Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Metapub)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
Arabic Coffee.jpg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and 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:

This box: view · talk · edit

Knowledge assembly Platfrom Proposal[edit]

The knowledge assembly is a web tool which provides a infrastructure to assemble and provide knowledge, mainly focusing on knowledge which may be directly used in tasks. It combines concepts from Wikipedia (data created by users and provided to users for free, donation mechanism) with incentive mechanism of the open sources software community and other innovations of Internet based applications (simple voting functions - the like button - and ranking mechanisms).

I would welcome comments to the proposal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sguenter (talk)

Proposal: restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites[edit]

Proposal[edit]

As you may know, Wikimedia projects have a mobile version which resides in domains like https://meta.m.wikimedia.org . Some devices are automatically redirected from the normal domains to the mobile ones, which are expected to absorb half of our total traffic by the end of 2015. What few know is that the mobile sites don't follow the standard permission system: instead, they override permissions and prevent unregistered users from editing at all.

I propose to remove this exception to the rule, which was meant to be temporary and looks now technically unnecessary. Unregistered users will be allowed to edit on the mobile subdomain for a wiki, if they are allowed on the main domain.

The Italian Wikipedia community has already decided to do so in October 2014. Thanks to several users who reported issues, as well as some committed developers, most technical issues have been identified and fixed: see phabricator:T55069 for a list. Other users have looked into the data and concluded that the change was definitely a net benefit, because contributions increased by some percentage point and they were as good as unregistered editing on the desktop site; the Italian Wikipedia community therefore achieved consensus to make the change permanent. See it.m.wikipedia.org for details; if you have any questions, I'll forward them to the users who were involved in this analysis.

While the Italian Wikipedia example may not be representative of the results on all Wikimedia projects, we are currently not aware of any reason to think that restoring normal permissions would do harm. If you know an issue of the mobile site which makes unregistered editing less productive than on the desktop site, please report it with all details you know (you can login with your SUL account) and mention it here.

Process details:

  • This proposal follows the standard configuration change process; like many before, it's discussed on the Wikimedia Forum for the sake of all Wikimedia projects. Local communities were not given a chance to discuss the non-standard permissions of the mobile sites; they will now. Local requests for configuration changes will always be possible, as usual.
  • I'm going to link this discussion from Tech/News. If there is some support for the idea, I'll send notifications to all wikis and to the various mailing lists. I propose to close this discussion by 2015-03-15 and, if some configuration change achieves consensus by then, have it applied on the live sites by the end of March.

10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion[edit]

As of today, there is broad consensus in support of the proposal, as discussed by an ample spectrum of users active in multiple wikis. Several users stressed that: talk page access is crucial, to ensure communication with mobile users; errors of the past, like the mobile uploads campaign, must not be repeated; local and global effects in terms of (un)productive contributions will be under constant monitoring and re-evaluation per the usual processes. Nemo 15:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm late, but I want to mention that "Proposer should not close RfC or such". Let it be closed by others. ps. Make sure to exclude kowiki per phab:T93210#1160189. — regards, Revi 13:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Support Support as proposer. We can tweak the above text if needed, to reflect consensus in the discussion. --Nemo 10:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree. Vogone (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    How you can? You are not an author! You are not one of those, who have to fix all the rubbish! Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    It's certainly true that I do not belong to the most active content contributors, yet I have contributed articles to several wikis, fixes of already existing content included. I do not believe enabling IP edits from the mobile domain will make much of a difference to the status quo, such edits are already possible when switching to "desktop" view. It may rather have a positive effect because of the for mobile users more appealing design of the editing interface, so that less spelling mistakes etc. are being made. Either we allow unregistered edits, or we don't at all. Since it was decided to allow them, I don't see any reason why we should disallow certain unregistered edits merely because a certain skin is used. Vogone (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup, btw why not use RfC/Request for comment for this?--AldNonymousBicara? 11:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
what if I create Requests_for_comment/Restore_normal_editing_permissions_on_all_mobile_sites with a redirect here? Is it "correct" enough?--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems good enough, don't forget to move all comment from this section to there.--AldNonymousBicara? 09:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please don't. As I said, global configuration changes discussions usually happen here. This page is followed more. You can however add a link from Requests_for_comment, of course. --Nemo 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
the comments on that page were in the form "\topic" see, so I though there was no problem in creating a page with such syntax, but consisting only ina simple redirect here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. Alan (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per w:WP:HUMAN. Also per privacy policy; blocking all unregistered mobile edits is hardly a "rare circumstance". PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we should wait for talk page links first. --Krenair (talkcontribs) 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support with the caveat that we can always disable it again on specific wikis where vandalism becomes unmanageable. wctaiwan (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support with per-project opt-out option/caveat as suggested by wctaiwan, but I would like to see talk page links first as recommended by Krenair, but it isnt quite a blocker in my mind, as mobile users are going to tend towards quick-edit-and-forget rather than engaged editing. John Vandenberg (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment, mobile uploads on commons were an unmitigated disaster, thousands of low quality selfies etc. without any potential use, description, license, category, source, nothing. From that point of view "permit more mobile contributions" isn't an attractive plan. OTOH those crap uploads all had (single purpose) accounts, commons doesn't permit uploads without login. And determined vandals or spammers have accounts, so that's no valid reason to exclude mobile users without account. Remotely related, phabricator requires a login for editing. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, but that's entirely unrelated. The mobile uploads were using a specially-made upload software, separate from the standard Special:Upload and UploadWizard, with "calls to action" banners which encouraged random people to add random images in random places. The failure you mention was a failure of such banners (mainly) and of the custom software invented out of the blue. Here we are talking of the editing interface registered users use as well, and we are not talking of any call to action, so the two sources of the failure are eliminated: which explains the good results on it.wiki. --Nemo 08:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
in any case, it should be possibile, even if policy globally changes in a less rigid manner, to allow restriction for single project. I have always supported the idea that every community should modulate its own strategy if necessary. --Alexmar983 (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it would be still possible to change the configuration per-wiki :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Support, tnx for info (above+below). –Be..anyone (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I have seen no "disaster" on it.wiki, but of course local exceptions are always possible. We are a "medium" wiki in terms of editors, activity and density of users with "flags", maybe for smaller communities specific restrictions are likely, I therefore suggest maximum fexibilty, but in general per PiRSquared17 I think that by "default" no "discrimination" should exists.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support we experimented it coherently with the perennial principle ("anyone can edit"), and the results were even slightly better than expected. Evaluating those anonymous edits we found more or less the same proportions we can see in other series of edits, perhaps a little more useful than the non-mobile editing. So, in our stats and observations there wasn't a "special" problem about vandalism, basically vandals come to WP in the usual proportions, there isn't a sensitive change.
    What is truly different, and to my personal experience is constantly growing in importance, is that many mobile users do not trust enough service providers and software/apps they have on board in their device, so they do not feel safe enough to log in with their credentials for security and privacy reasons. Actually, since mobile traffic is everyday more important for us, I believe that this is going to be a relevant issue and that we should care about it. --g (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I support any effort that attacks the awful anti-wiki behavior introduced under the guise of a mobile front-end. The MobileFrontend extension should be killed or, at a minimum, scaled back to be only a mobile front-end. It should never have been used to control site permissions. And this is unfortunately one example among many of the extension acting far outside of scope. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support – on Wikimedia, the rule is "allow editing," with exceptions made as necessary. I do not see a justification for an exception here. harej (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Gerardduenas (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support obviously, VIGNERON * discut. 16:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes. Legoktm (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support It's completely incomprehensible to me that such a configuration was actually allowed to be made in the first place. The Foundation (rightly) opposes attempts to take away anonymous users' ability to create new articles; this situation should not be different. --MF-W 18:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This statement is obviously incorrect and has nothing to do with reality and history. odder (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Wait, what? Am I missing something here? MF-W was referring to this Limits to configuration changes, back then there are wikis trying to take away anonymous/IP/non registered user ability to create and edit articles (example Indonesian Wikipedia, which is where I am an Admin), hence MF-W statement is correct.--AldNonymousBicara? 17:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • You all are correct. Limits to configuration changes was my creation (under this title and form). WMF enacted those decisions (which belong to the global community). --Nemo 18:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support "Anyone can edit." Yes. - PKM (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support (see also: phab:T54442) eranroz (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Why was it ever done any other way? - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, according to common sense and to empirical data. Is it a rare case of ACTUAL consensus? :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's one of our founding principles that we should allow anyone to edit without registration. 朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Yes. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Why not. Soon all devices will be 'mobile'. Imagine if 10 years ago we were suggesting we not let laptop users edit because they're 'mobile'. Silly. 170.29.64.11 16:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support without any option to opt-out. We have been experimenting with temporary restrictions that directly contradict our founding principles for too many years. There is no reason why any wiki should want to opt-out of allowing mobile users to edit. odder (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, a must-have feature. --Stryn (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support - absolutely necessary. Unless there are extreme and unanticipated problems with this, I would expect mobile permissions to always mirror non-mobile permissions for wikis (Commons being an obvious exception). To be clear, this is an exceptionally are case where there should be no local opt-out. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Austral blizzard (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anyone should be able to contribute to the project. --Soujak (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Jim Carter (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Nemo has provided absolutely no data about the supposed benefits or at least "no disaster". Last info at Research talk:Anonymous mobile editing in Italian Wikipedia/Work log/2014-12-31: "So, next step is to do a quality analysis of the edits that anons mobile users made before and after the deployment. I'd like to use content persistence strategies to see whether the content that anons add survives scrutiny or not. In order to do that, I'll need to gather a random sample of mobile web edits before and after the stitch was flipped." So there is no quality analysis of the edits by anons mobile users. And yet here you are, trying to impose global configuration changes on local projects by discussion in a disused lavatory in the cellar of the planning office. Beware of the leopard. --Atlasowa (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAbsolutely! I am an IP user which is actively editing en, sr, sh and soon, probablly, de. I sometimes need to fix mistakes from phone, but I am not allowed to.--176.104.110.11 18:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support SupportWhile there are concerns about the spam, its there otherwise too. It is very essential to have a normal edit feature on mobile as its reach is largely increasing. Especially in India, we would start seeing more mobile edits in the coming years. Omshivaprakash (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
sample: selective RC - 250 edits between 23 DIC 14:45 and 24 DIC 00:10
edit kind total % % good % bad % innocuous
Good 57 41,61% 41,61%
