Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-04-22

WikiProject Editor Retention

Your source for

WikiProject News

• Check out the new WikiProject Apps
• A new issue of the Military history Project's Bugle has been released

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

This week, we spent some time with a project that develops tools and methods for improving the user experience in the hope that new users will continue editing the encyclopedia. The project was started in July 2012 and has grown to include 124 members. The project's members partner with the Teahouse (interviewed last year) and the Welcoming Committee to spread WikiLove, welcome new users, encourage civility, crown an Editor of the Week, test new versions of Snuggle, research the reasons why people leave Wikipedia, and invite departed editors to return. We interviewed Dennis Brown, Buster7, EpochFail, Amadscientist, Go Phightins!, and TheOriginalSoni.

What motivated you to join WikiProject Editor Retention? What does the project do to improve editor retention? Why are the project's efforts important?

Dennis Brown: I started WP:WER after noticing several editors quitting due to frustration, often with the bureaucracy itself. I wasn't sure what we could do at the Project but I knew that listening was the first step in creating changes, and sometimes people just want to know someone cares enough to do just that, listen.

Buster7: I was looking for something to do. I try to welcome at least 25 new editors a day and edit/talk/research 3 o 4 articles? I was looking for a project and WER got started right under my nose. I was hooked from Day One. I was involved in some of the early construction and Brainstorming when the project moved from D Brown's talk page to become a reality.

WER has been able to focus attention on the recent infux of retiring editors. Other members may be more aware of solutions, discussions, etc...more than I. I have pretty much focussed on the EotW sub-project.

EpochFail: I first joined WER because the goals of the project closely aligned with my academic work studying the rise and decline in active editors. Right now, I'm working on WP:Snuggle, a tool that is designed to make identifying and supporting good newcomers who run into trouble faster and easier for wiki-mentors. I'm hoping that the combination of this software and efforts like the WP:Teahouse will reverse the declining trend of desirable newcomer retention. Joining Wikipedia ought to be a welcoming experience for anyone who wants to help.

Amadscientist: I was motivated to join Editor retention by two other editors who inspired me to look at editors a little differently. Less as needing to be dealt with and more about interacting and collaborating whenever possible. That is the main function of WER right now. To get editors look at each other as humans and not just text on a screen. Just getting editors to be more patient, a little nicer and reachout to each other for help. I think WER's efforts are important because they are geared and focused at keeping editor's from leaving. Getting them to find new outlets for their work and meet other editors who encourage collaboration and willing to answer your question and just help where every we can as both individuals and as a group.

Go Phightins!: I first joined WER to fulfill a requirement for a final test in an adoption course; that said, I would have eventually joined anyway. Even in the eight months since I have been active here at WP, I have found that anything Dennis starts is unlikely to fail for lack of effort. This project is no exception. Though we really do not have any formal processes other than EotW, which Buster and I started, the biggest thing that I see is the term "editor retention" being tossed around. Awareness is key. How do we retain our best editors without alienating newer ones who might someday join? Those are key questions that are being thought about more now that we have a project for it.

At nine months old, WikiProject Editor Retention is a fairly young project. What were some of the toughest obstacles the project faced when it was first unveiled? What chances of success do other new projects have as Wikipedia matures?

Buster7: Projects bring together editors of a similar mind or interest. Right now I think WER is in the brainstorming process: a melting pot, gathering thoughts and ideas and solutions that can be implemented to retain editors...waiting for that new idea to stimulate action. One early idea was to pay closer attention to what retiring editors were saying on their way out the door. Most were angry over something or dissapointed in what they felt they had experienced. I need to re-visit that. I have my notes here somewhere.

Dennis Brown: Direction and scope. You have a lot of people who want to make Wikipedia a more enjoyable environment but a lot of different ideas on what that means. Sometimes, consensus is difficult to achieve.

Amadscientist: The "flash in the pan" route was something to worry about but the editors we have are pretty passionate about the talk page and retention issues and new ideas that it seems to maintained a pretty interesting discussion. Our Wikiprojects are seeing some rebirth recently and I see that a growing interest in working together and that is always very inspiring.

Go Phightins!: I concur with Dennis above. What does our project do? Is it a place solely for discussion? Should we have more concrete projects on which to work? Right now, other than EotW, WER is not terribly active in its project space. It will be interesting to see what the community sees as goals for editor retention and how a project like WER can help facilitate those goals.

The project has a variety of teams dividing the project's workload and some members are assigned to leadership positions. What purposes do these teams serve? Have they been successful in motivating editors to contribute toward specific tasks?

Buster7: The team concept never took off. We should probably edit that out since it never got wings.

TheOriginalSoni: Although the team format is now defunct, we currently have three active places where work is currently being done -

1. The first is the WER page, where every once in a while, we have someone asking others to give their opinions etc on matters related to editors leaving Wikipedia and other such related topics.
2. The second is our Editor of the Week award where we try and recognize off-the-radar quality editors whose work has gone under-appreciated by the community. Many of our recipients have been motivated even further to keep up their excellent work.
3. The third is Snuggle, where Aaron Halfaker has been working on a Huggle-like interface to monitor and help welcome contributing newcomers to Wikipedia. It is a work-in-progress.

Dennis Brown: As someone else pointed out, the teams idea didn't take off. We aren't a top down managed project, so I didn't expect that to work. This means we try a lot of things. To be honest, the most valuable things that come from the project aren't written on the Project pages. For members, the Project is a mindset that affects everything they do. We try to think about retention in everything we do. It reminds us to reach out, to take the time to explain to new users instead of templating them, to mediate when needed, and when participating in policy discussion, to consider how it affects editor retention. The other programs we do are nice, but the biggest difference we make doesn't happen on the Project pages, but on the talk pages of editors new and old.

