Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-02-20

In 2019, Wikimania will be held in Sweden, although the exact location is yet to be determined. Announcing the decision, Ellie Young of the Wikimania Committee said:

The Swedish proposal beat out three other proposals from teams in Armenia, Perth, and Prague. –E

The WMF is ending the Wikipedia Zero program, which has provided more than 800 million people with access to Wikipedia free of mobile data charges. The reasons given by WMF for ending the program were "drop off in adoption and interest... due, in part, to the rapidly shifting mobile industry, as well as changes in mobile data costs". Zero had been critiqued by Vice magazine as embodying "digital colonialism" and for serving free porn and pirated movies. Early comments on the post brought up the issue of net neutrality. –B, E

The Wikimedia Foundation has released a research report on "Wikimedia's role in shaping the future of the information commons", available as a PDF on Commons or on Medium. The report, based on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy discussions held last year, presents insights, recommendations, and discussion points from the WMF's staff and consultants. –E

With zero RfAs in January, this year looks more like 2016 than 2017 according to Wikipedia:RFA by month. If we have another year of under 20 successful RfAs, things will not look good. Commentary to June 2017 Signpost's News and notes by Widefox said 50 is a replacement number.

In the great 2011 RfA Reform debate, it was noted by Swarm "August 2011 saw only one promotion, a monthly low that has only been reached one other time in RfA history". So, a phenomenon that was alarming or even worth reconsidering the whole RfA process then, seems to be getting barely any attention at all at this time. Or is it? Your comments are invited below. –B

• Steward elections: Voting is now open for the 2018 Steward elections, and will remain open until 28 February 2018, 13:59 (UTC).
• New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of the newest Wikimedia movement affiliates: the Wikimedians of Romania and Moldova User Group, the Don Wikimedians User Group, the Wikimedians of North American Indigenous Languages User Group, and the Wikibase Community User Group.

"The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds"^[1]

Reviewed by FULBERT

While politics in the United States appears to be increasingly polarized around extremes in political discourse, it was unclear how this affected the open, collective production of knowledge that is Wikipedia.

The researchers used a data dump of English Wikipedia from 12/1/16, including all edits made since its start within the domains of politics, social issues, and science. They focused on the "American liberalism" and "American conservatism" categories and sub-categories as delimiters, with breakdowns in social issues and science down four levels from the root. The researchers reached out to the Wikipedia community, Wikimedia staff, and those who directly inquired on the page they created through Meta-Wiki, with 118 responses overall for their survey. The researchers then analyzed user edits to determine political alignment based on contributions to conservative or liberal articles.

The researchers found that "articles attracting more attention tend to have more balanced engagement from editors along the conservative-liberal spectrum" (p. 4). They then measured the quality of articles using a tool developed by Wikimedia research staff (ORES), and determined that higher political polarization was associated with higher article quality. All this fed into their study goals of exploring the relationship between diversity of political alignment and article quality and bias. Through their statistical analysis, they determined that the quality of articles in Wikipedia improves when editors on both sides of politically polarized issues work together to seek collaborative consensus on topics. While this research was directly focused on politically-related topics, it surfaced both a need for political diversity and for motivated contributors.

(Cf. related earlier coverage: "Being Wikipedian is more important than the political affiliation", "Cross-language study of conflict on Wikipedia")

"Computing controversy: Formal model and algorithms for detecting controversy on Wikipedia and in search queries"^[2]

Reviewed by Barbara Page and Tilman Bayer

This paper presents a "method for automatic detection of controversial articles and categories in Wikipedia", based on three data sources:

• Ratings submitted by readers via the Article Feedback Tool (AFT) in 2011 and 2012
• The list at Wikipedia:List of controversial issues (manually maintained by Wikipedia editors)
• A sample of 512 sections drawn randomly from the talk pages of articles on that list ("Surprisingly, only 19.5% of the sections turned out to be controversial").

The researchers argue that applying a mathematical model to Wikipedia talk page controversies has the potential of incorporating a 'controversy' metric in web-searches. This should give those searching for information on a topic a way to quickly assess controversial topics. Wikipedia provides researchers with accessible and historical controversial discussions. The authors further describe their work: "[Assessing] the controversy should offer [readers] a chance to see the 'wider picture' rather than letting [them] obtain one-sided views." The authors' conclusions were: "Our approach can be also applied in Wikipedia or other knowledge bases for supporting the detection of controversy and content maintenance. Finally, we believe that our results could be useful for...understanding the complex nature of controversy..."

