Wikimedia Forum

(Redirected from Meta:Metapub)
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

New Project Proposal - WikipragmaticaEdit

Hello everyone. Noob here. I've submitted a new project proposal that re-indexes Wikipedia, but also does a whole bunch of other nifty stuff. I look forward to our discussion. I've included the description below.


This proposal presents a paraphrase graph database extension to Wikidata. The intent is to create a directed graph of paraphrase nodes and retained context edges initially of Wikipedia content, but ultimately Internet wide. Initially focusing on unstructured data (text), the vision is to be media agnostic harvesting sentence equivalent information. This foundational construct is intended to support a wide range of uses from indexing to misinformation detection to knowledge representation to enterprise work management. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DougClark55 (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2021

Please no Google Form or Google Meet or whatever proprietary :) ask us how!Edit

Hello :) Talking with User:Civvi (WMF) (for the Code of Conduct survey) and User:JHernandez (WMF) (for the WikiTech Annual Survey) and User:CKoerner (WMF) (for the Community Wishlist) and here and there, we were reasoning that it would be better if everyone would pay more attention to respect digital freedoms and the privacy of other people. Maybe with this rule of thumb: "in private you do what you want, but in public you give your best!" In short, Google Form and Google Meet are not our friends :D I don't want to repeat myself so here my latest thoughts: Talk:Wikimania 2021/Call for participation#Please no Google Form. Having said that. How can someone contribute to stop this trend as soon as possible and as broadly as possible at least for the Wikimedia Foundation staff? Feel free to include me in whatever discussion and I will do my best to find a good freedom-respectful solution! Thank you for your work! <3 --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Valerio Bozzolan (Boz), I just saw your ping here. Since you've posted Greg replied on wm-l with an update on Foundation use of the tools you mention. I encourage you and others reading this to read and engage there if desired. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You can't do everything yourself AND get work done. When it comes to WMF and google forms, don't look at the forms. Look at it like 'WMF buys a certified data silo with very capable apps, backups and uptime guarantees from Google at a ridiculously low price'. Taking any component out of that will only increase the overall price for WMF. It's economics. In my opinion, the only way to improve this is to make something better than the big companies can make and turn it into an independent non-profit organization from which the WMF can buy the resource. Because it's not just the software; it is the hosting, the integrations and the knowhow. This by definition is hard as the big companies are well funded and have the customer base to support it and anything else likely will not. It can be done of course WMF itself is such an example in another space, but it was 'first' and here you won't be first. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I know my position on this is different than many (and at one time nearly all) of the rest of the movement, but I will just say that I applaud the foundation prioritizing security and functionality over FOSS. I'd feel differently if we were ever talking about moving away from mediawiki to something proprietary but outside our core expertise in FOSS (wiki software), I don't know that our mission (advancing the world's knowledge) needs to be advanced by using FOSS. Of course where the evaluation of security/functionality is close between FOSS and propiratary sofware, let's use FOSS but it should, in my opinion, be a secondary rather than primary consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I think Microsoft Teams is more user friendly, for what it’s worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@TheDJ and TonyBallioni: I understand that I'm a minority spending lot of time trying to free myself, incidentally creating a Free encyclopedia :^) I don't want to bother anyone with my contributions. @CKoerner (WMF): Thank you. I was very happy to be able to free the Wikimania 2021/Call for volunteers in the last hours. Please, if you see another Google Form, feel free to count on all my support! You are all welcome in this project: Wikimedia Italia/LimeSurvey. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I find Teams and Google Meet both very crash-heavy for those without good internet. Zoom is significantly more tolerant Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Today I received another Google Form from Wikimedia Foundation about the UCoC :( How can I contribute in stopping this trend? Feel free to try this powerful and libre solution: WMI-LimeSurvey. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, they keep using this for privacy concsious people unusable junk despite knowing they exclude lots of people with this, but obviously they don't care about privacy. Google must not be used, otherwise the report has far less value because it excludes large swaths of the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) Hold the election 09:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Proprietary is not "bad" and free is not "good". It depends on the specifics of the product, its vendor, the license and the legal position. It is entirely possible for proprietary software to have high security standards and not allow the exploitation of the data by the owner of the product. E.g., on the wm-l thread "...our Enterprise agreement with Google prevents Google from accessing the data for their own uses and requires them to inform the Foundation of any requests for data that they receive prior to disclosure". This is a better outcome than a free product that is less secure and may result in data loss. It's a very simplistic argument to focus just on the licensing of a product and not on the full range of issues. I challenge the assertion that "large swaths" of the community won't use a Google product, but even if it is true, using a product that is non-intuitive (for example) will exclude a similarly large "swath" of the community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Well. Tomorrow we can also add Google Analytics and other proprietary trackers into all Wikipedia editions, just to see if people is happy to have "this very secure piece of code" executed on their computer. But I really suggest to do not try to promote this POV in this movement. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, no one is proposing that. dwf² 12:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Google is Google Analytics, they use everything to gain private data to make profit, they are absolutely not trustworthy for anything, they are plain evil. Using Google (or any other of these big data privacy raping behemoths) for anything in a free software context is a strict no-go. And it's a huge difference to use proprietary software on your own servers, without the proprietor having access to it, and doing anything on a server at Google, as there is no such thing as privacy with Google, they don't know the concept of privacy, they live from destroying privacy. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) Hold the election 17:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Today I received another Google Form from User:Mervat (WMF) :( I know this is not your intention but I feel quite outcast. Is there any way we can help WMF for the adoption of Free surveys, not related to Google? e.g. I can help with LimeSurvey right now. Thank you so much! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And please no Google reCAPTCHA tool on Wikimedia websitesEdit

Agree with the concerns @Valerio Bozzolan: is expressing - Not so much because money can be made with our data, but because of the possibilities of profiling. In that frame we should not forget that everywhere on Wikimedia-Projects the Google tool reCAPTCHA is being offered by the Wikimedia Foundation. ([1]) This way the WMF offers Google the possibility to collect data about the topics users work on. Wikimedia Foundation should replace the reCAPTCHA tool for Foundation owned software. Being aware that Google is a main sponsor and being grateful for that. Google should not however earn the spandengs back this way. Unless that is an Agreement between WMF + Goog. But htan maybe users should be informed. Can you, @Civvi (WMF): @JHernandez (WMF): @CKoerner (WMF): please share this concern with people able to work this out? Thanks, IoviBovi (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What? Where did you see ReCAPTCHA on Wikimedia wikis? I only see the usual FancyCaptcha (which is worse than useless, but that's another story).
Did you mean it's used in some websites of the Wikimedia Foundation, other than the Wikimedia wikis? That's indeed one problem of using services which do not care about software freedom and privacy. Nemo 20:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Logos of projectsEdit

How would we go about beginning discussions about revising/replacing a project's logo? The process of users participating in the creation of a Wikifunctions logo got me to take a closer look at the logos for other projects, and I have a few concerns with some of them. The biggest is the logo for WikiTech. Since the logo for Wikitech is based upon the logo for MediaWiki, shouldn't there be plans to change the Wikitech logo if the planned new logo for MediaWiki passes legal clearance? I'm not sure such a plan exists yet. SecretName101 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Updating Wikitech's logo is part of phab:T268230. Once the new MediaWiki logo finishes legal review/approval/etc., I assume people will start working on updating all of the derivatives. Legoktm (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm: the new MediaWiki logo is now in use. Are they people now working on changing Wikitech logo? SecretName101 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you can follow the Phabricator task for live updates if you want. Legoktm (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I see we're now officially a BP lookalike. Nemo 07:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Project proposal - Feedback - Youth in IG WikiContestEdit

Hi everyone. First of all, let me introduce myself. My name is Pedro Lana, I'm a member of the board of Youth SIG (also known as the Youth Observatory, a global chapter of Internet Society, which is not incorporated as a separate entity), and of Creative Commons Brazil. I've worked with people from the Wikimedia during these last years, but I myself am not familiar with the community, so I hope I am posting this in the right place.

The Youth Observatory promotes an open perspective of Internet Governance, but recently we noticed that most of our members didn't participate in other communities that we consider essential to promote a more open and inclusive cultural environment. We plan to change this by encouraging our target audience (young people in the internet governance ecosystem) to participate in projects aimed at strengthening an open internet in its multiple aspects.

Our rapid grant proposal for a Contest named "Youth in IG WikiContest" is one of our first steps in this plan, and I would like your feedback to advise us on what we can still improve or ideas for better engagement. Other ideas to engage existing communities in Wikimedia projects are also welcome!

The Youth Observatory also remains available if anyone is interested in our support or partnership in something related to youth in Internet Governance.


Wikimedia Enterprise timelineEdit

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

From the FAQ:
"Will the Enterprise API affect the current Dumps and APIs? No. The system of freely-provided database dumps and APIs remains in place and continues to be supported. They are not being removed or changed as a result of the existence of the new API, and will continue to receive support and development. In fact, independently of the specific Enterprise API, the existing API ecosystem is currently being revamped to provide an improved experience under the "API Gateway" initiative. Part of the reason the Enterprise API is being built separately is in order not to disrupt the existing ecosystems."
...because the W?F is totally going to resist the temptation to not make improvements to the freely-provided database dumps and APIs in favor of improving the enterprise database dumps and APIs that are moneymakers. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I am answering solely in my personal capacity and not for the WMF, but also based on knowing what is proposed/planned. It is envisioned that the enterprise-grade dumps and APIs will be made available for free for users for whom the free API and dumps are not adequate (most researchers, for example don't need or want realtime access but bulk access), whose work is noncommercial, and would support the Wikimedia movement (including volunteer content moderation workflows). The concept here is being carefully designed to create a product that *large* *commercial* re-users will find worth paying for - there's no real incentive to also restrict free access to volunteers and researchers and so on. (Google isn't going to say: oh we aren't going to pay for this service that we would find beneficial, because community members devising interesting moderation tools and researchers studying editing habits are getting it for free.) Your cynicism is noted, but it isn't as if this hasn't already been addressed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
A comment from the Hacker News thread linked above:
"Devils advocate: Google clearly already has a working pipeline to import and format Wikipedia data for its needs. Why would they stop using it and start paying Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia be able to build an enterprise API that's faster/cheaper/more reliable/more scalable than the internal one build by one of the world’s top engineering companies?
No doubt the enterprise API will add attractive value for smaller companies without the resources to process the raw dumps but I’m skeptical that this will convert Google et al into well-paying customers. Unless they start restricting the free dumps... "
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Again answering solely in my personal capacity and not speaking for the WMF. In my experience, having talked to these organizations at the highest level for a very long period of time, I do not believe that they will approach this in a simple "build or buy" framework. And in particular, those organizations (all of the ones who I think are interesting target customers) it is the *realtime* access *at scale* which they will find interesting, as opposed to importing dumps, which they may continue to do for some use cases of course. It is true in a sense that the biggest "competitor" for the new product will be the WMF itself with the existing free offerings. I think that's a good thing, and will always be true. But I think there is a pretty obvious set of value-add (*realtime* access *at scale*) which both would cost the WMF money to provide (which is why we don't do much of it now) and will be an interesting product for a handful of large re-users.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It is certainly true that these big-tech organisations have infinitely more engineering resources (hardware, money, and people) than us. And therefore they do indeed have current workflows - plural - for how they access and incorporate Wikimedia content into their various products. However, especially for these largest organisations, those workflows are unstable and uncertain (from their business-perspective) because we do not a) build explicitly for their scale needs, nor b) offer a Service Level Agreement that guarantees the standard of access, nor c) offer dedicated customer support to them when things go wrong. These are the things those companies - no matter how big they are - cannot provide for themselves. These big companies want to have a contract that they can legally rely upon which says they can access Wikimedia content in a specific way, with a specific format, at a specific rate/speed/uptime, for at least a specific amount of time. They do not have that and - we expect - will be willing to pay for it. Smaller companies, without those immense engineering resources, will also benefit from a more 'level playing field' because we will now be able to provide an 'enterprise grade' service to them too. As described in the operating principles there is no 'exclusives'. I also said 'we expect' a couple of sentences ago for a reason: that this is a work in progress. This is not fully developed and already in operation. This is the moment before there are actual customers and an actual product that the team working on this project are coming to the community to say 'hello, this is what we're building, come and look at the FAQ, principles, technical documentation, and tell us what you think of the progress and the concepts.' 1 year ago it was just an idea that was appearing in the strategy documents and would have been to early to have any meaningful conversation about practical implementation because it would have just been theory. 1 year into the future it would be too late to have any meaningful conversation because anything would already be built and operational. So now is the time when there is something still in 'beta' development that is able to be shown to the community for informed discussion (both technical, and principles). One final thing, I see that the concern expressed on the HackerNews comment that the WMF would limit the existing services (either intentionally, or by neglect) as a way to force companies onto a paid-access model. That would be completely against the operating principles I linked above, and antithetical to mission in general. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I certainly don't think anyone plans on making the paid access better to the detriment of the free access, just that the temptation will be there. A while back I had a discussion with the foundation about us sending a HTTP referer (yes, that's how it is spelled) when someone clicks on a link. I showed them how doing that can in some cases allow third party websites to tell exactly what pages a Wikipedia user is reading (ask me if you want all of the gory technical details; the method isn't obvious but is well known to website designers). The foundation's conclusion was that the privacy of our readers is less important than our fundraisers being able to prove to potential donors how much traffic our links were sending their way. So I am understandably a bit skeptical about the foundation making decisions that reduce revenue. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." --Upton Sinclair --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Macon "HTTP referer (yes, that's how it is spelled)": Interestingly, your link goes to a nonexistent page called "HTTP HTTP referer" 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Fixed the link. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Re Google, their system is extremely fragile: on OTRS and elsewhere we keep receiving reports of incorrect search results (e.g. vandalism cached by Google, and long gone from WMF caches, persisting in their search result page for days). The real-time data is already out there, but they're evidently unable to use it correctly. I'm not saying it's going to be easy to do better, but there's definitely room for improvement. Sure, Google could throw more money at the problem and solve it themselves, but it's probably easier for WMF to provide a consistent/reliable service: WMF has specific expertise (assuming the "normal" WMF employees are going to work together with the "LLC-focused employees") and economies of scale (assuming more than one customer needs the same or similar service, for instance at least two search engines). Nemo 05:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If Google is unwilling to throw money at the problem and solve it themselves, do we have any evidence that they will be willing to throw money at a new LLC that promises to solve it for them? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
These large organisations already are "throwing money at the problem" - but they cannot solve problems that are beyond their control. The thing that those organisations, even with their vastly larger resources (technical, staff, financial) cannot control is the stability, format, and speed of the 'flow' of information that we publish. There is nothing 'wrong' with the existing APIs of course - but it is insufficient for their specific needs. By metaphor: the electricity that flows into my house, and the electricity that flows into the factory outside my window, is the same - but the infrastructure needed for me to receive it compared to what that factory needs - is quite different. Only the "electricity company" can build the extreme power-supply that factory needs, and the contractual guarantee that the electricity will arrive at the specific flow rate, and specific high voltage, that they need. THAT is what the Enterprise API's customers will be paying for: because they cannot build it, or guarantee its supply, by themselves. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Those are all good points, but they do not address the question asked. If, as you say, "THAT is what the Enterprise API's customers will be [not are] paying for: because they cannot build it, or guarantee its supply, by themselves", why then are they not willing to pay to create it? Has any potential customer signed a contract agreeing that if the foundation creates X the customer will pay Y for it? Even if we have no such financial commitment, has Google, Amazon, or Apple given us a definition of what they might be willing to buy in the future, or are the details of the Enterprise API based upon what some foundation engineers are guessing that the customers might want? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
It was stated on the record in an interview for WIRED that conversations between the the big tech companies and the project team "are already underway" - which is is a simple way of saying that yes, the 'enterprise' team has been in close contact with those companies: finding out what they currently do and how they do it, what they need and can't do themselves, what they'd like instead, and would they be willing to pay for it... This is not being built in a vacuum. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Very helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The Enterprise API: a technical analysisEdit

Based upon my decades of managing hardware and software projects and as a consultant specializing in rescuing engineering projects that are in trouble, here is my technical analysis based upon first principles with no insider information about the Wikimedia Foundation, Google, Amazon, or Apple:

  • Assumption #1: The software that Wikipedia runs on can be run on someone else's' computer.
  • Assumption #2: The content on Wikipedia can be mirrored on someone else's' computer.


Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks,
Downloading the Wikimedia software,
Wikimedia Installation Guide. and
How to mirror Wikipedia examine the above assumptions. Also keep in mind that you can create a mirror of most things that are available on the internet by crawling the website like any ordinary user.

If the above assumptions are true, then Google, Amazon, and Apple can create and maintain complete and frequently updated copies of Wikipedia on their internal servers.

They could also check Wikipedia (we are on the web, after all) to verify that individual pages on their internal server are up to date, with the choice of what pages to update driven by them displaying that content to their users in some form.

At this point, engineers at Google, Amazon, and Apple could reverse engineer the Enterprise API and create an identical API that pulls data from their internal servers. They might even be able to poach some foundation engineers, at least some of whom would welcome a doubling of salary and a promise of better management.

This would give Google, Amazon, and Apple exactly what they would get from the Enterprise API without paying a dime for it.

Engineers at Google, Amazon, and Apple could then attempt to differentiate themselves from each other by making their internal API better in some way than the Enterprise API.

One obvious improvement would be to not update their copy when a new Wikipedia user makes a change unless the edit survives without being reverted for a day or two. This would give them a feed with less vandalism.

My conclusion is that this proposal has a fatal flaw; the potential customer can easily eliminate the middleman. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: A matching comment was published on the English Wikipedia village pump. People wishing to read replies can find them there. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
That discussion was archived and is now here.
The one question that nobody had a good answer for in that discussion is this:
So why haven't these potential customers made a financial commitment? If, as claimed, they will be willing to pay a substantial amount for such a service sometime in the future, why are they not willing to invest even a small amount towards creating the service? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Note, for those following this subheading:
On Friday 16th @1500 UTC - one week from the time the time this message was posted (minus 1 hour) - the Wikimedia Enterprise team will be hosting the April edition of our monthly Office Hours. You are most welcome to join us. Details for how to join are available at our documentation homepages here on meta @ Wikimedia Enterprise.
Equally on Meta are instructions for requesting a separate call for your community group (at a time and technical platform of your choosing); and the videos of the recordings of the two office-hours meetings from March. Relatedly, the team will be presenting at the forthcoming EMWCon Spring 2021 conference later in April. Sincerely, LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@LWyatt (WMF): could you add the office hours to the Front page of meta - think that will help get the message out. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Done. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This was covered in The Wikipedia Signpost. In that sin post article I was quoted as saying:

"...DGG is very skeptical about the WMF's need to raise more money and fears "commercial entanglement". User Guy Macon has similar views, believing that raising more money only distracts from the needed focus on the volunteer community. When asked if the WMF could do anything to earn his support, he answered.
' Do it without any money from donors or employee time paid for by donors. Every other for-profit LLC has to secure funding somehow; why should this one be different? Make a pitch to Google, Amazon, and Apple. If they are willing to pay for the service in the future they should be willing to invest in completely funding the creation of the service now.' ".
I stand by that statement. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Whoever invests gets to make the decisions and define the operational principles. The startup investment in this project comes from the Wikimedia Foundation, under the direction of the Board of Trustees, and so consequently the operational principles are determined for the good of the movement.
To have outsourced the financing of this [even IF that was actually possible, which is a different question entirely] would have been to also outsource the oversight and design control. Something which would not be appropriate in my opinion. The whole reason we can even have these open conversations about what is appropriate principles etc. is because it is an in-house thing. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey for donationEdit

Hi, where can I found the translations of the survey which can be compiled after making the donation to Wikimedia in these days? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You may want to ask Fundraising: --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Etiki – Wikipedia for corporate sustainability assessmentEdit

Hello people. I have submitted a new project proposal: Etiki – Wikipedia for corporate sustainability assessment.

Project description: etiki aims to create transparency on the ethical and sustainable behavior of companies (or more generally: organisations). Instead of providing continuous text written by editors, the platform will visualize previously published information (news articles, NGO reports, etc.) in a highly structured way. The information can be filtered by the user's own criteria. Further, the entire value chain of a company and its business connections will be visible. Sustainability is regarded in it's an all-encompassing definition: environment, people, animals, politics.

There is already something similar proposed Transparent_Economy. But in my opinion etiki is much better thought through. I am looking forward to the discussion. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hodeld (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2021

  • I have posted a notice of this proposal on enwiki at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment, and urge others to create similar posts to alert other interested parties. Best wishes! Jusdafax 18:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movementEdit


Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans Contact French native speaker, sorry for my dysorthography 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of TrusteesEdit

This was linked on the main page a couple of days ago, but perhaps not everyone watches that. There are no other local links and as such thought this board may be an appropropriate place to post it for more widespread coverage. Thank you. Killiondude (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Investment strategyEdit


I try to understand better how the Wikimedia Foundation works. The Capital of the Wikimedia Foundation was growing over the years and so I ask me how is that money invested. Are there sustainability principles that are needed before money is invested in a company through the Wikimedia Foundation.--Hogü-456 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

foundation:Investment Guidance rubin16 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Identities of affiliation functionariesEdit

I have a question for which I haven't found an answer. I have a nebulous memories that functionaries of Wikimedia affiliations should be publicly known. I have found only that 2 primary contacts of an affiliation should reveal their identities to WMF. I am working on a concrete case of Wikimedians of Slovakia. Here I provide copy from the Meta page of the User Group:

  • Chair: Matej Grochal (Jetam2)
  • Vice-chair: Radoslava Semanová (Akdar)
  • Vice-chair: Dávid Štefan (Lišiak)

The page is maintained by functionaries of the organisation, so one can assume, that they are OK about public knowing the pair "their wiki identity - their civil identity".

But when I asked the functionaries about their opinion on violating bylaws (as during the Meeting of General Assembly on 28th September 2019 they all have expressed that do not care about violating bylaws), I was accused by one of them of connecting his wiki username with his civil name. He argued, that he has not his civil name on his user page. The argument that he have his wiki username and civil name connected on pages of Wikimedians of Slovakia (as shown above) wasn't accepted, nor the connections removed.

Is it OK for Wikimedia Affiliation functionary to reveal both his wiki username and civil identity in one place, but requiring to hide it in another place in WMF's wiki? (especially when it is about violating bylaws of the organisation of which he is a functionary) --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Different Wikimedia projects may have different policies regarding connecting real names to the account names. Ruslik (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Queries about WMFLegal ?Edit

  1. Is WMF Legal functioning at the present time ?
  2. How long does WMF Legal take to reply to emails sent to legal@wikim... ?
  3. What is the timeline for WMF Legal to accept/reject requests for Office-action / Oversight made for harassment and libels of living 3rd persons using Wikimedia's computer resources ?
  4. Is there any way to speed up the process with WMF Legal ? Namedefend (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Line numbering coming soon to all wikisEdit

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Creating a Navigation BarEdit

Hi Everyone, I would like to know if there is a resources material where I could read on how to create different navigation portal eg. Home|About us|Campaigns|Contacts etc. if there is an easy material that has a lot resources the would enable me learn how to create various navigation tabs for campaigns I would be very grateful. Thanks Jwale2 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Threatened, harassed & bullied by cross-wiki vandalsEdit

Hi, there's some history of cross-wiki abuse against me User:Bédévore/Harassment. There's currently another round of cross-wiki abuse, with threats + sexist & sexual comments on my user pages by single-purpose accounts. I reported the abuses on the steward page for global lock... and nothing happened. I know we are all volunteers but I don't understand what's taking so long. Maybe I should report the abuses on another page to get a reaction about it. Please tell me where. Best regards, Bédévore (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2: m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/DiscussionEdit

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page. There are consultations ongoing at several projects about key discussion topics.

To seek input from participants of projects without individual on-wiki discussions, m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion is accessible now in several languages and accepting input in any language.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)