Newsletter/December2010/Features: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia UK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{under construction}}
#REDIRECT [[Open Access/2011/January]]
 
;Features
 
==Yeonpyeong on Wikipedia by [[w:User:Maproom]]==
On November 23rd, between 05:34 and 06:41(UTC), artillery on the North Korean mainland shelled a South Korean island, Daeyeonpyeong, killing two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians: headline news. I want to comment on the Wikipedia article about it, created at 06:58, from the angle of maps. Early versions of the Wikipedia article gave the impression that it was an unprovoked attack by North Korea. On November 25  the map shown was added to the article by user Tomchen1989, with red and blue lines.  Soon after that, user Prioryman added the explanation: A United Nations Command Northern Limit Line of 1953; B North Korea-declared West Sea Military Demarcation Line of 1999. I.e., the blue line is the maritime frontier claimed by South Korea, and the red line is that claimed by North Korea. The disputed waters are fishing grounds.
 
[[File:Map of Korean maritime border.svg]]
 
From an ABC News article cited in early versions of the article, "South Korea says it was conducting regular military drills ... but that its firing exercises did not aim to the North." From the map you will see that shells fired north, south, east, or west from Yeonpyeong Island (1) will all enter waters claimed by North Korea.The South Korean military was firing southwards, away from the North Korean mainland, but into waters claimed by North Korea. North Korea asked them to stop but they continued firing. North Korea returned fire, destroying the South Korean artillery on the island, and it acted as almost any military does when its territory is attacked. Wikipedia deserves praise for providing the information, and particularly the map, that allowed me to make sense of this incident. In my view, it became clear that this was not an unprovoked attack.
 
===Comments on this feature===
 
==Visual Arts on Wikipedia by [[w:User:JohnBod]]==
Jimbo Wales has more than once singled out the visual arts as one of the weakest areas of Wikipedia's coverage, and despite much improvement that probably remains true. In the early days vast numbers of articles were added unaltered from the out of copyright Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition, and too many of these remain little changed, even for artists as important as Lucas Cranach and Tintoretto. Even at the time the quality of the 1911 art entries was criticized; and they and their language are now often hopelessly outdated. The “Yorck Archive,” a commercial CD-ROM of thousands of scans from books that were out of copyright in Germany, was added to Commons and is usually the source of the many washed-out images of older paintings in articles. There are a number of active editors battling to improve mattters, who tend to divide into those working on contemporary and recent art, and those covering earlier periods. The Visual arts WikiProject is more active than many, though by no means all editors active in the area are seen there, and the Architecture, Archaeology and Photography wikiprojects cover those areas. User:Ceoil has marshalled a team that has been responsible for most recent art Featured Articles; altogether there are a little over 40 of over 10,000 articles tagged for the project (not all articles have tags). Now that someone has apparently removed Lady Gaga’s project tag, Leonardo da Vinci has resumed his traditional “place” at the head of the project’s list of most popular pages, with an average 15,411 views in October 2010, a good way ahead of the runner-up, Picasso (10,431), and with nearly twice as many as Michelangelo (8,108). Lower down the rankings, in the 170s, we reach Eugène Delacroix, Max Ernst and Jacques-Louis David, all at just around 1,000 views a day.
 
The project does not go in for quality or importance ratings much, but it is often the case that the largest subjects have the weakest articles, for understandable reasons. In the case of British art, Art_of_the_United_Kingdom is all too typical, with the inevitable duplication of (slightly better) articles on English art, Scottish art, and Welsh art. But there is much excellent coverage of the Young British Artists, Stuckists and the London contemporary art scene, by User:Tyrenius and others, though copyright restrictions are a huge constraint here. User:PKM has contributed many articles on early British portraiture (from California) such as Portraiture of Elizabeth I of England, and Category:William Hogarth paintings and prints. Hogarth and Joseph Wright of Derby are well covered by User:Yomangani, though most British 18th century art is not. Many works by William Blake have good articles, and User:Paul Barlow and others cover the Pre-Raphaelites. More generally, classical sculpture and Ancient Greek vase painting are among many other pockets of quality. Of other Wikipedias that I can get a feel for, the German Wikipedia is often better than than the English on individual subjects, but this is surprisingly rare in the French and Italian ones, while many Dutch editors seem to prefer to write for English WP. Many articles are clearly translated from the English Wikipedia on all other language versions; I find my articles regularly get shortened versions in Thai.
 
