Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2011-02-21

The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
21 February 2011

 

2011-02-21

Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news



Reader comments

2011-02-21

Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK; Africa and systemic bias; brief news



Reader comments

2011-02-21

Six-month residence in the Palace of Versailles for a Wikimedian

The Palace of Versailles and its gardens

As part of a collaboration with Wikimédia France, the Palace of Versailles announced last week that they will host a "Wikimedian in Residence" for six months, to be "the interface between the scientific staff of the Palace and the editor communities".

The Palace, a royal château near Paris, was the residence of the Kings of France from 1682 until October 1789 - from when Louis XIV moved from Paris until the start of the French Revolution. The Palace and its park are viewed as an architectural masterpiece and a historical symbol strongly associated with the monarchy. It is listed by the UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. As an institution, the Palace makes use of new technologies and mediums, with the creation of mobile applications, the organisation of a photo contest on the social photo-sharing site, Flickr, and its recent involvement with the Google Art Project.

How the collaboration started

Following the partnership established by Wikimédia France with the City of Toulouse, Adrienne Alix, chair of the French chapter, was contacted by Laurent Gaveau, Deputy Director of Information and Communication of the Palace of Versailles. Gaveau was interested in building links with the Wikimedia projects. He attended the Rencontres Wikimédia in December 2010, where he met Benoît Evellin (User:Trizek) and discussed the idea of bringing together Versailles and Wikimedia. After the example of Liam Wyatt's past residence at the British Museum last year (cf. Signpost coverage), the project settled on the idea of a Wikimedian in Residence.

Content and possible outcomes

Royal arms of France on the central golden gate of Versailles

According to Laurent Gaveau, the institution realized that Wikipedia – the second most widely used source of information about the Palace after the official website – could not be ignored. He says his institution finds the articles numerous and of good quality. "Thus, this is not about correcting them strictly speaking, but going into the subject in greater depth, and in particular providing first-hand material to Versailles enthusiasts who edit Wikipedia". He mentions, as possible activities, taking photographs to illustrate articles, consulting archives, and gaining feedback from curators. Jean-Jacques Aillagon, former Minister of Culture and Communication and the current President of the Château de Versailles, mentioned that several curators already contribute to Wikipedia at their own initiative.

Benoît Evellin, who recently celebrated his 1000th day as a Wikipedian, is an administrator on the French-language Wikipedia and a member of the chapter. Active in helping newcomers learn about Wikipedia (as part of the Service de Parrainage Actif, equivalent of the English Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program), he is also one of the leaders of a WikiProject dedicated to cultural heritage buildings. The Versailles domain contains many such protected monuments. He will be undertaking this residence as part of his studies, since it will be his "final training period for [his] master degree in cultural mediation". As such, "the Palace of Versailles gives me the legal compensation for a training period". The situation is similar to that of the second Wikipedian in Residence, Lori Phillips (HstryQT), at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis (cf. Signpost coverage), who spent a paid student internship there, while Wyatt was at the British Museum as an unpaid volunteer.

Press coverage and community reactions

The Allegory of Peace sculpture at the entrance to the palace. The chapter describes the partnership as the end of the Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns.

The official announcement was made on Tuesday, 15 February 2011, with a press release that was picked up in many media outlets (including Le Monde). Since then, Wikipedia and the partnership have been featured on the front page of the Palace of Versailles website (see also the English-language announcement on the Foundation's blog).

Early feedback from the French-speaking community has been very positive. Just a few hours after the announcement on the Village Pump, a WikiProject dedicated to the Palace was established, and a Château de Versailles Portal quickly followed. The editor who created both pages stated that "if it is announced everywhere (and it is!) that a partnership between Wikipedia and the Palace of Versailles is going to happen, then we have to prove now our capacity to set up a discussion space for coordinating such a project". Benoît Evellin also has a presence on Wikimedia Commons, and on the English-language Wikipedia.

