Wikimedia-l August 2013

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

148 participants
100 discussions

[Foundation-l] Improving search in Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery
by Brian J Mingus 09 Sep '22

09 Sep '22

This paper (first reference) is the result of a class project I was part of almost two years ago for CSCI 5417 Information Retrieval Systems. It builds on a class project I did in CSCI 5832 Natural Language Processing and which I presented at Wikimania '07. The project was very late as we didn't send the final paper in until the day before new years. This technical report was never really announced that I recall so I thought it would be interesting to look briefly at the results. The goal of this paper was to break articles down into surface features and latent features and then use those to study the rating system being used, predict article quality and rank results in a search engine. We used the [[random forests]] classifier which allowed us to analyze the contribution of each feature to performance by looking directly at the weights that were assigned. While the surface analysis was performed on the whole english wikipedia, the latent analysis was performed on the simple english wikipedia (it is more expensive to compute). = Surface features = * Readability measures are the single best predictor of quality that I have found, as defined by the Wikipedia Editorial Team (WET). The [[Automated Readability Index]], [[Gunning Fog Index]] and [[Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level]] were the strongest predictors, followed by length of article html, number of paragraphs, [[Flesh Reading Ease]], [[Smog Grading]], number of internal links, [[Laesbarhedsindex Readability Formula]], number of words and number of references. Weakly predictive were number of to be's, number of sentences, [[Coleman-Liau Index]], number of templates, PageRank, number of external links, number of relative links. Not predictive (overall - see the end of section 2 for the per-rating score breakdown): Number of h2 or h3's, number of conjunctions, number of images*, average word length, number of h4's, number of prepositions, number of pronouns, number of interlanguage links, average syllables per word, number of nominalizations, article age (based on page id), proportion of questions, average sentence length. :* Number of images was actually by far the single strongest predictor of any class, but only for Featured articles. Because it was so good at picking out featured articles and somewhat good at picking out A and G articles the classifier was confused in so many cases that the overall contribution of this feature to classification performance is zero. :* Number of external links is strongly predictive of Featured articles. :* The B class is highly distinctive. It has a strong "signature," with high predictive value assigned to many features. The Featured class is also very distinctive. F, B and S (Stop/Stub) contain the most information. :* A is the least distinct class, not being very different from F or G. = Latent features = The algorithm used for latent analysis, which is an analysis of the occurence of words in every document with respect to the link structure of the encyclopedia ("concepts"), is [[Latent Dirichlet Allocation]]. This part of the analysis was done by CS PhD student Praful Mangalath. An example of what can be done with the result of this analysis is that you provide a word (a search query) such as "hippie". You can then look at the weight of every article for the word hippie. You can pick the article with the largest weight, and then look at its link network. You can pick out the articles that this article links to and/or which link to this article that are also weighted strongly for the word hippie, while also contributing maximally to this articles "hippieness". We tried this query