Last month, Wan Li Book Company, a leading Hong Kong publisher, released A Speaking Map of Hong Kong – a multimedia guidebook to Hong Kong history and geography. It was soon discovered that it used some 100 photographs from Wikipedia and Flickr without any copyright acknowledgement. When comparing any page from the book with the relevant Wikipedia article about the corresponding district of Hong Kong, one can almost certainly find a Wikipedia picture replicated exactly in the book.
Aware that the book in question is actually the sequel to A Speaking World Map, a similar interactive book by the same publisher, a writer on Hong Kong Inmedia, set out to buy the previous book in search for more copyright violations. Instead, he was surprised to discover copyright acknowledgements for various pictures in the book. Those credited included both individual photographers and organisations such as the United States Geological Survey. For one illustrated photograph, the acknowledgement was so delicately written that it included the photographer, the illustrator, and the Tajik Agency on Hydrometeorology who provided the original data. A skim through the inside covers of the two books reveals that they were compiled by the same chief editors.
The publisher did leave a line in A Speaking Map of Hong Kong as a defence: "We were unable to contact some of the old street photographs' owners due to a lack of information. Copyright holders should feel free to contact us." However, Wikipedians noted that every picture description on Wikipedia and Flickr is clearly accompanied by the username of the author, and the copyright licence under which the author released the picture. The infringing book did not credit anyone in compliance with the licences; neither did the publisher leave a comment to the authors asking for authorisation.
Jeromy-Yu Chan, president of Wikimedia Hong Kong, called it the largest infringement of Wikipedia images in Hong Kong's history. A Hong Kong freelance writer filed a case against Wan Li Books with the customs.
On August 14, one user identifying as deputy editor-in-chief of the publisher posted an apology on the talk page where the infringements were being discussed. The user stated that the editor for the book had resigned and that all copies would be recalled and destroyed, and asserted that the apology was made "not on legal grounds, but out of conscience."
Two heavy spam attacks on the English Wikipedia last month have been traced back to a researcher at a U.S. university, in an affair that is likely to add to existing debates about the ethics of Wikipedia research.
The first attack occurred on July 14, with several autoconfirmed accounts ( example) inserting the message "Want to be inches larger?" in large letters on top of many different articles, linking to an online shop. In a blog post for computer security firm Sophos (" Wikipedia hacked - Footballers need help in bed?", a reference to 2010 FIFA World Cup, one of the affected articles), Chester Wisniewski, a senior security advisor at the company, described the vandalism, noting that the advertised site had an unusual appearance: "Unlike the usual spam for penis pills and cheap Canadian drugs that uses a couple of 'medical professionals' to promote the site, this campaign uses a photo of a satisfied couple" (he included a screenshot, too). Wisniewski's observations were quoted in news reports about the attacks that appeared on Softpedia.com [3] and on Spamfighter.com [4].
Following the attacks, Versageek blocked a number of other accounts with the rationale "abusing multiple accounts for spamming - checkuser block" and posted the following on the talk page of an established user, under the heading "Misdirected Testing?":
The account belongs to A. W., a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Computer and Information Science. On his university home page, he states:
W. is known to Wikipedians as the developer of STiki, a vandalism detection tool released earlier this year which relies on a "spatio-temporal analysis" of revision metadata and machine learning techniques. It has received praise by several of its users and was the topic of W.'s presentations at several conferences ( Eurosec, Wikisym, Wikimania).
W.'s edits during the following days do not show a reaction to Versageek's note. On July 20, another heavy spam attack occured, inserting a message on top of many articles that read "Congratulations! Wikipedia's one-billionth user. Click to collect your prize!". ( Example of one of the autoconfirmed accounts used for the attack.) Many readers of Wikipedia appear to have been troubled by the message, judging from the questions about it in web fora and on Wikipedia's help desk. Some suspected a PC virus infection ("My sister was searching on wikipedia and the following text came up in big red letters: ..." [5]).
On the following day, SirFozzie blocked a number of accounts for "Abusing multiple accounts" and left the following comment on the talk page of W.'s main account:
The contributions of one of the accounts blocked by SirFozzie show a rapid succession of edits to the Sandbox with the edit summary "an exploration into rate-limiting".