Amadscientist: While the teams have not worked as hoped, one thing has caught on and that is an asserted effort from members to help others, answer question and be as positive a force as possible.

What research has the project conducted on the motivations of new editors and the reasons editors leave Wikipedia? What were your findings?

Buster7: I found this quote by Dale Carnegie:* People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing. If we at WER remove the frustrations, we find that one of the things that fills the void is fun.

EpochFail: In the summer of 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation hired a team of researchers with experience studying aspects of participation in Wikipedia and tasked us with identifying the reason for the decline in active editors. Together, we produced 28 micro studies exploring the newcomer article deletion rate, where newcomers go for help, how newcomer's first experience affects retention, etc. These studied led to a report published in American Behavioral Scientist detailing how changes to Wikipedia's counter vandalism system (the bots, WP:Huggle and warning templates, that saved Wikipedia from being drowned with vandalism in 2006) had degraded the experience of being a new editor. My work with WP:Snuggle is one of our recommended directions from the paper -- to build a system that would allow newcomer socialization to operate at the scale that counter-vandalism has attained through intelligent software support.

Amadscientist: From the material we looked at, as well as few other graphs, the perception of a decline in editors is not as bad as it appears when you look at the bigger picture. But from paying attention to the community and just watching there are some problems that a little more patience couldn't hurt.

Editor Retention Editor of the Week
Tomobe03 is a proud Croat.
Tomobe03
Editor of the Week for the week beginning April 21, 2013
In just 3 years of editing, Tomobe03 has got a prolific set of articles under his belt that every editor would be envious of. His high-quality articles have improved the all Croatia related articles immensely, and his 11 thousand article-space edits have given way to 47 DYKs, 36 GA class articles, among others. Most of his edits have been on major and well-known articles, like Adriatic Sea, Croatia, Croatian War of Independence or President of Croatia. Editors like him are the reason why Wikipedia continues to be widely read by millions of readers.
Recognized for	Extensive coverage of Croatia related articles.
Notable work(s)	Operation Storm and Counties of Croatia
Nomination page

One of the project's initiatives is the Editor of the Week, a way to recognize editors who make substantial improvements to Wikipedia but often go unnoticed. What is the reasoning behind this program? Who is eligible and how are nominations made?

Buster7: My interest and involvement w/ WER has mainly been constructing and monitoring the Editor of the Week sub-project. Our first Award was presented January 15th. The intended purpose of the EotW sub-project is the same as the Main Project---to retain editors. It is not to just hand out shiny trophies for some editors trophy case. In our (members) travels we search out editors that are doing the work of the encyclopedia. These editors rarely get caught up in time-consuming drama. That is why they can be invisible...hard to find. They have very little name recognition. They are busy working while the rest of us argue over whether its "The Beatles" or "the Beatles".

A lot of editors proudly announce their retirement on the Cathedral door. But, some editors just slip away because no one seems to notice them...or care about them. The surprisingly emotional response of some of the recepients tells us that the EotW award has been a great tool to brighten the spirits and gladden the hearts of the recipients. It's made them smile. It's made them happy. It's made editing WP fun. We don't need to work at retaining editors that are having fun. EotW is an effort to bring the fun back to them. Every editor is eligible EXCEPT for Admins. A couple have been nominated, but we decided that they already get plenty of acclaim and recognition and accolades.

I do some "advertising" on other editors pages whenever possible. We have, I think, about 6 Accepted nominees right now, in a Queue. Some early discussion revolved around perhaps distributing them more often than once a week. It was decided to start with one a week (distributed on Sunday night).

Amadscientist: The main idea when this was proposed was something like a barnstar...but in a more formal way. Although no such awrd of this nature on Wikipedia fas a true formal nature, we wanted to encourage newer users that following best practice can produce great content and to let othees see these contributors so that they may have the chance interact with as many people as possible. That is the whjole point after all, and EOTW does that very well.

Has the project collected any success stories about preventing editors from quitting or bringing retired editors back to Wikipedia? How do you know when the project's initiatives are achieving their goals?

Buster7: One sure way of measuring success is how people respond to what you are doing. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient response.

Dennis Brown: This is difficult to measure as most of our victories are small ones. How do you measure someone who is thinking about leaving but doesn't, or measure someone enjoying Wikipedia more, or being frustrated less? Often, the results are subtle or you simply don't know. As individuals, we get involved with singular problems, but the real job is making Wikipedia a more enjoyable environment for everyone. This means we want ways to reduce bureaucracy, simplicity in dealing with disputes, and equity in how everyone is treated. I imagine our biggest victories are unknown even to us. Honestly, you never know how close someone is to leaving, or how much of an impact you make. We don't get a lot of direct feedback that way, but we know all the little victories add up, so we keep moving on.

Amadscientist: One way that one can measure some success is see the mantra and logo on other editor's user/talk pages. "This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask". See that mantra grow has been kinda fun and seeing others take it to heart is certainly some small victory.

Go Phightins!: I kind of started EotW by accident. Dennis mentioned something at the WER talk page one day. I jotted down a few ideas in a sandbox, and since then it has taken off. There are really only a couple of editors still working on its administration, but that is OK because a project like this doesn't need much administration. That's the beauty of it. An editor sees someone while working on an article; it's a user name they do not recognize. They spend five or ten minutes perusing their talk page and contributions and see that the person is seldom awarded barnstars or any recognition, so eventually, maybe on a bad day (this has happened), the editor gets a big shiny barnstar declaring they are the editor of the week. No bureaucracy, no responsibilities, they are just getting recognized for everything they have done. I would have to think that is a great feeling, and based on the recipients' responses, it has been.