in our system (LDA), Google (site:en.wikipedia.org hippie), and the Simple English Wikipedia's Lucene search engine. The breakdown of articles occuring in the top ten search results for this word for those engines is: * LDA only: [[Acid rock]], [[Aldeburgh Festival]], [[Anne Murray]], [[Carl Radle]], [[Harry Nilsson]], [[Jack Kerouac]], [[Phil Spector]], [[Plastic Ono Band]], [[Rock and Roll]], [[Salvador Allende]], [[Smothers brothers]], [[Stanley Kubrick]]. * Google only: [[Glam Rock]], [[South Park]]. * Simple only: [[African Americans]], [[Charles Manson]], [[Counterculture]], [[Drug use]], [[Flower Power]], [[Nuclear weapons]], [[Phish]], [[Sexual liberation]], [[Summer of Love]] * LDA & Google & Simple: [[Hippie]], [[Human Be-in]], [[Students for a democratic society]], [[Woodstock festival]] * LDA & Google: [[Psychedelic Pop]] * Google & Simple: [[Lysergic acid diethylamide]], [[Summer of Love]] ( See the paper for the articles produced for the keywords philosophy and economics ) = Discussion / Conclusion = * The results of the latent analysis are totally up to your perception. But what is interesting is that the LDA features predict the WET ratings of quality just as well as the surface level features. Both feature sets (surface and latent) both pull out all almost of the information that the rating system bears. * The rating system devised by the WET is not distinctive. You can best tell the difference between, grouped together, Featured, A and Good articles vs B articles. Featured, A and Good articles are also quite distinctive (Figure 1). Note that in this study we didn't look at Start's and Stubs, but in earlier paper we did. :* This is interesting when compared to this recent entry on the YouTube blog. "Five Stars Dominate Ratings" http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html… I think a sane, well researched (with actual subjects) rating system is well within the purview of the Usability Initiative. Helping people find and create good content is what Wikipedia is all about. Having a solid rating system allows you to reorganized the user interface, the Wikipedia namespace, and the main namespace around good content and bad content as needed. If you don't have a solid, information bearing rating system you don't know what good content really is (really bad content is easy to spot). :* My Wikimania talk was all about gathering data from people about articles and using that to train machines to automatically pick out good content. You ask people questions along dimensions that make sense to people, and give the machine access to other surface features (such as a statistical measure of readability, or length) and latent features (such as can be derived from document word occurence and encyclopedia link structure). I referenced page 262 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to give an example of the kind of qualitative features I would ask people. It really depends on what features end up bearing information, to be tested in "the lab". Each word is an example dimension of quality: We have "*unity, vividness, authority, economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance, precision, proportion, depth and so on.*" You then use surface and latent features to predict these values for all articles. You can also say, when a person rates this article as high on the x scale, they also mean that it has has this much of these surface and these latent features. = References = - DeHoust, C., Mangalath, P., Mingus., B. (2008). *Improving search in Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery*. Technical Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/6/68/DeHoustMangalat…> - Rassbach, L., Mingus., B, Blackford, T. (2007). *Exploring the feasibility of automatically rating online article quality*. Technical Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/d/d3/RassbachPincock…>