Artinfo.com reported that "the fact that experts at the institution will edit the articles generated by the project may raise some eyebrows, and French art site Artclair has already been wondering if contributors will still have the ability to modify the articles that are officially sanctioned by the château." Responding to community concerns about original research, worrying that the Wikimedian in Residence or Versailles experts might be tempted to add true but unverifiable facts, Benoît said "I do not plan to go evangelizing people around by shouting "Edit, edit!". I am here to teach people how to edit Wikipedia well, the same way I strive to teach newbies while patrolling. Among other things, I am working to explain that every piece of information must have one verifiable source. The Five Pillars were presented, and they will be [presented] again".

Asked about the first week, Benoît Evellin tells the Signpost his time there has been busy:

"Interviews, press reporting, presentations of the partnership on WPfr, WPen and Commons. I have not visited the palace yet!"

Reader comments

2011-02-21

More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics


WikiProject news
News in brief
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's WikiProject Desk.
The French mathematician Blaise Pascal, well known for Pascal's triangle, is a Featured article of the project
A 3D projection of a 4D-cube performing a simple rotation about a plane which bisects the figure, is one of 29 Featured pictures of WikiProject Mathematics
This photo of the German Lorenz cipher machine, used in World War II to encrypt very high-level general staff messages, is used to illustrate the cryptography Featured article
The Fields Medal, awarded by the International Mathematical Union, is a Featured picture which shows a bas relief of Archimedes, another Featured article

This week, we take our first in-depth look at WikiProject Mathematics. Started in November 2002 by Chas zzz brown, it is one of the top 15 most active projects, and has 331 members. The project is home to 24 Featured articles, 3 Featured lists, 35 Good articles, 17 Featured pictures and a Featured portal – with a total of 8,850 assessed articles. The Signpost interviewed seven project members.

Charles Matthews has been on Wikipedia since 2003, and has a doctorate in mathematics; Jakob.scholbach joined around 2005, working mainly on frequently viewed mathematics articles; Geometry guy was invited to join the project in 2007, and became involved in assessment and review; Ozob is a professional mathematician who joined in 2008 and has a soft spot for calculus articles; computer scientist and mathematician David Eppstein, who has his own article in Wikipedia, joined in 2006; Kiefer.Wolfowitz is a statistician who joined in 2009; while CBM became involved because he "found the idea of a public, comprehensive, free reference of that sort, very exciting".

Although the project has some 8,850 assessed articles, there are actually over 25,400 articles associated with it. We asked how project members keep up with all these, and if there are any plans to assess the other articles. According to CBM, keeping up with such a large number of articles is a daunting task, "Fortunately, some of the original members of the project set up useful bots that index our articles automatically. The List of mathematics articles and List of mathematicians are maintained by a bot, and these lists are used to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. These tools have allowed us to track the huge number of math articles without relying on manual effort or talk page tags. The main limitation in going beyond tracking to actual editing is the ratio of editor time to the number of articles needing improvement." Project members, including Ozob and David, watch the Current activity list, while Kiefer works to provide references and short improvements to core articles, while developing a few articles.

Geometry guy contributed to the assessment of around 2,000 mathematics articles in 2007, but believes that "doing more than this would require substantial concerted editorial efforts that could be better applied to other goals." David sees assessment as "most useful at the top end, where GA and FA status provide recognition to excellent articles and at the bottom end, where the lists of stubs and User:Mathbot/Most wanted redlinks are a good hunting ground for articles in severe need of improvement. For the rest, I'd rather spend my editing time improving article space rather than trying to decide whether an article is really B or C class and exactly how important it is".

Of the 8,850 assessed articles, there are some 4,053 Start-class articles and 3,401 stubs. What is the project doing to advance these articles? For Jakob, many of these short articles just contain a definition of some specific concept, "in which case, it is unlikely that they will get much longer anytime soon or at all. The main task for this type of articles is to provide accurate references; here steady progress is made. From my personal experience, such highly specific topics actually tend to be more satisfactory than articles on broader mathematical subjects which require much more expertise to write".