"Wikipedia in higher education: Changes in perceived value through content contribution"^[3]

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Students are a convenient group to study, especially if being studied is part of the syllabus. The 240 students in this study readily admitted to using Wikipedia as a resource even though they did not be consider it to be 'reliable and trustworthy'. Using Wikipedia as a resource does not necessarily encourage content contributions by students. In addition, when the students in this study actually added content, their perceptions of the reliability and usefulness of Wikipedia did not change.

(For coverage of various other papers studying the use and perception of Wikipedia by students, see also our 2017 special issue on Wikipedia in Education)

"Excavating the mother lode of human-generated text: A systematic review of research that uses the Wikipedia corpus"^[4]

Reviewed by Barbara Page

The amount of research that uses Wikipedia as a source of data continues to grow and enough scholarly content now exists that systematic reviews are available. Computer science has especially been quick to see the potential of this 'mother lode' and how it can be used to study information retrieval, natural language processing, and ontology building. The reference section in this article itself makes interesting reading if only to appreciate the collection of data sets and other research that exists and continues to expand.

(See also our earlier coverage of literature reviews, some involving the same authors: "A systematic review of the Wikipedia literature", "'Wikipedia in the eyes of its beholders: A systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia readers and readership'", "Literature reviews of Wikipedia's inputs, processes, and outputs")

"Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses"^[5]

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Apparently, Wikipedia editors are not the only ones who have observed biased editing. The author of this research article (already mentioned in a previous issue) used his own article as a case study and example of biased editing. It is no surprise that an editor can 'nominally' follow editing guidelines to maintain their bias. Here is the 'how to' on such behavior:

• deleting positive material
• adding negative material
• using a one-sided selection of sources
• exaggerating the significance of references and topics

Those who are biased sometimes support their editing even in 'the face of resistance'. This is done by:

• reverting edits
• selectively invoking Wikipedia rules
• overruling (bullying?) resistant editors

When bias is challenged by other editors, the strategies for dealing with it is making complaints, 'mobilizing counterediting', and exposing the bias. The authors' stinging conclusion speaks for itself: "It is worthwhile becoming aware of persistent bias and developing ways to counter it in order for Wikipedia to move closer to its goal of providing accurate and balanced information."

"Information Fortification: An Online Citation Behavior"^[6]

Reviewed by Barbara Page

This study is a rebuttal to a 2005 position paper by Forte (one of the authors) and Bruckman, which had drawn "on Latour’s sociology of science and citation to explain citation in Wikipedia with a focus on credibility seeking". Citing sources is associated with other issues of bias and identifies the patterns used to in citing sources to encourage and even fabricate controversy. This study was limited to non-scientific topics and used data derived from edit logs, interviews and text analysis. "[I]nformation fortification [is] a concept that explains online citation activity that arises from both naturally occurring and manufactured forms of controversy."

"Overview of the Wikidata Vandalism Detection Task at WSDM Cup 2017"^[7]

Reviewed by Barbara Page

Vandalism of Wikidata can have significant disruptions in the use of the data leading to flaws in the analysis of such data. Collaborative efforts continue to address these concerns and included some friendly 'competitions'. Strategies for 'fighting' vandalism at this time include manual review, community feedback, and analyzing reverting patterns. Other 'vandalism' fighting tools are being developed. Interesting is the discussion about the effort to use "psychologically motivated features capturing a user’s personality and state of mind..."

"Examining Wikipedia With a Broader Lens: Quantifying the Value of Wikipedia's Relationships with Other Large-Scale Online Communities"^[8]

Reviewed by Steve Jankowski

There is a growing body of literature that examines Wikipedia's role in creating value for other websites as part of a media ecosystem. Adding to these studies is the work of Vincent, Johnson & Hecht who examined the bidirectional value created for Reddit and Stack Overflow. Conceptually, the authors distinguished between two sets of metrics to define this value. For Reddit and Stack Overflow, they understood value as being a function of user engagement (score/votes, comments, page views) that is contextualized by potential revenue. For Wikipedia, value is likewise seen as user engagement, characterized by edit count, editors gained, editors retained, and article page views, but is not contextualized by revenue (p.4).

Based on this operationalization of value, the authors assessed the amount of content and links created through associative and causal analyses. They found that Wikipedia provided substantial value to Stack Overflow and Reddit. Most clearly, they illustrated this by explaining how posts containing Wikipedia links gained engagement levels that were estimated to be worth $100K per year (p.2). However, this level of engagement did not operate in the reverse. The authors found "negligible increases" (p.2) to the number of edits and editor signups. Based on these results, the authors observed that the relationship between Wikipedia and the two communities was "one-way", with Wikipedia providing more value than it received in return.

Considering this new direction in studying Wikipedia, there are a number of elements that require commentary. The first is the obvious care the authors displayed in their methods. For example, they were conscious of the need to adjust their analyses to consider the skew of current events by providing inter-rater agreement on the required qualitative analysis that this required. The second comment is that there is a conceptual mismatch of using revenue as an appropriate metric for analyzing value created "between communities", considering that the communities themselves do not receive any profit. Perhaps future research in this area might need greater granularity in the type of relationships that reflect differences between community-to-community, owner-to-owner, and community-to-owner.

Despite this terminological slippage, this research adds specific details to Van Djick's analysis of the social media ecosystem^[9] where she described the character of the relationship between Google and Wikipedia within a for-profit context. Likewise, the article provides greater support to conclusions presented in an earlier study conducted by McMahon, Johnson & Hecht.^[10] In that paper, Google's usage of Wikipedia content in its Knowledge Graph results was shown to reduce the amount of through traffic when a link to Wikipedia was removed. As the authors of both papers agree, contextualizing Wikipedia as part of an ecosystem is significant for understanding and assessing how external relationships can be adapted to the sustainability of Wikipedia.

A 2015 study confined to the subreddit /r/todayilearned (TIL) found "strong statistical evidence suggesting Reddit threads affect Wikipedia viewership levels in a non-trivial manner", but did not examine effects on editor activity.^[11]

"Knowledge categorization affects popularity and quality of Wikipedia articles"^[12]

Reviewed by FULBERT

This empirical research paper explored how knowledge categorization – common in classification systems within the information sciences – works as a scientific and social process when Wikipedia articles are attended to by editors. Categorization leads to nesting of information under major topics, and the further down a hierarchy, the less editing attention articles appear to garner. Articles higher in the hierarchy are referred to as coarse-grained, and while these receive the most attention, their levels of quality have not been the focus of previous studies.

The researchers analyzed a database dump of the English-language Wikipedia from October 20, 2016, considering all articles that were members of at least one category (n=5,006,601). They defined granularity as the length of the shortest path from the root (main category), which averaged 7.59 across all articles, which they then compared to the number of article edits (which related to preception of higher quality articles), the number of articles as rated by importance (done individually by WikiProjects), perceptions of quality (based on being classified as a featured article), and the notion of return on effort (quality of an article relative to the amount of work done on it by editors). They conducted non-parametric and parametric statistical analyses using numerous variables based on the many article records through their data dump.

There were many levels of findings, with the main one being that articles in coarse-grained categories (those nearest the top of the hierarchies) received the most number of edits and attention from editors, though they were least likely to be featured (highest quality) articles. This seemed to surprise the authors, as it means that those articles that receive the most attention (by editors) overall lack the depth of quality found in featured articles, most of which are further down the hierarchy.

See the research events page on Meta-wiki for upcoming conferences and events, including submission deadlines.

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions are always welcome for reviewing or summarizing newly published research.

Compiled by Barbara Page and Tilman Bayer

• "Time-focused analysis of connectivity and popularity of historical persons in Wikipedia"^[13] From the abstract: "Our study sheds new light on the characteristics of information about historical people recorded in the English Wikipedia and quantifies user interest in such data. We propose a novel style of analysis in which we use signals derived from the hyperlink structure of Wikipedia as well as from article view logs, and we overlay them over temporal dimension to understand relations between time periods, link structure and article popularity."
• "Patients are content with Dr. Google"^[14] (Article in German, translated title: "Health information: He who searches, will find – Patients are content with Dr. Google") 72% of patients in Germany consult "Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias" for health information. 54% find Wikipedia "trustworthy".
• "WikiLyzer: Interactive Information Quality Assessment in Wikipedia"^[15] From the abstract: "We developed WikiLyzer, a toolkit comprising three Web-based interactive graphic tools designed to assist (i) knowledge discovery experts in creating and testing metrics for quality measurement , (ii) users searching for good articles, and (iii) users that need to identify weaknesses to improve a particular article. A case study suggests that experts are able to create complex quality metrics with our tool and a report in a user study on its usefulness to identify high-quality content."
• "To link or not to link: Ranking hyperlinks in Wikipedia using collective attention"^[16] From the abstract: "... we tackle overlinking in Wikipedia as a ranking problem. We apply Learning to Rank algorithms to evaluate the click frequency of links in an effort to distinguish the most useful links for users. To accomplish this, we develop a ground truth, which serves as baseline for our algorithm and compare hyperlink features to implement the most advantageous ones. The results show 86.2% accuracy with the top-6 most useful features and 87.7% accuracy with the complete feature set. Considering these results, we outline a solution to the overlinking problem. By removing the most inadequate links, we suggest that readability of Wikipedia articles could be improved while preserving most of its useful links."
• "Usage of Wikipedia by health science and social sciences & humanities undergraduates of University of Peradeniya and SouthEastern University of Sri Lanka"^[17] From the paper: "[Survey] participants were given five options to indicate how they use information services and technologies in searching for their study requirements. The study show that 79% of total students access Wikipedia and 78% use Google to find their information followed by Google scholar (60%), library (57%), and other databases 43% . 69% of FAC and 67% of FAHS students mentioned Wikipedia as their first source of information while embarking into searching for information. 79% students of both faculties use Wikipedia as the first source, while 69% use it as the only source. [...] According to the outcome of the study, Wikipedia was crowned as the first source and most common source when undergraduates seek for information."
• "Emo, Love, and God: Making Sense of Urban Dictionary, a Crowd-Sourced Online Dictionary [Wiktionary]"^[18] Conclusions: "The lexical content of UD [Urban Dictionary] is radically different from that of Wiktionary, another crowd-sourced, but more highly moderated dictionary. In general, we can say that the overlap between the two dictionaries is small. Considering all unique UD headwords that are not found in Wiktionary, we found that this number is almost three times the number of headwords that uniquely occur in Wiktionary. However, if we exclude words with only one definition in UD (which tend to be infrequent or idiosyncratic words), we found the opposite pattern, with Wiktionary-only headwords amounting to almost three times the UD-only headwords."

Joefromrandb and others – recapping from the previous issue of The Signpost: a number of behaviors were cited including hostile editing in the form of personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, inflammatory edit summaries, and edit warring. The evidence phase closed 11 February and arbs moved to accept (14/0/1). No evidence was provided by non-parties nor from Joefromrandb himself. Does this mean the charges of incivility will be taken on face value? Arb Newyorkbrad said "it's difficult to address things ... without a response from him, which I still hope he will provide".

Civility in infobox discussions, formerly titled "Civility issues", concerns incivility surrounding discussions of infoboxes for artists. The evidence phase closed 19 February with no evidence provided by non-parties. The respondent Cassianto is still on a self-imposed block set to expire in about 60 days. Will Arbcom create new policy for this apparently volatile area? Probably not if Opabinia regalis's comment is any guide: "This seems like a poor foundation on which to build the widely perceived as inevitable Infoboxes 2 case", echoed by Newyorkbrad: "historically this [unresolved policy question] is not the type of problem that this Committee's decisions have been best suited to solve". Does it sound like hard cases make bad law to anyone else?

Human beings are odd creatures. We are currently living through the safest and most secure era our species has ever experienced, and yet we seem addicted to pain. If we cannot have it ourselves, we seek to feel it vicariously. It's the only explanation I can conceive for this week's list, which is topped by a fake blood sport and riddled with death, depredation, and allegations. Multiple people on this list either died horribly and unexpectedly, were accused or accused others of having done unspeakable things, or some combination of the above. Even the Bollywood movie this week sparked riots and death threats. This is particularly striking when you consider that this was also the week of the Grammys, and yet, as per usual on Wikipedia, that show has left a small footprint.

For the week of January 28 to February 3, 2018, the most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the WP:5000 report were:

Unlike last year, a Falcon won during Super Bowl week. Of course, I'm talking about Falcon Heavy (#14), which had its maiden flight conducted by SpaceX on February 6. Elon Musk (#1) is of course the founder and CEO of SpaceX.

Now, let's address the obvious theme one will find throughout this list: Super Bowl LII (#10), the 52nd edition of the Super Bowl. Quarterback and Super Bowl MVP Nick Foles (#2) and head coach Doug Pederson led the Philadelphia Eagles (#10) to victory over Tom Brady's (#5) New England Patriots. The Super Bowl for the Eagles was the franchise's first, meaning they're now on the List of Super Bowl champions (#9). Also Super Bowl-related: the game's half time performer Justin Timberlake, and The Cloverfield Paradox (#4), a Netflix film which received praise for its Super Bowl commercial marketing.

Oh... hey, there's even more sports with the opening ceremony of the 2018 Winter Olympics (#8) happening this week. This rendition notched 1.23 million page views, an increase from the 2014 event's 1.06 million page views during its opening ceremony week.

And then there was Travis Scott (#3) and Kylie Jenner (#7), who both found their way into the top 10 after announcing the birth of their child.

For the week of February 4 to February 10, 2018, the most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the WP:5000 report were:

This week's report can be summarily reduced to three events – the cinematic behemoth that is Black Panther, the ongoing Winter Olympics in South Korea, and the horrific school shooting in Florida. The report is dominated by articles related to these topics, diverse as they may be. Media may captivate, between incessant sports coverage and Hollywood productions, but the sad tragedy of pointless bloodshed casts a dark shadow over the report as a whole. Though less diverse than usual, there is stark contrast and interesting content in this week's iteration of the Report, between the weather-plagued Olympics and the searing and scorching heat of Wakanda. Ergo, I found the report riveting to compile, and hope that it is as engaging to peruse as it was to produce.

Without further ado, for the week of February 11 to February 17, 2018, the most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the WP:5000 report were:

• These lists excludes the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.

Three featured articles were promoted.

• Anne Hathaway (nominated by FrB.TG ) is an American actress and singer. One of the world's highest-paid actresses in 2015, she has received multiple awards, including an Academy Award, a Golden Globe, a British Academy Film Award and a Primetime Emmy. Her films have earned $6.4 billion worldwide, and she appeared in the Forbes Celebrity 100 in 2009.
• K-25 (nominated by Hawkeye7) was the codename given by the Manhattan Project to the program to produce enriched uranium for atomic bombs using the gaseous diffusion method. Originally the codename for the product, over time it came to refer to the project, the production facility located at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the main gaseous diffusion building, and ultimately the site. When it was built in 1944, the four-story K-25 gaseous diffusion plant was the world's largest building, comprising over 1,640,000 square feet (152,000 m²) of floor space and a volume of 97,500,000 cubic feet (2,760,000 m³).
• 3 of Hearts (album) (nominated by Aoba47) is the self-titled debut studio album by American group 3 of Hearts. It was released on March 6, 2001, through the record label RCA Nashville. 3 of Hearts is a teen pop and country music album, though according to some music critics, it leans more towards pop music. The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore; its marketing focused on the group's crossover appeal to target a teenaged and young-adult audience. 3 of Hearts performed on two national tours sponsored by Seventeen magazine and Walmart respectively, and the singers were featured in several marketing campaigns.

11 featured lists were promoted.