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
by GerardM 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Hoi, I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most excellent bit of news. The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics. What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should approve yet another language :) NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus... Thanks, GerardM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org> Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875. Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org> Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org> Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project <reviews(a)linguistlist.org> Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/ The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, and donations from subscribers and publishers. Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org> ================================================================ To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html ===========================Directory============================== 1) Date: 18-Jun-2007 From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org > Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers -------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35 From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org > Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers Dear subscribers, As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the "Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this at: http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm. The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity of our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit more leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on the Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely organizational one. We will: *Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or pages that need improvement; *Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified as "in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any references or sources," etc; *Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or articles; *Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia; *Keep track of our project Wikipedians; *Keep track of revisions and new entries; *Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's efforts. We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us all get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an area needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of Linguists page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and information added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort, please respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which linguistics entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our campaign on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we will share with you soon. This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The end result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth and depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate prospective students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on what we do. Please consider participating. Sincerely, Hannah Morales Editor, Wikipedia Update Project Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable ----------------------------------------------------------- LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831

3 2

Quarterly reviews of high priority WMF initiatives
by Erik Moeller 16 Feb '15

16 Feb '15

Hi folks, to increase accountability and create more opportunities for course corrections and resourcing adjustments as necessary, Sue's asked me and Howie Fung to set up a quarterly project evaluation process, starting with our highest priority initiatives. These are, according to Sue's narrowing focus recommendations which were approved by the Board [1]: - Visual Editor - Mobile (mobile contributions + Wikipedia Zero) - Editor Engagement (also known as the E2 and E3 teams) - Funds Dissemination Committe and expanded grant-making capacity I'm proposing the following initial schedule: January: - Editor Engagement Experiments February: - Visual Editor - Mobile (Contribs + Zero) March: - Editor Engagement Features (Echo, Flow projects) - Funds Dissemination Committee We’ll try doing this on the same day or adjacent to the monthly metrics meetings [2], since the team(s) will give a presentation on their recent progress, which will help set some context that would otherwise need to be covered in the quarterly review itself. This will also create open opportunities for feedback and questions. My goal is to do this in a manner where even though the quarterly review meetings themselves are internal, the outcomes are captured as meeting minutes and shared publicly, which is why I'm starting this discussion on a public list as well. I've created a wiki page here which we can use to discuss the concept further: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings/Quarterly_r… The internal review will, at minimum, include: Sue Gardner myself Howie Fung Team members and relevant director(s) Designated minute-taker So for example, for Visual Editor, the review team would be the Visual Editor / Parsoid teams, Sue, me, Howie, Terry, and a minute-taker. I imagine the structure of the review roughly as follows, with a duration of about 2 1/2 hours divided into 25-30 minute blocks: - Brief team intro and recap of team's activities through the quarter, compared with goals - Drill into goals and targets: Did we achieve what we said we would? - Review of challenges, blockers and successes - Discussion of proposed changes (e.g. resourcing, targets) and other action items - Buffer time, debriefing Once again, the primary purpose of these reviews is to create improved structures for internal accountability, escalation points in cases where serious changes are necessary, and transparency to the world. In addition to these priority initiatives, my recommendation would be to conduct quarterly reviews for any activity that requires more than a set amount of resources (people/dollars). These additional reviews may however be conducted in a more lightweight manner and internally to the departments. We’re slowly getting into that habit in engineering. As we pilot this process, the format of the high priority reviews can help inform and support reviews across the organization. Feedback and questions are appreciated. All best, Erik [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vote:Narrowing_Focus [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

9 65

Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)
by Tomasz W. Kozlowski 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Hi all, for those of you who do not watch the RecentChanges on the Foundation wiki <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges>, I think it might be somehow surprising to see that in a top-level decision, almost all volunteer administrators of the wiki have been stripped off their adminship yesterday evening (UTC time). As far as I know, community members have been helping out maintaining this wiki for as long as 2006, spending countless hours of their free time on categorising existing pages, importing translations from Meta, and recently, deleting unnecessary and broken pages left over by WMF staff. Apparently, this is something that not only isn't appreciated, but unwelcome. Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help out with running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost since the very start of the wiki. Some questions come to my mind right now: 1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community members? (I'm assuming it was Gayle, but it could've be someone from the Communications department for all we know.) 2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed? 3) Why did you decide to desysop people straight away instead of discussing things with them first? These are questions directed at the WMF—for you regular folks, I have a riddle (I'll give a WikiLove barnstar to the first person to submit a correct answer). There is /at least/ one community member who does not hold any official position within the WMF, and who has not been desysopped in yesterday's purge—do you know who this person is? -- Tomasz

30 57

WMF's New Global South Strategy
by Asaf Bartov 01 Oct '13

01 Oct '13

Hi, everyone. I have finally uploaded my Wikimania talk to Commons. It took some time to add links and explanatory notes that were spoken aloud at Wikimania, hence the delay. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMF%27s_New_Global_South_Strategy.p… If you have read it elsewhere (I had to upload my speaking copy to a temporary space for the venue computer to present from, but it was not meant for reading, and was not shared by me), I encourage you to read this expanded version -- it will make a lot more sense. If you have linked to the temporary copy somewhere, please do change the link or re-share with this full version. I welcome discussion and questions. Cheers, Asaf -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org

11 17

Office hour with WMF researchers
by ENWP Pine 30 Sep '13

30 Sep '13

Hi everyone, WMF researchers have agreed to participate in an office hour about WMF research projects and methodologies. The currently scheduled participants are: * Aaron Halfaker, Research Analyst (contractor) * Jonathan Morgan, Research Strategist (contractor) * Evan Rosen, Data Analytics Manager, Global Development * Haitham Shammaa, Contribution Research Manager * Dario Taraborelli, Senior Research Analyst, Strategy We'll meet on IRC in #wikimedia-office on April 22 at 1800 UTC. Please join us. Pine

4 6

Update ED Transition Team pages
by Jan-Bart de Vreede 11 Sep '13

11 Sep '13

Hi Everyone, As mentioned after Sue's announcement of her intention to depart the Foundation we will try to ensure transparency in the work of the Transition Team where possible (and respect privacy where necessary). To that end I would like to draw you attention to a set of recent changes made to the Transition Team pages on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Executive_Director_Transition_Team These changes include a preliminary timeline, FAQ and an invitation to add people to the "connectors list". Please feel free to add more questions and other discussion points. We expect to add more information (such as the choice we made with regards to the Search firm that will assist us) in the coming week. Regards Jan-Bart de Vreede Chair Executive Director Transition Team

2 2

About the concentration of resources in SF (it was: "Communication plans for community engagement"
by David Cuenca 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think your anti-Americanism is misplaced. Let's look at some of the > key people involved in the VisualEditor project. Erik is German, James > F is British, Roan Kattouw is Dutch, Timo Tijhof is Dutch. If you were > to skim the list of the engineering staff, they are extremely diverse, > with many remote employees throughout Europe and a number of relocated > Europeans (and others) working in San Francisco. So I think your > implication that the VE is some element of arrogant American > imperialism is false, and you should retract it so that others will > continue to take your feedback seriously. > I don't agree with Romaine's view that it is a cultural problem, but it is true that the WMF management seems to prefer to have all development concentrated in SF. As you say: "a number of relocated Europeans (and others) working in San Francisco." This concentration of resources in only one place is not healthy. And it has additional problems like finding technical staff at a reasonable price there and having to relocate people from all over the world, when some development centers could be open at other locations too, which might be cheaper: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Development_centers_in… Why is this not done? Wikidata is being developed that way, so it is possible. Is there anything against repeating the experience? Cheers, Micru

24 32

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About the concentration of resources in SF (itwas: "Communication plans for community engagement"
by Michał Buczyński 09 Sep '13

09 Sep '13

Hi, +1 to this question. If we learn that there are items where we are invited to the MediaWiki and some estimates how many e.g. developerdays we would need to finance so we know it is possible. However, we should mind that most of the chapters are not really development houses and we are lacking experience in this area. michał. 28 lipca 2013 5:41 Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> napisał(a): > > > Hi Erik (and whomever from WMDE), > > For the benefit of chapters that are interested in this space, can you > offer any examples of projects that are of an appropriate size and type for > a chapter to take on? I think that most chapters* would be willing to help > out in the software development space if we got a bit of direction on how > we could be the most useful. > > Cheers, > Craig Franklin > > * Keeping in mind that my chapter probably wouldn't have the capacity to > start anything in this space for at least another twelve months. > > > On 27 July 2013 09:57, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:39 PM, rupert THURNER > > <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > If WMF is serious about letting development activities grow in other > > > countries this might be taken into account in FDCs allocation policy. > > > > For my part, I'm happy to offer feedback to the FDC on plans related > > to the development of engineering capacity in FDC-funded > > organizations. I'm sure Wikimedia Germany, too, would be happy to > > share its experiences growing the Wikidata development team. I'd love > > to find ways to bootstrap more engineering capacity across the > > movement, as so many of our shared challenges have a software > > engineering component. If any folks on-list want to touch base on > > these questions at Wikimania, drop me a note. :) > > > > Erik > > > > -- > > Erik Möller > > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

3 4

Wikimedia and the politics of encryption
by Erik Moeller 06 Sep '13

06 Sep '13

Hi folks, As many of you know, this week we enabled HTTPS for logged-in users of Wikimedia projects. See: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/08/28/https-default-logged-in-users-wikimed… We have geographically exempted users geo-located to China or Iran from this [1], because these countries mostly block HTTPS traffic and requiring HTTPS for logged-in users would make it impossible for users in these countries to log in. Long term, we’d like to increase HTTPS coverage further, initially by marking the HTTPS versions of our pages as "canonical", which would cause search engines to refer to them instead of the unencrypted content. This would make issues with countries that block HTTPS traffic even more complex to deal with. HTTPS for editors is important because it is otherwise trivial to sniff account credentials, especially when users use unencrypted connections such as open wireless networks. This could potentially enable an attacker to gain access to an account with significant privileges, such as checkuser credentials. Beyond that, HTTPS makes it harder for attackers (individuals, organizations, governments) to monitor user behavior of readers and editors. It’s not perfect by any means, but it’s a step towards more privacy and security. There are many sites on the web now that use HTTPS for all transactions. For example, Twitter and Facebook use HTTPS by default. Both sites are also completely blocked in mainland China. [2] Disabling HTTPS-by-default in regions where HTTPS is blocked for political reasons of course also exposes affected users to monitoring and credentials-theft -- which is likely part of the political motivation for blocking it in the first place. Therefore, our current exemption is an explicit choice to _not_ give users a degree of security that we give to everyone else, for the simple reason that their government would otherwise completely limit their access. If they know how to make HTTPS work in their region, these users will still be able to use it by explicitly visiting the HTTPS URLs or use an extension such as HTTPSEverywhere to enforce HTTPS usage. In the long term, the Wikimedia movement is faced with a choice, which is inherently political: Should we indefinitely sustain security exceptions for regions that prevent the use of encryption, or should we shift to an alternative strategy? How do we answer that question? We can, of course, ask users in the affected countries. Given that this may lead to degradation or loss of access, users are likely to be opposed, and indeed, when plans to expand HTTPS usage were announced, a group of Chinese Wikipedians published an open letter asking for exemptions to be implemented: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%BC%BA%E5%88%B6%E5%8A%A0%E5%AF%8… This was a big part of what drove the decision to implement exemptions. The bigger consideration here, however, is whether any such accommodation achieves positive or negative long term effects. The argument against it goes like this: If we accommodate the PRC’s or Iran’s censorship practices, we are complicit in their attempts to monitor and control their citizenry. If a privileged user’s credentials (e.g. Checkuser) are misused by the government through monitoring of unencrypted traffic, for example, this is an action that would not have been possible without our exemption. This could potentially expose even users not in the affected country to risks. Moreover, Wikimedia is not just any website -- it’s a top 5 web property, and the only non-profit organization among the top sites. Our actions can have signalling effects on the rest of the web. By exempting China and Iran from standard security measures, we are treating them as part of the global web community. It could be argued that it’s time to draw a line in the sand - if you’re prohibiting the use of encryption, you’re effectively not part of the web. You’re subverting basic web technologies. Drawing this hard line clearly has negative near term effects on the citizenry of affected countries. But the more the rest of the world comes together in saying "What you are doing is wrong. Stop it." - the harder it will be for outlier countries to continue doing it. Another way to pose the question is: Would we be implementing these exemptions if China had blocked HTTPS traffic well after we switched to HTTPS? Moreover, we’re not helpless against censorship. There _are_ effective tools that can be used to circumvent attempts to censor and control the Internet. Perhaps it is time for WMF to ally with the organizations that develop and promote such tools, rather than looking for ways to guarantee basic site operation in hostile environments even at the expense of user privacy. So, what to do? My main suggestion is to organize a broad request for comments and input on possible paths forward. I think we’re doing the right thing by initially implementing these exemptions -- but I do think this decision needs to finally rest with the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, based on community input, taking the tradeoffs into account. My own stance, which I will continue to argue for (and which is my view as an individual -- there are many divergent opinions on this even inside WMF), is clear: I think we should set a deadline for the current approach, and shift to HTTPS for all traffic, for all sites, for all users, by default, after that deadline passes. This will force us to take the consequences of that shift seriously, and to explore alternatives to designing our technical policies around the practices of regimes that undermine web security in order to better censor and monitor their citizens. All best, Erik [1] For the curious, the list of blacklisted countries is defined in the configuration array 'wmgHTTPSBlacklistCountries’ in https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.txt . [2] A reasonably up-to-date list is being maintained at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_China

22 39

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l August 2013