WikiProject Mathematics has numerous Featured content. How did the project achieve this and how can other projects work toward this? For Jakob, the project as a whole has an enjoyable, friendly atmosphere: "I found that the usual procedures ensuring a sound article quality such as Peer review and Good article nomination, work well. On the other hand, most members of WikiProject Mathematics don't seem to focus on working on recognized content. For example, Riemann hypothesis (worth $1.000.000) has been pushed to an FA-ish level by a group of editors, but was not nominated. Reviewers' expectations at the FA candidacy tend to be quite high as far as the accessibility of scientific articles to the "general public" is concerned. This is often the most challenging bit in having a successful GA or FA candidacy, given that most mathematical subjects rely on a rigorous, abstract language that is not part of usual daily life. One way to deal with this issue in a more systematic way might be a "non-peer review", or just a forum for editors to meet mathematically untrained editors willing to work together on the accessibility of advanced scientific articles, outside the rather hasty FA process."

According to Kiefer, "On Wikipedia, mathematical topics present few temptations for editors to engage in point-of-view editing or to make personal attacks; goodwill flows in discussions on exposition (focusing on the public's needs) and scope (applications and generalizations). The cooperative atmosphere in Wikipedia is similar to that in the world of mathematics, and more generally, in mathematical sciences such as computer science and statistics. At the end of a day of research or teaching, editing Wikipedia is a relaxing hobby for mathematical scientists."

"Articles on mathematics are under-represented in the GA and FA categories, which do have biographies of mathematicians. Improving mathematical articles to GA and FA status is especially challenging, because of the demand that articles be accessible to the reading public. Perhaps Wikipedia should feature more good articles on important topics rather than excellent articles on minor topics and trivia? Mathematical scientists worry that Wikipedia indulges in "slumming"—dumbing down its content and showing contempt for the public's intelligence and attention—neglecting the mission of true encyclopedias, which has been and should remain enlightenment. Wikipedia should inform the populace rather than popularize infamy and so oppose the commercialism of the mass media," Kiefer added. He further suggests that Wikipedia should highlight mathematics and science on its main page, "and refrain from promoting Pokémon, pornography, and professional wrestling on Did you know?."

CBM does not think the lack of FA nominations as necessarily negative: "It has been said that Wikipedia is not a unified work, it's a collection of mostly-independent specialist encyclopedias that share goals and build on each other. Only a few members of the mathematics project have been active in nominating articles for FA status; the most recent promotion was Euclidean algorithm in 2009. I don't view this as entirely a bad thing. On a site the size of Wikipedia, there will naturally be differing visions of what an ideal article should be. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is we accommodate such a wide range of topics and writing styles." Charles believes that mathematics is different when it comes to featured content, "the FA criteria don't fit that well with what survey articles in the subject typically try to do, and we are still wrestling with the consequences for exposition. It isn't easy".

We asked what the most pressing needs for WikiProject Mathematics are, and how a new contributor can help. Charles identifies four areas, "better biographies, particularly for mathematicians outside the English-speaking world; connected historical coverage; referencing; and expository work, for topics up to first-year graduate level, through gradual expansion of material which although accurate, may be "impacted" and short of standard motivating remarks and heuristics". Ozob says that the most important way someone can help is by notifying the project of what is not clear, and feels that good exposition is their biggest problem, not just as a WikiProject but as a profession: "There's hardly any mathematical exposition for the layman anywhere. And that's despite there being some fascinating stuff which can be explained in very elementary terms. ... The WikiProject has an especially big problem with math articles that have applications to the sciences and engineering. Non-mathematicians frequently try to read those articles and end up stymied by thickets of abstraction, because we often discuss modern mathematical methods that are very abstract but very powerful. But sometimes it's our fault; we think like mathematicians, our reliable sources are written by mathematicians, and without meaning to, we sometimes end up writing for mathematicians."

