Always improving

[Randy from Boise]

Don't worry, there have been tags on the article, asking for improvements to be made since January 2008 and March 2011. Those tags are viewed by nearly 100 readers a day, so I'm sure it will be fixed up nicely really soon.

In 2008 it was 6,112 bytes. It is now 7,425 bytes. That's a 21.48% improvement according to the scientific metrics long established on this site. Sheesh. I'll illuminate the Tim signal.

I'm too busy making Wikipedia better than it was yesterday...

;-)


t

[Flying Jazz]

When it comes to science articles, Wikipedia is always improving because more is always better.

The Second law of thermodynamics article is a good example.

That whole article needs an overhaul by a competent writer. Even the writing style is awful; who says "such is not the case"? And the sentence after that should be nominated for a worst sentence award: "To get all the content of the second law, Carathéodory's principle needs to be supplemented by Planck's principle, that isochoric work always increases the internal energy of a closed system that was initially in its own internal thermodynamic equilibrium."

The Talk Page of that article shows that a vibrant and diverse community of knowledgeable, reader-focused editors from several different scientific backgrounds have been there for some time. They would appreciate an overhaul by a competent writer without complaints or reverts. Fortunately, Wikipedia's administrators (who have been vetted by the community to have a good understanding of policy and sense of judgement) have done an excellent job over the years of attracting and retaining people who listen to each other and discuss ideas with each other in an open manner.

[Zoloft]

When it comes to science articles, Wikipedia is always improving because more is always better.

The Second law of thermodynamics article is a good example.

That whole article needs an overhaul by a competent writer. Even the writing style is awful; who says "such is not the case"? And the sentence after that should be nominated for a worst sentence award: "To get all the content of the second law, Carathéodory's principle needs to be supplemented by Planck's principle, that isochoric work always increases the internal energy of a closed system that was initially in its own internal thermodynamic equilibrium."

The Talk Page of that article shows that a vibrant and diverse community of knowledgeable, reader-focused editors from several different scientific backgrounds have been there for some time. They would appreciate an overhaul by a competent writer without complaints or reverts. Fortunately, Wikipedia's administrators (who have been vetted by the community to have a good understanding of policy and sense of judgement) have done an excellent job over the years of attracting and retaining people who listen to each other and discuss ideas with each other in an open manner.

Indeed! Hear, Hear! The system will work.
You are absolutely killing me.

[Zironic]

So one thing I enjoy using Wikipedia for is to find overview of books in order to help me decide which books to read next. However an interesting trend I've noticed is that while the book has a page on Wikipedia, it's simply a redirect to the author page. An author page which doesn't contain any information about any of the books the author has written beyond simply listing them, sometimes with a link leading to the page you just got redirected from.

If you go back to the redirect and look into the history, you'll often find that there existed a reasonably well-written overview of the book however after discussion it was decided to 'merge' it into the author article as it was not notable enough for its own article. Meanwhile in the author article we learn that biographies are not meant to contain book summaries/overviews and those should be split off into their own pages so of-course the information is removed.

[lilburne]

Wikipedia + polish + time =

[Textnyymi]

Wikipedia + polish + time =

Now now, don't complain too much. In a few years, most pages could be blanked and then be used to create ASCII art!

[Poetlister]

So one thing I enjoy using Wikipedia for is to find overview of books in order to help me decide which books to read next. However an interesting trend I've noticed is that while the book has a page on Wikipedia, it's simply a redirect to the author page. An author page which doesn't contain any information about any of the books the author has written beyond simply listing them, sometimes with a link leading to the page you just got redirected from.

If you go back to the redirect and look into the history, you'll often find that there existed a reasonably well-written overview of the book however after discussion it was decided to 'merge' it into the author article as it was not notable enough for its own article. Meanwhile in the author article we learn that biographies are not meant to contain book summaries/overviews and those should be split off into their own pages so of-course the information is removed.

There are pages about individual books, but they're often pretty poor. I commented on Beyond the Mexique Bay (T-H-L) in the crap articles thread, and it's scarcely the only such article.

[Zironic]

There are pages about individual books, but they're often pretty poor. I commented on Beyond the Mexique Bay (T-H-L) in the crap articles thread, and it's scarcely the only such article.

