Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2006-02-06
From the editor
The English Wikipedia is fast approaching one million articles. To commemorate this historic milestone, we at the Signpost thought it only fitting to interview the man who helped start it all: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.
We will be accepting questions for Jimbo here. Anonymous submissions will also be accepted at the Signpost's e-mail address (WikipediaSignpost@gmail.com). From these questions we will pick the best to submit to Jimbo.
Wikinews has expressed an interest in being involved in this interview, so in order to allow the usage of this interview on both projects, all questions submitted must be dual-licensed under both the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license.
As always, thank you for continuing to read the Signpost.
— Ral315
Five users de-sysopped by Jimbo Wales
In an unprecedented move, five administrators were de-sysopped by Jimbo Wales following controversy over a userbox. Carnildo was the first to be temporarily de-sysopped, and the other four de-sysoppings came later. Following the incident, Wales asked the Arbitration Committee to review the case, and a request for arbitration was made and quickly accepted.
The userbox was created by User:Paroxysm and stated that the user "identifies as a pedophile". The box was deleted and restored several times; a duplicate userbox was also created and restored several times, before the original box was nominated for deletion (the nomination later being edited to refer to the duplicate userbox). However, Jimbo Wales intervened and deleted the first userbox, saying that it was inappropriate. Both boxes have all now been deleted and protected blank, and a similar template created by Dschor was also speedily deleted.
The de-sysopping of Carnildo stemmed from the debate: after some discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, Carnildo blocked three users indefinitely (El C, Giano, and Carbonite), for "hate speech and inciting attacks on other users". The reaction was immediately negative: most users agreed that none of the blocked users had done anything inappropriate, given that all of them had only participated in the civil discussion. Carnildo was later blocked (but then un-blocked), and El C, Giano, and Carbonite were unblocked.
Jimbo decided to step in at that point, de-sysopping Carnildo. Wales said that he had "desysopped Carnildo for tonight" and would "leave it to the ArbCom to engage in careful thinking and discussion about what should be done in the longer term." He also urged for calm and an end to the wheel-warring.
However, hours later Wales decided to de-sysop another four administrators, bringing the total number of administrators de-adminned to five. Ashibaka, BorgHunter, El C, and Karmafist were all de-adminned for their roles in engaging in the "absurd wheel war that went on tonight over this stupid thing", according to a post by Wales to the Wiki-en-L mailing list. In addition, Wales also commented on the administrators' noticeboard, stating that "after several hours of deliberations and discussions with a variety of people, including several ArbCom members, I have temporarily desysopped everyone who in any way was 'wheel warring' tonight over the stupid trolling template. The ArbCom will be considering the whole thing and handing out a more permanent ruling on the whole thing very soon." He also urged for calm again, saying that he was "desirous that we have peace until morning."
Ashibaka restored and unprotected the templates several times, and BorgHunter also restored the duplicate template; each time. The restored templates were deleted by other administrators (MarkSweep, Doc glasgow, Violetriga, David Gerard, Physchim62) before Jimbo Wales intervened. El C had blocked Carnildo for 24 hours after being unblocked from Carnildo's indefinite block. Karmafist, meanwhile, had unblocked Joeyramoney, the user who had originally placed the controversial userbox on his userpage; Joeyramoney had been blocked for one week by Jimbo himself.
Following the incident and the request by Wales for the Arbitration Committee to handle the case for the long-term, a request for arbitration was made and quickly accepted; after collecting evidence, the case has now moved into the voting phase.
Blank passwords eliminated for security reasons
A potentially dangerous security issue was addressed last week by forcing password changes for some insecure accounts. There were no reports that anyone had exploited this vulnerability.
Chief Technical Officer Brion Vibber announced on Monday, 30 January, that blank passwords would no longer work for accounts on any Wikimedia Foundation wikis. He reported that he had located "a handful of sysop accounts" with blank passwords, and for security and accountability reasons decided to remove the ability to log in with a blank password.
For existing users hit by this change, Vibber explained, "Affected accounts can reset the password by the automated e-mail password gadget on the login form, unless of course they didn't put in an e-mail." He also added some code that would require affected users to change their passwords the next time they tried to log in.
Jtkiefer commented, "I'm surprised that blank passwords were ever allowed". The change did draw some complaint, however, especially due to it not being announced before implementation. However, as Shimgray pointed out, announcing in advance that a number of administrators had blank passwords would effectively invite people to look for and potentially hijack those accounts. Limiting the change to administrator accounts only was suggested, but according to Vibber there would still be nothing to prevent regular blank-password accounts from being made into administrators in the future.
This is not the first time that password security issues have come up on Wikipedia. Previously, controversy over the use of weak passwords to identify disruptive sockpuppet accounts led to an upgrade to salted passwords (see archived story).
