Four featured articles were promoted this week.
Four featured lists were promoted this week.
Eleven featured pictures were promoted this week.
One featured topic was promoted this week.
Numerous media outlets are reporting on a November 14 statement on the website of the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library announcing the formation of a Russian "alternative" to Wikipedia, a "regional electronic encyclopedia" dedicated to "Russian regions and the life of the country".
“ | Integration of unique materials on the regions in a single electronic encyclopedia will allow to objectively and accurately present the country and its population, the diversity of the state, the national system of Russia. Posted materials will be constantly updated and renewed, being available to users from any Internet access point. As expected, the regional electronic encyclopedia will be one of the most popular Russian Internet resources. | ” |
Western media outlets including Newsweek and the Washington Post have noted that this comes following efforts by the government of Vladimir Putin, who called the internet a "CIA project" earlier this year, to control online activities under the banner of "online sovereignty". The government gained the ability to block websites without a court order and immediately blocked the pages of several government opponents. Bloggers were required to register with the government. Russia has launched its own search engine, Sputnik, and even its own alternative internet called Cheburashka. It has also tried to have its say on Wikipedia, with numerous encyclopedia edits on topics like the Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 and Russia's conflict with the Ukraine traced to computers belonging to Russian government entities (See previous Signpost coverage). One person compiled a list of nearly 7000 such edits to the Russian Wikipedia.
The Atlantic features a story by particle physicist and science communicator Ben Lillie called "What Wikipedia Taught Me About My Grandfather" (November 18). Lillie's grandfather was Frederic M. Richards (1925–2009), Sterling Professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University. Though a physicist himself, Lillie discovered that he had not known the extent of Richards' work and the importance of it to the field of biophysics. Lillie wrote that he had always scoffed at Richards' disappointment at not being awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, thinking it "an example of how absurd academics' expectations of themselves are", but learned that scientists thought that he could have shared the 1972 Prize with Christian Anfinsen.
Lillie talked with User:Dcrjsr, who brought the article from little more than a paragraph up to Good Article status. Dcrjsr is Jane S. Richardson, Professor of biochemistry at Duke University, former president of the Biophysical Society and a driving force behind WikiProject Biophysics. Richards' article is the only biography of the six articles at GA status within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics. When deciding which biophysics articles to improve, Richardson and her husband, Duke Professor of biochemistry David C. Richardson, told Lillie “There were three people who had really influenced us very strongly. The other two had pretty decent Wikipedia pages, and Fred’s just seemed terrible.”
Lillie wrote "A sense I’ve had my whole life of who my grandfather is can be transformed by the addition of a single fact from a stranger writing on the Internet."
Foreign Policy included Siân Evans (User:Siankevans), Jacqueline Mabey (User:Failedprojects), Michael Mandiberg (User:Theredproject), Richard Knipel (User:Pharos), Dorothy Howard (User:OR drohowa), and Laurel Ptak on its list of "The Leading Global Thinkers of 2014". The list includes 100 "remarkable individuals who smashed the world as we know it" and "showed that a better future demands tearing down foundations and building something entirely new."
The magazine honored the six for their work towards "correcting the Wikipedia gender gap", noting that "as of 2013, only 13 percent of Wikipedia's contributors were female." The group organized the February ArtAndFeminism campaign, which featured thirty one Edit-a-thons in six countries on three continents. About six hundred participants created over a hundred articles and edited over 90 more on articles "related to art, feminism, gender studies, and LGBTQ issues". Another campaign is planned for March 2015.
Gawker profiled User:Seedfeeder, the celebrated and notorious creator of numerous illustrations for Wikipedia articles for sex acts, calling him an "anonymous legend" and "Wikipedia's Greatest Sex Illustrator" (November 12). Gawker also featured a not safe for work gallery of "The Best of Seedfeeder", taken from the 46 of his sexual images in the Wikimedia Commons category Sex drawings by User:Seedfeeder. These images illustrate 36 Wikipedia articles, including pegging, gokkun, deep throating, frot, and tribadism.
