Archive for the ‘Wikipedia’ Category

Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon at on Saturday at Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Museum of Art – PGH City Paper (blog)

The dominance of Wikipedia can no longer be denied. A local expression of a national initiative to address some of the online encyclopedia's biases takes place this week.

Once upon a time (not that long ago, actually), students were warned against even reading Wikipedia. The issue is that Wikipedia was open-source and editable, by anyone, anonymously. Information can be purposefully edited to be misleading, or missing something, or biased in some way.

One well-documented bias is gender. The flood of young men in the computer sciences means that the large body of information on Wikipedia skews toward the interests of that demographic.

Wikipedia is huge, with more than five million articles in English. Its also free. Warning people against using it really isn't an option anymore. So in an attempt to offset the bias, many museums, universities and science organizations all over the globe have organized edit-a-thons, events bringing together experts and interested people to edit and improve specific entries.

Art+Feminism is a national organization that began organizing Wikipedia Edit-A-Thons in 2014 to address the bias created by the lack of women editors. (Fewer than 10% of contributors to Wikipedia identify as female, according to the organization.)

The Carnegie Museum of Art hosts one such edit-a-thon this Saturday (just in time for Womens History Month). No prior Wikipedia editing knowledge is necessary. The museum will offer tutorials for beginner Wikipedians at 10:45 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., as well as reference materials and expert support. Bring your own laptop if you can, as the museums supply is limited.

See the rest here:
Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon at on Saturday at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art - PGH City Paper (blog)

The great Garfield gender debate ends after Wikipedia edit war – Mashable


Mashable
The great Garfield gender debate ends after Wikipedia edit war
Mashable
Garfield's first appearance was on June 19, 1978. Garfield was created by Jim Davis. Garfield is a tabby cat. Garfield is male. These are all things you will learn about Garfield at first glance of the Wikipedia page "Garfield." But what you don't ...
The Debate Over Garfield's Gender Has Gone All The Way Up To CongressRefinery29
Wikipedia Erupts in Editing War Over Garfield the Cat's Gender ...Unicorn Booty (blog)
Garfield's gender identity sparks 60-hour 'editing war' on WikipediaDaily Sabah
Konbini US -UPROXX -New York Daily News -Mental Floss
all 16 news articles »

The rest is here:
The great Garfield gender debate ends after Wikipedia edit war - Mashable

Garfield’s a boy right? How a cartoon cat’s gender identity launched a Wikipedia war. – Washington Post

Garfield is lazy; Garfield is a cat; Garfield likes lasagna.

Is there really much more to say about Garfield? The characteris not complicated. Since the comic debuted in 1978, Garfields core qualities have shifted less than the mostly immobile cat himself.

But this is 2017 a timeof Internet wars, social conundrums and claims to competingevidence about Garfields gender identity.

Wikipedia had to put Garfields page on lockdown last week after a 60-hour editing war in which the characterslisted gender vacillated back and forth indeterminately like acartoon version of Schrdingers cat: male one minute; not the next.

He may have been a boy in 1981, but hes not now, one editor argued.

The debate has spilled into the broader Internet, where a Heat Street writer complained ofcultural marxists bent on turning one of pop cultures most iconic men into a gender fluid abomination.

[Students were told to select gender pronouns. One chose His Majesty to protest absurdity.]

It all started with a comment Garfields creator, Jim Davis, made two years ago in an interview with Mental Floss titledinnocuously: 20 Things You Might Not Know About Garfield.

Between the sitesplugs for Garfield DVDs, Davis revealed a few harmless curiosities about the cat: Garfield is named Gustav in Sweden. Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle live in Muncie, Ind.

Garfield is very universal, Davis told Mental Floss mid-interview. By virtue of being a cat, really, hes not really male or female or any particular race or nationality, young or old.

The remark caused no fuss. At first.

Until last week, when the satirist Virgil Texas dug the quote upand used it to make abold claim and bold move:

A brief note about Virgil Texas: Hes been known totroll before. The writeronce co-created a fictional pundit named Carl The Dig Diggler to parodythe media and annoy Nate Silver.

But Texas told The Washington Post he was only concerned about Garfield canon, in this case.

Texassaid he came across Daviss old quote while watching a five-hour, live-action, dark interpretation of Garfield (yes, really). Soheinvented aWikipedia editor (anyone can do it) named David The Milk Milkberg last week, and changed Garfields gender from male to none.

Almost instantly, the universe of Garfield fans clawed in.

AWikipediaeditor reverted Garfields gender back to male less than an hour after Texass change.

One minute later, someone in the Philippines made Garfield genderless again.

[Transgender boys mom sues hospital, saying he went into spiral after staff called him a girl]

And so on.Behind the scenes, Wikipedia users debatedhow toresolve the ragingedit war.

