debate generates more attention for him, and he stood center stage again at the last debate on December 15. Trump continues to ride the top of national polls of Republicans by a wide margin, though the fact that the actual party nomination system in the United States is a state-by-state contest and not a national one will now become more of a focus. The Iowa caucus to be held on February 1, 2016 will be first, and not easy for a cult-of-personality candidate to win, followed by the New Hampshire primary on February 8 and South Carolina primary on February 20. If Trump actually does well through those first three contests, the reaction within the party and by the press is going to be something incredible to behold.
_cropped.jpg)
- Just missing the WP:TOP25, four of out five are Star Wars-related: #26 Harrison Ford; #27 Joy (film), #28 Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, #29 Darth Vader, and #30 Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.
The top ten Wikipedia stories of 2015
10. Wikidata rising
When Wikidata, the collaborative structured database project, first launched in 2012, it was difficult to summarize with any confidence. I covered it by carefully outlining its stated goals and quoting the speculative news and blog coverage. At the end of 2015, it’s not much easier to describe to a layperson, and many of its goals remain just that, but Wikidata’s growth is undeniable and the passion it inspires in the Wikipedia community is unmistakable. At this year’s Wikimania conference, Wikidata’s presence was felt like never before.
One big reason: Wikidata is unexplored territory in a way that Wikipedia no longer is. The encyclopedia project feels mature at 5 million articles (more about that below), but the database at only 15 million items has a long road ahead of it. For editors who joined the larger Wikimedia movement for the joy of discovery, Wikidata is where it’s at. The project still has some very real challenges, some of which unsurprisingly mirror those of Wikipedia, but it’s possible now to imagine that Wikidata, not Wikipedia, may prove to be the real “sum of all human knowledge”.
9. Exodus from New Montgomery Street
Has Wikipedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), seen a year with more comings and goings from its headquarters on San Francisco’s New Montgomery Street than 2015? It seems unlikely. The organization has seen admired veterans and high-level executives depart under different circumstances, and some touted recruits from Silicon Valley firms arrived to fanfare, only to exit quickly, and without comment. The only reason this exodus of talent isn’t higher on this list is because it’s one of 2015’s least-reported stories.
Approximately 18 months since Lila Tretikov became executive director, the WMF has experienced almost 100% turnover. For some longtime staff, it was probably time to move on anyway. And any incoming leader can be expected to make new hires and rearrange reports to their liking. But the very short tenures of some key hires, and mysterious circumstances surrounding some departures, can’t help but raise questions about whether Tretikov is in command of her personnel—and perhaps even if she’s the leader Wikipedia needs.
8. Community tensions felt in trustee elections
The Wikimedia Board of Trustees is the “ultimate corporate authority” of the Wikimedia Foundation, and its number includes three members elected from the volunteer community. The most recent election, held in May, (see Signpost coverage) was also the first since a major fight between the foundation and community over software implementation (Media Viewer) and platform control (Superprotect) in 2014. Against this backdrop, disagreements over Wikipedia’s next big software initiative, Flow, became increasingly pronounced—and a few months later, the project was shelved.
Perhaps it’s unfair to assume a direct cause-and-effect, but the result seemed to be a “throw the bums out” election. Ousted were Phoebe Ayers (Phoebe), Samuel Klein (Sj), and María Sefidari (Raystorm) (in fairness, none were “bums”, nor particularly responsible for the problem). In are three respected veterans with the good fortune of non-incumbency: James Heilman (Doc James) (see update), Dariusz Jemielniak (Pundit), and Denny Vrandečić (Denny).
Oddly, the two women ousted received the first and third most votes in favor, but Wikimedia accounts for “oppose” votes, and they had too many of those. Today, just two Board members are women, the lowest representation in Wikipedia’s history.
7. “Wikipedia hates women”—or maybe just Lightbreather
Wikipedia’s alarmingly low female participation rate is decidedly not a new problem. The issue first came to attention in the late 2000s, as editor surveys confirmed suspicions that Wikipedia was a total brodown. Today, the gender gap remains a frequent topic of debate, including a much-discussed Cracked article whence this entry takes part of its name.