Gawker calls Seedfeeder's work "unmistakable" and "striking": vector graphics, empty backgrounds, and a flat and almost clinical style that Seedfeeder said was inspired by "the simple illustrations in airline safety pamphlets". His work was popular with Wikipedia editors from his first upload in July 2008, with editors almost immediately inundating him with requests for images of specific sex acts for articles. He also gained him praise and attention off of Wikipedia, with his work being featured and discussed in B3ta, Cracked, Przegląd, and on Reddit. His work also has plenty of detractors, who have criticized him for what they perceive to be the reinforcement of racial stereotypes and depiction of non-consensual acts, criticism that has prompted alterations to or replacements of the images.
Seedfeeder's identity is unknown, and nothing is known about him outside of what information he's offered on Wikipedia, where he has identified himself as a heterosexual male and a mechanical engineer. After complaining about "the prejudices and concerns of the small-minded" for years, Seedfeeder left Wikipedia in June 2012. His final upload was an image of an Asian woman blowing a kiss he titled Wiki-so-long.png.
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.
This article[1] contributes to the discussion on gender inequalities on Wikipedia. The authors take a novel approach of looking for answers outside the Wikipedia community, thus also tying their research into the analysis of new editors recruitment, motivations, and barriers to contribute. The authors focus their analysis on the role of Internet experiences and skills, and their lack among certain groups. The authors study whether the level of one's skills in digital literacy is related to their chance of becoming a Wikipedia editor, by surveying 547 young adults (aged 21–22) – students at a (presumably American) university, the most used convenience sample in academia. The survey was carried out in 2009, with a follow-up wave in 2012. The students were asked about their socioeconomic and demographic background, as well as about their level of digital literacy skills. The authors report that "the average respondent's confidence in editing Wikipedia is relatively low" but that "about one in eight students had been given an assignment in class at some point either to edit or create a new entry on Wikipedia" – which likely suggests that the (undisclosed by authors) university was one where at least one member of the faculty participated in the Wikipedia:Education Program. The vast majority (99%) of respondents reported having read an entry on Wikipedia, and over a quarter (28%) have had some experience editing it (interestingly, even when controlling for students who were assigned to edit Wikipedia, the former number is still as high as 20%).
Regarding the gender gap issues, women are much less likely to have contributed to Wikipedia than men (21% to 38%), and that becomes even more divergent when controlling for student assignments (13% to 32%). The authors find an indication of gender gap affecting the likelihood of Wikipedia's contributions: students who are white, economically affluent, male and Internet-experienced are more likely to edit than others. The strongest and statistically significant predictor variables, however, are Internet skills and gender, and regression models show that variables such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, time availability, Internet experience, and confidence in editing Wikipedia are not significant. The authors find that the gender becomes more significant as one's digital literacy increases. At a low level of Internet skills, the likelihood of one's contribution to Wikipedia is low, regardless of gender. As one's skills increase, males became much more likely to contribute, but women fall behind. The authors find that women tend to have lower Internet skills than men, which helps explain a part of the Wikipedia gender gap: to contribute to Wikipedia, one needs to have a certain level of digital literacy, and the digital gap is reducing the number of women who have the required level of skills. The authors crucially admit that "why women, on average, report lower level understanding of Internet-related terms remains a puzzle. Although studies with detailed data about actual skills based on performance tests suggest no gender differences in the observed skills, research that looks at self-rated know-how consistently finds gender variation with real consequences for online behavior". This suggests that while men and women have, in reality, similar skills, women are much less confident about them, which in turns makes them much less confident about contributing to (or trying to contribute to) Wikipedia. This, however, is a hypothesis to be confirmed by future research. In the end, the authors do feel confident enough to conclude that "gender and Internet skills likely have a relatively mild interaction with each other, reinforcing the gender gap at the high end of the Internet skills spectrum." In conclusion, this reviewer finds this study to be a highly valuable one, both for the literature on gender gap and online communities, and for the Wikipedia community and WMF efforts to reduce this gap in our environment.
A study published in First Monday[2] analyzed the development of the referencing of 45 articles over nine topic groups related to health and nutrition over a period of five years (2007–2011) (unfortunately, the authors are not very clear on which particular articles were analyzed, and tend to use the concepts of an article and topic group in a rather confusing manner). Authors coded for references (3,029 total), information on editing history, and search ranking in Google, Bing and Yahoo! search engines. The study confirmed that Wikipedia articles are highly ranked by all search engines, with Yahoo! actually being even more "Wikipedia-friendly" than Google. The author shows that (as expected) the articles improve in quality (or at least, number and density of references) over time. Crucially, the authors show that the overall percentage of mainstream news media references has decreased, while references to academic publications increased over that time. By the end of the study period, only the article on (or topic group of?) trans fat contained more references to news sources than to academic publications. The authors overall support the description of Wikipedia as a source aiming for reliability, though they are hesitant to call it reliable, pointing out that for example 15% of analyzed references were coded as "outside the main reference type categories or... not be clearly determined". The authors conclude, commendably, that "Wikipedia needs to be high on the agenda for health communication researchers and practitioners" and that "communications professionals in the health field need to be much more actively involved in ensuring that the content on Wikipedia is reliable and well-sourced with reliable references".