The ArbCom later confirmed to the Signpost that W. had carried out both attacks.
On August 11, ArbCom member Risker posted the following statement on W.'s talk page:
“ | The Arbitration Committee has reviewed your block and the information you have submitted privately, and is prepared to unblock you conditionally. The conditions of your unblock are as follows:
[...] |
” |
W. reacted to the unblock offer ten minutes later, stating:
“ | "I agree to these conditions, and offer a sincere apology to the community. | ” |
As clarified by ArbCom to The Signpost, condition 3. refers to the possibility that the English Wikipedia might develop a community process to oversee research, and to the Research Committee that the Wikimedia Foundation intends to form (see last week's Signpost coverage).
According to an RfC announcement about the introduction of the "Researcher" user rights group last June (see Signpost coverage), W. had requested to be granted this new right back then, but his application had been put on hold by the Foundation's Deputy Director Erik Möller, suggesting it should be handled by the community.
W. agreed to answer several questions about the affair to the Signpost:
[Note: The names of the UPenn researchers have been redacted to initials for this article.]
Reader comments
Wikipedia researcher Joseph Reagle (a fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center) announced a new paper last week (" 'Be Nice': Wikipedia norms for supportive communication", preprint available online). The abstract reads as follows:
Gibb's 1961 paper distinguishes between "supportive" and "defensive" communication, as summarized by Reagle: "Supportive behavior/climates are characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty." Using these twelve characteristics, Reagle classified the text of 104 pages from Wikipedia, including policies, guidelines, essays and humorous texts. Examples included Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Right to vanish, User:Dlohcierekim/apathy, Wikipedia:Thankspam, Wikipedia:Five pillars of evil, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. The majority was found to be in the "supportive" realm.
A book by Reagle based on his 2008 dissertation about Wikipedia is to appear next month ("Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia"). A Signpost review is in preparation.
An August 9 Newsweek article by Tony Dokoupil and Angela Wu argued that "Crowd Sourcing Loses Steam" because "most people simply don’t want to work for free", adding to the longstanding debate on whether user-generated content can replace that produced by paid workers (see e.g. Carr-Benkler wager). Among other examples, Newsweek named Wikipedia: "In the history of the web, last spring may figure as a tipping point. That’s when Wikipedia [...] began to falter as a social movement." This statement was apparently based on the statistical research by Felipe Ortega, which had led to debates about Wikipedia's future last year after it was covered in the Wall Street Journal (see Signpost coverage on 23 November, 7 December, and 30 November of 2009). Ortega criticized the Newsweek article for implying "additional conclusions that don't apply to Wikipedia".
Dokoupil and Wu appeared to argue that in the past, most Wikipedians had contributed to the project because it was seen as fashionable at the time:
Apart from Google's Kiswahili Challenge (where the company offered prizes for contributions to the Swahili Wikipedia), the article also cites the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative as evidence for its thesis that goodwill motivations are not enough: "Wikipedia’s new recruiting push will not rely merely on highfalutin promises about pooled greatness and 'the sum of all human knowledge.' Instead, the organization is hoping to get students to write and edit entries as part of their coursework."
Cliff Lampe, a professor at Michigan State University who was quoted in the Newsweek article, commented that "the reporter had an axe to grind, and I did my best to thwart the predefined narrative".
WikiProject NASCAR was established on December 10, 2004 as an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of NASCAR auto racing and related topics. The project is home to over 150 participants, although only about 25 are active. Of the project's over 1,500 articles, 12 have achieved Good Article status. The project maintains a portal, to-do list, and recently started a monthly newsletter. WikiProject NASCAR is a child project of WikiProject Motorsport and sibling of a variety of automotive projects, including WikiProject Formula One. This week, we took a spin with Royalbroil, Nascar1996, NerdyScienceDude, and Doctorindy.
Royalbroil, an admin, describes himself as "a long-term fan of motorsports" who is "interested in the history of auto racing." Royalbroil enjoys working on biographical articles in particular and has experience promoting Good Articles. Nascar1996 is "a fan of NASCAR for three years." When the project fell on hard times, Nascar1996's efforts to revive the project inspired other editors to join, eliciting praise from Airplaneman during our interview. NerdyScienceDude, "a big NASCAR fan," joined the project to "help out [by] adding NASCAR races to this growing encyclopedia" and has promoted several good articles in a short amount of time. Doctorindy has "nearly 30-years of interest in all forms of auto racing, including NASCAR" with a preference toward the '70s, '80s, and early '90s.
Have you contributed to one of the project's 11 good articles? Are there any articles you are currently working toward achieving GA or FA status? Share your experiences with us.
Four of the project's good articles and another four former good articles are about races that occurred this year. How does your project produce quality articles about recent events in such a short time?
Has your project developed particularly close relationships with any other projects?
What are WikiProject NASCAR's most pressing needs? How can a new contributor help today?
Doctorindy concluded the interview by pointing to the collaborative community built around motorsports: "I've noticed a fair and refreshing amount of cooperation between the editors spanning the several genres of auto racing (NASCAR, IndyCar/Champ Cart, F1, sports cars, etc.)" Despite the differences of opinion between fans of each type of racing, Doctorindy noted that the project has seen "no sparring between NASCAR and open wheel fans (particularly IRL/CART), as would be expected in internet message boards..."
Next week, we'll venture into the wilderness in search of
unknown creatures. Until then, feel free to explore the
archives.
Reader comments
The Signpost congratulates Mkativerata ( nom), a lawyer from Brisbane, Australia, on his promotion to adminship. Highly active since last December, he has been with us since 2007. His significant contributions include the sourcing of BLP articles, copyright cleanup, and the detection and resolution of sockpuppet issues. He has one FA and two GAs to his name, and has begun more than 100 well-sourced articles on Malaysian politicians.
Eighteen articles were promoted to featured status:
Choice of the week. We asked regular FAR delegate, FA reviewer and nominator YellowMonkey for his opinion (disregarding his own nomination): "I chose the Tower of London because I've always had a soft spot for history, and the Princes in the Tower is a source of high school nostalgia. More generally, the older the topic, the more quaint and fascinating the story tends to become, especially as society evolves over time, making such things stand out in contrast to modernity. The subject is a rich blend of medieval history, architecture, political intrigue and supernatural phenomena, so it should have something for everyone. It's also very comprehensive—the predominant theme of my concerns at FAC, much to the chagrin of many a nominator. I'd like to give a special mention to Wally Hammond."
Eight lists were promoted:
Choice of the week. We asked FL nominator and reviewer Jujutacular for his choice of the best: "I picked Listed buildings in Rivington as my choice for this week. The structure of the list is very appealing, the prose flows well, and it sparks an interest in the subject for the reader. As someone unfamiliar with the area, it makes me want to visit! Beautiful images illustrate many of the entries. Congratulations and thanks to J3Mrs for the wonderful work on this list." (right)
Two featured lists were delisted:
Ten images were promoted:
Choice of the week. Miya was a member of the 2009 Organizing Committee for the Commons Picture of the Year Award. We asked her to choose what she sees as the best new featured picture: "The three I like most are Eastern Barred Bandicoot, Diatomaceous earth, and 360 degrees fogbow . It was not easy to choose one of these. But at last I've made my choice: Diatomaceous earth. The photo of the micrograph of Diatomaceous earth is beautiful as well as of great scientific interest; it is both encyclopedic and educational. The full resolution allows you to clearly see the fossilized remains of diatoms; this may provide insights into the nature of Diatomaceous earth." (below)
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, leaving two open.
Last month, the Committee stated that it would release, "on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment" to CheckUser and Oversight positions on the English Wikipedia. At 21:21, on 13 August 2010 (UTC), it instead announced that "[f]or a variety of reasons, mostly real-life related", it would delay releasing this information on-wiki. The announcement included an apology for inconvenience that the delay may cause.
Today, in an announcement, the Committee has released the names of applicants being actively considered for appointment. The announcement, which did not specify the total number of applications received, also stated that between now and 23:59, on 25 August 2010 (UTC), the Community may comment on candidates. This means that the period in which the Community may comment on candidates has been extended by exactly three days (this is the approximate length of the delay in releasing the names). The announcement also stated that "appointments will come into effect on 1 September 2010".
The candidates being actively considered for CheckUser permissions are:
The candidates being actively considered for Oversight permissions are:
Following on from discussions last week around an enhanced in-built wikitext editor, discussion on the wikitech-l developers' mailing list this week concerned existing and new external editors for the MediaWiki software Wikimedia sites are based on. WYSIWYG ("What you see is what you get") editors of this type "would allow easy editing to newbies, while still allowing to use the full wikisyntax to power users" (as stated by User:Platonides). However, given the complexity of wikitext, WYSIWYGism is notoriously difficult to achieve fully. A list of attempts is given on MediaWiki.org.
This week's discussion started with an external, cross-platform local (rather than web-based)
application. It moved onto another, web-based attempt, the "Myrilion" editor (
example). It rewrites the main wikitext parser to
OCaml, which can then be turned into a fairly hefty chunk of JavaScript. A number of problems with WYSIWYG editors were discussed, including the inability of many to differentiate between two wikitext elements that give the same HTML output (e.g. [[Foo|Foo]]
and [[Foo]]
) and inadvertently convert between the two. The projects are similar to the Wikimedia User Experience team's attempts to improve the in-built ease of editing MediaWiki projects. The hope is that shared code and experience could be useful in building new attempts to solve the usability question.
In related news, Dutch developer Jan Paul Posma has published a mock-up of what a web-based MediaWiki editor might look like in the future.
The "coding" phase of Google Summer of Code (GSoC) projects has now ended and the "evaluation" phase has begun. Each year, Google sponsors student developers to work on open source projects under the guidance of mentors. This year, six such students were selected to work on the MediaWiki software which underpins all Wikimedia sites:
A full list containing more information (including mentors) on each is also available. The Signpost hopes to catch up with the students in the coming weeks and to establish the success of each project and what it might mean for Wikimedia.
Note: not all fixes may have gone live on WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.
Last month, Wan Li Book Company, a leading Hong Kong publisher, released A Speaking Map of Hong Kong – a multimedia guidebook to Hong Kong history and geography. It was soon discovered that it used some 100 photographs from Wikipedia and Flickr without any copyright acknowledgement. When comparing any page from the book with the relevant Wikipedia article about the corresponding district of Hong Kong, one can almost certainly find a Wikipedia picture replicated exactly in the book.
Aware that the book in question is actually the sequel to A Speaking World Map, a similar interactive book by the same publisher, a writer on Hong Kong Inmedia, set out to buy the previous book in search for more copyright violations. Instead, he was surprised to discover copyright acknowledgements for various pictures in the book. Those credited included both individual photographers and organisations such as the United States Geological Survey. For one illustrated photograph, the acknowledgement was so delicately written that it included the photographer, the illustrator, and the Tajik Agency on Hydrometeorology who provided the original data. A skim through the inside covers of the two books reveals that they were compiled by the same chief editors.
The publisher did leave a line in A Speaking Map of Hong Kong as a defence: "We were unable to contact some of the old street photographs' owners due to a lack of information. Copyright holders should feel free to contact us." However, Wikipedians noted that every picture description on Wikipedia and Flickr is clearly accompanied by the username of the author, and the copyright licence under which the author released the picture. The infringing book did not credit anyone in compliance with the licences; neither did the publisher leave a comment to the authors asking for authorisation.
Jeromy-Yu Chan, president of Wikimedia Hong Kong, called it the largest infringement of Wikipedia images in Hong Kong's history. A Hong Kong freelance writer filed a case against Wan Li Books with the customs.
On August 14, one user identifying as deputy editor-in-chief of the publisher posted an apology on the talk page where the infringements were being discussed. The user stated that the editor for the book had resigned and that all copies would be recalled and destroyed, and asserted that the apology was made "not on legal grounds, but out of conscience."
Two heavy spam attacks on the English Wikipedia last month have been traced back to a researcher at a U.S. university, in an affair that is likely to add to existing debates about the ethics of Wikipedia research.
The first attack occurred on July 14, with several autoconfirmed accounts ( example) inserting the message "Want to be inches larger?" in large letters on top of many different articles, linking to an online shop. In a blog post for computer security firm Sophos (" Wikipedia hacked - Footballers need help in bed?", a reference to 2010 FIFA World Cup, one of the affected articles), Chester Wisniewski, a senior security advisor at the company, described the vandalism, noting that the advertised site had an unusual appearance: "Unlike the usual spam for penis pills and cheap Canadian drugs that uses a couple of 'medical professionals' to promote the site, this campaign uses a photo of a satisfied couple" (he included a screenshot, too). Wisniewski's observations were quoted in news reports about the attacks that appeared on Softpedia.com [3] and on Spamfighter.com [4].
Following the attacks, Versageek blocked a number of other accounts with the rationale "abusing multiple accounts for spamming - checkuser block" and posted the following on the talk page of an established user, under the heading "Misdirected Testing?":
The account belongs to A. W., a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Computer and Information Science. On his university home page, he states:
W. is known to Wikipedians as the developer of STiki, a vandalism detection tool released earlier this year which relies on a "spatio-temporal analysis" of revision metadata and machine learning techniques. It has received praise by several of its users and was the topic of W.'s presentations at several conferences ( Eurosec, Wikisym, Wikimania).
W.'s edits during the following days do not show a reaction to Versageek's note. On July 20, another heavy spam attack occured, inserting a message on top of many articles that read "Congratulations! Wikipedia's one-billionth user. Click to collect your prize!". ( Example of one of the autoconfirmed accounts used for the attack.) Many readers of Wikipedia appear to have been troubled by the message, judging from the questions about it in web fora and on Wikipedia's help desk. Some suspected a PC virus infection ("My sister was searching on wikipedia and the following text came up in big red letters: ..." [5]).
On the following day, SirFozzie blocked a number of accounts for "Abusing multiple accounts" and left the following comment on the talk page of W.'s main account:
The contributions of one of the accounts blocked by SirFozzie show a rapid succession of edits to the Sandbox with the edit summary "an exploration into rate-limiting".
The ArbCom later confirmed to the Signpost that W. had carried out both attacks.
On August 11, ArbCom member Risker posted the following statement on W.'s talk page:
“ | The Arbitration Committee has reviewed your block and the information you have submitted privately, and is prepared to unblock you conditionally. The conditions of your unblock are as follows:
[...] |
” |
W. reacted to the unblock offer ten minutes later, stating:
“ | "I agree to these conditions, and offer a sincere apology to the community. | ” |
As clarified by ArbCom to The Signpost, condition 3. refers to the possibility that the English Wikipedia might develop a community process to oversee research, and to the Research Committee that the Wikimedia Foundation intends to form (see last week's Signpost coverage).
According to an RfC announcement about the introduction of the "Researcher" user rights group last June (see Signpost coverage), W. had requested to be granted this new right back then, but his application had been put on hold by the Foundation's Deputy Director Erik Möller, suggesting it should be handled by the community.
W. agreed to answer several questions about the affair to the Signpost:
[Note: The names of the UPenn researchers have been redacted to initials for this article.]
Reader comments
Wikipedia researcher Joseph Reagle (a fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center) announced a new paper last week (" 'Be Nice': Wikipedia norms for supportive communication", preprint available online). The abstract reads as follows:
Gibb's 1961 paper distinguishes between "supportive" and "defensive" communication, as summarized by Reagle: "Supportive behavior/climates are characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty." Using these twelve characteristics, Reagle classified the text of 104 pages from Wikipedia, including policies, guidelines, essays and humorous texts. Examples included Wikipedia:No legal threats, Wikipedia:Right to vanish, User:Dlohcierekim/apathy, Wikipedia:Thankspam, Wikipedia:Five pillars of evil, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, revert. The majority was found to be in the "supportive" realm.
A book by Reagle based on his 2008 dissertation about Wikipedia is to appear next month ("Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia"). A Signpost review is in preparation.
An August 9 Newsweek article by Tony Dokoupil and Angela Wu argued that "Crowd Sourcing Loses Steam" because "most people simply don’t want to work for free", adding to the longstanding debate on whether user-generated content can replace that produced by paid workers (see e.g. Carr-Benkler wager). Among other examples, Newsweek named Wikipedia: "In the history of the web, last spring may figure as a tipping point. That’s when Wikipedia [...] began to falter as a social movement." This statement was apparently based on the statistical research by Felipe Ortega, which had led to debates about Wikipedia's future last year after it was covered in the Wall Street Journal (see Signpost coverage on 23 November, 7 December, and 30 November of 2009). Ortega criticized the Newsweek article for implying "additional conclusions that don't apply to Wikipedia".
Dokoupil and Wu appeared to argue that in the past, most Wikipedians had contributed to the project because it was seen as fashionable at the time:
Apart from Google's Kiswahili Challenge (where the company offered prizes for contributions to the Swahili Wikipedia), the article also cites the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative as evidence for its thesis that goodwill motivations are not enough: "Wikipedia’s new recruiting push will not rely merely on highfalutin promises about pooled greatness and 'the sum of all human knowledge.' Instead, the organization is hoping to get students to write and edit entries as part of their coursework."
Cliff Lampe, a professor at Michigan State University who was quoted in the Newsweek article, commented that "the reporter had an axe to grind, and I did my best to thwart the predefined narrative".
WikiProject NASCAR was established on December 10, 2004 as an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of NASCAR auto racing and related topics. The project is home to over 150 participants, although only about 25 are active. Of the project's over 1,500 articles, 12 have achieved Good Article status. The project maintains a portal, to-do list, and recently started a monthly newsletter. WikiProject NASCAR is a child project of WikiProject Motorsport and sibling of a variety of automotive projects, including WikiProject Formula One. This week, we took a spin with Royalbroil, Nascar1996, NerdyScienceDude, and Doctorindy.
Royalbroil, an admin, describes himself as "a long-term fan of motorsports" who is "interested in the history of auto racing." Royalbroil enjoys working on biographical articles in particular and has experience promoting Good Articles. Nascar1996 is "a fan of NASCAR for three years." When the project fell on hard times, Nascar1996's efforts to revive the project inspired other editors to join, eliciting praise from Airplaneman during our interview. NerdyScienceDude, "a big NASCAR fan," joined the project to "help out [by] adding NASCAR races to this growing encyclopedia" and has promoted several good articles in a short amount of time. Doctorindy has "nearly 30-years of interest in all forms of auto racing, including NASCAR" with a preference toward the '70s, '80s, and early '90s.
Have you contributed to one of the project's 11 good articles? Are there any articles you are currently working toward achieving GA or FA status? Share your experiences with us.
Four of the project's good articles and another four former good articles are about races that occurred this year. How does your project produce quality articles about recent events in such a short time?
Has your project developed particularly close relationships with any other projects?
What are WikiProject NASCAR's most pressing needs? How can a new contributor help today?
Doctorindy concluded the interview by pointing to the collaborative community built around motorsports: "I've noticed a fair and refreshing amount of cooperation between the editors spanning the several genres of auto racing (NASCAR, IndyCar/Champ Cart, F1, sports cars, etc.)" Despite the differences of opinion between fans of each type of racing, Doctorindy noted that the project has seen "no sparring between NASCAR and open wheel fans (particularly IRL/CART), as would be expected in internet message boards..."
Next week, we'll venture into the wilderness in search of
unknown creatures. Until then, feel free to explore the
archives.
Reader comments
The Signpost congratulates Mkativerata ( nom), a lawyer from Brisbane, Australia, on his promotion to adminship. Highly active since last December, he has been with us since 2007. His significant contributions include the sourcing of BLP articles, copyright cleanup, and the detection and resolution of sockpuppet issues. He has one FA and two GAs to his name, and has begun more than 100 well-sourced articles on Malaysian politicians.
