What is AffCom? The Foundation's volunteer Affiliations Committee, created by the Board of Trustees 10 years ago, advises the Board on the approval of new WMF affiliates—chapters, thematic organisations, and user groups. AffCom's membership is large: currently there are 22 members, comprising 12 voting members, most of them with strong connections to an affiliate, and ten non-voting "advisers". These advisers enable the WMF to monitor and exercise a degree of control over AffCom; they include two board liaisons, three staff liaisons, and three staff observers.
On 19 August, the WMF's Affilliations Committee ("AffCom") announced that the Board of Trustees had established three additional criteria for new applications by user groups to become chapters and thematic organizations ("thorgs"), instructing AffCom to take these criteria into account.
These new criteria reflect the next development in a process set in motion by a 2014 Board resolution, which required that applications to become a chapter or thorg would require at least two years' prior status as a user group. Previously, any group of Wikimedians had been able to apply to move straight to chapter/thorg status. The 2014 decision proved highly controversial at the time, as it changed the rules and effectively put new chapter/thorg applications on hold until February 2016. According to AffCom's schedule, some of the user groups since established have now become eligible to apply. AffCom first discussed the criteria by which such applications would be evaluated at its July meeting.
The new criteria are:
Questions on the Wikimedia-L email list have challenged the announcement on several fronts, ranging from the unclear duration of the “trial period” to the suitability of a two-tiered system in which existing chapters and thorgs will be treated differently from new ones. While AffCom’s chair, Carlos M. Colina, has engaged on the list, the Committee has yet to supply responses to many of the issues raised.
The existing 41 chapters and one thorg need only comply with the pre-existing requirements (items 4–9)); these are less specific, involving general big-picture expectations for mission alignment, geographical focus, legal incorporation, governance, a minimum of 20 active contributors, and "capacity". In effect, the new criteria will create a two-tiered system of standards and accountability, in which there are substantially lower standards for existing chapters and thorgs than for newly recognised chapters and thorgs.
The number of user groups has grown from nine to 64 since the Board’s 2014 decision. User groups are a simpler, less formal, and more flexible form of affiliation. Despite the official position that user groups are "equal players in the Wikimedia movement", they enjoy fewer privileges than chapters and thorgs do. Unlike user groups, chapters and thorgs are eligible for annual operating grants, which can involve significant amounts of donors' money; this may explain the strong attraction by some affiliates to the relatively expensive model followed by some European chapters, which involves paid staff and "bricks and mortar" city offices. Chapters and thorgs have the privilege of nominating two of the 10 WMF trustees, whereas user groups do not.
The announcement prompted an extensive discussion on the Wikimedia-L mailing list, which included the following themes:
Pine, a user group board member, wrote: “the criteria should also apply to existing chapters” and "existing chapters should be evaluated routinely". He suggested that “if any chapter's status is in doubt as a result of the new criteria, then the chapter can be given 6 months to rise to the occasion. If chapters still do not meet the new criteria after that time, it seems to me that they should be re-classified as user groups until they re-apply for chapter status and are accepted by AffCom as meeting the new criteria." The AffCom chair responded to Pine's suggestion of "a common baseline throughout the world" that he found it “divisive, discriminatory, patronizing, to say the least. Every chapter's situation is different, so being absolutely quantitative would be unfair and damaging to the movement".
Nevertheless, several Wikimedians expanded on Pine’s theme:
Delphine Ménard, a non-voting adviser to AffCom, took issue with the proposition that holding existing affiliates to solid expectations would be too harsh:
“ | Experience proves that 'trying to get in touch' [with an apparently dormant chapter] and 'trying to put together a plan' is a very lengthy process, and takes months, if not years. ... You do have to draw the line somewhere though, and at some point get 'harsh' and have hard deadlines. An appeal process would mean having someone at the other end of the line. More often than not, this is not the case. I think it's important that we know to 'terminate', because dormant entities often prevent new people from rekindling motivation and starting anew. | ” |
WMF Trustee Alice Wiegand endorsed Ménard's post, while suggesting that "immediate termination [of a chapter/thorg] is for 'serious and urgent cases' only and that there is a more partnering process for less serious cases."
On the other side were claims that the new criteria were "focusing on how to bring down chapters", and a claim that "The only measure should be trust and an assumption of good faith". A related issue for some was "a huge shortage of support for user groups and smaller chapters."
The Signpost contacted the chair of AffCom, on 29 August, inviting response to a number of questions raised by the announcement. He declined to comment by copy-deadline, citing a need to confer with his AffCom colleagues. Our questions built on those raised on the list: We asked whether evaluation of applications for chapter/thorg status, which were not open to scrutiny in the past, would be handled transparently in the future. We inquired whether the proposed two-tiered system of new and existing chapters constituted an attempt to avoid objections by existing chapters/thorgs. We asked whether AffCom is sufficiently independent from chapters/thorgs to exercise the types of judgment indicated in its charter, in the Protocol for noncompliant Wikimedia movement affiliates, in WMF’s Organisational best practices, and in the new criteria. The Signpost awaits comment from AffCom on these and other issues that we put to the chair. TS
Editorial note: In keeping with the Signpost's COI practice, Rosiestep—a member of both the Signpost’s editorial board and AffCom—was not involved in preparing or writing this story.
PF, EE
Some brief notes were taken from a Wikimedia blog post.
The past few weeks of the Traffic Report have been dominated by the 2016 Summer Olympics. Since the Olympics are one of the world's biggest international events, you might guess that it dominated the most-viewed articles of other language Wikipedias. And you would be right. But the topics of interest around the world show interesting variations. We love the Olympics, but also love our own Olympics and Olympians.
Using the WMF data available through TopViews*, we compiled charts of the 15 most popular Olympic-related articles for the period of August 5–21, the official period of the Olympics, for seven different language Wikipedias: English, Spanish, German, Portuguese (the language of Brazil, the host country), Russian, French, and Japanese. We considered, but declined, to include the Chinese Wikipedia due to its blockage in China greatly affecting its viewership.**
First of all, Michael Phelps really is popular worldwide. His biography was far and away #1 in English, #2 in Russian and Spanish, #3 in Portuguese, #4 in French, and #5 in German. Similarly, Usain Bolt was generally behind Phelps, and solidly the second most popular athlete of the Games. He ranked #3 in English, #4 in Spanish, #5 in Russian, #6 in Portuguese and French, #8 in Japanese, and #11 in German.
But the old saying "big in Japan" did not apply to Phelps, where he placed 12th, the only place where Bolt was about 25% more popular. To be big in Japan, though, you really had to be Japanese—the top seven Olympic-related articles were filled by Japanese medalists, not even interrupted by general articles like 2016 Summer Olympics (#1 on five lists) or the All-time Olympic Games medal table which were usually popular across the board. Japan's list was led by Saori Yoshida, who won wrestling silver, and had 240% the views of Phelps. She was followed by many others, presumably now household names in Japan, including gymnast Kōhei Uchimura (#2) and table tennis whiz Ai Fukuhara (#3).
Though the Japanese Wikipedia is the most extreme case, it is not fair to single it out; the data reveals that every language edition tends to favor its own. French judo practitioner and gold medalist Teddy Riner beat Phelps and Bolt on the French Wikipedia. Elsewhere, local favorites were not far behind Phelps and Bolt. In Spanish, Argentine tennis player Juan Martín del Potro, who won silver, was #5, and Spaniard Rafael Nadal was #9. In German, horizontal bar gold medalist Fabian Hambüchen (#8) was the top local hero. And in English, American gymnasts including Simone Biles (#4) and Aly Raisman (#9), and swimmers Katie Ledecky (#8) and Ryan Lochte (#11), were prominent, though India's P.V. Sindhu, who won silver in badminton, drew an impressive #6 showing on the otherwise American-dominated list. Sindhu and the top Americans, other than Phelps, do not appear on the other charts. And vice-versa: English speakers, for instance, were not focused on the three medals won by Russian gymnast Aliya Mustafina (#6 in Russia); she doesn't appear anywhere on the English (or other) charts.
Everybody wants to know how everyone else is doing; medal table charts were also popular articles, including the All-time Olympic Games medal table and the 2012 table. But people especially want to know how their country is doing. Thus the Spanish Wikipedia saw Mexico at the Olympics at #10, Colombia at the Olympics at #11, and Argentina at the Olympics at #13. Brazil at the Olympics was #5 on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and in their respective domains, Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics was #3, and France at the 2016 Summer Olympics was at #10.
Not popular in English, but rather popular elsewhere, was Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Perhaps because the American women's team floundered, no football-related articles are in the English Top 15, but such articles hit #3 in Germany (who won medals in both men's and women's), #7 in Spanish, #8 in Portuguese, and #14 in Russian. But if your country is good in a sport, like Germany was in football, or France was in the modern pentathlon (women's silver, #5), that's what you're most likely going to watch.
Our data collection showed that the Olympics were very popular everywhere. Other non-Olympic topics do appear in their general charts (remember the charts below are Olympic-only articles), just as we see on the Traffic Report, but to about the same extent. The lone exception may be Russian, where the popularity of other articles such as the film Suicide Squad seemed a bit higher—perhaps a reflection of the disqualification of many Russian athletes.
So, just like the Ancient Olympic Games brought together all of Greece, the modern Olympics does seem to bring us all together. We may celebrate our own victories a bit more, but that is part of a human nature we all share and treasure.
