Wikimedia Forum

(Redirected from Metapub)
Latest comment: 4 hours ago by in topic Wikimedia Forum, a multilingual forum
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →

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.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Wikimedia Forum, a multilingual forum edit

Auf der Hauptseite steht, es wäre ein mehrsprachiges Forum (unja um die Hauptseite zu verstehen muss man natürlich englisch können oder zufällig bis runterscrollen um die eigene Sprache zu finden) ... und dann finde ich hier die Regeln ausschließlich auf englisch. Ich konnte auch keine Möglichkeit finden das in einer anderen Sprache anzuzeigen. So das exisitert ist es wohl gut versteckt. ... Ggf. sollte man den Text auf der Meta-Hauptseite ändern. ...Sicherlich Post 00:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sicherlich, ви маєте на увазі шапку цієї сторінки? У мене її показує українською, вона ось тут перекладається: Template:Wikimedia Forum header. Ну а загалом, на жаль, справді попри багатомовність для ефективної комунікації доводиться використовувати англійську. Гарним прикладом цього є Вікісховище, де, на жаль, люди, що не володіють англійською часто не розуміють що саме з них хочуть коли їх файли номіновано на вилучення тощо. --Base (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ja u.a. den Kopf. Aber ich sehe, wenn man eingeloggt ist und es in seinen Einstellungen geändert hat, dann kann man auch eine andere Sprache sehen. Witzig. Die Info gibts auch nur in Englisch. 😂 - Es ist also durchaus mehrsprachig; nur das zu ändern ist versteckt. ... Wenn Wikimedia eine globale Bewegung sein will, dann muss sie sich dem Problem der Englisch-Zentrierung stellen. Das schließt sehr viele Menschen aus. ...Sicherlich Post 08:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC) nach sehr vielen Jahren des immer wieder daraufhinweisens, gibt es Ansätze bei WMF das anzugehen. So werden inzw. durchaus auch Seiten mal übersetzt. Also Ansätze sind da, aber es gibt Sicherlich noch sehr viel zu tun Reply[reply]

Disclaimers Wikipedia / Wikimedia Foundation General Terms of Use edit

Hello for the legally minded. On the lower side of Wikipedia pages is a small reference "Disclaimers" with a link to a disclaimer in the language of the site you're visiting, 153 languages available. In the Dutch language version can be read under 'Liability' (Aansprakelijkheid) that volunteers editing Wikipedia are not to be held responsible for the correctness of text published, it even can't be guaranteed that authors did use caution (carefulness?) when formulating articles. (freely translated)

This seems to be contradicting with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use writing: "You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on the Projects. (...) For your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid taking any actions that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws."

