Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2017-02-06

On 30 January, Katherine Maher published a WMF blog in which she branded the new US administration's executive order banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries (an action now partially stayed by several federal judges) as one that "threatens our freedoms of inquiry and exchange", and "infringes on the fundamental rights of our colleagues, our communities, and our families".

Maher's statement continues a trend for the Foundation to assume a more active role in advocacy. Unlike the coordinated service blackout by Wikimedia and other sites to protest against the copyright-related SOPA bill before the US Congress in 2012—a bill with substantial support from both major political parties—the blog concerns an action by a specific US administration. Maher's statement illustrates the difficulty of insulating the movement's visions from politics. As one Wikimedian put it on the Wikimedia-L mailing list: "writing an encyclopedia is a political act". Another person cast this in a broader perspective: "being in favour of sharing free knowledge is altogether a political statement, as freedom of sharing knowledge is not something which is accepted by all political regimes (please remember the globality of the movement".

The SOPA incident marked the WMF's hiring of a DC lobbying firm, Dow Lohnes, which advocated for the Foundation from then until the end of 2013, when it merged with law firm Cooley LLP 2014. The WMF retained Cooley to fight the lawsuit Internet Brands brought against two Wikimedia volunteers later in 2012. The Foundation hired a second lobbyist, Thompson Coburn, to monitor copyright legislation.

Maher's blog was variously supported and condemned on the Wikimedia mailing list. There were several complaints of a lack of community discussion beforehand. One contributor wrote that "needlessly and divisively injecting this kind of politics ... is neither healthy nor appropriate". Another replied to a comment that had supported the blog: "I imagine that your response would be different if Katherine's position didn't match your own. ... taking political positions beyond the mission is fraught with risk".

The ban has threatened the situations of many people working in the US technology sector, on the basis of their countries of origin; the Signpost understands that this may include several WMF employees or contractors. As well, the action may create difficulties for the Wikimedia community offline. According to one contributor: "There were speakers and delegates at Wikimania 2012, in Washington DC, who would not have been able to attend under the current ban. I therefore have no problem with the WMF speaking out against such a ban; indeed I applaud them for doing so." Other Wikimedians were supportive: "Having a truly 'neutral point of view' when it comes to anything regarding Donald Trump is not really possible. I support and applaud Katherine Maher's statement on the WMF blog." In a post entitled Politics, Christophe Henner, the chair of the WMF Board, weighed in with a strongly worded statement, ending with this proposition:

... as a movement, we have the potential to have a huge impact on the world. That is not neutral, that is a force of change and change always is political".

Just before publication, Michelle Paulson, the WMF's interim general counsel, posted a follow-up announcement to the list, including clarifications of the WMF's views on taking policy positions. Among Paulson's comments was this:

Today, the Wikimedia Foundation joined with more than 90 other organizations in filing an amicus brief in State of Washington v. Trump currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States. This case challenges the recent executive order issued in the United

States on January 27, 2017, which establishes immigration and travel restrictions based on country of origin. Other signatories to the brief include Facebook, Levi Strauss & Co., Microsoft, Mozilla, and Paypal.

T

The Wikimedia Foundation announced two grants in January 2017: US$3 million from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, announced January 9; and $500,000 from two charities affiliated with Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, announced January 26. The Sloan grant will fund improving the data structure of Wikimedia Commons, and has been discussed here; the Newmark grants will fund tools to assist in the prevention of harassment and "toxic behavior" on Wikipedia, and have been discussed here. The substance of each grant was greeted by Wikimedia community members with enthusiasm, though commentators also expressed skepticism on several points.

Discussion extended beyond the grants' substance, as some questioned the WMF's approach to restricted funding. Memories of the WMF's pursuit of restricted funds for the Knowledge Engine, which was widely understood to represent a substantial but undisclosed strategic shift for the organization, may drive some of the concern. One participant made pointed and repeated requests that the WMF publicly release its high-level product roadmap, and pointed to the initial announcement as evidence that such a document exists.

In response to a request from the Signpost, Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, the WMF's chief advancement officer, confirmed that the Sloan grant is the second-largest restricted grant in the organization's history, behind only the Stanton Foundation's $3.6 million grant to fund the VisualEditor software.

As a side note, this answers an open question about the VisualEditor grant. Community members had asked upon the grant's 2011 announcement whether or not it was restricted, but to our knowledge, no official answer was ever supplied. The WMF has a longstanding policy of publishing restricted grants' documents when possible, and a 2010 Stanton grant's plan was published; Seitz-Gruwell confirmed, however, that no grant documents from the 2011 VisualEditor grant have been published.

Shortly after the initial announcement of the Sloan grant, the WMF published three detailed documents from the grant application. The Signpost is not yet aware of any public documents from the Newmark grants; if any are published, we will link them in the comments or in a future update. (Update: See the comments below for two relevant links.) PF, Feb. 6, 2017

As the WMF continues to pursue funding restricted to specific programs and projects, it will likely continue to face questions around the philosophy driving its approach, the plans establishing the context for the restricted funds, and the level of influence exerted by funders or WMF staff pursuing funding. PF

Pete Forsyth was an author of the 2010 Stanton grant plan linked in this article.

The firm—whose website advertises expertise in "public policy, politics, philanthropy, communications and global development"—was noted in August 2016 for having crafted an ambitious public relations plan for the University of California, Berkeley, one of the world's elite universities. UC Berkeley's chancellor, Nicholas Dirks, announced his resignation that month following sustained criticism over financial matters and over his reponse to a string of sexual misconduct cases. One widely reported example was the university's construction of a $700,000 fence around Dirks' residence, as well as an "emergency exit"—reported as a manifestation of mutual mistrust between university leadership and its students and community. Williamsworks crafted a plan to "improve the Chancellor’s strategic profile nationally and internationally", and aimed to secure speaking engagements at prominent venues like TED Talks and the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Like UC Berkeley, the WMF had substantial difficulties in 2016, and has since sought to rebuild trust in its community, in part through its promotion of former WMF communications director Katherine Maher to the post of executive director. Introducing his March 2016 Signpost interview with Maher, reporter Tony1 observed: "Getting people to trust each other and work together appears to be a hallmark of her style." Subsequent Signpost interviews with several Wikimedia volunteers echoed the theme of trust.

Whether or not Williamsworks pursues top-tier speaking engagements for WMF leadership, it does appear to bring experience in one critical area beyond those explicitly identified in the WMF's published criteria, which centered more on the international Wikimedia movement than the organization.

Williamsworks was one of several small organizations considered for the role by the WMF, starting in late 2016. Lisa Seitz-Gruwell, the WMF's chief advancement officer, responded to a Signpost inquiry, confirming it was she who initially proposed the firm, along with several others, for consideration. Gruwell, who shares roots in Montana politics with Williams, said "Whitney is in my professional network", but added that they have no family relationship, nor has she worked for Williamsworks.

Maher published her fifth update on the strategic planning process on February 2. In addition to Williamsworks personnel, the core strategy team will include Suzie Nussel, an executive marketing consultant initially retained by former WMF executive Lila Tretikov in her previous strategic planning effort, and Guillaume Paumier, a Wikimedian since 2005 and WMF staff member since 2009. The update also describes the core team's initial plan for engaging Wikimedia community members.

The WMF has advertised for 17 language specialist strategy coordinators who are bilingual in English and at least one of a list of other languages. Interim chief of community engagement Maggie Dennis announced that these Wikimedians will be expected to:

• conduct deep outreach to the specified non-English communities;
• liaise between these communities and others to maximize participation of their communities in the movement strategy process;
• monitor and summarise discussions about strategy topics; and
• produce a summary report at the end of their contract.

Three further positions are available for Meta Wiki strategy coordinators, who will work alongside the language specialist coordinators and others to facilitate the Foundation's inclusive strategy processes. Successful applicants will take up a three-month contract for up to 20 hours per week, beginning in early March 2017. PF & T

The Wikimedia Foundation's Interactive team has been put "on pause" pending further determinations about its future, according to an announcement initially published on the Discovery email list on January 20. A subsequent discussion on the more widely read Wikimedia-L email list revealed concern from a number of Wikimedia volunteers, who—in contrast to extensively covered pushback on a number of WMF software rollouts over the years—expressed enthusiasm for the team's recent offerings.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

See or edit source data.