Rank | Views | Article | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 8,541,642 | Michael Phelps | American swimmer |
2 | 5,834,783 | 2016 Summer Olympics | |
3 | 3,972,644 | Usain Bolt | Jamaican sprinter |
4 | 3,047,891 | Simone Biles | American gymnast |
5 | 2,069,683 | Olympic Games | |
6 | 2,046,156 | P.V. Sindhu | Badminton silver for India |
7 | 1,941,000 | Aly Raisman | American gymnast |
8 | 1,833,635 | Katie Ledecky | American swimmer |
9 | 1,833,545 | 2012 Summer Olympics medal table | |
10 | 1,825,836 | List of Olympic Games host cities | |
11 | 1,784,183 | Ryan Lochte | American swimmer |
12 | 1,717,762 | All-time Olympic Games medal table | |
13 | 1,635,559 | 2024 Summer Olympics | |
14 | 1,630,544 | 2020 Summer Olympics | |
15 | 1,524,028 | India at the 2016 Summer Olympics |
Rank | Views | Article | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 433,708 | Jogos Olímpicos de Verão de 2016 | 2016 Summer Olympics |
2 | 423,637 | Lista de medalhas brasileiras nos Jogos Olímpicos | List of Olympic medalists for Brazil, back to 1920. |
3 | 362,416 | Michael Phelps | |
4 | 351,361 | Jogos Olímpicos | Olympic Games |
5 | 315,302 | Brasil nos Jogos Olímpicos | Brazil at the Olympics, they hosted and won 19. |
6 | 277,247 | Usain Bolt | |
7 | 247,965 | Anéis olímpicos | Olympic symbols |
8 | 215,149 | Futebol nos Jogos Olímpicos | Football at the Summer Olympics |
9 | 197,842 | Daiane dos Santos | Brazilian gymnast at 2004–12 Olympics |
10 | 193,547 | Quadro de medalhas dos Jogos Olímpicos | All-time Olympic Games medal table |
11 | 192,958 | Olimpíada | Olympiad |
12 | 186,631 | Marta (futebolista) | Brazilian footballer Marta, Olympic flag carrier |
13 | 186,364 | Seleção Brasileira de Voleibol Masculino | Brazil men's national volleyball team won gold. |
14 | 168,989 | Arthur Mariano | Brazilian gymnast won bronze. |
15 | 154,990 | Jogos Olímpicos de Verão de 2012 | 2012 Summer Olympics |
Rank | Views | Article | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 669,735 | Jeux olympiques d'été de 2016 | 2016 Summer Olympics |
2 | 429,262 | Teddy Riner | French judo gold medalist |
3 | 405,793 | Tableau des médailles des Jeux olympiques d'été de 2012 | 2012 Summer Olympics medal table |
4 | 373,679 | Michael Phelps | |
5 | 328,205 | Pentathlon moderne | Modern pentathlon, France won women's silver. |
6 | 328,032 | Usain Bolt | |
7 | 255,625 | Jeux olympiques | Olympic Games |
8 | 245,390 | Tony Yoka | French boxer, won gold |
9 | 238,487 | Décathlon | Kévin Mayer of France won silver |
10 | 199,487 | France aux Jeux olympiques d'été de 2016 | France at the 2016 Summer Olympics |
11 | 187,973 | Estelle Mossely | French boxer, won gold |
12 | 187,174 | France aux Jeux olympiques | France at the Olympics |
13 | 171,942 | Jeux olympiques d'été de 2020 | 2020 Summer Olympics |
14 | 156,970 | Football aux Jeux olympiques d'été de 2016 | Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics |
15 | 153,247 | Pentathlon | See #5 |
Rank | Views | Article | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 820,546 | 吉田沙保里 | Saori Yoshida won wrestling silver. |
2 | 649,113 | 内村航平 | Kōhei Uchimura won two golds in artistic gymnastics. |
3 | 553,213 | 福原愛 | Ai Fukuhara won table tennis bronze |
4 | 549,533 | ケンブリッジ飛鳥 | Asuka Cambridge, silver in 4×100 relay |
5 | 503,043 | 伊調馨 | Kaori Icho, wrestling gold |
6 | 482,702 | ベイカー茉秋 | Mashu Baker, judo gold |
7 | 442,357 | 水谷隼 | Jun Mizutani, 2 table tennis medals |
8 | 429,937 | ウサイン・ボルト | Usain Bolt |
9 | 384,173 | 松友美佐紀 | Misaki Matsutomo, tennis gold |
10 | 366,963 | 伊藤美誠 | Mima Ito, table tennis bronze |
11 | 344,874 | ロンドンオリンピック (2012年) での国・地域別メダル受賞数一覧 | 2012 Summer Olympics medal table |
12 | 341,853 | マイケル・フェルプス | Michael Phelps |
13 | 328,527 | 近代オリンピックでの国・地域別メダル総獲得数一覧 | All-time Olympic Games medal table |
14 | 306,033 | 石川佳純 | Kasumi Ishikawa, team table tennis bronze |
15 | 291,440 | リオデジャネイロオリンピック | 2016 Summer Olympics |
A forum, “Library Engagement and Wikipedia,” (slides) was held at the "International Federation of Library Associations’ 2016 World Library and Information Congress" in Columbus, Ohio, as reported by American Libraries. Alex Stinson and Jake Orlowitz of the Wikimedia Foundation highlighted initiatives such as #1Lib1Ref, which encourages librarians to verify and add citations to articles.