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
6 February 2006
Jimbo Wales appoints 11 arbitrators, increases committee size
23 January 2006
Arbitration Committee elections continue; ArbCom member resigns
16 January 2006
ArbCom candidates (part two)
9 January 2006
ArbCom candidates
2 January 2006
Straw poll closes
19 December 2005
Jimbo starts new poll regarding election
5 December 2005
Last chance to run for ArbCom
28 November 2005
ArbCom voting process
14 November 2005
ArbCom duties and requirements
7 November 2005
A closer look: the calls for reform of the ArbCom
31 October 2005
A look back: the 2004 ArbCom elections
24 October 2005
Current ArbCom members
17 October 2005
Criticism of the ArbCom
10 October 2005
About the Arbitration process
3 October 2005
The history of the Arbitration Committee
26 September 2005
Introduction to a special series: A look at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections
19 September 2005
|
|
|
A chat with the elected Arbitrators |
This week The Wikipedia Signpost conducted interviews with each of the newly elected Arbitrators. Of the 11 elected, all responded except Filiocht, who is currently on a break, and Jdforrester. The answers provide the thoughts of each of the new and returning members.
This also concludes our special series on the election; all of the newly elected Arbitrators (with the exception of Filiocht) have begun work with over 20 currently accepted requests for arbitration.
1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
- Charles Matthews (CM): Gratified with the degree of support I had. Settling into the ArbCom is another matter; any case accepted is a responsibility.
- Dmcdevit (D): I'm honored to have been chosen, and excited to help out. And of course, a bit apprehensive after all the warnings and condolences I got, but we shall see...
- Fred Bauder (FB): I take the role seriously. We are apparently destined to become a major human institution and our decisions should be made with a awareness that "The whole World is watching."
- Jayjg (J): A bit overwhelmed; it's a lot of work, and getting even busier. But honoured as well.
- Sam Korn (SK): I am delighted that the community felt sufficient trust in me. It is very gratifying and confirms my belief that I have done good things while I have been here. This is especially so since I believe I am the youngest Arbitrator (past and present). On the other hand, I am a little alarmed at the workload!
- SimonP (SP): A mix of delighted and daunted.
- Mackensen (MC): I'm honored that the community granted me that opportunity and I hope that I won't let them down. I said right after the election that I was in a state of shock and it still seems a little unreal.
- Mindspillage (MS): Well, partly "oh, no, not again"... ;-) Hm. Both honored and overwhelmed that so many people expressed their support and worried about doing it, as it's a bit of a nerve-wracking job.
- Morven (MO): It would be fair to say I was thoroughly shocked that I got so much support. I never expected that; hoped for it, of course. I'm still feels a little unreal.
2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
- CM: I was downbeat about it when the initial questions were posted. I disliked some of the lines of questioning, particularly the interrogations about personal beliefs, and that probably showed. There was a rush of last-minute candidacies, which did little good and less harm. Once the voting started it seemed quite orderly, and not such a bad system.
- D: It wasn't perfect. There are the problems with voting in general, that a blatantly unhelpful or unfounded vote is worth the same as a well-reasoned one, that it encourages trolls to go play at others' expense. But I think it worked overall, and I wasn't that worried about it. There were a number of good candidates running, so most methods would have had a favorable result, even without me :).
- FB: I was pleased with it. I was quite liberal in supporting candidates, which I felt free to do as I could vote as many times as I wanted. This included the chance to support users who had a statement I liked or thought might make a good arbitrator despite having no chance at being elected or selected.
- J: It seemed conducted reasonably well. I think the purpose of the question page could have been better clarified; too many of the questions were simply thinly disguised attacks (or, in some cases, completely undisguised attacks). As well, the "winning" criteria might have been more explicit; was it simply percentage, or was it total Support votes, or Support-Oppose votes? Different measures gave radically different rankings.
- SK: To my surprise (and gratification) they were conducted for the most part very well. I had my concerns about the procedure before it started, but the only significant problems came with trolling on the questions pages. I am grateful to the elections organisers for their effort. As to a possible improvement, it was annoying and disruptive to have over sixty candidates, the vast majority of whom had no chance of election. I hope a future election will exclude these somehow.
- SP: I had great concerns about the election, as I don't think RFA works all that well. For the most part, however, it worked quite well and kudos are due its organizers.
- MC: I expected the worst and was pleasantly surprised. I think enforcing the rule against diatribes on the voting pages helped matters. In the future, the suffrage rules ought to be decided further in advance.
- MS: I was initially quite skeptical of the idea of open elections, and I'm still not thrilled with it (I refrained from voting, as a candidate), but it did turn out better than I thought it would, despite a few unfortunate incidents. Difficult to propose an alternate system; all have their tradeoffs.