The other half of the title comes from what’s called the “Lightbreather” case, focusing on a female editor with this username, and her interactions with, among others, a (male) editor named Eric Corbett. A disinterested appraisal of the case would find plenty of fault with both, although there is not one person in the world who possesses the powers of concentration necessary to follow all of the rabbit holes leading from this single case. Notwithstanding the particulars, it became the subject of a provocative, error-ridden, five-times corrected but nevertheless widely read article in The Atlantic, held up as one example of Wikipedia’s “hostility” to women.
The myriad possible explanations for this problem only open doors to more complicated issues. How much of the gender balance can be attributed to Wikipedia’s rules? Its community? Where is the line between heated disagreements and harassment? How much can be explained by how the web influences behavior? How much is this reflective of the tech industry’s gender gap? Will understanding this question help to explain why other marginalized identities, from Latinos to Africans, contribute to Wikipedia in small numbers? The answers to these questions seem within the reach of comprehension, but beyond the grasp of consensus.
6. A clockwork Orangemoody
Another perennial topic on Wikipedia is conflict of interest (COI), usually playing out as someone inside Wikipedia or outside writing a self-serving autobiography, a low-rent marketing firm getting in trouble for editing clients’ pages, or sometimes more favorably, a group of PR firms coming together to try to make a good impression. This year, however, brought us something we never quite imagined: a massive extortion plot inverting the typical model of paid editing: rather than helping paying customers create Wikipedia entries, non-paying “customers” could simply be threatened with unflattering articles.
Orangemoody, as it was named for its “ringleader” account, was called the largest of its kind, but that merely counted the number of involved user accounts (nearly 400). The truth is, there has never been anything quite like it. Previous cases revolved around unscrupulous firms like Wiki-PR and WikiExperts who at least professed to be offering their clients a service. Orangemoody was a shakedown involving pages held for ransom, impersonation of Wikipedia administrators, and no real-world entity to absorb the blame. Orangemoody is so threatening because it suggests that Wikipedia’s open-editing model opens the door not just to unethical, if conceivable shenanigans, but also to transgressions that are much more horrifying.
5. The luck of Grant Shapps
_(cropped).jpg)
Next to Orangemoody, there’s something almost comforting about the familiar narrative of alleged self-interested editing of Wikipedia by Tory MP Grant Shapps and the plot twist that brought his accuser to (relative) ignominy and ruin.
Amid the UK parliamentary elections this spring, a report emerged in the left-leaning Guardian, prompted by an allegation by a Wikimedia UK administrator, that Shapps had used a pseudonymous account to massage his own Wikipedia profile while giving a drubbing to others. It seemed plausible: Shapps had admitted to editing his own biography years ago, and using assumed names in other circumstances, and his side career as an Internet executive aided the narrative.
But the tables soon turned: the right-leaning Telegraph revealed that there was no smoking gun connecting Shapps to the suspicious edits, that the Wikipedia administrator, Richard Symonds (Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry), was in fact a "Lib Dem activist" who had communicated with the Guardian prior to taking action, and Wikipedians soon became concerned that Symonds may have abused his administrative privileges in blocking the suspicious account.
In the end, Symonds lost his adminship, and Shapps exited a succession of positions within the Conservative Party and government.
4. Wikipedia’s big picture trends in flux
An August report from an SEO analysis firm showed that Wikipedia’s search referrals from Google fell by up to 20% since the beginning of the year. Most speculation focused on Google’s ever-advancing practice of answering search queries on the results page, obviating the need to click through to non-Google websites. This has bedeviled companies like Yelp, which compete with Google to serve up reviews while also depending upon it for traffic. For Wikipedia, the situation is more complicated, and perhaps less of an issue. After all, a significant portion of Google’s answers are powered by Wikimedia projects. In fact, beginning in late 2014, Google wound down its own open knowledge database, Freebase, in favor of Wikidata. And Google still recommends more Wikimedia sites than it recommends Google sites.