Kiefer suggests that mathematics instructors should consider donating lecture-notes to appropriate articles. "More generally, graphical donations enliven articles and increase their appeal. Instructors in computational geometry and computer graphics should encourage their students to contribute, perhaps for course projects. Maybe the Wikipedia Foundation should give a special award recognizing the graphical donations by David Eppstein, Oleg Alexandrov, and others?" he added. "WikiProject Statistics has hard-working cadre like Qwfp and Melcombe, and we all would welcome new members. Personal invitations have recruited some great editors, but I am embarrassed at not having invited a professional colleague to join the project, yet! Perhaps the Wikipedia Foundation should hire staff for the mathematics project, or project members could write a letter appealing for volunteers in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society?"

CBM's recommendation is for new editors to pick a stub article on a topic that they have some knowledge about, and expand it into something a little longer. For Geometry guy, "The project has done really well in providing references for the expert, but we need to draw more readers in, while also defending the importance of specialist content to the encyclopedia. Mathematics is a stark example of this tension, but not the only one: I heartily recommend the essay Many things to many people (written primarily by Markus Poessel) for wider discussion."

We'll be Bach next week with a classic project. Until then, let our previous work serenade you in the archive.

Reader comments

2011-02-21

The best of the week

New featured picture: Andromeda Galaxy. The light that formed this image took 2.5 million years to get to Earth, arriving just last September on the 18th. The creator, Adam Evans, said last week on his Flickr page, "Check it out, some kind soul has uploaded my photo to Wikipedia's entry for the Andromeda Galaxy. Very cool."


This week's "Features and admins" covers Saturday 12 – Friday 18 February


New administrators

The Signpost welcomes two editors as our newest admins.

At the time of publication there are three live RfAs: The Bushranger and Glane23, both due to finish on Tuesday 22 February, and Snottywong, due to finish on Monday 28 February.


From the new featured portal Law of England and Wales: justice must be seen to be done? An illustration from the 1470s of the execution of Hugh Despenser the Younger
From the new featured portal Somerset, a limestone gorge where Britain's oldest complete human skeleton, Cheddar Man, estimated to be 9,000 years old, was found in 1903
Several men sitting around a table
From the new featured article: Rutherford B. Hayes's cabinet in 1877
Two portals were promoted:
  • Portal:Law of England and Wales (nom) was promoted, with 29 articles (including 8 FAs and 3 FLs), and selected biographies, cases, legislation, pictures, and quotations. (picture at right)
  • Portal:Somerset (nom) was promoted, with 36 articles (all FA or GA), and selected biographies, pictures, and settlements. (picture at right)


Six articles were promoted to featured status:

  • Rinaldo (opera) (nom), a historically important opera and one of Handel's early masterpieces. Its tercentenary comes up in less than a week, on 24 February. (Brianboulton)
  • 2008 Hungarian Grand Prix (nom), a Formula One motor race held in 2008, in which most of the excitement surrounded a duel between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa. (Midgrid)
  • History of the New York Jets (nom), an American football team with one championship and much futility; its history goes back to 1959. (Wehwalt, The Writer 2.0)
  • Rutherford B. Hayes (nom) (1822–93), the 19th US President who served one term from 1877 to 1881, overseeing the end of Reconstruction and America's entry into the Second Industrial Revolution. Hayes was a reformer whose work was influential in civil service reform. He unsuccessfully tried to reconcile the divisions that had led to the Civil War. (Coemgenus; picture at right)
  • Minas Geraes-class battleship (nom), a pair of Brazilian dreadnoughts, in service from 1910, that caused traditional powers around the world to hail Brazil's new-found military potential (said to have "astonished the naval world"). Both ships were rapidly outmoded, but survived through the Second World War before being scrapped. (The ed17)
  • John J. Crittenden (nom), a US career politician in the 19th century who served as Congressman, Senator, US Attorney General, Governor, and state legislator. Nominator Acdixon says that "had his 'Crittenden Compromise' been approved, the American Civil War might have been averted."