In a recent preprint titled "User Session Identification Based on Strong Regularities in Inter-activity Time"[3], Halfaker and team from the Wikimedia Foundation's Analytics department and the GroupLens Lab ask whether there is some way we can talk about contributions in terms of "sessions" rather than atomic operations, in all collaborative work online. The researchers would like to answer "yes," and that a "session" can be defined as the operations conducted until "a good rule-of-thumb inactivity threshold of about 1 hour" is reached, regardless if you're editing Wikipedia, viewing Wikipedia, rating movies, searching AOL, or playing League of Legends. You may recall that Halfaker and Geiger came to a similar conclusion about "edit sessions" in a 2013 paper, but now the idea is to cement that fact as a universal heuristic across many domains. Opposition to this idea has been that session length thresholds will always be arbitrary, or that a session deviates from completing a task that might extend beyond someone logging off for a night.
To bolster their argument, the authors use empirical data collected from seven datasets to test the hypothesis. The method employed is to take the log-normal time between user events, and then fit a bimodal distribution to the histogram. Once we have a two-humped histogram, we simply find the point which makes half the data "within" session and the other half "between" session.
AOL search data, Cyclopath route-getting requests, and Wikipedia viewing (from the desktop, mobile and apps) seem to fit bimodally. Together their the threshold is in the range of 29 to 115 minutes, but all would not be far off of an hour, say the authors. Yet when it comes to Wikipedia editing, OpenStreetMap editing, and MovieLens reviewing and searching, a bimodal 1-hour fit is good, but can be further explained by a trimodal model. In the case of the first two activities the third category is the wikibreak, and in the latter it is the ease the site make in rating movies in quick succession.
Even trimodally though, "this strategy for identifying session thresholds is not universally suitable for all user-initiated events". For instance they show League of Legends, which has modal peaks at 5 minutes and one day. As a reviewer this is easy to describe from a player's perspective. If you play 5 games in a row, which takes 5 minutes queueing between games, and then repeat it daily, you get the histogram seen where the 5 minute peak is about 5 times as tall as the day peak. Stack Overflow does not easily fit into their model at all with a threshold of 335 minutes. The authors claim this is from the high quality edits expected at Stack Overflow.
Overall the authors conclude that one hour seems to suffice as a rule of thumb. But does it? The issue is that a goodness of fit with the bimodal models is not presented. This leaves outliers like Stack Overflow either able to be modeled but not compliant with the one hour rule, when they could just potentially not be describable using the proposed heuristic.
A list of other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue – contributions are always welcome for reviewing or summarizing newly published research.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)
It's time for this year's edition of the Report looking at possibly our largest WikiProject: Military history. Since our last interview in June 2013, the project has had no break in its huge quest to document everything in their scope, that is, militaries and conflicts of the past. As usual, its participants were eager to answer the questions posed by The Signpost and update us on how they are doing. So without further ado, here are TomStar81, Adam Cuerden, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7 and Nick-D.
Can you tell us about any events that have happened this year at WikiProject Military history? Have there been any contests, reached milestones or promoted significant featured content in 2014?
Last time the Signpost spoke to this project in June 2013, we were asking about Operation Normandy, an initiative of the project dedicated to the 1944 campaigns. How has this subproject progressed this year, and with the 70th anniversary occurring this June?
Can you explain the role of the "coordinators" of the project? How are they appointed? Do all of them perform their responsibilities, or is the work spread unevenly? If a coordinator is unable to due to time constraints or other reasons, are they able to easily to resign the position? Would you recommend that a similar system of leaders is introduced to other projects – do they bring advantages?
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Is there any significance to the Military history WikiProject's coordinator's insignias? Which members receive which devices? When were the insignias first handed out?
|
The current number of members is approximately 1200, making it one of the largest WikiProjects around. Have you been successful in attracting many new members this year, and how much do new participants tend to contribute to articles relating to this subject after they have joined; do some appear to forget their membership straight away?
