This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
Hello editors! We have 6 edit request queues (c.f. User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable), several of which require administrators or specialized technical editors to update - but one of them that is very backlogged can be processed by any neutral editor. If you have some time, please consider helping out at Category:Wikipedia requested edits. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 Board of Trustees election is coming soon. Candidates from the community are needed to fill the available seats.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. Community trustees and appointed trustees make up the Board of Trustees. Each trustee serves a three year term. The Wikimedia community has the opportunity to vote for community trustees.
Wikimedia contributors will vote to fill four seats on the Board in 2021. This is an opportunity to improve the representation, diversity, and expertise of the Board as a team.
Who are potential candidates? Are you a potential candidate? Find out more on the Call for Candidates announcement.
Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I recently came across an academic paper with this paragraph in the abstract:
In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, holo- gram or computer described as ‘sentient’ is usually treated in the same way as a human being. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (sapience) but sentient characters also typically dis- play desire, will, consciousness, ethic, personality, insight and humour. Sentience is used in this con- text to describe an essential human property that unites all of these other qualities. The words ‘sapi- ence’, ‘self-awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ are used in similar ways and sometimes – and confusingly – interchangeably in science fiction.
I wrote this paragraph for article sentience a long time ago, when I was newbie. This is how it appeared in 2010:
In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, hologram, or computer who is described as sentient is usually treated as a fully human character, with similar rights, qualities, and capabilities as any other character. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (see above), but sentient characters also typically display desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight, and many other human qualities. Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it. The words "sapience", "self-awareness", and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.
Here was my first version, from 2007:
The issue of sentience also frequently arises in science fiction stories about aliens, robots and computers with artificial intelligence. A character who is described as sentient is assumed to have many human qualities, such as will, desire, consciousness, ethics, personality, intelligence, insight, and so on (although it may be conspicuously lacking one or two). Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it.
So, question one: what do we think about people plagiarizing Wikipedia, without attribution?
Here's the thing, though. This paragraph was straight up WP:ORIG. (I said I was newbie.) I suppose I should have deleted it myself at some point, as original research, but I thought for sure I would eventually find a source that made this point. I never did.
Eventually, after ten years or so, the entire section of the article was deleted, because it lacked sources. I had a bit of chuckle and a sigh -- somebody finally noticed.
That brings me to question two: what do we think about people plagiarizing original research from Wikipedia? (Now it's getting complicated.)
So I got to thinking -- I could restore the paragraph, because now I have a source -- I mean the source is me, still, but I've been plagiarized outside of Wikipedia, so now maybe Wikipedia can plagiarize them back? I know, I know -- I'm just asking.
Finally, question three: what do we think about citing a source that is plagiarized original research from Wikipedia?--- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
In the case of robotically-assisted minimally-invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments; either a direct telemanipulator or through computer control.From the article (middle of the left column):
In the case of robotically assisted, minimally invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments—either a direct tele-manipulator or through computer control.I cut it for space, but it's the whole second paragraph of the WP article's lead. I didn't check if there are more hits from Wikipedia in that article. - kyykaarme ( talk) 12:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.
You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.
a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. Vexations ( talk) 00:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The round-table mentioned above is occurring in about 1h30m minutes from now and facilitated in English, Korean, and Indonesian. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) (correction to previous message: it's at 05:00 UTC)
June 29th is the deadline to apply to the Board of Trustees, as well as sending questions for candidates, see meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Apply to be a Candidate. MarioGom ( talk) 15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's say the primary topic is Murder of George Floyd or 2021 United States Capitol attack. The specific article that needs improvement, or the specific article that would be the appropriate place for information, is not known. It seems the logical starting place for figuring out where the information should go is the talk page of the central article unless there is a Wikiproject. But people object if I try to use those talk pages for improvements to other articles when is not known which other article would be the right place. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello All,
To better understand the perspectives of individuals in the Wikimedia community who have experienced harassment, Wikimedia Foundation researched our community members’ knowledge of, and comfort with, existing enforcement and reporting processes.
An executive summary of the research report is now available on Meta.
Currently, the executive summary is available in English, Spanish, and German.
You can discuss the results or raise questions on talkpage or by contacting communityhealthwg@wikimedia.org. We will be collecting questions for review by staff and will have answers available starting June 28, 2021.
Warm regards, SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative ( talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I cannot speak Japanese fluently, so I am request for Japanese-language admins to take action against the IP in question. He or she removed the template from articles that were related to the 2020 Paralympics. If the 2020 Olympics had a template, why can't the 2020 Paralympics had one. He or she even accused me of violating multiple account rules despite the fact that I was locked out of my previous accounts a few months ago. If anyone who is a admin of the Japanese Wikipedia, can either remind him/her that I cannot speak Japanese and that I created and added the template for a very good reason. Thanks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd ( talk) 22:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Not sure if the miscellaneous section of the village pump is the right place for this discussion, so please direct me to somewhere more suitable if not.
Currently, in year articles (as a random example since I have it open right now, 2015), it seems that tense is mixed between present and past. Most of the time, present tense is used – but when it doesn't work grammatically for a certain sentence structure, past tense has to be used. For example, from 2015, any time an eclipse is mentioned, past tense is used:
March 20 – A total solar eclipse was visible in the north Atlantic, Faroe Islands, Svalbard. It was the 61st eclipse of the 120th saros cycle which started on May 27, 933 AD and will end on July 7, 2195, which is 180 years ahead of 2015.
Therefore, my question is the following:
Should tense in this articles be standardised? If so, to what?
Any input is appreciated. Thanks, DesertPipeline ( talk) 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add a comment below. Use bullet points (*
) for initial comments and indent (:
) for replies to comments. Add an asterisk before the indent (*:
) for
accessibility reasons.
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a RfC under way about whether to add the European Union to the List of countries by GDP (nominal). Please share you thoughts. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Inputs requested:A discussion about whether to merge the article Ex-Muslims into the article Apostasy in Islam is underway @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Split or Merge ?
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 04:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC regarding content concerning TimelessToday LLC and its app. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
A Good Article Nominations backlog drive runs from 1 July 2021, 00:00 (UTC) and ends on 31 July 2021, 23:59 (UTC). This is a monthlong effort to cut the number of outstanding GANs and in particular those which have been in the queue 90 days or more. Awards will be given out to those individuals who do the most work in helping reduce the size of the backlog and reach milestones related to the number, age, and size, of articles reviewed. Currently there are 330 GANs which have been waiting for a review longer than 30 days, so help cutting the backlog is most appreciated. ( t · c) buidhe 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
As Questia is no more, should Questia.com links in references be bulk-tagged as dead, or removed, or what? DuncanHill ( talk) 08:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, how do we find articles that have no files? After I tried a lot Such as: Special pages, Categories, Wikidata Query, using Regex in Wikipedia search engine, external ways and more, I found no way to show me articles that had no files used. I think we need a special page in this case. Is there any way to do so? Thanks! ⇒ Aram Talk 21:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 10:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Let us consider the situation. Some Wikipedia user wrote an article. Someone else nominated the article for removal, the nomination was discussed, and the article was removed.
As far as I understand the spirit of Wikipedia, the user should have the right to receive, if desired, the text of the deleted article - for example, for working on it in his Sandbox, or for publication on some other resource.
What should be the actions of such a user? Are there any policies/rules for getting access to deleted articles? -- Perohanych ( talk) 10:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of the facilitators working on Movement Strategy and Governance.
Today, we are delivering an announcement from The Elections Committee regarding the confirmed candidates for the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections. I have reproduced the announcement (below) and have also provided a brief introduction about the Board (right).
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 Board of Trustees election opens 4 August 2021. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 20 candidates for the 2021 election.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to cover with new trustees.
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. The Board is expected to afterwards select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees starting in September for a term of three years.
How can you get involved?
Learn more about the candidates
Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates will answer the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta. In the coming weeks, candidates will have the opportunity to submit videos of themselves speaking about their candidacy.
Participate in campaign activities
The team of facilitators supporting this Board election has planned some activities for the campaign period. These activities can be found on the Board election page on Meta.
Community members are welcome and encouraged to organize activities in their own communities. We do ask that any activities intended to involve candidates remain respectful of their time, since candidacy can be very time-consuming. Please list activities you organize on the Board election page on Meta so more people can find them. Facilitators and Election Volunteers are available if you need support.
Vote
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opens on 4 August 2021 and closes on 17 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. Learn more about voting requirements, the process, and frequently asked questions about voting.
Single Transferable Vote
This voting system allows voters to rank candidates. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices in order of preference. This helps share your preferences more clearly than support or oppose. If your top choice candidate already has enough votes to be selected, your vote will be moved to your second choice candidate. If your top choice candidate will not win, your vote will be moved to your second choice candidate. And so on. The facilitation team came up with a fun example. More information will be coming mid-July.
Please spread the word so more people can support finding the best candidates to help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years.
Best,
The Elections Committee
So, universally (that is, literally everyone ever except me, that I have seen) uses the {{ reflist}} template as the sole contents of the "References" section and mixes the body of the refs with the article text. I use {{reflist|refs= [then all the refs inside <ref>...</ref> brackets one after the other, then the "reflist" template closed with an }}]. It's so much better. It is. So when I go to edit a section (of anybody else's page) I see like:
'''The Crab Claw''' is a<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbonline.com/articles/maryland/st-michaels/st-michaels-restaurants-mouth-watering-seafood-eateries.html |title=St. Michaels Restaurants: Mouth-Watering Seafood Eateries |author= |date= |work=Bed & Breakfast Inns Online |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> independent-owned restaurant located in [[St. Michaels, Maryland]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/restaurants/the-crab-claw,1155651.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091029142010/http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/restaurants/the-crab-claw,1155651.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 29, 2009 |title=The Crab Claw |author= |date= |work=Washington Post |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/206/1051746/restaurant/Maryland/Easton/Crab-Claw-Restaurant-St-Michaelsdc |title=Crab Claw Restaurant |author= |date= |work=Urban Spoon |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://national.citysearch.com/profile/5022923/st_michaels_md/crab_claw_restaurant.html |title=Crab Claw Restaurant |author= |date= |work=Citysearch |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> They have an extensively large amount of seafood on their menu, and they are known locally for their steamed crabs. The business evolved from a clam-shucking business established in the 1950s.<ref name="roadfood">{{cite web |url=http://www.roadfood.com/Restaurant/Reviews/271/the-crab-claw |title=The Crab Claw |author= |date= |work=Roadfood |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> In 1965, they added a seafood eatery.
Whereas editing the same section in one of my articles you see:
'''The Crab Claw''' is a<ref name=Bbonline/> independent-owned restaurant located in [[St. Michaels, Maryland]].<ref name=WaPo/><refname=UrbanSpoon/><ref name=Citysearch/> They have an extensively large amount of seafood on their menu, and they are known locally for their steamed crabs. The business evolved from a clam-shucking business established in the 1950s.<ref name=Roadfood/> In 1965, they added a seafood eatery.
Boy howdy, you can read my version better can you not? By Grabthar's hammer, I can barely read the top version. What I usually do is go to thru it add a blank line before and after each ref (a hassle) so I can at least kind of figure out what is text and what is refs. And it's still a mess to work with.
With the "refs=" procedure, the details of the ref are segregated in the "References" section. I mean if you are editing, you very seldom need to know who the author of a ref is or whatever. And you very rarely want to an existing ref, unless you are specifically going in to fix an error (also rare, and in which case, knowing it's in the References section is maybe better anyway)
Virtually the only way you want to access an existing ref is to look at it, to check what's in it etc. You want to do that from the actual page by clicking the source's link (if there is one) which takes you directly to the source. If you're editing, you would need to pick thru the mess to find the url, copy it, open a tab, and paste in the url. Hardly any harder to jump down to the References section where it's all laid out neatly like little soldiers waiting for you command. (I usually keep a live version of the article open in a separate tab; if you're editing on your phone, I can't image that the top version above is easier to deal with tho.)
If for some reason you need to find the ref details, they're together with the other refs in the References section. It's not a lot harder to get to them, and as I said this is fairly rare. Also, if you want to look at the refs for the article generally (I suppose this is possible), there they are all together.
With the "refs=" procedure, all the refs are always named, and the contents are findable pretty easily in the References section, rather than having to comb thru the entire article to find the initial definition of the name with the ref details. This makes it much easier for writing the article, assuming you are re-using refs (which is fairly common) I also can copy in a blank ref at the bottom of the References section and bonk-bonk make a copy and fill it in when I'm adding another ref. What you guys do I can't imagine.
Great Caesar's ghost, what am I missing? All this is documented at {{ reflist}} and has been since forever. I found it, why can't anyone else? I even (just once) had an admin come in and "fix" my stuff by jamming all the refs up into the article text. He'd never heard of the "refs=" method I guess.
As a programmer, it reminds me of mixing in your data with your code, which is terrible. Separate the data (the article text) from the code (the ref details). Using the "refs=" procedure, the refs are like calls to a subroutine, where the code for that subroutine is off somewhere else where it's not bothering you; you know what it does. And you can find it and look at if you want. Again, what is the downside here? (Yeah I know objects can contain code and data, but that ain't anything like the mess I'm describing here.)
I swear, I will give a crisp United States dollar to anyone who can convince me that the "refs=" method is worse, for either the writer or the editor (usually; I don't use this 100%, there are rare exceptions when it's better to use your guys's method. Rare.)
Or is just a matter of advertising this? If so, let's! "It's like discovering sex" might be a good (and accurate!) slogan.
Yr Obedient Servant, Herostratus ( talk) 00:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
but you did add the qualifier "that I have seen" so you may be correcct.literally everyone ever except me, that I have seen
An RFC is undergoing about whether or not a live situation map including information apparently partly sourced to the Taliban should be used on EN Wiki. The RFC can be seen here. FOARP ( talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
On Commons c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fictional_flags_-_are_they_in_scope? there is a discussion of fictional flags etc. and that include deletions of files in use in articles and on userpages on English Wikipedia. There is also a test DR c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Flag of the British Isles where it have been suggested to delete a file that is used on almost 100 userpages on English Wikipedia. That would be a change of c:COM:SCOPE where the general rule is in use = in scope. You are welcome to comment. -- MGA73 ( talk) 06:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I searched for something using Bing (normally use Google 95% of the time) and a website called wikiredia.com came up in search results, second or third down the page. Just wondering what this website is and does it contain malware or viruses? 158.222.185.250 ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team will be hosting round-table discussions for Wikimedians to talk together about the Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Charter, ongoing 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, and other Movement Strategy initiatives.
The next call is 17 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC ( check time). Conversations will be hosted in at least French, German, Spanish, and English.
The calls will last between 90 and 120 minutes and involve open discussions. The ideas shared during the calls will be summarized for the Wikimedia Foundation teams working on these topics.
We look forward to talking with you. Please see further details and sign up here.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The following redirects were undone WKPJ-LP and W10DD-D. These radio stations aren't notable and were redirected for a reason. Also WDSJ-LP and WOFB-LP had there categories restored, these radio stations aren't notable either and were redirect for a reason. Enough is enough of editors not logged in undoing redirects! Catfurball ( talk) 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been sitting on this for around two years. It has taken me a really long time to figure out how to express this.
As you may know I worked for the Wikimedia Foundation from 2018 to 2019. This was following a lifetime of service to the Wikimedia movement. I started contributing my time in 2004 and over time participated in greater and more consequential capacities. I am proud of the work I have done, from making workflows more efficient with bots, to organizing large and successful conferences, to my work on building an open citation graph on Wikidata.
What I am not proud of is working at the Wikimedia Foundation.
I worked very hard throughout my career and ultimately found full time work at one of the world’s most illustrious nonprofits. What I got for my lifetime of work was the experience of working with bullies.
The Wikimedia Foundation is run by bullies.
There are two members of executive management that come to mind. Both have made me the object of repeated ridicule over a period of several years in my volunteer and professional capacities. One has interacted with me a single digit number of times and only did so to make fun of some verbal gaffe I made or otherwise mock something I have said or done. Another liked to make jokes about me as well, often right in my face. I had an experience of interviewing with this executive, only for them to make fun of me to my face in subsequent encounters.
Both of these people still work at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not referring to them directly because I don’t want them to sue me and I don’t want my post to be oversighted, but they still hold positions of power, and they are still responsible for managing staff.
There are a lot of things I could tell you about the foundation, good or bad. I could tell you about the brilliance of the staff, the genuine collaborations between professionals and volunteers that take place, and the sincere dedication of everyone I have met working there.
I could also tell you about the lack of leadership at the highest levels, and the interdepartmental war for resources that resulted. But I was merely demoralized by this chaos; it wasn’t my own personal experience. I could tell you about how women, and women of color in particular, are chewed up and spit out by the management. But that’s not my story to tell. I could complain that their growth strategy is complete nonsense and destined to fail, but that’s, just, like, my opinion.
But this is my story to tell: I am an adult with autism. Over the years, especially when I was younger, it is inevitable that I would say and do things that are kind of funny. And I have been made fun of my entire life for it. I can forgive myself for saying awkward things, and I can forgive people for what they did as children. What I cannot forgive is a fully grown adult, in a position of significant authority, bullying another adult in their workplace. It is unforgivable.
After a chaotic 18 or so months of working at Wikimedia, I turned in my badge. The experience left me with posttraumatic stress disorder, seriously adrift on a moral and emotional level, and occasionally prone to psychotic episodes. Over time I have been able to forgive the dysfunction that defined my work experience, but I could not let go of the fact that there are bullies who work for the Wikimedia Foundation and still work there.
As Wikipedians we are a neurodiverse community and come from many different backgrounds. We need management that is not just charismatic, not just good at giving speeches, but empathetic and compassionate, who genuinely understands our experiences.
I feel terrible and exposed writing this. I may be opening myself up to retaliation. But I have been sitting on this for so long, and it has tortured me so much. And I can’t live with myself not knowing that this perspective is invisible. You are not going to hear it from the slick Communications team, and you’re not going to hear it from people who think speaking up will make them unemployable. But at this point, I don’t think I have anything to lose. And if others speak up because of me I hope it will be worth it. Harej ( talk) 03:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
To add some clarifying remarks: I am not referring to the managers I reported directly to; they are incredible people. And I do believe most staff at the foundation are working in good faith and are trying to do right by the people they work with, professionally and in the community. I am gravely concerned that there is a culture among, specifically, the executives (i.e. direct reports to the CEO) that is toxic, and I have been on the receiving end of this in subtle ways that scarred me. While I worked there and especially since I left many of them have been replaced with new ones, and I have no opinion on them because I haven't worked with them. I've noticed a lot of people have brought their own grievances with the Wikimedia Foundation into this, and I completely understand that, just that I think my position is a bit more nuanced than the "community vs. foundation" dynamic I often see. And I also want to note that merely the experience of being able to write what I did, and the outpouring of support, has been immensely meaningful to me. Thank you. Harej ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Manipulation involves the psychopath creating a scenario of “ psychopathic fiction” where positive information about themselves and negative disinformation about others will be created, where your role as a part of a network of pawns or patrons will be utilised and you will be groomed into accepting the psychopath's agenda. Once on to the confrontation stage, the psychopath will use techniques of character assassination to maintain their agenda, and you will be either discarded as a pawn or used as a patron. Finally, in the ascension stage, the role of the subject as a patron in the psychopath’s quest for power will be discarded, and the psychopath will take for himself/herself a position of power and prestige from anyone who once supported them.
OpIndia has published a – factual, as far as I can see – report on this. I cannot link to it, as the site is blacklisted. -- Andreas JN 466 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if this is an FAQ, stupid, etc. But ... I am pretty sure that I have seen somewhere a policy or guideline, perhaps in the MOS, that suggests that if you are writing about a well-enough-known city, such as Paris, you do not need necessarily to specify that it is Paris, France as opposed to Paris, Texas or [[Paris, Wherever]]. Initial searches have not been a success. If this still exists, can you please point me to it? Thank you. Best to all, DBaK ( talk) 08:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Per https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/business/usa-today-paywall.html, USA Today is going to put most of their content behind a paywall. Actually, based on what I can see, it's already happened. I suspect that means we're going to have a lot of inaccessible links in references. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Can we use DeepL on the Content Translation tool? If not, why not? Javiermes ( talk) 14:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:American_prisoners_of_war has what appears to be a good-faith reference added. But I don't think a reference belongs in a category page. At the same time I don't see any specific article where this would be appropriate to move the reference and am not sure what to do with it. United States military casualties in the War in Afghanistan exists, but a POW is not usually regarded as a casualty. - Bri.public ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Women South Asia is back with the 2021 edition. Join us to minify gender gaps and enrich Wikipedia with more diversity. Happening from 1 September - 30 September, Wiki Loves Women South Asia welcomes the articles created on gender gap theme. This year we will focus on women's empowerment and gender discrimination related topics.
We warmly invite you to help organize or participate in the competition in your community. You can learn more about the scope and the prizes at the project page.
Best wishes,
Wiki Loves Women Team
10:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
Hello again! Please see above and the full newsletter for updates about the Universal Code of Conduct project.
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team will be hosting round-table discussions for Wikimedians to talk together about the Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Charter, ongoing 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, and other Movement Strategy initiatives.
The next call is 17 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC. Conversations will be hosted in at least French, German, Spanish, and English.
The calls will last between 90 and 120 minutes and involve open discussions. The ideas shared during the calls will be summarized for the Wikimedia Foundation teams working on these topics.
We look forward to talking with you. Please see further details and sign up here.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC regarding content concerning TimelessToday LLC and its app. AndyTheGrump ( talk)
Just noticed a tag in Welsh and English on my watchlist. "Tags: Golygu ar declyn symudol Golygiad gwe symudol Advanced mobile edit". Google translates the Welsh parts as "Edit on mobile tool Mobile web edit". Is this a new feature and why do we have it? Is Welsh now an official language of en-wiki? Will other random languages crop up? DuncanHill ( talk) 20:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see all tags relating to mobile edits are either wholly in Welsh, or with an English bit at the end, as in my example above. Tags which are not about mobile edits are not affected. DuncanHill ( talk) 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
In the Guinea-Bissau article under education ( Guinea-Bissau#Education) there is one paragraph with a link to the "main article". But the main article is even shorter! It's existed since 2008 but should it just get deleted? Unless someone wants to translate the Portuguese version... Human-potato hybrid ( talk) 05:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation will be running weekly fundraising banner tests on the English Wikipedia between now and the 24th of November (they will be visible every Wednesday for a few hours). We will be looking to see how our infrastructure (both human and machine alike) perform over a short period of time. Thank you to those in the communities who have supported us already and I'd like to thank you all in advance for your support and patience.
We are always looking for ways to improve our campaigns and appreciate your feedback regarding banner messages and design.
Best wishes,
JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 12:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
On Electronic dance music, it doesn't say it's a genre. Neither me. It's not really a genre. But i always found it on some song articles. It sould be removed on genre section on every music-related article.
We need to discuss this issue. -
GogoLion (
talk) 14:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC, and inside the reference section (beneath the actual references) I added notes about who the sources are. Three of the forty-two sources are notable scholars interviewed by mainstream media, but instead of noting the scholars I mistakenly noted the interviewers. Is there a problem in terms of Policy with making those clarifications a day later with an "(Updated ~~~~~)" note? François Robere ( talk) 18:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! The 2021 Board of Trustees election opens 4 August 2021. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three-week-long Call for Candidates, there are 20 candidates for the 2021 election.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competence and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to find in new trustees.
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. The Board is expected to afterwards select the four most-voted candidates to serve as trustees, starting in September, for a term of three years.
How can you get involved?
Learn more about the candidates
Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates will answer the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta. In the coming weeks, candidates will have the opportunity to submit videos of themselves speaking about their candidacies.
Participate in campaign activities
The team of facilitators supporting this Board election has planned some activities for the campaign period. These activities can be found on the Board election page on Meta.
Community members are encouraged to organize activities in their own communities. We do ask that any activities intended to involve candidates remain respectful of their time, since candidacy can be very time-consuming. Please list activities you organize on the Board election page on Meta so that more people can find them. Facilitators and Election Volunteers are available if you need support.
Vote
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opens on 4 August 2021 and closes on 17 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. Learn more about voting requirements, the process, and frequently asked questions about voting.
Single Transferable Vote
This voting system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. This helps voters share their preferences more clearly than simple support or oppose votes. If your top-choice candidate already has enough votes to be selected or will not win, your vote will be moved to your second-choice candidate. And so on. The facilitation team came up with a fun example. More information will be coming mid-July.
Please spread the word so that more people can support finding the best candidates to help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years. Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 04:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, we have four meetings set with interpretation support based on the regional focus. Please sign up and ask questions in advance. Voting begins 4 August 2021. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 00:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please update information about matches played in Uefa Conference League on 15 july. Thank you-- 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 11:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way to see a slideshow of preceding Main_Pages? I recall a photo from one but can't find it. In a slideshow I might spot the picture and then view the page itself; then identify the photo. Thx, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors contains, as I type this, 25,610 articles. Fewer than 30 editors watch the category. I think only about 150 editors use either User:Svick/HarvErrors.js or User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js which clearly mark such errors when viewing articles. Referencing errors such as these undermine the encyclopaedia. They place an unnecessary burden on readers who wish to look into a subject further, likewise they impede the efforts of editors to check that material is supported by the references we use.
We have a bot that informs editors when they introduce links to disambiguation pages, and very helpful it is too. Would it be possible to have a bot or suchlike which does the same when an edit introduces a Harv or Sfn no-target error? This would help editors correct such slips as soon as they were made, when hopefully they have their sources to hand. I don't know how it would work - perhaps something in the tools I linked above could be adapted, or some method of monitoring the membership of the category could work.
Anyway, I'm just throwing this out there for comments and suggestions. Pinging @ Svick: and @ Trappist the monk: as I mentioned their tools above. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
On Commons there is for example c:Category:Undelete in 2030 for this, but locally we didn't seem to have anything for this. I created Category:Future copyright expiration but did yolo it a bit and Verbcatcher has questions. It's a tad messy on Commons as well though. List, category, both. Suggestions to structure this are welcome. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 06:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have loved Wikipedia for almost two decades. I have even donated more than I’ve been asked to. I have noticed in the last year that information on Wikipedia has been blatantly controlled by organizations that have a specific political agenda. It was confirmed to me by a nationally syndicated newspaper quoting one of the founding fathers of Wikipedia.
In short let me use a quote that has been used throughout history- “Nihilne Sanctum Est?” “Is nothing sacred?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.243.65 ( talk) 23:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators project is moving!
With Diegodlh we are inviting people to apply to be an Advisory Board member. Is this you? Is this someone you know?
Check the Call for members and apply to be an Advisory Board member before August 6th!
If you are too busy this time around to apply, don't worry: we get it. You can also help us by spreading the word! We sincerely appreciate it. -- Scann ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I have a thorny issue over at the Karman Line article, somewhat like {{ Expert needed}} but for placement at the talk page instead of the article page itself. One of the suggested alternatives to placing that template was to ask here.
Basically we have a scientific article where editors add as a source an article that basically denies the entire concept (that is the article subject). If you're interested (and ideally consider yourself a technical expert on the subject matter) have a look yourself:
Talk:Kármán_line#The_Non_Kármán_Line:_An_Urban_Legend_of_the_Space_Age
"As a more general question, if asking here isn't the best course of action, what do you recommend? The Expert Needed documentation suggests: If you want help for most of the page, or if you want help soon, then try these much more effective options:
The last one is really the only one I fully grok. Which would you prefer and how would you go about it? CapnZapp ( talk) 11:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you know?
Hello, I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project.
The Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on it since 2019. The goals of the project are to make the interface useful for advanced users and more comfortable for readers. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more.
The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on 13 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.
The changes apply to the Vector skin only. Monobook or Timeless users are not affected.
So far, we have deployed the following features:
We do not have one final vision of the interface after the deployment of all changes. Instead, we measure the impact of each change individually. In addition to that, we learn about the communities' preferences using a variety of methods. You can find all major reports on our Repository page.
If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.
You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us (August 6th, 16:00 UTC). You will also be able to take part in our Wikimania discussion (we will share the details later).
How to join our online meeting
Thank you!
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team, SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 13:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, the call for candidates to draft a Movement Charter opens in a little under 8 hours from now. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 16:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.
The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.
We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:
The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.
Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions.
Hello, I've posted previously to this board about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. There has been a delay in the voting period, which is now scheduled to begin 18 August 2021. Please see more details below. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 23:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
We are reaching out to you today regarding the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. This election was due to open on August 4th. Due to some technical issues with SecurePoll, the election must be delayed by two weeks. This means we plan to launch the election on August 18th, which is the day after Wikimania concludes.
For information on the technical issues, you can see the Phabricator ticket.
We are truly sorry for this delay and hope that we will get back on schedule on August 18th. We are in touch with the Elections Committee and the candidates to coordinate next steps. We will update the Board election Talk page and Telegram channel as we know more.
Centenary & Tricentenary redirect to different pages......... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Everyone!
I am working on a web application for my bachelor thesis, that aims to explain the automatic grade predictions of ORES articlequality model and on what they are based on, to make it more transparent what an article might be lacking or what makes it so good.
For a last evaluation, I am searching for participants for an usability test to test a functional prototype. It would be especially interesting to test the application with (new) editors of the English Wikipedia, because my main goal is to help editors improving their editing skills.
If someone is interested in participation, feel free to contact me in any way.
Any Questions about it are also welcome.
Articles on Wikipedia are rated and receive a grade. The English Wikipedia uses ORES, a machine learning web service created by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Machine Learning team. ORES offers a variety of machine learning models and one of them is the article quality model. This model assesses existing articles automatically and predicts the most likely grade for them based on their structural characteristics. [1]
If someone is still interested in testing, here is a link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScVm0c5ezw18KRNf4UxbaKchOVwkMDIUGUQDuk8OvleEcunEg/viewform?usp=sf_link
-- Endoplasma ( talk) 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is pleased to announce the addition of new collections, alongside a new interface design. New collections include:
Additionally, De Gruyter and Nomos have been centralised from their previous on-wiki signup location on the German Wikipedia. Many other collections are freely available by simply logging in to The Wikipedia Library with your Wikimedia login!
We are also excited to announce that the first version of a new design for My Library was deployed this week. We will be iterating on this design with more features over the coming weeks. Read more on the project page on Meta.
Lastly, an Echo notification will begin rolling out soon to notify eligible editors about the library ( T132084). If you can translate the notification please do so at TranslateWiki!
--The Wikipedia Library Team, sent by Samwalton9 13:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there any sort of archive that keeps track of copyright permission requests?
c:Commons:WikiProject Permission requests only shows a handful of entries. This suggests either 1) people don't really bother to ask authors for a release of rights or 2) most of those requests are not publicly recorded. If someone else has requested permission to publish a work under a free license and was denied, then it would be useful for others to know so that they don't waste time trying to contact the same author. Ixfd64 ( talk) 21:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This article had press coverage; for this reason, I think this peer review about it requires attention. Thank you.-- V. E. ( talk) 11:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry if I'm writing in the wrong heading (sysop on the french WP). Do you know where I can find the score of Kamarinskaïa that we may hear in the The Grand Budapest Hotel ? OT38 ( talk) 21:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a link to a RFC on Meta concerning all Wikimedia projects. Best, Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 01:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of my pages have been reviewed with 24 hours, so I am wondering why a page I submitted a few days ago has still not been reviewed. Are all pages eventually reviewed and how long can it take please? Amirah talk 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease is not working as intended since RPP was reformatted because most users are filing ambiguous requests under the placeholder title " Example Article Name". At Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, users are also not filling in the placeholder title " Name of page you are requesting an edit to" with the page they want to be edited, and are also frequently submitting malformed requests and even attempting to create articles here. I'm not seeing this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The File:Flag of the Empire of Vietnam (1945).svg used on Wikipedia is now become questionable. Yesterday someone argued that that this flag shouldn't be similar dimensions to the South Vietnamese flag, and all red stripes shouldn't reach to the side of flag. However he posted on my talk page at the Wikimedia Commons. It would be nice if anyone can help to investigate. -- Great Brightstar ( talk) 09:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
By coincidence, I noticed multiple references use this "dummy" ISBN: 978-1-234-56789-7. (Note the pattern of increasing numbers, except the prefix and the checksum.) Although it does correspond to a book, all the references (I suppose) actually deal with completely different works. It might be worth investigating where these ISBNs come from (and fix the invalid references).
Strange enough, this is what citoid (citation generator in visual editor) generates from it:
-- Matěj Suchánek ( talk) 12:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm one of the schmucks in the world who pays for YouTube music and recently came across the artist biographies in the app that nobody ever reads. I've discovered that they wholesale steal Wikipedia content in pretty much all the artist biographies. For instance, here's the page on Daft Punk (scroll down to bottom) [1], wholesale taken from our article with no attribution. Likewise for 50 Cent. [2] When I emailed YTM support they told me that the artist biographies are provided by the artists themselves (sure they are) and that I should use the "feedback" button in the app, which we all know worked amazing for WP:CALIPH. They also said that they only provided support for purchases and my concern was out of scope.
Normally I'd follow our policies on mirrors and forks but Google doesn't provide any actual contact information to send the CC-BY-SA template to anymore, unless I am willing to send a physical letter to the Google headquarters. Anyone else got any ideas? The last time I asked WMF legal about this issue back in 2015 with
Google Play Music doing this they told me to send the amazing CC-BY-SA compliance letter, so that's likely a dead end.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I observe that in many biographical articles on Wikipedia, the surname of the subject is repeated over and over again, where in normal English writing of any basic standard, a pronoun would be used. In some articles, this jarring error is so frequent that it makes them almost unreadable.
The example which has prompted me to post this is Simo Häyhä, in which this person's surname is repeated five times in the five-sentence lead section (twice in one of those sentences), and appears 100 times in the article overall. I estimate that about 70 of those should be replaced by a pronoun.
Many, many articles are similarly written. I find this utterly baffling. Why are so many people writing in this way? Is there some rational explanation for this? Some guideline suggesting that it should be done, perhaps? Or is it really the case that very large numbers of Wikipedia editors simply do not know how to use pronouns correctly in English? Saturated flux ( talk) 16:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. I do agree that excessive repetition of a person's name makes for stilted prose. I'll generally use "he" or "she" when it's in close proximity to the last time I used a person's name and it's completely unambiguous who the referent is: "Fred Flintstone ordered a full rack of brontosaurus ribs at the drive-in. His car fell over when it was delivered". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
See also the wonderful essay Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. Switching up surname with he/she can "fail to fix the real cause of repetitive prose, which is usually repeated information, not repeated words." -- Green C 19:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm extremely surprised that some people are arguing that this is not an error. Another example that I fixed yesterday was this:
I think that is awful writing. I think that normal English demands that the second and third sentences contain a pronoun and not a repetition of the surname. Do people really disagree? Does any guide to good English writing disagree?
Meanwhile I see people saying "just fix what you think needs fixing". Sure. But the point is, the error is everywhere. If the error is arising because most editors don't really know how to use pronouns, then there's no point in the minority who do fixing anything because their efforts are logically doomed to failure. Saturated flux ( talk) 09:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 14:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, there are some plausible theories about how this error could arise, and I can see how they might apply in some cases. But I really cannot see how any of them would account for what I found at Simo Häyhä, and what I see at many other articles. Personally, I am finding it pretty hard to avoid concluding that a very significant proportion of the editors of English Wikipedia must simply not know when pronouns should be used. However, my observation is still a bit anecdotal. I think I will try to investigate some defined set of biographical articles to see how widespread the problem is. Saturated flux ( talk) 16:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your patience. The voting is now open in the 2021 Board of Trustees election.
Eligible voters can enter their vote at Special:SecurePoll/vote/791.
Please see the full announcement below, and let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 01:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 19 candidates for the 2021 election.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to cover with new trustees.
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to select candidates who have the qualities to best serve the needs of the movement for the next several years. The Board is expected to select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees. This term starts in September and lasts for three years. Learn more about the Board of Trustees in this short video.
Vote now until August 31.
Below is some useful information about the election process.
Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates answered the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta.
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opened on 18 August 2021 and closes on 31 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements, how to vote, and frequently asked questions about voting.
Please help in the selection of those people who best fit the needs of the movement at this time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Those selected will help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years.
Best,
The Elections Committee
Hello fellow editors,
I would like to draw your attention to the complete list of 61 questions which were asked by the Community here from the candidates appearing in the Board of Trustees election process. The Election Committee of the WMF selected eleven of these questions which were mandatorily needed to be answered by the candidates in the link given in the announcement post by WMF above. Some candidates answered the complete list of 61 questions and you can read their views in their questions, however please note there was severe time pressure on the candidates in this election and all candidates were genuinely not able to answer all the questions due to commitments in real life.
Please do go through candidate statements, their answers to the mandatory 11 questions and to the complete set of community questions before voting. Vote wisely, and Happy Editting. :) AshLin ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am a candidate for the Board of Trustees Election and this post is only for information of editors on my home wiki. AshLin ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to draw the attention of users to the discussion of the definition of the Donbas. So far, only the user interested in promoting his point of view has spoken out there, who previously removed a number of reliable sources from the article ( and earlier). Therefore, there is a need for a neutral point of view from the outside. Please read the sources on this issue and express your opinion. Thank you. 94.181.192.62 ( talk) 05:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee would like comments about the enforcement draft guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This review period is planned to begin 17 August 2021.
Community and staff members collaborated to develop these draft guidelines based on consultations, discussions, and research. These guidelines are not final but you can help move the progress forward. Provide comments about these guidelines by 17 October 2021. The committee will be revising the guidelines based upon community input.
Everyone may share comments in a number of places. Facilitators welcome comments in any language on the draft review talk page or by email. Comments can also be shared on talk pages of translations, at local discussions, or during round-table discussions and conversation hours.
There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines:
The facilitation team supporting this review period hopes to reach a large number of communities. Having a shared understanding is important. If you do not see a conversation happening in your community, please organize a discussion. Facilitators can assist you in setting up the conversations.
Discussions will be summarized and presented to the drafting committee every two weeks. The summaries will be published here.
The full announcement and translations can be found here.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 23:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Can i use Encyclopædia Britannica as reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoLion ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The site is down ( again, again..). The last time in 2019, it was down for 5 weeks. And when it came up, they no longer accepted new archives, and many archives no longer worked correctly (showing replacement ? characters). Enwiki currently has 239,069 webcitation.org links. In theory it is possible for bots to move to other providers, but in practice there is a fair amount of content-drift that means manual conversions are still best. An RfC was held in 2019 to deprecate the site which had SNOW support. If there is an article you care about, get rid of these links where possible. Two providers have good replacements available: Archive.today and Archive.org -- Green C 15:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
See User_talk:Secret for people that know/knew him who want to pass on best wishes, prayers or support Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I raised an AfD for Zoophoria on the 15th. I can see it in some places but not others and there has been no activity. Slimy asparagus ( talk) 06:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia movement has been tagged for "original research & "primary sources", and individual sources tagged as "third-party source needed".
Can works written by people who have volunteered on Wikimedia projects be cited on articles about the movement? What is the cut off point - a thousand edits? Ten? One? Running a meetup or editathon? A talk at Wikimania?
Are editors involved in the movement, in any way, conflicted in writing about it?
Otherwise, how can we write about Wikipedia? Or Earth? Or Human? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
;-)
)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Hi all
I'm very pleased to say the EU's European Investment Bank (the largest not for profit bank in the world) has released its first batch of content under an open license. To the best of my knowledge this is only the second EU body to make content available under an open license, after the Commission.
They're released around 100 amazing graphs from the largest survey of the public's attitude to what actions should be taken on climate change (+some photos of their buildings). Broadly it shows widespread support for significant action on climate change.
Please help to encourage them to release more by adding them to articles.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_produced_by_the_European_Investment_Bank
Thanks
~~~~ John Cummings ( talk) 19:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
in List of breads, how are origins of white bread and whole wheat bread usa and canada? -- RZuo ( talk) 21:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to add this, but I hope this is the right place. But hmoob.in has rather just copied the entirety of the English Wikipedia, with no attribution whatsoever. Unlike other copycat sites, this one is just rather everything translated into Hindi. So the main page ends up being a copy of our main page featured a couple of days ago. hmoob.in and ours. Similarly with the page Antandrus which is similar to their's, but in Hindi, with no attribution whatsoever. I checked Longhair's userpage ( copycat site), which there seems to be a delay. I can't understand any non latin script so I'm not too sure what's on the website anyway, but I'm going off the images and the formatting. Thanks! SHB2000 ( talk) 11:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Imagine you’ve just spent 27 minutes working on what you earnestly thought would be a helpful edit to your favorite article. You click that bright blue “Publish changes” button for the very first time, and you see your edit go live! Weeee! But 52 seconds later, you refresh the page and discover that your edit has been reverted and wiped off the planet.
An AI system - called ORES - has been contributing to this rapid judgement of hundreds of thousands of editors’ work on Wikipedia. ORES is a Machine Learning (ML) system that automatically predicts edit and article quality to support content moderation and vandalism fighting on Wikipedia. For example, when you go to RecentChanges, you can see whether an edit is flagged as damaging and should be reviewed. This is based on the ORES predictions. RecentChanges even allows you to change the sensitivity of the algorithm to "Very Likely Have Problems (flags fewer edits)" or "May Have Problems (flags more edits)”.
In this discussion post, we want to invite you to discuss the following *THREE potential ORES models* -- Among those three models, which one do you think presents the best outcomes and would recommend for the English Wikipedia community to use? Why?
ABOUT US: We are a group of Human–computer interaction researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and we are inviting editors to discuss the trade-offs in AI-supported content moderation systems like ORES; your input here has the potential to enhance the transparency and community agency of the design and deployment of AI-based systems on Wikipedia. We will share the results of the discussion with the ML platform team which is responsible for maintaining the ORES infrastructure. However, the decisions of the discussion are not promised to be implemented. More details are available at our research meta-pages: Facilitating Public Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions and Applying Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design to ORES.
Group / Metrics | Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted
|
Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging
|
False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely
identified as damaging |
False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are
falsely identified as good |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 98.5% | 3.4% | 0.5% | 26.3% |
Experienced | 99.7% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 61.2% |
Newcomer | 95.7% | 10.7% | 1.8% | 23.0% |
Anonymous | 94.8% | 12.7% | 2.4% | 22.8% |
Group / Metrics | Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted
|
Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging
|
False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely
identified as damaging |
False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are
falsely identified as good |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 97.2% | 1.2% | 0.1% | 69.9% |
Experienced | 99.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 94.0% |
Newcomer | 91.2% | 4.4% | 0.8% | 68.5% |
Anonymous | 90.7% | 4.5% | 0.0% | 67.2% |
Group / Metrics | Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted
|
Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging
|
False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely
identified as damaging |
False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are
falsely identified as good |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 96.1% | 7.6% | 4.0% | 2.4% |
Experienced | 99.9% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 17.9% |
Newcomer | 91.8% | 19.8% | 9.1% | 1.0% |
Anonymous | 82.7% | 30.8% | 19.9% | 0.8% |
If you are not satisfied with any of the models described above, you can try out this interface, pick a model on your own, and share your chosen model card in the discussion by copying and pasting the wikitext offered in the interface.
Bobo.03 ( talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Bobo.03: I'm sure this has come along since my very early engagement with it. I know you are well-aware of CluebotNG, but I'd like to draw a highlight that although it once accepted a false positive rate of 0.25%, it has been changed to use 0.1% as its threshold. That hit 55% and 40% of vandalism (thus 45% and 60% false negative). That, I think, gives a pretty clear marker that Wikipedians are way more willing to accept it missing something than an unwarranted hit. Unwarranted hits kill off new users, and irk experienced users, while many issues missed can be caught by alternate means. I tried to have a fiddle with the interface but couldn't figure out how to make it apply different tolerable false positive rates to different groups. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Occasionally I find an article with a closing "nowiki" tag, with no corresponding opening tag. Is there a reason for these? If not, can we get a full list of them for cleanup? BD2412 T 02:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
</nowiki>
with no opening <nowiki>
. They can cause errors and confusion later and should be removed or fixed. There is sometimes a reason for a self-closing <nowiki/>
or <nowiki />
. Self-closing tags have the slash at the end and no corresponding opening tag.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
</nowiki>
without <nowiki>
. Not sure how reliable this search is though.
ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (
talk) 05:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)<nowiki>
at
UseModWiki). The rest were just oddly placed, sometimes breaking templates, and for no apparent reason.
BD2412
T 16:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Katie talk 11:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It is intresting to note that wickapedia has gone "covid friendly" with the attack article on Dr Yeardon. The article is locked and is nothing more than an assault on his character and opinions. Since when did wickipedia become a political hit piece that locks articles and assaults the opinions of public figures?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2A15:2268:7DDC:6786:E52C:A750 ( talk) 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I "overheard" two professors discussing having students edit Wikipedia articles on Twitter. One asked for tips; the other replied "We tried asking MRes students to update a badly written or inaccurate Wikipedia page on a related topic - that worked quite well but too many wiki pages now excellently written". Too many wiki pages now excellently written
— well done, everyone!
Schazjmd
(talk) 23:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
We hope all of you are as well and safe as possible during these trying times! We wanted to share some news about a change to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. We would like to hear your opinions as well.
Summary:
We will be running the Community Wishlist Survey 2022 in January 2022. We need more time to work on the 2021 wishes. We also need time to prepare some changes to the Wishlist 2022. In the meantime, you can use a dedicated sandbox to leave early ideas for the 2022 wishes.
In the past, the Community Tech team has run the Community Wishlist Survey for the following year in November of the prior year. For example, we ran the Wishlist for 2021 in November 2020. That worked well a few years ago. At that time, we used to start working on the Wishlist soon after the results of the voting were published.
However, in 2021, there was a delay between the voting and the time when we could start working on the new wishes. Until July 2021, we were working on wishes from the Wishlist for 2020.
We hope having the Wishlist 2022 in January 2022 will be more intuitive. This will also give us time to fulfill more wishes from the 2021 Wishlist.
We are thinking how to make the Wishlist easier to participate in. We want to support more translations, and encourage under-resourced communities to be more active. We would like to have some time to make these changes.
We will have gone 365 days without a Wishlist. We encourage you to approach us. We hope to hear from you in the talk page, but we also hope to see you at our bi-monthly Talk to Us meetings! These will be hosted at two different times friendly to time zones around the globe.
We will begin our first meeting September 15th at 23:00 UTC. More details about the agenda and format coming soon!
If you have early ideas for wishes, you can use the new Community Wishlist Survey sandbox. This way, you will not forget about these before January 2022. You will be able to come back and refine your ideas. Remember, edits in the sandbox don't count as wishes!
Answer on the talk page (in any language you prefer) or at our Talk to Us meetings.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following four candidates received the most support:
While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the Bylaws. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees at the end of this month.
Read translations of this announcement.
Read the full announcement and translations.
Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 23:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the proper venue for this question, but perhaps you can advise. Since the renaming of [[Category:Female jazz singers]] to [[Women jazz singers]], are juvenile female jazz singers intended to be excluded from the category? Or are they to be considered young women? I don't expect that this issue will come up often but it has at Baby Esther (date of birth uncertain), who was at most 16 y.o. and perhaps only 12 when she faded into obscurity. Ewulp ( talk) 01:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I have 62 munite audio documentary to translate from Swedish ( download). From what I heard there can be a lot of important information for Basshunter biography. I'm not sure if it is possible to find anyone to listen it and translate yet if it's not fan. Eurohunter ( talk) 15:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 14, 2021.
The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.
We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:
The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.
Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions.
This message may have been sent previously - please note that the deadline for candidate submissions was extended and candidacies are still being accepted until 14 September 2021. Xeno (WMF) 17:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, 14 September 2021.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
Hello!
As we have recently announced, we, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on September 15th, 23:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.
Agenda
Format
The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (first three points in the agenda) will be given in English.
We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.
Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.
Invitation link
See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team is hosting Roundtable discussions on 18 September 2021 at 03:00 UTC and 15:00 UTC for Wikimedians to talk together about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct . These calls are part of the Universal Code of Conduct project Phase 2 Enforcement draft guidelines review (EDGR).
Each session will last for 90 to 120 minutes and translation support for various languages will be provided. Also, sessions in specific languages may also be held depending on demand. Community members are encouraged to sign up in advance and add the topic to discuss during roundtable session.
If you are not able to make the roundtable session, you can provide comments at the draft review talk page in any language, talk pages of translations, and local discussions.
For more information, please visit roundtable discussion information page at Meta-wiki.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw that Tullimonstrum was a very popular article yesterday from the mobile app "most read" card. Can anyone explain why? I haven't been able to find the source of the popularity. -- Veggies ( talk) 02:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen there is a split tag from 2015 on the page Hotspot_(geology). Is it ok for me to delete the tag? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Guys, there is a third specie: Xenoscapa grandiflora See [5]] and [6]. Regards! Oesjaar ( talk) 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78
Hello editors! We have 6 edit request queues (c.f. User:AnomieBOT/IPERTable), several of which require administrators or specialized technical editors to update - but one of them that is very backlogged can be processed by any neutral editor. If you have some time, please consider helping out at Category:Wikipedia requested edits. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 Board of Trustees election is coming soon. Candidates from the community are needed to fill the available seats.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. Community trustees and appointed trustees make up the Board of Trustees. Each trustee serves a three year term. The Wikimedia community has the opportunity to vote for community trustees.
Wikimedia contributors will vote to fill four seats on the Board in 2021. This is an opportunity to improve the representation, diversity, and expertise of the Board as a team.
Who are potential candidates? Are you a potential candidate? Find out more on the Call for Candidates announcement.
Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I recently came across an academic paper with this paragraph in the abstract:
In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, holo- gram or computer described as ‘sentient’ is usually treated in the same way as a human being. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (sapience) but sentient characters also typically dis- play desire, will, consciousness, ethic, personality, insight and humour. Sentience is used in this con- text to describe an essential human property that unites all of these other qualities. The words ‘sapi- ence’, ‘self-awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ are used in similar ways and sometimes – and confusingly – interchangeably in science fiction.
I wrote this paragraph for article sentience a long time ago, when I was newbie. This is how it appeared in 2010:
In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, hologram, or computer who is described as sentient is usually treated as a fully human character, with similar rights, qualities, and capabilities as any other character. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (see above), but sentient characters also typically display desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight, and many other human qualities. Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it. The words "sapience", "self-awareness", and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.
Here was my first version, from 2007:
The issue of sentience also frequently arises in science fiction stories about aliens, robots and computers with artificial intelligence. A character who is described as sentient is assumed to have many human qualities, such as will, desire, consciousness, ethics, personality, intelligence, insight, and so on (although it may be conspicuously lacking one or two). Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it.
So, question one: what do we think about people plagiarizing Wikipedia, without attribution?
Here's the thing, though. This paragraph was straight up WP:ORIG. (I said I was newbie.) I suppose I should have deleted it myself at some point, as original research, but I thought for sure I would eventually find a source that made this point. I never did.
Eventually, after ten years or so, the entire section of the article was deleted, because it lacked sources. I had a bit of chuckle and a sigh -- somebody finally noticed.
That brings me to question two: what do we think about people plagiarizing original research from Wikipedia? (Now it's getting complicated.)
So I got to thinking -- I could restore the paragraph, because now I have a source -- I mean the source is me, still, but I've been plagiarized outside of Wikipedia, so now maybe Wikipedia can plagiarize them back? I know, I know -- I'm just asking.
Finally, question three: what do we think about citing a source that is plagiarized original research from Wikipedia?--- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
In the case of robotically-assisted minimally-invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments; either a direct telemanipulator or through computer control.From the article (middle of the left column):
In the case of robotically assisted, minimally invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments—either a direct tele-manipulator or through computer control.I cut it for space, but it's the whole second paragraph of the WP article's lead. I didn't check if there are more hits from Wikipedia in that article. - kyykaarme ( talk) 12:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.
You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.
a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. Vexations ( talk) 00:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The round-table mentioned above is occurring in about 1h30m minutes from now and facilitated in English, Korean, and Indonesian. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 03:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC) (correction to previous message: it's at 05:00 UTC)
June 29th is the deadline to apply to the Board of Trustees, as well as sending questions for candidates, see meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Apply to be a Candidate. MarioGom ( talk) 15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's say the primary topic is Murder of George Floyd or 2021 United States Capitol attack. The specific article that needs improvement, or the specific article that would be the appropriate place for information, is not known. It seems the logical starting place for figuring out where the information should go is the talk page of the central article unless there is a Wikiproject. But people object if I try to use those talk pages for improvements to other articles when is not known which other article would be the right place. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello All,
To better understand the perspectives of individuals in the Wikimedia community who have experienced harassment, Wikimedia Foundation researched our community members’ knowledge of, and comfort with, existing enforcement and reporting processes.
An executive summary of the research report is now available on Meta.
Currently, the executive summary is available in English, Spanish, and German.
You can discuss the results or raise questions on talkpage or by contacting communityhealthwg@wikimedia.org. We will be collecting questions for review by staff and will have answers available starting June 28, 2021.
Warm regards, SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative ( talk) 18:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I cannot speak Japanese fluently, so I am request for Japanese-language admins to take action against the IP in question. He or she removed the template from articles that were related to the 2020 Paralympics. If the 2020 Olympics had a template, why can't the 2020 Paralympics had one. He or she even accused me of violating multiple account rules despite the fact that I was locked out of my previous accounts a few months ago. If anyone who is a admin of the Japanese Wikipedia, can either remind him/her that I cannot speak Japanese and that I created and added the template for a very good reason. Thanks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd ( talk) 22:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Not sure if the miscellaneous section of the village pump is the right place for this discussion, so please direct me to somewhere more suitable if not.
Currently, in year articles (as a random example since I have it open right now, 2015), it seems that tense is mixed between present and past. Most of the time, present tense is used – but when it doesn't work grammatically for a certain sentence structure, past tense has to be used. For example, from 2015, any time an eclipse is mentioned, past tense is used:
March 20 – A total solar eclipse was visible in the north Atlantic, Faroe Islands, Svalbard. It was the 61st eclipse of the 120th saros cycle which started on May 27, 933 AD and will end on July 7, 2195, which is 180 years ahead of 2015.
Therefore, my question is the following:
Should tense in this articles be standardised? If so, to what?
Any input is appreciated. Thanks, DesertPipeline ( talk) 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add a comment below. Use bullet points (*
) for initial comments and indent (:
) for replies to comments. Add an asterisk before the indent (*:
) for
accessibility reasons.
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a RfC under way about whether to add the European Union to the List of countries by GDP (nominal). Please share you thoughts. Thanks. M.Bitton ( talk) 20:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Inputs requested:A discussion about whether to merge the article Ex-Muslims into the article Apostasy in Islam is underway @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Split or Merge ?
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' ( talk) 04:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC regarding content concerning TimelessToday LLC and its app. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
A Good Article Nominations backlog drive runs from 1 July 2021, 00:00 (UTC) and ends on 31 July 2021, 23:59 (UTC). This is a monthlong effort to cut the number of outstanding GANs and in particular those which have been in the queue 90 days or more. Awards will be given out to those individuals who do the most work in helping reduce the size of the backlog and reach milestones related to the number, age, and size, of articles reviewed. Currently there are 330 GANs which have been waiting for a review longer than 30 days, so help cutting the backlog is most appreciated. ( t · c) buidhe 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
As Questia is no more, should Questia.com links in references be bulk-tagged as dead, or removed, or what? DuncanHill ( talk) 08:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, how do we find articles that have no files? After I tried a lot Such as: Special pages, Categories, Wikidata Query, using Regex in Wikipedia search engine, external ways and more, I found no way to show me articles that had no files used. I think we need a special page in this case. Is there any way to do so? Thanks! ⇒ Aram Talk 21:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 10:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Let us consider the situation. Some Wikipedia user wrote an article. Someone else nominated the article for removal, the nomination was discussed, and the article was removed.
As far as I understand the spirit of Wikipedia, the user should have the right to receive, if desired, the text of the deleted article - for example, for working on it in his Sandbox, or for publication on some other resource.
What should be the actions of such a user? Are there any policies/rules for getting access to deleted articles? -- Perohanych ( talk) 10:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of the facilitators working on Movement Strategy and Governance.
Today, we are delivering an announcement from The Elections Committee regarding the confirmed candidates for the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections. I have reproduced the announcement (below) and have also provided a brief introduction about the Board (right).
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The 2021 Board of Trustees election opens 4 August 2021. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 20 candidates for the 2021 election.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to cover with new trustees.
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. The Board is expected to afterwards select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees starting in September for a term of three years.
How can you get involved?
Learn more about the candidates
Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates will answer the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta. In the coming weeks, candidates will have the opportunity to submit videos of themselves speaking about their candidacy.
Participate in campaign activities
The team of facilitators supporting this Board election has planned some activities for the campaign period. These activities can be found on the Board election page on Meta.
Community members are welcome and encouraged to organize activities in their own communities. We do ask that any activities intended to involve candidates remain respectful of their time, since candidacy can be very time-consuming. Please list activities you organize on the Board election page on Meta so more people can find them. Facilitators and Election Volunteers are available if you need support.
Vote
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opens on 4 August 2021 and closes on 17 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. Learn more about voting requirements, the process, and frequently asked questions about voting.
Single Transferable Vote
This voting system allows voters to rank candidates. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices in order of preference. This helps share your preferences more clearly than support or oppose. If your top choice candidate already has enough votes to be selected, your vote will be moved to your second choice candidate. If your top choice candidate will not win, your vote will be moved to your second choice candidate. And so on. The facilitation team came up with a fun example. More information will be coming mid-July.
Please spread the word so more people can support finding the best candidates to help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years.
Best,
The Elections Committee
So, universally (that is, literally everyone ever except me, that I have seen) uses the {{ reflist}} template as the sole contents of the "References" section and mixes the body of the refs with the article text. I use {{reflist|refs= [then all the refs inside <ref>...</ref> brackets one after the other, then the "reflist" template closed with an }}]. It's so much better. It is. So when I go to edit a section (of anybody else's page) I see like:
'''The Crab Claw''' is a<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbonline.com/articles/maryland/st-michaels/st-michaels-restaurants-mouth-watering-seafood-eateries.html |title=St. Michaels Restaurants: Mouth-Watering Seafood Eateries |author= |date= |work=Bed & Breakfast Inns Online |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> independent-owned restaurant located in [[St. Michaels, Maryland]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/restaurants/the-crab-claw,1155651.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091029142010/http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/restaurants/the-crab-claw,1155651.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 29, 2009 |title=The Crab Claw |author= |date= |work=Washington Post |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/206/1051746/restaurant/Maryland/Easton/Crab-Claw-Restaurant-St-Michaelsdc |title=Crab Claw Restaurant |author= |date= |work=Urban Spoon |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://national.citysearch.com/profile/5022923/st_michaels_md/crab_claw_restaurant.html |title=Crab Claw Restaurant |author= |date= |work=Citysearch |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> They have an extensively large amount of seafood on their menu, and they are known locally for their steamed crabs. The business evolved from a clam-shucking business established in the 1950s.<ref name="roadfood">{{cite web |url=http://www.roadfood.com/Restaurant/Reviews/271/the-crab-claw |title=The Crab Claw |author= |date= |work=Roadfood |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> In 1965, they added a seafood eatery.
Whereas editing the same section in one of my articles you see:
'''The Crab Claw''' is a<ref name=Bbonline/> independent-owned restaurant located in [[St. Michaels, Maryland]].<ref name=WaPo/><refname=UrbanSpoon/><ref name=Citysearch/> They have an extensively large amount of seafood on their menu, and they are known locally for their steamed crabs. The business evolved from a clam-shucking business established in the 1950s.<ref name=Roadfood/> In 1965, they added a seafood eatery.
Boy howdy, you can read my version better can you not? By Grabthar's hammer, I can barely read the top version. What I usually do is go to thru it add a blank line before and after each ref (a hassle) so I can at least kind of figure out what is text and what is refs. And it's still a mess to work with.
With the "refs=" procedure, the details of the ref are segregated in the "References" section. I mean if you are editing, you very seldom need to know who the author of a ref is or whatever. And you very rarely want to an existing ref, unless you are specifically going in to fix an error (also rare, and in which case, knowing it's in the References section is maybe better anyway)
Virtually the only way you want to access an existing ref is to look at it, to check what's in it etc. You want to do that from the actual page by clicking the source's link (if there is one) which takes you directly to the source. If you're editing, you would need to pick thru the mess to find the url, copy it, open a tab, and paste in the url. Hardly any harder to jump down to the References section where it's all laid out neatly like little soldiers waiting for you command. (I usually keep a live version of the article open in a separate tab; if you're editing on your phone, I can't image that the top version above is easier to deal with tho.)
If for some reason you need to find the ref details, they're together with the other refs in the References section. It's not a lot harder to get to them, and as I said this is fairly rare. Also, if you want to look at the refs for the article generally (I suppose this is possible), there they are all together.
With the "refs=" procedure, all the refs are always named, and the contents are findable pretty easily in the References section, rather than having to comb thru the entire article to find the initial definition of the name with the ref details. This makes it much easier for writing the article, assuming you are re-using refs (which is fairly common) I also can copy in a blank ref at the bottom of the References section and bonk-bonk make a copy and fill it in when I'm adding another ref. What you guys do I can't imagine.
Great Caesar's ghost, what am I missing? All this is documented at {{ reflist}} and has been since forever. I found it, why can't anyone else? I even (just once) had an admin come in and "fix" my stuff by jamming all the refs up into the article text. He'd never heard of the "refs=" method I guess.
As a programmer, it reminds me of mixing in your data with your code, which is terrible. Separate the data (the article text) from the code (the ref details). Using the "refs=" procedure, the refs are like calls to a subroutine, where the code for that subroutine is off somewhere else where it's not bothering you; you know what it does. And you can find it and look at if you want. Again, what is the downside here? (Yeah I know objects can contain code and data, but that ain't anything like the mess I'm describing here.)
I swear, I will give a crisp United States dollar to anyone who can convince me that the "refs=" method is worse, for either the writer or the editor (usually; I don't use this 100%, there are rare exceptions when it's better to use your guys's method. Rare.)
Or is just a matter of advertising this? If so, let's! "It's like discovering sex" might be a good (and accurate!) slogan.
Yr Obedient Servant, Herostratus ( talk) 00:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
but you did add the qualifier "that I have seen" so you may be correcct.literally everyone ever except me, that I have seen
An RFC is undergoing about whether or not a live situation map including information apparently partly sourced to the Taliban should be used on EN Wiki. The RFC can be seen here. FOARP ( talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
On Commons c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fictional_flags_-_are_they_in_scope? there is a discussion of fictional flags etc. and that include deletions of files in use in articles and on userpages on English Wikipedia. There is also a test DR c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Flag of the British Isles where it have been suggested to delete a file that is used on almost 100 userpages on English Wikipedia. That would be a change of c:COM:SCOPE where the general rule is in use = in scope. You are welcome to comment. -- MGA73 ( talk) 06:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I searched for something using Bing (normally use Google 95% of the time) and a website called wikiredia.com came up in search results, second or third down the page. Just wondering what this website is and does it contain malware or viruses? 158.222.185.250 ( talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team will be hosting round-table discussions for Wikimedians to talk together about the Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Charter, ongoing 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, and other Movement Strategy initiatives.
The next call is 17 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC ( check time). Conversations will be hosted in at least French, German, Spanish, and English.
The calls will last between 90 and 120 minutes and involve open discussions. The ideas shared during the calls will be summarized for the Wikimedia Foundation teams working on these topics.
We look forward to talking with you. Please see further details and sign up here.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The following redirects were undone WKPJ-LP and W10DD-D. These radio stations aren't notable and were redirected for a reason. Also WDSJ-LP and WOFB-LP had there categories restored, these radio stations aren't notable either and were redirect for a reason. Enough is enough of editors not logged in undoing redirects! Catfurball ( talk) 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been sitting on this for around two years. It has taken me a really long time to figure out how to express this.
As you may know I worked for the Wikimedia Foundation from 2018 to 2019. This was following a lifetime of service to the Wikimedia movement. I started contributing my time in 2004 and over time participated in greater and more consequential capacities. I am proud of the work I have done, from making workflows more efficient with bots, to organizing large and successful conferences, to my work on building an open citation graph on Wikidata.
What I am not proud of is working at the Wikimedia Foundation.
I worked very hard throughout my career and ultimately found full time work at one of the world’s most illustrious nonprofits. What I got for my lifetime of work was the experience of working with bullies.
The Wikimedia Foundation is run by bullies.
There are two members of executive management that come to mind. Both have made me the object of repeated ridicule over a period of several years in my volunteer and professional capacities. One has interacted with me a single digit number of times and only did so to make fun of some verbal gaffe I made or otherwise mock something I have said or done. Another liked to make jokes about me as well, often right in my face. I had an experience of interviewing with this executive, only for them to make fun of me to my face in subsequent encounters.
Both of these people still work at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not referring to them directly because I don’t want them to sue me and I don’t want my post to be oversighted, but they still hold positions of power, and they are still responsible for managing staff.
There are a lot of things I could tell you about the foundation, good or bad. I could tell you about the brilliance of the staff, the genuine collaborations between professionals and volunteers that take place, and the sincere dedication of everyone I have met working there.
I could also tell you about the lack of leadership at the highest levels, and the interdepartmental war for resources that resulted. But I was merely demoralized by this chaos; it wasn’t my own personal experience. I could tell you about how women, and women of color in particular, are chewed up and spit out by the management. But that’s not my story to tell. I could complain that their growth strategy is complete nonsense and destined to fail, but that’s, just, like, my opinion.
But this is my story to tell: I am an adult with autism. Over the years, especially when I was younger, it is inevitable that I would say and do things that are kind of funny. And I have been made fun of my entire life for it. I can forgive myself for saying awkward things, and I can forgive people for what they did as children. What I cannot forgive is a fully grown adult, in a position of significant authority, bullying another adult in their workplace. It is unforgivable.
After a chaotic 18 or so months of working at Wikimedia, I turned in my badge. The experience left me with posttraumatic stress disorder, seriously adrift on a moral and emotional level, and occasionally prone to psychotic episodes. Over time I have been able to forgive the dysfunction that defined my work experience, but I could not let go of the fact that there are bullies who work for the Wikimedia Foundation and still work there.
As Wikipedians we are a neurodiverse community and come from many different backgrounds. We need management that is not just charismatic, not just good at giving speeches, but empathetic and compassionate, who genuinely understands our experiences.
I feel terrible and exposed writing this. I may be opening myself up to retaliation. But I have been sitting on this for so long, and it has tortured me so much. And I can’t live with myself not knowing that this perspective is invisible. You are not going to hear it from the slick Communications team, and you’re not going to hear it from people who think speaking up will make them unemployable. But at this point, I don’t think I have anything to lose. And if others speak up because of me I hope it will be worth it. Harej ( talk) 03:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
To add some clarifying remarks: I am not referring to the managers I reported directly to; they are incredible people. And I do believe most staff at the foundation are working in good faith and are trying to do right by the people they work with, professionally and in the community. I am gravely concerned that there is a culture among, specifically, the executives (i.e. direct reports to the CEO) that is toxic, and I have been on the receiving end of this in subtle ways that scarred me. While I worked there and especially since I left many of them have been replaced with new ones, and I have no opinion on them because I haven't worked with them. I've noticed a lot of people have brought their own grievances with the Wikimedia Foundation into this, and I completely understand that, just that I think my position is a bit more nuanced than the "community vs. foundation" dynamic I often see. And I also want to note that merely the experience of being able to write what I did, and the outpouring of support, has been immensely meaningful to me. Thank you. Harej ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Manipulation involves the psychopath creating a scenario of “ psychopathic fiction” where positive information about themselves and negative disinformation about others will be created, where your role as a part of a network of pawns or patrons will be utilised and you will be groomed into accepting the psychopath's agenda. Once on to the confrontation stage, the psychopath will use techniques of character assassination to maintain their agenda, and you will be either discarded as a pawn or used as a patron. Finally, in the ascension stage, the role of the subject as a patron in the psychopath’s quest for power will be discarded, and the psychopath will take for himself/herself a position of power and prestige from anyone who once supported them.
OpIndia has published a – factual, as far as I can see – report on this. I cannot link to it, as the site is blacklisted. -- Andreas JN 466 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Sorry if this is an FAQ, stupid, etc. But ... I am pretty sure that I have seen somewhere a policy or guideline, perhaps in the MOS, that suggests that if you are writing about a well-enough-known city, such as Paris, you do not need necessarily to specify that it is Paris, France as opposed to Paris, Texas or [[Paris, Wherever]]. Initial searches have not been a success. If this still exists, can you please point me to it? Thank you. Best to all, DBaK ( talk) 08:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Per https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/business/usa-today-paywall.html, USA Today is going to put most of their content behind a paywall. Actually, based on what I can see, it's already happened. I suspect that means we're going to have a lot of inaccessible links in references. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Can we use DeepL on the Content Translation tool? If not, why not? Javiermes ( talk) 14:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:American_prisoners_of_war has what appears to be a good-faith reference added. But I don't think a reference belongs in a category page. At the same time I don't see any specific article where this would be appropriate to move the reference and am not sure what to do with it. United States military casualties in the War in Afghanistan exists, but a POW is not usually regarded as a casualty. - Bri.public ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Women South Asia is back with the 2021 edition. Join us to minify gender gaps and enrich Wikipedia with more diversity. Happening from 1 September - 30 September, Wiki Loves Women South Asia welcomes the articles created on gender gap theme. This year we will focus on women's empowerment and gender discrimination related topics.
We warmly invite you to help organize or participate in the competition in your community. You can learn more about the scope and the prizes at the project page.
Best wishes,
Wiki Loves Women Team
10:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021
Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
Hello again! Please see above and the full newsletter for updates about the Universal Code of Conduct project.
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team will be hosting round-table discussions for Wikimedians to talk together about the Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Charter, ongoing 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, and other Movement Strategy initiatives.
The next call is 17 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC. Conversations will be hosted in at least French, German, Spanish, and English.
The calls will last between 90 and 120 minutes and involve open discussions. The ideas shared during the calls will be summarized for the Wikimedia Foundation teams working on these topics.
We look forward to talking with you. Please see further details and sign up here.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 17:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Prem Rawat#RfC regarding content concerning TimelessToday LLC and its app. AndyTheGrump ( talk)
Just noticed a tag in Welsh and English on my watchlist. "Tags: Golygu ar declyn symudol Golygiad gwe symudol Advanced mobile edit". Google translates the Welsh parts as "Edit on mobile tool Mobile web edit". Is this a new feature and why do we have it? Is Welsh now an official language of en-wiki? Will other random languages crop up? DuncanHill ( talk) 20:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can see all tags relating to mobile edits are either wholly in Welsh, or with an English bit at the end, as in my example above. Tags which are not about mobile edits are not affected. DuncanHill ( talk) 21:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
In the Guinea-Bissau article under education ( Guinea-Bissau#Education) there is one paragraph with a link to the "main article". But the main article is even shorter! It's existed since 2008 but should it just get deleted? Unless someone wants to translate the Portuguese version... Human-potato hybrid ( talk) 05:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear all,
The Wikimedia Foundation will be running weekly fundraising banner tests on the English Wikipedia between now and the 24th of November (they will be visible every Wednesday for a few hours). We will be looking to see how our infrastructure (both human and machine alike) perform over a short period of time. Thank you to those in the communities who have supported us already and I'd like to thank you all in advance for your support and patience.
We are always looking for ways to improve our campaigns and appreciate your feedback regarding banner messages and design.
Best wishes,
JBrungs (WMF) ( talk) 12:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
On Electronic dance music, it doesn't say it's a genre. Neither me. It's not really a genre. But i always found it on some song articles. It sould be removed on genre section on every music-related article.
We need to discuss this issue. -
GogoLion (
talk) 14:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC, and inside the reference section (beneath the actual references) I added notes about who the sources are. Three of the forty-two sources are notable scholars interviewed by mainstream media, but instead of noting the scholars I mistakenly noted the interviewers. Is there a problem in terms of Policy with making those clarifications a day later with an "(Updated ~~~~~)" note? François Robere ( talk) 18:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! The 2021 Board of Trustees election opens 4 August 2021. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three-week-long Call for Candidates, there are 20 candidates for the 2021 election.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competence and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to find in new trustees.
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. The Board is expected to afterwards select the four most-voted candidates to serve as trustees, starting in September, for a term of three years.
How can you get involved?
Learn more about the candidates
Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates will answer the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta. In the coming weeks, candidates will have the opportunity to submit videos of themselves speaking about their candidacies.
Participate in campaign activities
The team of facilitators supporting this Board election has planned some activities for the campaign period. These activities can be found on the Board election page on Meta.
Community members are encouraged to organize activities in their own communities. We do ask that any activities intended to involve candidates remain respectful of their time, since candidacy can be very time-consuming. Please list activities you organize on the Board election page on Meta so that more people can find them. Facilitators and Election Volunteers are available if you need support.
Vote
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opens on 4 August 2021 and closes on 17 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. Learn more about voting requirements, the process, and frequently asked questions about voting.
Single Transferable Vote
This voting system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. This helps voters share their preferences more clearly than simple support or oppose votes. If your top-choice candidate already has enough votes to be selected or will not win, your vote will be moved to your second-choice candidate. And so on. The facilitation team came up with a fun example. More information will be coming mid-July.
Please spread the word so that more people can support finding the best candidates to help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years. Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 04:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, we have four meetings set with interpretation support based on the regional focus. Please sign up and ask questions in advance. Voting begins 4 August 2021. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 00:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please update information about matches played in Uefa Conference League on 15 july. Thank you-- 109.185.175.84 ( talk) 11:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, is there any way to see a slideshow of preceding Main_Pages? I recall a photo from one but can't find it. In a slideshow I might spot the picture and then view the page itself; then identify the photo. Thx, ... PeterEasthope ( talk) 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors contains, as I type this, 25,610 articles. Fewer than 30 editors watch the category. I think only about 150 editors use either User:Svick/HarvErrors.js or User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js which clearly mark such errors when viewing articles. Referencing errors such as these undermine the encyclopaedia. They place an unnecessary burden on readers who wish to look into a subject further, likewise they impede the efforts of editors to check that material is supported by the references we use.
We have a bot that informs editors when they introduce links to disambiguation pages, and very helpful it is too. Would it be possible to have a bot or suchlike which does the same when an edit introduces a Harv or Sfn no-target error? This would help editors correct such slips as soon as they were made, when hopefully they have their sources to hand. I don't know how it would work - perhaps something in the tools I linked above could be adapted, or some method of monitoring the membership of the category could work.
Anyway, I'm just throwing this out there for comments and suggestions. Pinging @ Svick: and @ Trappist the monk: as I mentioned their tools above. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
On Commons there is for example c:Category:Undelete in 2030 for this, but locally we didn't seem to have anything for this. I created Category:Future copyright expiration but did yolo it a bit and Verbcatcher has questions. It's a tad messy on Commons as well though. List, category, both. Suggestions to structure this are welcome. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 06:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have loved Wikipedia for almost two decades. I have even donated more than I’ve been asked to. I have noticed in the last year that information on Wikipedia has been blatantly controlled by organizations that have a specific political agenda. It was confirmed to me by a nationally syndicated newspaper quoting one of the founding fathers of Wikipedia.
In short let me use a quote that has been used throughout history- “Nihilne Sanctum Est?” “Is nothing sacred?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.243.65 ( talk) 23:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
Web2Cit: Visual Editor for Citoid Web Translators project is moving!
With Diegodlh we are inviting people to apply to be an Advisory Board member. Is this you? Is this someone you know?
Check the Call for members and apply to be an Advisory Board member before August 6th!
If you are too busy this time around to apply, don't worry: we get it. You can also help us by spreading the word! We sincerely appreciate it. -- Scann ( talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I have a thorny issue over at the Karman Line article, somewhat like {{ Expert needed}} but for placement at the talk page instead of the article page itself. One of the suggested alternatives to placing that template was to ask here.
Basically we have a scientific article where editors add as a source an article that basically denies the entire concept (that is the article subject). If you're interested (and ideally consider yourself a technical expert on the subject matter) have a look yourself:
Talk:Kármán_line#The_Non_Kármán_Line:_An_Urban_Legend_of_the_Space_Age
"As a more general question, if asking here isn't the best course of action, what do you recommend? The Expert Needed documentation suggests: If you want help for most of the page, or if you want help soon, then try these much more effective options:
The last one is really the only one I fully grok. Which would you prefer and how would you go about it? CapnZapp ( talk) 11:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you know?
Hello, I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project.
The Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on it since 2019. The goals of the project are to make the interface useful for advanced users and more comfortable for readers. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more.
The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on 13 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.
The changes apply to the Vector skin only. Monobook or Timeless users are not affected.
So far, we have deployed the following features:
We do not have one final vision of the interface after the deployment of all changes. Instead, we measure the impact of each change individually. In addition to that, we learn about the communities' preferences using a variety of methods. You can find all major reports on our Repository page.
If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.
You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us (August 6th, 16:00 UTC). You will also be able to take part in our Wikimania discussion (we will share the details later).
How to join our online meeting
Thank you!
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team, SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 13:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone, the call for candidates to draft a Movement Charter opens in a little under 8 hours from now. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 16:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.
The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.
We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:
The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.
Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions.
Hello, I've posted previously to this board about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. There has been a delay in the voting period, which is now scheduled to begin 18 August 2021. Please see more details below. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 23:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
We are reaching out to you today regarding the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election. This election was due to open on August 4th. Due to some technical issues with SecurePoll, the election must be delayed by two weeks. This means we plan to launch the election on August 18th, which is the day after Wikimania concludes.
For information on the technical issues, you can see the Phabricator ticket.
We are truly sorry for this delay and hope that we will get back on schedule on August 18th. We are in touch with the Elections Committee and the candidates to coordinate next steps. We will update the Board election Talk page and Telegram channel as we know more.
Centenary & Tricentenary redirect to different pages......... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Everyone!
I am working on a web application for my bachelor thesis, that aims to explain the automatic grade predictions of ORES articlequality model and on what they are based on, to make it more transparent what an article might be lacking or what makes it so good.
For a last evaluation, I am searching for participants for an usability test to test a functional prototype. It would be especially interesting to test the application with (new) editors of the English Wikipedia, because my main goal is to help editors improving their editing skills.
If someone is interested in participation, feel free to contact me in any way.
Any Questions about it are also welcome.
Articles on Wikipedia are rated and receive a grade. The English Wikipedia uses ORES, a machine learning web service created by the Wikimedia Foundation’s Machine Learning team. ORES offers a variety of machine learning models and one of them is the article quality model. This model assesses existing articles automatically and predicts the most likely grade for them based on their structural characteristics. [1]
If someone is still interested in testing, here is a link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScVm0c5ezw18KRNf4UxbaKchOVwkMDIUGUQDuk8OvleEcunEg/viewform?usp=sf_link
-- Endoplasma ( talk) 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library is pleased to announce the addition of new collections, alongside a new interface design. New collections include:
Additionally, De Gruyter and Nomos have been centralised from their previous on-wiki signup location on the German Wikipedia. Many other collections are freely available by simply logging in to The Wikipedia Library with your Wikimedia login!
We are also excited to announce that the first version of a new design for My Library was deployed this week. We will be iterating on this design with more features over the coming weeks. Read more on the project page on Meta.
Lastly, an Echo notification will begin rolling out soon to notify eligible editors about the library ( T132084). If you can translate the notification please do so at TranslateWiki!
--The Wikipedia Library Team, sent by Samwalton9 13:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Is there any sort of archive that keeps track of copyright permission requests?
c:Commons:WikiProject Permission requests only shows a handful of entries. This suggests either 1) people don't really bother to ask authors for a release of rights or 2) most of those requests are not publicly recorded. If someone else has requested permission to publish a work under a free license and was denied, then it would be useful for others to know so that they don't waste time trying to contact the same author. Ixfd64 ( talk) 21:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This article had press coverage; for this reason, I think this peer review about it requires attention. Thank you.-- V. E. ( talk) 11:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Sorry if I'm writing in the wrong heading (sysop on the french WP). Do you know where I can find the score of Kamarinskaïa that we may hear in the The Grand Budapest Hotel ? OT38 ( talk) 21:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a link to a RFC on Meta concerning all Wikimedia projects. Best, Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (French native speaker) 01:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of my pages have been reviewed with 24 hours, so I am wondering why a page I submitted a few days ago has still not been reviewed. Are all pages eventually reviewed and how long can it take please? Amirah talk 20:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease is not working as intended since RPP was reformatted because most users are filing ambiguous requests under the placeholder title " Example Article Name". At Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit, users are also not filling in the placeholder title " Name of page you are requesting an edit to" with the page they want to be edited, and are also frequently submitting malformed requests and even attempting to create articles here. I'm not seeing this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The File:Flag of the Empire of Vietnam (1945).svg used on Wikipedia is now become questionable. Yesterday someone argued that that this flag shouldn't be similar dimensions to the South Vietnamese flag, and all red stripes shouldn't reach to the side of flag. However he posted on my talk page at the Wikimedia Commons. It would be nice if anyone can help to investigate. -- Great Brightstar ( talk) 09:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
By coincidence, I noticed multiple references use this "dummy" ISBN: 978-1-234-56789-7. (Note the pattern of increasing numbers, except the prefix and the checksum.) Although it does correspond to a book, all the references (I suppose) actually deal with completely different works. It might be worth investigating where these ISBNs come from (and fix the invalid references).
Strange enough, this is what citoid (citation generator in visual editor) generates from it:
-- Matěj Suchánek ( talk) 12:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm one of the schmucks in the world who pays for YouTube music and recently came across the artist biographies in the app that nobody ever reads. I've discovered that they wholesale steal Wikipedia content in pretty much all the artist biographies. For instance, here's the page on Daft Punk (scroll down to bottom) [1], wholesale taken from our article with no attribution. Likewise for 50 Cent. [2] When I emailed YTM support they told me that the artist biographies are provided by the artists themselves (sure they are) and that I should use the "feedback" button in the app, which we all know worked amazing for WP:CALIPH. They also said that they only provided support for purchases and my concern was out of scope.
Normally I'd follow our policies on mirrors and forks but Google doesn't provide any actual contact information to send the CC-BY-SA template to anymore, unless I am willing to send a physical letter to the Google headquarters. Anyone else got any ideas? The last time I asked WMF legal about this issue back in 2015 with
Google Play Music doing this they told me to send the amazing CC-BY-SA compliance letter, so that's likely a dead end.
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 17:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I observe that in many biographical articles on Wikipedia, the surname of the subject is repeated over and over again, where in normal English writing of any basic standard, a pronoun would be used. In some articles, this jarring error is so frequent that it makes them almost unreadable.
The example which has prompted me to post this is Simo Häyhä, in which this person's surname is repeated five times in the five-sentence lead section (twice in one of those sentences), and appears 100 times in the article overall. I estimate that about 70 of those should be replaced by a pronoun.
Many, many articles are similarly written. I find this utterly baffling. Why are so many people writing in this way? Is there some rational explanation for this? Some guideline suggesting that it should be done, perhaps? Or is it really the case that very large numbers of Wikipedia editors simply do not know how to use pronouns correctly in English? Saturated flux ( talk) 16:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. I do agree that excessive repetition of a person's name makes for stilted prose. I'll generally use "he" or "she" when it's in close proximity to the last time I used a person's name and it's completely unambiguous who the referent is: "Fred Flintstone ordered a full rack of brontosaurus ribs at the drive-in. His car fell over when it was delivered". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
See also the wonderful essay Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. Switching up surname with he/she can "fail to fix the real cause of repetitive prose, which is usually repeated information, not repeated words." -- Green C 19:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm extremely surprised that some people are arguing that this is not an error. Another example that I fixed yesterday was this:
I think that is awful writing. I think that normal English demands that the second and third sentences contain a pronoun and not a repetition of the surname. Do people really disagree? Does any guide to good English writing disagree?
Meanwhile I see people saying "just fix what you think needs fixing". Sure. But the point is, the error is everywhere. If the error is arising because most editors don't really know how to use pronouns, then there's no point in the minority who do fixing anything because their efforts are logically doomed to failure. Saturated flux ( talk) 09:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint. In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia.Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 14:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, there are some plausible theories about how this error could arise, and I can see how they might apply in some cases. But I really cannot see how any of them would account for what I found at Simo Häyhä, and what I see at many other articles. Personally, I am finding it pretty hard to avoid concluding that a very significant proportion of the editors of English Wikipedia must simply not know when pronouns should be used. However, my observation is still a bit anecdotal. I think I will try to investigate some defined set of biographical articles to see how widespread the problem is. Saturated flux ( talk) 16:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your patience. The voting is now open in the 2021 Board of Trustees election.
Eligible voters can enter their vote at Special:SecurePoll/vote/791.
Please see the full announcement below, and let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 01:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 19 candidates for the 2021 election.
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to cover with new trustees.
The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to select candidates who have the qualities to best serve the needs of the movement for the next several years. The Board is expected to select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees. This term starts in September and lasts for three years. Learn more about the Board of Trustees in this short video.
Vote now until August 31.
Below is some useful information about the election process.
Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates answered the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta.
Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opened on 18 August 2021 and closes on 31 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices in order of preference. Learn more about voting requirements, how to vote, and frequently asked questions about voting.
Please help in the selection of those people who best fit the needs of the movement at this time. Vote and spread the word so more people can vote for candidates. Those selected will help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years.
Best,
The Elections Committee
Hello fellow editors,
I would like to draw your attention to the complete list of 61 questions which were asked by the Community here from the candidates appearing in the Board of Trustees election process. The Election Committee of the WMF selected eleven of these questions which were mandatorily needed to be answered by the candidates in the link given in the announcement post by WMF above. Some candidates answered the complete list of 61 questions and you can read their views in their questions, however please note there was severe time pressure on the candidates in this election and all candidates were genuinely not able to answer all the questions due to commitments in real life.
Please do go through candidate statements, their answers to the mandatory 11 questions and to the complete set of community questions before voting. Vote wisely, and Happy Editting. :) AshLin ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am a candidate for the Board of Trustees Election and this post is only for information of editors on my home wiki. AshLin ( talk) 06:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to draw the attention of users to the discussion of the definition of the Donbas. So far, only the user interested in promoting his point of view has spoken out there, who previously removed a number of reliable sources from the article ( and earlier). Therefore, there is a need for a neutral point of view from the outside. Please read the sources on this issue and express your opinion. Thank you. 94.181.192.62 ( talk) 05:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee would like comments about the enforcement draft guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This review period is planned to begin 17 August 2021.
Community and staff members collaborated to develop these draft guidelines based on consultations, discussions, and research. These guidelines are not final but you can help move the progress forward. Provide comments about these guidelines by 17 October 2021. The committee will be revising the guidelines based upon community input.
Everyone may share comments in a number of places. Facilitators welcome comments in any language on the draft review talk page or by email. Comments can also be shared on talk pages of translations, at local discussions, or during round-table discussions and conversation hours.
There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines:
The facilitation team supporting this review period hopes to reach a large number of communities. Having a shared understanding is important. If you do not see a conversation happening in your community, please organize a discussion. Facilitators can assist you in setting up the conversations.
Discussions will be summarized and presented to the drafting committee every two weeks. The summaries will be published here.
The full announcement and translations can be found here.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 23:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Can i use Encyclopædia Britannica as reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoLion ( talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The site is down ( again, again..). The last time in 2019, it was down for 5 weeks. And when it came up, they no longer accepted new archives, and many archives no longer worked correctly (showing replacement ? characters). Enwiki currently has 239,069 webcitation.org links. In theory it is possible for bots to move to other providers, but in practice there is a fair amount of content-drift that means manual conversions are still best. An RfC was held in 2019 to deprecate the site which had SNOW support. If there is an article you care about, get rid of these links where possible. Two providers have good replacements available: Archive.today and Archive.org -- Green C 15:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
See User_talk:Secret for people that know/knew him who want to pass on best wishes, prayers or support Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I raised an AfD for Zoophoria on the 15th. I can see it in some places but not others and there has been no activity. Slimy asparagus ( talk) 06:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikimedia movement has been tagged for "original research & "primary sources", and individual sources tagged as "third-party source needed".
Can works written by people who have volunteered on Wikimedia projects be cited on articles about the movement? What is the cut off point - a thousand edits? Ten? One? Running a meetup or editathon? A talk at Wikimania?
Are editors involved in the movement, in any way, conflicted in writing about it?
Otherwise, how can we write about Wikipedia? Or Earth? Or Human? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
;-)
)
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 19:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Hi all
I'm very pleased to say the EU's European Investment Bank (the largest not for profit bank in the world) has released its first batch of content under an open license. To the best of my knowledge this is only the second EU body to make content available under an open license, after the Commission.
They're released around 100 amazing graphs from the largest survey of the public's attitude to what actions should be taken on climate change (+some photos of their buildings). Broadly it shows widespread support for significant action on climate change.
Please help to encourage them to release more by adding them to articles.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_produced_by_the_European_Investment_Bank
Thanks
~~~~ John Cummings ( talk) 19:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
in List of breads, how are origins of white bread and whole wheat bread usa and canada? -- RZuo ( talk) 21:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to add this, but I hope this is the right place. But hmoob.in has rather just copied the entirety of the English Wikipedia, with no attribution whatsoever. Unlike other copycat sites, this one is just rather everything translated into Hindi. So the main page ends up being a copy of our main page featured a couple of days ago. hmoob.in and ours. Similarly with the page Antandrus which is similar to their's, but in Hindi, with no attribution whatsoever. I checked Longhair's userpage ( copycat site), which there seems to be a delay. I can't understand any non latin script so I'm not too sure what's on the website anyway, but I'm going off the images and the formatting. Thanks! SHB2000 ( talk) 11:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Imagine you’ve just spent 27 minutes working on what you earnestly thought would be a helpful edit to your favorite article. You click that bright blue “Publish changes” button for the very first time, and you see your edit go live! Weeee! But 52 seconds later, you refresh the page and discover that your edit has been reverted and wiped off the planet.
An AI system - called ORES - has been contributing to this rapid judgement of hundreds of thousands of editors’ work on Wikipedia. ORES is a Machine Learning (ML) system that automatically predicts edit and article quality to support content moderation and vandalism fighting on Wikipedia. For example, when you go to RecentChanges, you can see whether an edit is flagged as damaging and should be reviewed. This is based on the ORES predictions. RecentChanges even allows you to change the sensitivity of the algorithm to "Very Likely Have Problems (flags fewer edits)" or "May Have Problems (flags more edits)”.
In this discussion post, we want to invite you to discuss the following *THREE potential ORES models* -- Among those three models, which one do you think presents the best outcomes and would recommend for the English Wikipedia community to use? Why?
ABOUT US: We are a group of Human–computer interaction researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and we are inviting editors to discuss the trade-offs in AI-supported content moderation systems like ORES; your input here has the potential to enhance the transparency and community agency of the design and deployment of AI-based systems on Wikipedia. We will share the results of the discussion with the ML platform team which is responsible for maintaining the ORES infrastructure. However, the decisions of the discussion are not promised to be implemented. More details are available at our research meta-pages: Facilitating Public Deliberation of Algorithmic Decisions and Applying Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design to ORES.
Group / Metrics | Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted
|
Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging
|
False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely
identified as damaging |
False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are
falsely identified as good |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 98.5% | 3.4% | 0.5% | 26.3% |
Experienced | 99.7% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 61.2% |
Newcomer | 95.7% | 10.7% | 1.8% | 23.0% |
Anonymous | 94.8% | 12.7% | 2.4% | 22.8% |
Group / Metrics | Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted
|
Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging
|
False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely
identified as damaging |
False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are
falsely identified as good |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 97.2% | 1.2% | 0.1% | 69.9% |
Experienced | 99.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 94.0% |
Newcomer | 91.2% | 4.4% | 0.8% | 68.5% |
Anonymous | 90.7% | 4.5% | 0.0% | 67.2% |
Group / Metrics | Accuracy Percentage of edits that are correctly predicted
|
Damaging Rate Percentage of edits that are identified as damaging
|
False Positive Rate Percentage of good edits that are falsely
identified as damaging |
False Negative Rate Percentage of damaging edits that are
falsely identified as good |
---|---|---|---|---|
Overall | 96.1% | 7.6% | 4.0% | 2.4% |
Experienced | 99.9% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 17.9% |
Newcomer | 91.8% | 19.8% | 9.1% | 1.0% |
Anonymous | 82.7% | 30.8% | 19.9% | 0.8% |
If you are not satisfied with any of the models described above, you can try out this interface, pick a model on your own, and share your chosen model card in the discussion by copying and pasting the wikitext offered in the interface.
Bobo.03 ( talk) 15:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Bobo.03: I'm sure this has come along since my very early engagement with it. I know you are well-aware of CluebotNG, but I'd like to draw a highlight that although it once accepted a false positive rate of 0.25%, it has been changed to use 0.1% as its threshold. That hit 55% and 40% of vandalism (thus 45% and 60% false negative). That, I think, gives a pretty clear marker that Wikipedians are way more willing to accept it missing something than an unwarranted hit. Unwarranted hits kill off new users, and irk experienced users, while many issues missed can be caught by alternate means. I tried to have a fiddle with the interface but couldn't figure out how to make it apply different tolerable false positive rates to different groups. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Occasionally I find an article with a closing "nowiki" tag, with no corresponding opening tag. Is there a reason for these? If not, can we get a full list of them for cleanup? BD2412 T 02:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
</nowiki>
with no opening <nowiki>
. They can cause errors and confusion later and should be removed or fixed. There is sometimes a reason for a self-closing <nowiki/>
or <nowiki />
. Self-closing tags have the slash at the end and no corresponding opening tag.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
</nowiki>
without <nowiki>
. Not sure how reliable this search is though.
ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (
talk) 05:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)<nowiki>
at
UseModWiki). The rest were just oddly placed, sometimes breaking templates, and for no apparent reason.
BD2412
T 16:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:
For the Arbitration Committee, Katie talk 11:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It is intresting to note that wickapedia has gone "covid friendly" with the attack article on Dr Yeardon. The article is locked and is nothing more than an assault on his character and opinions. Since when did wickipedia become a political hit piece that locks articles and assaults the opinions of public figures?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2A15:2268:7DDC:6786:E52C:A750 ( talk) 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I "overheard" two professors discussing having students edit Wikipedia articles on Twitter. One asked for tips; the other replied "We tried asking MRes students to update a badly written or inaccurate Wikipedia page on a related topic - that worked quite well but too many wiki pages now excellently written". Too many wiki pages now excellently written
— well done, everyone!
Schazjmd
(talk) 23:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
We hope all of you are as well and safe as possible during these trying times! We wanted to share some news about a change to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. We would like to hear your opinions as well.
Summary:
We will be running the Community Wishlist Survey 2022 in January 2022. We need more time to work on the 2021 wishes. We also need time to prepare some changes to the Wishlist 2022. In the meantime, you can use a dedicated sandbox to leave early ideas for the 2022 wishes.
In the past, the Community Tech team has run the Community Wishlist Survey for the following year in November of the prior year. For example, we ran the Wishlist for 2021 in November 2020. That worked well a few years ago. At that time, we used to start working on the Wishlist soon after the results of the voting were published.
However, in 2021, there was a delay between the voting and the time when we could start working on the new wishes. Until July 2021, we were working on wishes from the Wishlist for 2020.
We hope having the Wishlist 2022 in January 2022 will be more intuitive. This will also give us time to fulfill more wishes from the 2021 Wishlist.
We are thinking how to make the Wishlist easier to participate in. We want to support more translations, and encourage under-resourced communities to be more active. We would like to have some time to make these changes.
We will have gone 365 days without a Wishlist. We encourage you to approach us. We hope to hear from you in the talk page, but we also hope to see you at our bi-monthly Talk to Us meetings! These will be hosted at two different times friendly to time zones around the globe.
We will begin our first meeting September 15th at 23:00 UTC. More details about the agenda and format coming soon!
If you have early ideas for wishes, you can use the new Community Wishlist Survey sandbox. This way, you will not forget about these before January 2022. You will be able to come back and refine your ideas. Remember, edits in the sandbox don't count as wishes!
Answer on the talk page (in any language you prefer) or at our Talk to Us meetings.
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone who participated in the 2021 Board election. The Elections Committee has reviewed the votes of the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, organized to select four new trustees. A record 6,873 people from across 214 projects cast their valid votes. The following four candidates received the most support:
While these candidates have been ranked through the community vote, they are not yet appointed to the Board of Trustees. They still need to pass a successful background check and meet the qualifications outlined in the Bylaws. The Board has set a tentative date to appoint new trustees at the end of this month.
Read translations of this announcement.
Read the full announcement and translations.
Best, JKoerner (WMF) ( talk) 23:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the proper venue for this question, but perhaps you can advise. Since the renaming of [[Category:Female jazz singers]] to [[Women jazz singers]], are juvenile female jazz singers intended to be excluded from the category? Or are they to be considered young women? I don't expect that this issue will come up often but it has at Baby Esther (date of birth uncertain), who was at most 16 y.o. and perhaps only 12 when she faded into obscurity. Ewulp ( talk) 01:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I have 62 munite audio documentary to translate from Swedish ( download). From what I heard there can be a lot of important information for Basshunter biography. I'm not sure if it is possible to find anyone to listen it and translate yet if it's not fan. Eurohunter ( talk) 15:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 14, 2021.
The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.
We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:
The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.
Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions.
This message may have been sent previously - please note that the deadline for candidate submissions was extended and candidacies are still being accepted until 14 September 2021. Xeno (WMF) 17:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, 14 September 2021.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
Other effects:
SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 00:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to other languages.
Hello!
As we have recently announced, we, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on September 15th, 23:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.
Agenda
Format
The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (first three points in the agenda) will be given in English.
We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.
Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.
Invitation link
See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) ( talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team is hosting Roundtable discussions on 18 September 2021 at 03:00 UTC and 15:00 UTC for Wikimedians to talk together about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct . These calls are part of the Universal Code of Conduct project Phase 2 Enforcement draft guidelines review (EDGR).
Each session will last for 90 to 120 minutes and translation support for various languages will be provided. Also, sessions in specific languages may also be held depending on demand. Community members are encouraged to sign up in advance and add the topic to discuss during roundtable session.
If you are not able to make the roundtable session, you can provide comments at the draft review talk page in any language, talk pages of translations, and local discussions.
For more information, please visit roundtable discussion information page at Meta-wiki.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw that Tullimonstrum was a very popular article yesterday from the mobile app "most read" card. Can anyone explain why? I haven't been able to find the source of the popularity. -- Veggies ( talk) 02:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I've seen there is a split tag from 2015 on the page Hotspot_(geology). Is it ok for me to delete the tag? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Guys, there is a third specie: Xenoscapa grandiflora See [5]] and [6]. Regards! Oesjaar ( talk) 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)