- MO: The elections went better than I feared. While it would have been nice if we'd all known how they were going to work a bit more ahead of time, there was surprisingly little chaos. While I had my worries about open, RFA-style voting, the advantage of it is that the results are clear for all to see - verifiable.
3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
- CM: Many thanks for the kind words which were said. Apart from a few grudges, I had some opposition on 'tone'. To those who held the way I express myself against me - look, I don't do bland, I do forthright.
- D: Well, thanks to both for taking the time to consider me, and I hope I can live up to your expectations.
- FB: I am thankful for the appreciation for my efforts expressed by supporters and will take seriously the criticisms expressed by those who opposed me.
- J: I would simply thank those who supported me, and let both supporters and opposers know that I will faithfully carry out my mandate.
- SK: To those who supported me, thank you, I'll do my best not to disappoint. To those who opposed, thank you as well. Your opinions were useful, and I also got some good laughs from the rationales (the one saying transparency was more important than justice was priceless).
- SP: I obviously owe a great deal of thanks to the large number of Wikipedians who supported me. For those who opposed me, my goal is to prove them wrong by being an excellent arbitrator.
- MC: In both cases, that I'm not taking it personally.
- MS: To those who supported, thank you for your confidence in me; to all, I'll try not to let you down; please let me know if I screw up.
- MO: That in both cases I hope I exceed expectations.
4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
- CM: Filiocht is the one I know best - we worked together on The Cantos, a proof-of-concept project for 'Wikipedia can do the humanities'. It looks like solid, bright, committed Wikipedians all the way down, to me.
- D: I had no disappointments, all were fine choices. In my week as an aarbitrator, I've been impressed and pleased by all the work I've seen them doing.
- FB: With one exception I supported all of them for the role and I'm not sure that one won't make a fine arbitrator. Right now I am just observing their behavior and comments. Our new crew is rather untried. After a few hard, and perhaps contested cases I'll have a much more informed opinion. I may not candidly share all aspects of that opinion with the community. We need to maintain good relationships between us, not form permanent factions based on disputes on how to handle a particular matter.
- J: They all look like good candidates for the Committee.
- SK: The ones that I know are all exemplary Wikipedians and wonderful people. I hope to get to know those whom I haven't previously known very well.
- SP: They are without exception an excellent group of people.
- MC: They're good folks with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.
- MS: All of them are people I have a good deal of respect for (and I'm not just saying that because you're going to print it publicly, either)!
- MO: They are a great bunch of hard-working, committed Wikipedians that I respect very strongly. I doubt we'll all agree all the time, but that's not the point - we all have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and will try and do the best for the project.
5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, and Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
- CM: Yeah. I've talked to James at meet-ups, Fred is the guy who keeps the ArbCom going forward when it would otherwise stall. Jayjg I know only from the wiki-en mailing list, but it already seems we agree on a few ArbCom technical things.
- D: I think it's a very good idea to have a larger Arbitration Committee, and this was a good way of doing it. The experienced arbitrators are helping to move things along, and these are some of the most active.
- FB: The appointed members have done good work. His appointment is based on that. I would say we need some continuity and experience.
- J: Well, naturally I'm biased, but it seemed reasonable to me. The Arbitration Committee has, as far as I know, always had appointed members on it, and Jimbo stated that the conditions for eligibility this time were simply getting over 50% of the vote. All 3 of us are experienced Arbitrators who have proven ourselves, and we all had significant support no matter how you measure it: for example, if you measure by "Support-Oppose", then Fred came in 4th, I came in 7th, and James came in 9th. If you measure by Support votes alone, then Fred came in 3rd, and I came in 4th.
- SK: I think it is very important to have a good number of experience Arbitrators on the Committee. The selection procedure is to be commended for allowing this to happen.
- SP: I do think this is a good idea. Incumbent arbitrators have an inherent disadvantage when facing reelection as their job ensures that they regularly penalize other users, and these same users then come back and vote against them. Some avenue has to be created to overcome this handicap, and while direct appointment may not be the best solution it is an adequate one for the present.
- MC: Their experience thus far has been invaluable. In that regard, I support Jimbo's decision whole-heartedly. Too much turnover on the committee would create chaos.
- MS: Yes, I do; all of them have done good work in the past and I'm glad to see them continue. (Also, having more "old hands" around is really helpful when so much of the committee is new.)
- MO: Arbcom needed more bodies, given the dropout rate in the past and the fact that some peoples' lives inevitably get busy. All three have proven themselves good Arbitrators, willing to work hard at the task, and they all got good approval ratings from the community. Speaking selfishly, I'm glad that it means we have eight experienced Arbitrators on the committee so us newbies don't have to come up to speed on ALL the old cases all at once. It also helps keep continuity, which is a good thing in my opinion.
