User:FacetsOfNonStickPans/SignpostDraft

Introduction
Wikipedia functions in the real world under one organisation and one country. The people of that organisation and country decide which way Wikipedia goes. In the digital world rightsizing is essential and we have done so outright. This is even more essential when the title of this section is based on the phrase "weaponization of everything" and is now its own Wikipedia article at the time of writing this. The phrase is used as an opener and to convey the seemingly limitless scope that the digital world seems to hold.

Wikipedia is placed at the convergence of communication technology. This placement is maintained by its cultural strength functioning through the collective memory of its editor base. The policies, guidelines and the security framework on which Wikipedia is based is around the axiom "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Over two decades has brought this encyclopedia to where it is. Its network of articles, its network of editors, its network of viewers are immense, but countable. The scope for misunderstanding, misinterpretation and manipulation is profound when everything is weaponized, and everything needs to be considered as a threat, and everything needs to be attacked and defended. While the human factor on Wikipedia is not encouraged, and rightly so, there is nevertheless a baggage ratio of 160 for every byte on the article/main namespace. The scope of creating stories becomes profound when we can plagiarise the universe just going about its business.

Here it must be briefly pointed out that the quality of the edit is everything irrespective of who typed it. Gender, age, profession, education, criminal record, your fame and money, none of it matters. In turn the Wikipedia editor is not concerned with the incident out of the boundaries of Wikipedia and associated references. However a person may be more than the Wikipedia editor they are. For the person it is a living experience. Many edits pass by, a negligible to nill amount linger. Just as for gardeners pruning unevenly may prick their consciousness and for doctors a mistake during surgery may linger, for editors it is their interaction with edits that may have a lingering effect. The uncertainty caused can settle down after internal rationalization using a literature reference and Wikipedia essays.

If you are here, you are part of it. If you're typing about it, you will be digitally frisked. If you are still typing about it you will be digitally engaged with. My interaction with this article meant that I had stepped onto the battlefield. The philosophical and practical implications of this aside, this could simply be changed to a discussion about gatekeepers (link ref). While every editor is a gatekeeper, and every character and alphabet and numerical on the mainspace can be changed, there are some things that stay for a long period of time. Some sentences that could still be here until the next generation of editors appear. Sometimes an editor can edit an article with a sterile like nature, abiding by the written rules as well as which unsaid rules related to that article have been identified. Previous edits do not affect future edits. But no editor is an island. The process of editing an article can be profoundly changing. If not profoundly changing, even just a little impactful on oneself.

Part 1 covering Ukraine Russia is a union of processes familiar to exploratory research, gonzo journalism and succinct case studies. I ask some Wikipedians about their experiences. Part 2 is on editing in the India Pakistan topic area. And then comes the important stuff in Part 3.

1
"Messages directed towards Ukrainians remind them of their bravery, to fight, and that he has not fled". The English language Wikipedia article where this line is placed got 0.00002% of the total 0.5+ billion views of the parent category Russo-Ukrainian War by the end of 2022. This is the same proportion of the space occupied by 8-10 regulation sized football fields when roughly considering the entire land area of Ukraine. Let's take this a step further. These football fields are not in the same location. Usage varies. Some are used by schools, others by the national team. Some are prime real estate, others on less firm ground. In the same way views vary and can be categorized. Some views could be for a mere second, a mistake click, while some views could last for minutes because a user suddenly gets up to go make some coffee. One football field of views could be from journalists, including journos checking to see who has copied their material. One field could be from the Wikipedia editors of the article itself. Some views could be from those who skimmed the article out of which only one or two could be considered as a goal. One of these goals could be someone who reads the entire article and is directed by the further reading section to more material on speeches by Zelensky. Another viewer could have downloaded the PDF version or copied some lines and who knows where that could end up. For context, the article is one of over 1000 articles on Wikipedia in the category 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and one of over 2000 articles in the category Russo-Ukrainian War.