In the same vein, The Week reported on a new $250,000 grant by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to link library resources to Wikipedia. The project aims to provide better library archive access to editors and to train librarians in Wikipedia editing.
These discussions and initiatives inevitably link back to discussions about Wikipedia's culture and the gender gap. Inside Higher Ed lamented Wikipedia's current culture in the context of greater internet culture, where "highly stylistic lulz-based trolling" infects attempts at reasoned discussion. As has been stated before, a gender gap cannot be bridged where a community is seen as hostile by many female editors. Highlighting a blog post by Andromeda Yelton, who apparently attended the IFLA conference noted above, the article notes that librarians are 80% female and Wikipedians are 90% male, such that many see Wikipedia having an "adversarial, argumentative bent" that is not enjoyable to all.
Yet, the above initiatives evidence Wikipedia receiving more credit as an established institution, and thus becoming the target of more projects from the traditional institutions that curate knowledge. Perhaps Wikipedia got to where it is without as much formal support (and indeed in the face of many detractors), but the old guard eventually incorporating the nouveau riche is human nature. MW
This week, we’re talking about WikiProject Television with CAWylie, creator of many new articles about television shows on Wikipedia, including Hell on Wheels and The Killing. CAWylie joined Wikipedia about five years ago, when “both basic- and premium-cable television were becoming the ‘go-to-venue’ for some mainstream actors.” CAWylie feels that his work on television-related articles grew out of that trend.
WikiProject Television has a prominent place on the English Wikipedia, and as evidenced by an active talk page, it attracts many editors. It was created in 2003 and started to pick up steam by 2004. It has six project-specific guidelines and a further four writing guidelines, and lists ten related WikiProjects, among them "Actors and filmmakers", "Animation", "Anime and manga", "BBC", and "Screenwriters". In writing articles about popular culture, there are several challenges we discussed that relate to finding reliable sources and good references. CAWylie describes how “In this modern age of press releases, some media outlets mainly just print those, or either just copy each other or Wikipedia itself. Most times you have to follow the breadcrumbs to find the original source.” CAWylie also advises new editors to check out Good Articles on topics that are similar to ones they are trying to write. He adds that if the subject of the article is very new, “it is best to wait for the media outlets to pick up on it. Then fully ‘vet’ the subject by checking the the most reputable sites.” One of the biggest problems, which also leads to gaps in coverage on television articles is that editors can be “so excited to be FIRST to create anything that they forget Wiki-standards, or they use the unreliable IMDB as a main source.”
I asked about contributing to commons:Wikimedia Commons, and CAWylie felt that the commons was “like a separate entity from Wikipedia.” However, uploading screenshots of TV show title screens, or intertitles and crucial scenes from shows, is allowable. CAWylie has even seen fan or user-created logos pass on Wikimedia.
CAWylie tends to edit shows in which he’s familiar with the creative team or likes the show itself. He also edits articles he feels may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. Some of his favorite shows are ones that “change viewers’ perceptions. For example, at first Breaking Bad seemed to me like it would glorify the meth business. I was pleasantly surprised and happily proved wrong.”
One of his favorite articles to work on was the biography of Christopher Chapman, which CAWylie started and expanded. CAWylie says that Chapman was a pioneer in the film industry and influenced the way television was later filmed. CAWylie says that “Biographies are usually more fun to do, as research might reveal info not commonly known,” and he felt honored to create Chapman’s biography.
For anyone interested in getting involved with WikiProject TV, the talk page is active and editors can make requests or ask for help over there. Thanks to CAWylie for sharing his work on Wikipedia!
Twelve featured articles were promoted these weeks.
Eight featured lists were promoted these weeks.
Four featured pictures were promoted these weeks.
The Olympics reigned again this week, shifting from swimming to track as the games neared their end. Seven of the Top 10 slots are Olympic-related, as are 15 of the Top 25. But somehow the incomprehensible internet meme Killing of Harambe still creeped into the Top 25 at #25.
In technical news in follow-up from in August, we are happy to report that this report is now using data from a revamped WP:5000 report which uses WMF's newer data feeds, thanks to Chief Traffic Data Guru West.andrew.g (not an official title). All WP:5000 reports have been re-run for 2016 and are available in that page's history. So far we don't expect the changes to have a significant effect on our charts, though it may help us exclude some spider/bot traffic, and may include Wikipedia Zero traffic not captured before. Unfortunately, however, the new WMF data does not keep records of red link hits, so the WP:TOPRED report has been retired.
For the full top-25 lists (and archives back to January 2013), see WP:TOP25. See this section for an explanation of any exclusions. For a list of the most edited articles every week, see WP:MOSTEDITED.