Every character (including Garfield himself!) constantly refers to Garfield unambiguously as male, and always using male pronouns, oneeditor wrote listing nearly three dozencomic strips across nearly four decades toprove the point:

The one where Jon tells Garfield good boy! before Garfield shoves a newspaper into his owners mouth.

The one where the catsmagical talking bathroom scale (probably a proxy for Garfield himself) refers to Garfield as a young man and a boy.

But another editor argued that only one of thoseexamples looks at self-identification a 1981 strip in which Garfieldthinks, Im a bad boy after eating a fern.

And Milkberg/Texas stuck to his claims: If one could locate another source where Jim Davis states that Garfields gender is male or female, then this would give rise to a serious controversy in Garfield canon, he wrote on the Wikipedia debatepage. Yet no such source has been identified, and I highly doubt one will ever emerge.

Threads of competing evidence spiraled through Twitter, where one commenter compared the Garfield dispute to Krazy Kat: asexually ambiguous cartoon predecessor,profiled last month by theNew Yorker.

Some huntedbeyond the comic sectionin search ofanswers,intothe ambiguous world ofGarfield-themed merchandise and quasi-canonical arguments.

And some took the whole thing as ajoke.

But others chided orphilosophized: Why must we care what Garfield is or isnt? Jimmy King asked. Who cares what someone else perceives as him being male or female?

Many pondered the meaning of Daviss words in 2014, which were confusing because thecreatorreferred toGarfield as he whilesuggestingthe cat was neither he nor she.

AWikipedia user proposed a compromise to provide both genders, each appropriately referenced: Male[1] and/or none[2]. That didnt get much traction.

Garfields gender swapped20 times over 2 days (during which his religion was briefly listed as Shiite Muslim for some reason) before an administrator was forced to step in.

Garfield was finally,officiallylisted asmale on Wikipedia citing four comic strips including one from 1979 in which a veterinariansays hes too fat.

Andthe page waslocked against more edits until March.

Yet a Heat Street writer draggedthe argument to the very end of February citing the spinoff character Garzookas hard pecs and prominent bulge as evidence ofa rugged, heterosexual American MAN.

That didntresolve anything, of course.

Maybe this will:

Garfield is male, Davis told The Washington Post on Tuesday.He has a girlfriend, Arlene.

Presented withnew evidence, the satiristdeferred to the creator. Hes in charge of the canon, Texas said. Im just curious how it squares with his prior statement

If I had the opportunity I would interrogate him.

ButWikipedia hasalready progressedbeyond gender disputes. Now other aspects of the fat, lazy cat are beingcalled into question.

Forget about his gender and alleged Muslim faith, a user wrote Monday. Need we really list Arlene under the spouse category?

More reading:

This is what happens when two Internet nerds battle over politics

With his first-ever Garfield musical, creator Jim Davis revels in a dream fulfilled

From our 1982 archives: The Cat That Rots the Intellect

The rest is here:
Garfield's a boy right? How a cartoon cat's gender identity launched a Wikipedia war. - Washington Post

MWC 2017: Wikipedia goes data-free in Iraq – BBC News – BBC News


BBC News

See the rest here:
MWC 2017: Wikipedia goes data-free in Iraq - BBC News - BBC News

Internet Bots Fight Each Other Because They’re All Too Human – WIRED

Slide: 1 / of 1. Caption: Getty Images

No one saw the crisis coming: a coordinated vandalistic effort to insert Squidward references into articles totally unrelated to Squidward. In 2006, Wikipedia was really starting to get going, and really couldnt afford to have any SpongeBob SquarePants-related high jinks sullying the sites growing reputation. It was an embarrassment. Someone had to stop Squidward.

The Wikipedia community knew it couldnt possibly mobilize human editors to face down the trollsthe onslaught was too great, the work too tedious. So instead an admin cobbled together a bot that automatically flagged errant insertions of the Cephalopod Who Shall Not Be Named. And it worked. Wikipedia beat back the Squidward threat, and in so doing fell into a powerful alliance with the bots. Today, hundreds of algorithmic assistants fight all manner of vandals, fix typos, and even create articles on their own. Wikipedia would be a mess without them.

But a funny thing happens when you lock a bunch of bots in a virtual room: Sometimes they dont get along. Sometimes a pair of bots will descend into a slapfight, overwriting each others decisions thousands of times for years on end. According to a new study in PLOS ONE, it happens a lot. Why? Because no matter how cold and calculating bots may seem, they tend to act all too human. And these are the internets nice, not-at-all racist bots. Imagine AI-powered personal digital assistants in the same room yelling at each other all day. Google Home versus Alexa, anyone?

On Wikipedia, bots handle the excruciatingly dull and monotonous work that would drive an army of human editors madif an army of editors could even keep up with all the work. A bot does not tire. It does not get angrywell, at least not at humans. Its programmed for a task, and it sees to that task with a consistency and devotion humans cant match.

While disagreements between human Wikipedia editors tend to fizzle, fights between bots can drag on for months or years. The study found that bots are far more likely to argue than human editors on the English version of Wikipedia: Bots each overrode another bot an average of 105 times over the course of a decade, compared to an average of three times for human editors. Bots get carried away because they simply dont know any bettertheyre just bits of code, after all.

But that doesnt mean they arent trustworthy. Bots are handling relatively simple tasks like spellchecking, not making larger editorial decisions. Indeed, its only because of the bots work that human editors can concentrate on those big-picture problems at all. Still, when they disagree, they dont rationally debate like humans might. Theyre servants to their code. And their sheer reachcontinuously scanning more than 5 million articles in the English Wikipedia alonemeans they find plenty of problems to correct and potentially disagree on.

And bots do far more than their fair share of work. The number of human editors on the English Wikipedia may dwarf the number of botssome 30,000 active meatspace editors versus about 300 active editors made purely out of codebut the bots are insanely productive contributors. Theyre not even quite visible if you put them on a map among other editors, says the University of Oxfords Taha Yasseri, a co-author of the study. But they do a lot. The proportion of all the edits done by robots in different languages would vary from 10 percent, up to 40 even 50 percent in certain language editions. Yet Wikipedia hasnt descended into a bloody bot battlefield. Thats because humans closely monitor the bots, which do far more good than harm.

But bots inevitably collide, Yasseri contends. For example, the study found that over the course of three years, two bots that monitor for double redirects on Wikipedia had themselves quite the tiff. (A redirect happens when, for instance, a search for UK forwards you to the article for United Kingdom. A double redirect is a redirect that forwards to another redirect, a big Wikipedia no-no.) Across some 1,800 articles, Scepbot reverted RussBots edits a total of 1,031 times, while RussBot returned the favor 906 times. This happens because of discrepancies in naming conventionsRussBot, for instance, made Ricotta al forno redirect to Ricotta cheese, when previously it redirected to Ricotta. Then Scepbot came in and reverted that change.

For its part, Wikipedia disputes that these bots arent really fighting.

If, for example, Scepbot had performed the original double-redirect cleanup and RussBot performed the second double-redirect cleanup, then it would appear that they are reverting each other, says Aaron Halfaker, principal research scientist at the Wikimedia Foundation. But in reality, the bots are collaborating together to keep the redirect graph of the wiki clean.

Were perfectly aware of which bots are running right now. Aaron Halfaker, Wikimedia Foundation

Still, Halfaker acknowledges that bots reverting each other can look like conflict. Say for example you might have an editor that wants to make sure that all the English language lists on Wikipedia use the Oxford comma, and another editor believes that we should not use the Oxford comma. (Full disclosure: This writer believes the Oxford comma is essential and that anyone who doesnt use it is a barbarian.) But Wikipedia has a bot approval process to catch these sorts of things. Were perfectly aware of which bots are running right now, he says.

Also, Wikipedians are at all times monitoring their bots. People often imagine them as fully autonomous Terminator AI that are kind of floating through the Wikipedia ether and making all these autonomous decisions, says R. Stuart Geiger, a UC Berkeley data scientist whos worked with Wikipedia bots. But for the most part a lot of these bots are relatively simple scripts that a human writes.

A human. Always a human. A bot expresses human ingenuity and human mistakes. The bot and its creator are, in an intimate sense, a hybrid organism. Whenever you read about a bot in Wikipedia, think of that as a human, says Geiger. A human whos got a computer that they never turn off, and theyve got a power tool running on that computer that they can tweak the knobs, they can fiddle the words, they can say they want to replace X with Y.

On the all-too-human front, Yasseris study also found cultural differences among the bot communities of different Wikipedia languages. That was really interesting, because this is the same technology being used just in different environments, and being used by different people, says Yasseri. Why should that lead to a big difference? Bots in the German Wikipedia, for instance, argue relatively infrequently, while Portuguese took the prize for most contentious.

Those differences may seem trivial, but such insight has profound implications as AI burrows deeper and deeper into human society. Imagine how a self-driving car thats adapted to the insanity of the German Autobahn might interact with a self-driving car thats adapted to the relative calm of Portugals roadways. The AI inside each has to make nice or risk killing the occupants. So the different ways bots interact on different versions of Wikipedia could foretell how AI-powered machines get alongor dontin the near future.

And imagine that AI elsewhere on the internet like Twitter makes its way into machines. Bots that spew fake news, that imitate Donald Trump, that harass Trump supporters. Unlike the benevolent bots of Wikipedia, these fool humans into thinking theyre actually people. If you think Wikipedia bots squabbling is problematic, imagine machines with heads full of malevolent AI doing battle.

For now, though, the many bots of Wikipedia collaborate, clash, and keep Squidward in his place.

See original here:
Internet Bots Fight Each Other Because They're All Too Human - WIRED