How often does the project collaborate with other WikiProjects? Are there any redundancies that could be consolidated?

Dennis Brown: We often send new users to the Teahouse, or direct people to other projects or venues when they have issues. In some ways, we act as a clearinghouse, helping by just getting them to the right area to get their questions answered. We try to not duplicate the efforts of other projects, and instead help the other projects out. Many members of WER are Teahouse hosts, for example. Others like myself, work to mediate disputes that the current bureaucracy has not addressed.

Amadscientist: I have noticed a number of WER members also at the Teahouse, on the AN/ANI and other boards. While not even an informal DR process, WER has helped get editors involved with retention issues in both individual cases and in more general discussions on the talk page.

TheOriginalSoni: Most of the times, the collaboration with other WikiProject happens to be through the members, and not between WikiProjects. One of the best things WER provided me was to get to know other editors - other friendly editors. Half of the interactions most users have with others are through article improvement, which can be hostile. But through WER, I know exactly which bunch of editors to call for, when I want to help at a particular WikiProject. WER members have been found at many pro-active projects here, like the Teahouse and TAFI. Some of our members have recently also started eating at WikiProject Breakfast.

What are the project's most urgent needs? How can a new member help today?

TheOriginalSoni: As the name suggests, Project Editor Retention's most urgent need is to retain and build a stronger and healthy community behind our editors, both new and old. All our actions in the Project have, and will serve to this very purpose. We have been doing the same for some time now with a little success, and hope to continue the same in the future.

We at WER love collaboration, and would surely welcome anyone who can help in any way possible. Aaron could certainly use the services of a programmer or two; while the EotW would be more than happy to have more people helping to recognize the true workers of our encyclopedia. If you have any such editor in mind, nominate them today! Most importantly, every editor should strive to ensure no good contributor to the encyclopedia goes away, whether through this project, or outside it. That's what our Project is all about.

Amadscientist: The greatest need is letting editors know about the project and the entire concept of actively working to retain our contributors by helping them whenever you can and have patience.

Dennis Brown: For me, the best way a new member can help is with new users. Either at the Teahouse, patrolling new articles or maybe helping out at the understaffed WP:AFC. Wikipedia's maze of policies exist for good reason, but can be intimidating. We need to use templates less, and just warmly and sincerely let new users know we understand how confusing the place can be at first, and offer to help. Some of these new users have exceptional talents and skills that we will lose forever if we don't extend a hand and an ear. Of course, you don't need to be a member of WER to do that, and Wikipedia would be a richer place if we all put just a little effort in that direction.

EpochFail: I plan to release a useful version of Snuggle on May 1st. In the meantime, I need alpha testers. If you are interested, sign up at WP:Snuggle. If you just want to track Snuggle's progress, add WP:Snuggle/Work log to your watchlist. If you happen to have experience in Javascript or Python, I could always use some help developing the system. See my open source repository and let me know if you have questions.

Go Phightins!: Again, I agree with Dennis. New users are the lifeblood of the project. Someone who vandalizes a page today may be the next Muboshgu-like content creator tomorrow. We need to retain vandals as productive, not destructive contributors. We need to retain newbies who are confused by the wiki-code and we need to retain the established, burnt-out, content creators we already have if we are going to build the encyclopedia we dream of. EotW is a great initiative, but it's not the end-all, be-all. Every user should feel they are in a helpful, positive environment where they can contribute, and that, to me, is the goal of editor retention.

Buster7: Our (EotW) most urgent need is of course a full queue of accepted nominees. It would be nice to have to make the decision to hand out more than one a week. Here are some of the EotW links for your perusal:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention
• Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Project main page
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations Step One
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations/preload Nomination form, ready to use.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Accepted nominations THE Q
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Announcing recipients How to award the Award....
• Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Current recipient infobox/sandbox Adjunct to the Award
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient response What they say. Priceless!
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Goals
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Collaboration
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Banner sandbox The Banner

I especially like recipients responses. It lets us know we a striking a chord with derserving editors. At WER/EotW, our newest member has already been tasked to notify the nominator the day after his nominee gets the award. The basic task of a new member is to visit the recepients page the day or two after and offer congratulations. The more "pats on the back" the better.

Next week, we'll play ball in the Land of the Rising Sun. Until then, take a swing at our previous reports in the archive.

Reader comments

2013-04-22

Milan conference a mixed bag

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Tony1 and The ed17

The Wikimedia Conference is an annual meeting of the chapters to discuss their status and the organisational development of the Wikimedia movement. Held first in the Netherlands in 2008 and then in Berlin from 2009 to 2012, this year the conference was in the northern Italian city of Milan. For the first time it included groups that wish to be considered for WMF affiliation as thematic organisations (the Wiki Education Foundation, the Catalan-language-based Friends of Wikipedia, and Wiki Project Med) and one of the three groups that was recently affiliated as a user group (Esperanto and Free Knowledge). The conference was also attended by members of the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees, the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), the Affiliations Committee, and a representative of the Wikivoyage Association, the German non-profit that is the former host of the new Wikivoyage travel-guide wiki, which moved to the WMF last November after considerable controversy.

The conference was hosted by the Italian Wikimedia chapter, with funding of US$120,000 from the Foundation's Wikimedia Grants Program, following a much-discussed application for $157,000 that assumed 250 participants (about 130 attended), including $78,000 for the conference venue and catering for light lunches and a coffee station. The German chapter donated up to a further $65,000 to make the event possible.

