As part of the ongoing discussions about improving participation and newbie friendliness in Wikimedia communities (see previous Signpost coverage), and in preparation for the WMF Summer of Research, the Foundation's Community Department prepared another random sample of several hundred edits made to user talk pages of new registered users on English Wikipedia from 2004 through 2011. [1] These edits were made by other contributors within 30 days of a new person’s first edit. The results show "a marked decrease in praise for contributions (anything from a simple “great job on that article!” to a barnstar), and a simultaneous increase in warnings and criticism delivered via templates (e.g., third- and fourth-level vandalism warnings, copyright violation warnings with aggressive images like stop signs or red X marks, and threats of block or bans) since 2006."
The results prompted Hungarian Wikipedian Bence Damokos to do a similar study on the Hungarian Wikipedia, restricted to the current (April-May 2011) state. Examining a sample of messages from all user talk pages, including those of experienced editors, he found that 48% of them were positive and 41% neutral. For a smaller sample of new editors, 75% of talk page messages were positive (including standard welcome templates). He concluded that "the situation seems to be better on the Hungarian Wikipedia than on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this means that other explanations are needed to find out why is the retention and 'conversion rate' of new editors on the Hungarian Wikipedia very low."
A few days later, the Community Department followed up with another study, extending their above mentioned study from April to a sample containing all years from 2004 to 2011, and this time coding all of the newbies' contributions instead of just their first edit, as either "good faith", "vandalism", "spam" or as coming from accounts later blocked as "sockpuppets". Similar to the April results, the ratio of good faith edits showed mostly a decrease since 2004, with a partial rebound since 2009. The study's authors highlighted the good news: "a clear majority of new editors in the sample participated in good faith" (still 66% at the lowest point in 2009).
As summarized in English by the website China Media News (" After literature and MP3: Baidu’s encyclopedia accused of copyright infringement in China"), " Baidu’s open online encyclopedia Baidu Baike ('Baidupedia') was accused of copyright infringement by unofficial members of Chinese Wikipedia recently". Their press release lists examples of Baidu Baike entries which are based on articles from the Chinese and English Wikipedia or were translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, without attribution and with a note "©2011 Baidu". According to one participant of the Chinese Wikipedia, Baidu copied "1636 articles from Chinese Wikipedia, including 74 FA, 44 GA, 126 DYK and 1397 normal articles". Drafts of the press release, including an English version, were circulated last month on the Foundation-l mailing list, where Wikimedia Chair (and Chinese expat) Ting Chen commented on the futility of legal action: "Fact is that Baidu doesn't care. We don't know who backs Baidu in China but with its prominent position it cannot be anyone very small. Maybe some of you remember that a few months ago there were media coverage [ cf. Signpost coverage ] about Hudong is going to sue Baidu because of copyright infringement, but that also just disappeared somewhere in the Chinese jurisdiction system. Rumor say that Hudong did it only to get some publicity. At this moment there is no point to sue Baidu, neither for any Wikipedian nor for WMF."
