White matter connections illustrated with MRI tractography, from a 2008 PLoS ONE article by Gigandet et al.Daniel Mietchen at GLAM-WIKI France in 2010.Larvae of Culex mosquitoes. This image was a finalist in Commons Picture of the Year 2007, and is from a PLoS Biology article.Oligochlora semirugosa preserved in amber, from a paper in ZooKeys.Particles from the Ebola virus, from a PLoS Pathogens paper.
The project's stated goal is "improving Open Access coverage and reuse in WMF projects". Images are already being reused from many Open Access scientific journals, but such reuse could be extended across many more Wikipedia languages and also into sister projects like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikisource, Wikiquote and Wikiversity. Mietchen's role marks an interesting development for the Wikimedians in Residence programs which have thus far been primarily involved in cultural sector outreach as part of GLAM collaborations. The post on the Wikimedia blog has a number of ways Wikimedians can get involved in this initiative.
The Signpost caught up with Mietchen to talk about what the project entails.
Could you tell us a bit more about yourself?
I trained as a biophysicist and have spent the last decade applying Magnetic Resonance Imaging and related techniques to the study of biological systems ranging from single cells to embryos to brains and fossils. This provided me with multiple perspectives on collaboration and sparked an interest in the integration of scientific workflows with the web, an area in which I am now freelancing. I signed the Budapest Open Access Initiative soon after it had been released to the public in early 2002, around the time when I started using the Wikipedias as a language learning tool and made my first drive-by edits. Since then, my interest in doing science in the open has continued to grow, and tools like blogs and wikis are a natural helper with that. The focus of my edits here as well as on Wikiversity, Citizendium and other wikis is on scientific topics, and my activities on Meta concentrate on RCom.
Wikipedians and Signpost readers will be aware of the Wikimedian in Residence projects done by GLAM institutions like the British Museum and National Archives and Records Administration, but what exactly does this initiative do that's different?
I would rather emphasize the similarities – especially the partnering of Wikimedia and expert communities – and that the worlds of GLAM and scientific research are heavily intertwined, which shall be reflected in the new project being integrated with WP:GLAM. But there are indeed a number of differences:
Coverage of the target topic: The GLAM initiatives build on articles around the GLAM theme already having quite a bit of content, and on the related WikiProjects (e.g. Museums) being active, so that it makes sense to focus on highlighting and improving articles related to individual institutions and their exhibits. Topics related to Open Science – and even its flagship Open Access – are much less popular with both readers and editors, so even the overarching WikiProject Science is not very active, and coverage of subtopics like Open Access remains very patchy. For instance, there is an article about the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics but not about its publisher, Copernicus Publications, who would be the partner in a GLAM-like scheme. In this sense, the current project lays the ground for future activities involving collaboration with individual stakeholders of the kind that characterizes the GLAM projects already today, and the "residence" part is mainly online, with meetups at Open Access and Wikimedia events.
Reuse of content from partners: GLAM institutions do not generally put their web content under licenses that would allow reuse on WMF projects. This is at the heart of the controversy with the UK's National Portrait Gallery, and image donations are a common workaround. However, many open access publishers already use WMF-compatible licenses (mostly CC-BY), so their output could be considered a perpetual flow of donations which, moreover, yields itself more easily to automation than one-time donations. Facilitating the re-use of open access resources is thus another focus of this project, and it extends beyond Wikipedia to all WMF projects.
Policy: There is no WMF policy on GLAM (and no need for it), but RCom is working on an open access policy for WMF-related research projects, and having a closer interaction between the WMF and OA communities will certainly help in making this policy useful.
Do you think there are any potential areas of conflict that might arise between the role of peer-reviewed scientific journals which are pushing the leading edge of science, and Wikipedia which is trying to conservatively record the status quo of what is verifiable?
I don't think this black-and-white image of progressive and conservative elements holds but yes, there certainly is potential for conflict, since the two processes work quite differently and serve quite different purposes. There are benefits as well: it is hard to verify anything hidden behind access walls, so making peer-reviewed content accessible for free is a first step towards both Open Science and WP:V. The logical next steps towards Open Science are to make not just the final paper available but also all the data and code supporting claims made in the paper. The Open Knowledge Foundation and others are working in this direction. Besides, I think that the scientific peer review process (not just for journals, but equally for grant proposals) would benefit from being more open, e.g. by publishing all peer reviews along with the papers in a way similar to talk page comments accompanying a wiki page. Some publishers (e.g. BioMed Central) already go that route, and such reviews can then again help editors with relevant expertise to make sense of the paper and to evaluate what it means for the status quo of related Wikipedia articles.
Plus, more and more scholarly journals – and not just the OA ones – allow comments on the articles they publish. The feature is not widely used by the scholarly community, but can certainly be regarded as an invitation to the broader public to engage with the research reported there. So if there is a problem with a particular open access article, or if a WMF project reuses some materials thereof, then there is nothing wrong with leaving a note there (example).
The coverage and policy parts of the project won't help much beyond raising awareness for these issues, but the re-use part has some potential to indirectly facilitate such bridging by virtue of Wikipedia's high search engine rankings, which will likely increase expert exposure to Wikipedia content derived from Open Science or Open Access sources. Whether that translates into increasing expert participation or retention is beyond the scope of the project, but one could envisage ways in which the interactions between the wiki and OA communities in the framework of this project could serve as a test case for expert engagement and retention.
Verifiability and No original research are two of Wikipedia's core content policies. The core idea is that noteworthy information will have at least some source that Wikipedia articles can cite, and if not, then the information isn't noteworthy. While this might hold for the Western world, local information is rarely written down in areas like India and South Africa; there, knowledge exists predominantly as the spoken word. In the UK, for example, one book is published for every 372 citizens each year; but the ratio in South Africa is roughly 20 times smaller, and in India as much as 30 times smaller, with one book per 11,000 citizens each year. This raises an important question: how can there be a balance between local knowledge and global knowledge in Wikipedia if local knowledge is all but non-existent in the written world?
People are Knowledge, a CC-BY-SA film published a few days ago, offers an answer: instead of written citations, Wikipedia language versions like Hindi, Malayalam and Sepedi could use oral citations. Interviews and recordings could serve as a source of knowledge for Wikipedia. The team which tried this did experience problems early on, as documented in the 45-minute film: two residents of a small village described a local children's game differently. The team's solution seems to fit the mindset at Wikipedia: present both sides in the Wikipedia article.
One year into his role as Chief Global Development Officer, Barry Newstead published a report on his experiences and those of his colleagues in the Global Development team, which is tasked with expanding Wikimedia's reach in parts of the world where the editor community is underdeveloped. Highlights of this initial year have included the first global and systematic survey of the editor community, the India catalyst initiative, and the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebrations. However, there were disappointments for Newstead, including the postponement of the launch of an online merchandising store and the slow pace of progress in mobile development.