Seven lists were promoted:

Four featured lists have been delisted in February thus far:


Five featured sounds were promoted, in twelve parts:


From the new featured picture: "I'll huff and I'll puff": the wolf blows down the straw house in a 1904 adaptation of Three Little Pigs.
Five images in six parts were promoted. Medium-sized images can be viewed by clicking on "nom":
New featured picture: the Engadin, a long valley in southeast Switzerland, protected by high mountains on all sides and famous for its sunny climate. This is one of the few places in which the Romansh language is indigenous.

Information about new admins at the top is drawn from their user pages and RfA texts, and occasionally from what they tell us directly.

Reader comments

2011-02-21

Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

The Committee opened no new cases during the week, but closed two cases. Two cases are currently open.

Open cases

During the week, 11 editors submitted over 67 kilobytes in on-wiki evidence. One of these editors also submitted several workshop proposals.

Kehrli 2 (Week 2)

During the week, another editor submitted an additional 15 kilobytes in on-wiki evidence. No workshop proposals were submitted.

Closed cases

This case concerns allegations about disruptive editing on articles relating to the Shakespeare authorship question. Evidence was submitted on-wiki by 27 editors, including co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). During the case, Smatprt (talk · contribs) also appealed the Community's restriction which topic-banned Smatprt from William Shakespeare related articles until 3 November 2011. Although drafters Newyorkbrad and SirFozzie did not submit their proposed decision to the workshop, arbitrators Cool Hand Luke and Elen of the Roads submitted a new principle to work on, which built on the proposals made in the workshop (cf. Signpost coverage). The case came to a close during the week, after a total of 15 arbitrators voted on the proposed decision.

What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
  • The collaborative editing environment on Shakespeare authorship question has been dysfunctional for several years; the 21 talk page archives at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question reflect a miserable history of talkpage misuse and disruption.
  • Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.
  • Articles related to the Shakespeare authorship question are subject to "standard" discretionary sanctions. The Committee has instructed that such sanctions should be administered in such a fashion as to treat all contributors fairly, while, at the same time, ensuring that future editing of the pages adheres to high standards of both Wikipedia behavior and Shakespearean scholarship.
  • The Committee endorsed the Community restriction that was imposed on Smatprt (talk · contribs) on 3 November 2010; Smatprt remains topic-banned from any article which relates to William Shakespeare until 3 November 2011.
  • NinaGreen (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from any article which relates to the Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, or Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
    • NinaGreen is banned from editing Wikipedia until 16 February 2012.
  • Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be subject to bans, either by community consensus or by the Committee. While the Committee is permitted to lessen the effect of a Community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

Longevity (Week 13)

The case concerns allegations about problematic conduct, conflicts of interests, notability, and sourcing in relation to longevity articles. Evidence was submitted on-wiki by 12 editors over several weeks after parties requested for additional time to submit evidence (cf. Signpost coverage). Drafter Kirill Lokshin submitted a proposed decision in the workshop, before it was submitted for arbitrators to vote on. The case came to a close during the week, after a total of 11 arbitrators voted on the proposed decision.

What is the effect of the decision and what does it tell us?
  • Articles related to the longevity articles are subject to "standard" discretionary sanctions.
  • Ryoung122 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from the longevity topic.
  • John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia until 17 February 2012.
  • Affiliation with the Gerontology Research Group, or any other group named in the evidence to the case, does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest when editing the longevity topics. Similarly, editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic. Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.
  • It is not the role of the Committee to decide the outcome of content disputes. Whether or not any individual longevity-related topic is within Wikipedia's notability policies is a question for Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Whether or not materials produced by the Gerontology Research Group and affiliated groups are within Wikipedia's sourcing policies is a question for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
  • WikiProject World's Oldest People was urged to seek experienced Wikipedia editors who will act as mentors to the WikiProject and assist its members: in improving their understanding of Wikipedia norms and editing of Wikipedia.

Other

  • The Committee invited further comments in the RfC on Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) (cf. Signpost coverage).
  • Yesterday, a call for applications was also made; the Committee seeks to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to AUSC. Applications will close on 7 March 2011. Further information about the appointment process will be published in next week's Signpost.