Also in August, the first hard data emerged to show that the long, slow decline of active (and “very active”) Wikipedia editors had been arrested—and is now trending the other way, if ever so slightly. As close Wikipedia observers know too well, Wikipedia attained its zenith participation rate in 2007, arguably the high point for the project’s activity and excitement overall, after which the lowering tide revealed consternation and even alarm, with nobody knowing where it would end. Well, maybe here? The number of very active editors—with at least 100 edits monthly—Wikipedia’s most valuable contributors, stabilized in 2014 and actually grew in 2015. The decline of administrators, coupled with the difficulty in admitting new ones in recent years, however, remains an issue.
In both cases, more data is surely needed before we can say what it really means.
3. English Wikipedia hits 5 million articles
Admittedly, most of these top stories are unhappy ones, and the one just above is arguably mixed, but this one is unambiguously celebratory: on November 1, Wikipedia’s English language edition—by far its most popular, and synonymous with “Wikipedia” for most readers—notched its 5 millionth article.
Wikipedia has been the largest encyclopedia by any reasonable measure for a long while, so nothing has really changed. And it took seven years for Wikipedia to double in size, so if growth trends continue holding steady for now, we might not have a similar milestone to celebrate until sometime the next decade. Meanwhile, sheer heft is easier to measure than other important characteristics, like accuracy or completeness, so this benchmark will remain Wikipedia’s equivalent of McDonald’s “Billions Served” for the foreseeable future. It may be an arbitrary measurement, but it’s a damned impressive one.
Number 5,000,000 itself: Persoonia terminalis, a rare shrub native to eastern Australia. Oh, and if you haven’t seen the RfC debating which temporary logo Wikipedia should display on the joyous day, I very much recommend taking a look at the near misses. Perhaps it will instill some faith in Wikipedia’s community processes if you agree the best logo won (and you should).
2. It’s about ethics in Gamergate opposition
.jpg)
In late 2014 and into the start of this year, the loosely affiliated right-wing counterpart to the left-ish Anonymous expanded its focus from video game journalists to include the Wikipedia entries where said journalists’ critical takes had accumulated. Organizing on Reddit and other forums, the ‘gaters created numerous throwaway Wikipedia accounts to first try swinging Wikipedia’s coverage of their movement and a few of their top targets around to their liking and, when that failed, they took on Wikipedia editors directly.
Wikipedians fought back hard—too hard, in some cases—and when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee got around to handing out punishments, the only ones with anything to lose were the Wikipedia editors who cared. It also fed into the above-discussed ongoing trouble over Wikipedia’s treatment of gender issues, and was by far the year’s biggest blow-up along such lines, far greater than the argument over how to handle Caitlyn Jenner’s gender transition, which still lay ahead.
It’s hard to say if Gamergate is a 100-year-flood (although on the Internet, the time frame may be more like 100 months) or a sign of things to come. Wikipedia has faced trolls before, but few have been as dedicated or as destructive as the ones beneath the Gamergate bridge. The best defense is a strong base of committed Wikipedians, and perhaps this year shows us they’ll probably still be around to carry the sand bags and shore up the levees.
1. China, Russia, and completing the HTTPS transition
One aspect of Wikipedia’s global prominence that the foundation and movement alike have struggled to fully grasp is the role it can, should, and does play on the international stage. This year, the Wikimedia Foundation joined forces with the ACLU to sue the National Security Agency over its mass surveillance practices, only for the case to be thrown out by a federal court. As important as that fight may be, it is but one jurisdiction of many where Wikipedia has become a proxy for privacy and free speech battles, not to mention authoritarian power grabs.
In 2015, Wikipedia’s multi-year plan to convert all traffic moving through Wikimedia servers to the HTTPS encryption protocol was finally completed. HTTPS was first enabled for WMF sites in 2011, then became the default for logged in users in 2013, and this year was finally made the default for all traffic, including readers without a Wikipedia account. This is a good thing for Internet users who wish to access Wikipedia without their governments knowing about it. But it’s complicated when governments decide to shut off access altogether.
Indeed, the full implementation of HTTPS prevents governments like China from blocking access to specific entries—such as Tiananmen Square protests of 1989—and instead they have to choose between allowing all traffic, or blocking the site entirely. China opted for the latter. To be sure, Wikipedia wasn’t even the biggest collaborative online encyclopedia in the PRC—it wasn’t even the second—and China’s Communist Party seems to be perfectly content promoting its homegrown versions of Google, Facebook and Twitter. In December, Wikipedia’s famous co-founder, Jimmy Wales, traveled to China to participate in an Internet conference, where his comments about the limitations of the state’s ability to control the Internet were intentionally lost in translation, as the Wall Street Journal reports.