Well, the reason I use wikipedia to find information on books in the first place is that most of the time, it's better then goodreads. However as you note, the quality is all over the place. I mostly brought up the subject as if we measure 'quality' by article size, then the general area of literature is one place where it's easy to find articles that become smaller.

[thekohser]

So one thing I enjoy using Wikipedia for is to find overview of books in order to help me decide which books to read next. However an interesting trend I've noticed is that while the book has a page on Wikipedia, it's simply a redirect to the author page. An author page which doesn't contain any information about any of the books the author has written beyond simply listing them, sometimes with a link leading to the page you just got redirected from.

If you go back to the redirect and look into the history, you'll often find that there existed a reasonably well-written overview of the book however after discussion it was decided to 'merge' it into the author article as it was not notable enough for its own article. Meanwhile in the author article we learn that biographies are not meant to contain book summaries/overviews and those should be split off into their own pages so of-course the information is removed.

This is an excellent observation -- one that I've noted before on other topics. Maybe a blog post is in order? Would you like to write one? I'd throw in the example of Comcast Business (T-H-L) (a $4 billion company) once being on the verge of being redirected to a tiny blurb in the Comcast (T-H-L) article.

[Zironic]

This is an excellent observation -- one that I've noted before on other topics. Maybe a blog post is in order? Would you like to write one? I'd throw in the example of Comcast Business (T-H-L) (a $4 billion company) once being on the verge of being redirected to a tiny blurb in the Comcast (T-H-L) article.

Well, I'm honestly not a good writer and I don't remember which articles were involved anymore. I'll make sure to collect all future examples I come across somewhere.

[Jim]

I'm too busy making Wikipedia better than it was yesterday...

Yes.

[Carcharoth]

Popping into this thread to point out a strange sort-of-content-fork. Two articles that deal in similar subject matter, but don't link to each other. Each created independently at each end of 2011 (one by someone presumably working through a list of National Register of Historic Places), but not really touched much since then. It doesn't matter hugely (one article is about one of the buildings, the other article is about the company), but stuff like that can sit there for years without really being brought together or linked properly.

Harris & Ewing photo studio (T-H-L)
Harris & Ewing Photographic Studio (T-H-L)

[thekohser]

Carnildo conducted an analysis of 100 articles over 10 years -- useful work that the wealthy WMF should be doing, but choose not to.

[sparkzilla]

There seems to be a ceiling to quality, though: in 2005, I did not rank any of the articles as being of "high quality"; today, there still aren't any that I would consider to be of high quality, even by the relaxed standards of 2005. By current standards, none of the original articles ranks above "B-class", and most are rated "C-class" or below. As I found in the last three times I re-examined these pages, there's no correlation between number of edits and change in quality. The most-edited article (Midfielder, at about 3150 edits since the last check) is largely unchanged in quality, while one of the most-improved (Lichen planus) saw only 429.

This matches my hypothesis that it takes an increasing steep amount of work to improve their quality of Wikipedia articles beyond B-level. While Wikipedia believers will say that more eyeballs gives increased quality, there simply aren't that many people who have enough time to improve the quality beyond a certain level. With Wikipedia that limit is "barely good enough". To improve quality further requires structural changes that cannot be made in the current system. The parallels with communism are startling.

[Poetlister]

There seems to be a ceiling to quality, though: in 2005, I did not rank any of the articles as being of "high quality"; today, there still aren't any that I would consider to be of high quality, even by the relaxed standards of 2005. By current standards, none of the original articles ranks above "B-class", and most are rated "C-class" or below. As I found in the last three times I re-examined these pages, there's no correlation between number of edits and change in quality. The most-edited article (Midfielder, at about 3150 edits since the last check) is largely unchanged in quality, while one of the most-improved (Lichen planus) saw only 429.

This matches my hypothesis that it takes an increasing steep amount of work to improve their quality of Wikipedia articles beyond B-level. While Wikipedia believers will say that more eyeballs gives increased quality, there simply aren't that many people who have enough time to improve the quality beyond a certain level. With Wikipedia that limit is "barely good enough". To improve quality further requires structural changes that cannot be made in the current system. The parallels with communism are startling.