• The Billboard Latin Music Lifetime Achievement Award (nominated by Erick) is an honor presented by Billboard magazine to an artist or a group "for an exceptional career that has taken Latin music to another level globally"
• There are 210 Grade II* listed buildings in Mendip (nominated by Rod). The list includes a large number of churches, some of which are Norman. Several buildings are associated with the church, particularly the Anglican Glastonbury Abbey and Wells Cathedral along with the Benedictine Downside Abbey. Many of the rest of the buildings are urban or rural houses ranging in date from the 12th to 19th centuries. Trade in the area is represented by market crosses and the Anglo-Bavarian Brewery. Shepton Mallet Prison and a village lock-up are also included in the list. The oldest is the Church of St Mary, Laverton, while the most recent is Mells War Memorial by Sir Edwin Lutyens.
• England cricket team Test results (1946–1959) (nominated by Harrias) Careful, detailed and chronological events in English 'cricket-dom' are described in this well-written engaging list and narrative. Undoubtedly, this will be the 'go-to' article and list that will be consulted by aficionados for a good while.
• A women's One Day International (WODI) is an international cricket match between two teams, each having WODI status, as determined by the International Cricket Council (ICC). In a WODI match, the two teams play a single innings, each of which is restricted to a maximum of fifty overs.The first WODI matches were played as part of the Women's Cricket World Cup in 1973 held in England, two years after the first men's One Day International was contested between Australia and England in January 1971. A century is a score of one hundred or more runs by a batsman in a single innings. This is regarded as a notable achievement. As of January 2018, 182 centuries have been scored (nominated by Ianblair23) by 79 different players from 1,094 WODI matches.
• Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 833 square miles (2,160 km²), and a population according to the 2011 census of 980,000. In England, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) are designated by Natural England, a non-departmental public body which is responsible for protecting England's natural environment. Designation as an SSSI gives legal protection to the most important wildlife and geological sites. As of January 2018, there are seventy-six SSSIs in the county (nominated by Dudley Miles), fifty-seven of which are designated for their biology, twelve for their geology and seven for both criteria.
• George Harrison (1943–2001) was an English musician who recorded many songs during his career (nominated by BeatlesLedTV). During his lifetime, he released eleven studio albums, two compilation albums, two live albums, and many singles as a solo artist. After his death in 2001, a final studio album, two singles, two compilation albums, and four box sets have been released as of 2017.
• Aguascalientes is a state located in Central Mexico. According to the 2015 Mexican Intercensal Survey, Aguascalientes is the sixth least populous state with 1,312,544 inhabitants and the fourth smallest by land area spanning 5,630.27 square kilometres (2,173.86 sq mi). Aguascalientes is divided into eleven municipalities. (nominated by Mattximus)
• The Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy (nominated by The Rambling Man) was established by the National Aeronautic Association (NAA) in 1948 after a trust fund was created in 1936 by Godfrey Lowell Cabot of Boston, a former president of the NAA. It is awarded to a living American for "significant public service of enduring value to aviation in the United States."
• Tom Mix (1880–1940) was an American motion picture actor, director, and writer whose career spanned from 1910 to 1935. During this time he appeared in 270 films (nominated by Jimknut) and established himself as the screen's most popular cowboy star. Mix's flair for showmanship set the standard for later cowboy heroes such as Gene Autry and Roy Rogers. His horse Tony also became a celebrity who received his own fan mail.
• Cardinals are senior ecclesiastical leaders of the Catholic Church, usually ordained bishops and generally holding important roles within the Church, such as governing prominent archdioceses or managing dicasteries within the Roman Curia. As of 3 February 2018, there are 216 cardinals (nominated by Ravenpuff), 119 of whom are cardinal electors. The most recent consistory for the creation of cardinals was held on 28 June 2017, when Pope Francis created five cardinals, all cardinal electors. Antonio Maria Vegliò was the most recent cardinal elector to turn 80, on 3 February 2018, whereas Paolo Romeo will be the next to do so, on 20 February 2018. Bernard Francis Law was the most recent cardinal to die, on 20 December 2017, at the age of 86.
• Hot Country Songs is a chart that ranks the top-performing country music songs in the United States, published by Billboard magazine. In 2003, nineteen different songs topped the chart (nominated by ChrisTheDude), then published under the title Hot Country Singles & Tracks, in 52 issues of the magazine, based on weekly airplay data from country music radio stations compiled by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems.

WMDE Technical Wishes, the team behind the current two-column edit conflict beta feature, has developed a new prototype for resolving edit conflicts. It works by letting you create a merged version by resolving conflicts at the paragraph level – where for each conflicting paragraph, you choose either your edit or the conflicting edit as a basis for the merged version, and edit it as needed. Further information is available on Meta.

[Update: This is now fixed.] As of 20 February, the "thanks" system has been malfunctioning on English Wikipedia. According to a Village pump discussion, clicking the link appeared to have no effect for one user, while the main, reproducible problem is "the thanks function is thanking the last unthanked edit in the page, regardless of which edit is chosen, so in many cases it is thanking the wrong edit/user". The links have been hidden from view, and a bug report filed on Phabricator with the highest "Unbreak now!" priority.