Initiatives for the coming year include a search for partnerships with mobile operators (particularly those willing to provide free access to Wikipedia for their customers), the doubling of the grants scheme to $600,000, and the expansion of the pioneering Public Policy Initiative into a Global Education program to promote university outreach worldwide. Newstead emphasised that reversing the decline in editors and expanding the movement's mobile presence are the key priorities for the year ahead.
As part of a continuing analysis of the April 2011 editors' survey (see previous Signpost coverage), Newstead's colleague, Head of Global Development Research Mani Pande has written a report on what the results reveal about female editors of the project. A mere 8.5% of the participants in the global survey identified as female, and these editors were found to be significantly less likely than their male counterparts to make large numbers (5,000+) of edits during their lifetime as an editor. The Foundation aspires to increase the project's female editor count from 9,000 (as of spring 2011) to 11,700 by spring 2012, through initiatives such as simplifying the editing interface and engaging in outreach programs.
News in brief
Brazilian Wikimedians at WikiSampa8 in June 2011
Huggle experiments with gentler, more instructive warnings: The Foundation's Community Department has announced an experiment to improve Huggle first-contact with new editors, by testing "warning templates that are explicitly more personalized and set out to teach new editors more directly, rather than simply pointing them to policy and asking them not to do something". The investigation is part of the Wikimedia Summer of Research (see also this week's "Recent research" article).
Brazil Catalyst Project advances: In June 2011, Wikimedia Foundation staff members visited Brazil as part of the Brazil Catalyst Project, an initiative for the Foundation's strategic priority of supporting the development of the Brazilian Wikimedia community.
Language committee to allow "simple" projects: As announced earlier (Signpost coverage) and now confirmed in its June report, the Foundation's Language committee (volunteers charged with overseeing new language projects) has declared that "simple" language projects (primarily aimed at children and newcomers to a language) are "likely be allowed under certain conditions". The report also announced a new draft language proposal policy and the Board of Trustees' approval of the closing projects policy (earlier Signpost coverage: "Closing projects policy to become official").
Advertising: It was announced this week that the Foundation will receive free AdWords advertising courtesy of a Google grant. [Background: AdWords, Google's flagship advertising product, places sponsored links next to search results, netting the company tens of billions of dollars a year (foundation-l mailing list).]
Mobile viewing: Head of Global Development Research for the Foundation, Mani Pande, blogged about how the Foundation were planning to meet their target of increasing pageviews from mobile devices to two billion. The post include results from a recent survey about the desirable characteristics of any mobile platform.
Interwiki image suggester: Bulwersator of the Polish Wikipedia has developed a bot that makes suggestions for articles lacking infobox images by checking for images in other language versions of those articles. A trial of this functionality is available for viewing at User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images/Mountains. Similar functionality is provided by Magnus Manske's Free Image Search Tool (FIST) (see Signpost coverage).
Citizen's Information portal proposed: Several Meta editors have advanced the idea of Civipedia, envisioned as "a wiki-based Citizens' Information portal for every state in the world". Early discussion has focused on existing nation-specific resources of this kind, and how a wiki-based project of global scope might improve on them. GLAM Baltimore Meetup at the Walters Art Museum
GLAM Baltimore Meetup: On Friday, July 22, approximately 25 Baltimore Young Preservationists and Wikipedians turned out for a happy hour and to hear Sarah Stierch speak about her experience as Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Archives of American Art. The second part of the meetup, organized by Baltimore Heritage and hosted by the Walters Art Museum on Saturday, July 23, drew nearly 20 attendees. Katie Filbert presented about WikiDC, Sarah Stierch about GLAM-Wiki, and Dylan Kinnett on digitization and the museum's new web platform. As the Walters collections are owned by the City of Baltimore and do not include modern art, they are considered to be in the public domain; digital images will be made available on Wikimedia Commons in the next few months. There were also discussions about potential future collaborations between Wikimedians and cultural institutions in Baltimore, and plans for a "Wikis Take Baltimore" event in November.
Bureaucrat, oversight ranks up: This week saw a rare event in contemporary site politics – the successful request for bureaucratship of Hersfold, an administrator, checkuser, and former member of the Arbitration Committee. It was only the second RfB this year, following Maxim's attempt, also successful, last month. Another former arbitrator, FloNight, who is currently serving on the Ombudsman commission, has resumed her role as a local Oversighter.
New administrator:The Signpost welcomes Tyrol5 (nom) as our newest admin with unanimous support. Tyrol5's primary areas of expertise are medicine and molecular biology, with more than 30 articles contributed at Wikinews. At the time of publication, there were three open RfAs: Qwyrxian, due to finish Tuesday; Reaper Eternal, due to finish Thursday; and Richardcavell, due to finish Sunday.
Milestones
The following Wikipedia projects reached milestones in the past fortnight:
As the shrinking of the Malagasy Wiktionary comes to a halt (currently at 536,677 entries), its Wikipedia sister project continues to grow, reaching 20,000 articles and 200,000 page edits.
In other news, the Incubator wiki celebrates its 10,000th registered editor. This site is where potential Wikimedia project wikis in new language versions of Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikiquote and Wiktionary can be arranged, written, tested, and proven worthy of being hosted by the Foundation.
Greg Maxwell, who uploaded the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society papers in response to the prosecution of Swartz.
Aaron Swartz (User:AaronSw), an open-access activist, open-source developer, and 2006 candidate for the Wikimedia Foundation Board, is being criminally prosecuted for a variety of charges after he attempted to download a dump of all the PDFs on JSTOR, an academic paper repository containing archives from more than a thousand journals, mostly in the humanities. Swartz placed a laptop running a script, written specifically for downloading, inside a computer cabinet at MIT. After being caught attempting to take the computer out of the building at MIT, he was arrested and then charged in US Federal Court, although JSTOR have said they intend not to pursue civil litigation and have asked the US Attorney's Office to not pursue criminal charges against Swartz. He has pleaded not guilty and has been bailed on a $100,000 unsecured bond.
Swartz's indictment was widely reported in the international news media and the technology press, including the The New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, PC World, and Wired News Threatlevel. Software engineer Kevin Webb gave a sympathetic take in a post on Reuters' MediaFile, describing how many academics frequently bend copyright law with regard to scholarly publishing, and suggesting that Swartz may have been intending to do data analysis on the JSTOR collection rather than distributing the files on the Internet—a theory supported by Swartz's past work trying to determine "Who Writes Wikipedia?"
