Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-02/News and notes

This week's Special report has highlighted the Wikimedia Conference 2014, to be held from next Thursday to Sunday in Berlin under the stewardship of the German chapter. In related news, the run-up to the conference has seen the unfolding of two fractious threads on the Wikimedia public mailing list, both of which may serve as background for the last session at Berlin: "Future of the Wikimedia Conference".

Former WMUK chair Fæ began the earlier thread, entitled Cost of Wikimedia Conference 2014, questioning why the UK is sending "a massive party of 8 people", when he had understood that "organizations would send no more than 2 representatives plus one optional guest". / "Another consideration is past concern from smaller chapters that this meeting was being overwhelmed with the viewpoint of the larger and better funded chapters that found it easiest to travel to Berlin, or pay employees to attend."

In answer to claims that limits on attendance are "misplaced frugality", Fæ said: "For one chapter to break the rules and send significantly more representatives to this conference than the others when they are not even the host does not appear effective to my eyes." / "... we should take care to ensure appropriate transparency when using our funds. It is almost impossible to fully assess how many employees are attending in proportion to unpaid volunteers (which implies costs beyond travel and accommodation), or whether named representatives have any experience or interests in the Wikimedia projects, as many names are given no link or context."

This was met by comments both in support and against, revealing surprisingly different attitudes among chapters to the "ownership" of donors' funds: "Really Fae, as you are no longer the [WMUK] chair, why rule "from the grave"?" / "... it is for the chapter to decide if they spend their money wisely." This was then rebutted by another party: "It is not 'their money', but rather the money of donors—i.e. the general public—who are every year told that Wikipedia needs your help to survive. The 'movement' ... has a tendency to waste money on frivolous things such as travel and accommodation, as demonstrated last year by the Affcom attendance controversy at Wikimania 2013.

Fæ later wrote: "I am genuinely puzzled as to why, if nobody on the WMUK board (such as the CEO or the current Chairman) is sure what the purpose of the conference is, they should choose to invest the donor's money in sending 5 trustees and 3 full time employees to it (presumably the employees are being paid for their time rather than going as volunteers). / If the key benefit claimed is to do social networking, it should be recognized that all the same faces will be at Wikimania London in 4 months, and socializing is part of the defined benefits of Wikimania. / Considering the conference is a week away and it appears that flights and accommodation have been paid for, re-framing this as good news, rather than admitting it is a problem, appears to be replacing pragmatism with sophistry."

For one chapter representative, funds "[do] not belong to the relevant chapters, and as a result we need to respect that when spending our their money. / ... we should always be frugal with the funds that we have as a movement ... I think the guideline 2+1 really should be adhered to by all, and would wonder what value there is in sending more than this along to the conference on the dime of the donor. If it's acceptable for large chapters with large reserves, it potentially puts smaller chapters at a disadvantage or could be perceived as bias." Nicole Ebber, Wikimedia Germany's head of international affairs and the program manager for the conference, wrote that she was "baffled" that these questions are being asked only now, since they were raised months ago on Meta in the early planning stages; there is evidence on Meta that Ebber worked hard to get discussion going as early as August last year. In the end, she said, "we felt the 2(+1) rule is kind of outdated".

According to another participant: "... we have [a] strict rule – two representatives, 3 if you have ED. I also saw that some chapters have more than that, and I really don't know why." However, John Davies, CEO of WMUK, wrote: "this is a sensible use of our resources", suggesting among other functions that the UK delegates "can promote Wikimania London and learn about people's ideas and expectations", but that "we will certainly not be going round in a sort of WMUK gang trying to overwhelm small chapters – quite the opposite and I think we have a good record at WMUK of supporting others." One participant commented that in previous years the idea was "to keep the conference small as possible in order to have effective discussions, and to allow all the chapter to be equal." Chris Keating, chair of WMUK, pointed out that "there was no 'only 2 representatives plus an ED' rule mentioned in the registration process."

While emphasising that she was generalising and there are exceptions, Risker—a former arbitrator on the English Wikipedia who performs a number of volunteer roles for the movement—wrote: "... the place where leadership is most sorely lacking is on projects, while the majority of those participating in leadership activities at the chapter/thorg level are not doing a lot of work on WMF projects."