Some higher level apple-orange comparisons could be with World War 2 which has over 10,000 connected articles or that the Wikipedia mainpage has got more views this winter than the entire set of articles connected to the Russo-Ukrainian War. These higher level comparisons do not take away from the fact that there is a lot of content within the category Russo-Ukrainian War. A lot of content in diverse areas. From the core military history articles, the two parent pages, to articles about international involvement, to speeches from both Presidents, to protest and culture related articles. This context is meant to place the article on the same ground as all other content. Just like someone who writes about salt could consider salt as the most influential invention in the world, another writer writing about the wheel can consider the wheel the most important invention, or someone writing about artificial intelligence could consider that the most important. That is to say that since all three are considered the most important by the respective authors, all of them are on level ground. Here, this analysis, this article, the center of the world, one of the centers, one of the central nodes in an article network, is this article, on level ground, side by side by the others.

Whether you consider some arbitrariness in this kind of reasoning, whether one of these 1000+ articles is important or not, including the speeches, it allows some of the communication dynamics to be revealed. The page may find itself merged three months later. On the other hand after two years it may be a featured article. The line quoted above may find itself modified or removed. The usage of what the author considers important or how that can be broken down into unimportance does not matter. For now there is no one questioning the notability of the article on the talk page. This elaboration is for readers not familiar with Wikipedia's voice and how its writing does not allow original research or the non-negotiable editorial bias. Either live with the pain of having to write in Wikipedia's voice or else go through back and forth of rationalizing with yourself that Wikipedia's voice is fun to use.

2
A lot of the initial uncertainty in whether a new article for tensions between Ukraine and Russia was needed or not in February of 2022 was cleared with the Russian president's broadcast on the 24th. 18 minutes later the Russian language Wikipedia article was created and three hours later on the Ukranian Wikipedia. While the corresponding English language Wikipedia article had been created the day before, it wasn't stable until the broadcast. Russian language Wikipedian Oleg Yunakov created the article some minutes after the broadcast. He explains that there was uncertainty with regard to what the article should be called because at the time there was no clarity online with regard to what was happening. This is common among Wikipedia articles on current events in general, irrespective of the topic area. Based on the limited references available, he chose a title, which finally reached its current form soon after. Oleg Yunakov is also an administrator. He explains that his, as well as the editing patterns of many Russian language Wikipedians changed following this. Before this conflict Yunakov covered architecture, history and biographies. A WikiNews article carried the uncertainty of whether Wikipedians on the Russian language Wikipedia needed to react to the tensions formally or not.

Strong azure and yellow covered the unfinished globe logo on the Georgian language Wikipedia on the same day as the Russian president's broadcast. In less than 12 hours, 9 supporting editors were part of the consensus. On 2 March a public discussion took place on the Ukrainian language Wikipedia. Around 15-20 editors took part in and supported the consensus to change the logo. Ukrainian Wikipedian Віщун (en:Vishchun) who, on seeing the open call to create an logo, created one in 10-15 minutes. It is simple like the Georgian one. It blends into all the other minimalistic usages of the flag colours. The logo was removed from the Georgian Wikipedia in mid-May while the Ukrainian Wikipedia has carried the colours into 2023.

The Ukranian Wikipedians went a step further in their decision to create a banner and the linked page uk:Вікіпедія:Війна (which translates to Wikipedia:War). The page has links related to humanitarian efforts and military-supporting-efforts. There is a separate link to an inhouse project, translated into English by Google Translate as Wikipedia:Project:Resisting the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In Vishchun's opinion the subpage is not exactly the intended use of Wikipedia. However he is clear when he says that considering the seriousness of the situation, Ukrainian users can interpret its rules as they think fit. For some perspective the same page on the English language Wikipedia elaborates policy on edit warring. Vishchun has also created an illustration for the myth of the Ghost of Kyiv which is placed in the corresponding article. He is a doctor of philosophy in cultural anthropology and focuses in articles on literature, movies, TV series, videogames, and ancient mythology.

Their are different ways to measure the effectiveness of a banner. While the effectiveness of a fundraising banner such as those used by Wikipedia's fundraising campaigns is easy to measure this war-related banner becomes a bit more complicated. A very simplistic way is to compare main page views with 40,000 views that the uk:Вікіпедія:Війна got in 2022 and then the next level of links, forms and downloads. Another complication is that on some mobile displays the logo and banner do not appear when the main page is opened. And as explained above, it is hard to decide how many of these views can be considered a goal. The explanation is limited by technological constraints. Without tools, either the ones already online, or your own, reliable and feasible analysis of Wikipedia views will always fall short. The movement of tools are a key feature of the invasion, and Wikipedia, a tool of information and knowledge, has been identified as one; Wikipedia and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, the logo and banner could be considered as entirely an internal matter and a symbol of internal solidarity between regular Wikipedians. When should the logo be restored? Is all this just cosmetic? Is it becoming cosmetic? Let it be? Are there more important ways of symbolism now that a few months have passed? ...

Readers should understand that all of these Wikipedia's are internally different; just being an administrator on the English language Wikipedia doesn't make you an administrator on the different language Wikipedia's. However, there are editors who may have edited both the Ukrainian and Russian language Wikipedia's, even to the extent of having an equal number of edits on both. While there are overlaps between these three, there are major difference in how the three language Wikipedia convey the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In terms of views the Russian language Wikipedia gets more views than the Ukrainian Wikipedia. A recent example where administrators were banned shows that overall oversight remains with a single organisation. The Russian language Wikipedia went on to place a banner related to a prospective ban. It also has hidden the names of editors making edits to select article.

3
Strong azure and yellow has been displayed on the startup page of my downloaded version of QGIS for a number of months now. I learnt of this map viewing and making software through Wikipedia. No one directed me to it. But I found it during my search to see how certain static maps on Wikipedia had been made. It was and is free and easy to download. And it turned out to be amazing and very intuitive for an amateur like me. After some YouTube videos for the basics I began creating my first maps. Some time later I placed some of these in articles. My process of creating static maps can be considered amateur. But the output result served their purpose. Unless they were deleted due to licensing issues or until something better came along these would do.

The processes that are being used here are unique to the 21st century even if more than half the world has access to it now. I need to state the obvious here. Because it is very easy to forget the scale of what goes into singular events on the internet, say, just with respect to the action of creating a logo or uploading a map. First the software: Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, QGIS, Overpass-Turbo, Inkscape, Pixlr, UMap, whichever internet browser you use, if you use multiple browsers then more complexity, search engines, again one or more. Then comes the internet provider and the method of getting that data to the individual, say through a smartphone and a telecommunications system. The user must have electricity. Then comes the law and inter-nation coordination. The actual detail on the map, and detail from existing maps made by governments or private companies or individuals is needed. All of this is laid out on a platter to the individual. It isn't free, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, but nevertheless it is there to access provided you understand the reciprocity involved, such as doing things within the law.

While the geographic information system application publicly discussed higher level matters in relation to their stance on the Russian invasion, it was decided that they would stand by their usage of the strong azure and yellow flag and the message of peace, but not go any further, rather preferring to incite users to use the software for the good of society.

There are 16 countries whose infobox carries a locator map that has parts of the country in a second shade of green representing some variation of the claim, control and recognize paradigm. Both the locator maps of Ukraine and Russia have corresponding parts in a lighter shade of green. Six different types of maps are used while a number more have been uploaded.

Part 3: And then the important stuff

 * None of the processes that have gone into compiling this determine the output quality or reader enlightenment. I am piggybacking on great names and I am standing on the shoulders of giants and gnomes in coding. A lot of assumptions and ideas are thrown around in the already polluted air. The bandwagoned scope envisioned needs years to be researched, but the narrative must continue irrespective but mindful.
 * WP:Brave or Wikipedia:Take responsibility is a short three line essay. This essay links to Be bold, an editing guideline.
 *  The author would like to thank ... Wikipedia tools (elab.) are an essential feature of analyzing Wikipedia, especially when aspects such as views are discussed, and the researchers have no tools of their own. I have made extensive use of Google Translate and Brave browser's inbuilt translator.(cont.) Edge browser has a built-in read aloud; if you want to listen to this some voice suggestions are Steffan, Clara, Molly, Avri, Thando.