"Open Thursday"

The event began last Thursday with three parallel meetings:

• The Wikipedia Education Program Leaders Workshop was attended by 35 Wikimedians, including several members of the Affiliations Committee, in which discussions explored the breadth and diversity of the challenge around the world. However, no clear answer emerged as to the question posed, "What does success mean?". It was clear that a number of chapters are already talking with their governments on the role of Wikipedia in school curricula.
• Wiki Loves Monuments was attended by 17 people.
• The Chapters Association met (14 people were listed as planning to attend), and extensive notes will be finalised on Meta "on 30 April". The meeting covered areas such as research into the chapters' needs, the creation of a handbook and data with which to communicate with the press; peer review of chapters ("Don't ask WMF to audit us: let's audit each other through peer review"); the development of a chapter exchange, a page where chapters can indicate their expertise, skills, and experience for sharing; whether a private mailing list should be established; the "need to figure out sources of funding", since the Association cannot apply for FDC funding; and whether non-chapter entities may join the Association. There is a sense from the documentation that all of these issues are at an early stage of discussion, a year after the proposal to establish the Association at the 2012 conference in Berlin. The Association's charter was changed by vote to remove the obligations of chapters that withdraw from it.

Friday

The main conference began in the morning with a State of the movement session, in which 18 entities were each allocated three minutes to present a "lightning" talk about their most important activities, plans, or problems. This format was repeated on Saturday (19 presentations) and Sunday (seven presentations). The presentations varied widely in content and approach. Christophe Henner, for example, used humorous slides in his presentation for Wikimédia France, including a photograph of a prison corridor to embellish his reference to the recent bullying of a chapter member by the French intelligence agents. The proposed chapter from Nepal, which hopes to gain WMF affiliation, spoke of how the country has 123 languages, with seven existing WMF sites. Among these, the Nepali Wikipedia was started as early as 2002 and now has 23,000 articles and 78 active users; a further seven Wikipedias for languages in Nepal are in incubation. Wikimedia Macedonia, recognised in 2010, has 15 members and no budget. It has made progress in an education program at four universities and a number of secondary schools and citizen "internet clubs", and has signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Library and National Archives. The group has already established collaborative links with Wikimedia Ukraine. Links to slides for all presentations in which they were used are included at the schedule pages.

After lunch, participants broke up into three parallel tracks, comprising a total of nine one-hour sessions. Resources sharing and standardization was presented by the South African and Swiss chapters, exploring ways of developing secure web hosting and document editing among entities. Small offices examined the advantages and disadvantages of establishing and running a physical chapter office. Chris Keating, chair of Wikimedia UK, presented a talk on the recent governance review of the chapter, recommending "Executive Summary and the Characteristics on pages 9 to 12" of the report, which was jointly commissioned by the Foundation and the chapter. The minutes for most of the parallel sessions currently exist only in the form of raw Etherpads.

Saturday – meeting with the WMF Board of Trustees

One of the highlights of the conference was the meeting with the Board. All current Board members were present, and each gave brief opening remarks. Jimmy Wales pointed out that last month was the first in which more than half a billion people visited WMF websites. A question-and-answer session followed. Among interesting questions were:

• Could there be multi-year chapter funding from the WMF? (Generally a very cautious response from the Board.)
• The Board wrote an open letter expressing doubts about [the Chapters Association]. From that, changes in WCA [are gaining] concrete results. Will the Board want a seat on the [Association]? (No clear message from the Board was recorded in the etherpad. One member said that the Association's peer review (discussed the previous day) is a good example of how it can support chapters in a simple way without building a huge monster of bureaucracy. One member was recorded as saying: "If in any way volunteers can organise themselves to be more effective and share knowledge, that's good. For example WMDE has made some good initiatives. My personal opinion doesn't feel the need to be on the council. I don't see the need for a council."
• What are your concrete plans to involve more people in the Global South? How do you geographically define Global South? (The general consensus from the Board was that it is difficult to define Global South. One member said that the engineering team has worked to make editing in local languages easier, and to make mobile phone access easier. Asaf, who is Head of the Global South for the Foundation, invited further discussion after the meeting.)
• Does the WMF have a special plan for the gender gap in next year? (Among the responses were that the Board issued the FDC with specific recommendations to pay attention to gender gap, that the staff have been asked to focus on it as part of everyone's job, like free culture, and that "many chapters have such programs, and the WMF is supporting you. It's part of all our goals.")
• Will the WMF support the creation of a Palestinian chapter? (A mildly positive response from Jimmy: "even if the politicians are fighting, we can be a positive force"; this was supported by Stu West).
• How is the search for a new WMF "specific expertise" trustee going? (Alice: we have a favourite candidate, and have to figure out whether it's a good fit for us. We will have come a lot further when we meet at Wikimania.)

Saturday morning had involved 75-minute sessions on Chapter peer review; How to keep volunteers active; and Seven cool projects, including the French chapter's Kiwix wifi software to give offline access to Wikipedia in places in Africa with unstable internet connections. After the joint WMF Board–chapter meeting there were 45-minute sessions on the European Policy Working Group, Chapters in the Global South and lessons that can be learned, and Evaluating programs, presented by the WMF's senior director of programs, Frank Schulenberg.

Sunday – the FDC feedback session

Sunday, the last day, included another WCA meeting (no minutes yet available), and a feedback session on the Foundation's grantmaking agency that has forged a major change in finance and accountability in the movement – the FDC – which was described by one participant at the meeting as "a huge culture shock". In attendance were Dariusz Jemielniak, Anders Wennersten, Ali Haidar Khan, Sydney Poore, Yuri Perohanych, Arjuna Rao Chavala, and Mike Peel from the FDC; Patricio Lorente (one of the two chapter-selected WMF Trustees); and Foundation staff members Anasuya Sengupta (senior director of grantmaking), Winifred Olliff, Katy Love, Adele Vrana, Garfield Byrd (chief financial officer), and Jessie Wild. Representatives were present from 15 chapters that have applied to the FDC and three that have not.

A summary was presented of the findings of the survey of participating chapters after Round 1 of the FDC funding process last October (n = 8): the process is satisfactory, and deemed fair, transparent, and not overly time-consuming, and is not inhibiting the ability to reach the goals, though there are areas that should be improved. There is a need to strengthen communication between FDC/staff and applying entities, and to tighten application requirements. And the “open question” is if the FDC is a good mechanism for achieving impact. Applicants said they spent from three to 150 hours on their application (a median of 70 hours), and that it was hard to use the portal and forms, although "survey participants largely saw the process as fair and transparent". Three questions seemed to emerge: Are the movement entities evolving their program plans to have the most impact? Is the overhead required for the FDC process greater than the value (both impact and compliance) it provides? Is the process stifling innovation and/or limiting new participation in the movement?

The survey brought up negative feelings about the critical feedback given to chapters on their applications: that assessments were "too violent" and "insulting", that non-specific comments can be "de-motivating for volunteers", and thus that "more details are needed" in feedback. There were complaints that the FDC process is in English, is difficult to understand, and that comments arise from existing opinions on an entity. The etherpad records the comment that "The FDC proposal form is horrible for the community, even for those who are used to reviewing annual plans and budget. They wouldn't understand from the form what their own chapter is doing. [The current process is] designed to make comparisons and nothing else, [to] redesign it from scratch. [The] proposal form is not easy for entity staff and is extremely hard for editors and community members to review."

The response from the FDC was that "Comparing proposals is critical for the FDC, especially as the volume of proposals and amounts of funds requested increases and to force people defining goals." The FDC chair, Dariusz Jemielniak, referred to the importance of cultivating goal-setting abilities among applicants, and pointed out that the Foundation itself did not fully satisfy the FDC's requirements in Round 1. Since the FDC is making large grants, he said, it sets higher expectations in terms of communicating entities' plans and filling in forms. The Foundation's chief financial officer, Garfield Byrd, said that the level of detail required in the FDC form for the annual plan and budget is clearly not detailed enough, and that it is difficult for readers to understand the financials from budgets and annual plans alone. FDC member Anders said that about half of FDC applications are not sound. Among other statements by FDC members were that there is a limited number of dollars to give out in the FDC, and it's not going to be possible to staff up all chapters.

Sunday finished with a series of meetings known as Barcamps.

Comments from outside the chapter world

Biophysicist Daniel Mietchen attended the conference for WikiProject Med. He told the Signpost that in his opinion "there's a tendency for many wheels to be invented independently, so coordination across chapters has strong potential to improve efficiency and impact. For example, several chapters are now in discussions with their respective ministries of culture/education/science about how open licensing and Wikimedia projects can be included in curricula from high school to graduate courses, yet there has so far been next to no coordination of these efforts."

He specified the lack of coordination related to attendance at events, for example in Commons documentation and recurring visa problems; the Signpost has been informed that intending participants from two developing-world countries were refused visas for travel to Italy.

Mietchen pointed out that the three issues identified as the focus of the newly forming EU policy project also require coordination across chapters: "freedom of panorama (which exists in most but not all EU countries), orphan works, and PD-Gov (a concept alien to most European jurisdictions). Other issues, such as how to handle the paper work in running a chapter, have traditionally not been tackled in a very coordinated way either; nor have initiatives involving many chapters, such as Wiki Loves Monuments or the FDC process. However, a number of attempts along these lines are becoming more visible, e.g. the Chapters Association's discussions on the 'Chapters Exchange."

“

The general atmosphere at the meeting was very productive, so I would expect to hear about a few cases of concrete improvements in cross-chapter coordination at Wikimania [in Hong Kong in August]. Thematic organizations like WikiProject Med can act as a catalyst here: while most attendees seemed positive about having them, nobody seems to have a clear idea yet how that would play out in practice, so some experimentation is needed. I would encourage all existing and forming chapters and related organizations to keep each other in mind when planning activities from now on."

”

Participants generally praised the atmosphere at the conference. On the downside, it appears that most of the detailed planning was left until the last minute. Just one week before the start, no schedule was available. A basic draft appeared on Meta a day after the Signpost made enquiries of the organisers; we know of at least one chapter for which this lack of planning weighed in the decision not to send representatives. The Signpost notes another matter that may be of interest to the organisers of future Wikimedia events: one participant commented that the connectivity at the venue and in the hotels was "crappy".

Editor's note: the author of this article is a member of the Grants Advisory Committee, which recommended the approval of a US$120,000 grant to Wikimedia Italy to host the conference, but he was inactive at the time of the application for conference funding.

