Wikimedia Forum

(Redirected from Meta:Wikimedia Forum)
← 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.

Proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia and a new Wikipedia projectEdit

Given the topic just above this one, I see that this might be the right place for this proposal.

As some of you know, I have been working on the idea of a multilingual Wikipedia for a few years now. Two other publications on this are here:

I've also been giving talks about the topic in several places about this idea, some of them have also been recorded:

I gathered some awesome feedback in those few years (also from some people on this wiki, thank you!), and I also implemented a few prototypes trying out the idea, learning a lot from that.

All of this has helped to sharpen the idea and come up with a more concrete proposal. In short, the proposal is that we do a two-step approach: first, allow for capturing Wikipedia content in an abstract notation, and second, allow for creating functions that translate this abstract notation into natural language (For simplicity, I gave this two steps names, Abstract Wikipedia for step 1, and Wikilambda for step 2. I realize that both names are not perfect, but that is just one of the many things that we can figure out together on the way).

I wrote up this proposal in a paper, which I uploaded to my Website almost two weeks ago, and I also submitted it to Arxiv. And as soon as it was published on Arxiv, I wanted to share it with you and see what you folks think (I wanted to wait for it as Arxiv would allow the URLs to remain stable - my Website has gone down before and might so again).

The new proposal is much more concrete than the previous proposals (and therefore there is much more to criticize). Also, obviously, nothing of this is set in stone, and just like the names, I am very much looking forward to hear suggestions for how to improve the whole thing, and I will blatantly steal every good idea and proposal. I am not even sure what a good venue for this discussion is, I guess, eventually it should be on Meta?, but also about that I would like to hear proposals.

Abstract Wikipedia is a proposed extension to Wikidata that would capture the content next to the Wikidata items. Think of it as a new namespace, where we could create, maintain, and collaborate on the abstract content. Similar to the Wikidata-bridge, there should be a way to allow contributions from the Wikipedias to flow back without too much friction. The individual Wikipedias - and I cannot stress this enough - have the choice to use some or any or all or none of the content from Abstract Wikipedia, but I most definitely do not expect the content of the current Wikipedias to be replaced by this. In fact, I have no doubt that any decent article in any language Wikipedia will remain superior to the outcome of the proposed new architecture by far. This is a proposal for the places where the current system left us with gaps, not a proposal to turn the parts that are already brilliant today dull and terrible tomorrow.

Wikilambda is a proposed new Wikimedia project that allows us to share in a new form of knowledge assets, functions. You can think of it as similar to Modules or Templates, but a bit extended, with places for tests, different languages, evaluation, and also for all kind of functions, not only those that are immediately useful for one of the Wikimedia projects, and most importantly, shared among the projects. So one of the first goals would be to increasingly allow fo a place to have global templates, another idea that has been discussed and asked for for a very long time. Wikilambda, just as Wikidata, is expected to start as a project supporting the immediate needs of the sister projects, and over time to grow to a project that stands on its own merits as well.

We don't really have an effective process for starting new projects, so I am trying to follow a similar path that we took for Wikidata back then. And back then it all started with Markus Krötzsch, me and others talking about the idea to anyone who would listen until everyone was bored of hearing it, trying out prototypes, and then talking about it even more, and improving all of it constantly based on your feedback. And then making increasingly concrete proposals until we managed to show some kind of consensus from the communities, you, and the Foundation to actually do it. And then, well, do it.

So, I've done some of the talking, with researchers, with the public, with some of you, and also with folks at the Foundation, to figure out what next steps could be, and how this can be made to work. Here's a more concrete proposal. Now I am here to see whether we can find consensus and be bold. I want to hear from you. I want to hear what you think what the right place is to discuss this (here, on meta? One of the mailing lists? Wikidata? Some Telegram or Facebook group? (OK, I was joking about the latter)). Which parts of the proposal are good and which need improvement? Where is more detail or clarification needed to allow for a meaningful discussion?

Just as with Wikipedia and Wikidata and our other projects, this is a crazy idea at first. Maybe even more crazy than our other projects. And the only way there is a chance of us being successful is, if, eventually, thousands of us work together on it. The only way this worked in the past is by being open, start out collaboratively, discuss the path forward, and work towards creating the project together.