Of course, it depends what you mean by quality. It may be that more eyeballs will spot mistakes or omissions, or be able to find better references. However, each new editor may introduce more inconsistency of style, leading at best to an article which, while comprehensive and factually correct, is almost unreadable. As I say, that's at best.

[Carcharoth]

Another example, look at these two articles and try and spot the error:

Capture of Santiago (1585) (T-H-L)
Battle of Santo Domingo (1586) (T-H-L)

Diffs to versions in page history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =680845593
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =674516547

(I may actually try and fix this myself, but that will have to be at a later date when I can be sure of what is going on here.)

[Carcharoth]

Did anyone spot the error?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =691298274
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... =179506686

I wonder how easy it is to miss things like that? This is not subtle image vandalism (it is just uploading/using the wrong image), but I suspect that vandalism of images (or just use of the wrong image) would not be detected as quickly as vandalism of article text.

[thekohser]

Did anyone spot the error?

I did. Map 1 = Map 2.

[lonza leggiera]

Another example, look at these two articles and try and spot the error:

Capture of Santiago (1585) (T-H-L)
Battle of Santo Domingo (1586) (T-H-L)

Since I have now replaced the ''Capture of Santiago'' image on Commons with a correct version, the error is no longer spottable from the current version of the first article.

Diffs to versions in page history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =680845593
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =674516547

(I may actually try and fix this myself, but that will have to be at a later date when I can be sure of what is going on here.)

I don't think there was anything particularly complicated that went on:

• In December 2006, one editor erroneously uploaded the image of Drake at Santiago, Cape Verde, from here to the Commons file Sir_Francis_Drake_in_Santo_Domingo.jpg.
• In September 2012, another editor uploaded an image from here to the Commons file Santiago,_Cape_Verde,_1589.jpg. Although the image is the one of Santo Domingo, rather than Santiago, Cape Verde, it was misdescribed as being the latter on the site from which the editor uploaded it.
• In July 2013, a third editor replaced the erroneous image in the Santo Domingo file with a correct version from here.

[ArmasRebane]

There seems to be a ceiling to quality, though: in 2005, I did not rank any of the articles as being of "high quality"; today, there still aren't any that I would consider to be of high quality, even by the relaxed standards of 2005. By current standards, none of the original articles ranks above "B-class", and most are rated "C-class" or below. As I found in the last three times I re-examined these pages, there's no correlation between number of edits and change in quality. The most-edited article (Midfielder, at about 3150 edits since the last check) is largely unchanged in quality, while one of the most-improved (Lichen planus) saw only 429.

This matches my hypothesis that it takes an increasing steep amount of work to improve their quality of Wikipedia articles beyond B-level. While Wikipedia believers will say that more eyeballs gives increased quality, there simply aren't that many people who have enough time to improve the quality beyond a certain level. With Wikipedia that limit is "barely good enough". To improve quality further requires structural changes that cannot be made in the current system. The parallels with communism are startling.

Depends on the subject, but generally I agree. Probably one of the more interesting trends is how Wikipedia's best work is often more esoteric. This is partially a function of it being much easier to broadly summarize and craft a high-quality article when there are a large but not overwhelming references and a simple scope, and also just that I think the people who put out lots of content work are usually drawn to narrower channels of interest after a while (because if you've gotten the sources for novel A by author X, you probably have a head-start on novel B by the same author.)

I think a better phrasing of Wikipedia believers is not "more eyeballs = more quality", but "more eyeballs = more stability", in that it's far harder for POV pushers to succeed on well-trafficked and discussed articles, and more likely that vandalism or even good faith but degrading edits will go unchecked on lesser articles. Insofar as article quality, there is probably a distribution where more and more editors helps in article quality to a point, and then after which while stability or neutral POV might remain, you get into a "too many cooks" situation, especially given prose.

Unfortunately this does mean that when longstanding content contributors leave, their esoteric interests are unlikely to have ready counterparts or successors. It's probably easily stated by how some creators are "that guy/girl". I know Firsfron does prehistory beasts, Awadewit did 18th/19th century English humanities, Casliber does live flora and fauna, HurricaneHink does what it says on the tin.

Also, the modern world basically exists on the principle of "good enough". The benefit of Wikipedia is that unlike communism there still generally exists a space for "great" to exist, as long as it's not too controversial a topic.

