Wikimedia Forum

(Redirected from WM:FORUM)
Shortcut:
WM:FORUM

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

Participate:

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

Wikipedians don't trust the interwiki community anymore?

edit

I hope I found an appropriate page to discuss a growing issue I noticed quite a lot, especially in German Wikipedia. German Wikipedia acts as being totally isolated from the international community and other language versions of Wikipedia and assumes all except themselves are totally unreliable. Even the sources have to be from scholars born in their country, otherwise they cannot be trusted. This is knowledge nationalism! Which is insane because knowledge is universal.

Here is an example:

There was an attempt to create a similar article to en:gaza genocide in german wikipedia: de:Völkermord-Vorwürfe gegen Israel (Gazakrieg 2023–2024). It was just a word by word translation by user User:Babel fish.

And here is what happened: The article is nominated for deletion and almost all editors currently vote for deletion. The justification reads like this: the article uses mainly Anglo-American sources. They are not reliable and tendentious, if not antisemitic. The article will only be reliable, German wikipedians claim, if it is sourced on German scholars. Can you believe this?

There is no trust in the groundwork done by English Wikipedia, the hard work done by their English Wikipedia fellows is worth nothing to them.

Why can't wikipedians from different language version work together as one team, and appreciate each others hard work?

How can we foster knowledge exchange across borders and teach respect for knowledge written by scholars of a different country? Laitonix (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Individual Wikipedias are editorially independent. If the German Wikipedia wants not to trust certain sources, then it's their loss and there's nothing anyone outside the German Wikipedia can do about it. Meta only intervenes in exceptional circumstances which this isn't. * Pppery * it has begun 02:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think in general, Wikimedia Foundation could try to foster the exchange between wikipedians e.g. with international meetups (and funding travel costs), try to build connections across language borders. At the moment, there are none. At least I can tell you this from German Wikipedia. They don't learn from each other. If Wikimedia Foundation with all its funding should have one job, then to unite different fragmented, local groups to leverage the combined "wisdom of the crowd".
In this specific case, you could even raise the question at which point German Wikipedia becomes complicit in a genocide. Not by purpose but by ignorance of any other opinion from the outside world. German Wikipedia sees only one side. They try everything to make the Palestinian death toll appear less server, pretend anti-palestinianism does not exist and the Gaza genocide accusations are just disinformation and should have no place to even mention in Wikipedia. Instead, the Israelian war against the Palestinian people is presented as the only logical consequence and no further questions asked. In return, this sways public opinion in Germany to e.g. increase support for exporting more and more weapons to Israel. So yes, the German knowledge isolation can have drastic real life consequences! Laitonix (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
0% logical sense Depotadore (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Outcome: The article has now indeed been deleted. German Wikipedia indeed ignored the international scientific debate about the gaza genocide and just followed the narrative of the Israelien goverment. That's the state of German Wikipedia in 2024: their biased opinion is worth more than scientific sources. Keep an eye on what's happening in German Wikipedia, and always remember: Germany was on the wrong side of the history two times, and there is little evidence that it will be on the right side of history this time: Again Germans are indirectly involved in a genocide. English Wikipedia already has a chapter about it: German complicity in the gaza genocide. It's time for the international community to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, especially in Germany. --Laitonix (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a german native speaker who checked the process I'd like to offer a second opinion: I also don't like how things are handled in wp:de from time to time, but there are some statements here, that I cannot leave without a comment. I directly refuse the comment: "That's the state of German Wikipedia in 2024: their biased opinion is worth more than scientific sources. Keep an eye on what's happening in German Wikipedia, and always remember: Germany was on the wrong side of the history two times, and there is little evidence that it will be on the right side of history this time"
Regardless of the work that has been done (and ignored via a deletion): german wikipedia acknowledes the genocide-accusations, compare w:de:Krieg_in_Israel_und_Gaza_seit_2023#Vorwürfe_wegen_Kriegsverbrechen_und_Völkermord there is even a paragraph w:de:Krieg_in_Israel_und_Gaza_seit_2023#Klage_Nicaraguas_gegen_Deutschland, which acknowledges the accusations against germany. I would support single articles, but as far as I know the german wikipedia, this is not their way! There are voices that argued: "keep the article" with different reasons and also with acknowledgement for non-german sources. The Opinion "The article will only be reliable, German wikipedians claim, if it is sourced on German scholars" is to be considered wrong from my point of view, because it was clearly asked to "add german sources" (compare w:de:Spezial:Diff/247666285/247666290) before the initial posting here.
And to provide the reasoning for the deletion in a translation: "There are undoubtedly accusations of genocide, and the topic is fundamentally relevant. However, the present attempt is more than inadequate. The overflowing article reproduces all possible quotes and thus compiles more of a list of accusations. The discourse on the topic is not presented, the responses to the accusations (and by that I do not mean counter-accusations in the sense of "but Hamas did it too") remain unmentioned. However, the neutral presentation is not to be found in the complete and uncommented repetition of all statements against Israel, but rather in the reproduction of the refutations and in the classification based on scientific analysis of the events. Restructuring the article accordingly is more complex than rewriting it properly. It is therefore deleted due to the clear violation of the principle of a neutral standpoint and blatant quality defects." (feel free to check the translation yourself: w:de:Spezial:Diff/247964888/247968857). Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
They believed that US sources are by default tendentious. Here is the translation from the initial request: "The article also largely reflects a US-American (or English-language) background and does not include a single German-language source, so it must obviously be tendentious "
They believe that everything from the outside world is tendentious. ...well, we have had such a mindset several decades ago. It's not good. It should not matter from which country a scientific paper comes from. By making the nationality of the scholars an issue, german wikipedia follows a dark route and violate NPOV very clearly.
Sure, they asked to "add" german sources, not replace everything with only german scholars. That would be too obvious. Instead, their strategy is to add as many pro-Israelian german sources as possible such that the reader must get the impression that german scholars represent the majority opinion, and the international sources warning about an ongoing genocide are only a blasphemous minority. An article that does not follow this strategy and instead truly reports that the international scholars are actually the majority, must therefore be deleted as quickly as possible. That's what we saw. Laitonix (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem is actually much deeper than just the one article I mentioned. Every article covering Israel or the middle east is completely aligned with the Netanjahu government position on the issue. There is no neutral point of view. You can almost always just do a side by side comparison with the English Wikipedia to reveal the massive anti-palestinian bias exiting in German Wikipedia. --Laitonix (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
They break the five basic pillars of Wikipedia which includes "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" and "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"☝️. Depotadore (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The preference for sources that are in the language of the project is not in itself unusual. A similar preference can be seen on the English Wikipedia and it is a natural preference because it is much easier to verify a source that is in the same language as that of the contributors. It is probably less problematic on the English language projects because so much scientific1 literature is published in English and / or translated into English. Anyway, if the issue for some contributors to the German Wikipedia is they don't trust the US (and / or UK) media, then the answer may be to use other sources of which there are plenty. The French media is full of commentary on the conflict that does not reflect the US view and if someone is truly biased, as opposed to just distrusting the US view, then it will quickly become apparent to other contributors when they try and argue away the French, Dutch, Swiss and Swedes as also being tendentious. MarcGarver (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