Stay safe. --denny (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I read your paper, and I love it! It is an ambitious, crazy idea, but I think it gets at something important regarding making knowledge more available regardless of language (one reason my editing has shifted toward Wikidata in the past few years). A couple of related thoughts: When I read over an entity name in a given Wikipedia language edition, red link or even plain text, I don't immediately know whether other language editions might have an article about it. Also, in the process of working on my own project (CauseGraph), I've been thinking about Wikidata completeness; there are many links that appear in multiple language editions of Wikipedia (even dozens of them), but not in Wikidata. Abstract Wikipedia seems like it would be a great place to put these more common links, and to determine whether statements about them should be added to Wikidata. Perhaps an editing interface for Abstract Wikipedia could even suggest these common links to editors who aren't sure what an article might be missing. Thanks again for the ideas; I might have to read over your paper again today! --Jamie7687 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the nice message, I really appreciate it! :)
You should also check out Amir Aharoni's talk from last year's Wikimania, where he was talking about a more powerful link.
And I really like the idea of using the existing link structure to help grow the content. I think that's really worthwhile to pursue, and may help with kick-starting the project. Great idea! Thanks! By the way, this could also be interesting for Wikidata - some app that says "oh look, this item is linked from this item a lot, maybe they are related with some property?" - and then even provide some guesses, based on either a classifier or on the P31 of the items. Just an idea. That could make a fun game. --denny (talk)
  • As a Wikidata admin, I think Wikilambda would be valuable for Wikidata. It would be very useful to generate item description with Wikilambda that translate into all languages. It would similarly be valuable to translate edit descriptions that currently suffer from being monolingual.
It's my impression that it would be good if Wikilambda has it's own governance distinct from Wikidata. As such I think Meta-Wiki is the right place to hold the discussions. In particular does provide a channel for proposing new projects. ChristianKl❫ 13:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes! In fact, Daniel Kinzler made that proposal long time ago to me, when I started talking about this idea. Magnus Manske had this idea independently and actually implemented it with Autodesc. I also think that have that in Wikilambda could be an interesting start, and make this functionality maybe a bit easier available.
I agree that Wikilambda should have it's own governance, so Meta is a better place than Wikidata, I think you're right. I will take another look at the proposal page you linked, but I am not sure about its efficacy. --denny (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Thank you for suggesting the Project proposal page. I have now followed the instructions there, and the proposal is up on Wikilambda. Any form of support would be very welcome! --denny (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As one aspect of your proposal you write that you want scientific papers to be able to directly refer to function published on Wikilambda, yet the paper makes no argument for why a scientific paper would prefer that approach over linking to Github. One way to provide an improvement over Github would be to give each function a clear IPFS address. An IPFS basic architecture might be used a lot more outside of Wikimedia because it provides an aspect current hosting of code doesn't provide. ChristianKl❫ 13:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments!
There are pros and cons between Github, IPFS and Wikilambda, and I think it is too early to really detail those, as Wikilambda is only an idea, but I think there is plenty of space to allow Wikilambda to play a role in this. And if not, there are sufficient other use cases. But I think the potential ease of use of the collaborative aspect of Wikilambda and the possibility to have a shared canonical identifier-space could create an interesting environment for referring to functions. --denny (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: the proposal is now here. Please check it out and sign here if you support it, or if you have arguments against. --denny (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When checkusers wrongly accuse you of making physical threatsEdit

I have no idea where to go. Wikimedia has a problem with procedures. Namely, those that don't seem to exist.

Checkusers Magog the Ogre accused me of making physical threats and Krd did the same. Jameslwoodward suggested this happened off-wiki. At least that's how most of the community interpreted it, the same wording could apply to something that was posted using an IP.

But I didn't. Everything there is is on-wiki. It's not even oversighted or revision deleted. They can link the diff, but when asked, Krd refused.

So I try to set this straight. I hope nobody will ever find themselves in my situation:

  • Admins: can't do anything, checkusers have to be trusted and they claim to be unable to talk due to privacy policy.
  • Checkusers: I don't feel safe trying to contact them. Also, what would I ask? Please hand over your nonexistent evidence?
  • Ombudsman: they were contacted by GreenMeansGo. Never heard back afaik. Also, it may not be within their scope because I don't think this is about violating the privacy policy. But I could be wrong?
  • T&S (by mail): we feel that this is something that is best handled by the community, the local Oversight team more specifically
  • Oversight: We've discussed the matter on the mailing list and have agreed that none of the content you requested for review falls under the oversight policy.
The OS policy allows oversighting "potentially libelous information" in two cases: "on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel" (Legal) or "when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision" and since the checkusers won't talk, it ain't clear.
  • Legal: I think T&S communicates with Legal. Legal@ was added to the CC on April 16. Haven't heard anything back. Legal@ is for "For third-party legal issues and threats.", but it's unclear to me what a "third party" is in this context. Anyone who doesn't have a wiki account? Anyone who doesn't work for the WMF?

All in all this took a whole month with nothing to show for it. It's nothing short of Kafkaesque and it is affecting my health in a negative way.

In desperation I mailed legal@, T&S and oversight once more 9 hours ago, asking them to work together and resolve this. I have this sinking feeling I am going to witness an example of the bystander effect.

I am close to just crying and pulling my hair out. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 19:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason you was blocked was misuse of multiple accounts. Have you ever used other accounts? Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: this isn't even about my block anymore. I just want to get my name cleared. That won't necessarily result in an unblock, but that's something to worry about some other day. I've detailed some things about the matter on my user page here. Yes, I created User:Grilling the Sheriff and yes, that was stupid and I've shown some uncivil behavior. But I haven't made physical threats. Yet the checkusers make it sound like I've been threatening them off-wiki or something. But that's just a myth. But how do I prove it is a myth? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 20:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
[1] was a poor edit summary to use if you didn't want the other edit to be interpreted as a physical threat. --Rschen7754 00:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole account was stupid and pointless in hindsight (which is always 20/20), but going from meaningless wordplay on the title of a Bob Marley song to Krd saying Commons checkusers were forced to make thoughts about their physical safety during this case after personal threats. seems like a very, very long stretch. Besides, if that were it, why the secrecy? Just link it. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: (T&S actually became part of Legal several months ago.) Seems clear to me that this is entirely up to the local community on Commons. There's nothing anyone here can/should do about this. --Yair rand (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Thanks for the information, so T&S is Legal. But the question remains. How is the local community supposed to deal with this? The checkusers claim that nonpublic information is involved and what can the community do but assume "that there is some terrible secret about me"? But that can't be the end of it, because what the checkusers say isn't true. But how do I prove that to the community? Or how can anyone prove that? How can the local community deal with this when the community isn't given correct information? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 22:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It's getting to a point where I wonder if I could/should ask T&S to investigate the claims about physical threats and either globally ban me (but.. T&S knows about all this! they didn't ban me!) or hope they can make a public statement that those physical threats don't exist. Because there is a procedure for investigating threats. But it's the world upside-down: I (not the party who claims to have been threatened) would request an investigation into myself based on rumors that I know are inaccurate. I'd basically ask them to waste their time only so they can report that they've been wasting their time. But maybe that's really the way to go? As I sit here thinking about it, maybe it is. Unless someone convinces me otherwise, I think I'll contact emergency@ on behalf of those who claim to have received physical threats and request that they investigate the matter and if at all possible, make a public statement about the outcome. This is crazy. Maybe crazy is needed. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 22:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Do not do that. This is not reasonable behaviour. It's time to take a step back from all this. (Frankly, going ahead with it might be grounds for banning on its own. Please stop digging yourself deeper.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: so what do I do? I know it's not reasonable and I know I'm losing my mind over this. But I did take a step back when I handed the case over to T&S. And they told me to ask OS. So I did, and I waited. And OS couldn't do anything either. And now we are here. And I'm falling apart. Nobody seems to know what to do. I am losing my mind and I don't know what to do or who to ask. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
At the very least, some degree of information should be made public about the mentioned off-wiki threats, even if it is only confirming that such evidence exists, which would not violate the privacy of anyone involved. Vermont (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the checkusers on Commons may relay the information they have to other functionaries on projects elsewhere, for a further analysis of the threats and an assessment of the appropriateness of their handling. There isn't a sufficient number of checkusers available on Commons to correctly scrutinise the actions that have been undertaken, with the resulting problem that it's easy for all the functionaries on that project to become involved or to lack the necessary distance to make a fair and balanced assessment of the situation. Nick (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nick: that sounds very reasonable. Also, if I could review the information beforehand the entire report could probably be made public depending on exactly what is in the report. I'd obviously want my IP to be redacted in it, as well as accounts that haven't been abused, though I would assume such things wouldn't be in there anyway as it's irrelevant. For example, I'm not the only Wikimedian on this IP. An uninvolved checkuser could confirm that logged-out edits play no role here, so the IP can be scrapped from the report. Beyond those specific bits I'm guessing all the information could just be made public. In fact, it kind of already is, just a bit scattered. The problem here is that I'm not comfortable at all to ask the checkusers for this, which I hope is understandable given the circumstances. As for sending the whole report (including IP etc) to uninvolved checkusers, I don't see any problem with that. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 00:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
There are two points, however: 1. Will Commons CheckUsers agree? 2. Will other functionaries review the evidence, in case Commons CU team agrees? I once thought of asking English Wikipedia's ArbCom, but I'm not sure if both Commons CheckUsers and the ArbCom will agree. Moreover, I think CheckUsers can clarify this (at least partially) without breaching the privacy policy. Ahmadtalk 00:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
@Nick, Ruslik0, Vermont, Ahmad252, and GreenMeansGo: but where to go from here? Probably ask the checkusers some questions?
  • Where are the supposed threats? On-wiki or off-wiki?
  • Assuming they are not going to boldly lie (as there hasn't been any recent off-wiki contact of any kind), link the diffs of whatever they perceived as a physical threat. As Rschen7754 suggested it could theoretically be a threat made by an IP, I hereby give permission to link that as well. There's no such thing, so no need to hide behind the privacy policy.
  • Ask them to mail me all relevant information their decision is based on. I'll review it and it can most likely be made public with little to no redaction. That should remove the need to treat my block as a checkuserblock. Actually, the two questions above are kind of redundant if they can do this..
But I'm extremely uncomfortable to contact any of them myself. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 00:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, the point is that, apparently, CUs aren't willing to talk about the details (see Krd's response to AFBorchert's question regarding those threats), And there are no uninvolved CUs to intervene. That's a rather big part of the situation: on Commons, if CUs are not willing to intervene, there is nothing others can do. Ahmadtalk 01:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I hope one of you will manage to convince them to talk and/or send all the information to me. And towards the future something needs to change. Whenever the CU-team makes a mistake, no matter the reason, there is no appeal. No second opinion. But checkusers are just humans, so they make mistakes. One has to be able to question them. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 04:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't expect anyone is near listening to me on the subject. But short of voluntarily agreeing to an independent review, as far as I am aware, T&S/OMB are the only recourse. If they won't intervene, then I don't know what else to suggest. GMGtalk 12:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: can anyone who isn't me ask the CU team to send whatever information they based their decision on to me? (or send it to you+4nn1l2+Vermont and have one of you forward it to me so you three could confirm the information integrity if I publish it) — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 12:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am aware regarding current practices (given that Commons has like three sentences on CU policy), no, a user cannot request that a functionary release information to a third party. Even if we had a reasonable expectation of open communication on the matter, I'm not sure I'm the right messenger. GMGtalk 16:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Also I did hear back from OMB, but nothing other than the fact that they had received my message. GMGtalk 16:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz, could you please send a summary of events to cu-ombuds-l(at) Be as complete as possible, and send any communication you've had with the Commons CU team. Thanks, – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz: You've got mail. Let me know if you need anything else. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 07:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
To go anywhere words “truth” and “justice” have some meaning. When Lot flees the city, those left behind don’t care. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

New language requestEdit

In Requests for new languages is possible to request for new language. I found hundred of languages on Omniglot. Can I add them to the request page? -- 21:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please see the links in the instructions at the top of Requests for new languages. Those will lead you to the details about how it works. TLDR: New projects must "demonstrate that there is sufficient community to build the project". Each language needs a community in order to build the related projects. Quiddity (talk) 02:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity: I already know how to add language. I am asking about if that languages are eligible for the requests... -- 08:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are eligible if there are going to be sufficient potential members of the community to edit the wiki. This is a deliberately vague criterion because we do not want to be setting an objective benchmark. If you are going to propose specific wikis for these languages, I would suggest a different approach. Compare the Omniglot list against the list of Wikipedias to see if any of them already have a Wikipedia. Then compare the rest against the Incubator list of wikis and see if any of the Omniglot list already have an incubated space. Once the list has been pruned like this, find out how many speakers each language has (according to reliable sources) and remove any that have fewer than ten thousand speakers. If you look at the list of Wikipedias by speakers per article, the four smallest wikis are for constructed or dead languages. The smallest natural languages with wikis have at least ten thousand speakers each. Whatever languages are left on the list would probably be good candidates for applying for a space at the Incubator. If the incubated space grows, it can be considered for moving to its own wiki. I hope that helps. --Green Giant (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do not do it, if it's not a language in which you actually want to contribute. The request pages track projects that are in some stage of existing, not to track all the potential projects which could exist. --MF-W 00:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Empty extra columnsEdit

Why there is a empty extra columns on Requests for new languages? I think they are useless... -- 20:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a consequence of quirks with {{Lc-row}}. I at least added a column title so that there's something. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


Please leave your opinion on my latest proposal. Its a free online guidebook. Leave a message in the discussion if you have any thoughts, and if you are opposing, please state the reason clearly Arep Ticous 09:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong labels translationEdit

In Commons, the File:Antonino Cannavacciuolo-signature.svg have a italian translation error in the label.

In the Details section, “SVG sviluppo” should be “Sviluppo SVG”. How can I fix? --2001:B07:6442:8903:E011:C9E4:72C8:9D85 13:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Previous requests: c:Commons:Help desk/Archive/2020/01#Wrong labels translation and c:Commons:Village pump/Technical/Archive/2020/01#Wrong labels translation
"Details" section? Very confusing. This only works in Italian so I've added a link. This wouldn't be too hard, but you need a template editor or administrator to edit the template:
{{LangSwitch|it=Sviluppo {{uc:{{#invoke:File|extension|file={{PAGENAME}}}}}}|default={{uc:{{#invoke:File|extension|file={{PAGENAME}}}}}}{{I18n/COA|development}}}}
In addition, someone who speaks Italian would have to confirm that your proposed change is correct. Blackcat is Italian off the top of my head. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 23:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, not sure to have understood the problem. Which label are we talking about? -- Blackcat (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Blackcat: --2001:B07:6442:8903:B06C:D4E5:BC1A:2CEB 15:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, fixed at the best I could. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The right to control your own nonpublic information on WikimediaEdit

There is a access to nonpublic personal data policy, which is good as its goal is to protect the privacy of Wikimedians. What it doesn't provide though is control, or even access.

Control or access are luckily not needed frequently, but sometimes this is desirable. Some possible examples:

  • A mail that was sent to OTRS, but the sender has lost the original mail and wants a copy from OTRS.
  • OTRS permission is publicly being disputed and the sender wants to make the conversation public to clarify it. While the sender may be able to publish their mail to OTRS, they would be unable to prove that whatever they publish is everything they mailed to OTRS.
  • A user was investigated by a CheckUser and now wants/needs to prove to a third party what their IP was at that time. (would not be very common, but could help exonerate someone of an accusation when it happens)
  • A user is accused of sockpuppeteering but believes the CheckUser has erred and wants to explain to the broader community why they're innocent, or at least, understand why the CheckUser even believes they have socked.
  • A user has created a page or uploaded a file which has been deleted and they forgot to save/lost the original, so they want a copy.

Currently (unless a project happens to have some local policy for this, not sure if any project even does) there is no way to get access to one's own nonpublic information. Even less so is there any way for users to prove that any information they claim to be the nonpublic information is intact.

There is a bunch of ifs and buts here, but the basic principle should, in my opinion, be: if it's your data, you should have access to it. I'm considering the creation of a request for comment (that page doesn't seem very active..?) but some prior discussion is probably useful here. Also because I have no experience with the RfC process. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

None of your examples is a typical request for access. Private correspondence, backups of non-PII and transparency over internal processes are generally handled in different ways.
I suggest to focus on a more clear-cut case, preferably already regulated by some law (so that WMF doesn't feel a need to prevent the disclosure/access as illegal) and ideally of interest for a larger segment of our users. Nemo 06:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I primarily started this thread because CheckUsers are human. They can (and do) make mistakes sometimes. There is the Ombudsman commission, but that page doesn't make their exact scope quite clear and blocked users aren't typically informed about its existence anyway. Plus it would be preferable to deal with cases within the community of a project whenever possible. The nonpublic data policy can be working against you when this happens, and that couldn't have been its intention. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Au contraire, I would argue that it is precisely the scope of the policy: to minimise the handling of personal information by trusting few people to access it for very specific purposes. We could probably increase the scrutiny of CheckUser actions by increasing the number of people with access, but that would hardly be progress for privacy. Again, it seems you're looking for some kind of process for community recall or appeal, so you should focus on that rather than dress it as something altogether different like a "request for access". Nemo 17:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: It's not the intention of the policy to frustrate attempts to request an unblock when a CheckUser has erred, just a side effect. I have the feeling you might better understand what I mean than I can explain it. A community appeal sounds interesting, I think that's worth looking into. Do you have any further thoughts on that? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 00:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alexis Jazz. Related: phabricator:T387, phabricator:T29242, mw:Requests for comment/Retained account data self-discovery. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiGap Nigeria Online Contest: We seek your participation to close gender gap in Nigeria - (29 April-27 May)Edit

Hello friends,

We invite you to help us close the gender gap about Nigerian women on Wikipedia.

There are amazing prizes to be won.

  1. 1st: HP Laptop 15-ra011nia Celeron 4GB RAM 500GB HDD FREE DOS
  2. 2nd: Mobile Phone: Canon 12 Air 6.55 inc
  3. 3rd: Zealot S7 Pro Portable Wireless Touch Control Bluetooth Speaker 4.2 With 10000maH and Powerbank
  4. 4th: 1TB Backup+Slim External Hard Drive
  5. 5th: 128GB Ultra OTG Dual USB Flash Drive
  6. 6th-15th: Wikipedia pencil, pin, and merchandise as supported by Wikimedia Sverige.

The contest runs through 29 April to 27 May 2020.

To join us click here

We rely so much on your support of this initiative.


@Olaniyan Olushola: You forgot to sign. The HP 15-ra011nia has an Intel Celeron N3060 dual core (it's kind of like an Intel Atom), DVD-writer and a 15.6" 1366 x 768 screen. The phone is probably a TECNO Camon 12 Air, not from Canon. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 14:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@Olaniyan Olushola: also the example that was to be followed ("To register, please follow the format of the Example below.") was removed by User:Kaizenify in this edit. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 14:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing the default skin: revisitedEdit

Let's face it. The MediaWiki software and Wikipedia has not had a default skin change in over 10 years. The Vector skin looks... old. The layout feels clunky, it is hard to use on mobile, and the use of gradients and old design code makes the Vector skin look dated compared to other modern skins introduced more recently, in particular Minerva and Timeless.

Isarra developed and is still working on the Timeless skin. It looks so much nicer, uses flat design, and will probably look Wikimedia projects look appealing for another decade to come. I do not like the choice of skins available, either, because the other skins (Modern, CologneBlue, Monobook) make Wikipedia look like it came out of the 1990s-2000s. My question for her is: are all the kinks and bugs in the Timeless skin fixed?

What makes the Vector skin look dated? Well, the design that Vector has used become antiquated with the introduction of flat design in 2012-2013. Other websites, including Microsoft, Google, wikiHow, and even Wikimedia Foundation have all switched over to using flat, responsive design. Because I use the Timeless skin, I get the advantages of this design, in particular the freedom of using whatever device I want on whatever size screen/window I want with very little constraints. If the Timeless skin was introduced, the mobile front end extension that Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects have used for the past several years would become deprecated, removing yet another dependency. The Vector skin does not have these same luxuries.

When I initially posted this several years ago, the Timeless skin was just introduced, so there were still a lot of design patches that were being worked on. Now, the Timeless skin feels more complete. Isarra can probably tell us (and me) when the Timeless skin will be ready. I am not requesting this because I dislike Vector, I am requesting this because it made sense in 2010-2011, but does not make any sense today. Wikipedia's appearance (and the appearance of any wiki that runs MediaWiki and uses the Vector skin by default) needs to evolve with the rest of the web. Aasim 21:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A first step could be to undeploy MobileFrontend and enable Timeless for mobile users: I think that would be quite uncontroversial. (But it would still be a huge increase in usage, so the fallout would be significant.)
As for ditching Vector, which is based on monobook, which is itself based on the original wikis... I think that's timeless, some 20 years young. Commercial software houses keep introducing new fads for the sake of it but that doesn't mean they're any better; usually they don't last long, soon everybody hates them and wonders why anyone ever thought they were a good idea. Nemo 21:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
We can still have the Vector skin after we make Timeless default. It is just that the default skin needs to be changed to a newer, responsive skin. I am not saying "ditch Vector", I am saying change the default to Timeless. Aasim 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we should change back to the Monobook skin. It just looks better. 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The problem with Monobook is that, and yes I have used Monobook, its design goes as far back as 2004. That is also pretty old. We need something that can evolve with the changing times. Aasim 04:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
That's the idea of skins in general. To allow the look to evolve without rebuilding the entire site. No skin will be designed with flexibility for the future in mind. You can't make a future-proof skin because you don't know what the future will bring. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 05:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Minerva, Modern, Monobook, Timeless, Mobile.
Minerva looks like mobile. May be an improvement for mobile users.
Modern looks like 1998.
Monobook looks like 2001.
Timeless.. interesting, completely changes depending on window size. But I don't like the fixed unscrollable top bar. The only thing I might be interested in to be unscrollable would be a menu that opens the ToC.
@Awesome Aasim: Maybe you want to read mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements/Research and design: Phase 1. Pinging @AHollender (WMF). — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 04:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hey Alexis Jazz, thanks for pinging a member of our team. I strongly encourage all of you (Awesome Aasim in particular) to read more on mw:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements and the subpages. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi SGrabarczuk (WMF): it is nice that you already are considering this problem. However, I think Vector still looks a bit dated (at the moment, maybe after you are done I will check the skin out and make a judgement call). I can't wait to see what you come up with! :D Aasim 12:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC) SGrabarczuk (WMF) Aasim

SGrabarczuk (WMF) Aasim 12:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

logo & font licenseEdit

Hello. I'm localizing a Wikipedia logo, the font i'm using is licensed under "SIL Open Font License (OFL)". Can i use this font? Please confirm. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030 recommendations have been publishedEdit

Wikimedia 2030 recommendations guide how the Wikimedia movement should change to meet the Wikimedia vision in the upcoming decade. They are at a high level so that the ideas are flexible enough to be adapted to different global and local settings. The final set clarifies and refines the previous version, which was published in January. The team that finalized the content reviewed and integrated feedback and made the language as clear as possible.

The result is a 40-page document that outlines 10 recommendations, along with 10 underlying principles, a narrative of change, and a glossary. We encourage you to read the recommendations.

There are a couple of other formats for you to take a deeper dive if you wish, such as:

If you would like to comment, you are welcome to do so on the Meta-Wiki talk pages. However please note that these are the final version of the recommendations. No further edits will be made.

The focus of the movement strategy process will shift toward implementation. The Wikimedia Foundation is intending to host a series of virtual events. The goal will be to produce a plan to begin the implementation — to identify what initiatives must come first, and in what sequence, and with what resources and support. This series will have a wide scope to ensure various parts of the movement are engaged. We expect to share more details this month, and begin this work together through the summer and into the fall.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

New requestEdit

I added a new request here. مروية سمر الهناد (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)