6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
- CM: Help. (There is a backlog of cases, to which we opt in rather than out.) Like they say, the first task is to get control of your in-tray. There is an impossible amount of reading-into-the-job to do, so I've looked round for things where I can contribute.
- D: Hm, the work doesn't seem to go away.
- FB: It's interesting to see arbitrating personalities emerging.
- J: Most of the new members seem to be enthusiatic and are contributing well; in particular, they have provided new thinking on a number of cases, which is welcome. The backlog seems to be slowly clearing.
- SK: Bloody hell, there's a lot of work!
- SP: I still don't really know what I'm doing. I've been WP:BOLD and jumped into a few cases already, but I think it will take some time before I am fully grounded in the procedures and conventions of the ArbCom.
- MO: That there's a lot of procedure to get used to. I'm handling it by mostly jumping in and seeing what works.
7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
- CM: Strengths: most people recognise that it is needed, and that its decisions deserve respect. Plus Jimbo's support for getting to the issues that really affect the project. Weaknesses: still finding its way, burns out people with huge numbers of diffs.
- D: The main strength is that it's the final and enforceable step of dispute resolution. It can make up the best and creative remedies, or ban outright, whatever needs to be done can be. The weaknesses include the time it takes to get done, the fact that many of the remedies require active monitoring by admins (which sometimes doesn't happen), and the fact that we're human.
- FB: Most of our disputes are over how to do things in the most common sense way. That goal, doing what serves Wikipedia's needs and purposes, is a strength. Meandering off into collateral issues, which I may do myself from time to time, is a temptation which weakens our efforts.
- SK: The main strength is that it normally gives the right decision. The main weakness is its tendency to be drawn out with open-and-shut cases taking far longer than necessary.
- SP: For the most part I feel the ArbCom has worked fairly well, especially considering the difficult task it is tasked to perform. Speed has always been a weakness, as is the mess that evidence pages usually become.
- MO: The biggest historical weakness has been speed of decision-making, especially on cases of serious disruption.
8. # If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
- CM: Hah - a little early to say. When people are told '500 words', don't allow them 850. Get WP:RFAR reformatted somehow. Better navigation of the pages for any one case. These kinds of things are what you notice in the first 48 hours.
- D: Hunger, poverty, war... Oh, about arbcom you mean? I'm still getting used to it really, but I promise to let you know in the future.
- FB: I would change our procedures to require arbitrators "sign up" for those cases they intend to work on. And calculate votes from that total rather than from the whole committee. Although we do not know who at this point, a certain number of the arbitrators always turn out to be more or less not involved. This results in a lot of begging them to look at cases and vote. Much better if unless they signaled participation they were just not considered involved
- J: I would have a process that automatically put arbitrators on the inactive list if they hadn't contributed in a reasonable period of time (say, a month), and would automatically remove them from the Committee if they were inactive for a similar period of time. This would help ensure that all members are active and contributing, and help keep cases moving through the pipeline.
- SK: I would prefer to have more time to understand the process before I make any such judgments.
- SP: Human nature, so we could dispense with the ArbCom and all write an encyclopedia in harmony.
- MS: Hm. I'm happy to see the committee expanded a bit; there were plenty of qualified people running and I'm glad to see we'll get a wider range of opinions. I'd like to see the earlier stages of dispute resolution (particularly RfC) worked on some so we don't see as many cases; it's hard to give proper attention to over 20 at once.
- MO: We need to explore better dispute resolution at the pre-arbcom stages. When things get so bad the arbcom get involved, peoples' positions are entrenched and bridges have been burned.
9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
- CM: Well, it looks like it could be a really good idea: someone does the paper-shuffling offstage, so that the Arbitrators can tug their metaphorical beards and concentrate on dispensing wisdom. Most people would favour something to get cases through the system quicker, even of the 'heart sinks' type. We'll have to see how the innovation works out. It's not quite in the wiki way, in a sense.
- D: There have always been people who decided to help arbcom out with certain cases, I know I did before. This won't be much different except, we have people that we aare sure we can trust, and that now maybe I can boss them around to the neglected cases, instead of hoping someone will show up. Also, since they are sanctioned, they can do the mostly mechanical janitorial work, like opening, closing, archiving, and processing cases/motions when the votes are in.
- FB: I have always supported anyone presenting evidence and making proposals on the workshop page. This is only a slight extension. I have opposed any internal proposal that the work of our clerks would not be out in the open for folks to see and comment on. Opening and closing cases is just paperwork.
- J: I'm quite concerned about it. If it were simply an administrative role, which opened and closed cases, tidied up various pages, nagged the Arbitrators, etc., then I'd be all for it. However, I am not keen on the "summarize the case" aspect of the role which it seems to have taken on (indeed, almost to the exclusion of all other aspects); it seems very much like an arbitrator role at that point.
- SK: I think this is an excellent idea. Evidence pages have a habit of becoming a horrid mess, which makes our job that much harder. For to allay the fears of any who have concerns about those without community approval shaping Committee decisions, I shall never base my opinions solely upon that of a clerk, but shall use such an opinion as a good place to start reading a case.
- SP: It seems like a useful idea, and anything to speed up the process is important. However, a great deal of power could be accrued by these clerks. I think having multiple clerks with multiple viewpoints, who can collaboratively process cases, would be a good idea. Similar to how we have multiple users work on each article to ensure its neutrality.
- MC: It's a good idea given the amount of paperwork we handle. Any deliberating body has a support staff; it makes sense that we have one.
- MS: I think the idea is worth a shot -- the mechanical work of opening and closing cases, and of doing notifications, is tedious stuff. As for the rest, it may be helpful, it may not; it's worth a try to see what the benefits and drawbacks are. The case summaries I'm not sure of; some of the evidence is all but unreadable, but necessary to slog through anyhow; however, I've seen people working independently do things on Workshop pages that made my job in that much easier and if this happens, then great. I'd rather wait until it's actually been working for a while before offering much of an opinion.
- MO: I support it. Wikipedia is getting bigger, and the number of arbcom cases will inevitably increase. Help with the mechanical mechanisms of the Arbcom and in helping present evidence will improve the arbcom's efficiency, which I think we all agree needs to be better.
10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
- CM: I want to serve out my three years. WP in 2009 is going to be much closer to maturity. How we get there matters, and an ArbCom seat is, at the least, very informative about the worst that gives. Three years of ruling on edit wars is probably enough for anyone, but let's see what the future holds.
- D: I plan on finishing it, yes, because I think that's what I signed up for. As for another term, well, I haven't decided what I'm having for dinner tonight.
- FB: I will probably finish. Might run again. I feel I am contributing to a significant project.
- J: Yes I plan to finish my term, and I have no idea if I'd run again. It's a lot of work, and it makes you the target of a fair amount of abuse.
- SK: Yes, I do intend to finish my term. I don't know exactly what my plans are for 2007 yet (I may be extensively unable to contribute to WP), so I have no idea whether or not I'd stand again.
- SP: I very much plan on finishing my term. I've been with Wikipedia for four years and expect to be fully involved for many more. Then again, I'm sure that the last group of arbitrators all expected to finish their terms and a surprising number did not.
- MC: Barring unforseen developments, yes. I'll run for re-election if I think I still have something to offer.
- MS: I do plan on finishing. But three years is an eternity in Wikipedia time (I haven't even been editing that long), and I've seen plenty of others burn out from this. I have no intentions of running for re-election; one term will be more than enough! (Oh, great, of course, now that I've said this, watch me pull a Marty Meehan. I swear I won't have anyone go back and edit this for me.)
- MO: Right now, I plan to finish my term. RIGHT NOW I would say I would run for re-election, but that's a long, long way off.
11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?
- CM: Keep up the copy edits: we'll soon have 1000000 articles, and they need TLC. A big shout to all the closet intellectuals out there. You are not alone.
- D: Hi! Thanks for the encyclopedia and everything.
- FB: Please consider negotiation and mediation. Gotcha is a dirty game. Don't play it.
- J: Let's work together to build a great encyclopedia! Why? Because that is our ultimate purpose here.
- SK: Get back to work!
- MC: Please take care in writing your requests for arbitration. Explain yourself concisely and provide relevant diffs. The easier it is for us to determine what's going on and why the faster we can arbitrate your case.
- MS: Other than "please don't do anything that makes me have to read a case against you"?
- No, really. Do the right thing, and use your best judgment. Policies exist to help us do that, not to use as a bludgeon, a straitjacket, or a game. Be nice to people (nicer than you may want to be, even). Assume good faith (which doesn't mean letting bad behavior go unchecked). Use the talk pages. Don't be a dick. Remember that it's possible you're wrong, especially if lots of reasonable people are telling you to consider your actions. If you start feeling like editing is a battle, go do something else; the wiki really won't fall apart.
- In other words, please don't do anything that makes me have to read a case against you. (Why? Purely selfish, of course: so I can get back to writing articles and quit reading cases. I suppose there's that whole community project bit too. ;-))
- MO: Remember the goals of the project, and remember that most people are trying to do the right thing in good faith.
Controversial cartoon leads to fierce debate
The image placement of twelve satirical cartoons depicting Muhammad sparked controversy this week, even as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, the article in which the cartoons are shown, was linked from the main page.
The cartoons, which were published in a Danish newspaper in September 2005, have attracted international press coverage, and have drawn the ire of many Muslims, who feel the cartoon is insensitive to Muhammad. Similarly, some users believe that the inclusion of the image in Wikipedia's entry is offensive and unnecessary. Other users, however, contended that the article was about the cartoons, and that the collection of cartoons should therefore be displayed near the top of the article.
Three polls showed that most Wikipedians believed the image of the collection should be shown near the top of the article. More than 80% of the voters felt that the image belonged in the article, and over 70% believed that the image should be displayed at the top of the article, rather than further down in it. The third poll, over whether only one of the 12 cartoons should be shown, obtained similar results.
Jimbo Wales weighed in on the debate, saying that even though the "issue is not up to me to decide" and that he would only comment as a normal user, he would "argue for keeping the image in this article" and moving the image to the middle of the article. Nevertheless, the picture remains at the top of the article.
Reactions by politicians continue
As news about editing by congressional staffers continued to circulate, the media sought out responses from politicians to see who was editing Wikipedia and what they thought about it. Some additional admissions surfaced, while reactions ranged from critical to glowing.
Beyond the initial revelations about staffers for Marty Meehan (D-Massachusetts) having edited Meehan's article, reports also came in about other cases. For example, one case involved the office of Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minnesota), whose chief of staff admitted having changes made to the article. He also questioned the Wikipedia system generally, asking, "What's to stop someone from writing in that Norm Coleman was 7-feet-10-inches, with green hair and one eye smack dab in the middle of his head?" Almost inevitably, one person took him up on the suggestion by adding just that (and was reverted within the minute).
In North Carolina, The News & Observer followed up with its own local politicians in a report published Friday. According to The News & Observer, the press secretary for Bob Etheridge (D-North Carolina) acknowledged correcting inaccuracies in his article. Similarly, the communications director for Tom Lantos (Democrat-California) admitted editing the article about her boss. She claimed that all her contributions were attributed to sources such as local newspapers, which can be seen reflected in the number of external links interspersed throughout the article's text.
However, one Congressman whose staff clearly had never troubled themselves about Wikipedia was Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), who found himself denying that he had ever been known as "the Flying Cheetah" in high school. That tidbit was added in October by someone who also altered the entry to say Burr represented the 4th Congressional District instead of the 5th, a mistake that was only corrected last week.
Stories about the congressional editing also frequently noted that one of the IP addresses involved, apparently the main proxy server for the United States House of Representatives, had been blocked from editing. It was blocked again on two occasions last week, but now only for shorter periods of time, since it has now been established that different people use it and beneficial edits do result.
With all this discussion in the United States, however, Wikipedia received the endorsement of a politician from a different country last week. President Leonel Fernández of the Dominican Republic included this praise in his speech at graduation ceremonies last Wednesday for students from English programs at several institutions. According to the newspaper Hoy (Today), Fernández called Wikipedia "the most revolutionary encyclopedia possible in terms of distributing knowledge" (English version). He noted Wikipedia's existence in a number of languages, but emphasized English due to its "hegemony" in the digital world.
News and notes
Two Arbitrators granted CheckUser rights
Two newly-elected Arbitrators were granted CheckUser rights this week; in addition, the Arbitration Committee is also considering giving the rights to a non-member. Morven and Sam Korn join seven other current and former Arbitrators and developers with the access, which allows the user to check another user's IP address and match usernames used by that IP. The total number of people with CheckUser access is now nine.
Meanwhile, the Arbitration Committee is soliciting community opinion on giving CheckUser access to Curps, an administrator, contingent on him setting an e-mail address in his profile.
Wikimania open for submissions
The second annual Wikimedia Conference, or Wikimania, announced its call for participation last Friday. Submissions for papers and other presentations are being accepted over the next few months. The deadline for proposed workshops and tutorials is 30 March; abstracts for panels, papers, posters, and presentations should be received by 15 April. Wikimania is scheduled to be held August 4-6 at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Deletion process goes live
A new deletion method began this week. Proposed deletion, as it was dubbed, involves letting editors flag an article for deletion. If no one objects and removes the tag within five days, administrators may then delete the article. Otherwise, if someone disputes the proposed deletion, the article may either be improved or be taken to articles for deletion. As of press time, the process had gone live, with over 100 articles already tagged. Community reaction was generally positive, although several people objected to both the proposal and the beginning of usage of the system.
New criterion for speedy deletion added
A new criterion for speedy deletion was created this week. Originally added by Sannse, it stated that templates which were "divisive and inflammatory" could be speedily deleted. The criterion received implicit approval from Jimbo Wales; he reverted the removal of the criterion. The criterion is most likely intended for controversial userboxes (see related story), which are currently created in the template namespace.
Requests for adminship reform discussed
A proposal to reform requests for adminship (RfA) was started this week. Created by bureaucrats Ilyanep and Linuxbeak, the proposal includes implementation of a discussion period, suffrage requirements and candidate requirements, and emphasis on providing diffs and discussion. Although the two bureaucrats initially suspended RfA to test the new proposal, it soon resumed after several users objected. Discussion on the issue continues.
