June 2015 African Language Wikipedia Update

I recommend that anybody new to Wikipedia editing starts, if possible, with one of the smaller Wikipedias. It’s far more fun, contributions will probably be openly welcomed, and there’s less likelihood of experiencing some sort of bureaucratic nightmare. An example fresh in my mind is the OpenCart article, which doesn’t exist. Anyone attempting to create it will be faced with this page, and need to persuade the administrator who locked it (due to previous abuse) that they should be permitted to do so, and who therefore holds veto power over its creation. A bridge too far for most new editors!

While the English Wikipedia makes the news due to the declining number of editors, and has a particularly bad reputation (as can be seen in the mailing lists) amongst African editors who’ve had experience with some of its trigger-happy bureaucrats, how are the African language Wikipedias themselves faring?

African Language Wikipedias

Language 11/2/2011 13/4/2012 9/5/2013 17/6/2014 29/10/2014 26/6/2015
Malagasy 3,806 36,767 45,361 47,144 47,061 79,329
Afrikaans 17,002 22,115 26,752 31,756 33,392 35,856
Yoruba 12,174 29,894 30,585 30,910 30,989 31,068
Swahili 21,244 23,481 25,265 26,349 27,021 29,127
Egyptian Arabic   8,433 10,379 12,440 12,934 14,192
Amharic 6,738 11,572 12,360 15,968 16,229 12,950
Somali 1,639 2,354 2,757 3,646 3,680 3,446
Shona     1,421 2,077 2,091 2,321
Kabyle     1,503 1,876 1,967 2,296
Lingala 1,394 1,816 2,025 2,077 2,087 2,062
Kinyarwanda   1,501 1,817 1,832 1,834 1,780
Hausa 1,386 1,345
Wolof 1,116 1,814 1,161 1,201 1,148 1,023
Igbo 1,017 1,019
Northern Sotho 557 566 685 691 966 1,000

Malagasy has shot up, but it’s always been an outlier – a language for which, due to its unusual characteristics, there’s always been a great deal of outside interest. Afrikaans continues to grow steadily, albeit at a slightly slower pace than before. Swahili, in 4th place, is growing at a faster pace than Yoruba in 3rd. Yoruba had a huge burst from 2011-2012, but has only been slowly growing since then.

Egyptian Arabic is also growing steadily, but after that there are some interesting figures. Amharic has lost over three thousand articles. Articles being deleted is not uncommon. Spam gets removed, articles get merged and so on. Losing so many articles simply means the growth before was mostly made up of these kinds of articles, and that there’s little growth outside of that.

With the exception of Kabyle, most of the languages that follow share a similar fate, or are static. Wolof has even fallen to lower than its 2011 level. The one noteworthy milestone is that Northern Sotho has (just) joined the 1000 club.

So, barring Malagasy, while the only fireworks amongst the top African language Wikipedias are of the going out kind, and there are no trigger-happy bureaucrats to blame this time, are things in the far south looking any better? What about the South African language Wikipedias specifically?

South African Language Wikipedias

Language 19/11/2011 13/4/2012 9/5/2013 17/6/2014 29/10/2014 26/6/2015
Afrikaans 20,042 22,115 26,754 31,756 33,392 35,856
Northern Sotho 557 566 685 691 966 1,000
Zulu 256 483 579 630 686 683
Tswana 240 490 495 510 513 503
Swati 359 361 364 400 408 410
Xhosa 125 136 148 333 380 356
Tsonga 192 193 240 303 309 266
Sotho 132 145 188 197 202 223
Venda 193 190 204 209 208 151

So while Afrikaans continues steadily, Northern Sotho makes it to 1000 articles (albeit with the energy of an athlete somewhere near the back of the pack crawling over the finish line at the end of the Comrades marathon) and Sotho has managed to haul itself off the bottom, all the other languages are static or have shrunk.

The Xhosa deletion log, for example, gives an idea of the kind of articles being deleted, while the latest article to be created at the time of writing, Star Wars, is just blank, and probably also not long for this world.

Northern Sotho is an interesting case, as for a long time it sat in the Incubator, but the experience seems to have helped, as in spite of having less native speakers than both Xhosa and Zulu, it sits well above them in articles created.

Hopefully there’ll be some fireworks to report in the next update!

Related articles

Image from Wikimedia Commons

Le Chocolatier and the chocolate scam

When I was involved in Ethical Co-op (from its startup in 2005, until April 2014), there was a remarkable stream of dubious products presenting themselves for potential sale, trying to market themselves as organic in order to charge higher prices. One of my favourite tasks was investigating and rejecting a product due to not meeting our criteria. Many times it was simply ignorance on the part of the supplier, but quite often the information was intentionally misleading. Sometimes there would be a genuine attempt to correct things, in other cases the guilty would quietly skulk away.

My son and I have great fun looking at product labels. Recently we saw a mango juice that, on the front, boldly proclaimed that “mangos are a good source of vitamin C”. Looking at the ingredients on the back, the juice contained 0% vitamin C. I don’t know the updated legislation well enough to know whether this is illegal, but it’s clearly unethical, and meant to mislead people into thinking the artificial “juice” in the bottle is a good source of vitamin C, is “healthy”.

Reading between the lines of a misleading label is one thing. Then there’s Le Chocolatier.

This month, someone created a Facebook group, Le Chocolatier South Africa scam. According to the documents on the Facebook page (all well-documented, so go take a look), their 70% bar at the time claimed to be:
* Sugar-free
* Fat-free
* Organic
* Raw

A true wonder bar! Everyone loves chocolate, and just about every health-conscious person out there would be attracted to a chocolate like this. Except that every one of these claims appears to be false.

First, the sugar. According to the two tests listed on the page, the product contained 30.89% sucrose, and 27.9% sucrose. Sucrose, in case you’re not clear, is plain old sugar.

The fat content turned out to be 40% (and on one of Le Chocolatier’s own labels, 39g/100g (39%). There also appears to have been a change of label, where the fat-free claim was removed, and replaced with “banting and paleo”, two other health buzzwords.

The organic certificate holder, Pronatec AG, stated they don’t sell to any South African companies. That left the possibility of them buying from a wholesaler, but Le Chocolatier never responded to the organic certifier.

Pronatec also rubbished Le Chocolatier’s claim to be raw, saying they they don’t sell raw chocolate.

If all of these claims are true, then it’s very unlikely that Le Chocolatier has just made a few mistakes on their labels, and more likely that they’re just another in the long line of fraudsters attempting to make a quick buck.

The people behind the Facebook group initially (and may still be – I haven’t followed the thousands of posts!) opted to remain anonymous, which aroused suspicion. Why remain anonymous if you are sure of your facts? In their statement, they said that it was the “practical reality of dealing with a human being who has a reputation of trying to legally bully those who expose him” and that “just because something is easily defendable in Court does not mean that you still won’t have to spend R100k+ doing that. Whether it is true or not we have been warned by more than one person that this is the kind of thing that Daniel is liable to do.”

And that’s just what Daniel Waldis has been doing. As a result of the exposure, a host of people have publicly and often at their own expense tested the products. Some were ardent supporters of the chocolate until their suspicions were raised. To my knowledge, all of these people have been threatened.

His marketing leaves a little to be desired if, as a supposedly organic chocolate, he’s threatening legal action against a whole bunch of organic retailers.

It might sound trivial, but sugar for many is a poison. There have been diabetics and cancer patients, whose health is at serious risk if they consume sugar, happily buying his products and putting their health at risk (read one account here). Some had even expressed their doubts to him, only to be personally assured of the product’s integrity.

Daniel Waldis seems to have had an interesting past. He is (or was) also, according to a press release, an “acclaimed dermatologist” who owned the company Swiss Dermal Technology, which performed “skin rejuvenation without plastic surgery”.

An anonymous blog comment, in response to a review, asked:

Can you please investigate this “doctor” further? He has a hell of a past.
He has been in the hunting business, he has been in jail in Switzerland several times.
Didn’t pay his rent in Willowbridge for the clinic etc etc etc. The list is endless!

So, a fun story for an investigative reporter to enjoy getting stuck into.

But it’s been interesting to see the positive coming out of the process. There’s a growing commitment to taking personal responsibility, especially in the shark-infested health food waters. And some collective action. Besides the growing likelihood of legal action against Daniel Waldis, there’s the potential formation of something so far dubbed CERA – the Conscious & Ethical Retailers & Consumer Alliance, co-ordinated by Debbie Logan from Organic Emporium (read the details on her blog).

My gratitude to everyone who helped expose this. It’s wonderful to see people caring and taking action.

In the meantime, there are more than enough great chocolates out there, so I’m happy to pass on Le Chocolatier’s, and on any retailer lacking integrity enough to still be stocking them.

South African Banks SSL Security

After coming across an article testing the security of the SSL implementations of Australian banks, I decided to run the same tests on the South African banks, using SSL Lab’s SSL Server Test. I have a little bit of inside info into some of the banks systems, so was not too surprised how bad the results were.

Bank Overall Grade Protocol Support Key Exchange Cipher Strength
Capitec A- 95 80 90
FNB B 95 80 90
Nedbank B 70 90 80
Absa F 0 90 90
Standard F 0 0 60

None of the banks score an A (they all fail with Forward Secrecy), but pick of the bunch was Capitec, whose only only other failing was using a relatively weak signature.

FNB is limited to a B by accepting the weak RC4 cipher, and Nedbank adds supporting only older protocols to the list of failings.