The ten most popular articles for the week of August 14–20, 2016, as determined from the newly revamped WP:5000 report, were:
Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Usain Bolt | 3,103,335 | The rhythm of the Summer Olympics went according to prediction. As swimming and Michael Phelps (#3) finished up, track took over, and Bolt took center stage, winning gold in both the 100 m and 200 m, for the third straight time. And he also won his third straight gold in the 4 × 100 m relay. Being regularly called the "greatest sprinter of all time" is not hyperbole at this point. An impressive 3.1 million views lead the chart, though well shy of the astounding 5.4 million views Phelps got last week. | ||
2 | 2016 Summer Olympics | 2,125,265 | Holding steady at #2 for a second week, a drop of about 150,000 views. | ||
3 | Michael Phelps | 1,946,890 | Down from #1 last week. | ||
4 | P. V. Sindhu | 1,858,843 | Last week we noted that although India at the 2016 Summer Olympics was at #23 (#16 this week), the country had won no medals yet. Sindu became the first Indian woman to win an Olympic silver medal, in badminton. (And to tell you how lame American television coverage is, I had no idea badminton was a sport in the Olympics.) Sindhu was one of only two medalists from India, the second being a bronze won in women's wrestling by Sakshi Malik. Of course India's lack of medal haul regularly produces articles asking why. They are just SPORTS, people. Let's celebrate those who compete and shine. | ||
5 | Suicide Squad (film) | 1,254,079 | DC Comics' ramshackle crew of press-ganged supervillains, forced to do the will of a shadowy organization or let their heads explode, are the stars of one of the most anticipated films in the nascent DC Cinematic Universe, which was released on August 5 to generally negative reviews. Nonetheless, it grossed $267 worldwide in its opening weekend. | ||
6 | Simone Biles | 935,583 | The 19-year-old Olympic first-timer from America completed her medal haul with four golds (including the team competition) and one bronze. | ||
7 | Stranger Things (TV series) | 920,502 | This Netflix science-fiction series is basically an 8-hour homage to early 80s kid-centric flicks like E.T., The Goonies and Explorers, though aimed mostly at adults. It has been a smash hit for Netflix, evidenced by its continuing appearance on this chart – five straight weeks. The Internet has seized on even the most mundane facets of the show, such as turning minor character "Barb" into a celebrity. | ||
8 | 2012 Summer Olympics medal table | 874,861 | With over 250,000 more views than 2016 Summer Olympics medal table (#18). Everyone likes to do their statistical comparison it seems. | ||
9 | Decathlon | 850,348 | The competition in this traditional Olympic event was won by American Ashton Eaton (#12). Women compete in the seven-event heptathlon. Both events derive from the five-event pentathlon of the Ancient Olympic Games. | ||
10 | Rustom (film) | 780,159 | This Indian crime thriller featuring Akshay Kumar (pictured) was released 12 August 2016. |
Hello again, Reddit. One of the discoveries the Top 25 project has made over the years is that the site Reddit, which bills itself as "the front page of the Internet" because Wikipedia doesn't, has been a major factor in driving traffic here. It has also proven to be a massive justification for every quirky, oddball page that manages to make it through the deletion process, as these are frequently the most popular. In the past I've made impassioned defences of Reddit and its role in aiding Wikipedia, pointing out that our site has done little to draw people's attention to the information it conveys, leaving that job to Reddit and Google Doodles. I still feel that way, at least, for the section of Reddit that nearly always makes it here: TIL, or "Today I Learned". Comments on TIL threads seem to be fairly civil and genuinely inquisitive, but those make up only a tiny fraction of Reddit's user base. But, it is not those threads that best exemplify Reddit; rather it is the river of bile and toxicity that has flowed from the Killing of Harambe that best illustrates what Reddit has become. These days Reddit is mostly famous in the wider media as a den of race hate, misogyny, borderline paedophilia, and every other objectionable but not strictly illegal form of behaviour. The commitment of the site's owners to free speech has meant that many of their topic threads, or subreddits, have become echo chambers of vitriol, as those who disagree are shouted down or chased off. One writer for Time magazine has written Reddit off as unsalvageable. As such, I think Wikipedia would be better off taking on more of the job of spreading word of its content.