Following Swartz's arrest, Greg Maxwell (User:Gmaxwell) released a 33 GB torrent of pre-1923 papers from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, held by JSTOR. The papers are out of copyright in the US, based on the decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., but are of unknown legal status in the UK, where the Royal Society is based. Maxwell's document releases are in some ways similar to actions by Derrick Coetzee (User:Dcoetzee), who extracted images of public-domain paintings from a website and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, resulting in legal threats by the National Portrait Gallery. Maxwell's actions were reported in a variety of news sources, including the Boston.com MetroDesk blog, the technology website GigaOm and Gawker. The legal status of Maxwell's document releases and the differences between UK and US law are explored in a blog-post by Wikipedia administrator and Signpost contributor User:Ironholds, entitled "A Bridgeman too far". Further analysis and speculation about the prosecution has been published by Samuel Klein (User:Sj) on his blog. Existing Royal Society material is already being proofread on Wikisource as part of WikiProject Royal Society Journals.
The incident occurred in a week when the Wikimedia Foundation affirmed its commitment to joining forces with open science. Jay Walsh, the Head of Communications at the Foundation, told The Signpost:
“
I can say that we're aware of Greg Maxwell's efforts in terms of the upload of out-of-copyright papers from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society to a peer-to-peer network.
Of course it is legal to possess and distribute free works, including works that are out of copyright, within the public domain, or available under a creative commons license. Works in the public domain should be freely available to all, and we believe that academic researchers should distribute their works under open access policies.
The Wikimedia Foundation’s mission is to spread free knowledge globally. We support Gregory Maxwell’s lawful efforts to freely distribute and share valuable scientific journal articles that are in the public domain. Our projects are built on volunteer efforts to collaboratively build the world's body of free knowledge, work that can and should be shared freely with everyone.
”
Wikipedia tops the charts again
The second annual survey of the e-business sector by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (in conjunction with ForeSee Results) found, again, that Wikipedia has proven to be the "social media site" that American consumers find most satisfactory. Wikipedia improved its score by one point to 78 (on a scale of 1 to 100), beating such titans as YouTube (74 points) and Facebook (66). Credit for its success was attributed to its non-commercial nature. The social media sector overall performed relatively poorly, behind all but the airline, subscription television, and newspaper industries; Wikipedia was "the only social media site to beat the e-business (75.4) and national (75.6) averages for customer satisfaction". The website American consumers rated most highly was Google (83 points), closely followed by search competitor Bing (82) and Foxnews.com (82). (See also last year's Signpost coverage: "High Wikipedia customer satisfaction explained by user interface stability and non-profit nature")
Drama imitates life in geopolitical stability stakes
A heat map showing the countries of greatest predicted instability according to the Index
In a new paper published in the open-access journalPLoS ONE, researchers at Heidelberg University have proposed that the level of geopolitical instability of a nation-state is positively correlated with the frequency of disputes on Wikipedia about content related to the country. Drawing from methodologies used in biological network research, the researchers compiled a Wikipedia Dispute Index, which showed the parts of the world involved most intensively in on-wiki conflicts. The index was conceived as a less complex but more immediate and comprehensive supplement to existing widely used socio-economic indices, which have been criticized for producing results that are difficult to reproduce and to compare across different time-periods. According to the researchers, the Wikipedia Dispute Index "correlates with metrics of governance, political or economic stability about as well as they correlate with each other, and though faster and simpler, it is remarkably stable over time despite constant changes in the underlying disputes."
Compiling the index was hampered by insufficient data to reliably assess the majority of countries and regions, and by their uneven coverage in Wikipedia, but the researchers expect the Index to improve as the encyclopedia expands. The greatest frequencies of disputes were found in the Middle East, the countries making up the former state of Yugoslavia, and North Korea, while articles concerning Western European and North American countries attracted the least conflict. Disputes over events and individuals of historical or current interest that are sensitive to differences of interpretation among those of varying political persuasions were found to be the main contributors to the Index.
In brief
Readers rush to Wikipedia after singer's death: In the aftermath of death reports for English jazz vocalist Amy Winehouse, the late singer's Wikipedia article saw a surge in attention, with 4.8 million page visits on the day of her death and 2.3 million the following day. This marks the third-highest daily hit-rate in Wikipedia records, behind Osama bin Laden and Michael Jackson.
Will the article feedback tool ruin Wikipedia?: Mat Honan at Gizmodo thinks the Article Feedback Tool "won't work" and is "ripe for abuse", echoing a frequent complaint—that users "are going to give subjects they don't agree with shitty ratings just to express disapproval, even when the stories are accurate".
The climate wiki anyone can't edit: The Guardian's Environment Blog has an article by Leo Hickman on the launch of a new wiki focused on climate change by the Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank. ClimateWiki promises to "help everyone from high school students to scientists working in the field to quickly find the latest and most reliable information on this important topic". Hickman invited two critics of the global warming skeptics to submit material by email. Perhaps unsurprisingly, their contributions have not made it onto the site.
Wikipedia article takes centre stage: The New York Postreports that Brownsville Bred, an off-Broadway autobiographical one-woman show about growing up in Brownsville, Brooklyn, opens with a projection, on a sheet hung from a clothesline, of the text of the Wikipedia article about that New York City neighborhood, shown over video footage of the neighborhood's housing projects.
Oral Citations Project in India: The Bangalore Mirror has an article discussing the Oral Citations Project, a pilot program to look into countering systemic bias by documenting Indian society with audio and video and to test whether the current situation where printed texts are "privileged" in the citation system can be reversed. See this week's News and Notes for more information.
This is the third overview of recent published research on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (previous issues: June 6, April 11), intended to become a monthly feature published jointly with the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee. In addition to a focus on covering research by academics outside Wikimedia, this issue includes contributions funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. If you want your research to be featured in this monthly newsletter, you can tell us about your work by submitting it to the Wikimedia Research Index.
Edit wars and conflict metrics
A study covered in the previous edition of the research newsletter was extended and published by the authors on ArXiv. The authors report a new method for classifying how disputed a Wikipedia article is, to detect controversies and edit-wars. At its core, the method is based on looking at pairs of editors who have mutually reverted each other, and using their respective edit-counts to define an overall metric of conflict. Even though this formula is not immediately intuitive, the authors describe using special diagrams called "revert maps" on the Cartesian space that depict such pairs of editors. The authors use this classifier to select two samples of pages, of disputed and non-disputed topics,respectively, and analyze the time-series of revisions to these pages; while they find that both time series are characterized by bursts of user activity, they claim there is a qualitative difference between the two, although their analysis appears to lack any form of statistical hypothesis testing. They apply a priority-based model of editor activity that has been already proposed to explain human activity on the web, and find two distinctive patterns of activity that can help class "good" guys vs "bad" guys. [1]
The anatomy of a Wikipedia talk page
Several pieces over the past month have focused on the structure and nature of social interaction on Wikipedia's discussion pages, both from quantitative and qualitative perspectives.
