Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2007-05-21
Corporate editing lands in Dutch media
As demonstrated again last week, Wikipedia editions in other languages encounter similar challenges and confront common problems much like the English version. This time the Dutch Wikipedia was apparently the scene of corporate PR staff trying to modify an article in its favor, a discovery that made it into the national media there.
The company involved was Trafigura, a multinational company involved in trading and shipment of petroleum as well as base metals. The parent company is based in the Netherlands. It has connections to controversial commodities trader Marc Rich and was previously implicated in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, although Trafigura denied culpability and blamed another company involved in the deal.
On this occasion the matter involved illegal dumping of toxic waste last year in Côte d'Ivoire. The dumping by the Probo Koala, a ship chartered by Trafigura, led to a February settlement in which the company paid nearly $200 million to the Ivorian government to settle its claims and secure the release of three Trafigura employees being held in connection with the incident. On the Dutch Wikipedia, the Probo Koala has its own article (in English, it currently redirects to the article on the dumping incident) and it was there that the story played out.
The Dutch Probo Koala article had been untouched since January when on 15 May, an account named Press Office T NL began editing it. Based on the editor's statements, the T does in fact stand for Trafigura. The edits to the Probo Koala article tried to tone down the article and emphasize the company's efforts to comply with international regulations in handling the toxic waste.
After some back-and-forth with other contributors turned to reverting, the article was protected a little more than two hours later. The story was then reported in the Volkskrant, a Dutch national daily. Meanwhile, the article has been significantly expanded and is now unprotected again.
Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
Even casual Wikipedia readers are likely aware of the epic battle over the use of spoiler warnings that erupted last week. If one has recently seen {{spoiler}}, which is linked to by thousands of pages, it is known that it carried a message tempting a visit to this request for comment, which is nearly 100,000 words long.
The drama began Tuesday, when Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) proposed the deletion of the entire page formerly known as Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. It had previously been considered to be part of the Manual of Style, and accordingly was labelled a guideline. His main point of argument pointed to the lead section of articles, which are supposed to provide stand-alone summaries of the remaining content. The example he gave was The Crying Game, where the guideline makes writing a summarizing lead section impossible. The spoiler guideline at the beginning of May recommended that "editors avoid placing spoilers in edit summaries or section headers", with a similar recommendation for the lead section. Meanwhile, his deletion request, made as miscellany for deletion, quickly drew participants, the majority of whom agreed with Sandifer. Several editors cited a common argument, "Wikipedia is not censored", in their push to have spoiler warnings removed. Kusma advocated for deletion alongside Sandifer, mentioning that the German Wikipedia does not use such warnings because proper encyclopedias do not either.
Simultaneously, discussion was underway for the deletion of {{spoiler}}, but it was quickly realized that debate over the existence of the policy page itself should precede it. Discussions for the template was terminated, with a note left by Tony Sidaway stating so. All discussion was eventually consolidated to one page, a request for comment. Early on, several editors made it clear that they wanted the policy changed to allow leads to provide complete summaries of both fiction and non-fiction. Wednesday, DESiegel provided eight suggestions for change. He argued in favour of the inclusion of all plot elements in lead sections. In an effort to reduce the thousands of articles that are currently tagged, he recommended the exclusion of warnings from "widely known works such as the Bible, the plays of Shakespeare". Tony Sidaway agreed, pointing out that Wikipedia's content disclaimer already warns of the revelation of plot elements. Several editors counterargued, claiming that the majority of readers reach articles through Google and other searches, and are therefore unlikely to even come across the content disclaimer. Lexicon argued for their removal because the definition of a spoiler itself is subjective, and such warnings may prohibit readers from reading content that may not have hampered their enjoyment of the works at all.
Phil Sandifer tried to get the discussion back on track late Thursday, outlining the remaining issues. He stood by his initial position, stating that writing articles was very difficult because content outside of demarcated spoiler zones had to remain neutral, but could not do so if certain story elements were off-limits. In another section, Sandifer began to question the age of works, that is, the length of time since their release and the effective that time has on the inclusion of warnings. Cop 633 stepped in with his views, making a firm statement that the age of fiction should not have an effect on the presence of spoiler warnings.
Discussion continued Thursday, nearly around the clock. By early Friday, it seemed the arguments for the removal of spoiler warnings outnumbered those against. An unusually high number of comments to the discussion were made anonymously, most by an editor who wanted spoilers to remain. The user, 87.189.124.195, was later blocked for twenty-four hours because of repetitive replacement of a spoiler warning on Sleeping Beauty. In any event, by late Friday, dialogue on the RfC had virtually stalled; many arguments and counterpoints were being continually repeated. Uncle G then threw the ball far in the direction of deletion, addressing the issue of spoiler warnings in other encyclopedias. He used Science Fiction: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia as an example; an encyclopedia which includes pieces on various works of science fiction, revealing many plot elements with no forewarning. Several editors promptly agreed, thanking him for adding significantly to the discussion. Kizor, however, cited Uncle G's arguments in a couple of his own for the defense of spoiler tags, insisting that Wikipedia is unlike any paper encyclopedia and should be looked at in a different light.
The continuing conference temporarily lightened early Friday, but showed no signs of halting. Edison repeated the argument that Wikipedia is always a frontrunner in internet searches, and readers/movie-goers are certainly to be disappointed if they encounter something crucial to the plot in the opening sentences of an article. Most in opposition to him stood by their core arguments, quoting the content disclaimer and remarking that such users should be disregarded because Wikipedia has no obligation to their disappointment.
Wow. I just copied and pasted this whole discussion onto a Word document. It was 114 pages long. This is really ridiculous.
Earlier discussion from the Shakespeare play Hamlet that concluded Friday regarding the matter was also transcluded to the RfC, on the basis that it not be modified. Later, Farix initiated three straw polls in an effort to determine where users stand on the issue. In the first poll, which noted the use of spoiler warnings in classical and historical works, ten supported the use, while twenty-two opposed. The second poll, which concerned warnings in fairy tales, was much more one-sided. Only four of twenty-seven voters wanted spoilers in such articles, and three of the four thought it should be decided article-by-article. The final poll, which asked Should spoiler warnings be placed in sections titled "Plot", "Plot summary", "Synopses", or any variation thereof?, thirteen supported spoilers while twenty opposed. As of press time, votes were still being added to all three polls. However, as a preliminary result of the polls and their subsequent discussion, Wikipedia:Spoiler is currently marked as a "proposed policy, guideline, or process." Initially, it appears the use of warnings will be significantly reduced. Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates has also been slightly modified, no longer freely allowing spoilers as an exception to the guideline.
PaddyLeahy was concerned Saturday about the "premature removal of spoiler warnings", since the guideline was still changing. Farix comically suggested the whole situation be added to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, a page on which conflicts which have little substance and end-value are listed. Later Saturday, a proposal by ARC Gritt for hierarchical spoiler templates was quickly shot down. Ed chipped in late Sunday with his reasoning as to why spoilers should be kept. Kizor and Sidaway, among others, responded with counterarguments that had been seen earlier in the week. Another straw poll, slightly less serious than the previous three, was then initiated by Kizor asking, "Are spoiler warnings condescending or insulting to readers?" Only nine users voted, with six saying 'no'.
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"
WikiWorld is a weekly comic, carried by the Signpost, that highlights a few of the fascinating but little-known articles in the vast Wikipedia archives. The text for each comic is excerpted from one or more existing Wikipedia articles. WikiWorld offers visual interpretations on a wide range of topics: offbeat cultural references and personality profiles, obscure moments in history and unlikely slices of everyday life - as well as "mainstream" subjects with humorous potential. The comic can now be found on cartoon site Humorous Maximus.
Cartoonist Greg Williams developed the WikiWorld project in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation, and is releasing the comics under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
News and notes
LGBT WikiProject featured in US magazine
The LGBT studies WikiProject was featured in US magazine The Advocate, a magazine with 165,000 subscribers. The article quotes project coordinator Dev920, and misattributes a quote made by Gmaxwell to Raul654 ("All new media are first explored by the minorities and the marginalized.")
Briefly
- The Catalan government supports a marathon in the Catalan Wikipedia for reaching 100,000 articles in the Catalan language.
- The Italian Wikipedia has reached 300,000 articles.
- The Volapük Wikipedia has reached 5,000 articles.
- The German Wikipedia has reached 400,000 registered users.
- The Vietnamese Wiktionary has reached 600,000 edits.
- The Indonesian Wikipedia has reached 40,000 registered users.
- The Min Nan Wiktionary has reached 20,000 edits.
- The Cantonese Wikipedia has reached 15,000 total pages.
- The Welsh Wikipedia has reached 9,000 articles.
- The Catalan Wikipedia has reached 60,000 articles.
- The Spanish Wikipedia has reached 400,000 registered users.
- The Lombard Wikipedia has passed 50,000 articles.
- The Vietnamese Wikipedia has reached 600,000 edits.
- The Serbian Wikipedia has reached 1,000,000 edits.
- The Italian Wikiquote has reached 100,000 edits.
- The Cantonese Wikipedia has reached 2,000 users.
- The Divehi Wiktionary has reached 500 pages.
- The Min Nan Wiktionary has reached 7,000 pages.
Features and admins
Administrators
20 users were granted admin status via the Requests for Adminship process this week: Seattle Skier (nom), AQu01rius (nom), After Midnight (nom), Ikiroid (nom), Dweller (nom), Khukri (nom), LessHeard vanU (nom), BrendelSignature (nom), C.Fred (nom), Anas Salloum (nom), Masamage (nom), MaxSem (nom), Carioca (nom), Audacity (nom), Alvestrand (nom), Lucasbfr (nom), Arctic.gnome (nom), Nihiltres (nom), Yonatan (nom) and Akradecki (nom). Cecropia also became the latest bureaucrat.
Bots
4 bots were approved to begin operating this week: HBC NameWatcherBot (task request), EdBot (task request), Android Mouse Bot 3 (task request) and AccReqBot (task request). Approval for EdBot (task request) was later revoked due to 20 bad edits.
Featured content
6 articles were promoted to featured status last week: Jurassic Park (film) (nom), Jihad (song) (nom), System Shock (nom), Iridion 3D (nom), Princess Alice of Battenberg (nom) and Taiwanese aborigines (nom).
6 articles were de-featured last week: Duran Duran (nom), Uma Thurman (nom), Lindsay Lohan (nom), The Brothers Karamazov (nom), 1993 Russian constitutional crisis (nom) and Columbine High School massacre (nom).
4 lists were promoted to featured status last week: List of WWE Intercontinental Champions (nom), List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition (nom), List of ice hockey teams in Saskatchewan (nom) and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks (nom).
No sounds, topics or portals were promoted to featured status last week.
The following featured articles were displayed last week on the Main Page as Today's featured article: Japan, Gilberto Silva, 35 mm film, Ohio Wesleyan University, Parliament Acts, Uncle Tom's Cabin and Mayan languages.
The following featured pictures were displayed last week on the Main Page as picture of the day: Melangyna viridiceps, Blessed milk thistle, Alcatraz Island, Cyrtophora, Aerogel, Five-inch 54-caliber MK45 gun and Grasshopper.
4 pictures were promoted to featured status last week:
_background_blurred.jpg)
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Arbitration Committee opened two cases this week, and closed no cases. The committee is also voting on whether to lift Dmcdevit's ban on Koavf (talk · contribs) without a full hearing. Currently, voting stands at 4/0/0/1, but some editors have expressed concerns over whether it is appropriate to deal with the case by summary motion.
New cases
- PalestineRemembered: A case involving the actions of PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs), referred from the Community sanction noticeboard.
- Miskin: A case involving the actions of Miskin (talk · contribs), who was controversially blocked by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for a month for revert warring.
Evidence phase
- Abu badali: A case alleging that Abu badali (talk · contribs) has disruptively tagged non-free images for deletion, even when a valid fair-use justification exists, and has harassed editors who have complained about this behavior.
- Henrygb: A case filed by David Gerard alleging that administrator Henrygb (talk · contribs) has used sockpuppets disruptively.
- NYScholar: A case involving the actions of a number of users, including NYScholar (talk · contribs) and Notmyrealname (talk · contribs), in relation to the Lewis Libby article.
- Hkelkar 2: A case involving the actions of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs), Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs) and Sbhushan (talk · contribs), Rama's Arrow alleges that the others acted as meatpuppets of banned user Hkelkar, and blocked them for six months. They deny the allegations, and allege that Rama's Arrow acted improperly in blocking them, and in posting private e-mails to the incidents noticeboard.
- Piotrus: A case involving administrator Piotrus (talk · contribs) and other editors on Eastern Europe related articles. Multiple parties accuse others of edit warring, incivility, unethical behavior and biased editing. (An earlier arbitration case, Piotrus-Ghirla, was dismissed without prejudice in part due to inactivity of Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs), who was listed a party in the new case.)
- TingMing: A case involving the actions of TingMing (talk · contribs). Ideogram (talk · contribs) alleges that he has engaged in "controversial edits", edit warring, incivility, and possibly sockpuppetry. TinMing denies the allegations, and alleges incivility on the part of Ideogram.
- Paranormal: A case involving the actions of various users, especially as regards bias and attribution, on "articles on paranormal and pseudoscientific topics", such as parapsychology and Electronic voice phenomenon.
- E104421-Tajik: A case involving the actions of E104421 and Tajik. The case was opened, but a motion to suspend the case pending a referral to Community enforceable mediation was passed.
Voting phase
- Transnistria: A case involving the actions of MariusM (talk · contribs) and William Mauco (talk · contribs) on Transnistria-related articles. MariusM alleges that Mauco (who has not made a statement because he is blocked) has engaged in sockpuppetry, edit warring and other misconduct. Fred Bauder has proposed remedies, with the support of SimonP, banning MarkStreet (talk · contribs), William Mauco (talk · contribs), MariusM (talk · contribs) and EvilAlex (talk · contribs) indefinitely from any editing related to Transnistria.
- Zeq-Zero0000: A case involving the actions of Zeq (talk · contribs) and Zero0000 (talk · contribs). Zero alleges that Zeq has engaged in POV-pushing, while Zeq alleges that Zero has misused administrative tools in blocking him, the case in particular involving the question of whether probations, article bans, etc. can be enforced by involved admins. The arbitrators have considered several different versions of a principle covering to what degree involved administrators may enforce probation; none yet has majority support. A majority (between eight and ten) of the arbitrators have voted to advise Zero0000 not to take further administrative actions against Zeq, including enforcement of probation, and to admonish Zero0000 that editors who are not restricted in their editing of a page or area are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy. Arbitrator Fred Bauder proposed banning Zeq from editing articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but no other arbitrator has voted in support, and four have opposed.
Motion to close
- Tobias Conradi: A case involving the actions of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) who, while acknowledged as a productive contributor, has been called incivil on various occasions. If closed, he would be placed on civility parole and revert parole.