[Poetlister]

ArmasRebane. I think that your post might generate quite a few comments.

[eppur si muove]

It's a lot of effort to improve a major article above B. I was part of a group working onRichard Wagner (T-H-L). David Conway did a PhD partly related to Wagner and I let him take the lead on updating the content with a few comments from me. I focussed on copy editing and I can tell you that getting every reference and footnote into the same format is both time-consuming and boring.

[thekohser]

Which of these articles is the better encyclopedia entry about the pot roast?

Pot Roast

A braised beef dish. Pot roast is typically made by browning a roast-sized piece beef taken from a tougher cut, then cooking in liquid in a covered oven dish for a few hours. As with all braises, the slow cooking tenderizes the tough meat, while the liquid exchanges it's flavor with that of the beef. The result of a good pot roast should be tender, succulent meat and a rich liquid that lends itself to gravy. Pot roast is often served with carrots and / or potatoes simmered in the cooking liquid.

(Wikipedia, June 2003)

For the American football player nicknamed "Pot Roast", see Terrance Knighton.


Pot roast with carrots and fresh parsley in a slow cooker

Pot roast is an American variation of the French dish boeuf à la mode, which includes numerous influences from German and Jewish immigrants. Exact origins are difficult to find however, in an early cook book titled: "The Yankee Cook Book" by Imogene Wolcott, the author publishes a recipe for Pot Roast that includes raisins along with the traditional ingredients.

Origins
French immigrants to the United States are known for a cooking method called à l'étouffée for tenderizing meats. Their influence through New Hampshire and Maine can be seen as reasonable evidence for this origin. Later immigrants from Germany to Pennsylvania and the Mid West would create sauerbraten and marinated roasts, larded and slow cooked for taste and tenderness. In New Orleans, Daube was a popular dish. Jewish immigrants would bring in adaptations from Hungary, Austria, and Russia.[1]

See also
...Food portal (portal icon)
Lancashire hotpot
Nikujaga

References
^ James Beard (28 February 2009). James Beard's American Cookery. Little, Brown. pp. 698–671. ISBN 978-0-316-06981-6.

(Wikipedia, February 2016)

And be honest.

[lilburne]

Which of these articles is the better encyclopedia entry about the pot roast?

References
^ James Beard (28 February 2009). James Beard's American Cookery. Little, Brown. pp. 698–671. ISBN 978-0-316-06981-6.

(Wikipedia, February 2016)

And be honest.

Most likely James Beard's American Cookery.

[thekohser]

Just an FYI that Smallbones has concluded that improvement in article quality can be measured simply by:

* counting the number of sentences in the article
* counting the number of sources cited in the article

If you challenge him on this silly notion, you know how that gets handled, right?

[Kumioko]

Just an FYI that Smallbones has concluded that improvement in article quality can be measured simply by:

* counting the number of sentences in the article
* counting the number of sources cited in the article

If you challenge him on this silly notion, you know how that gets handled, right?

Yeah that is absurd. I mean that might be "a" metric, but it's certainly not the only one.

[Poetlister]

Just an FYI that Smallbones has concluded that improvement in article quality can be measured simply by:

* counting the number of sentences in the article
* counting the number of sources cited in the article

If you challenge him on this silly notion, you know how that gets handled, right?

Yeah that is absurd. I mean that might be "a" metric, but it's certainly not the only one.

By that logic, it's easy to improve an article. You split the sentences. You make them shorter.

[Kumioko]

Just an FYI that Smallbones has concluded that improvement in article quality can be measured simply by:

* counting the number of sentences in the article
* counting the number of sources cited in the article

If you challenge him on this silly notion, you know how that gets handled, right?

Yeah that is absurd. I mean that might be "a" metric, but it's certainly not the only one.

By that logic, it's easy to improve an article. You split the sentences. You make them shorter.

That's exactly how it works on Simple.

[Poetlister]

By that logic, it's easy to improve an article. You split the sentences. You make them shorter.

That's exactly how it works on Simple.

I don't think that anyone pretends that Simple is meant to be a serious reference work. It's a play area.

[Kumioko]

By that logic, it's easy to improve an article. You split the sentences. You make them shorter.

That's exactly how it works on Simple.

I don't think that anyone pretends that Simple is meant to be a serious reference work. It's a play area.

Well sort of I agree. But simple is designed for either kids or for adults who either don't have much understanding of English or are learning. Therefore it's simpler with less of the syntax and unclear terms used in English. It's not meant to have all the details and technical jargon. They can go to the full ENWP article for that or the one in their parent language if applicable.

[ArmasRebane]

By that logic, it's easy to improve an article. You split the sentences. You make them shorter.

That's exactly how it works on Simple.

I don't think that anyone pretends that Simple is meant to be a serious reference work. It's a play area.

I think its entire existence seems pointless, as the main English Wikipedia should probably work well enough for the average reader to understand; of course the tension between Wikipedia being a general reference work versus a comprehensive deep dive into X is always a present one.

In practice, Simple English also just attracts discards from the main project. I believe in block appeals to ArbCom we eventually stopped suggesting that banned users could work on other projects such as Simple and demonstrate their ability to work collaboratively, because who wanted to inflict some of these people on other projects? (It also ties into the issues about people you wouldn't let anywhere near en.wp being around on Commons/Meta.)

[Kumioko]

I guess that depends on why they are being banned but that's off topic for here.

I also agree that if Wikipedia was more cordial and a better environment to edit then we could probably get by without Simple. Since many within the Wikipedia community look down upon and are rude too, anyone who doesn't have an advanced degree in English, it drives a lot of would be users and editors away. As with many other things, if the community/editing environment were more friendly and followed policy consistently rather than picking and choosing when it suits them, then simple may not even need to exist at all.

[Kumioko]

Speaking of always improving, according to this linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =584818111[/link], someone back in 2013 "improved" the 176th Air Defense Squadron (T-H-L) article by adding a template for Poopie Fingers and its still there!

[Poetlister]

Speaking of always improving, according to this linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =584818111[/link], someone back in 2013 "improved" the 176th Air Defense Squadron (T-H-L) article by adding a template for Poopie Fingers and its still there!

Well-known WO fan Yngvadottir comes to the rescue again!

[thekohser]

If I'm interested in learning about design awards that luggage manufacturers have won, which of these articles is better?

The old one?

Or the current one?

Likewise, if I were interested in learning whether Disney and Samsonite ever had a licensing agreement, which article is better?


Always improving?

[Earthy Astringent]

Actually, I think the current article is better for an encyclopedia. The list of awards, Disney mentions, etc. are distracting. Paper encyclopedias were bound (pun) by space limitations, and if you compare any Wikipedia aricle to the paper version you will the latter to usually be the more succinct version.

[thekohser]

Actually, I think the current article is better for an encyclopedia. The list of awards, Disney mentions, etc. are distracting.

I'm sure for some people anything past the lede paragraph is considered distracting.

Would you remove the current section about Lego? That's just as distracting as the Disney info was, isn't it?

[Earthy Astringent]

Every marketing program or product does not need to be listed. The Lego connection is at least interesting.

[thekohser]

Every marketing program or product does not need to be listed. The Lego connection is at least interesting.

But the Disney connection was distracting? Got it.

This is why a crowd-managed encyclopedia does not work.

[Earthy Astringent]

I won't argue with your last point, but slapping Disney Princesses on a kids suitcase IMO is far less interesting than the company who brought Legos to the US market.

[Johnny Au]

At least the Samsonite article does not mention MacBook Pros (despite the fact that their laptop backpacks often depict MacBook Pros being inserted inside them on the removable labels on the backpacks).

[Carcharoth]

So I go to check on the world's tallest towers and find some unreverted vandalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =713252580

How does stuff like that get past recent changes patrol?

[thekohser]

I won't argue with your last point, but slapping Disney Princesses on a kids suitcase IMO is far less interesting than the company who brought Legos to the US market.

That's a fair point.

I guess I'm just saying that Smallbones declared that number of sentences and number of sources is how we measure Wikipedia article quality, so in the case of Samsonite, the article has been degraded over time.

[thekohser]

So I go to check on the world's tallest towers and find some unreverted vandalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =713252580

How does stuff like that get past recent changes patrol?