Wikipedia's coverage of Osama bin Laden's death received positive comments. On the blog of the Department of War Studies, KCL, a researcher wrote on May 2nd: "Who’s got the best coverage? Believe it or not, but Wikipedia is one of the candidates. In less than five hours and in an impressive 400 edits, a dedicated team of self-appointed authors and editors has come up with a pretty good (and protected) article. Of course it is largely a complication [sic] of press articles and official announcements. But the result has more detail and better sourcing that [sic] most news stories." A day later, on American Public Media's "Tech Report Blog", US journalist John Moe stated that " For bin Laden news, it's not Twitter's moment, it's Wikipedia's", dismissing claims that the event had established Twitter as a news medium, and instead recommending Wikipedia:
“ | I think the real coverage of the event is Wikipedia. I was up early reading New York Times accounts and Washington Post accounts and other papers, often wading through a bunch of back story on bin Laden that I really didn’t need. Afterward, I had 5 minutes before I had to leave to catch my bus and my wife asked me, “So what do we know for sure about what happened?” My knowledge was pieced together and I told her things that I’ve since realized aren’t accurate. Once on the bus, I read the Wikipedia page about the attack and it was comprehensive. Wikipedia gets slammed sometimes for being unreliable and a place where any yahoo can alter reality to anything they like. The page about the attack is extensive, well sourced, and incredibly informative. [...] we’ll all lean on Wikipedia more in the future. In high profile cases like this, these pages are being extensively edited and also extensively policed. Good stuff. You should read it. | ” |
Wikipedia's biographical article on Osama bin Laden got 4.8 million page views on 2 May 2011, the day of his death. The new article Death of Osama bin Laden also got almost one million page views that day, the first day of its existence (it was previously a redirect). The main bin Laden article's nearly five million page views in one day made it second in page view records, behind only Michael Jackson, which got 5.9 million page views on the day after his death. A sharp spike in traffic on the day of Jackson's death caused Wikipedia to briefly go offline (see previous Signpost coverage). No technical problems were reported this time.
As reported by The Guardian (" US billionaire wins high court order over Wikipedia 'defamation'"), Louis Bacon, a US national who is a hedge fund manager and a billionaire (as estimated by Forbes magazine) has obtained court orders in the UK against three US website service providers, the Wikimedia Foundation, WordPress and the Denver Post, "to disclose the identities of online commenters alleged to have defamed him." According to the Guardian, "Bacon wants to launch defamation proceedings against a number of online commenters – all of whom use sobriquets like 'gotbacon' and 'TCasey82' – alleged to have posted libellous material about him on these websites." A Wikipedian using the latter name received a BLP warning in March (as the first and so far only message on his/her user talk page): "You seem quite obsessed with editing Mr. Bacon's article and I must ask you to focus your efforts elsewhere. You clearly have a bias against him ...", after OTRS complaints. The user then stopped editing the article, at least under this account.
The Guardian reports that on May 9th, High Court Justice Michael Tugendhat "granted Bacon's application to serve a court order – known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) – by email against these websites. However, legal experts have told the Guardian that the US-based companies could legally ignore or refuse to comply with the orders," and that Tugendhat had said that "the Wikimedia Foundation had told Bacon's solicitors, Schillings, that it would hand over details of the commenters if it was served with a court order – but later said that it would have to be a US subpoena, as opposed to a NPO brought in a UK court." After the " Video Professor incident" at the end of 2007, where users had protested against the Foundation's release of their IP data to a company aiming to sue them for defamation, the WMF's policies were updated to state that it keeps only the minimal amount of users' personal information as required for the functioning of the projects, and that users would be notified if possible whenever the WMF is required to release it to other parties ( Signpost coverage).
Possibly in an effort to counter the interpretation of Bacon's choice to pursue the matter in the UK instead of the US as a case of libel tourism, a representative of his solicitors said that the reason was that in 2010 Bacon had brought, and subsequently dropped, a similar case against the UK-based company justhost.com.
(See also related recent Signpost coverage: " Company sues IP editors for defamation", " Administrators removing material that violates UK legal injunctions")
The Amsterdam-based Institute of Network Cultures last week published " Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader", a 386 page book compiling research and essays about Wikipedia "with an emphasis on theoretical reflection, cultural difference and indeed, critique". Edited by Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz, it contains 26 contributions mainly from presenters of the three conferences held last year in Bangalore, Amsterdam, and Leipzig by the "Critical Point of View" (CPOV) Wikipedia research initiative. The introduction notes the diversity of viewpoints of the contributions: "Some are more critical than others; some are penned by active Wikipedians, others by people who want nothing to do with the project. Famous Wikipedia critics,... such as Jon Awbrey and Gregory Kohs, who initially participated in the CPOV discussion mailing list, were approached to contribute to this reader but declined the invitation". The whole book is under a CC-BY-SA license and available both as a hardcopy and as a freely downloadable PDF. A separate publication in German, supported by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education and focusing on the Leipzig conference, is in preparation. (See also the Signpost interview with Tkacz and Johanna Niesyto from the CPOV initiative.)