Eighteen articles were promoted to featured status:
Choice of the week. We asked regular FAR delegate, FA reviewer and nominator YellowMonkey for his opinion (disregarding his own nomination): "I chose the Tower of London because I've always had a soft spot for history, and the Princes in the Tower is a source of high school nostalgia. More generally, the older the topic, the more quaint and fascinating the story tends to become, especially as society evolves over time, making such things stand out in contrast to modernity. The subject is a rich blend of medieval history, architecture, political intrigue and supernatural phenomena, so it should have something for everyone. It's also very comprehensive—the predominant theme of my concerns at FAC, much to the chagrin of many a nominator. I'd like to give a special mention to Wally Hammond."
Eight lists were promoted:
Choice of the week. We asked FL nominator and reviewer Jujutacular for his choice of the best: "I picked Listed buildings in Rivington as my choice for this week. The structure of the list is very appealing, the prose flows well, and it sparks an interest in the subject for the reader. As someone unfamiliar with the area, it makes me want to visit! Beautiful images illustrate many of the entries. Congratulations and thanks to J3Mrs for the wonderful work on this list." (right)
Two featured lists were delisted:
Ten images were promoted:
Choice of the week. Miya was a member of the 2009 Organizing Committee for the Commons Picture of the Year Award. We asked her to choose what she sees as the best new featured picture: "The three I like most are Eastern Barred Bandicoot, Diatomaceous earth, and 360 degrees fogbow . It was not easy to choose one of these. But at last I've made my choice: Diatomaceous earth. The photo of the micrograph of Diatomaceous earth is beautiful as well as of great scientific interest; it is both encyclopedic and educational. The full resolution allows you to clearly see the fossilized remains of diatoms; this may provide insights into the nature of Diatomaceous earth." (below)
The Arbitration Committee opened no cases this week, leaving two open.
Last month, the Committee stated that it would release, "on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment" to CheckUser and Oversight positions on the English Wikipedia. At 21:21, on 13 August 2010 (UTC), it instead announced that "[f]or a variety of reasons, mostly real-life related", it would delay releasing this information on-wiki. The announcement included an apology for inconvenience that the delay may cause.
Today, in an announcement, the Committee has released the names of applicants being actively considered for appointment. The announcement, which did not specify the total number of applications received, also stated that between now and 23:59, on 25 August 2010 (UTC), the Community may comment on candidates. This means that the period in which the Community may comment on candidates has been extended by exactly three days (this is the approximate length of the delay in releasing the names). The announcement also stated that "appointments will come into effect on 1 September 2010".
The candidates being actively considered for CheckUser permissions are:
The candidates being actively considered for Oversight permissions are:
Following on from discussions last week around an enhanced in-built wikitext editor, discussion on the wikitech-l developers' mailing list this week concerned existing and new external editors for the MediaWiki software Wikimedia sites are based on. WYSIWYG ("What you see is what you get") editors of this type "would allow easy editing to newbies, while still allowing to use the full wikisyntax to power users" (as stated by User:Platonides). However, given the complexity of wikitext, WYSIWYGism is notoriously difficult to achieve fully. A list of attempts is given on MediaWiki.org.
This week's discussion started with an external, cross-platform local (rather than web-based)
application. It moved onto another, web-based attempt, the "Myrilion" editor (
example). It rewrites the main wikitext parser to
OCaml, which can then be turned into a fairly hefty chunk of JavaScript. A number of problems with WYSIWYG editors were discussed, including the inability of many to differentiate between two wikitext elements that give the same HTML output (e.g. [[Foo|Foo]]
and [[Foo]]
) and inadvertently convert between the two. The projects are similar to the Wikimedia User Experience team's attempts to improve the in-built ease of editing MediaWiki projects. The hope is that shared code and experience could be useful in building new attempts to solve the usability question.
In related news, Dutch developer Jan Paul Posma has published a mock-up of what a web-based MediaWiki editor might look like in the future.
The "coding" phase of Google Summer of Code (GSoC) projects has now ended and the "evaluation" phase has begun. Each year, Google sponsors student developers to work on open source projects under the guidance of mentors. This year, six such students were selected to work on the MediaWiki software which underpins all Wikimedia sites:
A full list containing more information (including mentors) on each is also available. The Signpost hopes to catch up with the students in the coming weeks and to establish the success of each project and what it might mean for Wikimedia.
Note: not all fixes may have gone live on WMF sites at the time of writing; some may not be scheduled to go live for many weeks.