Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | Qaraqalpaqsha | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | ລາວ | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | Norfuk / Pitkern | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | Taclḥit | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ꠍꠤꠟꠐꠤ | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча / tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/-

Welcome to Meta! edit

Hello, Erik Moeller (WMF). Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deine neue User-Page edit

Hallo Erik,

ich gratuliere zu deiner schicken neuen User-Page und möchte die Gelegenheit nutzen, einfach mal zu fragen, wie Ihr Euch die weiteren Schritte bez. Superprotect so vorstellt. Wollt Ihr die Sache wirklich einfach aussitzen und Euch so das Leben bei zukünftigen Softwareänderungen noch schwieriger machen? Oder alternativ die eine oder andere Umfrage zum Anlass nehmen und einfach mal zeigen, ja wir hören Eure Bedenken und heben den Seitenschutz auf de.wp wieder auf? Oder arbeitet Ihr gar derzeit an neuartigen Bearbeitungsfiltern, die missliebige Änderungen unterbinden oder wirkungslos machen können? Würde mich interessieren. Viele Grüße --Trigonomie (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Finally, a beginning. Greetings --Trigonomie (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Characterization of Commons / Media Viewer decision edit

Regarding Special:Diff/9687071, when @Natuur12: (who is an elected administrator at Commons, and who -- unlike yourself -- does not have a COI on this issue) closed the Commons RFC, they said:

The consensus is clear. The community wishes that the Media Viewer will be disabled for the Non-logged-in users and the logged-in users. The result of this RFC is that the Media Viewer will be disabled. The RFA has been open for at least thirty days and everyone had the change to give their input and we should respect the outcome of this RFC. Of course individual users can still enable the tool in their preferences if they wish to do so. Natuur12 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

from commons:Commons:Requests for comment/Media Viewer software feature

I see no emphasis on "interference with the specific workflows used to curate media" -- there were many arguments brought up in the RFC, that was just one of them. Your choice to call it out reflects what is favorable to the WMF position, not the general perspective of the Wikimedians who participated in the RFC. -Pete F (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pete/Steinsplitter - yes, there were many arguments brought up in the RFC, and 53 users did indeed vote to disable the tool for all readers on Wikimedia Commons (out of >1000 users with 100+ contributions/month) and not just for editors.
WMF's reasoning for the configuration decision is the one I provided. I don't think this summary is the place to recount every controversy and disagreement. However, if there is a reasonably neutral page that recaps the timeline and events so far, I'd be OK linking to it from the consultation page. Is there such a page?--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Erik, I find the repeated number comparisons such as "53 users did indeed vote to disable the tool for all readers on Wikimedia Commons (out of >1000 users with 100+ contributions/month)" not very helpful... as I already wrote in response to a post by Frank Schulenburg on the talk page of your other account (in German), it's perfectly normal in any community that only a small part of the people actually are willing to take part in a decision making process. In the Swiss municipality where I live, there are about 2500 people entitled to take part in the town meeting where important decisions are made, and yet there are never more than 50 to 100 people appearing at the meetings. Still, no one questions the validity of the decisions made. The decisions are made by the people who bother to show up - it's as simple as that. You cant force the ">1000 users with 100+ contributions/month" to state their opinion. Maybe there are ways to get more people to participate in such discussions, but there will always be a "silent majority" - and as we simply don't know what a silent majority wants, we have to hear what those who aren't silent have to say. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I set up one such section which you can edit for a more complete summary: Requests for comment/Superprotect rights#Background. It's already transcluded from some pages, please transclude it where relevant. --Nemo 18:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Erik, Das ist standardprozedere und auch von unseren Policys legitimiert. Du wahrst seid anfang an dabei, also bitte - ich glaube nicht dass du von den Vorsätzen der Anfangszeit alles vergessen hast ;). Es lief doch immer alles gut, warum jetzt der Umbruch bei der WMF? Mit Verlaub, habt ihr Angst von der Community? --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Augenscheinlich. Er betreibt reine Machtdemonstration ohne echte Argumente, es geht schließlich nur um ein blödes, Glitzerdingelchen, das zu blöde ist, die Dateien korrekt auszulesen. Reine Arroganz der Macht und die Verabscheuung der Community kann kaum deutlicher dargestellt werden als mit Superputsch.
Obviously. He's making pure policy of might without real arguments, it's after all just about some stupid bling-thing, that#s too dumb to read all files in an appropriate way. Pure arrogance of might, and loathing of the community can't be illustrated in a better way as with Superputsch. --Sänger S.G (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply edit

Hello! Regarding this bug, I would like to inform you that we are currently having a vote on nowiki. The alternatives are:

  1. Not to have the vote :)
  2. Status quo
  3. To get Pending Changes (almost) like on fiwiki(/enwiki)
  4. To get Flagged Revisions (almost) like on dewiki

IMO user Jeblad, who started both the bug and the vote, should have informed about this on Bugzilla (where I don't have an account). I suggest delaying a decision on Bugzilla until we have a result on the vote. Nording (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, we'll hold off til the vote closes.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks! The vote will close in six days. Nording (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

28 users chose to participate. Alternative 1 got 0 votes, 2 got 6 votes, 3 got 16 votes and alternative 4 got 6 votes. Nording (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pointer to original Commons proposal? edit

Hi Erik,

Would you be able to point me to the original proposal to create Commons? A number of prominent Commons admins believe that their responsibilities lie almost solely to Commons, and this trumps the place of Commons as the community hub for images, and such that they act solely with regard to Commons without wider consideration. I would like to read the original proposal, and the original scope put forward and what was accepted. The English Wikisource's needs seem to this community, and quite likely the wider needs of the Wikisource community, to being disregarded, and the enWS community seems to moving towards an RFC about not using Commons, and this is due to the actions of some at that community. Thanks fi you have that pointer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

How about the original page about commons here, created by Erik at 4. Mai 2004, 08:11? And from there, via the mailing list of march, to the original proposal by Erik. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Phabricator login sequence edit

Greetings, @Eloquence,

I responded to the Bugzilla migration message and got entangled in Phabricator's lack of documentation. I tried to muddle through, threw my hands up, disconnected, and tried to reconstruct what was missing in the Phabricator documentation.

I did somehow get through. Here is what I think I saw: is the production site. If I am not logged in, the upper right corner is a power-up symbol (or maybe it is a 3-striped menu icon), which takes one to an LDAP login screen.

In that LDAP screen, there are two text boxes, a blue button, and a flower button. I eventually figured out that the Wikimedia flower button is the first thing to click. Avoid the blue login button, which leads to red error messages.

The flower button is used to start the phabricator proxy process. It might be better to position the flower button above the LDAP boxes. (They appear to be misleading red herrings which served to confuse me.)

Instead, click the Wikimedia flower to login using the Single User Login. You will get a pop-up:

"phabricator-production would like to have basic access on your behalf on all projects of this site. " Which site? It would help if the popup identified itself to be from Wikimedia. The background is not transparent enough to show the Wikimedia OAuth page behind it. Instead, my attention was on the popup. The first time I hit cancel. Eventually I learned I have no other option.

Click the "allow" button to trigger the proxy login process for phab. I got to the OAuth screen here, I think. It identified itself to be from Wikimedia, which was a cognitive anchor. (Phab looks like it barely belongs, in contrast) I think the Single User Login information propagated to the OAuth screen, which clearly identified itself to be from Wikimedia.

Now the problem is to unify the Bugzilla email ID to Phabricator, I knew I had to enter my Bugzilla email ID and just guessed at the appropriate place to enter it. In a Wikimedia (OAuth?) tab, I think you next enter the email you use for Bugzilla entry.

I was responding to the prompts by guessing here. I opened a browser tab to that email system:

In that email tab, you eventually see:

[Phabricator] Email Verification


Hi <user name here>

Please verify that you own this email address <user name here> by clicking this link:

Click the link that Phab messaged you. This is the scary part that could be used by an unscrupulous person, and which really threw me off. Then I think you see, in the email tab

Verification Email Sent A verification email has been sent. Click the link in the email to verify your address.

Now I think you next see, in the email tab, Address Verified The email address <user email here> is now verified.

click done I think this unifies the Bugzilla with the Single User Login

click [continue to phabricator]

got to tab with the phab main page, but now there is now an exit icon instead of the power-up icon, a settings icon, etc.

This sequence probably needs more Validation/Verification. But hey, I knew nothing when I responded to the 'Bugzilla going away' message, anyway.

(But how do we now enter bugs, ala Bugzilla? Probably more process which currently TBD?) No rush here. I understand phab is just setting up right now. I'm just trying to help out.

Regards, Ancheta Wis (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ancheta Wis, I had contacted you after you posted here, but let me post a more complete reply. I agree the login screen needs improvement. We are discussing this in detail at T862 Redesign phabricator login page, and your ideas are welcome. Then again you made it. New users are registering every day, and een if we hear other complaints, people seem to be getting through. The Phabricator homepage shows a "+" sign and a link "Report a Problem" that you can use to create new tasks. See also mw:Phabricator/Help.--Qgil-WMF (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Technical question about inputbox edit


I'm not sure who else to ask, and I know that you wrote this extension. I want an <inputbox> to include &preloadparams%5b%5d=REVISIONUSER in the URL.

(Why do I want to do this? This is my hack for getting a username subst'd into the page: I'm putting {{subst:$1}} into the preload file, and specifying REVISIONUSER in the preloadparams. The result shows as {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} in the edit window and as plain-text WhatamIdoing when the page is saved, which is exactly what I want.)

I have read (and at least partly understood ;-) the documentation, but I didn't see a relevant option. I tried just appending it to another piece of data in the box, but that failed. Can you tell me how to make this work, and/or tell me to give up now if it's impossible? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Verhältnis Community/WMF edit


ich mag zwar vielleicht kein besonders aktiver Bearbeiter der Wikipedia gewesen sein und recht selten über 100 edits pro Monat gehabt haben, dennoch war und bin ich von der Mission, freies Wissen zu sammeln und allen zur Verfügung zu stellen, überzeugt.

Umso härter trifft es mich, meine Arbeit, die ich in über 12 Jahren erbracht habe, in den Händen einer WMF zu sehen, die sich ihr unbequemen Vorstößen aus der community schlicht und ergreifend gar nicht stellt.

Du bringst ganz gerne mal Zahlen, die zeigen sollen, dass Ihr es aber ganz sicher mit ein paar wenigen Querulanten zu tun habt, die entweder nicht verstehen wollen oder nicht verstehen können, wie die WMF Gutes tut. Allein, das wird nur dann plausibel, wenn Du davon ausgehst, dass die vielen, die nicht aufgestanden sind und den Mund aufgemacht resp. die Tastatur angefaßt haben, automatisch das Vorgehen der WMF gutheißen. Tut mir leid, das ist eine unzutreffende Annahme. Es wäre genauso unzutreffend, wenn ich behaupten würde, dass die Passiven auf Seite derjenigen stehen, die in der aktuellen Sache MV auf default opt-in stellen möchten. Niemand weiß, auf welcher Seite die stehen, die sich nicht geäußert haben, und es ist unredlich von Dir, wenn Du ihnen einen Standpunkt zuschreibst.

Vielleicht denkst Du, dass die ganze Sache abflaut und Gras darüber wachsen wird. Das kann sein oder auch nicht, ich weiß es nicht. Eines weiß ich aber sicher: Nach jeder solchen Aktion werden einige Aktive, die den Mund aufgemacht haben und sich mit ihren Benutzernamen dazu bekannt haben, schweigen, um ihre Accounts nie wieder zu verwenden. Das Schweigen, das nach dem Sturm kommt, kann eine Vorahnung des Schweigens werden, das mir in vielen Wikipedia-Artikeln, die auffällige Mängel haben, entgegenschlägt. Falls Dir nicht klar ist, was das bedeutet: Jede solche Aktion vergrault Bearbeiter für immer.