The ten most popular articles for the week of August 21 to 27, 2016, as determined from the newly revamped WP:5000 report, were:
Rank | Article | Class | Views | Image | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SummerSlam 2016 | N/A | 1,102,249 | WWE's latest pay-per-view pantomime was held on August 21, 2016 at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York with the headline bout "won" by Brock Lesnar (pictured) | |
2 | 2016 Summer Olympics | 1,019,002 | Numbers are down by half, but the article is still holding at #2. The closing ceremony was held on August 21, the first day recorded by this list, so interest in the Olympics clearly has faded quickly. It will be interesting to see what will happen when the Paralympics get underway. | ||
3 | Stranger Things (TV series) | 933,503 | This Netflix science-fiction series is basically an eight-hour homage to early-80s kid-centric flicks like E.T., The Goonies and Explorers, though aimed mostly at adults. It has been a smash hit for Netflix, evidenced by its continuing appearance on this chart – six straight weeks. The Internet has seized on even the most mundane facets of the show, such as turning minor character "Barb" into a celebrity. Numbers have not shifted particularly since last week, but with the overall low view count it has let it rise four slots. | ||
4 | Suicide Squad (film) | 776,092 | DC Comics' ramshackle crew of press-ganged supervillains, forced to do the will of a shadowy organization or let their heads explode, are the stars of one of the most anticipated films in the nascent DC Cinematic Universe, which was released on August 5 to generally negative reviews. Nonetheless, it grossed $267M worldwide in its opening weekend. | ||
5 | UFC 202 | N/A | 759,740 | The latest Ultimate Fighting Championship was held on August 20 at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas. The headlining bout was a rematch between UFC Featherweight Champion Conor McGregor (pictured) and Nate Diaz, who had defeated McGregor at UFC 196. McGregor won this bout by majority decision. | |
6 | Killing of Harambe | 735,203 | What began as a heartfelt reaction to what some felt was the unnecessary killing of a silverback western lowland gorilla (pictured, though not him specifically) has morphed over the last three months into online trolling and racist abuse, along with the standard targeted misogyny. What the troll army hopes to accomplish is never clear, but whatever it is it doesn't involve helping gorillas. | ||
7 | Blonde (Frank Ocean album) | 722,611 | The long-delayed album from rapper and R&B artist Frank Ocean was released exclusively on Apple Music on August 20 to near-universal acclaim. | ||
8 | Tic Tac | 711,441 | As learned on a Reddit thread this week, Tic Tacs are almost pure sugar, but small enough to be considered sugar-free per serving. Interestingly, the two other Reddit threads linked to this article also noticed the same thing. | ||
9 | Frank Ocean | 697,461 | See #7 | ||
10 | Deaths in 2016 | 617,084 | The views for the annual list of deaths are remarkably consistent on a day to day basis. It was consistently higher in the first half of 2016 owing to a string of highly notable deaths, but things seem to be calming down a bit. |
Also in this Signpost edition, milowent delves into the traffic generated by the Summer Olympics.
New user scripts to customise your Wikipedia experience
Newly approved bot tasks
Proposal for an improved edit conflict page
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
norm
and ccnorm
functions have been updated to make it easier to write abuse filters. This also affects the TitleBlacklist extension. You don't have to transform "I" and "L" to "1", "O" to "0" and "S" to "5" anymore. [4]Tab
in the last cell of a row will take you to the first cell in the next row. Pressing Shift
and Tab
in the first cell of a row will take you to the last cell in the previous row. [7]mw.loader.load('//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Perhelion/problemImages.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
importScript( 'User:Salix alba/Citoid.js' ); // Backlink: User:Salix alba/Citoid.js
importScript( 'User:Filpro/script/IE.js' ); // Backlink: User:Filpro/script/IE.js
importScript( 'User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js' ); // Backlink: User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.
At the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) – one of the prime artificial intelligence conferences, if not the pre-eminent one – Banerjee and Mitra from Pennsylvania State University published the paper "WikiWrite: Generating Wikipedia Articles Automatically".[1]
The system described in the paper looks for red links in Wikipedia and classifies them based on their context. To find section titles, it then looks for similar existing articles. With these titles, the system searches the web for information, and eventually uses content summarization and a paraphrasing algorithm. The researchers uploaded 50 of these automatically created articles to Wikipedia, and found that 47 of them survived. Some were heavily edited after upload, others not so much.
While I was enthusiastic about the results, I was surprised by the suboptimal quality of the articles I reviewed – three that were mentioned in the paper. After a brief discussion with the authors, a wider discussion was initiated on the Wiki-research mailing list. This was followed by an entry on the English Wikipedia administrators' noticeboard (which includes a list of all accounts used for this particular research paper). The discussion led to the removal of most of the remaining articles.
The discussion concerned the ethical implications of the research, and using Wikipedia for such an experiment without the consent of Wikipedia contributors or readers. The first author of the paper was an active member of the discussion; he showed a lack of awareness of these issues, and appeared to learn a lot from the discussion. He promised to take these lessons to the relevant research community – a positive outcome.
In general, this sets an example for engineers and computer-science engineers, who often show a lack of awareness of certain ethical issues in their research. Computer scientists are typically trained to think about bits and complexities, and rarely discuss in depth how their work impacts human lives. Whether it's social networks experimenting with the mood of their users, current discussions of biases in machine-learned models, or the experimental upload of automatically created content in Wikipedia without community approval, computer science has generally not reached the level of awareness of some other sciences for the possible effects of their research on human subjects, at least as far as this reviewer can tell.
Even in Wikipedia, there's no clear-cut, succinct Wikipedia policy I could have pointed the researchers to. The use of sockpuppets was a clear violation of policy, but an incidental component of the research. WP:POINT was a stretch to cover the situation at hand. In the end, what we can suggest to researchers is to check back with the Wikimedia Research list. A lot of people there have experience with designing research plans with the community in mind, and it can help to avoid uncomfortable situations.