U4C Announcement page

edit

The U4C has begun its initial setup. As part of that we have created an announcements page, which interested editors may want to watchlist. We have also posted our first announcement - an invitation for feedback on a tool request. Sincerely, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion about appropriateness of running a CentralNotice banner for Wiki Loves Onam

edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Onam 2024. Sdkbtalk 18:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Probably a really stupid question, but:

edit

What does "Throttle" mean in the context of abuse filters on Wikipedia? I can't find any info on it. 172.15.97.51 02:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not a stupid question. For technical details, see mw:Manual:$wgRateLimits. An abuse filter can be set up to completely stop an edit, to place a limit on how quickly someone can do something (i.e. throttle an action, such as only allowing eight page moves a minute), allow an edit but leave its edit summary with some tag, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Commons is blocked in Yemen

edit

commons.wikimedia.org domain was block in Yemen 3 weeks ago. I think this block related to nude and porno content in Commons. WMF must contact Yemen Telecom for reason of blocking and resolve it. 🇵🇸 حبيشانtalk 07:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to make an audio-only webm file for Wikimedia Commons?

edit

I was wondering how to make an audio-only webm file of my nature sound work to post on Wikimedia Commons. One that would be listed in the audio category here, not video. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarrod stanley (talk)

You can record audio with whatever method and device you have and then you can use https://video2commons.toolforge.org/ to convert it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Universal Code of Conduct violations on the Meta page for the WMF board elections

edit

Dear all

I started a discussion on Meta:Babel here about Universal Code of Conduct violations I've experienced on Meta, I bring them up here as well as they relate to the WMF board elections.

Please reply on that page so the conversation doesn't get split

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Outlook.com Changes for $wgSMTP

edit

Since the 16.September 2024 Outlook changes the acces to his smtp - Server. In reason of that that Mediawiki not using a modern authentification method, the wikimedia mail is not more working.

Here the Local-Settings: $wgSMTP = [

   'host'     => 'smtp-mail.outlook.com', // could also be an IP address. Where the SMTP server is located
   'IDHost'   => 'Sokradia von CC-Zeitlos',  // Generally this will be the domain name of your website (aka mywiki.org)
   'port'     => 587,                        // Port to use when connecting to the SMTP server
   'auth'     => true,                      // Should we use SMTP authentication (true or false)
   'username' => 'sokradia*hotmail.com',   // Username to use for SMTP authentication (if being used)
   'password' => 'XXX'             // Password to use for SMTP authentication (if being used)

];

And here the errors that occured since the 16. September:

authentication failure [SMTP: Invalid response code received from server (code: 535, response: 5.7.139 Authentication unsuccessful, basic authentication is disabled. [PR3P189CA0058.EURP189.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM 2024-10-07T07:53:05.798Z 08DCE666E4CD2C8E])]

IS there somebody who canb solve this issues?

Thanks Gerard (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sokradia is the problem that your own private installation of mediawiki software is having a problem sending email to a domain? Or are you saying that WMF's production system is having a problem sending email to a domain? — xaosflux Talk 10:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand your answer, Sorry.
I know only before the 16/09/2024 this mail was working. Outlook changed something on here outlook server so that via MediaWiki the email function is not working. Mediawiki use SMTP and STARTTL.
I'm getting as an answer that this maybe will be an OAUTH-issue which, it looks like, will be not supported by the Mediawiki.
I use this Email-Adress also with a Software Named EM-Client on my PC. There is working correctly and i nothing configured
in this software for OAUTH. 2A01:E0A:155:DD80:0:0:B498:2708 10:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which of these problems are you seeing:
  1. When you try to send wikimail from our server, it is not working
  2. When you try to send wikimail from your mediawiki powered server it is not working
xaosflux Talk 17:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mediawiki? · מקף Hyphen · 20:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Typo, yes - kept getting tripped on on the original poster. Which back to the OP: this is the wrong forum in any event. If this is a problem with your server see the link at the top of the page where to ask for software help. If you think there is a problem with our servers we need more details. — xaosflux Talk 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply