Talk:Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal

Active discussions

Welcome to the WAD Portal!

While you use the system, feel free to report any issues / suggest ideas on this talk page by adding a new topic (subject) and describing what you wish to share (content) in the body section.

If it's a bug, add the prefix [Bug] to the subject of your request and it it's an idea (topic for discussion) or a feature request, add the following prefixes respectively [IDEA] or [FEAT REQ]. Other prefixes that can be used are; [IMPR] for improvement, [Design] for design topics, etc.

The team will review your feedback and give you updates on progress made in that front. Thank you very much for your feedback in advance and we hope to make the affiliate reporting process and activities easier.

Thanks for using the WAD Portal.

[Bug][Design] Confusing use of placeholders as labelsEdit

Status:    Pending/To-Do (in Phase II)

In the Organizational Information Form for Affiliates (after clicking an “update” button on Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal/Organizations Information – I tried it with WMDE), the Social Media and Blog/News section has three fields (see screenshot) which aren’t labeled. If I remove the values (or, I suppose, if I was adding a new organization instead of editing an existing one), I can see the placeholders: “Facebook URL...”, “Twitter URL...”, and “Blog/News page...”. But if there are any values in the inputs, I can’t see that, and am left to guess whether these are supposed to be three arbitrary URLs or if they fulfill distinct roles. I think these placeholders (and possibly others in the gadget, I haven’t reviewed it thoroughly) should be replaced with proper labels, and then real placeholders that look like the intended values (e. g. could be added. (Code-wise, the first part should be as simple as replacing placeholder: with label: in parts of MediaWiki:Gadget-reportOrgInfoForm.js.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE). This will be reviewed by the team and you'll get feedback once this is moving forward for implementation. Thank you very much! --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE), team has reviewed and we'll improve on the form. Thank you very much for your feedback. --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): As a quick solution for now, I'm circling back to you to let you know that, we've added tool tips per input field to say what each field would contain but we'll stream down the form in phase II of the project and include labels as you've suggested. Thanks for your suggestion and have a great day! --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

[IMPR][Design] UI tweak suggestions for images and staff sectionEdit

Status:    Feedback processed, completed!

Hallo :) I suggest making 2 changes.

  1. The "M&E staff submissions" div is only useful for (and usable by) Monitoring and Evaluation staff, but it is currently the 3rd div on the page. I suggest converting it into a plain-text section at the very bottom of the page, so that normal users aren't distracted by it. E.g. A ==See also== section and 2 list-item links.
  2. The icons in the corners of the 4 divs are confusing, because in other contexts clicking on a "(i)" icon will make a tooltip pop-up. I suggest adding |link= to these images, so that they cannot be clicked on (cf mw:Help:Images#Altering the default link target, and note that these icons are licensed as CC-0 so do not need to be linked elsewhere on the page for attribution).

Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback Quiddity (WMF). This will be reviewed by the team and you'll get feedback once this is moving forward for implementation. --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 09:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity (WMF), thanks again for your feedback. The team has reviewed and we'll make this improvement in this current phase of development of the product. --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Quiddity (WMF), point 2 (you suggested and been done). As for point one, attempting to keep the design, do you think a stackable card rearrangement will do? See image:
WADP rearrangement of stackable cards
. On mobile view, the M&E related stackable card will be at the bottom and not distract users and on desktop, it will be on the bottom right hand corner, enabling what is used by users to be shown first. Do you think this direction is good in order to keep the design intact? --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@DAlangi (WMF): Yup, that'd work. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for confirming. I've completely processed this feedback. Point 1 & 2 as suggested done. Please let us know if there is more feedback you have in the future to make the system better. Have a great day! --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

[Design] WADP main OOUI form grey background to skyblueEdit

Status:    Feedback processed, completed!

Hi User:DAlangi_(WMF) and User:DNdubane_(WMF),

Congratulations on launching the WAD Portal! It must feel great for all of your hard work to have finally paid off. It really looks amazing!

We have one tiny (I think) request...if it's not tiny, then just tell us :)

For the WAD Query Results pop-up, can you make the band behind the result at the top a color other than grey? Maybe a shade of blue? Visually, grey makes things recede into the background so its good for sidebars and instructions, but for highlighting the results, I think a blue or even black with white font would be better.

--User:Delphine_(WMF) & User:SRamkisson_(WMF)

Marking this as public and confirming as resolved. --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[FEAT] Multiple language version and quarterly report submissionsEdit

Status:    Feedback processed, completed!

There are two things I'd suggest:

- Please track language versions. If multiple languages are available, it would be nice if they can be connected. It would also be helpful to identify languages in the report.

- Be generous with the 'other' option. For example, you now only allow monthly and annual reports. Would you discourage quarterly reports to be shared? Or three-year reports? I know those may not be required by WMF, but they may be produced for different purposes. I imagine you would want those to be shared too?

--on behalf of User:Lodewijk via mailing list

@Lodewijk: let us know by testing forms (by submitting test reports) if the feature as implemented looks reasonable and addresses your concern. Thanks --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

[Bug] PrivacyEdit

Status:    Feedback processed, completed!

I am very surprised that each time I view a form, it makes an edit on my behalf. For instance, I have just clicked on Search affiliates data, and this page made an edit on my behalf here. I checked with my bot to make sure I did not agree with it without noticing (I clearly never viewed this page and did not approve anything with my bot account) and it made an edit as well. This form does the same for unregistered editors.

This is a blatant violation of the Privacy policy and usual Wikimedia rules, as it was never stated that there will be a public record associated with my account that I viewed this specific page at this specific time. Even worse, I could have made it anonymously from my corporate VPN yesterday (why would I log in if I am not making any edits?) and accidentally disclose my IP address. There are at least two major problems:

  • No script should make edits on my behalf without my explicit agreement. Even scripts where I am supposed to implicitly agree (e.g. WiDaR) ask me each time to provide permission on a special page on MediaWiki. This script must explicitly ask me to provide permission to edit pages on my behalf.
  • We never publicly record that this specific person (account or IP) viewed this specific page at this specific time. Sharing this information publicly (that's what this script does) is not justified with any provision in Privacy policy#When May We Share Your Information?. While I am completely fine with my visit to this page being recorded for analytical purposes, I am not OK with it being publicly recorded and associated with my username.

Please fix this ASAP as this is absolutely not acceptable. Thanks — NickK (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's really not clear where this is actually happening. I've emailed the team to flag it and point them to your post. Reedy (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reedy: I already emailed the team. This is happening in MediaWiki:Gadget-arpQueryForm.js, the postWithToken parts — NickK (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It is unacceptable to store a public log of PageView information - the script has been removed from the gadget list and the privacy-leaking page has been removed from the history. I think I don't need to blank the entire offending gadget page. — regards, Revi 17:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reedy:, @NickK: & @-revi:, the gadgets are making reports submissions on behalf of the users who submitted the report, this is a alatered form of preserving page revision history. We are interested in simple analytics of system usage and query views. We are switching off the gadget trackers while we figure out how to count the edits/views without logging the usernames. We will update this section once that has been corrected. thank you for bringing this to our attention.-- DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Gadget trackers all disabled! ✅ --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@-revi: shall we enable the gadgets and test? Best regards --DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reedy:, @NickK: & @-revi:, we would like to get the query gadget up and running again. Can either of you enable and test. We do not want to be re-enabling on our side.--DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@DNdubane (WMF): As I have already said on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Privacy policy violation at Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal, one tracker is still in MediaWiki:Gadget-arpQueryForm.js. You really should remove it first I think — NickK (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@NickK:, thanks the remaining script has been removed, thanks for picking-up.--DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I am probably going to be pretty busy for rest of this week, so if (any of) NickK, Reedy, other interface admins, or anyone with MediaWiki Core +2 permission says they're fine with the current status, you have my blessing to proceed. — regards, Revi 14:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reedy:, @NickK: & @-revi:, bumping this up again, we need to get the form back online. Best -- DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not an interface admin here on Meta, so I cannot have a final say here. This particular script looks fine to me, but I think that other scripts of this portal may have the same tracking. There are too many trackers created by @DAlangi (WMF): that have the same issue: Module:WAD QueryPortal FormUsage Tracker, Module:Activities Reports/FormUsage Tracker, Module:Financial Reports/FormUsage Tracker, Module:Organizational Informations/FormUsage Tracker, Module:Organizational Informations/FormView Tracker, Module:Financial Reports/FormView Tracker. It would be great if someone with advanced rights checks whether they are in line with our policies — NickK (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@NickK: The trackers have all been removed from the gadgets. Users with necessary rights can confirm this. Thanks --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @NickK: for the oversight, @Reedy: or @-revi:, is any of you able to check and then enable the form? We really need the form up again. -- DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Reedy: or @-revi:, Checking if any of you are able to assist with this. We have the interface rights (Derick has) to activate the form, but would rather get that done by one of the community stewards, or at least get all checks clear before we do! -- DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to proceed. LGTM. — regards, Revi 17:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@-revi: thanks for the go ahead. I've just re-added the gadget again. --DAlangi (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

[question] contacting all affiliates at onceEdit

Status:    Feedback processed, completed!

Hi there. is mass messaging Global_message_delivery/Targets/Affiliations_Committee/Affiliates the only current way to officially contact all the affiliates right now? Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

And to elaborate on my message - I'm not sure why that list contains entities which IIRC are no longer recognized. I can't find a list of former affiliates as well so that I could exclude those from communications. Thanks. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Elitre (WMF):, that is indeed the list used and maintained by Affcom. I don't think its up to date though. You can find an updated list of Formerly Active Affiliates, to check against. --DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Elitre (WMF):, I have just updated the mass mailing list. --DNdubane (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Wikimedia Affiliates Data Portal" page.