See also our 2015 review of a related paper coauthored by the same authors: "Bot detects theatre play scripts on the web and writes Wikipedia articles about them" and other similarly themed papers they have published since then: "WikiKreator: Automatic Authoring of Wikipedia Content"[2], "WikiKreator: Improving Wikipedia Stubs Automatically"[3], "Filling the Gaps: Improving Wikipedia Stubs"[4]. DV
A paper[5] in the journal Ethics and Information Technology examines the "system of surveillance" that the English Wikipedia has built up over the years to deal with vandalism edits. The author, Paul B. de Laat from the University of Groningen, presents an interesting application of a theoretical framework by US law scholar Frederick Schauer that focuses on the concepts of rule enforcement and profiling. While providing justification for the system's efficacy and largely absolving it of some of the objections that are commonly associated with the use of profiling in, for example, law enforcement, de Laat ultimately argues that in its current form, it violates an alleged "social contract" on Wikipedia by not treating anonymous and logged-in edits equally. Although generally well-informed about both the practice and the academic research of vandalism fighting, the paper unfortunately fails to connect to an existing debate about very much the same topic – potential biases of artificial intelligence-based anti-vandalism tools against anonymous edits – that was begun last year[6] by the researchers developing ORES (an edit review tool that was just made available to all English Wikipedia users, see this week's Technology report) and most recently discussed in the August 2016 WMF research showcase.
To answer the first question, the author turns to Schauer's work on rules, in a brief summary that is worth reading for anyone interested in Wikipedia policies and guidelines – although de Laat instead applies the concept to the "procedural rules" implicit in vandalism profiling (such as that anonymous edits are more likely to be worth scrutinizing). First, Schauer "resolutely pushes aside the argument from fairness: decision-making based on rules can only be less just than deciding each case on a particularistic basis ". (For example, a restaurant's "No Dogs Allowed" rule will unfairly exclude some well-behaved dogs, while not prohibiting much more dangerous animals such as snakes.) Instead, the existence of rules have to be justified by other arguments, of which Schauer presents four:
The author cautions that these four arguments have to be reinterpreted when applying them to vandalism profiling, because it consists of "procedural rules" (which edits should be selected for inspection) rather than "substantive rules" (which edits should be reverted as vandalism, which animals should be disallowed from the restaurant). While in the case of substantive rules, their absence would mean having to judge everything on a case-by-case basis, the author asserts that procedural rules arise in a situation where the alternative would be to to not judge at all in many cases: Because "we have no means at our disposal to check and pass judgment on all of them; a selection of a kind has to be made. So it is here that profiling comes in". With that qualification, Schauer's second argument provides justification for "Wikipedian profiling [because it] turns out to be amazingly effective", starting with the autonomous bots that auto-revert with an (aspired) 1:1000 false-positive rate.
De Laat also interprets "the Schauerian argument of reliability/predictability for those affected by the rule" in favor of vandalism profiling. Here, though, he fails to explain the benefits of vandals being able to predict which kind of edits will be subject to scrutiny. This also calls into question his subsequent remark that "it is unfortunate that the anti-vandalism system in use remains opaque to ordinary users". The remaining two of Schauer's four arguments are judged as less pertinent. But overall the paper concludes that it is possibile to justify the existence of vandalism profiling rules as beneficial via Schauer's theoretical framework.
Next, de Laat turns to question 2, on whether vandalism profiling is also morally justified. Here he relies on later work by Schauer, from a 2003 book, "Profiles, Probabilities, and Stereotypes", that studies such matters as profiling by tax officials (selecting which taxpayers have to undergo an audit), airport security (selecting passengers for screening) and by police officers (for example, selecting cars for traffic stops). While profiling of some kind is a necessity for all these officials, the particular characteristics (dimensions) used for profiling can be highly problematic (see Driving While Black). For de Laat's study of Wikipedia profiling, "two types of complications are important: (1) possible ‘overuse’ of dimension(s) (an issue of profile effectiveness) and (2) social sensibilities associated with specific dimension(s) (a social and moral issue)." Overuse can mean relying on stereotypes that have no basis in reality, or over-reliance on some dimensions that, while having a non-spurious correlation with the deviant behavior, are over-emphasized at the expense of other relevant characteristics because they are more visible or salient to the profile. While Schauer considers that it may be justified for "airport officials looking for explosives [to] single out for inspection the luggage of younger Muslim men of Middle Eastern appearance", it would be an over-use if "officials ask all Muslim men and all men of Middle Eastern origin to step out of line to be searched", thus reducing their effectiveness by neglecting other passenger characteristics. This is also an example for the second type of complication profiling, where the selected dimensions are socially sensitive – indeed, for the specific case of luggage screening in the US, "the factors of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and gender have expressly been excluded from profiling" since 1997.