In a new thread, Purpose of WMConf, Risker said:

Controversy erupts among German-speakers

This strident discourse on the mailing list has been mirrored in the German-language part of the movement. While Wikimedia Germany is hosting an event at which determining the future purpose of WMF-affiliated entities is a major topic, the chapter is facing significant criticism from both the German editing community and within its own board on where the chapter's priorities lie. In a substantial post, Open Letter to Wikimedia Germany, posted on Saturday 5 April in the German Wikipedia's news outlet, Kurier, long-standing German Wikipedian Marcus Cyron has accused the chapter's leadership of being out of touch: "For a long time I have put a lot of energy into the development of Wikimedia Germany. ... I see it as an important tool for supporting volunteers at work on Wikimedia projects. But even as an active member I am seeing decreasing control [by members] of the chapter. Hardly a decision is made other than within the Berlin office, and even the chapter board often seems to be powerless. This I can no longer accept."

Cyron went on to complain about a lack of openness in the way Wikimedia Germany judged applications for Wikimania scholarships, and of "encrusted processes in the chapter. Unfortunately, many people do not dare to speak openly about these issues—there is a lot of frustration ...".

The open letter has unleashed a lengthy controversy on the Kurier's talk page that makes the English Wikipedia look polite—accusations that Cyron's letter comprises "intemperate attacks", "vain whining", and counterclaims that such comments are "rude and totally wrong"; "you have a problem, not me." There was support for the good work of chapter staff, but assertions that Cyron's letter "has brought long-standing problems to a head."

At the same time, Wikimedia Germany's treasurer, Steffen Prößdorf (User:Stepro), posted a blog, The essential question: What is the purpose of Wikimedia Germany?. The piece was billed as "an overdue look back at the Chapter Boards Training Session he attended in London last month, in which he recounts his shock at the "opinion of a prominent female Wikimedian at the workshop about the meaning of the movement and the role of the chapters: if we can buy free knowledge, we should do that [and] just forget about the communities. Or even quoted verbatim [in English]: 'Fuck the community, who cares'."

Stepro posed what he sees as the core question: "Is the Wikimedia movement in general and Wikimedia Germany in particular primarily there to generate free content to collect and make available, or to support the volunteers in these tasks?" He drew contrasts between the WMF's mission "to empower a global volunteer community to collect and develop the world's free knowledge", and the starting point of the chapter's stated mission, to "promote" this rather than directly supporting volunteers to conduct it. The chapter's board, he wrote, "must make it clear to all employees ... that the office was created in support of volunteers ... only under this condition is a partnership between all stakeholders possible—communities, members, the chapter office, the board, and the employees."

In brief

• Should Russia create a Wikipedia alternative?: The ITAR-TASS newsagency reports that Anton Likhomanov, the director general of the National Library of Russia, told a public forum that it is "high time" that a Russian-language alternative to Wikipedia be created, claiming that Wikipedia is controlled from the US and thus vulnerable to American sanctions. Vladimir Medeyko of Wikimedia Russia told the Signpost that while there might be some bad PR for the movement, given that "foreign entities, especially American ones, are considered suspicious", there were obvious responses if it came to defending the WMF in Russia. "I'm very skeptical," he said, "and don't believe they would be successful."
• Affiliate-nominated seats: Five candidates have been nominated for the two affiliate-selected (previously chapter-selected) seats on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. Editors are welcome to make comments and ask questions on the talk pages of each candidate's statement. Affiliated organisations will discuss the selection next Sunday morning at the Berlin conference, so prompt feedback would be advantageous.
• New FDC round: The deadline for submissions for Round 2 of the twice-yearly funding cycle of the Foundation's Funds Dissemination Committee closed on 1 April. There are three applicants for funding: the Norwegian and French chapters, and the India-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). The community review period has begun, and will last until the end of April. All Wikimedians are encouraged to provide feedback and pose questions.
  

  

• The Belfer affair: Fallout over a Wikipedian-in-residence hosted by Harvard University in 2012 continued on the mailing lists this week. As we reported two weeks ago, "The position, advertised and promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation, was at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. ... This chain of events [came] after an inquiry from Liz Allison of the Stanton Foundation, an organization that had donated several million dollars to the WMF ... While the Wikipedian in residence would be funded by the Stanton Foundation and work at the Belfer Center at Harvard, they asked the WMF to act as a fiscal sponsor for administrative reasons." Since then, Sue Gardner (the Wikimedia Foundation's executive director) has issued an apology, and the Foundation itself has published a post-mortem investigation. From the document, "The WMF believes it is a bad practice for those in Wikipedian-in-Residence positions to edit Wikipedia as a core activity of their residency, and regrets that it constructed the Belfer project to include editing as part of the position's core work. The WMF has made a number of decisions, detailed below, designed to prevent similar situations from playing out like this in future." Nevertheless, the controversy has continued with comments from Greg Kohs and Fæ.
• Typography update: Design magazine FastCompany has revealed that the recent typography update could have gone much farther. FastCompany reporter Mark Wilson viewed the update as "conservative", saying that it was mostly "a new font for the section headers." Wilson continued, "[Wikipedia] fills your browser with a wall of end-to-end text that consumes everything, edging itself up against ever-tiny images that, for whatever reason, have been framed in a weak outline."
• English Wikipedia
  • Core Contest: The winners of the Core Contest have been announced. The goal of the competition, as its "core" name implies, is to improve Wikipedia's important broadly themed articles, particularly those in a state of disrepair. Five editors were recognized by the overseeing committee: Johnbod (talk · contribs) (first place, Ottonian art), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) (tied for second place, Poultry), Hugetim (talk · contribs) (tied for second place, Philosophy of science), MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) (fourth place, Literature), and Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) (fifth place, Drink).
  • Quarterly update: The quarterly update consisting of all changes to the English Wikipedia's content policies has been published at Wikipedia:Update. Volunteers to restart updates of deletion and enforcement policies are requested.
  • DYK record: The record for page views on a non-lead hook at the English Wikipedia's Did you know? section has been broken. United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls, a legal case, ran on April Fools Day with the teaser "[did you know] ... that the United States once sued 50,000 cardboard boxes and clacker balls?" and received about 128,000 hits.
• Commons and the URAA: The saga over Commons' interpretation of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) has continued with the closure of a consensus-building discussion: "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion [at the undeletion requests page]." This result has been challenged in multiple places by Russavia, including edit warring on the Commons' global licensing policy.
• Publishing scholarly papers with, and on, Wikipedia: Martin Poulter has authored a post on the Wikimedia UK blog examining the relationship between the open-access journal PLoS Computational Biology and Wikipedia. For example, PLoS has a competition where an individual improves an article over a four-month period. At the end, a committee of academics and Wikipedians review the changes; the top three articles receive cash prizes.
• Anna Koval: The Wikimedia Foundation has announced its newest hire, following the recent departure of LiAnna Davis. Anna Koval spent the last eight months at the WMF as a community advocate. Her Serbian background and extensive experience in the classroom set her apart during the selection process: according to Rod Dunican, director of Global Education at the WMF, "Anna's Serbian background will be helpful to our team's efforts to support education program leaders in Eastern Europe. ... Anna is an award-winning educator, with a master's degree in education and more than a decade of classroom teaching experience, ranging from middle school through graduate school. She was a Walt Disney Teacher of the Year nominee, an American Library Association Emerging Leader, and was even featured on the cover of California Teacher magazine." Koval will be a Global Program Manager.
• Two quarterly reviews: WMF Grantmaking has brought out its latest quarterly reviews. Notes and presentation slides from the WMF's quarterly review meeting on growth are now on-wiki.
• Edit-a-thon at the Royal Society: New Scientist has covered an edit-a-thon hosted at the UK's Royal Society, which aimed to improve Wikipedia's incomplete coverage of women in science. Although coverage is more extensive in English Wikipedia than in other Wikipedias, significant work remains to be done to create a full selection of biographies of women scientists from English language sources, which can serve as a basis for articles in other languages.

← Previous "News and notes"

Next "News and notes" →

In this issue

2 April 2014

News and notes

WikiProject report

Special report

Featured content

Traffic report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I do not understand why the Signpost insists on using my full legal name on multiple occasions. In all the correspondence mentioned in this article I wrote as Fæ, no other name. On Wikipedia I am Fæ, on Commons I am Fæ, in every GLAM I have helped with on Wikimedia projects I am Fæ, even when I was Chair of Wikimedia UK or Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association I consistently tried to keep to my pseudonym whenever legally possible, as it is under that name that I am known for my active contributions to our projects. Could you please amend your article to show basic respect for my choice of Wikimedia identity and my desire to separate my professional life from my time as a volunteer for Wikimedia? Thank you --Fæ (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second Fæ's request for anonymity, as you do not mention Risker's real name in the article. So, could you please change this? – Thanks.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea. I thought you used it openly in the movement. Changed. Tony (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he does. But so does Risker. She also filled prominent positions in the movement. It would be adequate to treat them equally.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first name, yes; it appears on several mailing lists. I don't think my surname has shown up very often, certainly not on this project. I am not now, nor have I ever been, the holder of a position that required my personal identity be published; Fæ, on the other hand, has been a member of a chapter Board of Trustees, which does require public disclosure of identities. Being on Arbcom isn't the same thing, and does not require public disclosure of identity. Risker (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a clear and true statement above. Being legally required to use my real name as a trustee is not that same thing as expecting Signpost to respect my choice of on-wiki identity. It is odd considering Arbcom's power to destroy reputations or damage careers, sometimes influenced by secret evidence that later turns out to be false, that members are not as accountable as Chapter trustees. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't really see much point in the Signpost writing about you using a name you do not use on this project or for that matter on other projects with the possible exception of Meta. You're known as Fæ pretty much everywhere, so using another name (however legitimate) is not respectful to the readers, who know you as Fæ. At least that's my perspective. Risker (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took me 60 seconds to find it staring out from a table of WCA members and linked to your username. In fact there are 59 instances of your name on Meta alone. Tony (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? My legal name could not remain a secret from the point at which I became a director of Wikimedia UK, years ago now. Just because you can find a Wikimedian's name with a bit of internet searching or even having been accidentally outed on this project or other Wikimedia projects in the past, does not mean that we should disrespect a Wikimedian's choice of pseudonym on this project. A bit more searching and you can find my home number, my Grindr profile, photographs of me with my husband on holiday, along with some stupid homophobic attacks and false claims against my personal life. I hope that you do not feel you have a right as a journalist to publish anything you fancy using the excuse of claims of notability or tabloid notoriety. Yes, once you had an excuse that I was a "public figure", please do not use this to remove the last shreds of dignity I might be stupidly expecting to hold on to. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you covered the wikimedia-l discussion, but missed the part on the WMUK Engine room (which actually started first). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an amusing thread. I removed your real name, Fae—which you've successfully drawn attention to—as soon as I saw your initial complaint here. Your real name wasn't used to get at you; but merely in the mistaken belief that you use it widely on-wiki. Tony (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's private lives are not a joke for you to laugh at. It is disturbing that you have Wikipedia's Signpost as your platform if you think this way. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, you've made your point and we made the change as soon as you asked for it. Thank you for posting. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the editing community

IMO the most effective method to support the editing community is by directly supporting them. Figure out what issues they have and try to fix them. Some issues include detecting "copy and pasted" content being added with efforts around WP:Turnitin needing more help. Other issues are basic / key templates not working across all languages of Wikipedia. A basic set of standard templates would be a huge step forwards in making translation easier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, I totally agree with you! Facilitating such a detection project and managing it would be a very useful way to spend donor money and if you can spell it out in a proposal (or two) I would suggest turning in an IEG idea that perhaps someone else can make into a proposal. I am thinking of people who are good at scanning medical content and comparing it to published content (we have Marc's Corenbot but I am unsure if it works with medical stuff). It would be great if you could couple the copyright issues to pre-translated content from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation Task Force, so that instead of article deletion, article replacement could occur (with some appropriate copyvio clause in the edit summary). BTW, have you looked at this as a potential issue in the IEG grant for m:Grants:IEG/Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing? Jane (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check all English content extensively before it is put up for translation. Yes have added my support to the IED :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to mention that as an answer to the second part of your question I believe you really need to look at the Reasonator and use it for basic access to foreign articles. This Reasonator output for the List of childhood diseases and disorders shows lots of childhood diseases with their Q numbers on Wikidata as a way to harvest those foreign articles. Jane (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a funded effort to harmonize templates across wikipedias. Isn't that one of the things that Wikidata was supposed to eventually support somehow? EllenCT (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall harmonizing templates ever being a planned outcome for Wikidata, no. I am not against this, but I would be cautious about any programme to harmonize templates. The English Wikipedia literally has a magnitude more templates than any other project, and this might be seen by some as en.wp forcing its system of bureaucratization on non-en projects. --Fæ (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about harmonizing half a dozen templates like "cite journal", not about standardizing all or a lot of templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds easier to negotiate then, though this ought to be done one project at a time. Is there a wiki page with a plan/proposal for this idea for folks to read or discuss, or perhaps it is in a section of one of the larger discussions? --Fæ (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial Revolution?

I think the difference in approach from WM editors and the NGO style chapters is that the former accord to what Yochai Benkler calls peer production and whereas the later function as businesses. This can be seen particularly in the UK where charities have been obliged to internalise all sorts of business values leading to management structures more akin to that of corporations. This can lead to the sort of managerialism predicted by James Burnham. It would be interesting to know whether anyone has noticed this phenomenon occuring in other chapters?Leutha (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editathon at the Royal Society

As the organizer of this event, I dislike your assumption that Wikipedia's coverage of the women in science is "poor", which was not in the report in the New Scientist. After many events such as this over recent years, at the Royal Society and around the world, and having myself spent many hours on the increasingly difficult task of researching suitable subjects for attendees, I don't believe this is the case when compared to our coverage of science in general. The only evidence-based assessment of this I know of is the coverage of Fellows of the Royal Society, where there are (pending the 2014 elections) currently no female Fellows (living or dead) without biographies, which is certainly not true of the male Fellows (a much larger group admittedly), where a high proportion of Fellows lack biographies. I suspect analysis of other National Academies of science would show similar results. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia is part of the solution to what is widely recognised as a general cultural problem, rather than part of the problem. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I didn't write that in brief note, but I don't take issue with the notion that the coverage of women's achievements in many areas of science is wanting in the 290 Wikipedias—certainly this is the case in the English WP. However, a broad statistical survey would be welcome. The Signpost has previously covered issues and events related to women in science; this is an example. Tony (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how are you certain? Do you have any evidence? Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping Keilana (talk · contribs), who's done a lot of work in this area, to this discussion. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki at Royal Society John: Your skepticism is welcome, but aren't you comparing two completely different lists? List of female Fellows of the Royal Society is an historical list going back to 1945, meaning there is much more time to work on these subjects, and a lot more of a track record to draw on to compose those articles. The list List of Fellows of the Royal Society elected in 2012 is just for one recent year, so there's not nearly the same time to work on those. (BTW, of the 50 some fellows for 2012, only one seems to be female). Yes, more studies would be great. But the comparison presented is severely limited in what conclusions you can draw. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. We don't have a full historical list of FRS's, which is not surprising as Category:Fellows of the Royal Society has 4785 articles, and that's only the ones we do have articles for. So I chose a recent year, where all the women (ok 1) have articles, but fewer than 50% of the men. This is no coincidence - compare other recent years (or less recent). I'd guess about 1500 male FRSs lack bios, vs 0 women, but looking at any of the annual lists shows lots of missing bios, all for men. There will probably be new 2014 women FRSs without a bio when the new crop are announced (this month I think), but I'd be amazed if they don't have one by Ada Lovelace Day in October. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant in WikiProject Women scientists, I've modified the blurb to reflect the fact that our coverage of women scientists is incomplete, and remains a work in progress. The WikiProject Women scientists pages will give you a fuller indication of where we stand in English. Given the size of the editing community, and the extent of English-language source materials, we can expect that improving coverage in other languages will need to start with expanding coverage and quality in English Wikipedia. BTW, you don't need to be a scientist yourself to pitch in to add an infobox or assess an article or two ... :) Djembayz (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree all that, except that scientists from non-English-speaking countries (who stayed there) naturally tend to have more local sources, so translation into English is also very important, if often harder. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]