Registration for " The World Bank’s Second Water Sector Writing Contest on Wikipedia" is closing this Friday (May 13), with submissions due in June. Open to students enrolled at participating universities worldwide, the competition calls for contributions in English, Spanish or French regarding water-related articles, either by starting new entries, by writing a "comparative analysis ... comparing a group of notes on water topics ... using the resources from the Wikipedia notes created by the World Bank", or by improving multiple existing entries. Participants are required to adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and are reminded of its policies about citing sources and avoiding original research. The first-placed contestants will win "week-long paid trips to join a World Bank team on a working mission in a country TBD". Similarly, the prize in the inaugural version of the contest had been the opportunity to participate in a World Bank event in Washington DC, which one of the winners, User:Jcherlet from Ghent University, described as an experience "definitely worth the effort of writing a Wikipedia article from scratch – but the fact that the article is online now and thousands might find it useful, is just as rewarding."
The contests form part of the World Bank's " Wikipedia Project", initiated in December 2006 and described as "an innovative approach for sharing World Bank knowledge by defining the status of the water sector in Latin American and Caribbean countries on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. The project covers sectors such as water resources management, water supply and sanitation, irrigation and integrated urban water management".
This week, we challenged WikiProject Board and Table Games to answer our interview questions. The project was founded in August 2006 to improve articles about board games, card games, dice games, tile-based games, miniature wargames, and other games typically played on a table or other flat surface. The project has several child projects and siblings, ranging from WikiProject Poker and WikiProject Contract Bridge to WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. WikiProject Board and Table Games maintains a special relationship with the autonomous WikiProject Chess and excludes most Chess-related articles from the scope of WikiProject Board and Table Games. The project contributes to the Sports and Games Portal. We interviewed Tetron76.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Board and table games? What is your favorite board or table game? Do you prefer a specific type/genre of game?
Has the project had any difficulties getting enthusiasts of a specific game to contribute to other board and table games? What are some of the challenges facing the project's recruitment and sustainability?
The project has several
former featured articles and
good articles. Were there any commonalities in the demotion of these articles? Has there been an effort to improve the articles and restore their FA or GA status.?
WikiProject Board and table games is related to several projects covering token, miniature, and card games. Do you contribute to any of these projects? Have there been any inter-project collaborations?
WikiProject Chess's project page notes that WikiProject Board and table games intentionally excludes Chess-related articles to prevent overlap. Why was this decision made? Would you recommend similar boundaries between other projects?
What are the project's most pressing needs and concerns? How can a new member help today?
Anything else you'd like to add?
Next week we'll revive fading WikiProjects. Until then, glean helpful tips from our previous interviews in the
archives.
Reader comments
The Signpost welcomes Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( nom) as our newest admin. He is primarily a content editor, focusing on subjects relating to Scottish history and geography, and is a member of WikiProject Scotland. He says that he has fallen into an informal anti-vandalism role, and intends to work more in this area as an admin.
Four lists were promoted:
Six sounds were promoted.
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases and closed one case. Two cases are currently open.
During the week, 44 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while proposals and comments were also submitted in the workshop by arbitrators, parties, and others. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 14 May 2011.
During the week, 30 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while in the workshop, proposals and comments were submitted by parties and others. The parties also submitted responses to the questions posed by drafter Elen of the Roads. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 12 May 2011.
This case was opened to review the handling of AE sanctions (including the classification, imposition and reversal of such sanctions, the relevant processes, and whether administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved users). 24 editors submitted on-wiki evidence, and several users submitted proposals in the workshop, including drafter Roger Davies. The proposed decision which was drafted by several arbitrators, attracted votes from 13 arbitrators, and the case came to a close three days ago.
Two motions were passed in this case:
This week saw a number of developments regarding the
MediaWiki software on which Wikimedia Foundation wikis run. The first, on the 4 May, was the announcement of a security update to MediaWiki 1.16, the version currently considered stable enough for all major external wikis to use (
wikitech-l mailing list). Version 1.16.5 closed another security loophole related to those closed in 1.16.3 and 1.16.4 (see
previous Signpost coverage) and additionally fixed a flaw in MediaWiki's implementation of $wgBlockDisablesLogin
that allowed users to mimic unblocked users' cookies in order to gain additional permissions (no Wikimedia wikis were affected).
“ | Please try it out and let us know what you think. Don't run it on any wikis that you really care about, unless you are both very brave and very confident in your MediaWiki administration skills. | ” |
— Developer Tim Starling on 1.17b1 ( wikitech-l) |
Two substantive announcements were also made on 5 May. The first, of interest almost exclusively to users operating their own external wikis, was the release of a beta version of MediaWiki 1.17, the version already running on WMF sites ( wikitech-l). The second, perhaps of more interest to Wikimedians, was the branching of MediaWiki version 1.18 (also wikitech-l). Although some changes are deployed out of process to Wikimedia sites, new releases such as 1.18 contain many smaller improvements of interest to editors and visitors alike. With 1.17 already live, branching 1.18 represents a significant step towards the deployment of another batch of improvements, already slated to include 179 bug fixes and feature requests, plus localisation updates ( provisional release notes). 1.18 will now be left to "bake": no new features will be added to it as the release is purged of bugs, before going live to Wikimedia wikis ahead of a release to external sites. Commenting on the branch, former CTO Brion Vibber's post to wikitech-l consisted solely of the word "Woohooooooo!"; meanwhile, however, debates will no doubt be ongoing about the future shape of the MediaWiki release schedule.
After a period of being one option among many for uploading files to Wikimedia Commons, the new UploadWizard is to become the default on or around 9 May, it was announced this week ( Wikimedia Commons). Local communities will then be able to adopt it as their own default method of allowing uploads.
The wizard, which has been in development for a number of months, boasts a number of improvements over the existing upload form, per Erik Möller:
“ |
|
” |
A number of bugs linger, however, and these will need to be dealt with before the UploadWizard can enjoy widespread success. For example, uploads longer than 25 minutes still fail; thumbnails for some file formats (video and audio, for instance) are not shown during the upload process; right-to-left support is far from perfect and consistent; and there are a number of other known cases where uploads will stall and the user has no option to fix the problem. The relatively low interface translation rate (as of time of writing, it has been translated fully into only 14 languages) may also be a worry for a Foundation committed to total internationalisation. There are also worries that by making it easier to upload and removing many of the "traps" of the old upload form, a higher percentage of copyright violations may go undetected. Despite these concerns, the response to the new wizard has been largely positive.
Next week will see the Berlin Hackathon (13-15 May). The annual event, which began in 2009, will be focussed this year on "more hacking and less talking", say organisers. Volunteer developers and Wikimedia professionals alike will come together over a number of "core" projects (excerpted from MediaWiki.org):
Other projects are also likely to come up during the Hackathon, including the new Narayam extension and other work done recently regarding improving the user experience of those who write in non-Latin alphabets. Historically, the meetup has provided a focal point that invigorates projects, rather than an inclusive event where projects are begun, worked on and finished. The Signpost hopes to report the success of the 2011 event in future issues.
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.
{{#time:Y|1945}}
now works properly. Other problems with the parser function remain unfixed, however, since they have their roots in the
PHP programming language itself.