How long have you been a member of WikiProject Military history? Do you prefer working on articles related to particular subjects, people, or time periods?
In your opinion, what is the single best achievement of this project?
Anything else you'd like to add?
That's all with this project until, hopefully, next year. In the next issue we'll be talking to some islanders and asking how they get their work done. Before then, feel free to browse the archive for older reports.
Reader comments
Often times in popular culture, a subject will be quite popular among a distinct niche of people or region of the world, but little-known elsewhere -- like a musical artist that is boasted to be "big in Japan". The Traffic Report provides a bevy of examples this week. The article on deceased singer Aaliyah was quite popular as the result of a new cable television movie about her life. The movie drew 3.2 million viewers, which was considered very successful. Though that figure only represents a very small fraction of the world's population, the attention was enough to make the article the second most popular one on Wikipedia this week. Meanwhile, in India, the marriage of the daughter of actor and screenwriter Salim Khan propelled his article to #9. And in the greater Top25, in the gaming world, a trailer video for Eve Online raised that game's profile to #17, and the new first-person shooter game Far Cry 4 debuted at #23. In Britain, the appearance of retired footballer Jimmy Bullard on a reality show brought him new attention and landed spot #19. And, last but not least, American wrestling fans raised their latest spectacle, Survivor Series (2014), to spot #25.
Competing for attention amidst the niche-driven articles was an assortment of topics of broader popularity, including the film Interstellar (#1), which is topping our list for the third straight week, news that imprisoned killer Charles Manson (#3) is getting married, the death of director Mike Nichols (#5), also husband of Diane Sawyer (#14), and the continuing troubles of comedian Bill Cosby (#6).
For the full top 25 list, see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions.
For the week of 16-22 November, 2014, the ten most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most viewed pages, were:
Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Interstellar (film) | 1,409,615 | This movie remains Wikipedia's most popular article for the third straight week. Since opening on 5 November, it has grossed $120.6 million in North America, and almost $450 million worldwide. | ||
2 | Aaliyah | 1,349,666 | Aaliyah: The Princess of R&B, a biopic about the American singer who died in 2001, debuted on the Lifetime cable network this week. It was quite successful, bringing in over 3.2 million viewers. | ||
3 | Charles Manson | 1,308,091 | On 17 November the world learned that this demented killer, who has been in prison for over 40 years, has recently obtained a marriage license to wed a 26-year old who has been visiting him in prison for over nine years, and who runs websites proclaiming Manson's innocence. | ||
4 | Stephen Hawking | 802,353 | The Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, black hole theorist and latter-day science icon got a boost with the release of the biopic, The Theory of Everything, in the United States on 7 November. Up from #16 last week. | ||
5 | Mike Nichols | 788,230 | This highly regarded American film and stage director died of a heart attack in New York City on 19 November. In 1968, Nichols won the Academy Award for Best Director for the film The Graduate, and he had helmed a host of critically acclaimed movies, his last being 2007's Charlie Wilson's War | ||
6 | Bill Cosby | 756,135 | The American comedian probably had one of the worst weeks in his life, as allegations that he had sexually assaulted as many as 16 women in the past were the subject of renewed and more much high-profile attention, causing a planned new sitcom and comedy special to be sidelined. New allegations included those of former supermodel Janice Dickinson, who publicly alleged for the first time that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982. It is difficult for many to square these burgeoning sordid tales of private life with the clean father-figure persona which Cosby represented for so many years. | ||
7 | Thanksgiving | 663,886 | Down almost a million views from last week, but mobile views are up to 19.9% (from about 5% last week), suggesting that legitimate views are starting to overtake the spammer views which has affected the viewcounts of this article and others such as Online shopping which are connected to the biggest shopping season of the year in the United States. | ||
8 | 628,013 | A perennially popular article, as it is the second most popular website in the world, after Google. | |||
9 | Salim Khan | 562,555 | An Indian actor and screenwriter, the nuptials of his adopted daughter Arpita Khan (which link redirects to his article and got over 286,000 views itself) occurred this week, and have drawn much attention in India. | ||
10 | The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 | 536,903 | The third of four planned movies made from The Hunger Games trilogy starring Jennifer Lawrence (left) debuted this week. |