Can someone please explain how both rulesets relate to each other? Thanks

Keep up VanArtevelde (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VanArtevelde when in doubt the English version takes precedence. Is the problem you are seeing soley a "translation" problem in the Dutch version - or do you also see issue with the English version? — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reaction, @Xaosflux The Dutch language disclaimer differs in content pretty much from the english language one. There is no general note that in doubt the English version is 'leading' globally. The english version states "None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages."
Best whishes, VanArtevelde (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanArtevelde translations of those messages are made by volunteers such as yourself, if you go to the root page there should be a "translate this page" link at the very top. Feel free to make appropriate improvements to the translation. — xaosflux Talk 10:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep in mind that translations of those should simply be that, a change in language only -- these are not like articles on our content projects where each language version may be different in substance. — xaosflux Talk 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Xaosflux for your swift reply - in that case on a global scale some work lays ahead... Can you please shortly explain what the reason is that the English language version is leading? Is that because it has been written under patronage (auspices) of the Wikimedia Foundation?
Practically it would be a pleasure to offer support in writing a translation of the current english text, but that ofcourse is not simply an individual editors project and in need of coordination / guidance, probably by a WMF functionary? Also because it will be very difficult for a single editor to make such big changes in the text of the Dutch language version. What do you think? VanArtevelde (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanArtevelde yes that is correct, the English language is leading because the pages you are referencing (especially the Terms of Use page) have certain legal standings and are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a United States of America non-profit organization. The language of the legal jurisdiction that it is in is English. Like most wiki pages, most editors are welcome to contribute so it is not up to a "single editor" - many hands make for light work. If you see something wrong, feel free to work on whatever part of it you want. Translations are usually broken down to one paragraph at a time for ease of access to translators. This page is run by volunteers, we are unable to direct the work of foundation staffers. — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again @Xaosflux for this useful information. There still are some unclearities. One of them: the English version disclaimer doesn't seem to have been written under patronage of the Wikimedia Foundation, like the General Terms are. The disclaimer isn't being published on the official Wikimedia Foundation webpage and there isn't a statement like: these rules are leading worldwide. And a practical point, that it will be very difficult for a single editor to change the text. VanArtevelde (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanArtevelde hi there, I think this discussion may have strayed to talk about several different pages. Are the pages you are asking about right now:
  1. foundation:Policy:Terms of Use and
  2. foundation:Wikimedia General Disclaimer ?
Both of those pages are maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation.
You also mentioned pages on "Wikipedia", and about translations. Are you asking about a page not here on the meta-wiki, but on the English Wikipedia? Please provide exact links for the page or pages you have a question about and we should be able to point to who maintains the page, and how to go about getting it improved. — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again for 'diving' into this, @Xaosflux, appreciate that very much.
  1. yes, that is what I'm talking about
  2. isn't existing and should be imho - see my comment for Jrogers
The disclaimers are being published on the wikipedia project pages, f.i.:
  1. Dutch |
  2. German |
  3. French |
  4. English |
-- VanArtevelde (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanArtevelde thanks for the response! OK, so those are not "translations" at all. Those are community-managed pages on those local projects. The best place to discussion improvements to those pages in on their associated talk pages. It is unlikely the office staff will force a change on those unless they are explicitly making a false claim about something the foundation itself would or wouldn't do, and even more unlikely that a global community driven policy (which we would discussion here on the meta-wiki) will emerge requiring local communities to word those pages in specific ways. Those projects do also contain links to the Terms of Use which should be consistent.
In my local capacity on the English Wikipedia I did make an edit to w:en:Wikipedia:General disclaimer, linking to the foundation:Policy:General disclaimer page for reference. — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Xaosflux as @Jrogers (WMF) pointed out, underneath, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts and the Dutch language version might be misleading at that point. The English version writes about the same. As I'm aware now, the disclaimers have not been written by local legal professionals. Imho the communities need support from local chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation to come to (a set of) reliable disclaimers created or checked by jurists so that they will work in their home countries. Thanks for the conversation, got interesting insights. Keep up! -VanArtevelde (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanArtevelde keep in mind that the only "home country" for all of the production projects is the United States. For example: The German Wikipedia isn't a Wikipedia about or for Germany, it is a Wikipedia written in German; the English Wikipedia isn't a Wikipedia about or for England, it is a Wikipedia written in English, etc. — xaosflux Talk 00:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean by "home country"? kyykaarme (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the Wikimedia Foundation servers are owned by the foundation, a non-profit charitable organization, headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States. The only projects that even make a claim to be about specific geographical areas are the small affiliate projects (e.g. Wikimedia Switzerland. All of the "content" projects are about the language they are written in, not any specific country or area that originated or uses that language. — xaosflux Talk 01:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux Sure, but that's quite irrelevant in legal sense. For example, if an editor who resides in Finland defames a Finnish BLP subject on the Finnish WP (or English WP for that matter), the editor could at least in theory be sued/charged in Finnish courts. The WMF itself has been sued (and lost) in German court, even though its "home country" is the US. kyykaarme (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kyykaarme sure, and any foreign court could try WMF in absentia and win, but same thing - good luck collecting. Ultimately though, that is a foundation problem - not a volunteer problem - until we get to the point where WMF starts providing checkuser and profile data on editors to subpoenas from countless jurisdictions around the world. — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kyykaarme @Xaosflux with "home country" I tried to give a simple term for the situation a court case comes up about a text published on Wikipedia, in the country where the language is being spoken that the text has been written in, were most editors of that specific language live. France for French Wikipedia, Poland for the Polish WP, The Netherlands and Belgium for the Dutch language WP.
Here's where my thoughts go:
A Belgium professor, living in Belgium, working for a Belgium university, experiences negative reactions when applying for scientific grants in Belgium, or organising events there, because of an Wikipedia article written in Flemish/Dutch, stating facts about the professor that are in Belgium being seen as negative. The professor wants to have the information deleted from Wikipedia.
Situation A
She can ask the Wikimedia Foundation to hand out the private details of the editors, so she can sue them personally. The Wikimedia Foundation hands out private details in 1 of 30 requests, one of the WMF laywers did explain (see underneath this conversation).
The English and Dutch language disclaimers state there never is liability for editors. The WMF lawyer did point out, the disclaimers should be closely reviewed / changed at this point. There will not be many editors who will understand that the disclaimers might legally not be right. Now that some parts of some disclaimers legally might not be right, are editors being protected against their private details being handed out by the WMF when they did follow the rules from the Terms of Use? Where can they be taken into court?
Situation B
The professor also can take the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. based in the USA, into court. That must not be a US court, judging along US / US State common law. It might very well be a Belgium court, deciding according Belgium law. The Belgium court accepts the case and decides the content has to be deleted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation does as the court did decide.
Theoretically, the Wikimedia Foundation now could knock at the doors of the local volunteers who did write the text with 'negative information' about the Belgium professor, asking them to pay (partly) for the costs the Foundation had to make. Here also most editors will think they can't be hold liable. Are they being protected when they did follow the rules from the General Terms of Use? -VanArtevelde (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VanArtevelde only the foundation can say how they will respond to international legal demands, and they may choose to simply ignore them - there isn't always a lot of recourse since the foundation isn't selling anything internationally; same goes for you as an editor - if you live in Belgium, and the government of say Russia says you own them a fine - good luck with them collecting it from you if you never go there. Of course, these are now all legal operational questions, so our volunteers can't do anything about it. If WMF legal wants communities to not put certain content on the disclaimers page they can remove the ability for it to be localized or enforce text as they do the terms of use. — xaosflux Talk 02:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again @Xaosflux for bringing more claritiy. And awareness of the (sometimes) different interests, responsibilities, rights etc. that the WMF has and and the communities / single editors might have. Best whishes -VanArtevelde (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not a lawyer. But if I understand correctly, Disclaimer and Terms of use are two types of different legal statements. So some of the words may be different. Thanks. SCP-2000 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @SCP-2000 for your reaction. Right, it's about two different sets of rulings. It is not clear right away who in a legal sense is the "sender" of the content of the disclaimers - is that the global group of editors of Wikipedia, the language group, the Wikimedia Foundation, or each separate editor? Best whishes. VanArtevelde (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all. I'm one of the lawyers at the Foundation. This conversation was pointed out to me by a colleague and I thought I should offer a comment. My recommendation would be to change the Dutch language note, as it is probably misleading in many jurisdictions (I am not a Netherlands lawyer, so I cannot say whether it is specifically misleading in the Netherlands but it very well might be). The problem is not the conflict with the Terms of Use itself, but rather the background law. Namely, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts. In other words, the fact that there's language saying that individual authors aren't responsible might legally do nothing and actually make people feel that they can be reckless when they're not actually safe to do so. As a simple to think about example, if you say "I will not be held responsible for punching you" and then you punch someone, most countries in the world will let the person who got punched sue you for compensation. Defamation, in most countries in the world, is considered an intentional tort and people can sue over it even if you try to disclaim responsibility. The Foundation also can't take that over in most countries: that is, there are cases where both a user and the Foundation might be liable at the same time, but the Foundation can't prevent a user from being liable in these situations. That's why we put the warning language in the Terms of Use. It's not that the Terms of Use are making users liable, but rather that we're trying to warn users to be careful because they might be liable in many countries no matter what we or they do. We do try to protect users by preventing them from being identified in the first place (for example, see our last transparency report in which we only granted 1 out of 30 user info requests). But if a user actually did defame someone with their particular edits and the subject is committed, there are ways they can legally force the Foundation to disclose that data and then sue a user no matter what the disclaimers or the Terms of Use say. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP: On a related note, keep in mind that the translation of a message is meant to only be a "translation", it is not about something that is only applicable in the Netherlands or other Dutch speaking jurisdictions (any more then the English versions would only apply to England). — xaosflux Talk 16:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is a reader or a user to know that the disclaimer they're reading in their own language is not the real disclaimer? What even is the real disclaimer? Why do individual projects have their own disclaimer pages, shouldn't it be hosted in the Foundation wiki? Namely, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts. This is what it says in the enwiki disclaimer: None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. Doesn't the part before "or for your use" contradict the intentional torts thing? kyykaarme (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Jrogers (WMF) for taking time to comment, appreciated! The General Terms (and Code of Conduct) are a clear guidance. They're being published on the Foundation part of the Wikimedia website and approved by the Board of Trustees. They can't be modified by users. All translations have a clear note that the english version is leading, like the official version has. This is not the case with the disclaimers, they're being published on the project pages and are being written by normal users. Some language versions are only semi-protected. It's about f.i. these pages: Dutch |
German |
French |
English |
Would it be possible to create one leading global disclaimer according to the same principles: published on the page, approved by the Board of Trustees, with a clear note that this specific version is leading globally? The small "Disclaimers" link underneath each Wikipedia page is leading to the central Wikimedia Foundation Disclaimers page for Wikipedia, with translations. Best whishes, -VanArtevelde (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everyone, thanks for the responses here. I added the link to this discussion and a response to the modifications made to the project page by @VanArtevelde as a result of this discussion to its talkpage on the Dutch Wikipedia. It is of course important that the project page does not contradict the ToU, but these topics can be difficult to untangle into 'human language', and things can easily get lost in translation as well. Let's (also) work through proposals on that talkpage before changing the texts on the project page. Thanks. Ciell (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't login fa.wikisource edit