As part of the ongoing discussions about improving participation and newbie friendliness in Wikimedia communities (see previous Signpost coverage), and in preparation for the WMF Summer of Research, the Foundation's Community Department prepared another random sample of several hundred edits made to user talk pages of new registered users on English Wikipedia from 2004 through 2011. [1] These edits were made by other contributors within 30 days of a new person’s first edit. The results show "a marked decrease in praise for contributions (anything from a simple “great job on that article!” to a barnstar), and a simultaneous increase in warnings and criticism delivered via templates (e.g., third- and fourth-level vandalism warnings, copyright violation warnings with aggressive images like stop signs or red X marks, and threats of block or bans) since 2006."
The results prompted Hungarian Wikipedian Bence Damokos to do a similar study on the Hungarian Wikipedia, restricted to the current (April-May 2011) state. Examining a sample of messages from all user talk pages, including those of experienced editors, he found that 48% of them were positive and 41% neutral. For a smaller sample of new editors, 75% of talk page messages were positive (including standard welcome templates). He concluded that "the situation seems to be better on the Hungarian Wikipedia than on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this means that other explanations are needed to find out why is the retention and 'conversion rate' of new editors on the Hungarian Wikipedia very low."
A few days later, the Community Department followed up with another study, extending their above mentioned study from April to a sample containing all years from 2004 to 2011, and this time coding all of the newbies' contributions instead of just their first edit, as either "good faith", "vandalism", "spam" or as coming from accounts later blocked as "sockpuppets". Similar to the April results, the ratio of good faith edits showed mostly a decrease since 2004, with a partial rebound since 2009. The study's authors highlighted the good news: "a clear majority of new editors in the sample participated in good faith" (still 66% at the lowest point in 2009).
As summarized in English by the website China Media News (" After literature and MP3: Baidu’s encyclopedia accused of copyright infringement in China"), " Baidu’s open online encyclopedia Baidu Baike ('Baidupedia') was accused of copyright infringement by unofficial members of Chinese Wikipedia recently". Their press release lists examples of Baidu Baike entries which are based on articles from the Chinese and English Wikipedia or were translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, without attribution and with a note "©2011 Baidu". According to one participant of the Chinese Wikipedia, Baidu copied "1636 articles from Chinese Wikipedia, including 74 FA, 44 GA, 126 DYK and 1397 normal articles". Drafts of the press release, including an English version, were circulated last month on the Foundation-l mailing list, where Wikimedia Chair (and Chinese expat) Ting Chen commented on the futility of legal action: "Fact is that Baidu doesn't care. We don't know who backs Baidu in China but with its prominent position it cannot be anyone very small. Maybe some of you remember that a few months ago there were media coverage [ cf. Signpost coverage ] about Hudong is going to sue Baidu because of copyright infringement, but that also just disappeared somewhere in the Chinese jurisdiction system. Rumor say that Hudong did it only to get some publicity. At this moment there is no point to sue Baidu, neither for any Wikipedian nor for WMF."
Wikipedia's coverage of Osama bin Laden's death received positive comments. On the blog of the Department of War Studies, KCL, a researcher wrote on May 2nd: "Who’s got the best coverage? Believe it or not, but Wikipedia is one of the candidates. In less than five hours and in an impressive 400 edits, a dedicated team of self-appointed authors and editors has come up with a pretty good (and protected) article. Of course it is largely a complication [sic] of press articles and official announcements. But the result has more detail and better sourcing that [sic] most news stories." A day later, on American Public Media's "Tech Report Blog", US journalist John Moe stated that " For bin Laden news, it's not Twitter's moment, it's Wikipedia's", dismissing claims that the event had established Twitter as a news medium, and instead recommending Wikipedia:
“ | I think the real coverage of the event is Wikipedia. I was up early reading New York Times accounts and Washington Post accounts and other papers, often wading through a bunch of back story on bin Laden that I really didn’t need. Afterward, I had 5 minutes before I had to leave to catch my bus and my wife asked me, “So what do we know for sure about what happened?” My knowledge was pieced together and I told her things that I’ve since realized aren’t accurate. Once on the bus, I read the Wikipedia page about the attack and it was comprehensive. Wikipedia gets slammed sometimes for being unreliable and a place where any yahoo can alter reality to anything they like. The page about the attack is extensive, well sourced, and incredibly informative. [...] we’ll all lean on Wikipedia more in the future. In high profile cases like this, these pages are being extensively edited and also extensively policed. Good stuff. You should read it. | ” |
Wikipedia's biographical article on Osama bin Laden got 4.8 million page views on 2 May 2011, the day of his death. The new article Death of Osama bin Laden also got almost one million page views that day, the first day of its existence (it was previously a redirect). The main bin Laden article's nearly five million page views in one day made it second in page view records, behind only Michael Jackson, which got 5.9 million page views on the day after his death. A sharp spike in traffic on the day of Jackson's death caused Wikipedia to briefly go offline (see previous Signpost coverage). No technical problems were reported this time.