Applying this to the case of Wikipedia's anti-vandalism efforts, de Laat first observes that complication (1) (overuse) is not a concern for fully automated tools like ClueBotNG – obviously their algorithm applies the existing profile directly without a human intervention that could introduce this kind of bias. For Huggle and STiki, however, "I see several possibilities for features to be overused by patrollers, thereby spoiling the optimum efficacy achievable by the profile embedded in those tools." This is because both tools do not just use these features in their automatic pre-selection of edits to be reviewed, but expose at least the fact whether an edit was anonymous to the human patroller in the edit review interface. (The paper examines this in detail for both tools, also observing that Huggle presents more opportunities for this kind of overuse, while STiki is more restricted. However, there seems to have been no attempt to study empirically whether this overuse actually occurs.)
Regarding complication (2), whether some of the features used for vandalism profiling are socially sensitive, de Laat highlights that they include some amount of discrimination by nationality: IP edits geolocated to the US, Canada, and Australia have been found to contain vandalism more frequently and are thus more likely to be singled out for inspection. However, he does not consider this concern "strong enough to warrant banning the country-dimension and correspondingly sacrifice some profiling efficacy", chiefly because there do not appear to be a lot of nationalistic tensions within the English Wikipedia community that could be stirred up by this.
In contrast, de Laat argues that "the targeting of contributors who choose to remain anonymous ... is fraught with danger since anons already constitute a controversial group within the Wikipedian community." Still, he acknowledges the "undisputed fact" that the ratio of vandalism is much higher among anonymous edits. Also, he rejects the concern that they might be more likely to be the victim of false positives:
“ | normally [IP editors] do not experience any harm when their edits are selected and inspected as a result of anon-powered profiling; they will not even notice that they were surveilled since no digital traces remain of the patrolling. ... The only imaginable harm is that patrollers become over focussed on anons and indulge in what I called above 'overinspection' of such edits and wrongly classify them as vandalism ... As a consequence, they might never contribute to Wikipedia again. ... Nevertheless, I estimate this harm to be small. At any rate, the harm involved would seem to be small in comparison with the harassment of racial profiling—let alone that an 'expressive harm hypothesis' applies. | ” |
With this said, de Laat still makes the controversial call "that the anonymous-dimension should be banned from all profiling efforts" – including removing it from the scoring algorithms of Huggle, STiki and ClueBotNG. Instead of concerns about individual harm,
“ | my main argument for the ban is a decidedly moral one. From the very beginning the Wikipedian community has operated on the basis of a 'social contract' that makes no distinction between anons and non-anons – all are citizens of equal stature. ... In sum, the express profiling of anons turns the anonymity dimension from an access condition into a social distinction; the Wikipedian community should refrain from institutionalizing such a line of division. Notice that I argue, in effect, that the Wikipedian community has only two choices: either accept anons as full citizens or not; but there is no morally defensible social contract in between. | ” |
Sadly, while the paper is otherwise rich in citations and details, it completely fails to provide evidence for the existence of this alleged social contract. While it is true that "the ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration" forms part of Wikipedia's founding principles (a principle that this reviewer strongly agrees with), the "equal stature" part seems to be de Laat's own invention – there is a long list of things that, by longstanding community consensus, require the use of an account (which after all is freely available to everyone, without even requiring an email address). Most of these restrictions – say, the inability to create new articles or being prevented from participating in project governance during admin or arbcom votes – seem much more serious than the vandalism profiling that is the topic of de Laat's paper. TB
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. This month, the list mainly gathers research about the extraction of specific content from Wikipedia.
{{cite conference}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
134,000 images are being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central repository for free media, from ETH-Bibliothek, Switzerland’s largest public scientific and technical library.
Most of the photographs are being drawn from their aerial photograph holdings (70,000 in all) and 40,000 from the archives of Swissair, the national airline of the country until its bankruptcy in 2002.
The first 18,000 uploads come from Walter Mittelholzer, a Swiss aviation pioneer and entrepreneur. In his travels, which included the first north–south flight across the African continent, he took thousands of aerial photographs from places as varied as Spitsbergen (1923), a Norwegian island in the Arctic Ocean; Persia (1924–25); Kilimanjaro, the dormant volcano in modern-day Tanzania (1929–30); and Ethiopia (1934). You can see examples of his work sprinkled throughout this post.
“Mittelholzer captured sensational aerial images of landscapes, many of which had never been photographed from a bird’s-eye view before,” ETH-Bibliothek project coordinator Michael Gasser said. Mittelholzer utilized these images in a series of popular books that chronicled his trips into the-then great unknown; today, his work is used in post-colonial research.
Other images being uploaded are historical photographs of ETH-Bibliothek’s campus in Zurich, along with portraits of professors, students, and scientists at the same location.
Gasser says that while all of these images are already available on the internet, ETH-Bibliothek is “facilitating access to these valuable image sources ... we are trying to bring the material to where the users are.” All are licensed under CC BY-SA or are in the public domain.
The project to upload them to Wikimedia Commons stems from a collaboration between ETH-Bibliothek and Wikimedia CH, an independent organization that works to advance the Wikimedia movement in Switzerland, which was initiated through mutual contacts at Open Data.ch, the Swiss chapter of the Open Knowledge Foundation.
You can see the images for yourself as they are being uploaded on Commons. EE