Wenn ich mir die Statistiken der aktiven Benutzer anschaue, finde ich einen "peak" vor mehr als 5 Jahren, seitdem fällt die Anzahl mehr oder weniger stetig ab. Bleibt das so, scheitert die Ausgangs-Mission. Man kann verschiedener Meinung sein, ob die Aktivitäten der WMF diesen Vorgang bremsen oder beschleunigen, eines ist aber sicher: Umkehren tut sie diesen Trend nicht.

Wenn unsere Stimmen nicht enrstgenommen werden, werden wir sie vielleicht nie wieder erheben.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, -- 15:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Einer, der seinen Account erst wieder verwendet, wenn er es für sinnvoll erachtetReply

Ich verfolge diese Seite, wie auch eine Reihe anderer über die MV-Geschichte. Auf keiner einzigen dieser Seiten gehen WMF-Vertreter auf die Ob- oder opt-in-Frage des MV ein. Ich gehe davon aus, dass es auch an anderen, mir verborgenen Stellen keine WMF-Erklärung gibt, denn sonst wäre es Dir und anderen ein Leichtes, diese hier und woanders zu verlinken. Ihr bevorzugt es aber, die ganze Frage zu ignorieren. Warum? -- 12:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia portals edit

Hello, Erik! I just checked the December 2014 Readership Update, and I saw that you at the engineering team are interested in developing tools that increase engagement of Wikipedia readers. One of the points is "related content: learn more about this topic", and the screenshot has an improved "See also" section, which sounds great.

I'm writing to remind your team of Wikipedia portals, which are another tool to improve reader engagement

I have been working on several Spanish-language sports portals, for example this one. The selected articles rotate automatically every day on a predetermined schedule; for example drivers are shown on their birthdays.

You should try to cooperate with portal editors to improve them. For example, they are very rarely responsive to screen size, with is key for mobile devices.

Good luck, NaBUru38 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps better start with Project portals, which have hundreds millions visits per month and have never been really worked on. --Nemo 20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
Dear Nemo, those pages are language selectors. It's not the best place to add content, which necessarily is in just one language.
I'm very concerned with page layout responsiveness, and portals are affected severely by the lack of them. That's why I ask for help. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Unwort of the Year 2014" in deWP edit

Herzlichen Glückwunsch an den Hauptverantwortlichen für das "Unwort des Jahres 2014", Superprotect/Superschutz. Du hast Dich insofern um die Gemeinschaft verdient genmacht, als dass Du mit Deinem unverantwortlichen Tun ein gutes und fundiertes Feindbild geliefert hast. Leider war Dein Tun explizit gegen die Wikipedia gerichtet, also letztendlich klar destruktiv. Dass dieses Dein Wort das Unwort des Jahres 2014 in der deWP wurde, hast Du Dir allerdings voll verdient.
Congratulations to the man in charge of the "deWP Unwort of the Year 2014", Superprotect/Superschutz. You've rendered outstanding services to the German community, with your deliverance of an excellent and substantiated bogeyman with your irresponsible deeds. Unfortunately your deeds were directed explicitly against the Wikipedia, so ultimately they were destructive. That this your word became the Unwort of the year 2014 in deWP is really your welldeserved merit.
--♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Measuring reliability edit

Hi Erik. In this discussion on Jimmy's talk page someone pointed me to Wikimedia metrics 1.15.15. In your introduction you said, "... We have done sampling-based measurement of quality, where we have asked experts to validate the quality of specific articles. All of those approaches had flaws." (9:10). Would you be able to point me to that effort, please? I'm particularly interested in any critical analysis of the sampling and expert assessment approach, detailing the flaws you mention. Thank you for your attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply


The main efforts I'm aware of which involved subject-matter experts are:

Issues include scalability/cost, neutrality, and identifying appropriate domain experts for topics that either span many fields of expertise or that are not well covered in academia. To be clear, I do think expert assessment should be part of our toolkit regardless of those issues, and as I pointed out in the meeting, machine learning based approaches and human review efforts can be used in a complementary fashion.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for those. Yes, I'll definitely be contacting Frank after seeing his presentation. I've been thinking we could approach the American Medical Association (or the editor of their journal, the JAMA) for help/advice in assessing the quality of a large random sample of our (30,000-odd) medical articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply