The Oxford Internet Institute held a three-hour Wikipedia Editathon on January 15 to mark the free encyclopaedia’s 15th birthday. 

In particular, researchers set out to improve entries about the ‘The Social Internet’, which covers topics from Uber, electoral predictions and the digital divide to freedom of speech, emojis and data surveillance. 

The encyclopaedia is ranked among the ten most popular websites in the world and constitutes the internet’s largest and most popular general reference work. The latest in a series of fundraising campaigns to keep the website free began recently. 

Dr Martin Poulter, the Bodleian Libraries’ Wikimedian in Residence who led the Editathon told Cherwell, “The Oxford Internet Institute wanted to run an event in which researchers and students would improve Wikipedia, and I suggested it happen on Wikipedia’s birthday as it would make the ideal present for Wikipedia. 

“We had about 30 people turn up. There were presentations from six researchers about Wikipedia’s strengths and weaknesses: there are still big problems of inequality across countries and across languages. Then again, a lot of those inequalities are present – even worse – in the traditional scholarly literature. 

“Wikipedia and its sister projects (collectively called ‘Wikimedia’) are potential platforms for researchers, librarians and educators that improve the knowledge that’s freely and openly available on these sites, they can reach a huge audience and shape public understanding of their subjects. But there’s a cultural change needed (and gradually happening) to make these sites accepted as part of their work.” 

When describing his role at Bodleian libraries, Poulter added, “My job is to build those links. Working in the Bodleian, I can use its collections of cultural treasures from around the world, but I also get to run training events with the Oxford Internet Institute and other parts of the University. Some are open to students; keep an eye on the IT Services events list.” 

Professor Glyn Humphreys, Watts Chair of Experimental Psychology and Head of
the Department of Experimental Psychology, died suddenly on 14th January while in Hong Kong as a Distinguished Visiting Professor.

The department released a statement on its website, noting that, “Psychology has lost a wonderful friend, a caring mentor and a brilliant scientist.” 

Educated at Bristol University in the late 1970s and formerly holding a professorship at Birmingham University and special professorships in Germany and China, Professor Humphreys was described as a “world leading authority in cognitive neuropsychology”, according to the statement, and had been recognised by numerous awards and honours including the British Psychological Society Lifetime achievement award in 2015. 

“Members of the Department of Psychology have been deeply affected by this extremely sad news,” the statement continued. 

“Glyn was so young and so full of life and vitality. Together with his wife and colleague Jane Riddoch they brought both wisdom and experience to experimental Psychology and the Medical school. Our thoughts are with Jane and their family,” it read.

The department has established a memorial webpage where those wishing to pay their tributes to Professor Humphreys can share their memories, where many former colleagues and pupils have written. 

Professor and Chair of Experimental Psychology David Clark wrote of Professor Humphreys, “Always available, always generous, always thoughtful and never pretentious, Glyn has been a transformative head of department […] Psychology has lost a brilliant experimentalist who also had that rare ability to consistently translate his findings into something that is a genuine help to patients. Thank you Glyn for showing so many of us a better way.” 

Professor of Developmental Nuropsychology Dorothy Bishop echoed these thoughts. “He was kind and considerate to everyone, and never showed any sign of self-importance despite being such a major figure in the field.

The whole department is in shock and is grieving the loss of a great psychologist,” she wrote.

Magdalena Chechlacz, a postdoctoral fellow who worked with and was supervised by Professor Humphreys, wrote of his ability as a teacher, “He was an incredibly kind, very generous and very patient teacher. 

“He had this amazing ability to impart his knowledge and experience without trying to change your individual way of seeing things.”

Andrew Olson, a lecturer in psychology at the University of Birmingham, noted that Humphreys was “incredibly supportive of students, young staff and international visitors, both personally and professionally.”

This sentiment has been reiterated in messages from those he knew all over the world. 

A memorial event for Dr. Humphreys will be held at Wolfson College on Saturday May 28.

The ISIS has revealed that police were called on Wednesday night to help manage queues at their ‘Grime and Punishment’ event at The Cellar, preventing anyone from entering or exiting the club for a period of around 15 minutes. 

On a night that The ISIS had promised to present “the most punishing beats, the Biggest Bangers and the Best of the underground, from both sides of the pond,” things are reported to have got out of control. 

Despite the long queues outside and reports of cramped conditions in Frewin Court outside The Cellar, The ISIS reports that the event never reached full capacity. One of the clubbers, a second year historian from University College, described the relative calm inside the club, telling Cherwell, “In my experience, loads of Burning Down the house nights were much more packed. It was by no means full. I had a good time, I think, because I got into the club early on.” 

Amongst those who did not make it into the club night, there appears to have been considerable frustration with the event’s management. One Facebook user posted on the event’s Facebook page describing how the night was “a waste of a pinger.” 

Responding to criticism over how the night was conducted, The ISIS posted on the event’s page that, “We are aware of the problems in the queue last night, and we were deeply concerned by the situation in the lane outside Cellar, where conditions for those queueing were unacceptable. We will continue to listen to those coming forward with concerns about the situation on the door.” 

Looking to the future, The ISIS stressed that, “We are in discussion about several ideas, including advance ticketing, roped access to the alleyway leading to Purple Turtle, and asking Cellar to provide additional security at their future events. 

“If our concerns and requests for further security in future are not taken into account, we will consider suspending any of our future events from being held at Cellar.” 

The night was positively received by a number of students. Harry George, a Merton student, for instance, stated that he “bloody loved” the night. 

And in the words of second year Trinity linguist, Alec Fullerton, “If you pardon the pun, it was a somewhat grime-y evening.” 

Proposed changes to higher education in England were presented to Parliament in November by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills in a green paper entitled, “Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice.” 

The green paper sets out proposals to change the landscape of higher education, which include introducing a “Teaching Excellence Framework” (TEF), increasing access for disadvantaged groups and establishing a new “Office for students to promote the student interest”. 

At this week’s OUSU Council meeting, the council went through its official response to the green paper. 

OUSU expressed concerns about the green paper’s impact on students with disabilities and on gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, sexual orientation and religion policy. 

On the subject of the TEF, the statement read, ‘‘We remain sceptical of any metric, or limited set of metrics, that attempts to quantify the quality of an educative experience.” 

The response also questioned the validity of the planned framework on the grounds that it was “designed almost entirely as an undergraduate measure.” 

Becky Howe, OUSU President, told Cherwell, “We are completely against linking increased tuition fees to teaching quality, as this will result in a situation where ‘better’ institutions cost more money. We strongly suspect this will discourage students who are debt averse (research shows that those from the lowest socioeconomic backgrounds are most debt averse) from applying to top institutions such as our own.” 

Another aspect of the government’s proposed changes to higher education, the scrapping of maintenance grants, was also criticised during this Wednesday’s OUSU council. Until now, the poorest students have been provided with up to £3,387 per year extra non-repayable support, with the aim of reducing financial barriers to university. This government’s proposed changes to student loans would see, from this autumn, means-tested grants being switched to loans repayable after graduation. It will end the decades-long process, which has seen student grants incrementally switched into loans. 

Andrew Smith, Labour MP for Oxford East, commenting on the impact of the scrapping of maintenance grants on students in Oxford, told Cherwell, “Maintenance grants provide vital support for students from lower income backgrounds, both those from Oxford and those who come to study here. In 2014-15, these grants ensured that over 7,000 poorer students studying in Oxford did not leave further education with greater debts than their more privileged peers. In spite of Labour’s attempt to halt the Tories’ plans in the house of Commons, they have forced through sweeping changes, which will scrap these grants.’’ 

The Institute for Fiscal studies substantiate the regressive impact this change will have, calculating that, “The poorest 40% of students going to university in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than up to £40,500.”

Cat Jones, OUSU Vice President for Access and Academic affairs, stated to Cherwell, “OUSU has been lobbying against the proposal to scrap maintenance grants since it was announced in the July emergency budget. We’re appalled that, despite making no mention of it in their manifesto, the government have taken away this vital support from the future applicants that need it the most. A larger loan for those with lower household in comes is in no way an adequate replacement for a non-repayable grant. Under the new system, students from less well-off backgrounds will owe thousands of pounds more to the government than their richer peers.’’ 

Jones added, ‘‘We would like to thank our local MP Andrew Smith and the team at the National Union of Students (NUS) for their support in challenging this regressive policy and are hugely disappointed to have lost the House of Commons debate by just 11 votes.’’ 

NUS has said it is “outraged” with the result of a vote to scrap maintenance grants for over half a million of England’s students hours after protesters blocked Westminster Bridge.

The protests were organized by the national Campaign Against Fees and Cuts. A member, Hope Worsdale, said, “This is not only a direct attack on working class students, but it also shows the Government’s flagrant disregard for the most basic democratic processes.”

Nichola Blackwood, the Conservative MP for Oxford West, did not respond to requests for comment. 

Oriel JCR is to hold three separate referenda on the introduction of new liberation group officers for its committee, as was determined at Sunday’s JCR General Meeting. 

This follows the JCR’s failed referendum on the creation of all three officerships through one single vote late last term. 

After a motion was put to the JCR, a resolution was passed to hold three further, separate elections to resolve this issue: one to establish a Women’s Officer, one to establish a BME Officer, and one to establish a Student Disabilities Officer. 

Although supported by more than 60 per cent of the voters, the previous referendum had failed to secure the required two-thirds supermajority. 

Oriel JCR currently has an Equalities Officer; most other colleges, however, have positions dedicated to the representation of women, minority ethnic students, and those with disabilities. 

As part of the motions, the JCR resolved to have the Returning Officer for the referenda issue “statements of conscience” requesting that only members who identify as part of the affected groups vote in the applicable referendum. Some students have expressed concern with discouraging full participation of all JCR members in establishing roles which will have voting rights on the JCR Committee. 

Molly Rogers, who recently proposed a successful motion in the Balliol JCR to change the name of her position from Disabled Students Officer to Student Disabilities Officer, said that she agrees in principle with the “statements of conscience” system, but pointed out that, “A person may develop a disability at any point and so may need to seek the support of someone they weren’t allowed to vote for.’’ 

“However, the democratic system implies that any decision made should be the one that is best for the group in question, so this shouldn’t pose too much of a difficulty.” She also said that anonymity of voting members was “something to bear in mind when restricting the right to vote to a minority group when there are issues with confidentiality.” 

OUSU VP for Women Lucy Delaney told Cherwell, “I’m very pleased to hear that Oriel College is considering the introduction of BME, Womens, and Disabilities Officers. I also fully support the decision for non-affected groups to be asked to abstain from voting for these positions, as I firmly believe that liberation groups should be able to choose their own representatives — they have lived experience and know more than anyone else which issues affect them. This is the procedure when voting in the OUSU elections for the closed-franchise role of VP Women.

“Finally, I think it is important to recognize, however, that in an institution such as Oxford, where there is poor representation for certain groups such as BME students, liberation officers are often expected to push through changes in college and in the University on their own, with very little support, and often against huge opposition. They are expected to constantly use up energy educating others and the changes they push through are often sadly built off oppression they themselves have to fight on a daily basis. This, I believe, is wrong – we all need to take responsibility for making Oxford more inclusive; for speaking out against sexual violence, for decolonizing the curriculum and for making Oxford accessible for students with disabilities.

“So, whilst I am extremely glad these officer positions may be created, I also think it is vital that we recognise this as a starting point, and that, following their election, the officers receive support and allyship from the entire student body.”