As reported by The Guardian (" US billionaire wins high court order over Wikipedia 'defamation'"), Louis Bacon, a US national who is a hedge fund manager and a billionaire (as estimated by Forbes magazine) has obtained court orders in the UK against three US website service providers, the Wikimedia Foundation, WordPress and the Denver Post, "to disclose the identities of online commenters alleged to have defamed him." According to the Guardian, "Bacon wants to launch defamation proceedings against a number of online commenters – all of whom use sobriquets like 'gotbacon' and 'TCasey82' – alleged to have posted libellous material about him on these websites." A Wikipedian using the latter name received a BLP warning in March (as the first and so far only message on his/her user talk page): "You seem quite obsessed with editing Mr. Bacon's article and I must ask you to focus your efforts elsewhere. You clearly have a bias against him ...", after OTRS complaints. The user then stopped editing the article, at least under this account.
The Guardian reports that on May 9th, High Court Justice Michael Tugendhat "granted Bacon's application to serve a court order – known as a Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) – by email against these websites. However, legal experts have told the Guardian that the US-based companies could legally ignore or refuse to comply with the orders," and that Tugendhat had said that "the Wikimedia Foundation had told Bacon's solicitors, Schillings, that it would hand over details of the commenters if it was served with a court order – but later said that it would have to be a US subpoena, as opposed to a NPO brought in a UK court." After the " Video Professor incident" at the end of 2007, where users had protested against the Foundation's release of their IP data to a company aiming to sue them for defamation, the WMF's policies were updated to state that it keeps only the minimal amount of users' personal information as required for the functioning of the projects, and that users would be notified if possible whenever the WMF is required to release it to other parties ( Signpost coverage).
Possibly in an effort to counter the interpretation of Bacon's choice to pursue the matter in the UK instead of the US as a case of libel tourism, a representative of his solicitors said that the reason was that in 2010 Bacon had brought, and subsequently dropped, a similar case against the UK-based company justhost.com.
(See also related recent Signpost coverage: " Company sues IP editors for defamation", " Administrators removing material that violates UK legal injunctions")
The Amsterdam-based Institute of Network Cultures last week published " Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader", a 386 page book compiling research and essays about Wikipedia "with an emphasis on theoretical reflection, cultural difference and indeed, critique". Edited by Geert Lovink and Nathaniel Tkacz, it contains 26 contributions mainly from presenters of the three conferences held last year in Bangalore, Amsterdam, and Leipzig by the "Critical Point of View" (CPOV) Wikipedia research initiative. The introduction notes the diversity of viewpoints of the contributions: "Some are more critical than others; some are penned by active Wikipedians, others by people who want nothing to do with the project. Famous Wikipedia critics,... such as Jon Awbrey and Gregory Kohs, who initially participated in the CPOV discussion mailing list, were approached to contribute to this reader but declined the invitation". The whole book is under a CC-BY-SA license and available both as a hardcopy and as a freely downloadable PDF. A separate publication in German, supported by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education and focusing on the Leipzig conference, is in preparation. (See also the Signpost interview with Tkacz and Johanna Niesyto from the CPOV initiative.)