there is a bug or something fa.wikisource keep being logged out each time I signed in Baratiiman (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Baratiiman: Try to clear the browser cookies? SCP-2000 07:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BackupWiki edit

I haven't gotten any comments in over 3 months. Can you tell me your thoughts on the proposal? Faster than Thunder (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a doomed waste of time, just like every other time you've proposed new projects. * Pppery * it has begun 01:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to amplify this, the main reason why people are ignoring your suggestion is probably because this functionality already exists on every wiki; an immutable copy of every version of every article is already accessible via the "history" link for that page. The Anome (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for actual backups the dumps do provide a better solution. Your wiki would also be a problem in terms of private data that would potentially need to be oversighted on the original wiki, but would remain visible on yours. --Base (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HTML language markup technical problem edit

I'm editing the French-language Wikipedia using English as my interface language. Unfortunately, when I do so, the main <html> element is tagged with lang="en", not lang="fr". This means that Firefox's auto-translation mode does not trigger, as it sees the whole article as being in English (even though the main article body in the div with id="mw-content-text" is tagged as lang="fr").

This makes sense, because when HTML pages have content tagged as being in multiple languages it makes little sense for the browser to try to use heuristics to guess the main language of the page, and they will instead rely on the top-level tag when provided.

You can test this easily by downloading a local copy of the page, editing the lang tag of the top-level element, and loading it into your browser; the browser will pick up the lang tag from the top-level element to detect the page language, completely ignoring all the other lang information.

Could this be fixed by making the top-level lang parameter setting always match that of the Wikipedia edition, regardless of interface language setting? The Anome (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Anome, if you believe that this is a bug that needs to be fixed, please refer to mw:How to report a bug. That said I disagree that it should be fixed as long as the content is marked with the correct language. Rather perhaps you need to create a ticket for your browser vendor so that they allow to trigger their translation plugin if a significant part of the page is in a different language too. Interface language significantly influences the way page looks, for example choosing an RTL language would render the logo to be on the right, etc. Claiming that the page is despite that in an LTR language would be wrong. --Base (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of wiki-content and translation ? edit

Hello all, I removed obsolete content from the base English page of Lingua_Libre/SignIt, but the change is not propagated to translations. What is the way to proceed to remove similar statement from wiki-translated pages (French, etc.) ? Hugo en résidence (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes aren't propagated until a translation administrator marks the updated page as "Ready for translation" (i.e. confirming that any changes have been done properly, and won't break the translation system). It looks like Pols12 has done so, so the changes are now propagated. Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Quiddity (WMF) for this explanation. Hugo en résidence (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia can edit everyone? edit

(sorry for writing in my mothertongue - Czech language): Na jiném PC jsem již [dvě položky via Wikidata] propojil sám. Slogan: "Víte, že Wikipedii může editovat každý?" je nepravdivý, tím, že jsem odkázán většinu času na PONĚKUD nedlouho zastarý PC (a jeho programové vybavení), Wikidata vůbec a jiné projekty zčásti editovat nemohu, tím jsem značně znevýhodněn před kolegy wikipedisty i sám před sebou. --Kusurija (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, "Wikipedia can edit everyone" is just a slogan and a goal instead of the fact :(
I would say the community and the Wikimedia Foundation are trying to make "everyone can edit Wikipedia". However, there are many situations that we cannot change. For example, we cannot support the very old versions of browsers for maintenance reasons. Or it is difficult to change the internet censorship in Mainland China and can't help people who cannot access Wikipedia freely. Thanks. --SCP-2000 17:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is an aspiration. Intentions and opportunity provided by the Foundation, are not guaranteed by the technology, personal skills, access, etc. that user aspect. WMF cannot perfect the world, the volunteers will give it a go.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make fawiki lowsource wiki language edit

Look at the pie chartویکی‌پدیا:نظرخواهی_برای_حذف/بایگانی because of tight global internet / publisher iranian government censorship wikipedia farsi is now being easily systemically cleansed by empathetic admins . fawiki must become low source wiki Baratiiman (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a a "lowsource" wiki? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I will never destroy Wikipedia again. edit

意面混凝土 (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please follow the zhwiki local procedure to appeal. Here we can't unblock your account. Thanks. --SCP-2000 10:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
zhwp还没回复。-- 意面混凝土 (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]