You’d hope for better security from banks, but the failings of Capitec, FNB and Nedbank are not too serious. On to the others…

Absa has all of the above failings, does not support secure renegotiation, uses the obsolete SSL3, and most dismally of all, is vulnerable to the POODLE attack against TLS servers.

Although Standard Bank also gets an F, it stands alone in the number of criteria it failed. It uses the even more old and insecure SSL 2, supports insecure Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange parameters, supports 512-bit export suites and might be vulnerable to the FREAK attack as well as being vulnerable to POODLE.

It’s quite astounding that Standard Bank may still be still vulnerable to the FREAK attack, which has been known about for over two months, and which is extremely serious.

These results match the banks scores in other areas as well, such as bank fees and customer satisfaction. So Standard Bank clients will be happy to know they’re not only with the least secure bank, but also with the most expensive and the one with the worst customer service.

Related Posts:

30 Artists in 30 Days #30 – Gabby Young

Gabby Young

(Slightly more than) 30 days have raced by and the final choice is nigh. I settled down for a long night of searching, determined to make discovery number thirty a special love affair. I had multiple tabs open with possible candidates, but never got past the first one.

It was ecstasy at first sight, and 30 Artists in (slightly more than) 30 Days is Gabby Young.

I was a little stuck on how to describe them (the full band is Gabby Young and Other Animals), but they helpfully describe themselves as “an eccentric eight piece British pop band, bringing together gypsy, folk, rock and jazz”. That scratches the surface of their variety.

Even better, I’ve been looking for an artist featuring an accordion. My parents met in an accordion band, and although their music, putting it mildly, was never my favourite, there is lots of reinvented accordion music I enjoy. So to find the accordion making an occasional appearance in some of Gabby’s videos was the vegan ice cream on top.

Currently Gabby has 40 patrons pledging $226.00 per song.

See Gabby Young’s Patreon page.

See all the 30 Artists in 30 Days here.

30 Artists in 30 Days #29 – Unwoman


The penultimate 30 Artists in 30 Days, artist number twenty-nine, is cellist-singer-songwriter Unwoman.

The name was apparently inspired by the unwomen from Margaret Atwood’s novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, and refers to the label given to women who didn’t fit into that rigid society.

Her music, described by Russian gothic label Shadowplay as “dark trip wave”, suits the Steampunk conventions she regularly features at. Besides being selected as today’s artist, she also, unbeknownst to me, has just won two reader’s choice Steampunk chronicle awards. Go Unwoman!

Currently Unwoman has 293 patrons pledging $593.61 per song.

See Unwoman’s Patreon page.

See all the 30 Artists in 30 Days here.

30 Artists in 30 Days #27 – Walk Off the Earth

Walk Off the Earth

30 Artists in 30 Days number twenty-seven are one of the biggest artists on Patreon, Canadian band Walk Off the Earth. They began in 2006, and have mainly built their following on their Youtube channel, which has over two million subscribers. Their Wikipedia page describes them as an alternative rock, ska, and reggae rock band, and there’s obviously lots more to explore amaongst their huge number of uploads, as I haven’t heard anything resembling reggae rock yet!

Currently Walk off the Earth have 1448 patrons pledging $15,805.50 per music video.

See Walk Off the Earth’s Patreon page.

See all the 30 Artists in 30 Days here.

30 Artists in 30 Days #26 – Christopher Bill

Christopher Bill

30 Artists in 30 Days number twenty-six, Christopher Bill, reinvents an instrument that I associate with military bands and bad high school music. The trombone is made cool again as Christopher covers well-known songs with just his trombone and some creative looping.

Currently Christopher has 48 patrons pledging $287.50 per video.

See Christopher’s Patreon page.

See all the 30 Artists in 30 Days here.

30 Artists in 30 Days #25 – Tony Lucca

Tony Lucca

30 Artists in 30 Days number twenty-five, Tony Lucca was born into an extended musical family, spent time as an actor, and released his first album in 1997. A grizzled veteran of the music scene who’s been through the record label grinder, he was one of the early-adopters and started on Patreon in 2013.

Currently Tony has 178 patrons pledging $1,373.00 per video.

See Tony’s Patreon page.

See all the 30 Artists in 30 Days here.

30 Artists in 30 Days #24 – Phil J

Phil J

What drummer, usually hidden in the corner while the egotistical vocalist laps up the glory, wouldn’t like to be the centre of attention? 30 Artists in 30 Days number twenty-four is drummer Phil J, and in his featured video below you can spend almost the entire video watching, undistracted by any vocalists, his yellow socks hammering away, or, when the socks take a back-seat, Phil’s impressive energy on the drums.

The socks feature on a number of videos, and you’ll be interested to know he doesn’t only have yellow ones. Phil also makes drumming tutorial videos.

Currently Phil has 9 patrons pledging $34 per month.

See Phil’s Patreon page.

See all the 30 Artists in 30 Days here.

Before, you are wise, after, you are wise. In between, you are otherwise.