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…>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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>
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