In brief

• Member of WMF Board will resign: Ting Chen – a Trustee since 2008, chair of the Board from 2010 until he was succeeded by Kat Walsh in July 2012, and a Wikimedian with more than 95,000 edits to the Chinese Wikipedia – has announced his intention to resign from the Board and apply for the executive director position that will soon be vacated by the departing Sue Gardner. In related news, the Board has amended its bylaws so that it may operate with fewer than nine members, and has asked for comment on this move on the resolution's talk page.
• Wikimedia Foundation election process begins: The Foundation has published a call for candidates for its 2013 elections to the Board of Trustees and the Funds Dissemination Committee.
• Wikidata defines its policies: Several requests for comment (RfCs) have been opened on Wikidata regarding important policies and guidelines, including oversighting and references, the latter being a strangely little-trafficked page despite its importance. In related news, the English Wikipedia is currently examining how much information the site will use and allow from Wikidata.
• Wikimania Committee: A committee to assist in organising the annual Wikimania gathering, a long-term goal of conference organisers, has finally got off the ground with a proposal on Meta, the coordinating site for the Wikimedia Foundation, its projects, and the communities who edit them.
• Chapter administration costs: Ashley Van Haeften, the recently departed chair of the Chapters Association, has begun a mailing-list discussion about the percentage of chapter funds that go towards administration rather than Wikimedia-related projects.
• Musical notation: As reported on the English Wikipedia's Village Pump, the Wikimedia sites' interface can now render musical notation. Instructions on how to use it are located on Mediawiki. See also this week's Technology report.
• UK-based Wikipedian-in-Residence: The National Library of Scotland is currently looking for a Wikipedian-in-Residence. The position will be full-time for four months in Edinburgh. A somewhat inaccurate BBC News article on the position has been published, along with stories in other British newspapers, while a full list of open Wikimedian-in-Residence positions is available.
• Global Wikipedia Women Write-in: The Rewriting Wikipedia Project has announced that it will hold its first of a series of events addressing inequalities in Wikipedia on 26 April, focusing on the lack of information on women theorists on the English Wikipedia.
  
  Reader comments
  

2013-04-22

Batfish in the Red Sea

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Pine and Hahc21

This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted between 14 and 20 April 2013.

Featured articles

• Doom Bar (nom) by Worm That Turned. Doom Bar is a sandbar on the north coast of Cornwall, England. The sandbar is composed mainly of marine sand derived from marine shells, thus being an important source of agricultural lime. More than ten million tons of sand has been removed from Doom Bar since the beginning of the 19th century.
• Zaian War (nom) by Dumelow. The Zaian War was an armed conflict between France and the Zaian confederation of Berber tribes in Morocco that lasted from 1914 until 1921. After the confederation became French territory in 1912, Resident General Louis-Hubert Lyautey aimed to extend French dominance across the adjacent territories, a move that was opposed by the Zaians. The war was finally won by the French in the middle of the outbreak of the First World War.
• Song of Innocence (nom) by Dan56. Song of Innocence is the debut album of American composer and producer David Axelrod, released in October 1968 on Capitol Records. Based on a 1789 illustrated collection of poems of the same name by William Blake, the album is a combination of jazz fusion with elements of classical, rock, funk, pop, and theatre music. Notwithstanding, Song of Innocence did not enjoy commercial success, although it was later deemed as a classic.
• Circinus (constellation) (nom) by Casliber and Keilana. Circinus is a small, faint constellation of which the brightest star, Alpha Circini, is also the brightest rapidly oscillating Ap star in the night sky. Circinus was first defined by French astronomer Nicolas Louis de Lacaille around 1756, and its name is Latin for compass.
• Operation Hardboiled (nom) by ErrantX. Hardboiled was a Second World War military deception undertaken by the Allies in 1942 and designed to convince the Axis powers that the Allies were planning to perform an invasion on the German-occupied Norway. After Hitler ordered the reinforcement of Scandinavia between March and April 1942, the operation was shelved in May.
• Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom (nom) by Parrot of Doom. During the 18th and 19th centuries, resurrectionists were common between British anatomists to disinter the bodies of the recently deceased for anatomical research. Because of the nature of their work, most resurrectionists caught ran the risk of physical attack, and graveyards were even secured to stop them. Their work was ended with the Anatomy Act of 1832, which allowed anatomists to access the workhouse dead.
• Japanese battleship Fusō (nom) by Dank and Sturmvogel 66. Fusō was one of the two Fusō-class dreadnought battleships built for the Imperial Japanese Navy. Commissioned in 1915, Fusō was not used during World War I, thus being tasked with patrol and rescue missions across the Pacific Ocean. After being modernized in 1935, the ship was sunk in October 1944 during the Battle of Surigao Strait.
• Kosta Pećanac (nom) by PRODUCER and Peacemaker67. Pećanac (1879–1944) was a Serbian Chetnik commander who served during the Balkan Wars, World War I and World War II. He played a critical role as a leader of the Chetnik veteran associations, and was known for his strong hostility to the Yugoslav Communist Party. Pećanac became president of the Chetnik Association in 1932, and transformed it into an aggressively partisan Serb political body.
• Music for a Time of War (nom) by Another Believer. Music for a Time of War is a 2011 concert program and subsequent album by the Oregon Symphony under the artistic direction of Carlos Kalmar. It consists of four compositions inspired by war, and was first performed at the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall in Portland, Oregon. The live recording of the concert was released in October 2011, and received favorable reviews from music critics. It earned three recognitions from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences for the 2013 Grammy Awards.

Japanese battleship Fusō, seen in its new featured article.

Men of the British Royal Marines Division training in snow during 1942. The Royal Marines Division was chosen for Operation Hardboiled.