Chair of Clerk's Office resigns
Kelly Martin resigned from her position as chair of the Clerk's Office this week. The former Arbitrator said in her resignation that "It is obvious that the community, for its own inscrutiable reasons, is unwilling to accept the services I am willing and able to provide. I have no doubt that I have the trust of Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee itself. However, it's evident that the community has no intention of allowing me to provide any service of an administrative nature to Wikipedia without having to deal with endless sniping." The position vacated by Martin is now vacant, although only former Arbitrators may fill the position.
Featured content milestones, changes
Raul654, current featured article director, announced that the number of people subscribed to the daily-article-l list, which sends out the featured article via email, had reached 9000 people. In addition, all the informational featured pages, such as featured articles, featured lists, featured pictures, and featured portals, were redesigned for a "sleek new look". Finally, all featured articles were tagged with {{featured article}} this week, which produces a small star in the upper right hand corner of the article that links to the list of featured articles. All featured lists were similarly tagged with {{featured list}}, which adds a star that links to the list of featured lists .
Briefly
- The Norwegian Wikipedia has reached 100,000 pages.
- The Tamil Wikipedia has reached 2,000 articles.
- The Esperanto Wikipedia has reached 40,000 articles.
- The Romanian Wikipedia has reached 18,000 articles.
- The Russian Wikipedia has reached 10,000 registered users.
- The Vietnamese Wikipedia has reached 25,000 pages.
- The Hungarian Wikipedia has reached 25,000 articles with Peszternye.
- The Luxembourgish Wikipedia has reached 8,000 articles.
- The Greek Wikipedia has reached 8,000 articles.
- The Vietnamese Wikipedia has reached 2,000 uploaded files.
- The Marathi Wikipedia has reached 2,000 articles.
- The English Wikipedia has reached 950,000 articles.
- The German Wikipedia has reached 350,000 articles.
- The Japanese Wikipedia has been awarded the 11th AMD Award, Digital Contents of the Year '05, Best Writer prize by Association of Media In Digital.
- The Breton Wikipedia has reached 4,000 articles.
- The Albanian Wikipedia has reached 6,000 articles.
In the news
Congressional edits
Last week's press roundup noted the beginnings of media coverage on editing of Wikipedia by Congressional staffers (see related story). The attention continued this week, with many mainstream media and numerous blogs focusing on Wikipedia's decision to block editing from Capitol Hill computers for a week.
On February 1, the Lowell Sun in Massachusetts published "Wikipedia bars Congress from editing entries" by Evan Lehmann, the original Sun reporter who broke the Marty Meehan whitewash story.
The Washington Post published a well-balanced story on their front page on February 3, entitled "On Capitol Hill, Playing WikiPolitics". The article revealed that the questionable edits coming from Meehan's office were the work of a summer intern. It was also one of the few to correctly note the scale of the issue (a few thousand bad edits -- most juvenile pranks rather than Orwellian rewriting of history -- out of the 4.7 million edits made to Wikipedia in December).
Other notable stories included:
- "Website bans Congress staff over alterations", The Scotsman
- "Wikipedia Bans Access from Capitol Hill Computers", National Public Radio (US)
- "Wikipedia locks out congress staff", The Washington Times (syndicated UPI story)
- "Politicians notice Wikipedia", and "Congress caught making false entries in Wikipedia", News.com
- "Wikipedia Bans Congress", Web Pro News
Articles
- "Reputations taking hits on Web site", The Argus
- "Wikipedia and the Credibility of Online Information", Global Politician
- "In defence of Wikipedia", NOW Toronto
- "How accurate is Wikipedia's content?", Economic Times (India)
Citations in the news
Despite a previously reported internal memo from New York Times business editor Larry Ingrassia warning against use of Wikipedia, the article on mark to market accounting was endorsed as "a pretty good explanation" by the paper Saturday, in a story from Dan Mitchell. The story incorrectly referred to Wikipedia as wikipedia.com instead of wikipedia.org.
Features and admins
Administrators
Five users were granted admin status this week: Ashibaka (nom), Lethe (nom), Steinsky (nom), MPF (nom) and Banes (nom). Ashibaka was desysopped less than a week later, along with four other admins, as a result of the dispute over a userbox template reported elsewhere.
Featured content
Featured articles now have a special template that puts a star in the top right corner of the article. Talrias borrowed the idea from the Spanish Wikipedia. The addition was fairly popular, although there were some objections that this adds metadata to articles. Normal practice calls for such information to be added to talk pages instead. A similar template has been added to featured lists.
The latest portal to reach featured status is Portal:Australia.
Ten articles were featured last week: USS Wisconsin (BB-64), Lindsay Lohan, Edward Teller, Olivier Messiaen, Katyń massacre, New England Patriots, History of Miami, Florida, Trade and usage of saffron, Shoshone National Forest and Henry James.
The following featured articles were displayed last week on the main page as Today's featured article: Charles I of England, Dixie (song), Radhanites, Adriaen van der Donck, Restoration spectacular, Comet Hyakutake and Music of Nigeria.
Articles that were de-featured last week: Leet and Aztalan State Park.
One list reached featured list status last week: List of Formula One World Constructors' Champions, and one, Sri Lankan national cricket captains, became the second to be de-featured.
Seven pictures reached featured picture status last week:
.jpg){kind=small}
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Last (two) weeks in servers
Server-related events, problems, and changes included:
- 26 January — ImageMagick 6.2.6 installed on all servers.
- 26 January — Spam blacklist disabled, following reports of bugs.
- 28 January — AFD, VFD, and other deletion pages added to Wikipedia's Robots.txt file.
- 29 January — Captcha images added to registration and some editing pages on smaller Wikimedia projects.
- 30 January — Blank passwords disabled (see related story)
- 1 February — Message trimmed from wikimediafr-l mailing list for privacy reasons.
The Report On Lengthy Litigation
The Arbitration Committee closed eight cases this week, tying a record set last November.
Robert I
A case against Robert I was closed on Tuesday. As a result, Robert I was banned pending the resolution of all legal disputes. When and if this ban is lifted, Robert I is subject to probation, a one-year ban from any articles relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost, and a requirement to use only one account. Robert I had been accused of POV editing on Gregory Lauder-Frost, and legal threats and other comments were made, purporting to be from Lauder-Frost, that were likely made by Robert I.
Copperchair
A case against Copperchair was closed on Wednesday. As a result, Copperchair has been indefinitely banned from all articles relating to Star Wars and the War on Terrorism, and placed on indefinite probation. Copperchair was accused of carrying "fixed, non-negotiable views" about the above articles, and had edit-warred on them.
Johnski
A case against Johnski was closed on Thursday. As a result, Dominion of Melchizedek and related articles have been semi-protected (with the ability to unprotect if administrators deem it acceptable to do so). Johnski and assorted IP sockpuppets had been accused of being linked with the micronation, and had edit-warred on the page.
Winter Soldier
A case against editors on Winter Soldier Investigation was closed on Friday. As a result, TDC and an anonymous editor in the IP range 165.247.xxx.xxx have been banned from editing Winter Soldier Investigation for one year. Additionally, if either party wishes to appeal the ban, they can do so after three months. Both editors edit-warred on the article, resulting in numerous three-revert rule blocks and page protections.
Xed
A case against Xed was closed on Saturday. As a result, Xed has been reminded to avoid personal attacks, and warned about citing "unreliable sources". Viriditas was also commended for his work in dealing with Xed. Xed, who was the defendant in a prior case, returned after a three month ban, and remains on personal attack parole.
Neuro-linguistic programming
A case against editors on Neuro-linguistic programming was closed on Monday. As a result, a form of probation was enacted on the subject, whereby any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles. The article will also be placed under mentorship, with mentors to be named later. Editors Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey have also been required to discuss any reversions on article talk pages, and have been reminded regarding NPOV and adequate sourcing.
Benjamin Gatti
A case against Benjamin Gatti was closed on Monday. As a result, Benjamin Gatti has been placed on probation for one year and indefinitely on general probation. Benjamin Gatti was accused of editing with an aggressive anti-nuclear POV, disruption, failing to assume good faith, and Wikilawyering.
Deeceevoice
A case against Deeceevoice was closed on Monday. As a result, Deeceevoice was placed on probation, and on personal attack parole, and has been prohibited from "using her user page to publish offensive rants." Deeceevoice was also counseled to assume good faith and reminded of the need to follow Wikipedia policies. Friday and Jim Apple were also cautioned to avoid suggesting that other users leave the project. Deeceevoice had been accused of incivility, making personal attacks, and editing with a strong point of view.
Other cases
A case was accepted this week involving a wheel war on Template:User pedophile (see related story.) It is in the voting phase.
Another case was accepted this week involving Theodore7 (user page). It is in the evidence phase.
Additional cases involving users IronDuke and Gnetwerker, Zeq (user page), Leyasu (user page), Instantnood (user page), Boothy443 (user page), Dyslexic agnostic (user page), Tommstein (user page), and VeryVerily (user page) are in the Evidence phase.
Cases involving KDRGibby (user page), editors on WebEx and Min Zhu, editors on Rajput, Freestylefrappe (user page), users RJII and Firebug, Sortan (user page), Carl Hewitt (user page), and Reddi (user page) are in the voting phase.
Motions to close are on the table in cases involving Ruy Lopez (user page), Beckjord (user page), and EffK (user page).