A similar issue is ongoing in Russia, where the government’s media authority, Roskomnadzor, has weighed blocking access to the Russian-language Wikipedia based on its entries about illegal drugs, temporarily blocking reader access. In addition, it may also be attempting to co-opt Russian-language editors, presenting further challenges to the independence of the Wikimedia project among Russian language contributors.
It’s unclear what Russia will decide to do, but it seems safe to assume that China will hold the line for the foreseeable future. In both countries, and under still more repressive regimes—like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan—independent websites and even independent political parties and religious movements are allowed to operate only at these governments’ discretion. Why should Wikipedia be any different?
And this seems like a perfectly good place to leave it. More often than not, Wikipedia’s issues reflect issues that animate and plague society and the Internet writ large. Open knowledge and digital discourse create incredible opportunities for research and innovation, but also bestow tremendous power to the platforms and communities that effectively control the gates. The problems on Wikipedia aren’t that different from those on Reddit or Twitter, they just feel more significant given the site’s mandate and perceived authority. To understand Wikipedia’s successes and failures, we have to look to ourselves for the answer.
Wikipedia plagued by a "Basket of Deception"
At Gawker, Ashley Feinberg writes the first in what is hopefully a long-running series called "Wikipedia Watch". The first installment features "The 10 Best Articles Wikipedia Deleted This Week".
For more documentation of the Warren Chaney series of hoaxes (Magic Mansion etc.), see User:Tokyogirl79/Warren_Chaney.
Fraudulent data abounds on Wikipedia articles for southeast Asian football
At Vocativ, Jack Kerr writes "Meet Wikipedia's Soccer Scammers", the latest in a series of articles on various websites he's written about Wikipedia and southeast Asian football. Kerr writes that players from South American countries, primarily Brazil, are obtaining citizenship from East Timor and using that as a way to avoid limits on the number of foreign players in Asian football teams. Kerr notes that information on these players is hard to come by for teams: "In a region where few countries even share the same alphabet, accurate soccer data can be hard to find. Even clubs—which are frequently under-resourced—sometimes have to turn to Wikipedia to find out more about potential signees". Naturally, Wikipedia is an irresistible target for resume inflation, backed up by fraudulent blogs and sockpuppet accounts. Over the years, a number of sockpuppet investigations have resulted in the blocks of numerous accounts. Some of that fake information has made its way into usually reputable sources, such as the Opta Sports database, which was found to contain a fake team logo posted on Wikipedia. (Dec. 25)
In brief
- Fundraising watch: Annalisa Merelli of Quartz writes "You take so much from Wikipedia and it asks for so little in return". (Dec. 28) Nate Swanner of The Next Web declared "I’m donating to Wikipedia this year, and so should you". (Dec. 20)
- Traffic rankings: Search Engine Land reported on the domains that got the most Google visibility in 2015. Wikipedia tops the list with a 5.12% share, but also had the second largest drop of 0.36%. "Wikipedia still dominates by far, even with reports that Wikipedia has taken a dive in the Google search results this year." (Dec. 23)
- Important questions: The New York Observer observes "Someone at Congress Raises Questions About Rudolph’s Existence on Wikipedia". (Dec. 23)
- Cinematic inspiration: Dread Central interviewed David S. Goyer, director of the upcoming horror film The Forest. Goyer said he was inspired after reading the Wikipedia article about the infamous "suicide forest" of Aokigahara. (Dec. 22)
- Data mining: MedCityNews asks "Can data mining improve health information on Wikipedia?" (Dec. 22)
- Historic images: The Press and Journal reports on how Braemar Castle in Scotland is using Wikimedia Commons to disseminate its images and heritage. (Dec. 21)
- Indian ecology: Following government inaction regarding the results of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, The Hindu reports that ecologist Madhav Gadgil is turning to Wikipedia to disseminate the results and potential solutions. (Dec. 21)
It's that time of year again