That lasted less than a day, thanks to you.

For some actual howlers, you need to read this.

[Carcharoth]

So I go to check on the world's tallest towers and find some unreverted vandalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =713252580

How does stuff like that get past recent changes patrol?

That lasted less than a day, thanks to you.

For some actual howlers, you need to read this.

Yes, I remember that experiment. It was tempting to wait for someone else to notice the vandalism. I expect psychologists would have a term for the buzz you (and others) get out of checking on a piece of vandalism that you know of (or inserted) and finding that it is still there. You are (mostly) a detractor of Wikipedia. Have you thought about collaborating with others (including supporters of Wikipedia and those who are neutral about the whole thing) on more experiments with a more rigorous methodology?

[thekohser]

Have you thought about collaborating with others (including supporters of Wikipedia and those who are neutral about the whole thing) on more experiments with a more rigorous methodology?

Sure, I've thought about it, but let me give you an example. Smallbones conducted a study of Wikipedia article quality, and I would have liked to have joined him on that quest. But he forbids me from interacting with him, and he deletes my commentary whenever he finds it on Wikipedia talk pages.

Further, I wished to offer a presentation at the Wikiconference USA 2014 about the ins and outs of how paid editors manipulate Wikipedia content. My presentation topic (which had gained measurable support from various prospective attendees who gave it a "thumbs up") was not only rejected, the idea was then stolen by conference organizers and added to the agenda long after the calendar for open submissions had expired. I was then banned from attending the conference, given notice only about 17 hours before I would have boarded my train to go there.

So, could you explain to me how I might "collaborate with others" on more experiments with more rigorous methodologies?

[Carcharoth]

Have you thought about collaborating with others (including supporters of Wikipedia and those who are neutral about the whole thing) on more experiments with a more rigorous methodology?

Sure, I've thought about it, but let me give you an example. Smallbones conducted a study of Wikipedia article quality, and I would have liked to have joined him on that quest. But he forbids me from interacting with him, and he deletes my commentary whenever he finds it on Wikipedia talk pages.

Further, I wished to offer a presentation at the Wikiconference USA 2014 about the ins and outs of how paid editors manipulate Wikipedia content. My presentation topic (which had gained measurable support from various prospective attendees who gave it a "thumbs up") was not only rejected, the idea was then stolen by conference organizers and added to the agenda long after the calendar for open submissions had expired. I was then banned from attending the conference, given notice only about 17 hours before I would have boarded my train to go there.

So, could you explain to me how I might "collaborate with others" on more experiments with more rigorous methodologies?

Not sure. You are in a difficult position that is not entirely of your own making. You might have to keep trying harder or trying to do the same things but in different ways (e.g. get someone else to present the results and only name you as a co-collaborator when doing the presentation). FWIW, I think you should be allowed to make such presentations yourself without such subterfuge.

[thekohser]

You might have to keep trying harder...

Yeah, because the Wikipediots thus far have really put me in the mood to do that -- especially without any compensation for my time and expertise!

[thekohser]

Here's something somewhat interesting.

Today I learned that the next annual shareholder meeting to be held by my employer will be conducted entirely online.

That news story mentioned something that I found interesting from a historical perspective: "The practice of virtual annual meetings is not new – the first company to hold one was consulting group Inforte in 2001". This factoid was also reported about 11 months ago on National Public Radio.

Wikipedia has nothing about Inforte for the reader.

Further, by reading about online annual meetings, I learned that "a company called Broadridge Financial sells a kind of digital platform that lets companies hold their annual meetings by webcast". Wikipedia does have an article about Broadridge Financial Solutions (T-H-L), but it doesn't specifically mention the digital solution for annual meetings. One single-purpose editor was sort of going in that direction in May 2012, but Mean as custard (T-C-L) shot it down as "promotional b*llsh*t".

Always improving?

[DanMurphy]

Too good not to share. Googled for the masthead of my old employer, The Christian Science Monitor, and up popped an informationish box informing me that John Yemma is the CSM's editor in chief. Could Wikipedia be the source of that, I wondered? You bet your sweet ass it is. The Christian Science Monitor (T-H-L).

Yemma was succeeded as editor in chief by my good mate Marshall Ingwerson in December 2013.