Wikipedia discussions shallow in geography and history, but deep in philosophy, law, language and beliefs. A visualization of the discussion tree of the English Wikipedia article: presidency of Barack Obama, displaying the article as the root node in red, "child" nodes to comments in yellow, structural elements of the discussion page in gray, and unsigned comments in blue. From Laniado et al., 2011.[2] A study conducted by a team of researchers based in Milan and Barcelona, presented last week at ICWSM '11, looks into the properties of the social interaction of participants in discussions on talk pages.[2] The paper highlights a number of methodological issues in studying social network properties in Wikipedia. Social ties in Wikipedia are implicit, insofar as there is no representation of an explicit link between two Wikipedia users. A conversation between users allows inference of an implicit social network. However, inferring such networks in Wikipedia is challenging for two main reasons: the lack of structure of talk pages (which makes conversations hard to parse), and the dispersal of discussion threads, both within a page and over multiple pages (for example, an article talk-page plus a variable number of personal user talk-pages). Despite these difficulties, the study analyzes the properties of two types of social networks centered on article discussions (those on article talk-pages and those that focus on an article but take place via replies on user talk-pages) and a user-centric social network (that is, the network defined by direct messages left by users on their talk pages). The three networks show interesting dissimilarities in terms of the in- and out-degree of their nodes and in the proportion of overlap between their edges, suggesting that user- and article-centered communications are supported by substantially different networks.
The paper moves on to examine the degree assortativity of these networks—the tendency of users to create links with other users having a similar number of links. A striking difference emerges in the comparison with conversations in Slashdot, which are characterized by strong assortativity, and discussion networks in Wikipedia, which display a systematic dissortativity, an indication of the specificity of social interactions in Wikipedia compared with other social media. As the authors summarize, "Wikipedians who reply to many other users in article talk pages tend to interact mostly with users having few connections, i.e. newbies and inexperienced users, while the Wikipedians who receive replies from many users tend to interact preferentially with each other." The study moves on to consider the depth and popularity of article-centered discussions, and identifies metrics of the contentiousness of these discussions based on their depth and the number of mutual replies among users participating in the same thread. The research characterizes the size, frequency and structure of discussions across different article categories and finds that although “Geography” and “History” account together for almost half of all discussions in the English Wikipedia, they tend to host shallow threads, whereas “Philosophy”, “Law”, “Language” and “Belief” are characterized by the deepest discussions and involve the largest number of participants. Two of the authors gave a presentation at last month's Hypertext 2011 conference in Eindhoven: "Co-authorship 2.0: patterns of collaboration in Wikipedia".
Building consensus in talk pages: authority and alignment. A group of researchers based at the University of Washington released an annotated corpus of discussions from Wikipedia talk pages encoding two types of social acts: alignment moves and authority claims.[3] In the authors' own words, "an authority claim is a statement made by a discussion participant aimed at bolstering their credibility in the discussion. An alignment move is a statement by a participant which explicitly positions them as agreeing or disagreeing with another participant or participants regarding a particular topic". Studying discussions with the lens of authority and alignment can help to shed light on consensus-building strategies used by participants in Wikipedia discussions. The authors contend that the dataset offers qualitative materials that can be built upon to produce computational models of online debates. The data spans 365 discussions that occurred on 47 talk pages between 2002 and 2008, involving a total of 1,509 editors. After presenting the corpus, the study presents an analysis comparing editor activity metrics with the propensity of adopting one of the above social strategies. The authors introduce an editor’s v-index (or veteran index) defined as the greatest v, such that the editor has made at least v edits within the past v months and report that this indicator of editor activity positively correlates with the proportion of authority claims made in a discussion. Making an authority claim makes a user "significantly more likely to be the target of an alignment move within the subsequent 10 turns compared to turns that did not contain any claims".
Shortcomings in the design of Wikipedia talk pages. A diagram of deletion processes in the English Wikipedia, from Schneider et al., 2011 [4] Researchers from the National University of Ireland, Galway presented work in progress from a project aimed at understanding Wikipedia coordination spaces and costs. In a paper presented earlier this year at SAC '11 the authors discuss the results of a small series of semi-structured user interviews with Wikipedia administrators and editors.[5] The results point at a number of drawbacks in the design of Wikipedia talk pages, suggesting that editors find it hard to keep up-to-date with temporally sparse discussions that are often scattered across multiple pages. The interviews suggest that talk pages often become the target of support requests by new editors that go unnoticed. The lack of connection between discussions and the article itself (for example, the lack of links between threads and specific sections or topics of the article) also emerges as one of the main weaknesses of Wikipedia talk pages. In the remainder of the paper the authors introduce a lightweight solution to allow the effective categorization of comments posted on article talk-pages by semantically enriching them with an RDF mark-up. This mark-up can then be exposed to end-users with the aid of a JavaScript bookmarklet, manipulated and exported via SPARQL, and potentially used to generate granular notifications. In a poster presented last month at WebSci '11, the same team of researchers gives an overview of work in progress on AfD discussions and illustrates with a diagram the complexity of deletion discussions and procedures in the English Wikipedia. [4]
He conducted interviews with eleven active users of the Swedish Wikipedia (out of 20 contacted via e-mail) who had given "informed consent according to the recommendations of the Swedish Research Council". Their activity, as well as discussion on the village pump and on the talk pages of some articles, were observed from August 2009 to February 2010. (The paper does not link diffs of the users' comments, due to privacy reasons.) They were between 20 and 50 years old, with diverse jobs and outside interests. Among other observations, the paper states that "For most of the informants the watch-list ... is the starting point for their [everyday] activities", and that Wikipedia is also a place for identity construction, .... For Wikipedia editors, to edit is not just something you do, it is also a part of who you are". The title refers to the finding that "Cleaning work [e.g. reverting vandals] seems to be the central activity for almost all of the participants" of the interviews. The informants state that citing references has become more important on Wikipedia in recent years, also evidenced by the introduction (in November 2009) of a requirement to cite at least one reference in the criteria for inclusion of new articles in a "New Written Articles of the Week" page (similar to the English Wikipedia's Did You Know). One section is devoted to Wikipedia's "hierarchy of references" (by reliability), mentioning the Swedish Wikipedia's equivalent of WP:RS.
As theoretical framework, Sundin uses an actor-network theory interpretation of Wikipedia, which he explains as follows: "Within such a perspective, the editors, form and functions, core policies, guidelines of Wikipedia, its millions of articles and discussions, references, and users around the world can all be seen as actors, as they make each other do something; they construct, uphold and transform Wikipedia as we know it. An actor, for instance a functional feature in Wikipedia called the watch-list, that makes it easier for the editors to scan new contributions, or a policy document, makes other actors act in a particular way. ... Some actors have a more central role than others and some of these, if we draw on Callon (1986), are so central that they can be called obligatory passage points. An obligatory passage point can be thought of as a threshold that other actors need to pass or adjust to." As such an obligatory passage point in Wikipedia's network of actors, Sundin identifies the Verifiability policy.
Use of Wikipedia among law students: a survey
An article in The Law Teacher titled: "Embracing Wikipedia as a research tool for law: to Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia?" describes an anonymous survey among 101 Australian students (30 senior secondary high school students enrolled in legal studies, and 71 law degree students in their first and second year at the University of Southern Queensland) about their use and perceptions of Wikipedia.[7] Their results indicate "that the majority (78%) of all students surveyed are currently using Wikipedia for some form of legal (30%) or other research (37%) or as a source of general information (11%)." One of the 101 students admitted to have vandalized Wikipedia articles, while two said they corrected errors in Wikipedia. The use of Wikipedia for legal research among the first-year university students was much lower than among the high-school students, which the authors conjecture is "a result of legal research skills training and warnings against its use, and perhaps even a result of cultural adaptation. Seventy-eight percent of the first year law students surveyed acknowledged that Wikipedia can be unreliable and/or inaccurate." However, Wikipedia usage for legal or other research increased again for the second year university students, which the authors surmise could have to do with the students becoming "a little more streetwise within the university context and [finding] the convenience of Wikipedia appealing."
Apart from the poll results, the paper contains a small literature survey about "Wikipedia as a teaching and learning resource", observing that "the use of wikis in legal education is in its infancy. Several of the case studies in the literature reported positive outcomes," and qualitative results from an "informal preliminary investigation into academic perceptions of Wikipedia as a research source in law" ("All the academics consulted considered Wikipedia an unreliable source for legal information ... Some acknowledged a role for Wikipedia as a source for legal or incidental background information" with qualifications about accuracy and reliability). Still, "the authors argue that using Wikipedia as a tertiary source for assimilating broad overview information, for both legal and incidental research, to define and identify keywords for further research, and as a link to other resources, is acceptable when the issues surrounding the discerning use of any secondary source, peer reviewed or not, are fully understood", and that "Academics can and should contribute to Wikipedia either directly, through the contribution of research, or indirectly, through the mentoring of student contributions which can be incorporated into course content and assessments." Among other conclusions, the authors suggest "encouraging universities to develop policies consistent with academic contribution to Wikipedia".
Miscellaneous
Turning back Wikipedia's clock: In a paper titled "Wikipedia Revision Toolkit: Efficiently Accessing Wikipedia's Edit History",[8] three researchers from the Darmstadt University of Technology present software that allows easy access of the state of Wikipedia corresponding to a particular point in time, both for single article revisions and for whole history dumps up to that moment. As motivation, they note that large-scale access of single revisions via Wikipedia's own API is inefficient since data needs to be transmitted over the Internet, whereas the downloadable XML dumps provided by the Wikimedia Foundation are in a format that doesn't allow easy access of single revisions. They emphasize the importance of these dumps for Natural Language Processing analyses of Wikipedia, and that the reproducibility of such research is jeopardized by the fact that "older snapshots [are] becoming unavailable as there is no official backup server." The authors' solution is realized as an extension of the existing Java Wikipedia Library (JWPL). To store the dump in a format that allows fast access to revisions but still saves space, they developed their own diff algorithm based on a longest common substring search.
A blog posting titled "Who writes Wikipedia? An information-theoretic analysis of anonymity and vandalism in user-generated content " referenced a widely cited study by Aaron Swartz (see also this week's "In the news"), who in 2006 found that anonymous users contributed much more of Wikipedia's content than the core of registered users. Instead of examining the text that survived to the current version, the blogger looked at reverted/unreverted edits as a crude measure of quality, and instead of counting edits, measured "the information-theoretic gain in each revision", as measured by LZMA compression. For performance reasons, the analysis was restricted to pages starting with the letter "M". Among various other findings, the post states that "Registered users dipped to contributing as much vandalism as content in 2007, and have taken an upswing to over three times as much good content. Anonymous users dipped to contributing as much vandalism as content in 2005, and through 2010 are contributing roughly twice as much vandalism as content".
Using expertise credits from Citizendium to recommend Wikipedia articles: An article in this month's issue of the "Journal of Information Processing", titled "Classification of Recommender Expertise in the Wikipedia Recommender System", reports improvements in the existing "Wikipedia Recommender System", a "collaborative filtering system with trust metrics, i.e., it provides a rating of articles which emphasizes feedback from recommenders that the user has agreed with in the past", by considering the recommenders' areas of expertise. To determine these areas, the paper uses the self-reported expertise areas that Citizendium contributors have to state when signing up for one of that online encyclopedia's topic work groups.
A team of Brazilian researchers from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais presented at JCDL '11 a tool called GreenWiki, designed to "help improve users awareness about the quality of a Wikipedia article as well as their assessment of it". [9]
An article in last month's issue of Information Research examined "The search queries that took Australian Internet users to Wikipedia". The results "suggest that Wikipedia is used more for lighter topics than for those of a more academic or serious nature. Significant differences among the various lifestyle segments were observed in the use of Wikipedia for queries on popular culture, cultural practice and science".
A message was already sent by the simple observation that the room was packed with around 50 people, some of them even sitting on the floor. In a tweet, Philipp Schmidt from P2P University commented: "wikipedia research community growing and diversifying. I remember meetings with 5 people, now the room is packed. Great!". The attendance at the workshop is a sign that there is high interest in the question of promoting research around Wikipedia. Furthermore, the good response could be seen from a double perspective: because addressing the questions is considered as important per se, but also in terms of good timing – a question of the right moment.
Since 2005, there has been an increasing interest within the scientific community in researching Wikipedia. In 2011, ten years after Wikipedia started, research on Wikipedia keeps growing, with a body of research and a community of researchers in place. In this regard, according to a recent review, there is currently a total of 2,100 peer-reviewed articles and 38 doctoral theses related to Wikipedia. The willingness to collaborate, to make use of synergies between research initiatives of various kinds, and to continue innovating (in what is already constituting one of the leading nodes of methodological innovation) have also increased and continue to mature. It seems that in 2011 and the coming years, we will see not only the continuation in terms of a quantitative increase, but also a qualitative jump towards a more organized and challenging stage of research initiatives from and around Wikipedia. This can be expected to translate into important changes at the research level, and the initiative of research being promoted by Wikipedia (not only about Wikipedia) is likely to be well received.
During the workshop, Mathias Schindler (from Wikimedia Deutschland) presented the RENDER project – a research project looking at knowledge diversity, which is the first experience of a Wikimedia Chapter engaging in a large research project with other research partners at the European level.
Mayo Fuster Morell presented how Wikipedia had evolved over the years. Starting with quantitative analyses of large data sets and on the English version of Wikipedia as the predominant approach in early empirical research on Wikipedia, the focus then expanded to conducting research on other language versions, covering a larger variety of issues, such as socio-political questions, and also adopting qualitative methods. She also presented the Research Committee, a committee created by the WMF staff consisting of Wikimedia volunteers, researchers, and Wikimedia Foundation staff with the mandate to help organize policies, practices and priorities around Wikimedia-related research).
Benjamin Mako Hill (Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board member and intellectual property researcher at MIT, among others) was also present, but stepped back from his planned intervention in favor of allowing time for debate. During the discussion, the question of open data was the central theme of interest to the floor. Other than that, interest was also expressed in the question of data repositories.
The schedule was tight, and the session ended well before the discussions could have reached a conclusion. It remains clear that a continuation of the discussion is needed as much as occasions to meet and develop things together around Wikipedia research and promoting another way of doing research.
Wikimedia Summer of Research: Three topics covered so far
The "Wikimedia Summer of Research" (WSoR, see previous coverage) is a three-month program (ending in September), sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, which has brought together a team of eight academics working in the Foundation's Community Department. The goal is to study the dynamics of the editing community, starting with English and focusing particularly on which factors can measurably be said to affect the decline in new editors. The following is a short look at three of the many areas studied so far. Other research can be found on Meta and on Commons.
How new English Wikipedians ask for help
The early weeks of research by Jonathan Morgan, R. Stuart Geiger, and Shawn Walker were focused on how new editors find and interact with help spaces, both within and outside the Help namespace. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to address this issue, but the primary data was gathered through qualitative coding of randomized samples of new editors.
The following two charts were derived from the coding of activities by 445 new Wikipedians distributed from 2009–11.[10]
The vast majority of new Wikipedians ask for help on user talk-pages, rather than in dedicated help spaces.
Questions about editorial policy are by far the most common ones encountered.
Who edits trending articles on the English Wikipedia
One question that was directed at the summer research team was whether trending articles – such as those about breaking current events or in "In the news" on the Main Page — attract a significant number of new editors compared with articles not affected by current events. Adjacent questions were whether those new editors who registered because of interest in unfolding-event articles are more or less likely to become repeat editors of the encyclopedia.
Using a quantitative sample of a random 20% of the thousands of articles which were trending (in terms of traffic stats) in January 2011, this study by Yusuke Matsubara showed that, perhaps surprisingly, the number of newly registered editors who participate in unfolding-event articles is proportionally quite low.[11] However, the amount of participation from anonymous editors was more significant regardless of semi-protection. This suggests that there may be an opportunity to invite good-faith anonymous contributors on trending articles to participate further by registering accounts.
Breakdown of edits made in trending articles in January 2011 (with 20% article sample).
The same sample, but excluding articles which were semi-protected for any time during the trending period.
The workload of new-page patrollers and vandal fighters
One of the theories that has been proposed about the decline in participation by new editors is that newbie biting has increased over the years because more of the burden of policing vandalism, spam, etc. has been shouldered by fewer and fewer active new-page patrollers and vandal fighters, which contributes to burn out. To test this theory, summer researcher Aaron Halfaker looked at the workload of new-page patrollers[12] and vandalfighters[13] since 2007 overall. It found that, like many things in Wikipedia, the trends follow a power law where the top contributors do most of the work. However, contrary to the hypothesis, the number of patrolling actions per editor (by both month and year) has been decreasing steadily.
Mean patrolling actions per user-month: The average number of patrolled pages per patroller-month is plotted for each month of complete data. A best-fit regression line (β = −1.050; p < 0.001) is plotted with the data.
Mean patrolling actions per user-year: The average patrolled pages per patroller-year is plotted for each year of complete data. The best-fit regression line (β = −35.72; p = 0.0279) is plotted.
References
^Sumi, R., T. Yasseri, A. Rung, A. Kornai, and J. Kertész (2011). Edit wars in wikipedia. ArXiv [stat.ML]. PDF
^ abLaniado, David, Riccardo Tasso, Y. Volkovich, and Andreas Kaltenbrunner. When the Wikipedians talk: network and tree structure of Wikipedia discussion pages. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM '11), 177–84, 2011. PDF.
^Bender, E.M., J.T. Morgan, Meghan Oxley, Mark Zachry, Brian Hutchinson, Alex Marin, Bin Zhang, and Mari Ostendorf (2011). Annotating social acts: Authority claims and alignment moves in Wikipedia talk pages. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011), 48–57. PDF
^ abSchneider, Jodi, and Alexandre Passant (2011), Arguments about Deletion: Guiding New Users in Making Good Arguments. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci '11). PDF
^Schneider, Jodi, Alexandre Passant, and John G. Breslin (2011). Understanding and improving Wikipedia article discussion spaces. In Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '11), 808. New York, NY: ACM Press. DOI • PDF
^Sundin, Olof (2011) Janitors of Knowledge: Constructing Knowledge in the Everyday Life of Wikipedia Editors. Journal of Documentation, 67, no. 5: 6. (abstract).
^Barnett, Eola, and Roslyn Baer (2011), Embracing Wikipedia as a research tool for law: to Wikipedia or not to Wikipedia? The Law Teacher 45, no. 2: 194–213. DOI.
^Ferschke, Oliver, Torsten Zesch, and Iryna Gurevych (2011) Wikipedia Revision Toolkit: Efficiently Accessing Wikipedia's Edit History. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT '11), 97–102, Association for Computational Linguistics. PDF
^Dalip, Daniel Hasan, Raquel Lara Santos, Diogo Rennó Oliveira, Valéria Freitas Amaral, Marcos André Gonçalves, Raquel Oliveira Prates, Raquel C.M. Minardi, and Jussara Marques de Almeida (2011). GreenWiki: A tool to support users' assessment of the quality of Wikipedia articles. In Proceeding of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries (JCDL '11), 469. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. DOI
WikiProject Eclipses has been revived and they're looking for editors with a keen interest in eclipses.
The new WikiProject Abandoned Drafts seeks to resurrect and improve drafts of articles currently residing in the user space of inactive users. Join this unique project today.
The ARKive GLAM project invites editors to assist in merging 200 texts donated by ARKive into articles about endangered species.
Rick has been on Wikipedia since June 2005, and is interested in algebraic topology, 1950s science fiction, and comic strips. He says that he is a mathematician, not a philosopher, "so my editing is based on my reading". Walkinxyz has been a Wikipedian since November 2009: "I was a student of film at university, and the most interesting classes ended up in fact not being not my films classes – a lot of film theory is horribly, painfully dry – but philosophy classes, especially the ones that looked at films in terms of their contributions to philosophy. In other words, thinking of film itself as embodying "philosophy in action". People like Stanley Cavell and Stephen Mulhall have written important things about this. Aside from an interest in film, I'm interested in political philosophy, and how it relates to cultural issues. A number of my contributions to Wikipedia have drawn heavily on the ideas of people in the Frankfurt School tradition of Critical Theory, especially Nikolas Kompridis, who was a teacher of mine."
Your project has over 15,502 articles associated with it. How does the project keep all these up to standard, and what are its biggest challenges?
Rick Norwood: The biggest challenge is editors who have a hobby horse to ride, and have trouble understanding the difference between major and minor topics.
Walkinxyz: I would suggest that a big problem, in a way related to Rick's issue, is articles which contain some very specialized information where one particular discipline in philosophy has come to dictate the meaning of a term, for example, Argument as a term in logic, rather than a broader conception of philosophical argument as such.
Another challenge is that editors don't usually know one another, and can't talk face to face about what the priorities should be, or what direction a particular article should take. Wikipedia is very good for publishing and correcting important information quickly, and for encompassing large amounts of information over a long period of time… but it isn't always good for identifying what, overall, needs attention. I'm not sure how it could do this, aside from individual editors bringing real-world concerns about the topics that interest them, and trying to make a go at improving them. Ideally, a relationship is formed between editors, however tenuous. And you start to value what other people do, they you, and so on.
I think a forum like this is important, too, so that people can articulate issues that could be relevant to the broader community, not just the niche of philosophy. Kompridis writes that philosophers do not understand their task by reading philosophy, but from problems in the real world. I think the same is true of Wikipedia. We do not get our task from reading databases of knowledge, however good, but from the contexts in which that knowledge is shared, used, etc. So, for example, in the last half-year the article on democracy, has become very important, and being mindful of that, people have been trying to make some improvements. Of course, it was already a pretty good article, but that's only [because] so many people care about the concept and institutions of democracy.
WikiProject Philosophy has 44 FA-class articles, 2 FLs, and 70 GA-class articles. How did your Project achieve this and how can other Projects work toward this?
Rick Norwood: The big advantage is that most of these articles do not attract the nuts. Or maybe I should say, the nuts here are at least highly educated nuts. The biggest problems on other big projects: "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity".
Walkinxyz: I'm not sure what to say about this. I think Rick was being ironic about other projects, although I can't be totally certain. I respect his cynicism, but I can't really explain why these articles, in his words, "do not attract the nuts." Another way to look at it is that we have over 15,000 articles that are none of those categories. How guilty do I feel about writing answers to this interview, instead of working on them? I may never know.
Have you seen any talk-page conversations about Wikipedia articles veer off into deep discussions about philosophy? How does the project deal with editors seeking to use Wikipedia as a forum?
Rick Norwood: Not really, though I've seen them veer off into shallow discussions about philosophy. Those interested in deep discussions understand that Wikipedia is not a blog.
Walkinxyz: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a blog, or a forum, but it can be very valuable as a place to introduce people to ideas that they hadn't considered. And like any community, certain things matter to people, some more than others, and a few things matter a great deal. And people for whom things matter a great deal naturally want to get their point across if they have one. I would say a lot of the discussions here are a result of the concern or interest that people have in maintaining the standards of the community. However, Wikipedia is a consensus-based community, so these things are continually subject to questioning. That includes ethical, moral and political issues of all kinds. And epistemological questions, which in an archive of knowledge will always be an issue. So the thing about editing philosophy articles on Wikipedia, is that the process itself becomes self-conscious, which can lead to very productive discussions. Alternatively, it can lead to bickering and endless guideline-citing. Which is at least as big a danger as "deep discussions about philosophy." (Are such discussions every really a danger, and if so, to whom?).
Does WikiProject Philosophy collaborate with other WikiProjects?
Walkinxyz: There is an editor trying to do some work to combine certain efforts of WikiProject Religion with the Philosophy project, too. There should probably be more of this, in my opinion.
Your project has some 20 Task forces. How does the Project manage these?
Walkinxyz: It seems more appropriate that a task force would manage a project, not the other way around. But that doesn't answer your question, I suppose.
Anything else to add?
Rick Norwood:"Habe nun, ach! Philosophie; Juristerei und Medizin; Und leider auch Theologie; Durchaus studiert mit heißem Bemühn. Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor! Und bin so klug als wie zuvor."
Walkinxyz: "Philosophy's virtue is responsiveness. What makes it philosophy is not that its response will be total, but that it will be tireless, awake when the others have all fallen asleep. Its commitment is to hear itself called on, and when called on – but only then, and only so far as it has an interest – to speak." – Stanley Cavell
From the new featured article Theobald of Bec, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1139 to 1161. This copper alloy and enamel medieval plaque held by the British Museum shows Henry of Blois, the insubordinate Bishop of Winchester, who compounded the already turbulent relationship between Theobald and King Stephen. The image was taken by co-nominator Ealdgyth.
This week's "Featured content" covers Sunday 17 – Saturday 23 July
Featured articles
From the new featured article Malagasy cuisine, women sort vanilla in the far north of the island of Madagascar (see map below).From the new featured topic Voalavo and the new featured article of the same name: known localities of the rodent on Madagascar; its two known species are shown in red and green.New featured picture: a Dark-spotted Tiger Moth in larval form feasts on pumpkin leaf.New featured picture, shot during the secret Manhattan Project that changed 20th-century history: after the Ames process and the removal of the uranium, remnant slag coats the interior of a pressure vessel (c. 1943).Eight articles were promoted to featured status:
Malagasy cuisine (nom), a distinctive and diverse food culture, reflects the island's unique history as a crossroads of the Indian ocean. (Lemurbaby) picture at right
Voalavo (nom), a small group of Malagasy rodents discovered only in 1998 and an intriguing example of unique and long-unrecognised Malagasy diversity. This promotion completed a set of three articles that have been promoted to featured-topic status (Ucucha) picture at right
Hurricane Eloise (nom), which according to nominator Juliancolton is "one of the more significant cyclones I've written about on WP, and it's been a work-in-progress for a couple years".
Canoe River train crash (nom), a disaster in 1950 in eastern British Columbia in which two trains collided head-on killing 21 people, including 17 Canadian soldiers en route to the Korean War. The tragedy helped to make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada. (Wehwalt)
Theobald of Bec (nom), c. 1090 – 1161) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1139 to 1161. He faced challenges to his authority from one of his bishops, and had a turbulent relationship with King Stephen, who forbade him to attend a papal council and was defied, resulting in the confiscation of his property and his temporary exile. (Malleus Fatuorum and Ealdgyth) picture at top
Harold Pinter (nom), acclaimed as one of the most influential English-language playwrights of the post-war era; the award of a Nobel Prize in 2005 confirmed his status. Many of his most well-known plays were adapted to film, and among his screenplay adaptations of the work of other writers were The Go-Between (1970), The French Lieutenant's Woman (1981), and Sleuth (2007)(Jezhotwells)
Over There (Fringe) (nom), the two-part second-season 2010 finale of the Fox television science-fiction drama series Fringe. The premise of the series is based on the idea of two parallel universes, our own and the Other Side—each of which contains historical idiosyncrasies.(Ruby2010)
One article, Tooth development (nom), was delisted (referencing, prose, MOS compliance, clean-up banners).
Voalavo (nom) was promoted, with two featured articles (one of them promoted just last week) and one good article. Voalavo is a genus of rodent found only in Madagascar, a large island off the south-east coast of Africa. They are small, grey, mouse-like rodents, among the smallest of their subfamily (nominator Ucucha). (picture at right)
Featured pictures
Three images were promoted. Medium-sized images can be viewed by clicking on "nom":
Following a request for arbitration, the Committee passed a motion to accept two separate cases. This case, the first of the two, was opened to examine the conduct of Cirt (talk·contribs) and Jayen466 (talk·contribs) – including articles about new religious movements (broadly construed) and BLPs, as well as interpersonal conduct issues arising between Cirt and Jayen466. The Committee determined that for this case, those two users will be the only parties and that evidence in relation to broader issues or other editors is not permitted – instead, such evidence will be allowed in the second of the two cases ("Manipulation of BLPs"), which is to be opened at a later date.
West Bank – Judea and Samaria: a motion was passed, lifting the 2009 case remedy, which had topic banned Nishidani (talk·contribs) from Arab–Israeli conflict-related articles. The Committee also reminded Nishidani that articles in the area of conflict (as defined by the Palestine–Israel articles case) remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions would continue to apply.
Using the "secure server" protocol, https, to communicate with a website (web server) has long been considered a must when editing from unsecured networks and from locations considered insecure. Using https encrypts communications between a user's computer and the Wikimedia servers (for example), preventing the interception of plaintext username-password combinations during a browsing session. In the fallout from the release of the Firesheep Firefox extension (see previous Signpost coverage), however, it became clear that many felt this solution alone to be insufficient, since editors often forgot to switch from http to https when the need arose. As a result, there were calls to make https the default for all editors and, in preparation for such a switch, the process of making Wikimedia more https-friendly began.
This week, work on switching to https took a leap forward with the introduction of "protocol-relative" URLs onto a test wiki. This means that instead of internal links (both hyperlinks and file references, for example for images) pointing to locations prefixed with specific protocols, they will now not specify a protocol. The user's browser is then expected to fulfil the request using the same protocol it used for the originating page: links on a page loaded using the https protocol will point to the https (secure) site, while links on an http page will point to the http (insecure) site. According to the Wikimedia Foundation blog, the benefits are obvious:
“
[Before,] if you were browsing the site in https mode, and another user was browsing the same pages in HTTP mode, two versions of those pages would be stored in our cache, as the links are different between the two modes. This splits our cache, which makes it less efficient and more expensive to operate.
When browsing in https mode, we want to ensure links point to the correct protocol. When pages are parsed, things like interwiki links are created by the parser. If we do not use protocol relative URLs, then links will point to either https or http, which cause users to switch modes randomly.
”
Google Summer of Code students reach halfway point
Of eight students selected earlier this year to receive funding from Internet giant Google to work on MediaWiki, seven are still with the project. This week their progress so far was published on the Wikimedia blog, including links to the project pages maintained by each student. Projects this year include Ajax login screens, citation archives and user script customisation.
In addition to factual information, the post also disclosed thoughts from the students about what they had learned so far. "True learning can happen only in an open environment and with a highly supportive community", noted Akshay Agarwal, whilst fellow student Devayon Das commented that "A 30 second chat with a community member can save you 30 minutes of scratching your head in frustration". Salvatore Ingala chose to highlight the importance of unit tests (see previous Signpost coverage): "unit testing is boooooring, but ends up saving you a lot of time!", he wrote.
Some academics have already proposed using SMW on Wikipedia to tackle the problem of the many lists that have to be created manually, but according to Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller it's still unclear whether SMW is up to the task of supporting a web site on the scale of Wikipedia. So while Semantic MediaWiki already powers a lot of web sites and is quite user-friendly, it remains to be seen whether it will eventually bring semantics to the ultimate wiki, Wikipedia.
”
However, volunteer developer Simetrical used the opportunity to clarify that SMW's adoption by Wikimedia projects was not just unclear, but impossible:
“
The problem with deploying SMW on Wikimedia sites like Wikipedia has always been that it's a big codebase (tens of thousands of lines), which shares few to no active developers with MediaWiki proper, and which has never had thorough review by core MediaWiki developers for security or performance. ... it's an awesome project, and its functionality is absolutely make-or-break for countless small to medium MediaWiki installs. But it's not possible for a project of this scale to be usable on a site as large as Wikipedia unless it was written that way to begin with, and (like almost all software) it wasn't.
”
In unrelated news, those interested in SMW can now follow the project on Twitter or open-source alternative identi.ca (more information).
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 many weeks.
How you can help
Give your views on <math>
This week, developers appealed for views on the rendering options available for <math>-tags. Does it affect you? Comment now!
Sumana Harihareswara, the Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator, investigated how the open source project Launchpad handles its own development workflow to see if MediaWiki could learn any lessons from it. Her report succeeded in drawing some useful comparisons, although by its own admission the learning process will be hindered by the fact that MediaWiki relies on a subtle interplay between paid and volunteer developers while Launchpad has only a very small volunteer developer community (wikitech-l mailing list). In unrelated news, Harihareswara also called for developers due to be present at this year's Wikimania conference to help plan coding "sprints" (wikitech-l mailing list).
Email notifications will no longer be sent to unconfirmed email addresses, to prevent accusations of spam (bug #17866).
This week saw the first testing of a new release system, known as "Heterogeneous", which will enable different WMF wikis to run different versions of MediaWiki software. This would allow for selective testing of new versions, for example, on right-to-left wikis (more software developments).
Wikimedia has joined the Unicode Consortium as a liaison member, putting it in the same category as the GNOME Foundation and Mozilla. Membership, which is free but requires approval, allows Wikimedia to contribute to official discussions relating to the Unicode character encoding standard (wikitech-l).
There was a discussion on the wikitech-l mailing list following the news that the "default assignees" for different categories of Bugzilla bugs had been reset to wikibugs, the "no-one in particular" superuser.
5 bot tasks were approved this week, but a number of proposals are still open, including one that would see a bot tag files as eligible for being moved to Wikimedia Commons.
.png)
.jpg)
The vast majority of new Wikipedians ask for help on user talk-pages, rather than in dedicated help spaces.
Questions about editorial policy are by far the most common ones encountered.
Breakdown of edits made in trending articles in January 2011 (with 20% article sample).
The same sample, but excluding articles which were semi-protected for any time during the trending period.
Mean patrolling actions per user-month: The average number of patrolled pages per patroller-month is plotted for each month of complete data. A best-fit regression line (β = −1.050; p < 0.001) is plotted with the data.
Mean patrolling actions per user-year: The average patrolled pages per patroller-year is plotted for each year of complete data. The best-fit regression line (β = −35.72; p = 0.0279) is plotted.