Featured lists

• Citra Award for Best Director (nom) by Crisco 1492. The Citra Award for best Director is awarded at the Indonesian Film Festival to Indonesian film directors since 1955. Considered the Indonesian equivalent to the Oscar, it is one of the most prestigious awards of the country. 58 directors have been nominated for a Citra Award, 22 of whom have won at least one. All winners have been male, although female directors have received nominations in this category.
• List of songs recorded by Pink Martini (nom) by Another Believer. American musical group Pink Martini has recorded songs for six studio albums since the beginning of their career in 1994. Formed by Thomas Lauderdale, the band has recorded a wide set of songs in a variety of languages, some of which have received critical acclaim.
• List of Call the Midwife episodes (nom) by ChrisTheDude. Call the Mildwife was a British period drama television series based on the memoirs of Jennifer Wort. Set in the late 1950s, the series was first broadcast in January 2012 on the BBC, and two seasons and two christmas specials have been recorded so far.
• List of colleges and universities in Michigan (nom) by Ruby2010. Michigan holds ninety-three colleges and universities listed under the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The list includes research, master's and baccalaureate colleges spread across the state.

.

Featured pictures

• Mark IV female tank (nom) created by Peter Trimming and nominated by Bruce1ee. The British Mark IV tank was used in World War I. There are "male" and "female" variants of the tank.
• The Heart of the Andes (nom) created by Frederic Edwin Church and nominated by Pine. This famous work by American landscape painter Frederic Edwin Church (1826–1900) was first exhibited in 1859. It currently resides in New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art.
• Lady Elliot Island (nom) created by Underwater Earth / Catlin Seaview Survey and nominated by Hahc21. Lady Elliot Island is an Australian coral cay on the Great Barrier Reef. The photo was taken with a Seaview SVII camera.
• Platax teira (nom) created by Alex Vasenin and nominated by Tomer T. Platax teira is also known as the longfin batfish. The fish can be up to 24 inches (60 centimeters) long.
• Flight of Sultan Bahadur During Humayun's Campaign in Gujarat 1535 (nom) created by Manre Royale d'Aubusson Dharmdas and nominated by Tomer T. Qutb-ud-Din Bahadur Shah was a sultan of Gujarat Sultanate, a former kingdom in what is now India. He fought Mughal Emperor Nasir ud-din Muhammad Humayun in 1535.
• Carl English (nom) created by Kadellar and nominated by Tomer T. Carl English is a Canadian basketball player. He currently plays for the Spanish professional team Asefa Estudiantes.
• Bar-tailed Godwit (nom) created by Andreas Trepte and nominated by Tomer T. The Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) is a large wader. Its non-stop migration flight is the longest known for any bird.
• Pied Avocet juvenile (nom) created by Andreas Trepte and nominated by Tomer T. The Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) is a wader that has a range including parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Adults have a wingspan of approximately 30–31.5 inches (76–80 centimeters).

Featured topics

• Hurricane Isabel, nominated by Phoenix2. Isabel was a Category 5 hurricane in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. Isabel's highest sustained winds were reported as 165 miles per hour (265 km/h). It caused several deaths and an estimated US$5.37 billion (2003) in damage. The Hurricane Isabel topic includes four featured articles and four good articles.

Reader comments

2013-04-22

Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Neotarf

Open cases

Sexology

The Sexology case is nearing completion after arbitrators were unable to agree on a topic ban for one of the participants.

The case started off-wiki in a bitter academic dispute between James Cantor and Jokestress, who are open about their real life identities, James Cantor and Andrea James. The case was brought by Mark Arsten, after the community was unable to agree on an interaction ban or a topic ban for James Cantor, Andrea James, or both.

The on-wiki conflict originated in the hebephilia article, which deals with the classification criteria of mental disorders for adults with a sexual preference for pubescent children, but involved other articles on paraphilias and transgenderism as well. James Cantor has been accused of using his own publications as sources for the articles, and of negatively editing Andrea James’ Wikipedia article; Andrea James has been accused of promoting fringe theories.

The proposed findings of fact that have passed as of this writing are:

1) Jokestress and James Cantor are involved in off-wiki advocacy or activities relating to human sexuality; the topic is a primary area that the two edit on Wikipedia.

2) Jokestress has repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that users she is in an editorial dispute with have a conflict of interest with the topic at hand.

3) Jokestress is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which she has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with her views, and has imported aspects of the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.

4) Off-wiki conduct of individuals not named on-wiki while this arbitration case was pending, as referred to on the case pages, is not attributable to any of the named parties to the case and has not affected this decision.

No findings of fact were proposed for Mr. Cantor.

Proposed remedies that have passed to date are:

1) Jokestress and James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.

2.1) Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles.

4.1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g., hebephilia).

Arbitrators were sharply divided over whether to prohibit James Cantor from editing “hebephilia, biographies of sexology researchers, and related advocates”. Six votes were needed for passage; there were 3 support, 3 oppose, and 2 abstain, with a third arbitrator withdrawing after seeing how the case was proceeding.[1]

Argentine History

In the case, brought by Lecen, an editor is accused of systematically skewing several articles involving former Argentinean president Juan Manuel de Rosas in order to portray a brutal dictator as a democratic leader, in keeping with the political motives of Argentinian "nationalists" or "revisionists".

The arbitration committee is looking for uninvolved editors with expertise in Argentina and the Spanish language to participate in the workshop phase of the case.

The evidence stage closed 12 April 2013, and a proposed decision is scheduled for 26 April 2013, though these dates may be extended by the recent floods in Buenos Aires, which have adversely affected an editor involved in the case.

Tea Party movement

This case was brought to the Committee by KillerChihuahua, who alleges the discussion over this American political group has degenerated into incivility. Evidence for the case was due by March 20, 2013, and a proposed decision scheduled for April 3, 2013.