The Interactive team is part of the WMF's Discovery department, which may be best known for its origin as the team charged with executing the ill-fated Knowledge Engine project in 2016. But the Interactive team's work bears little resemblance to the Knowledge Engine. The team's two most recent outputs enable interactive maps and data-driven graphics on Wikimedia sites. The latter, built on data sets that can be stored on Wikimedia Commons, appears to have the strongest readership of any Signpost Technology Report in the last year Technology report, driven in part by unusually popular Facebook and Twitter posts illustrating an interactive graphic. Social media responses praised the feature, its origins in a readership survey that found especially strong interest in "rich content", and the lead developer's sustained focus on addressing that interest.

Posts on the email list expressed dismay over the news and the manner of its announcement, which was initially explained by a Discovery product manager in a discussion on the Phabricator site for bug reports: "There were expectations that were set regarding things such as team goals, working collaboratively with stakeholders, and advance notice to communities, that were repeatedly not met by the [Interactive] team." Wikimedia volunteer TheDJ, who first brought up the incident on Wikimedia-L, described the team's work as "more productive and groundbreaking than many other teams have been able to do in 5 years". However, progress in the discussion was gradual, due in part to the absence of the person responsible for the central decision; Katie Horn, Director of Discovery and Fundraising Technology, was out on a scheduled vacation. As the discussion evolved, speculation emerged—later confirmed by Wes Moran, WMF's vice president of Product, in an email to the Signpost—that the Interactive team's lead developer had left the organization.

Responding to a request from the Signpost, Moran addressed the various concerns raised. He said he was "happy that there was respect and enthusiasm for [Interactive's] work." His department is "reviewing how this work is done," and has not made a decision to end it entirely. The immediate focus, he told us, will be to complete work toward goals in the 2016-17 Annual Plan, which runs through June 2017. A review of the annual plan, as well as the Product department's Funds Dissemination Committee application for funding, suggests that the remaining work for the present fiscal year may consist of ways to "connect Wikimedia projects" and enable users to "interlink interactive content across projects." He also pointed to successful projects by other teams in the Product division, noting that Discovery plans to improve the successful search suggestion capability.

A Signpost review of the Discovery department's meeting notes from fiscal year 16–17 (see update below) revealed no obvious related goals for Interactive; the justification for the claim that Interactive had missed goals and expectations remains somewhat opaque. One email from a team member added some context, with the following introductory remarks:

Work on Interactive was led by very energetic and talented technical folks for a good chunk of time without a lot structure around the work. Then,

about a quarter ago, the team tried to start with more planning—a roadmap, team roles, checklists for deployment—the usual stuff. It didn't go well.

Moran expressed confidence that volunteer developers involved in the work of the Interactive team would remain engaged, and stated that further information about work in the Discovery department would be forthcoming: "Wikitech-L and team lists will remain the standard for updates about Wikimedia engineering. We will also be adding a FAQ on MediaWiki.org about the pause and changes to help with the communication." Watch the comment thread below for an update. PF

Update: Chris Koerner, community liaison for the Discovery department, emailed us following publication, to point out that we missed important meeting notes in our review. He suggested these two additional collections of notes. Indeed, some of these notes—particularly those from a December 2016 meeting—do appear to inform the questions raised in the discussions covered here. We regret missing these messages, and thank Chris for the update. -PF, Feb. 6, 2017

In December 2016 Peter Gallert wrote an op-ed (Operation successful, patient dead) about the Wikipedia workshops he ran in Namibia. He asserted that while the workshops are fun as events, and may even produce a bunch of good edits, they are not effective tools for recruiting new people who will keep editing after the workshop ends.

I have run dozens of workshops for new editors myself since 2009, and sadly, I have to agree with Mr Gallert: Though there are pleasant exceptions, I rarely see people sticking around as editors after the workshop. Research from 2013 arrived at a similar conclusion. I know some workshop organizers who will beg to differ and say that applying certain techniques will make workshops more predictable and measurably effective; but I think everyone will agree that there is no known recipe for running a workshop that is truly efficient at creating new long-term editors.

There is, however, one way in which new editor workshops and other similar real-life events, such as edit-a-thons, are consistently highly effective: Observing new users of Wikipedia and other projects and learning about the technical and social challenges they face, challenges that are too easy for experienced editors to forget. It is very sobering to watch…

• … people trying to create an account and struggling with CAPTCHAs and other oddities.
• … people searching in Spanish in the English Wikipedia's search box.
• … people clicking on footnotes in Visual Editor to try to edit them.
• … people trying to publish an edit and trying to decipher warnings from AbuseFilter.
• … people creating a pretty OK article, seeing it deleted after a few minutes, and then trying to decipher the notices from administrators.
• … people not seeing notifications about talk page messages at all (and yes, it happened in the days of the big orange bar, too)
• … people trying to copy text by right-clicking and failing (you may be wondering why would people do it by right-clicking instead of using a keyboard shortcut, but it's just unbelievable how often I see this).
• … people having no clue what to write in edit summaries.
• … people clicking the "History" tab expecting to learn stuff about the Napoleonic Wars.
• … people staring blankly at the instructor talking four-tilde signatures and templates.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the years I saw many, many more issues of this kind. Whenever relevant, I reported them as software bugs or started discussions in appropriate talk pages or mailing lists. Some of the bugs were fixed, and it's great; this is, very clearly, a thing for which workshops are useful.

But it does raise a few issues to consider and to remember.

First, it must be thoroughly remembered that it's not these people's fault, and there isn't something they were "supposed" to know. In the vast majority of those instances, they were trying to do rather sensible things, and to do them in good faith. Lack of computer expertise must also not be blamed—people who contribute to wikis are supposed to be good at the subject about which they are writing, more than they are supposed to be IT professionals. Besides, Wikipedia is different in many ways from a lot of other modern websites, and even people who are IT professionals often find it surprising. These problems are caused by mistakes in software design, by software bugs, by sysops fighting perceived vandalism too eagerly, and by other things inside the project. You organized the workshop for these people, so complaining about them is not productive. Neither is saying that learning all these features is a filter that good Wikimedians will be able to come through—this filter is artificial to say the least.

Furthermore, if not watched, such people will probably remain silent and go away. Thanks to my being there, I was able to address their problems immediately, by explaining what to do, or at least by working around them. The point is not to create a chance that they will remain good editors; most likely, as Mr Gallert says, they won't anyway. But at least they saw a human face that explained them the problem, rather than something totally robotic. And in some cases there is a chance that this problem will be fixed, so that it won't happen to other people at all.

And this brings me to the last point, which sums up all of the above: During the workshop, do make quick notes about the problems people report, and pass them on. Don't ever think that when a user complains or is confused by something, your job is done when you explain why the user is wrong. The user isn't wrong. Neither is your job done when you help the user overcome the problem on the spot. The user might complete the edit, and that is nice, but if the user is unlikely to stick around as an editor anyway, no significant impact will be made. If it confused this user, it may confuse thousands of others. Unless, that is, you report it. Reporting will create a chance that it will be fixed, and this will be an actual, undeniable positive outcome from your workshop.

How should you report it? For posting software bug reports, suggestions for changes and new features, and ideas for better design or workflow, Phabricator is usually the best place. When in doubt whether to report a bug or not to report it, do report it. For issues that are more about community, culture or local templates on your wiki, the appropriate talk pages and mailing lists are the right forum.

Should you treat your editing workshops as just user testing in disguise? No, you absolutely shouldn't. I don't. You should keep treating them as editing workshops, and it won't hurt to keep thinking of ways to make them better recruiting tools. But you should start thinking about them not just as opportunities to change people into being Wikimedians, but also as an opportunity to change your own project into one that is easier for good people to join—and this is in your hands.

Chaim Gartenberg of The Verge watched US Inaugural proceedings live in real-time edit-wars and observed that Wikipedia editors can't decide if Trump is the president yet. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales lost his mind on Twitter over "alternative facts", and then engaged with replies. Kastalia Medrano with Inverse asks How Will Wikipedia Navigate the Trump Era? and while discussing "fake news" and editorial bias, notes that, "...Wikipedia editors can't share a bias precisely because of the way the site is structured...". Meanwhile, writer Adrianne Jeffries for The Outline says that The whitehouse.gov reset broke Wikipedia links en masse, and interviews Signpost editor-in-chief Pete Forsyth for his opinion. (January 20-February 2) T

Astronomer Jennifer A. Johnson created a version of the periodic table of elements, mapped to the composition of the human body. The table improves upon a similar one added to Wikipedia in 2014, and present in nine language editions of the site, and many different articles on English Wikipedia. Johnson elaborated on the errors in the Wikipedia version in her own blog post.

The editor who created the now questionable graphic, Cmglee was contacted and replied about the matter. After looking over the new image, Cmglee requested that Jennifer A. Johnson's corrected version be used. Johnson was also asked to release her table for public use, which she now has.

Cmglee's version was well documented and sourced at the time it was uploaded in 2014, incorporating some feedback from the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Cmglee, who used data from Northern Arizona University Meteorite Laboratory and elsewhere, also pointed out that the "incorrect" version was selected as the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day in January of 2016, and noted the "subsequent criticism of its veracity" (in two pages of discussion there about the table). (January 9, January 23) T

A new way to export pages to PDF files has been developed. The current method of creating PDFs uses the Offline content generator (OCG) service. However, it can be quite problematic for many articles, as tables–including infoboxes–are completely omitted.

There have been multiple requests for table support since the OCG was introduced in 2014. The issue was also raised in 2015 as part of that year's Community Wishlist Survey and German community technical wishlist. Since then, the German Wikimedia chapter (WMDE) has been leading the initiative on enhancing tables in PDF. It was discussed at the 2016 Wikimania Hackathon, where a solution was proposed: offer an alternative PDF download that replicates the look of the website, using browser-based rendering instead of the OCG's LaTeX-based rendering.

• 
  The current (OCG) PDF rendering
• 
  Browser-based PDF rendering

The new PDF creator uses the Electron Service to render pages (using the Chromium web browser as a back end). When enabled on a wiki that already uses the OGC service, clicking "Download as PDF" on the side menu will display a choice of which service to use. The Electron Service was enabled by default on Meta and German Wikipedia last week, and is planned to be deployed to more wikis later.

A community consultation is open on MediaWiki.org regarding the future of PDF rendering. It is proposed to retire the OGC by August this year, once "core" OGC features are available with the Electron service. One such feature is the book creator, which collates multiple articles into a single PDF via the Collection extension. However, there are no plans to provide a two-column option, nor any plans to support conversion to plain-text or other file formats. E

Concerns were raised earlier this week on the wikimedia-l mailing list about the "back-up plan" for Wikimedia.

The most well-known backups are the data dumps of MediaWiki content. Operations Engineer Ariel Glenn, who focuses on the dumps, doesn't consider them to be a form of backup though: the dumps only contain public data that is viewable by all, and just run twice a month.

Glenn further explained that the dumps are currently stored on two servers in the Virginia datacenter, and the most recent ones are also on a third server. They are also mirrored by other organizations, placing copies in California, Illinois, Sweden, and Brazil.

Glenn noted that there are no dumps of images currently. Operations Engineer Filippo Giunchedi said, "We're looking at 120 terabytes of original [files] today." Giunchedi added that files are stored in both the Virginia datacenter and one of the Texas datacenters, so there is some redundancy.

The databases themselves have a high level of redundancy according to Database Administrator Jaime Crespo. The servers themselves use RAID10, and there are about 20 active database replicas across the Virginia and Texas datacenters with the same content that can be cloned if one server goes down. For cases of accidental data loss, there is one server that has a delayed replica by 24 hours in each datacenter.

As far as actual backups, Wikimedia uses bacula as its backup software.

"As far as content goes, we do perform weekly database dumps and store them in an encrypted format in order to provide a pretty good guarantee we will avoid data leak issues via the backups," Operations Engineer Alexandros Kosiaris said. "We've had no such issues yet, but better safe than sorry."

The backups are stored in the Virginia and Texas datacenters, and are deleted after about 45–50 days for privacy policy compliance, Kosiaris explained.

As for improvements, Glenn has been looking for new mirrors for the dumps. Crespo noted that work on selecting a location for a new Asia datacenter is in progress, including discussions with legal. L

The popular Twinkle tool (available as a gadget in Special:Preferences) celebrated its tenth birthday on January 21. Originally started as the rollback script "Twinklefluff" by AzaToth, it now automates or simplifies a plethora of common maintenance tasks, including responding to vandalism, tagging articles, welcoming new users, and admin duties. It is likely that over the past decade, millions of edits have been made using Twinkle. Thank you to everyone who has made Twinkle possible, your efforts are very much appreciated! E

By Samwalton9

On January 21, 2017, millions of people worldwide marched and rallied in support of issues including women's rights, abortion, LGBTQ rights, and racial justice as part of the Women's March. Across nearly 700 gatherings—at least one on every continent—people came together peacefully to rally around a cause they felt strongly about. Here on Wikipedia, I witnessed and contributed to a similar process, as nearly 700 new and experienced editors contributed to the English Wikipedia articles about the events, building them up city by city into a great overview (2017 Women's March) and list (List of 2017 Women's March locations). The articles were read by 700,000 people over the week centered on the march and received praise for their comprehensiveness on social media. We're often more interested in reading about the Wikipedia articles that are filled with drama, where editors argue and edit war until blocks and sanctions start getting handed out or the article has to be locked down, but it's worth highlighting the hard work and civil editing that goes into articles like these.

Prior to the day of the event, the article - then titled Women's March on Washington and written primarily by Vikkibaumler, Bjhillis, and GandyDancer - covered the planned event in Washington, its motivations, and expected participation, with only a handful of sentences hinting at the scale of events yet to occur. Over the course of the first day, as the marches took place and media coverage of them grew, users added sections covering the biggest marches, and while the article noted that over 400 marches had occurred, just a few dozen had been written about by the end of the day.

Over the following days, users new and experienced added a huge number of documented marches to the article, with experienced users searching out the largest and most well attended to include, alongside unregistered users and new accounts enthusiastically adding the marches they had personally attended to the list (with a surprisingly high number of citations!) Unregistered users contributed information on their marches from Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, the USA, and many other countries. Outside of Wikipedia, calls were made (such as on Reddit and Twitter) to add images and (reliably sourced) marches to the article. By mid-morning the article contained more than 100 sections and the decision was made to convert the information into a table, a process which took over two hours (thanks to CaroleHenson!). The article listed more than 300 references by the end of the January 22, and more than 600 by the end of the January 23, with the table split out into its own list article shortly thereafter.

scrolling down the women's march wikipedia entry for the crowd numbers in every city in america is soul-warming - @Thefurlinator

@thefurlinator i can't tell if i'm more inspired by the giant hundred-thousand-plus attendance marches or the tiny ones with <10 people - @Morsecough

By January 26, the Wikimedia Commons category for images of the march contained subcategories for more than 59 cities worldwide, along with a category devoted entirely to pussyhats.

• 
  Pussyhats on a plane
• 
  Nairobi, Kenya
• 
  São Carlos, Brazil
• 
  Wellington, New Zealand

Wikipedia has the only real effort at a tally of participation for the nationwide #WomensMarch - @Janeinak

Vandalism remained surprisingly low, with only minor incidents (including the article briefly being titled the Sore Loser March), and minimal need for blocks to be handed out. Page protection was requested but editors agreed that the beneficial contributions of IP editors far outweighed the handful of negative ones, which were easy to revert; 16% of the article edits were ultimately made by editors not logged into a Wikipedia account. No substantial edit wars took place and no major disagreements occurred on the talk page, beyond some back-and-forth about splitting the article.

While this wasn't the only civil, collaborative, and productive article expansion that's ever occurred on Wikipedia, it is a great example of new and old users coming together over a topic they feel passionate about and writing a useful and comprehensive article with minimal drama, something that I think should be highlighted by the community more often. Consider this one big barnstar to everyone involved.

by Bluerasberry

Wikipedians around the world celebrated the site's 16th birthday on 15 January 2017.

For Wikipedia Day New York City, Wikimedia NYC invited Noam Cohen, a journalist well known for covering the Wikipedia beat for The New York Times, to moderate a talk between Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Katherine Maher and Columbia Law School professor and author Tim Wu. Crashing the panel was Vermin Supreme, a perennial candidate for President of the United States; Supreme provided an intriguing counterpoint to the scheduled discussion, as well as wiki-style editing of the agenda and everyone's expectations.

Here are some excerpts from the discussion:

Noam Cohen:

Today marks the 16th birthday of Wikipedia, the lone holdout in the world of big-time Internet projects. Think for a moment about what an oddity Wikipedia is. It does not track its users as is the norm among Internet sites and thus it does not compile a dossier to sell to marketers or to use to create targeted advertisements. Again, nearly unique among information sites, Wikipedia does not have ads to appear next to its articles. Also Wikipedia is not dependent on algorithms in part because it does not have a profit motive to keep its users glued to the site.

…

It's interesting to look back to Wikipedia's early years when Google's algorithm promoted Wikipedia content despite its many inaccuracies. Wikipedia was treated by Google as the gold-standard encyclopedia because it was the only one really online trying. Encyclopædia Britannica's online content was not free to circulate. Google sent users to Wikipedia which helped Wikipedia get more volunteers, which led to more articles, which led to more volunteers, and so on and so on.

…

Wikipedia did not solve the problem of inaccuracy overnight but it committed to finding a solution as a community without the distraction of profits. This again separates Wikipedia from the the other large projects like Google and Facebook who need to find a scalable, algorithmic solution to inaccurate articles.

I just finished writing a book called The Know it Alls which is about tech leaders and their abundant confidence in themselves and their algorithms. They have wreaked so much disruption on our society in the last decade or so—men with names like Marc Andreessen, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg. Their contempt for civic institutions like labor unions, local and federal governments, local businesses, newspapers, universities, as well as for concepts like mutual respect, reasoned discourse, agreed-upon truth has devastated our society in my opinion and brought us to our current precarious situation days before Donald J. Trump.

Wikipedia represents an opposite trend. It is a new civic institution which bolsters community values, promotes collaboration, and works off a shared belief in truth. Our panelists today are going to use Wikipedia as a leaping off point to explore what has become a pressing issue for our democracy. Are we living in a post-truth age? Should we be cool with that? And if not, how can Wikipedia point us in a better direction?

Tim Wu:

I have been thinking about what happened between 2003 and 2017. Right now, we live in a time when the Web—which was once the utopia, the hope for so many people for how human communications could be—has now somehow turned into the dystopia, its opposite. If you wander around randomly on the web it is a vast wasteland of empty listicles, celebrity non-stories, random shit designed to get your attention for a microsecond, and videos that load for no reason that you want. With exceptions—Wikipedia being one of them, some well thought-out blogs being others, also a few of the old hobbyist sites still around - I think that we who believed that the Web would be something better have failed and need to look at ourselves carefully and ask what the hell happened.

…

Google was a fairly idealistic place in the early 2000s and mid 2000s. "Don't be evil" was their motto. They certainly had a taste for money but in their hearts they were do-gooders. They made this massive decision to go the path of advertising-based revenue—to become an attention merchant—thinking that, "We can do this, we'll accept advertising, but it won't corrupt us because we're different! We're better! We're smarter!" All of them did! Google was the leader and then everyone followed, saying "We figured it all out! Everything is going to be free and nobody even watches the ads anyway. Ads don't matter, and they're not going to corrupt us." Now I would have trouble naming a major online platform which has gotten any better within the last couple of years for users as opposed to advertisers. These chickens have certainly come home to roost and I think fake news is the strongest example. They set up a model and got trapped in the click world. Your worth on the web is how many clicks you get. It makes TV ratings look honorable by comparison. A whole world where it is all click driven really lowers our society.

Katherine Maher:

The issue of fake news was on a lot of people's minds and I got invited to an event at Arizona University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism… I was sitting in this room with major publishers and the session was on transparency and the whole conversation was around, "How do we as major publications be more transparent so that people trust us more?" One of the publishers was saying that one of the first things they did in response to fake news once they realized what an issue it was, was publish a blog to explain the way that the newsroom sausage gets made. I think my response to that was, "If you need to explain it then you are not being truly transparent." You are speaking to a bunch of people who are already interested in the way that the Fourth Estate works, you are speaking to insiders and folks like me who end up reading the ombudspeople at The New York Times and Washington Post. Instead and if there is a lesson to learn from what Wikipedia has done—it was a weird moment—I said, "Look, I'm not a publisher but I am here representing the Wikimedia Foundation which supports Wikipedia. I have to tell you guys this is a really bad situation when I am sitting in the same room as The New York Times and you are not trusted and we are. Fifteen years ago no one would have predicted that we were going to be sitting across a boardroom table from each other and Wikipedia is giving advice on how to build public trust. Yet that is exactly what we have been dedicated to doing, for the past fifteen years particularly."

Wikimedians: the thing that I find so phenomenal about this culture and this community is that you are constantly asking who you are in competition with and the answer is always "yourselves to be better." It is always an aspiration toward the truth. It is always an aspiration towards evolving the projects to be the best that they can be. So we're sitting here and having this conversation and the thing that I kept coming away with is that Wikipedia does a couple things really well. There are the three core policies of Wikipedia: verifiability, no original research, reliable sources. … I think the thing that we do not focus enough on is the role of transparency at every level: policies, structural product, and the accountability that this creates to readers and to ourselves. That is the thing that I see missing from a lot of the conversations we're having about fake news, not just with the media institutions themselves, although I think they aspire to it imperfectly, but certainly with the platforms that have become the intermediaries for how we see the world.

Following the 2016 United States presidential election, perennial candidate Vermin Supreme might be described as the most reasonable, traditional, and conventionally electable politician who campaigned. Amazingly in such a heated and hostile election, Supreme progressed through the entire debate season with no criticism from any political party, except versions of his own party from various timelines in parallel universes. On Wikipedia Day 2016, without prior announcement, Supreme took the stage and called for the United States government to transition to a more moderate political system: fascism under his tyrannical rule as president. It was just as well that he came, as Supreme was probably the least controversial candidate with the most transparent political platform. His political positions included advocating for America's scientists to direct their attention to time travel research and spacetime repair, the American health care system to focus on issuing everyone more and much larger toothbrushes to counter the community burden of gingivitis, and for the American military to invest all resources to prepare for the imminent zombie apocalypse. With the presidential inauguration just days later, Supreme's presence was all the more relevant, as he among all presidential candidates had the most opinions and policy statements which were specifically about Wikipedia. As the assembled audience came to realize the weight of the personality speaking to them, Supreme called for free ponies for everyone as part of a plan for the United States to shift toward a pony-based economy.

Supreme, along with campaign manager Rob Potylo, led a Wikipedia sing-along with compulsory participation. Supreme went on to say, "Gingivitis has been eroding the gumline of our great nation for long enough and must be stopped." Potylo cut to the point and asked, "Does anyone know where the buffet table is?" Katherine called for applause for these guests in the wiki spirit of inclusivity. Even "post-truth" and "alternative facts" are welcome in Wikipedia when wiki editors use citations to neutral third-party reliable sources to clearly label such content as a group's own trip, propaganda, advertising, fringe theory, false memory, mental disorder, or lie. This goes for all marketers, political parties, or anyone else feeling a wiki wish to edit their own reality.

In partnership with Vermin Supreme the Wikimedia community is providing ponies for everyone at Commons:Category:Ponies. Anyone who still has not uploaded their photos of Wikipedia Day 2017 events should do so at Commons:Category:Wikipedia 16 by country.