Most content issues in the field relate strictly to contemporary art, where much material on obscure artists and works, and sometimes not so obscure ones, has COI (conflict of interest) issues, sometimes with copyright violation concerns as well, and where there are some furious editing rows. Edit Wikipedia and meet the art community! Almost all visual arts AfDs (decisions on Articles for Deletion) are on recent topics. Other predictable flashpoints include the possible gayness of Leonardo, and the possible Croatianess etc. of various people. But most areas of the visual arts are pretty drama-free.
[[File:Backstage Pass at the British Museum 44.jpg|thumb|left|British Museum curators and Wikipedians at the "Backstage Pass" in June]]
 
Generally painting is far better covered than sculpture, and coverage of the applied or “decorative arts” is pretty dire; that the Corel-Bridgeman decision applies only to two-dimensional works doesn't help here. African art is as poorly covered as everything else to do with Africa, and there is little quality content on Indian art, or ethnological art from most of the world. The situation in all these areas has been somewhat improved this year by the British Museum collaboration, which began with User:Witty lama spending June as the first “resident Wikipedian” in any museum, and has continued to generate content surprisingly well, much of it tied totheRadio4/British Museum series “A History of the World in 100 Objects”. As well as a “Backstage Pass” day and a prize contest, a special one-day “Hoxne Challenge” in the museum, where curators helped a group of Wikipedians to edit, led to Hoxne Hoard being promoted to FA 33 days later ([[File:Editing Hoxne Hoard at the British Museum.ogv|time-lapse video]]). A conference is being held at the British Museum in November (see p.2) to develop understanding between the cultural sector and Wikipedia. Another initiative was the “Britain loves Wikipedia” photography event in February, which added hundreds of photos to Commons, especially from the Victoria & Albert Museum, whose staff added wonderful full captions.
[[File:Tizian 090.jpg|thumb|[[Titian]]'s self-portrait, 1567]]
Wikipedia visual arts coverage had its 15 minutes of fame, when (to quote the Titian article):
 
On February 11, 2009, an argument about Titian's age at his death in 1576 death arose between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Leader of the Opposition David Cameron at Prime Minister's Questions, where Cameron was attempting to ridicule Brown's general factual accuracy. This debate spilt over onto Titian's entry on Wikipedia, when an editor from Conservative PartyHQ altered Titian's dates to substantiate David Cameron's claim and then directed the BBC to the article for them to use as verification. Cameron later apologized and said the staff member had been "disciplined".
 
Well, at least everyone agreed he was dead, so there was no BLP issue (insider joke)! At the beginning of the day, the main text correctly explained that nobody knew Titian's date of birth, even to within a year or two, but (with a certain inevitability) the infobox knew better, a good example of why most visual arts editors dislike infoboxes, the other reason being that, like templates, they use up space needed for pictures.
 
===Comments on this feature===
 
==CIPR Outreach by Steve Virgin==
 
A team of two from the Wikimedia UK Board gave a presentation to the
Chartered Institute of Public Relations at the CIPR Offices in London
on 7th October. Andrew Turvey and I spoke to a vibrant audience of
interested PR professionals on the topic of 'What is your Wikipedia
Strategy?' With around 20 people in attendance, the two hour session
sparked much debate. Of particular interest were three of the
fundamental content policies of Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View,
Verifiability and No Original Research, leading to animated discussion.
One positive outcome from the Chapter's perspective was he expression
of interest in offering pro bono PR support to Wikimedia UK. The
lecture was part of the CIPR's summer social media school, helping PR
professionals better understand what is 'out there' and 'how best to use it.'
 
===Comments on this feature===
 
==Fundraiser 2010-11 by Thomas Dalton==
 
On 15 November, the Wikimedia movement launched its annual
fundraiser. This fundraiser represents a big step forward for
Wikimedia UK, since this is the first year in which we are taking full
responsibility for collecting donations in the UK. This year, all
donations from within the UK come to us. We plan to donate half of the
money we receive to the Foundation to support the global activities of
the movement and spend the remainder ourselves on activities in the
UK.
 
We are approximately a third of the way through the fundraiser now and
have already raised over £350,000. We aim to raise at least £500,000
and I am optimistic that we can exceed even that target. The more we
raise, the more we will be able to do. You can support the fundraiser
both by donating (just click on the banner at the top of any Wikipedia
article) and by writing your own appeal
[[m:Fundraising_2010/Write_An_Appeal|here]] - we are working with the
Foundation to test lots of different banners and a personal appeal
from you might just be what our donors respond to!
 
===Comments on this feature===
 
==Editor's notes==
If as a reader you find excessive or impenetrable jargon in any
article, let the editor know and we'll print some explanations. BLP = "biography of
living person". Johnbod, he tells me, lives near London and spends (he says) far too
much time contributing to Wikipedia, especially on medieval art. He is too modest
to point out his FAs (Featured Articles). Another UK Wikimedian to be found
recently on the Main Page is User:Colds7ream who has helped the Wikipedia
article International Space Station to FA level, appearing there on 23 October.
 
===Comments===

Latest revision as of 19:16, 9 January 2011

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://dev.wikimedia.org.uk/w/index.php?title=Newsletter/December2010/Features&oldid=9844"