Registration for " The World Bank’s Second Water Sector Writing Contest on Wikipedia" is closing this Friday (May 13), with submissions due in June. Open to students enrolled at participating universities worldwide, the competition calls for contributions in English, Spanish or French regarding water-related articles, either by starting new entries, by writing a "comparative analysis ... comparing a group of notes on water topics ... using the resources from the Wikipedia notes created by the World Bank", or by improving multiple existing entries. Participants are required to adhere to Wikipedia's Manual of Style and are reminded of its policies about citing sources and avoiding original research. The first-placed contestants will win "week-long paid trips to join a World Bank team on a working mission in a country TBD". Similarly, the prize in the inaugural version of the contest had been the opportunity to participate in a World Bank event in Washington DC, which one of the winners, User:Jcherlet from Ghent University, described as an experience "definitely worth the effort of writing a Wikipedia article from scratch – but the fact that the article is online now and thousands might find it useful, is just as rewarding."
The contests form part of the World Bank's " Wikipedia Project", initiated in December 2006 and described as "an innovative approach for sharing World Bank knowledge by defining the status of the water sector in Latin American and Caribbean countries on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. The project covers sectors such as water resources management, water supply and sanitation, irrigation and integrated urban water management".
This week, we challenged WikiProject Board and Table Games to answer our interview questions. The project was founded in August 2006 to improve articles about board games, card games, dice games, tile-based games, miniature wargames, and other games typically played on a table or other flat surface. The project has several child projects and siblings, ranging from WikiProject Poker and WikiProject Contract Bridge to WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. WikiProject Board and Table Games maintains a special relationship with the autonomous WikiProject Chess and excludes most Chess-related articles from the scope of WikiProject Board and Table Games. The project contributes to the Sports and Games Portal. We interviewed Tetron76.
What motivated you to join WikiProject Board and table games? What is your favorite board or table game? Do you prefer a specific type/genre of game?
Has the project had any difficulties getting enthusiasts of a specific game to contribute to other board and table games? What are some of the challenges facing the project's recruitment and sustainability?
The project has several
former featured articles and
good articles. Were there any commonalities in the demotion of these articles? Has there been an effort to improve the articles and restore their FA or GA status.?
WikiProject Board and table games is related to several projects covering token, miniature, and card games. Do you contribute to any of these projects? Have there been any inter-project collaborations?
WikiProject Chess's project page notes that WikiProject Board and table games intentionally excludes Chess-related articles to prevent overlap. Why was this decision made? Would you recommend similar boundaries between other projects?
What are the project's most pressing needs and concerns? How can a new member help today?
Anything else you'd like to add?
Next week we'll revive fading WikiProjects. Until then, glean helpful tips from our previous interviews in the
archives.
Reader comments
The Signpost welcomes Catfish Jim and the soapdish ( nom) as our newest admin. He is primarily a content editor, focusing on subjects relating to Scottish history and geography, and is a member of WikiProject Scotland. He says that he has fallen into an informal anti-vandalism role, and intends to work more in this area as an admin.
Four lists were promoted:
Six sounds were promoted.
The Arbitration Committee opened no new cases and closed one case. Two cases are currently open.
During the week, 44 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while proposals and comments were also submitted in the workshop by arbitrators, parties, and others. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 14 May 2011.
During the week, 30 kilobytes was submitted in on-wiki evidence, while in the workshop, proposals and comments were submitted by parties and others. The parties also submitted responses to the questions posed by drafter Elen of the Roads. The evidence phase is currently set to close on 12 May 2011.
This case was opened to review the handling of AE sanctions (including the classification, imposition and reversal of such sanctions, the relevant processes, and whether administrators who regularly work in this area are appropriately receptive to feedback from uninvolved users). 24 editors submitted on-wiki evidence, and several users submitted proposals in the workshop, including drafter Roger Davies. The proposed decision which was drafted by several arbitrators, attracted votes from 13 arbitrators, and the case came to a close three days ago.
Two motions were passed in this case:
This week saw a number of developments regarding the
MediaWiki software on which Wikimedia Foundation wikis run. The first, on the 4 May, was the announcement of a security update to MediaWiki 1.16, the version currently considered stable enough for all major external wikis to use (
wikitech-l mailing list). Version 1.16.5 closed another security loophole related to those closed in 1.16.3 and 1.16.4 (see
previous Signpost coverage) and additionally fixed a flaw in MediaWiki's implementation of $wgBlockDisablesLogin
that allowed users to mimic unblocked users' cookies in order to gain additional permissions (no Wikimedia wikis were affected).
“ | Please try it out and let us know what you think. Don't run it on any wikis that you really care about, unless you are both very brave and very confident in your MediaWiki administration skills. | ” |
— Developer Tim Starling on 1.17b1 ( wikitech-l) |
Two substantive announcements were also made on 5 May. The first, of interest almost exclusively to users operating their own external wikis, was the release of a beta version of MediaWiki 1.17, the version already running on WMF sites ( wikitech-l). The second, perhaps of more interest to Wikimedians, was the branching of MediaWiki version 1.18 (also wikitech-l). Although some changes are deployed out of process to Wikimedia sites, new releases such as 1.18 contain many smaller improvements of interest to editors and visitors alike. With 1.17 already live, branching 1.18 represents a significant step towards the deployment of another batch of improvements, already slated to include 179 bug fixes and feature requests, plus localisation updates ( provisional release notes). 1.18 will now be left to "bake": no new features will be added to it as the release is purged of bugs, before going live to Wikimedia wikis ahead of a release to external sites. Commenting on the branch, former CTO Brion Vibber's post to wikitech-l consisted solely of the word "Woohooooooo!"; meanwhile, however, debates will no doubt be ongoing about the future shape of the MediaWiki release schedule.
After a period of being one option among many for uploading files to Wikimedia Commons, the new UploadWizard is to become the default on or around 9 May, it was announced this week ( Wikimedia Commons). Local communities will then be able to adopt it as their own default method of allowing uploads.
The wizard, which has been in development for a number of months, boasts a number of improvements over the existing upload form, per Erik Möller:
“ |
|
” |
A number of bugs linger, however, and these will need to be dealt with before the UploadWizard can enjoy widespread success. For example, uploads longer than 25 minutes still fail; thumbnails for some file formats (video and audio, for instance) are not shown during the upload process; right-to-left support is far from perfect and consistent; and there are a number of other known cases where uploads will stall and the user has no option to fix the problem. The relatively low interface translation rate (as of time of writing, it has been translated fully into only 14 languages) may also be a worry for a Foundation committed to total internationalisation. There are also worries that by making it easier to upload and removing many of the "traps" of the old upload form, a higher percentage of copyright violations may go undetected. Despite these concerns, the response to the new wizard has been largely positive.
Next week will see the Berlin Hackathon (13-15 May). The annual event, which began in 2009, will be focussed this year on "more hacking and less talking", say organisers. Volunteer developers and Wikimedia professionals alike will come together over a number of "core" projects (excerpted from MediaWiki.org):
Other projects are also likely to come up during the Hackathon, including the new Narayam extension and other work done recently regarding improving the user experience of those who write in non-Latin alphabets. Historically, the meetup has provided a focal point that invigorates projects, rather than an inclusive event where projects are begun, worked on and finished. The Signpost hopes to report the success of the 2011 event in future issues.
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.
{{#time:Y|1945}}
now works properly. Other problems with the parser function remain unfixed, however, since they have their roots in the
PHP programming language itself.