Dear readers,
About a month ago, I declared my intention to step down as editor-in-chief of the Signpost upon finding two successors. After combing through several applications, I am delighted to say that this search is at an end: Gamaliel and Go Phightins! will be stepping into my role, while Pine will continue as the publication and newsroom manager. All three are experienced Wikipedians with significant prior or current involvement with the Signpost. I will continue to serve as the newspaper's editor emeritus, where I am looking forward to stepping back while assisting the new editors in any way I can. Details on these positions will come in this column next week.
Please join me in welcoming Gamaliel and Go Phightins, and we would appreciate if you would bear with us as we work through this transition period.
Looking back at my time as the editor of the Signpost, we attempted to continue expanding the newspaper's scope to include both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement. While our coverage has been patchy at times, especially with regards to breaks between arb report writers and technological initiatives, I believe that we accomplished our goals. As this week's ten-year Signpost anniversary article shows, many of the Signpost's biggest stories came in the last few years. For "News and notes" and general Wikimedia news—the sections I put much of my personal effort into—these ranged all over the world, from Wikivoyage to Gibraltar to the Russian Wikipedia and the National Archives and Records Administration.
Still, the stories that will stick with me are the memorials, particularly the life and death of Ihor Kostenko, a Ukrainian Wikipedian. While I never personally met Ihor, writing about his death made me feel like we had lost a kindred spirit. A fan of sports, geography, history, and warships, Ihor and I shared many interests; we were even near each other's ages. What more could he have done with a lengthier life?
We will unfortunately never have the answer to that question, but we do know what he did with his life, and it will live on through every person that encounters the work he did online. The legacy we make today will be left for the world of tomorrow. Will we leave a fractured, contentious, and cantankerous community beset by an unwillingness to adapt to a new generation? Or will we leave them with something worthy of the fifth-highest ranking on the Internet?
Here's to the coming years.
—
The ed17, outgoing Signpost editor-in-chief
Reader comments
Thanks to Michael Snow, Ral315, The ed17, and Adam Cuerden for their assistance in assembling this feature.
The Wikipedia Signpost was founded by Michael Snow, beginning with the publication of the January 10, 2005 issue. That issue contained ten articles, all written by Snow, beginning with his introduction "From the editor". It also contained the first Arbitration Report ("The Report On Lengthy Litigation", or TROLL), which would become a long-time staple of the Signpost. Snow headed up the Signpost until August, when Ral315 took over.
News reports in the Signpost discussed the growing pains of the early years of Wikipedia. In February, the main page was locked down after major vandalism and a power outage caused Wikipedia to crash for a day. In March, Wikipedia reached a half-million articles. While Wikipedia was the subject of hoaxes and misinformation, it was able to deftly respond to breaking news such as its article on the July London bombings.
One of Wikipedia's biggest challenges came with Wikipedia's first major public scandal, the Seigenthaler biography incident. The Signpost reported on the initial controversy and the identification of the hoaxer.
In 2006, Wikipedia hit one million articles with its article Jordanhill railway station.
The Signpost conducted an interview with Jimmy Wales in February. In December, it featured the first installment of a comic strip called WikiWorld, created by cartoonist Greg Williams. WikiWorld, which ran intermittently until 2008, remains one of the most fondly remembered Signpost features.
In January, the Signpost reported that editors uncovered multiple instances of plagiarism of Wikipedia by a professional reporter. It covered the ongoing discussion of Wikimedia Foundation office actions and an incident where a veteran administrator was briefly stripped of administrative powers for undoing an office action. It discussed early efforts to address Wikipedia's gender gap, an issue that is still ongoing. It also reported on an editor for hire who was permanently blocked, an editor who remains a perennial Wikipedia critic.
The Signpost conducted another interview with Wales in September and an interview with incoming Wikimedia Foundation director Sue Gardner in December.
The Signpost covered several significant news stories in 2007. It reported on WikiScanner, a tool which matched edits made by anonymous IP editors to a number of organizations, resulting in revelations which proved embarrassing to numerous companies and media and political organizations. Embarrassing for Wikipedia was the Essjay controversy, where a well-regarded Wikipedia editor and Wikia employee was revealed to have lied about his academic credentials and background. And revelations that the article of a nutrition author was edited by his own public relations agent led to one of the most amusing headlines in Signpost history, "Nutritional beef cooks PR editor".
Early in 2008, the Signpost reported on a controversy which erupted over a number of historical images depicting Muhammad. Visual depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. The presence of the images on Wikipedia prompted a 100,000 signature petition demanding their removal, but Wikipedia editors ultimately decided to retain the images. Later in the year, the Signpost reported on another image controversy after an image of the cover of the Scorpions' album Virgin Killer prompted media complaints and even a brief blacklisting of Wikipedia by the Internet Watch Foundation.
In a year of sensitive and controversial news stories, perhaps the most difficult was the Signpost's two-part series on the relationship between Jimmy Wales and Canadian commentator Rachel Marsden. Their brief relationship was the subject of salacious stories in the news media, but unlike most news outlets the Signpost treated the matter seriously instead of as gossip. It reported on the relationship and the fallout from the scandal, investigating allegations of impropriety and exploring how the matter affected the encyclopedia.
Ragesoss took the reins of the Signpost in February.
The Signpost covered a number of issues that year, including a series of stories about the community's adoption of the Creative Commons license for encyclopedia content. The conclusion of the Scientology Arbitration case made headlines when the Committee banned IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology. The National Portrait Gallery threatened a lawsuit over images used on Wikimedia projects they claimed were under copyright in the UK, but were clearly in the public domain in the US and elsewhere. A fabricated quote attributed to the late composer Maurice Jarre by a Wikipedia editor and a performance art project on the encyclopedia and related legal matters were also reported on by the Signpost.
HaeB took over the Signpost in June. In August, the Wikipedia Signpost officially shortened its name to the Signpost to reflect its coverage of Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia.
The Signpost published a series of stories on Wikipedia's new user interface and reported on the encyclopedia's 3,000th Featured Article. It reported on serious allegations by Larry Sanger to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the Wikimedia Foundation was "knowingly distributing child pornography" by hosting some unspecified images on Wikimedia Commons. Sanger co-founded Wikipedia but has become a frequent critic of the project. The FBI was also in the news in 2010 in relation to Wikipedia when it demanded the removal of FBI seal from the encyclopedia, prompting a cutting public response from Wikimedia Foundation counsel Mike Godwin.
In January, Wikipedia celebrated its tenth anniversary and the Signpost covered the commemorations both on and off the project. Later that month, the Signpost reported on a front page New York Times story about Wikipedia's gender gap and the ensuing discussion on Wikipedia. Later that year, the Signpost reported on the shutdown protest of the Italian Wikipedia in response to controversial legislation before the Italian Parliament and the creation of the Wikipedia Zero initiative. Also in the news were Wikipedia controversies involving reporter Johann Hari and former politician Sarah Palin.
The ed17 became editor-in-chief of the Signpost in May.
The Signpost reported on the blackout of Wikipedia in January due to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act. Several other controversial issues arose that year. A scandal involving conflict of interest editing prompted the resignation of the chair of Wikimedia UK. The Signpost chronicled the difficulties surrounding the foundation of a new Wikimedia project called WikiVoyage. The Signpost's regular "WikiProject Report" published an in-depth investigation called " Where in the world is Wikipedia?" examining how editors successfully and not so successfully collaborate together on WikiProjects in different parts of the world.
The Signpost began the year with an interview with Sue Gardner and a report on the untimely death of activist and Wikipedia editor Aaron Swartz. It continued its reporting on the foundation of WikiVoyage, following that up with a controversial report about some aspects of that project. The Signpost also investigated the Funds Dissemination Committee and published a series of reports on a scandal involving widespread paid advocacy editing by Wiki-PR, a now-former public relations company, and the resulting fallout. One of the most popular features in the Signpost that year was a special report called " Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles: catalysts, trends, and applications".
One of the most popular Signpost stories of 2014 was its June report on the US National Archives and Records Administration's inclusion of Wikipedia in its Open Government Plan, which encompasses efforts such as uploading over 100,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. A related report demonstrated how its initiatives made it easier for institutions like NARA to upload their holdings to Commons. Also in June, the Signpost interviewed incoming Wikimedia Foundation director Lila Tretikov.
The Signpost reported on a quickly withdrawn $10 million lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors and how a series of Twitter bots revealed widespread government editing of Wikipedia around the world. The Signpost also noted the unfortunate deaths of Wikipedians Adrianne Wadewitz and Ihor Kostenko.
Behind the scenes, in late May, the Signpost gained a bit more exposure when its featured content section became part of Portal:Featured content.
Go Phightins! and Gamaliel will take over leadership of the Signpost towards the end of January.
Where will the Signpost go in 2015? Much of that depends on you. We'd like to expand our coverage in many ways, reviving "News and Notes" as a regular section and doing more to check in with other projects and initiatives on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For us to be able to do that, we need you. Offer your ideas on our
Suggestions page or visit our
Newsroom to see where you can help.
Reader comments
Over seventy years ago, the US destroyer Mahan was patrolling off Ponson Island in the Philippines when eleven Japanese kamikaze aircraft appeared over the horizon and attacked. The bombers in the group bored in with bombs armed. US Army fighter aircraft shot down three and damaged two; Mahan's gunners took out another four.
George Pendergast, who edits Wikipedia with the username Pendright, was eighteen years old when he joined Mahan's crew in April 1944. About half of the ship's crew at that time was made up of green, untested teenagers. Pendergast served aboard the ship as a fireman, second class, a low-end position that "required little brainpower but much speed and dexterity." He would function as one of a three-part crew: one each for oil, air, and water. These individuals had to work very closely together when hunting a submarine, a process that required the destroyer to run quickly at varying speeds. "Through a system of communication, the bridge would send down an order for 'full steam ahead': that meant the fireman had to bat open twelve burners, feeding oil into the firebox, as quickly as possible; the man on the air had to feed the air simultaneously for proper combustion; and the water checker had to feed more water into the boiler, or it might go dry and blow. Now, five minutes later, the next order might be 'stop', which meant all twelve burners had to be batted closed, the air guy had to cut the air, and the water checker had to cut the water, so it would not overflow and kill the fire." The steam produced through this process would be fed to the engine room, which controlled the propellers that actually moved the ship.
Pendergast's position kept him in the often unbearable heat of the fireroom, blind to the world outside. In non-battle situations, this was not a problem. Pendergast would stand watches of four hours on and eight or twelve off. If he was off watch between 8am and 4pm, however, he would have to report to the fireroom regardless. "You might chip paint, do some painting, clean burners and floor plates, or do other menial tasks," he said. "The Navy made sure you kept busy—no days off!" Still, when the sailors were off duty, there was little more to do besides sleep, eat, read, and write home. Many men took to gambling their salaries, a problem so pervasive that the navy limited salary dispersal while underway to just five dollars every two weeks—the sailors were paid in cash, a practice unknown to many people today.
If the ship was in battle, the stress level changed. Being below Mahan's deck, Pendergast had little clue as to what was going on outside. They were forced to use the tempo and weight of the ship's armament to compensate. "The guns told you what was happening," he told me. "If you heard the five-inch guns booming away, the enemy was still at a distance. When the 40-mm anti-aircraft guns started blasting away, they were getting closer. When you'd hear the 20-mm guns, you knew it was time to worry."
On 7 December 1944, those 20-mm guns were used extensively. Mahan was not a large ship, displacing only 1500 to 1800 long tons. Furthermore, it was primarily intended for surface and anti-submarine warfare, and as such was not heavily armed with anti-aircraft weapons—by 1944, wartime refits brought the major weaponry to four 5-inch, two twin 40-mm, and four to six 20-mm guns. Exactly three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the battle that brought the US into the Second World War, Mahan faced down the eleven Japanese aircraft off Ponson Island. Despite its crew's best efforts, the ship was hit by three Japanese kamikaze aircraft. The kinetic impact of these strikes was augmented by the fuel they were carrying. One struck the superstructure, where the bridge—staffed by the captain and crewmen at the helm—was located.
“ | I was at my general quarter's station in the forward fire room when Mahan was rocked by the impact of the three Japanese suicide planes. We knew we'd been hit, of course, but we didn't know by what. Yet, there was no panic ... we were startled but fortunately unhurt. Both boilers remained on line until they were later shut down. It all happened so quickly that many of the details of 7 December 1944 have escaped me. But one detail has stuck with me: the fact that we did not know what was actually taking place topside, which seemingly made that unknown almost as nasty as the event itself. | ” |
After receiving the order to abandon ship, Pendergast and his crewmates climbed up to emerge into a world that had changed greatly since they last saw it:
“ | On deck, there was an inferno of fire and explosions; the ship's superstructure had been reduced to rubble, and the forward magazine was exploding. While trying to get our bearings, the torpedo men were jettisoning Mahan's twelve torpedoes but were hard pressed to avoid hitting the sailors who had gone over the side. Some of us made our way through the debris to the fantail [stern or rear of the ship] and took turns going over the side into the waters of Ormac Bay; I lost my loosely tied shoes. Within an hour or so, another destroyer picked up our group. Once we climbed the ladder to the deck of the ship, we were rewarded with a swig of whiskey by a pharmacist mate. The ship remained under attack for most of the day. Later, we were transferred to another ship, and then to several more before reaching Pearl Harbor. There, we were housed in a stockade because we had no IDs except our dog tags. When that was sorted out, we boarded the USS Columbia, a cruiser, bound for Terminal Island, California, arriving two months after the sinking. | ” |
Pendergast went on to serve in the much quieter Caribbean and European theaters aboard Cone from 18 August 1945 until 21 March 1946. He later got a degree and became a government accountant and auditor.
In his mid-eighties, Pendergast got involved with Wikipedia after a local military museum asked him to write about women in the military. Accordingly, his first edits on the site were to Cadet Nurse Corps in October 2011. He was motivated by the idea of contributing to something with a lasting sense of value and by bringing his shipmates' war history up to the "level they rightfully earned." In the years since, he's written featured articles on Mahan and the Mahan-class destroyer, which examines the entire eighteen-strong class of warships that Mahan led. The latter was featured on Wikipedia's main page on 16 January and was visited approximately 48,000 times in a four-day period. He has had a very positive experience on the site, and plans to keep contributing for as long as he is able to.
I asked Pendergast whether the current generation of US history enthusiasts—people who have had little direct experience with conscription, let alone war—is missing crucial life experiences that derogatorily affect their views and writing. He does not think so. "There have been many successful coaches in sports—yet some of them never played the game or ever played it very well. Historians are another example."
For older individuals who want to contribute, Pendergast advises that they should make use of Wikipedia's mentoring processes, such as the Teahouse, the adopt-a-user program, or the upcoming co-op, and choose a subject that they are both passionate about and knowledgeable in. He also noted that studying articles near their preferred topic would help them learn the intricacies of wiki markup, and that they should join Wikipedia groups and activities when offered. Finally and most importantly, "be bold, but don't bite off more than [you can] chew."
Near the end of our correspondence, I backtracked to ask Pendergast about his most vivid memory from that day.
“ | It was after going over the side and paddling around the waters of Ormoc Bay. Believe me, there was despair and reason for doubt. What was going to happen to us? Would we be strafed, run over by another ship, or eventually rescued? Meanwhile, we needed to get away from the burning and exploding Mahan, as well as the fighting on the beach. So, we made our way out to the open water without incident where we were sighted and rescued.
It's hard to believe that the event occurred over seventy years ago. It was our lucky day! |
” |
I have edited Wikipedia off and on for the past ten years. For as long as I have been a Wikipedia editor, there have been WikiProjects: sub-groups of the larger Wikipedia community dedicated to a particular subject matter or a certain task. WikiProjects are all over the map: some of them are dedicated to highly specific subjects; others are dedicated to high-level concepts like " biographies." Some WikiProjects have a very specific focus on encyclopedic content; others, like the Department of Fun, provide support in more indirect ways. There is a WikiProject for pretty much everyone, and if there isn't one for you, you can easily start one. In fact, they are so easy to start that we currently have over 2,000 WikiProjects.
Unfortunately, a proliferation of WikiProjects does not mean a proliferation of activity. Many WikiProjects that get started end up becoming inactive. What's happening? Several factors are at play. WikiProjects require significant effort to maintain, so they decline after their maintainers move on to do other things. Some arguments have been made that WikiProjects become less relevant as some subject areas get more complete coverage on Wikipedia. Others have tied the decline of WikiProjects to an overall decline of participation on Wikipedia.
Whatever the cause, WikiProjects are failing to live up to their potential. The English-language Wikipedia is huge. As with any large community, it can be hard for any one person to feel like he or she belongs. By grouping people together by their interests, WikiProjects have the potential to make Wikipedians feel like they are a part of a close-knit community. They can help Wikipedians of all levels of experience navigate our policies and procedures, ensuring that they are confident in their editing and that there is less cleanup work for the administrators. They have the potential to provide the social support that encourages newcomers to stick around and build our encyclopedia.
The potential WikiProjects have encouraged me to start WikiProject X, a new project funded by a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant that focuses on figuring out what makes some WikiProjects work and not others. Our research will focus on current WikiProjects and the subject areas they cover, determining where WikiProjects provide adequate support to the editing community and where they do not. I plan on interviewing many Wikipedians, including people who don't normally get involved on WikiProjects. I want to know what resources you need to support your editing.
Isarra, a Wikipedian and experienced MediaWiki designer, will lead our design effort. We will be drawing from our research data and other sources of inspiration, including the Teahouse and other existing WikiProjects. We should begin to think beyond static pages and lists. WikiProjects should make you feel engaged. They should put relevant information front and center, and always feel up to date. They should be easy to maintain, and no one should have to re-invent the wheel. They should be a safe space for users. They should make editing Wikipedia an easier and more satisfying experience for everyone.
This benefits more than just online users. I run many in-person editing events with my local Wikimedia chapter, usually organized around a specific theme. The experience of having a knowledgeable Wikipedia editor walk you through the ropes is difficult to replicate online. At the same time, there is only so much you can accomplish at a single event. I would like to be able to refer the people we train at our events to a WikiProject, where they can pick up where they left off. This would help bridge the gap between offline and online, where offline event organizers work with online participants from around the world, complementing each other's efforts. Very few WikiProjects are currently equipped to pull this off, but with the right tools, more should be able to do this.
We want to hear your perspective on this endeavor. We are collecting stories at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Stories and are recruiting people and WikiProjects for pilot testing at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots. You are also encouraged to sign up for our newsletter if you are interested in learning more.
The radio show Little Atoms, broadcast weekly on London's Resonance FM, featured a lengthy conversation with journalist and author Johann Hari on its January 20 episode about his new book Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs. In 2011, it was revealed that Hari had engaged in a spree of pseudonymous edits maligning other British journalists, accusing them of being anti-Semitic, homophobic, alcoholic, and supporters of Sarah Palin (see previous Signpost coverage). This, coupled with revelations of plagiarism, prompted Hari to return his prestigious Orwell Prize and leave The Independent. Before the book discussion, Hari and host Neil Denny briefly discussed the issue. Hari said
“ | I did two things that were really awful things to do; one was when I interviewed people sometimes I would use material they had spoken elsewhere or written down and acted as if it had been said directly to me. And also on Wikipedia sometimes I would edit other people's entries under a pseudonym and I was horrible and nasty about some of them. Those are both awful things to do. | ” |
Denny asked if he would offer an apology specifically to two of his targets, Nick Cohen and Francis Wheen. Hari, who has previously published a public apology, and privately contacted some of his specific targets, asked Denny to deliver private letters of apology to the two men.
Nine featured articles were promoted this week.
One featured list was promoted this week.
Ten featured pictures were promoted this week.
"His Majesty the KING-EMPEROR has been graciously pleased to approve of the grant of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned soldier of the Indian Army for conspicuous bravery whilst serving with the Indian Army Corps, British Expeditionary Force."
In the wake of the annual elections, 2015's arbitration committee consists of:
Additionally, outgoing arbitrators Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Timotheus Canens remain on the committee until the conclusion of the GamerGate case, which was opened during their terms. As has become customary over the years, the new committee has had plenty of work to do in its first few weeks, including several motions and clarification requests as well as three cases.
There are no pending case requests at the time of writing. Three cases remain open and one was closed by motion.
What started as an Internet row has developed into an extremely vitriolic dispute between a large number of Wikipedians and ultimately into one of the largest arbitration cases of recent times. Given the involvement of several prominent editors with lengthy track records (including involvement in multiple previous arbitration cases) and the sheer number of parties (27), the case is likely to be an important landmark with an impact reaching significantly beyond the GamerGate controversy article and its various daughter articles.
After repeated delays, the arbitrators' proposed decision was made public on 19 January (two days ahead of the revised target date), and the talk page was significantly re-structured to allow individual editors to make statements but to prevent threaded discussion. Among the proposed remedies, sitebans are proposed for five editors (two parties are currently indefinitely blocked), while other proposed remedies range from reminders and admonishments to topic bans, the breadth of which has been the subject of much discussion between arbitrators.
A much narrower case than GamerGate, but one which may also have important ramifications. The case concerns allegations that administrator Wifione ( talk · contribs) has engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy to advance a public relations and reputation management campaign on Wikipedia, and that he has possibly abused his access or status as an administrator, particularly with regard to articles about and editors acting on behalf of competitors.
The evidence phase closed on 16 January and the case has now entered the workshop phase, which is open until 23 January. The target date for the proposed decision is 30 January.
Whereas in previous eras arbitration cases mainly revolved around geo-political conflicts such as Israel-Palestine, Eastern Europe, and the "Troubles", the hot topics of the current era appear to revolve around gender and sexuality, and this case is no exception. With ArbCom previously having adjudicated on disputes concerning abortion, the gender gap, sexology, and the Manning naming dispute, and the GamerGate case wrapping up, we now have a case about articles relating to the intersection of Christianity and sexuality (though the case scope was widened upon acceptance from Catholicism and homosexuality).
Although nothing on the scale of GamerGate, this is a relatively large case, with 13 named parties. The case is currently in the evidence phase, which remains open until 2 February, while the current target date for the proposed decision is 16 February. At the time of writing, only one editor has thus far presented evidence.
The Acupuncture case was accepted and closed by motion on 12 January. The motion authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, in addition to the existing discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science authorised in the 2006 Pseudoscience case.
Dear readers,
About a month ago, I declared my intention to step down as editor-in-chief of the Signpost upon finding two successors. After combing through several applications, I am delighted to say that this search is at an end: Gamaliel and Go Phightins! will be stepping into my role, while Pine will continue as the publication and newsroom manager. All three are experienced Wikipedians with significant prior or current involvement with the Signpost. I will continue to serve as the newspaper's editor emeritus, where I am looking forward to stepping back while assisting the new editors in any way I can. Details on these positions will come in this column next week.
Please join me in welcoming Gamaliel and Go Phightins, and we would appreciate if you would bear with us as we work through this transition period.
Looking back at my time as the editor of the Signpost, we attempted to continue expanding the newspaper's scope to include both the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement. While our coverage has been patchy at times, especially with regards to breaks between arb report writers and technological initiatives, I believe that we accomplished our goals. As this week's ten-year Signpost anniversary article shows, many of the Signpost's biggest stories came in the last few years. For "News and notes" and general Wikimedia news—the sections I put much of my personal effort into—these ranged all over the world, from Wikivoyage to Gibraltar to the Russian Wikipedia and the National Archives and Records Administration.
Still, the stories that will stick with me are the memorials, particularly the life and death of Ihor Kostenko, a Ukrainian Wikipedian. While I never personally met Ihor, writing about his death made me feel like we had lost a kindred spirit. A fan of sports, geography, history, and warships, Ihor and I shared many interests; we were even near each other's ages. What more could he have done with a lengthier life?
We will unfortunately never have the answer to that question, but we do know what he did with his life, and it will live on through every person that encounters the work he did online. The legacy we make today will be left for the world of tomorrow. Will we leave a fractured, contentious, and cantankerous community beset by an unwillingness to adapt to a new generation? Or will we leave them with something worthy of the fifth-highest ranking on the Internet?
Here's to the coming years.
—
The ed17, outgoing Signpost editor-in-chief
Reader comments
Thanks to Michael Snow, Ral315, The ed17, and Adam Cuerden for their assistance in assembling this feature.
The Wikipedia Signpost was founded by Michael Snow, beginning with the publication of the January 10, 2005 issue. That issue contained ten articles, all written by Snow, beginning with his introduction "From the editor". It also contained the first Arbitration Report ("The Report On Lengthy Litigation", or TROLL), which would become a long-time staple of the Signpost. Snow headed up the Signpost until August, when Ral315 took over.
News reports in the Signpost discussed the growing pains of the early years of Wikipedia. In February, the main page was locked down after major vandalism and a power outage caused Wikipedia to crash for a day. In March, Wikipedia reached a half-million articles. While Wikipedia was the subject of hoaxes and misinformation, it was able to deftly respond to breaking news such as its article on the July London bombings.
One of Wikipedia's biggest challenges came with Wikipedia's first major public scandal, the Seigenthaler biography incident. The Signpost reported on the initial controversy and the identification of the hoaxer.
In 2006, Wikipedia hit one million articles with its article Jordanhill railway station.
The Signpost conducted an interview with Jimmy Wales in February. In December, it featured the first installment of a comic strip called WikiWorld, created by cartoonist Greg Williams. WikiWorld, which ran intermittently until 2008, remains one of the most fondly remembered Signpost features.
In January, the Signpost reported that editors uncovered multiple instances of plagiarism of Wikipedia by a professional reporter. It covered the ongoing discussion of Wikimedia Foundation office actions and an incident where a veteran administrator was briefly stripped of administrative powers for undoing an office action. It discussed early efforts to address Wikipedia's gender gap, an issue that is still ongoing. It also reported on an editor for hire who was permanently blocked, an editor who remains a perennial Wikipedia critic.
The Signpost conducted another interview with Wales in September and an interview with incoming Wikimedia Foundation director Sue Gardner in December.
The Signpost covered several significant news stories in 2007. It reported on WikiScanner, a tool which matched edits made by anonymous IP editors to a number of organizations, resulting in revelations which proved embarrassing to numerous companies and media and political organizations. Embarrassing for Wikipedia was the Essjay controversy, where a well-regarded Wikipedia editor and Wikia employee was revealed to have lied about his academic credentials and background. And revelations that the article of a nutrition author was edited by his own public relations agent led to one of the most amusing headlines in Signpost history, "Nutritional beef cooks PR editor".
Early in 2008, the Signpost reported on a controversy which erupted over a number of historical images depicting Muhammad. Visual depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. The presence of the images on Wikipedia prompted a 100,000 signature petition demanding their removal, but Wikipedia editors ultimately decided to retain the images. Later in the year, the Signpost reported on another image controversy after an image of the cover of the Scorpions' album Virgin Killer prompted media complaints and even a brief blacklisting of Wikipedia by the Internet Watch Foundation.
In a year of sensitive and controversial news stories, perhaps the most difficult was the Signpost's two-part series on the relationship between Jimmy Wales and Canadian commentator Rachel Marsden. Their brief relationship was the subject of salacious stories in the news media, but unlike most news outlets the Signpost treated the matter seriously instead of as gossip. It reported on the relationship and the fallout from the scandal, investigating allegations of impropriety and exploring how the matter affected the encyclopedia.
Ragesoss took the reins of the Signpost in February.
The Signpost covered a number of issues that year, including a series of stories about the community's adoption of the Creative Commons license for encyclopedia content. The conclusion of the Scientology Arbitration case made headlines when the Committee banned IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology. The National Portrait Gallery threatened a lawsuit over images used on Wikimedia projects they claimed were under copyright in the UK, but were clearly in the public domain in the US and elsewhere. A fabricated quote attributed to the late composer Maurice Jarre by a Wikipedia editor and a performance art project on the encyclopedia and related legal matters were also reported on by the Signpost.
HaeB took over the Signpost in June. In August, the Wikipedia Signpost officially shortened its name to the Signpost to reflect its coverage of Wikimedia projects beyond the English Wikipedia.
The Signpost published a series of stories on Wikipedia's new user interface and reported on the encyclopedia's 3,000th Featured Article. It reported on serious allegations by Larry Sanger to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the Wikimedia Foundation was "knowingly distributing child pornography" by hosting some unspecified images on Wikimedia Commons. Sanger co-founded Wikipedia but has become a frequent critic of the project. The FBI was also in the news in 2010 in relation to Wikipedia when it demanded the removal of FBI seal from the encyclopedia, prompting a cutting public response from Wikimedia Foundation counsel Mike Godwin.
In January, Wikipedia celebrated its tenth anniversary and the Signpost covered the commemorations both on and off the project. Later that month, the Signpost reported on a front page New York Times story about Wikipedia's gender gap and the ensuing discussion on Wikipedia. Later that year, the Signpost reported on the shutdown protest of the Italian Wikipedia in response to controversial legislation before the Italian Parliament and the creation of the Wikipedia Zero initiative. Also in the news were Wikipedia controversies involving reporter Johann Hari and former politician Sarah Palin.
The ed17 became editor-in-chief of the Signpost in May.
The Signpost reported on the blackout of Wikipedia in January due to the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act. Several other controversial issues arose that year. A scandal involving conflict of interest editing prompted the resignation of the chair of Wikimedia UK. The Signpost chronicled the difficulties surrounding the foundation of a new Wikimedia project called WikiVoyage. The Signpost's regular "WikiProject Report" published an in-depth investigation called " Where in the world is Wikipedia?" examining how editors successfully and not so successfully collaborate together on WikiProjects in different parts of the world.
The Signpost began the year with an interview with Sue Gardner and a report on the untimely death of activist and Wikipedia editor Aaron Swartz. It continued its reporting on the foundation of WikiVoyage, following that up with a controversial report about some aspects of that project. The Signpost also investigated the Funds Dissemination Committee and published a series of reports on a scandal involving widespread paid advocacy editing by Wiki-PR, a now-former public relations company, and the resulting fallout. One of the most popular features in the Signpost that year was a special report called " Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles: catalysts, trends, and applications".
One of the most popular Signpost stories of 2014 was its June report on the US National Archives and Records Administration's inclusion of Wikipedia in its Open Government Plan, which encompasses efforts such as uploading over 100,000 images to Wikimedia Commons. A related report demonstrated how its initiatives made it easier for institutions like NARA to upload their holdings to Commons. Also in June, the Signpost interviewed incoming Wikimedia Foundation director Lila Tretikov.
The Signpost reported on a quickly withdrawn $10 million lawsuit against four Wikipedia editors and how a series of Twitter bots revealed widespread government editing of Wikipedia around the world. The Signpost also noted the unfortunate deaths of Wikipedians Adrianne Wadewitz and Ihor Kostenko.
Behind the scenes, in late May, the Signpost gained a bit more exposure when its featured content section became part of Portal:Featured content.
Go Phightins! and Gamaliel will take over leadership of the Signpost towards the end of January.
Where will the Signpost go in 2015? Much of that depends on you. We'd like to expand our coverage in many ways, reviving "News and Notes" as a regular section and doing more to check in with other projects and initiatives on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For us to be able to do that, we need you. Offer your ideas on our
Suggestions page or visit our
Newsroom to see where you can help.
Reader comments
Over seventy years ago, the US destroyer Mahan was patrolling off Ponson Island in the Philippines when eleven Japanese kamikaze aircraft appeared over the horizon and attacked. The bombers in the group bored in with bombs armed. US Army fighter aircraft shot down three and damaged two; Mahan's gunners took out another four.
George Pendergast, who edits Wikipedia with the username Pendright, was eighteen years old when he joined Mahan's crew in April 1944. About half of the ship's crew at that time was made up of green, untested teenagers. Pendergast served aboard the ship as a fireman, second class, a low-end position that "required little brainpower but much speed and dexterity." He would function as one of a three-part crew: one each for oil, air, and water. These individuals had to work very closely together when hunting a submarine, a process that required the destroyer to run quickly at varying speeds. "Through a system of communication, the bridge would send down an order for 'full steam ahead': that meant the fireman had to bat open twelve burners, feeding oil into the firebox, as quickly as possible; the man on the air had to feed the air simultaneously for proper combustion; and the water checker had to feed more water into the boiler, or it might go dry and blow. Now, five minutes later, the next order might be 'stop', which meant all twelve burners had to be batted closed, the air guy had to cut the air, and the water checker had to cut the water, so it would not overflow and kill the fire." The steam produced through this process would be fed to the engine room, which controlled the propellers that actually moved the ship.
Pendergast's position kept him in the often unbearable heat of the fireroom, blind to the world outside. In non-battle situations, this was not a problem. Pendergast would stand watches of four hours on and eight or twelve off. If he was off watch between 8am and 4pm, however, he would have to report to the fireroom regardless. "You might chip paint, do some painting, clean burners and floor plates, or do other menial tasks," he said. "The Navy made sure you kept busy—no days off!" Still, when the sailors were off duty, there was little more to do besides sleep, eat, read, and write home. Many men took to gambling their salaries, a problem so pervasive that the navy limited salary dispersal while underway to just five dollars every two weeks—the sailors were paid in cash, a practice unknown to many people today.
If the ship was in battle, the stress level changed. Being below Mahan's deck, Pendergast had little clue as to what was going on outside. They were forced to use the tempo and weight of the ship's armament to compensate. "The guns told you what was happening," he told me. "If you heard the five-inch guns booming away, the enemy was still at a distance. When the 40-mm anti-aircraft guns started blasting away, they were getting closer. When you'd hear the 20-mm guns, you knew it was time to worry."
On 7 December 1944, those 20-mm guns were used extensively. Mahan was not a large ship, displacing only 1500 to 1800 long tons. Furthermore, it was primarily intended for surface and anti-submarine warfare, and as such was not heavily armed with anti-aircraft weapons—by 1944, wartime refits brought the major weaponry to four 5-inch, two twin 40-mm, and four to six 20-mm guns. Exactly three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the battle that brought the US into the Second World War, Mahan faced down the eleven Japanese aircraft off Ponson Island. Despite its crew's best efforts, the ship was hit by three Japanese kamikaze aircraft. The kinetic impact of these strikes was augmented by the fuel they were carrying. One struck the superstructure, where the bridge—staffed by the captain and crewmen at the helm—was located.
“ | I was at my general quarter's station in the forward fire room when Mahan was rocked by the impact of the three Japanese suicide planes. We knew we'd been hit, of course, but we didn't know by what. Yet, there was no panic ... we were startled but fortunately unhurt. Both boilers remained on line until they were later shut down. It all happened so quickly that many of the details of 7 December 1944 have escaped me. But one detail has stuck with me: the fact that we did not know what was actually taking place topside, which seemingly made that unknown almost as nasty as the event itself. | ” |
After receiving the order to abandon ship, Pendergast and his crewmates climbed up to emerge into a world that had changed greatly since they last saw it:
“ | On deck, there was an inferno of fire and explosions; the ship's superstructure had been reduced to rubble, and the forward magazine was exploding. While trying to get our bearings, the torpedo men were jettisoning Mahan's twelve torpedoes but were hard pressed to avoid hitting the sailors who had gone over the side. Some of us made our way through the debris to the fantail [stern or rear of the ship] and took turns going over the side into the waters of Ormac Bay; I lost my loosely tied shoes. Within an hour or so, another destroyer picked up our group. Once we climbed the ladder to the deck of the ship, we were rewarded with a swig of whiskey by a pharmacist mate. The ship remained under attack for most of the day. Later, we were transferred to another ship, and then to several more before reaching Pearl Harbor. There, we were housed in a stockade because we had no IDs except our dog tags. When that was sorted out, we boarded the USS Columbia, a cruiser, bound for Terminal Island, California, arriving two months after the sinking. | ” |
Pendergast went on to serve in the much quieter Caribbean and European theaters aboard Cone from 18 August 1945 until 21 March 1946. He later got a degree and became a government accountant and auditor.
In his mid-eighties, Pendergast got involved with Wikipedia after a local military museum asked him to write about women in the military. Accordingly, his first edits on the site were to Cadet Nurse Corps in October 2011. He was motivated by the idea of contributing to something with a lasting sense of value and by bringing his shipmates' war history up to the "level they rightfully earned." In the years since, he's written featured articles on Mahan and the Mahan-class destroyer, which examines the entire eighteen-strong class of warships that Mahan led. The latter was featured on Wikipedia's main page on 16 January and was visited approximately 48,000 times in a four-day period. He has had a very positive experience on the site, and plans to keep contributing for as long as he is able to.
I asked Pendergast whether the current generation of US history enthusiasts—people who have had little direct experience with conscription, let alone war—is missing crucial life experiences that derogatorily affect their views and writing. He does not think so. "There have been many successful coaches in sports—yet some of them never played the game or ever played it very well. Historians are another example."
For older individuals who want to contribute, Pendergast advises that they should make use of Wikipedia's mentoring processes, such as the Teahouse, the adopt-a-user program, or the upcoming co-op, and choose a subject that they are both passionate about and knowledgeable in. He also noted that studying articles near their preferred topic would help them learn the intricacies of wiki markup, and that they should join Wikipedia groups and activities when offered. Finally and most importantly, "be bold, but don't bite off more than [you can] chew."
Near the end of our correspondence, I backtracked to ask Pendergast about his most vivid memory from that day.
“ | It was after going over the side and paddling around the waters of Ormoc Bay. Believe me, there was despair and reason for doubt. What was going to happen to us? Would we be strafed, run over by another ship, or eventually rescued? Meanwhile, we needed to get away from the burning and exploding Mahan, as well as the fighting on the beach. So, we made our way out to the open water without incident where we were sighted and rescued.
It's hard to believe that the event occurred over seventy years ago. It was our lucky day! |
” |
I have edited Wikipedia off and on for the past ten years. For as long as I have been a Wikipedia editor, there have been WikiProjects: sub-groups of the larger Wikipedia community dedicated to a particular subject matter or a certain task. WikiProjects are all over the map: some of them are dedicated to highly specific subjects; others are dedicated to high-level concepts like " biographies." Some WikiProjects have a very specific focus on encyclopedic content; others, like the Department of Fun, provide support in more indirect ways. There is a WikiProject for pretty much everyone, and if there isn't one for you, you can easily start one. In fact, they are so easy to start that we currently have over 2,000 WikiProjects.
Unfortunately, a proliferation of WikiProjects does not mean a proliferation of activity. Many WikiProjects that get started end up becoming inactive. What's happening? Several factors are at play. WikiProjects require significant effort to maintain, so they decline after their maintainers move on to do other things. Some arguments have been made that WikiProjects become less relevant as some subject areas get more complete coverage on Wikipedia. Others have tied the decline of WikiProjects to an overall decline of participation on Wikipedia.
Whatever the cause, WikiProjects are failing to live up to their potential. The English-language Wikipedia is huge. As with any large community, it can be hard for any one person to feel like he or she belongs. By grouping people together by their interests, WikiProjects have the potential to make Wikipedians feel like they are a part of a close-knit community. They can help Wikipedians of all levels of experience navigate our policies and procedures, ensuring that they are confident in their editing and that there is less cleanup work for the administrators. They have the potential to provide the social support that encourages newcomers to stick around and build our encyclopedia.
The potential WikiProjects have encouraged me to start WikiProject X, a new project funded by a Wikimedia Foundation Individual Engagement Grant that focuses on figuring out what makes some WikiProjects work and not others. Our research will focus on current WikiProjects and the subject areas they cover, determining where WikiProjects provide adequate support to the editing community and where they do not. I plan on interviewing many Wikipedians, including people who don't normally get involved on WikiProjects. I want to know what resources you need to support your editing.
Isarra, a Wikipedian and experienced MediaWiki designer, will lead our design effort. We will be drawing from our research data and other sources of inspiration, including the Teahouse and other existing WikiProjects. We should begin to think beyond static pages and lists. WikiProjects should make you feel engaged. They should put relevant information front and center, and always feel up to date. They should be easy to maintain, and no one should have to re-invent the wheel. They should be a safe space for users. They should make editing Wikipedia an easier and more satisfying experience for everyone.
This benefits more than just online users. I run many in-person editing events with my local Wikimedia chapter, usually organized around a specific theme. The experience of having a knowledgeable Wikipedia editor walk you through the ropes is difficult to replicate online. At the same time, there is only so much you can accomplish at a single event. I would like to be able to refer the people we train at our events to a WikiProject, where they can pick up where they left off. This would help bridge the gap between offline and online, where offline event organizers work with online participants from around the world, complementing each other's efforts. Very few WikiProjects are currently equipped to pull this off, but with the right tools, more should be able to do this.
We want to hear your perspective on this endeavor. We are collecting stories at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Stories and are recruiting people and WikiProjects for pilot testing at Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots. You are also encouraged to sign up for our newsletter if you are interested in learning more.
The radio show Little Atoms, broadcast weekly on London's Resonance FM, featured a lengthy conversation with journalist and author Johann Hari on its January 20 episode about his new book Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs. In 2011, it was revealed that Hari had engaged in a spree of pseudonymous edits maligning other British journalists, accusing them of being anti-Semitic, homophobic, alcoholic, and supporters of Sarah Palin (see previous Signpost coverage). This, coupled with revelations of plagiarism, prompted Hari to return his prestigious Orwell Prize and leave The Independent. Before the book discussion, Hari and host Neil Denny briefly discussed the issue. Hari said
“ | I did two things that were really awful things to do; one was when I interviewed people sometimes I would use material they had spoken elsewhere or written down and acted as if it had been said directly to me. And also on Wikipedia sometimes I would edit other people's entries under a pseudonym and I was horrible and nasty about some of them. Those are both awful things to do. | ” |
Denny asked if he would offer an apology specifically to two of his targets, Nick Cohen and Francis Wheen. Hari, who has previously published a public apology, and privately contacted some of his specific targets, asked Denny to deliver private letters of apology to the two men.
Nine featured articles were promoted this week.
One featured list was promoted this week.
Ten featured pictures were promoted this week.
"His Majesty the KING-EMPEROR has been graciously pleased to approve of the grant of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned soldier of the Indian Army for conspicuous bravery whilst serving with the Indian Army Corps, British Expeditionary Force."
In the wake of the annual elections, 2015's arbitration committee consists of:
Additionally, outgoing arbitrators Beeblebrox, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, and Timotheus Canens remain on the committee until the conclusion of the GamerGate case, which was opened during their terms. As has become customary over the years, the new committee has had plenty of work to do in its first few weeks, including several motions and clarification requests as well as three cases.
There are no pending case requests at the time of writing. Three cases remain open and one was closed by motion.
What started as an Internet row has developed into an extremely vitriolic dispute between a large number of Wikipedians and ultimately into one of the largest arbitration cases of recent times. Given the involvement of several prominent editors with lengthy track records (including involvement in multiple previous arbitration cases) and the sheer number of parties (27), the case is likely to be an important landmark with an impact reaching significantly beyond the GamerGate controversy article and its various daughter articles.
After repeated delays, the arbitrators' proposed decision was made public on 19 January (two days ahead of the revised target date), and the talk page was significantly re-structured to allow individual editors to make statements but to prevent threaded discussion. Among the proposed remedies, sitebans are proposed for five editors (two parties are currently indefinitely blocked), while other proposed remedies range from reminders and admonishments to topic bans, the breadth of which has been the subject of much discussion between arbitrators.
A much narrower case than GamerGate, but one which may also have important ramifications. The case concerns allegations that administrator Wifione ( talk · contribs) has engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy to advance a public relations and reputation management campaign on Wikipedia, and that he has possibly abused his access or status as an administrator, particularly with regard to articles about and editors acting on behalf of competitors.
The evidence phase closed on 16 January and the case has now entered the workshop phase, which is open until 23 January. The target date for the proposed decision is 30 January.
Whereas in previous eras arbitration cases mainly revolved around geo-political conflicts such as Israel-Palestine, Eastern Europe, and the "Troubles", the hot topics of the current era appear to revolve around gender and sexuality, and this case is no exception. With ArbCom previously having adjudicated on disputes concerning abortion, the gender gap, sexology, and the Manning naming dispute, and the GamerGate case wrapping up, we now have a case about articles relating to the intersection of Christianity and sexuality (though the case scope was widened upon acceptance from Catholicism and homosexuality).
Although nothing on the scale of GamerGate, this is a relatively large case, with 13 named parties. The case is currently in the evidence phase, which remains open until 2 February, while the current target date for the proposed decision is 16 February. At the time of writing, only one editor has thus far presented evidence.
The Acupuncture case was accepted and closed by motion on 12 January. The motion authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, in addition to the existing discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience and fringe science authorised in the 2006 Pseudoscience case.