Other requests and committee action

• Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal: This request, brought by IRWolfie, seeks to clarify the relationship between privacy and conflict of interest in a situation where employees of a transcendental meditation institute may be editing an article related to that institute.
• Request for clarification (April 2013) - Ebrahimi-amir ban appeal: An appeal of an Armenia-Azerbaijan topic ban was declined.
• Amendment request: GoodDay: In this request, brought by his mentor, Steven Zhang, the committee voted for a one year ban under a previous arbitration case.
• Request for clarification: Transcendental meditation movement: A request for clarification made by Keithbob regarding the transcendental meditation movement, which is under discretionary sanctions, and tagging of articles was closed, with the general advice that tags should not be applied routinely to broad categories, but only to articles that are under discretionary sanctions and that have seen problems, or where such tags might be helpful.
• Procedural issues at Arbitration Enforcement: A request for clarification brought by Gatoclass was archived with no action. The arbitration committee indicated they would review the issues of arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions in May 2013.
• Monty Hall problem: An amendment request made to the committee by Martin Hogbin for amendment of the remedies, including removal of discretionary sanctions, was archived without a decision after several of the arbitrators expressed reservations about loosening sanctions at this time.
• Clarification request: Discretionary sanctions appeals procedure: A request to clarify the appeal process for discretionary sanctions warnings was filed by Sandstein

Reader comments

2013-04-22

A flurry of deployments

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Jarry1250

Wikidata phase 2 deployed to English Wikipedia

On Monday, the English Wikipedia became the 12th wiki to be able to pull data from the central Wikidata.org repository, with other wikis scheduled to receive the update on Wednesday. The deployment gives users access to a {{#property:}} parser function, most obviously suitable for use in infoboxes.

Wikis are not obliged to use the new functionality they will receive. As the Signpost reported two weeks ago, the English Wikipedia community remains divided on the matter, although the early indications of an RFC established since are that the phase 2 code will be put to at least some use there, if only on a trial basis.

In related news, the English Wikipedia will have version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool re-enabled this week on an opt-in basis, following its rejection of the function for general deployment last month. In addition, wikis including the English Wikipedia have, eight years after bug #189 was opened requesting the feature, finally gained access to a new <score> pseudo-HTML tag, analogous to <math>, but providing instead for the creation of music notation on the fly:

English-language Wikipedia to be first to receive Echo deployment

Within the next week, the English Wikipedia will become the first Wikipedia to benefit from Echo, a major WMF-developed extension aimed at providing MediaWiki with a Facebook-style notification system. Though many types of notifications are possible, this initial deployment will focus on providing only core updates, including news of new user talk messages. More controversially, these kinds of notifications will launch in an "opt-out" fashion; users opposed to the change will be directed to a user preference toggle.

Announced nine months ago, the Echo project has lived a comparatively quiet existence, with trial deployments on MediaWiki.org rarely causing a stir. Proponents point to the applicability of Echo to both power-users (who may be monitoring many different goings on) and first-time editors (who find Wikimedia wikis' idiosyncratic array of news channels confusing), while detractors cite the potential for users to be overwhelmed with a torrent of notifications of varying importance.

The extension will supersede the existing email notification system, opening the door for new types of email notification to be added. However, as developers behind the project were keen to point out, the email half of the system will be strictly opt-in: no existing user should begin receiving email notifications for which they did not previously sign up.

In brief

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

• VisualEditor opt-in test expanded: This week, 13 Wikipedias join English Wikipedia in the opt-in alpha test of VisualEditor. Nine of the new test sites rank 2nd to 14th (behind English Wikipedia) in size; the other four were selected as challenging environments (including Hebrew and Arabic). For those participating in the test, VisualEditor is now the default editor when a tester clicks the "Edit" tab; clicking an "Edit source" tab starts the current editor (wikitech-l mailing list; see also previous Signpost coverage for background). When testing is satisfactorily completed, VisualEditor will become the default editor for all users unless they opt-out. Developers plan full deployment in late July.
• WMF Director of Technical Operations to step down: CT Woo will be standing down from his position in approximately three months time, he reported this week (also wikitech-l). Woo, who gave an interview to the Signpost in July, cited "the growing and maturing of the TechOps department, resulting in significant improvement in both the technical infrastructure and service processes" as the greatest achievement of his two-and-a-half years on the job. Certainly, the period has seen the WMF operations team largely succeed in keeping performance in line with a boom in visitor numbers, even if outages have stubbornly popped up in this report. It was also announced that "web developer and operational jack-of-all-trades" Erik Bernhardson will be joining the Foundation as a features engineer.
• Toolserver users to get year to migrate: Toolserver developers will get a year to migrate to Wikimedia Labs under a draft timetable published by service provider Wikimedia Germany. Although developers can already start moving their tools over, the Labs project is not expected to have all of the desired functionality until the end of June 2013. Tool owners will then have until the end of June 2014 to complete the migration process, about six months longer than under the original timetable, published last September. In turn, Wikimedia Germany promises to support all those needing help with the potentially difficult transfer, though as WMDE toolserver manager Silke Meyer admitted this week, "it is not clear which tools will not be able to move ... or which maintainers might decide not to move and why".
• Wikipedia adopts MariaDB: As reported on the Wikimedia blog this week, the Foundation has now completed its transition from using a Facebook-developed fork of database management system MySQL to community-developed fork MariaDB. The change brought considerable performance improvements of about 20%, WMF performance engineer Asher Feldman reported; however, users are unlikely to notice the change, since database reads constitutes only a small proportion of total request time when viewed from the user's perspective. As reported in the Signpost last December, the move also visibly lends the Foundation's support to the MariaDB open-source project following its split from the main MySQL project in 2009 amid licensing concerns.
  
  Reader comments
  

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

Keep up with The Signpost on Twitter, Facebook or Mastodon.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions