External videos
North Platte’s Wikipedia page displays dark history, 3:21, KNOP-TV, October 4, 2021

Mayor Brandon Kelliher of North Platte, Nebraska thinks that the town of about 24,000 residents needs to improve the town's image on the internet. He even campaigned on the issue in the election. He may be right. Looking at the Wikipedia article for the town, he saw a 1929 lynching as the main event highlighted in the town's history along with the expulsion of Black residents which immediately followed. Local museum curator, Jim Griffin, confirms the accuracy of the history on Wikipedia but wants to balance information on the lynching. The news anchor concludes that city officials are "working to find a solution that adds a more positive spin to North Platte's history on the page".

Wikipedia editors should be quick to let the North Platters know that we just report the facts, as gathered from reliable sources weighing the coverage according to the weights given in those sources.

Wikipedians should write more, not less, about lynchings. Several thousand people were lynched in the U.S. There are over 800 counties where well documented lynchings occurred, most have articles which omit any information about the lynchings. Compare the extensive well-written history of Leonardtown, Maryland with this recent article in The Washington Post. Many people could benefit from access to information on lynching. Black people would like to know their history better, and to know that the world has not forgotten their struggle. White people who still wonder "What's the big deal about Black lives matter?" or "Why ruin a football game by kneeling during the National Anthem?" could also benefit. Knowing the truth can set us all free.

It turns out that North Platte already had some balancing information on Wikipedia. The article North Platte black exodus was balanced by North Platte Canteen, which is about providing a rest stop for soldiers and sailors during and shortly after World War II, 1941–1946. Neither article was well integrated into the article on the town. Both are showing their age and need to be updated.

External videos
Platte Canteen, 7:00, Jay Lorenzen, August 26, 2007.
Bob Greene on History Bookshelf Once Upon a Town, 3:55-49:47, C-SPAN, June 24, 2002

We may still have some balancing left to do. Twelve years after the lynching a remarkable event occurred – spread out over five years, running from early morning to late at night – which completely changed my view of the town. The women of North Platte and the surrounding small towns voluntarily served over 6 million U.S. military personnel during 10–15 minute train maintenance stops. Most of the soldiers and sailors were coming from boot camp and being deployed in combat. Perhaps they hadn't seen a friendly civilian face since entering boot camp.

The Nebraska women were not paid for their work or for the food supplies. They had to contend with wartime rationing of food and gasoline. They served up to 30 trains each day and gave away 30 birthday cakes each day. The canteen was well documented in local newspapers, wartime films and postcards, as well as a 2002 book Once upon a Town by Chicago journalist Bob Greene. The 288 pages show that Greene considered the North Platte Canteen to be America at its absolute best.

There's one postcard photo taken of the canteen that I'd like to show you but can't include here for copyright reasons: PFC Clifton Hall receives a birthday cake from Mrs. Lyda Swenson. Private Hall, a Black man, looks a bit surprised but otherwise shows little emotion. Mrs. Swenson's expression is odd, but inscrutable. The mystery is solved when you look at the expressions of the seven women who surround them. Their smiles are all beaming.

There's no way that I can reconcile these two events – the lynching and the canteen – happening in the same small town 12 years apart. Truth, or at least the history told in reliable sources, may be stranger than fiction, or the stories told in fringe sources. But if we can document those two seemingly irreconcilable events, we can include them both.

Read more about the North Platte Canteen at Matthew Spencer's article for Nebraska Life magazine, published nine years ago.

Toby Negrin, the head of WMF's product department, posted a letter of resignation on 12 October. The function of the department is to "build, improve and maintain the features of Wikimedia sites". This departure leaves the WMF with less than half of the C-team that was previously around: the positions of the heads of the Technology, Communications, and Operations departments are all still vacant, as is the CEO. – Y, B

Wikimedia Enterprise, the commercial data service launched by the WMF, officially opened for business on October 25. With three different API services offered starting at $25,000/year, the product is designed for corporations who depend on Wikimedia data such as Google posting knowledge boxes on their search page. It is designed to minimize or eliminate any backflow effects on Wikipedia content or the Foundation. The WMF has capped commercial revenue at 30% of overall revenue. Previous coverage in The Signpost resulted in some skeptical comments from Wikipedians. – G

In last month's News and notes, we covered the RfA 2021 review in "Another look at requests for adminship". The review has progressed into a brainstorming phase to address these issues, and possibly a handful of others:

• Corrosive RfA atmosphere
• Level of scrutiny
• Standards needed to pass keep rising
• Too few candidates
• "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
• RfA should not be the only road to adminship

There is no fixed deadline, but it may have wrapped up by the time The Signpost is published. We will cover more details at this month's Discussion report. – B

3–5% of editors using Apple's Safari browser may be blocked in the next few months. This includes logged-in, active editors who may not understand why they've encountered a block. This is because of iCloud Private Relay, a new service in Safari, which is similar to a proxy or a VPN. There is a discussion about this on Meta. The goal is to learn what iCloud Private Relay could mean for the communities. – Tech News weekly editors, selected by B

• CEO's listening tour begins: Presentations by Maryana Iskander, the incoming Wikimedia Foundation Chief Executive Officer, are viewable at Maryana's Listening Tour on meta and a presentation at WikiConference North America (Red Stage video) – there have also been presentations at WikiCon 2021, WikiArabia, and Wikidata Con.
• Maggie Dennis, VP of Community Resilience and Sustainability answers questions on Chinese bans and other topics 1:02:10. The main surprise is that the big picture and so many details can fit into one hour.
• Beijing strikes again: China vetoed WMF's accreditation to World Intellectual Property Organization again, citing the same "one China" issues as the last time.
• The Farsi Wikipedia banned IP editing for six months starting on 22 October, joining the Portuguese Wikipedia in the IP-free experiment. The Spanish Wikipedia will likely start its IP-free experiment as the other two experiments are concluded.
• The Wayback Machine shows us the way forward: their nightmare vision is a dystopian future filled with censorship and "copyrighted facts".
• New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of this week's newest Wikimedia movement affiliate, Wikimedia Small Projects in Spanish on 23 September. The group is a development from SmallProjects grant which was approved 13 August this year.
• No new administrators: There were no successful requests for adminship in October. The total number of successful candidacies during 2021 stands at seven.
• Take the lead: The lead section-writing contest of English Wikipedia has come back after five long years.
• Fundraising banners: Annual fundraising banners will be displayed on English Wikipedia beginning 30 November. The community has been invited to make suggestions.

Ninety-year-old William Shatner, aka Captain Kirk, took a 10-minute suborbital joyride on Blue Origin's New Shepard flight 18 to the edge of space on October 13, compliments of an enterprising young man named Jeff Bezos. Kirk reportedly took the shuttlecraft because the transporter beam was out of order.

Two paying passengers, Chris Boshuizen, cofounder of Planet Labs, and Glen de Vries, cofounder of Medidata Solutions, went along for the ride. According to CBS, neither paying passenger "has an entry in Wikipedia and both seem content to keep personal details personal". What's this? Klingons attempting a double reverse Streisand? The Klingons deny the accusation.

Blue Origin Vice President Audrey Powers was also on the flight. But she had to wait three days before she got an article. "Beam me up, Scotty", a misquote purportedly from Captain Kirk, has had an article for 16 years, as well as a disambiguation page. "It's borderline on the simulator, captain. I cannae guarantee that she'll hold up!". We can only wonder how it all ends. – S

Noam Cohen, a longtime reporter on all things Wikipedia, has a new article: "VIPs expect special treatment. At Wikipedia, don't even ask." Appearing in The Washington Post, the article shows how big shots are sometimes treated on Wikipedia. Just to drop a few names: John C. Eastman, Jimmy Wales, Mark Dice, Richard Dawkins, Amy Fisher, Andrew Yang (allegedly), the United States Congress, the Vatican, and the Gupta family of South Africa. Keep up the good work, folks!

Cohen does note a few BLP mix-ups or other failings: Edward Kosner, articles that include the real names of porn stars, deadnaming, and the subject of this month's opinion article.

Cohen concludes "But with the big platforms choosing to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted ... there is one corner of the Internet that turns a skeptical eye toward everyone, even VIPs." Another example of modern mainstream journalism treating Wikipedia as "the good cop" of the internet, as previously described in this book chapter from Wikipedia@20.

Angela Merkel will soon give up her job as chancellor of Germany which she has held for 16 years. AFP and The Statesman find power in the Merkel rhombus, aka Merkel-Raute in German. They note "It has its own Wikipedia page and its own emoticon." "<>" – S

Reflecting cultural biases, German Wikipedia described homeopathy as simply eine alternativmedizinische Behandlungsmethode, "a form of alternative medical treatment", but English Wikipedia says it is "pseudoscience" (The Local, Germany's long-standing love affair with homeopathy [in English]). Maybe someone read the article – German Wikipedia was edited to add "pseudoscience" to the lede on 14 October.

To be fair, we note that distinguishing science from pseudoscience, the demarcation problem, is an application of epistemology and that – according to Wikipedia – the appearance of the word epistemology in English was predated by the German term Wissenschaftslehre (literally, theory of science), which was introduced by philosophers Johann Fichte (German) and Bernard Bolzano (Bohemian) in the late 18th century. – B

A stylish, well-written, new podcast dot com dedicates its first six episodes to Wikipedia.

• First episode – "Don't Bite The Newbies" (48:00) surveys the Wikipedia community, somehow leaving out the newbies, but does manage to have interesting discussions with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Giraffedata and his brother, laodah, Another Believer and Sandiooses, married couple LoriLee and Dominic, GorillaWarfare and Sandister. Others, including Larry Sanger and Rosiestep, are mentioned or make brief appearances.
• Second episode – "Hello World" (43:24) – Covering the beginnings of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales is featured and all is well until the show moves on to Larry Sanger, the "co-founder" of Wikipedia. Larry was unavailable for awhile, but Dominic, who went to college with Larry, says some very interesting things. Larry was eventually contacted and says that he "got the idea on January second" 2001 for a Wiki-encyclopedia. Wales later replied that he thought of a Wiki-encyclopedia the previous December. It gets a bit complicated and "juicy" from there. Larry will be back in a future episode.

The series runs for another four weeks. A different series on another web project will be coming in January.

• WMF fought the law, and the law won: Appeals Court Says State Secrets Privilege Means NSA Can Avoid Wikimedia Foundation’s Unlawful Surveillance Allegations Given the U.S. government's Cold War attitude we can now only respond with music.
• For better or worse: the Dallas Morning News tells us "Why Facebook makes us worse but Wikipedia makes us better". The Facebook part is the same old stuff: long and disgusting. The Wikipedia part is short and sweet.
• "Credible sources such as Wikipedia root out election disinformation" (Business Day). According to Bobby Shabangu, of Wikimedia South Africa, Wikipedia is needed to help sort out disinformation in South African elections.
• Wikipedia is so politicized and dishonest it's no longer worth reading: if you believe Tucker Carlson (Fox News).
• Annie Rauwerda, the queen of the Wikipedia rabbit hole: Interviewed by Mashable. Rauwerda started Wikiracing during middle-school. In April 2020 she started a project to entertain a few friends by posting odd Wikipedia articles on her Instagram account @depthsofwikipedia. After a few months her followers were growing by up to 5% per week. She now has about 370,000 followers on Instagram, 90,000 on TikTok, and some more at another Instagram account @depthsofcraigslist.

• But I don't like spam!: Google Doesn't Use The Wikipedia WikiProject Spam Reports For Search Spam (Search Engine Roundtable). Refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports.
• Meet the man who wrote 2,200 Wikipedia articles: The Star (Malaysia) featured Dody Ismoyo. He began editing as an undergraduate in Malaysia, continued editing as a master's student in Australia. As of early October he created over 2,200 Wikipedia articles, uploaded over 2,400 photos to Commons and made more than 200,000 edits in 11 years of editing and is the 180th most active English-language Wikipedian.
• He reads Wikipedia every night, and is only the #3 earner on Jeopardy: [1] (Voice of America News). The question is "Who is Matt Amodio?" He won 38 consecutive appearances on Jeopardy, number 2 of all-time, earning $1,417,401, number 3 following James Holzhauer and Ken Jennings. If you missed seeing him this year, just wait for the Tournament of Champions.
• Even registered Wikipedians embody the banality of evil: [2] Policy Options/Options Politiques, Institute for Research on Public Policy
• Radio New Zealand reported on a 24-hour editathon to highlight women in science and engineering on Ada Lovelace Day
• New AI goes a little Frankenstein: The Megatron-Turing Natural Language Generation model – an NVidia/Microsoft project trained on Wikipedia and other sources called The Pile, plus Common Crawl's web snapshot – eclipsed GPT-3 [3] (Singularity Hub). ZDNet says the model "suffers from bias" in a piece mentioning AIs behaving like Nazis.
• Spoiler alert: Wikipedia contains spoilers: Sorry to break the news to you, Yahoo! Lifestyle, but Home and Away spoilers are a regular day at the office here.
• Adopted, but not enough for Wikipedia: The city of Waltham, Massachusetts has "adopted" a Red Sox player from Ohio, whose name has intermittently appeared in the city's Wikipedia entry (WCVB, Boston and NBC Sports).
• Support for African languages: According to South African Independent Online, WikiAfrican Foundation will sponsor "AfroCuration events" for native speakers of isiZulu, Sesotho, Tshivenda, and Afrikaans. The article notes that no African language's Wikipedia edition has yet broken the 100,000 article mark.[4] More information can be found at meta:AfroCuration campaign.
• I remember long ago another starry night like this ... but what year was it?: According to OutInPerth, ABBA band member Bjorn Ulvaeus had to look up the band's history on Wikipedia to recall when they first recorded "Just a Notion", a song that will appear for the first time on their album Voyager that came out a few days ago. (The answer was 1978.)[5]
• Squidly: The Wolfram Research blog confirmed what we already knew from our own Top25 report: a lot of people came to Wikipedia to read about Squid Game. It held the #1 spot here for four weeks runnning.
• Little plot of horrors: BuzzFeed asks "What's A Horror Movie Plot So Messed Up, You Wish You Never Even Read Its Wikipedia Page?"
• California: love it or leave it, but check Wikipedia first: Inc. recommends company executives in California read List of U.S. state budgets before deciding whether to freeze (in place) fight (budget policies), or flee (the state).
• Swarming a truthy solution: Daniel Nagy says in a Bitcoinist interview that his Ethereum storage layer, Swarm, may support a proliferation of forks to avoid the "one official truth" problem of Wikipedia, and other projects like OpenStreetMap and Project Gutenberg. The author says it is an "impossible dilemma"; given there are over 8,000 pages at Category:Wikipedia pages under discretionary sanctions (that's about 0.125% of all articles here) we wonder why he's got so much trouble with the "one official truth".
• Wikivoyage not indexed by search engines? Blogger gaganpreet documents their observation that queries in the search engines DuckDuckGo, Yahoo and Bing omit links to Wikivoyage. This blogger speculates that Bing has blacklisted Wikivoyage for some reason, and consequently those other two sites have copied that Microsoft site.

Editors are brainstorming and proposing changes to the Requests for adminship (RFA), following discussions in which editors found issues with large parts of the process (see the September issue's Discussion report). The participants have identified eight key issues to tackle and have brainstormed ways to tackle them that are varied both in scope and substance. Editors can propose solutions until November 7, 2021 at the 2021 Requests for adminship proposals page.

Eight key problems with RfA were identified during Phase 1 of the RfA review process, which concluded on September 29. According to the main page of the 2021 RfA review. These problems were:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
2. Level of scrutiny Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
3. Standards needed to pass keep rising It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
4. Too few candidates There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk-averse and high-stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

According to Wugapodes and Primefac, who created the closing summary that identified which problems enjoyed community consensus, the identification of issues 1–5 as problems enjoyed "clear consensus", while the identification of issues 6–8 as problems enjoyed "rough consensus". The two administrators noted that there were two additional concerns identified that "have a numerical rough consensus but have very low participation relative to other issues", choosing to classify them as having achieved "no consensus." These were:

1. The RfA process is biased against long-term editors The problem is that mud sticks. It is much harder for a veteran contributor to become an admin, compared to a fresh editor with one or two years of history, since usually the latter has a much more pristine record than the former.
2. Expecting the unexpected The only known thing about RFAs is that they are rather unpredictable. It isn't clear for a given candidate what is on and off the table regarding their edit history. The things that have the potential to sink an RFA can almost never be guessed beforehand.

Editors floated a number of ideas to solve the community-identified problems with RfA via the review's brainstorming page. Of particular note, editors who have proposed creating an alternate admin-making process to RfA were given a contingent green light by Wikimedia Foundation's legal department (WMF legal) to explore their options. Barkeep49, citing permission from Jrogers (WMF) posted an email communication from WMF legal that identified the Foundation's current stance:

I discussed this internally, and we are comfortable with the community exploring alternative methods to RFA. The key point, per our previous commentary on the issue is to ensure that the process is one that can make sure that the selected candidates are overall trustworthy and responsible. We would want to try and ensure that people who have access to deleted content don't either accidentally or purposely leak it. At this point, given the concerns the community has raised with the existing RfA process, we would be open to reviewing other processes that might achieve the same overall goal.
— Jacob Rogers, Senior Legal Manager

Various methods for alternate processes to RfA were suggested along these lines. Barkeep49 described an idea to create a community-elected "Adminstrator Appointment Board" that, after a discussion period, would vote to decide on whether an individual should be given adminship; some editors—both in support and in opposition to the idea—pointed to the failed 2014 proposal for the Administrative Standards Commission as a baseline to evaluate against. Another alternate method to become an administrator was offered by WereSpielChequers: non-administrators that do sufficiently well (>65% support) in the Arbitration Committee elections could by default become admins. Others, such as Yair rand submitted an idea for RfA to be composed of two phases—the first to "establish an outline of the candidate's characteristics, qualities and qualifications, experience and expertise" and the second to determine "whether or not a person with this profile should be made an administrator, determined by !vote with normal bureaucrat closing ranges". Worm That Turned advanced a separate idea for a two-phase RfA during which the first phase would be a moderated discussion on the candidate's aptitude for adminship and the second phase would be an anonymous vote.

Along another vein, there were several ideas on altering how adminship can be revoked. Chetsford advocated having a probationary period for new administrators during which they could be subject to binding recall by the community. Extraordinary Writ proposed a "PROD-style adminship" process where potential administrators only answer three standard questions and become administrators by default unless a certain number of editors objected to their adminship; the idea would not prohibit individuals who fail the PROD-style adminship process to undergo RfA.

A full list of the brainstormed ideas is available at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming.

Since October 24, editors have been able to formally add their proposals to a list for community evaluation, with a November 7 deadline to submit proposals. The community evaluation process begins on October 31 and will last until November 30, according to the 2021 RfA review hub page. Following the end of community evaluation period, the proposals will be evaluated for consensus, and those measures that achieve consensus will be implemented. "[H]opefully," the 2021 RfA review hub page says, implementation will "be fast and not require any further phases."

A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.

A field experiment^[1] involving 57,084 newly created user accounts on French Wikipedia examined the effect of pre-formulated welcome messages (example), finding no statistically significant effect on retention (i.e. whether the user made an edit within one week) or time spent contributing (estimated based on edit time stamps). The researchers also compared two variants of the welcome message with and without a "human mentorship" offer (i.e. a "contact me" phrase), likewise with no significant differences between the two. The study was carefully pre-registered [6] (a practice that has been gaining popularity in various research fields amidst the replication crisis but is still not common among the publications we are usually covering here).

The authors note that their findings are "consistent with field experiments on other language Wikipedia communities ... however, [they] are in contrast to previous work that observed a positive effect of sending an invitation to the newcomer forum (the "Teahouse") on new editor retention in English Wikipedia [cf. our previous review ]. The divergent findings could have multiple explanations. First, the Teahouse study used a slightly different intervention. [...But ] The Teahouse study might also have been a false positive" because of a statistical problem involving multiple comparisons.

In an accompanying blog post, the authors note that "at the Wikimedia Foundation, the Growth Team has been re-thinking the new editor experience through designs like the Newcomer homepage." This work has likewise involved randomized experiments to "learn more about what types of content is effective in driving activation and retention rates". While the full results on the effects of providing newcomers with an initial version of that homepage have not been published yet, it has been informally reported that it did not indicate increased retention, consistent with the French Wikipedia experiment. However, the WMF Growth team subsequently found that adding "newcomer tasks" to the Newcomer homepage increased both retention and the number of edits made during the first week.

The French Wikipedia study was done by Cornell University's "Citizens and Tech" lab (originally founded as CivilServant), which has been doing various other studies on Wikimedia projects, including a related one about the "thanks" feature (see our previous review: "Receiving thanks increases retention of new editors, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia"). On Twitter, the lab's founder J. Nathan Matias connected the study to current debates on "how to govern big tech", arguing that

"This kind of study is part of the answer:

• open, transparent research designed with/for the public
• platform-independent
• public-interest problem-solving rather than PR / profit"

• See the page of the monthly Wikimedia Research Showcase for videos and slides of past presentations.

Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. Contributions, whether reviewing or summarizing newly published research, are always welcome.

From the abstract and paper:^[2]

"we propose the task of table-guided abstractive biography summarization, which utilizes factual tables [i.e. infoboxes in biographical Wikipedia articles] to capture important information and then generate a summary of a biography. We first introduce the TaGS (Table-Guided Summarization) dataset , the first large-scale biography summarization dataset with tables. Next, we report some statistics about this dataset to validate the quality of the dataset. We also benchmark several commonly used summarization methods on TaGS and hope this will inspire more exciting methods. [...] In the real-world application which provided automatic biography summarization service, we will employ human editors to double-check the generated summary to ensure the correctness of content and grammar before publish[ing] the summary."

The paper contains no examples of the generated summaries, and the code and corpus that it describes are not publicly available. However, the authors (five Beijing-based researchers) indicate that they might make the latter accessible upon request to researchers who agree to a copyright statement claiming that "The dataset is only for research purposes. Without permission, it may not be used for any commercial purposes and distributed to others."

From the abstract:^[3]

"This research measures the participation of Asian countries in [the sharing economy] through their contributions to a global sharing economy platform-Wikipedia. This study uses language as a proxy for each country, which allows for a macro-scale comparison of factors related to participation in sharing economy. The study finds that in addition to expected factors related to the global digital divide and the country's development level, other factors such as country's size, dominant language, and cultural factors also play a significant role. Lower development levels, multi-ethnic (multi-language) and smaller populations can be a severe impediment to the development of the sharing economy. Government policy (China) or unique Internet structure (South Korea) can create significant outliers. Contributing to the sharing economy is also more common in countries located near the self-expression and rational-secular ends of the Inglehart-Welzel model, and the uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation dimensions of the Hofstede model."

(see also presentation slides)

From the abstract:^[4]

"... we expanded upon the known collaborative mechanisms on the English Wikipedia and demonstrated that the collaboration model is best captured through the interplay of these mechanisms. We annotated talk page conversations for types of power plays or vies for control over edits that are made to articles, to understand how policy and power play mechanisms in editors' discussions account for behavior in English (EN), Farsi (FA), and Chinese (ZH) language editions of Wikipedia. Our findings show that the same power plays used in EN exist in both FA and ZH but the frequency of their usage differs across the editions."

From the abstract:^[5]

"...we propose a simple model that describes the dynamics around peaks of popularity by incorporating key features, i.e., the anticipatory growth and the decay of collective attention together with circadian rhythms. The proposed model allows us to develop a new method for predicting the future page view activity and for clustering time series. To validate our methodology, we collect a corpus of page view data from Wikipedia associated to a range of planned events, that are events which we know in advance will have a fixed date in the future, such as elections and sport events. [...] restricting to Wikipedia pages associated to association football, we observe that the specific realization of the event, in our case which team wins a match or the type of the match, has a significant effect on the response dynamics after the event."

Rank	Article	Class	Views	Image	Notes/about
1	Colin Powell		2,232,933		Powell, the first African-American secretary of state, died on October 18 due to complications from COVID-19 and concurrent bone cancer. Powell had quite the career: he was a four-star general and served as the United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush the Elder before becoming Secretary of State under Bush the Younger, in addition to formulating the Powell Doctrine. However, his legacy is clouded by his involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the resulting Iraq War.
2	Squid Game		2,218,010		The fact that a page having around two million pageviews for the week is an indication that it's "losing steam" is pretty astounding, but then again, so is the show that earned those views. We've seen this South Korean smash hit, about a bunch of people who risk their lives playing children's games, at the top of the Report for the past four weeks, so forgive us if we don't care to go into any more detail than necessary about it. There may be a spike in views by the time Halloween rolls around, as we're sure to see an endless number of Squid Game costumes of varying quality and taste levels.
3	Dune (2021 film)		2,049,552		The second film adaptation of Frank Herbert's classic 1965 novel (#10) was released internationally a month ago, but opened in the United States on October 21. And unlike David Lynch's oft-maligned 1984 version, Denis Villeneuve's new interpretation (intended to be the first of a two-part adaptation) is getting great reviews and is poised to make some money.
4	Alec Baldwin		1,333,697		Tempting as it may be to crack jokes about Jack Donaghy going through the five stages of grief, this whole situation might be a bit too tragic to be glib about. This week, while on set in New Mexico for the upcoming Western film Rust, Baldwin discharged a prop gun (which, according to court documents, he was told was safe before using) that turned out to be a bit less prop-y and a bit more shoot-y than expected. Two people were hit: Joel Souza, the film's director, and Halyna Hutchins, a cinematographer whose injuries were fatal.
5	Brandon Lee		1,034,719		The Rust shooting that takes up a good chunk of this Report has sparked numerous comparisons to the untimely death of Bruce Lee's son, who famously lost his life in 1993 to an almost identical prop-gun-firing incident on the set of The Crow. The similarities were evident enough to prompt a response from Lee's relatives on his Twitter page, but the circumstances are obviously at least a little different: Lee's role in The Crow was set to make him an international star, while Hutchins's work was always behind the camera.
6	You (season 3)		941,823		Me? This Lifetime-turned-Netflix series about a stalker and serial killer named Joe Goldberg, played by Gossip Girl's gossip guy Penn Badgley, entered its third season last week. It focuses on the relationship between him and Love (Victoria Pedretti), the object of his affection from season two to whom he gets married after learning that she's just as psycho as him. It's received mostly positive reviews and enough attention to finally knock that goddamned game which I won't mention again out of Netflix's coveted number one spot.
7	Deaths in 2021		873,574		Since sadly there's reminiscences of #5's death, let's quote from The Crow soundtrack: “ The end is all that's ever true There's nothing you can ever say Nothing you can ever do ”
7	You (TV series)		869,661		On a personal note, I never bothered making it past season one after having to deal with a cast of unbelievably unrootable-for characters, including the main love interest/victim, Beck, (pictured on the left when she was a Disney Princess) whose entire role can be summed up in this video.
9	Halloween Kills		851,994		Serial killer Michael Myers (or "The Shape", in case you thought we were talking about the guy who voiced Shrek) returns to menace Laurie Strode in the 12th film of the Halloween series[2] and the sequel to the 2018 soft reboot. Like its predecessor, the David Gordon Green-helmed slasher features Nick Castle and Jamie Lee Curtis reprising their roles from John Carpenter's legendary first Halloween from 1978. While the film is doing decent business at the box office—especially for an R-rated movie in the middle of a damn pandemic—reviews aren't as strong as they were in 2018, with critics finding it messy and not as fresh as its predecessor.
10	Dune (novel)		808,546		The source material for #3, a philosophically challenging journey written by Frank Herbert about Paul Atreides and his home planet of Arrakis, where a life-extending drug and interplanetary travel fuel source known as melange (or "Spice") is harvested, also happens to be the best-selling sci-fi novel of all time. A number of sequels were written and, as mentioned above, it's also received some other critically-panned adaptations over the years.

^² There are twelve Halloween movies, but Halloween III: Season of the Witch doesn't feature Michael Myers. It's a long story.

• These lists exclude the Wikipedia main page, non-article pages (such as redlinks), and anomalous entries (such as DDoS attacks or likely automated views). Since mobile view data became available to the Report in October 2014, we exclude articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less) or almost all mobile views (94–95% or more) because they are very likely to be automated views based on our experience and research of the issue. Please feel free to discuss any removal on the Top 25 Report talk page if you wish.

The Coolest Tool Award is an annual award ceremony showcasing the Wikimedia tools that the community nominates for being useful and worth publicizing. Previous winners of this prize are now indexed in the Wikimedia Toolhub, whereas before, the various tools which won prizes or were nominated could not be found anywhere in a single list.

Nominations for the Coolest Tool Award 2021 closed 27 October. However, watch the page for prize announcements, or in wiki-spirit, post messages on relevant talk pages to help the judges in the competition make good evaluations for what tools to recognize. – B

You can now "subscribe" to a discussion and get notifications for new replies in it! This is a very exciting change. This feature was implemented by the Editing Team as part of the Talk pages project. We appreciate their hard work. You can enable this feature, which is part of the Discussion Tools beta, by checking the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features and clicking "Save". – E

Details matter. Wikipedians can spend extraordinary amounts of time just checking and correcting a small detail. Sometimes this obsession with detail yields extraordinary results. - S

Success has many fathers. This story is a small but beautiful example of how Wikipedia helps with the reproduction of images, told via the stories of the "fathers" of the image in question.

This story begins on the 17th of January 1974 in the small city of Beverwijk, in the Netherlands. The 36th edition of the Wijk aan Zee chess tournament is taking place, and it attracts a multitude of chess grandmasters from across the world: Argentina, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Spain and the US (though, notably, no Russians). The tournament was (and still is) sponsored by steel producer Hoogovens, later Tata Steel.

The tournament concludes and is won by the American chess and poker player Walter Browne, with a score of 11/15. Local Dutch newspapers, without the budget to pay photographers of their own, rely on photo news agencies for pictures of the event. The Anefo photo agency sends Rob Mieremet. He shoots 13 photographs in total. Mieremet (1947–2015), as winner of the Silver Camera award for best Dutch photographer in 1973, is certainly a good photographer, but he is no ardent lover of chess. He is unsure as to the name of one of the players, so he names one of the photographs "Browne" (assuming it to be Walter Browne, the tournament winner). The photo is thus filed as "Browne". Despite this, any chess players would know the pictured person to be the famous Serbian chess player Milan Matulović (who would go on to take bronze in the tournament).

After 44 years of operation, Anefo closed its doors in 1989, and its photo archives were handed over to the Netherlands Government Information Service (Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst). The collection was further transferred to the Dutch National Archives (Nationaal Archief) in 1996. In 2011 the National Archives and partner Spaarnestad Photo uploaded 350,000 photographs to the database http://gahetna.nl – originally under a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA-3.0), later under a CC-zero license, which made most photographs freely available. Several thousand of these photographs were then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Wikipedia volunteers, with the intention that they be used in Wikipedia articles.

One such volunteer was Mr.Nostalgic. A Dutch Wikipedian, and a keen photographer himself, Mr.Nostalgic works for a pharmaceutical company, and photography is his hobby. He saw value in the National Archives collection, and decided to upload 350,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons on his own initiative, in his spare time, using 5 laptops and Pulover's Macro Creator.

Over a period of five months, Mr.Nostalgic uploaded 2,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons a day, including 270k photos from the original Anefo archives. Lo and behold: the photograph of Milan Matulović, still disguised as "Browne", snuck its way into Wiki Commons on 23 October 2018. That same evening, another Wikipedian (me – Vysotsky) identified "Browne" as "most probably Milan Matulović", and added the photograph to several different language versions of the Wikipedia article about Matulović. Two years later (Nov. 2020), Wikipedia user Materialscientist uploaded a cropped version of the photo.

In 2020, the national postal service of Serbia, Pošta Srbije, decided to honour five chess grandmasters. They chose "the first Serbian chess grandmaster, chess bohemian and romantic, globetrotter and polyglot" Bora Kostić, alongside Petar Trifunović, Milan Matulović, Milunka Lazarević and, of course, Svetozar Gligorić.

The artistic design was done by Boban Savic, but the original images were supplied by the Serbian Chess Federation and a sports journalist. These original images were without a doubt obtained via Wikimedia Commons. Not only was the image of Matulović almost certainly taken from the original Anefo photograph, but the photo used of Petar Trifunović bore similarities to another Anefo photograph by Harry Pot from 1962. The inevitable conclusion: Serbian postage owes a debt to Wikipedia-style cooperation.

Three Wikipedians worked together with two non-Wikipedians and several institutions, all separated by time and geography, to achieve a real world result that none of them might have expected.

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Making a change to its content is as simple as clicking the edit button and typing something in. And more often than not, what happens next for new editors is that their addition gets reverted and is hidden from everything but the edit history of the page. In theory Wikipedia's barriers to entry are very low, but the barriers to making a meaningful contribution to the encyclopedia's contents are much, much higher. In some ways this is a good thing – Wikipedia's exclusion of a lot of new additions helps it achieve the seemingly impossible task of presenting reliable, high-quality information on a wiki that anyone can edit. But it also means that Wikipedia's base of contributors, the topics they choose to write about, the information they choose to include, and the way they choose to phrase their contributions is limited to the group of people who make it past these barriers.

For those of us who work on trying to expand the demographic profile of Wikipedia contributors, it's important to understand the policies and processes that shape content inclusion and exclusion on Wikipedia. But even a basic understanding of the key policies and processes can take years to grasp. A nuanced understanding of how they play out in practice – both the written and unwritten rules – is even more difficult.

This is what makes Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality such a valuable addition to the growing collection of scholarly and popular writing around Wikipedia. Zach McDowell and Matt Vetter are experienced members of the community of Wikipedians and educators who have been incorporating Wikipedia assignments into their teaching over the last decade. The authors have worked with Wiki Education for years both as instructors and, in Zach's case, as a research fellow.

Over the two decades of its existence, Wikipedia has grown to the point where it has become the encyclopedia. Instead of explaining Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, we now explain other encyclopedias in relation to Wikipedia. While Wikipedia's policies on inclusion and exclusion were meant to limit its coverage to reality and avoid hoaxes, the project has come to shape reality, or at least shape what's important for the many of its readers: if it isn’t covered, is it really that important?

In the book, Zach and Matt take a careful look at key policies and try to tease out a lot of the underlying assumptions of the policy-writers. From the perspectives of the early techno-utopian Wikipedians, a statement like "Be Bold" was a way of telling potential contributors that they didn’t need to ask anyone's permission to make Wikipedia better. But for a different audience, this means something different; the book quotes their students as saying they "ultimately felt more anxiety than boldness" and found themselves "afraid to upset, anger, or disappoint" the original authors of the work they were editing.

These disconnects between policy as designed and as interpreted, between intent and effect, are the kinds of things that have kept Wikipedia from being what it was designed to be.

By looking at the interplay between policy and the way that policy is applied, Zach and Matt manage to introduce readers to the importance of the community aspect of Wikipedia. Many of Wikipedia's readers don’t understand that behind the text, there is a community of individuals with different ideas and opinions of how to interpret policy. When someone reverts your edit, it isn’t Wikipedia, it's a certain Wikipedian. Unlike a top-down organization where there's someone who can decide what a policy means and how it's going to be interpreted, the application of policy on Wikipedia is a socially constructed reality built through a process of discussion, debate, and negotiation. The book explains this by invoking Steven Thorne's "culture-of-use" theory, which provides a conceptual framework that is likely to help people who are new to Wikipedia make sense of this sort of thing.

By creating a framework for understanding Wikipedia, I believe that the book will demystify Wikipedia for a wide range of people. The book is an academic work (albeit a very readable one) and should be a necessary primer for anyone interested in studying Wikipedia. But it's also very helpful for Wikipedians who are interested in fixing its problems. The book is a critique of Wikipedia, but it's written by people who love the project and are optimistic about its future. Far too often Wikipedia is written about either in purely positive terms or dismissed as hopelessly exclusionary and sexist.

As a person who has spent much of the last 17 years thinking about and interacting with Wikipedia policy and its impact on knowledge, existing editors, and new ones, this book gave me a lot to think about. I didn’t agree with everything they said in the book, but even when I disagreed it tended to be over matters of interpretation rather than matters of fact. I love the fact that I finally have a source I can reference instead of feeling the need to explain everything from first principles.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about how Wikipedia works, or who wants to make Wikipedia better. The fact that they were able to release it under an open license means it's freely available (either as a .pdf or through Amazon's Kindle store) and easily accessible to anyone who has the time.

You can watch a presentation about this book from WikiConference North America here.

Hello again! Like a well functioning library, Wikipedia operates smoothly and effectively not just because of what knowledge is stored, but because of how it is accessed, and how easy it is for interested readers to access it. Redirects are one part of the way that this happens. Redirects on Wikipedia outnumber articles by 3:2. Here we interview a group of passionate editors at WikiProject Redirect.

1. What motivated you to become involved with WikiProject Redirect?
   • Paine Ellsworth: Joined in January 2012 because I had been working for more than three years on redirects, their categorization, their rcat templates, template documentation and indexes. So becoming involved with the WikiProject seemed like the right and natural thing to do.
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: Unlike Paine Ellsworth, I have never joined WikiProject Redirect (nor any WikiProject for that matter) – I am just participating in WikiProject discussions relating to matters my editing is focused on. Since I became relatively active in wikignoming around redirects, I started to participate in the respective discussions, as well as starting discussions myself, for obvious reasons.
   • BD2412: About fifteen years ago Wikipedia had a project to make sure that we were not missing any topics covered by other major encyclopedias of the day. It very quickly became apparent that many of the redlinks in that project merely existed under other article names on Wikipedia, which led to my interest in a variety of common kinds of redirects reflected in these other usages. This made me particularly interested in sortname redirects, since encyclopedias traditionally have used last-name-first listing. Redirects also aid with disambiguation, since you might not discover that your new article on "Geronimo Z. Blogenspeil" is potentially ambiguous until you try to make the redirect from "Geronimo Blogenspeil" and discover that it is already pointing to a "Geronimo Q. Blogenspeil".
   • jp×g: Well, I don't participate in WikiProjects a whole lot, but where else are you going to edit a widely used template, or propose a recategorization sweep entailing several thousand edits? You need to figure out if it's a good idea first, and ideally you want to do so in a place where the people responding are familiar with how the system works.
2. Why have a WikiProject on redirects? What are the benefits to the encyclopedia of the focus on redirects?
   • Paine Ellsworth: As with other WikiProjects, working together with other like-minded editors means much more efficient and effective improvements can be made to the system of redirect maintenance and categorization. Benefits to Wikipedia are behind-the-scenes, many and varied. An example would be to determine which redirects can be used in a DVD printed version of parts of the encyclopedia.
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: Since, as you mentioned, redirects outnumber articles by a significant margin, there needs to be a place for the coordination of efforts about this part of the project, and given the way at least I am using WikiProjects (as explained in my answer to the previous question), one of those suits this need perfectly. As for the benefits of the "focus on redirects", that focus implies the improvement of redirects and the resolution of related issues, which benefits the encyclopedia because they are used in the first place. I could end my reply here, but since Paine Ellsworth specifically discussed redirect categorisation, a topic within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, in his answer, I might as well add my thoughts on that here as well. As already said, rcats aid the maintenance of redirects by, for instance, pointing out other redirects or templates depending on a redirect in case that one is changed (e. g., {{R avoided double redirect}}, {{R mentioned in hatnote}}), explaining or linking relevant guidelines to avoid redundant discussions (e. g., {{R from alternative language}}, {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from move}}, {{R to decade}}, {{R from emoji}}), showing where additional work may be required (e. g., {{R to article without mention}}, {{R of dubious utility}}, or even {{R with possibilities}}), or just providing a list of redirects of a specific type, which often also helps to find redirects needing discussion or checking for completeness (e. g., {{R from shortcut}}, {{R to project space}}, {{R from ISO 4 abbreviation}}). On the other hand, rcats create additional maintenance that may be coordinated through WikiProject Redirect.
   • BD2412: Redirects are indicators of different ways of organizing and presenting information, and this needs to be done according to well-thought principles to insure that we put the correct information in the hands of readers (or of editors making a link and assuming that it will lead somewhere).
   • Wugapodes Redirects are incredibly useful for readers and editors. For readers, it allows them to navigate the encyclopedia seamlessly using words and terms they understand rather than having to figure out what we decided to title something. For editors, it helps make linking easier when writing articles, and for redirects that can be expanded into articles, it helps make sure they are already linked when created improving their integration into the encyclopedia. These redirects require maintenance though, and broken redirects can be frustrating when articles get moved or rewritten. A WikiProject on redirects helps organize editors and redirects so that we can maintain a seamless reader experience.
   • jp×g: Redirects are crucial to the encyclopedia's usability (both for people typing words into the search box and for people typing wikitext into the edit box). They're also useful for people looking to write content; many redirects point to section headings but could be fleshed out into full articles themselves, and checking inbound links can help you out when doing so. But the fact that there's so damn many of them, created by so many people, means their maintenance and categorization is a project unto itself, so structure and consensus are necessary to build the system effectively. You need somewhere that you can go and ask "what's the deal with this", or say "I'm about to do this and that and the other thing", and have others weigh in. While RfD does build consensus for the fate of individual redirects, it's not really designed to handle broader discussions, so having a specific WikiProject for them is nice.
3. The WikiProject has millions of redirects that could be potentially influenced by discussions. How do you and your project cope with this enormous scope? What are the roles that automated and semi-automated tools play in conjunction with your project?
   • Paine Ellsworth: Pretty much a gardener myself, as are likely most of the members, I cope by doing all I can to improve redirects with correct rcat templates, category sort keys and so on. The WikiProject is devoted to that and more. Editors work together to maintain redirect pages, because more and more new redirects are created on a daily basis, for example when articles are renamed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Tools like bots and AWB are at times crucial to redirect maintenance. We've found them to be helpful and suited to many tasks that require that aggregate type of editing.
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: Sometimes, I personally feel like processing all the redirects to comply with our standards is an impossible task – and editors creating redirects without categories, including long-standing and experienced ones, aren't quite a help. However, huge sets can indeed be handled by semi-automated tools. Since the majority of my edits has always been focused on redirects, my automated edit statistics^(mainspace) give a good picture, especially when it comes to AWB. The stats also show usage of tools only affecting single redirects – tools like WP:TWINKLE and WP:CAPRICORN make redirect creation, categorisation, and nomination for discussion a lot quicker. While not necessarily "automated tools" in your sense, WP:QUARRY and sometimes also WP:PETSCAN are useful tools for finding redirects to categorise.
   • Uanfala: I believe there is huge untapped potential here. Sure, individual editors make clever use of various automated tools, but that can't scale up with the sheer number of redirects out there. For example, we have a centralised clearing house for the discussion of redirects: WP:Redirects for discussion (or RfD: the "D" here genuinely stands for "discussion", not "deletion"). However, decisions there are always taken at the level of individual redirects, whereas redirects really only work as a system. For example, a reader who follows one redirect to an article will likely assume that the same type of redirect will also work for another article, and even outside of reader expectations, the existence of a redirect for one search term will influence the search results for other terms. So, we don't have the tools to work at the level of the entire system: we can't make tweaks to the search engine, and we don't have the procedures for the mass creation or deletion of classes of redirects.
   • BD2412: The important thing, I think, is setting clear rules. Once those exist, the vast majority of redirects will fall into workable groups that can be tended by bots, or in certain specific cases with manual editing tools.
   • Wugapodes There are occasionally wide discussions, but in general redirects are maintained mostly by edit consensus. Redirects are usually made because someone thinks they're useful, and if a particular kind of redirect works well, we make more of them. Similarly, if they cause more problems than they solve, we delete them, eventually to the point where we have guidance on what kinds of redirects work and what kinds don't. Redirect categorization helps because it provides a standard list of redirects that are usually helpful which means new editors can quickly get a sense of guidelines without having to read a bunch of pages of text.
   • jp×g: Very carefully, one hopes. Automated tools are great, and obviously necessary when dealing with vast numbers of pages – but they're tools and not solutions, and we still have to decide what we want to do with them (preferably before doing it).
4. What do you see as some of the biggest achievements of WikiProject redirects, and are there any contributions you are particularly proud of?
   • Paine Ellsworth: Over the years the WikiProject has overseen improvements of the template indexes, the {{Rcat shell}}, the rcat templates themselves and their documentation pages, as well as proving helpful to any and all editors who have questions on the project's talk page and other similar talk pages such as WT:Redirect. I'm proud of all of these contributions, these achievements that resulted from close collaborations of member and non-member editors.
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: Since the WikiProject's scope is inherently wikignomic, I'm not sure if I could mention any "big achievements" since the introduction and following documentation/standardisation of redirect categories and creation of appropriate discussion venues. Over time, a big number of small improvements to the redirect categorisation system ("achievements", if you want) lead to where we are, but there is still room for lots of other small improvements that will eventually add up to the goal of having most of Wikipedia's redirects categorised according to the WikiProject's standards. As far as further standardisation is concerned, I think implementing User:Elli/rcat standardization may present quite a big achievement on our way there.
   • BD2412: I tend to agree with those above that standardization and templating of redirects is a big deal. We have substantially reduced the number of uncategorized redirects, which means it is easier to find and address redirects of specific types.
   • Wugapodes I took over maintenance of the Capricorn user script from Sam Sailor when I made some modifications in 2019. I think the most useful contribution I made in that realm is splitting out the list of redirects. Before, all the redirect categories and all the aliases were hard-coded into the script, but this meant that changes were hard to make and hard to re-use across scripts. I made a page for redirect templates and a page listing alternate names for those templates. Technically, this means that any administrator may update them, not just interface administrators like before, and it also means that other scripts can make use of the list. For example, they helped synchronize the list of templates between Capricorn and Twinkle a few months back because before each program maintained its own list meaning some templates were available in one but not the other. It's a small change, but it makes it a lot easier for others to contribute which is a big improvement in my mind.
   • jp×g: I think everyone's already mentioned the important stuff. As for me personally, I'm no Wugapodes, but I did create Category:Redirects from emoji as a split from Category:Redirects from Unicode characters and populate it with a thousand-and-change pages. Sometimes I even remember to fill out the {{rcat shell}} when I create a redirect nowadays, which feels like a great achievement.
5. What do you find are the areas of greatest consensus and contention in your WikiProjects' scope?
   • Paine Ellsworth: The greatest consensus has resulted in defining and describing the scope of the WikiProject as found in the first few sentences on the project page. There have been many bones of contention over time, just as we will find whenever good editors get together to resolve an issue. This has only strengthened things like index formats, the transition of the {{This is a redirect}} template to the Rcat shell, redirect shortcuts and so on. As with any good WikiProject, the redirect project has served to stimulate discussion and resolve. It gives editors a notable and gratification-filled mission, and a place to go with both their questions as well as their new ideas to improve this encyclopedia.
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: With my only about 1,5 years of experience on the English Wikipedia, having only participated in discussions concerning single rcats or redirects, I can't really mention any groundbreaking discussions related to the WikiProject. One thing I do remember is this no-consensus RFC about categorisation of same-namespace redirects in specific namespaces, which I still consider quite pointless and inefficient, apart from the undisputed inconsistency with other namespace-related rcats. However, I do hope that User:Elli/rcat standardization, which I had already mentioned above, can hugely improve efficiency of this style of categorisation.
6. What do you see as the greatest area of need for your WikiProject and its articles, and how can a new editor contribute?
   • Paine Ellsworth: Our greatest area of need would be more good editors to either become members or just contribute in their own way to the effort to improve redirects, their sorting and their maintenance. New editors are always welcome because there are always many things to do for the project and for our encyclopedia.
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: "articles" smh. Creation of new (plausible) redirects will always be helpful for the WikiProject, but a good start for actual interaction with it in my opinion would be to categorise redirects whenever you are creating them. You can also look out for redirects needing categorisation, by simply using Special:RandomRedirect or by checking sets of redirects related to topics you are interested in; the latter may also help finding missing redirects. From my experience, good candidates for creation or categorisation (lots of work yet to do) are {{R from long name}} for biographies, {{R from alternative language}} for places and works (or also biographies), {{R from song}} for albums, {{R from alternative scientific name}} for taxa, {{R from domain name}} for companies^script or {{R to list entry}} for lists. As someone who has been following multiple routes like this over the course of my English Wikipedia career, I have collected a bookmarks folder of over 900 tabs (as well as 300 tabs currently opened in my browser), mostly consisting of uncompleted work with redirects.
   • Uanfala: The vast majority of redirects are created by editors who – as content creators or curators in particular topic areas – are not interested in redirects per se. And that's a good thing: redirects are really everybody's responsibility. If you care about certain articles, then go and see if they're accessible from plausible search terms – there will often be a gap that can be filled by the creation of a redirect or two. And if you're about to create a redirect, then pause for a second to see if that redirect isn't ambiguous with other topics than the one you've had in mind; in that case creating a dab page, or not creating anything at all, will likely be a better option. And if you decide not to create a redirect, then watchlist the title in case somebody else does. You can also try checking the existing redirects to any article: odd things that need attention can sometimes be found this way.
   • BD2412: I would just impress on new editors the usefulness of creating some common sense redirects when a new article is created – if it's a human name, then create redirects from more spelled out versions, variations in punctuation and suffixes, and sort names. If it's a company, think about different ways its corporate status might be represented in print. There really are only a handful of redirect tags that most commonly apply, so apply them.
   • Wugapodes I want to echo what others have said: the best way to help is to create more redirects. If you are making a link and it turns out red, consider making a redirect instead of making a piped link. Not only will it simplify the wiki code, it might be helpful for others searching for or linking articles under that name.
   • jp×g I think it'd probably be good if people made as many good redirects as possible, and as few bad ones as reasonable. And at risk of blatant hypocrisy, I'd also advise categorizing them thoroughly.
7. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
   • Paine Ellsworth: Just my thanks to editor Tom (LT) and to The Signpost for this opportunity and for what has proven to be an excellent news publication for Wikipedia editors for many, many years!
   • 1234qwer1234qwer4: Thanking you as well, and, though I never had the time to read The Signpost myself, hoping that this interview has convinced some editors to participate in the WikiProject's activities.

That's it for this month. Please feel free to suggest a WikiProject for an interview (or interview a WikiProject yourself!) here