    Reader comments

2011-02-21

Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

MediaWiki 1.17 deployed to sites; initial strife

After the attempted deployments of MediaWiki 1.17 on 8 February 2011, which were quickly reverted on performance grounds (cf. Signpost coverage), the latest edition was deployed once more to Wikimedia sites on February 16. Although a number of relatively significant problems soon appeared, these were regarded as fixable without the need for a retreat to 1.16 (Wikimedia Techblog). There was only a partial recurrence of the load spikes seen with the previous attempts at deployment.

The anecdotal evidence coming from users is that page loading times have indeed been reduced by the new ResourceLoader as hoped. However, many of the issues wikis are now facing were also related to this change: as expected, it broke a number of JavaScript gadgets, including popular scripts such as Twinkle. Although these issues were soon fixed, users were also riled by a bug with the Vector-style edit toolbar when it was re-enabled for editors who had previously tried to turn it off. On this issue, developer Roan Kattouw said that he "apologized for messing up" and explained that the temporary loss of this preference setting was the lesser of two evils. "There are about 4,200 affected users on English Wikipedia, if memory serves," he added (Technical Village Pump).

Other issues were equally temporary. For example, the new stricter SVG parser refused to accept a number of images it had previously allowed, resulting in a loss of thumbnails. Some were soon fixed with a change to the parser (being incorrectly failed); others still need to be fixed manually as they have invalid syntax which results in discrepancies between web browsers, and, in the worst case, security holes. A change in the color of the "New messages" box from orange to blue (cf. Signpost coverage), was soon reverted locally on the English Wikipedia and several other wikis; the change, which was supposed to make the box visually more similar to the Vector skin, may still be reverted globally.

Developer Rob Lanphier explained where the development team was going to go from here:

Developer attention turn to 1.18

With the deployment to WMF wikis of MediaWiki 1.17, developer attentions have begun to turn towards the strategy for MediaWiki 1.18. Mark Hershberger, developer and interim bugmeister (cf. Signpost coverage), outlined his views on where MediaWiki development should go from here (Wikitech-l mailing list):

The issue has been a hot topic in recent months (cf. Signpost coverage from October 2010: 1, 2) and this week proved no exception. Discussions included a debate of the merits of Subversion as the best version control software to be used, and whether a Mozilla-style system (where all developers submit patches, rather than adding their changes to the global codebase immediately) might be a better step. Developer Roan Kattouw expanded on Mark Hershberger's more modest proposal:

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.

Early on Saturday, 19 February 2011, bugmeister Mark Hershberger posted a list on wikitech-l of critical bugs to work on over the weekend and fix before a MediaWiki 1.17 tarball is released.

Load on 4 servers cut in half

P.Copp reported bug #27302, a ResourceLoader bug that attached a timestamp to site JS and CSS (e.g. MediaWiki:Common.js), even if these were empty, and attached timestamps to user JS and CSS, thus bypassing the caches, even if a user is logged out and does not have user JS or CSS. Developer Roan Kattouw fixed (r82219 and r82468) the bug, and with the fix, cut load to the 4 Apache servers serving ResourceLoader in half. [1]

Other bug fixes

Over the weekend, the following other bugs were fixed:

  • The edit screen autoscrolling bug #27496 that occurred in IE8 is fixed in r82474.
  • With the 1.17wmf deploy, LocalisationUpdate failed (#27524); A fix was committed and deployed on 19 February in r82448.
  • Bug #27328 occurred when using relative paths in CSS imports, causing CSS to break. Fixed with commit r82457.
  • Bug #27486 involved Special:Import ignoring the destination namespace and providing the incorrect source in logs. Fixed in commit r82482.
  • Bug #27546 caused RSS/Atom feeds of user contributions to break due to the deletedOnly parameter in the link. Fixed in r82486.
  • Bug #27355 occurred when WikiEditor automatically falls back to the classic editor, and the toolbar buttons failed in IE6 . Fixed in r82530.
  • Bug #27499 caused the "Stub size threshold" in preferences to not work. Fixed in r82363.

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