not good but in good faith 15 10,95% 10,95%
good, no sources 12 8,76% 8,76%
vandalism 12 8,76% 8,76%
kidding, pov, hagiography 10 7,30% 7,30%
test, innocuous, autoreverted 9 6,57% 6,57%
can't be evaluated 7 5,11% 5,11%
good but to be improved 5 3,65% 3,65%
birth/death dates 4 2,92% 2,92%
spam 2 1,46% 1,46%
source added 2 1,46% 1,46%
rant 2 1,46% 1,46%
total 137 100% 66,42% 21,90% 11,68%
  • Many users made their own analysis of mobile IPs edits, mine was here, but I copypaste the table here (roughly translated, feel free to ping me for better details). There are of course series of edits for each IP which count as 1 in this scheme (this is why the total edits is not 250), and for 3 or 4 IPs I'd say they were the same users reconnected with a different number (the interval covers 9 hours appr.). Please allow a 3% tolerance for eventual errors in identifying the series, and a 5% for eventual mistakes of mine in judging those edits: still the proportions are the same as usual, if not a little better than the average. Of course we don't have stats on "before the test", and we made no formal direct comparison with the average stats, even if we gave a quick look at them and found them in coherence. Please consider that these data are extracted from selective RecentChanges: mobile IP edits are automatically tagged as such, and we found no evidence of user agent spoofing in contributions' analysis and CUs, so we could avoid further study. Last but not least, misspells and typos were not considered as conditioning the judgement, for very practical reasons related to the material touch-typing and T9 issues. Tests were repeated with smaller samples, every now and then, with very similar results.
    Hope this answers to your kind question. Meow :-P --g (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your table, Gianfranco! I want to make it clear that i do like and appreciate this bold project on italian WP: Getting community consensus for a temporary experiment, proposing local configuration changes and fixes, watching the results and making the experiment a permanent change for mobile anonymous contributions. But what is proposed here is something different, imposing a global configuration change for all projects. It would be great if some other local wikis would be inspired by this itWP project to try this out too (maybe finnish, hungarian, hebrew WP?) and maybe this proposal here will lead to this - that would be great (and hopefully produce even more data for analysis, reliable data for evaluation).
The number of mobile anonymous edits per day is plotted with a weekly seasonal component modeled and the extracted trend overlayed. A vertical line is plotted on Nov. 1st. (Research talk:Anonymous mobile editing in Italian Wikipedia/Work log/2014-12-31)
Now to the table. This is a very narrow sample, "250 edits in 8 hours between 23 DIC 14:45 and 24 DIC 00:10". And look at the graph: mobile anonymous editing only really began 5 days before, 2014-12-17, with the fix for phab:T74852 (it required 3 clicks to reach the editor before). Therefor I really wonder if this day gives a meaningful sample, also the afternoon before christmas is not a typical editing day. And i don't see why you count edits that are "not good but in good faith" as "good" edits, they are "not good". I looked at the further development of the quantity of mobile anonymous editing by cloning Nemos quarry query: Daily anonymous mobile edits from Italian Wikipedia (2014-11-01 - 2015-02-24). Highest number is 566 edits at 2015-01-05, then it drops to nearly nothing after 2015-01-09 until 2015-01-25 (why? configuration changes? IP range blocks?). And 2015-02-12 it drops off again from +400 edits to ~60 edits, and stays there (gerrit:186591 made the "2 clicks" process more intuitive and was deployed on 2015-02-11). I don't think we have the data here to draw any reliable conclusions from. I am still waiting for the "quality analysis" from the fabulous WMF number cruncher halfak. Once again: If italian WP is happy with this, i am happy for them and i appreciate being bold, trying things out. I am sure the engaged italian wikipedians will watch how this develops in terms of vandalism, quantity and quality. But i don't think this is enough analysis now to force mobile anonymous editing (and its patrolling) on, say, the urdu Wikipedia. I'm not opposed to allowing mobile anonymous editing on principle. I am opposed to allowing mobile anonymous editing solely by ideological reasons without closely analysing vandalism impact and patrolling workload. --Atlasowa (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"not good but in good faith" means to me that I had in front of me a good newbie who wasn't successful in his attempt to help. Of course it's not a good edit, and in fact I didn't write anything different, it isn't a good edit, but I'm there to assist that user, help him to find his way to correctness just like others did with me when I was a newbie, and it isn't bad at all for the Project that we have met a new good user: rather, it's up to us not to loose this opportunity. This is good in my evaluation because I wasn't looking at the edits, I was looking at the users, since the opposition against free anon editing has always been "'cos vandals could come". I'm here from little after the Nupedia old times, and the point has always been this one. Now, I could say that we survived tragedies like when the first vandals came here with vandal-bots and there were no tools to stop them quickly, so vandalism is an issue, but it's not our core worry. But to be "modern" (:-) I'd rather say that my table shows that nothing changes in these terms depending on the device the users use, vandals come at the same proportions as always, so I can't confirm that there would be a difference in this. It's a matter of proportions, so if with anon editing we'll get double vandalism, we'll also get double "good edits", which is what we really are looking for. And I don't know why we should necessarily conclude that anon mobile IPs shouldn't give us more patrollers too, as it always has been.
The sample is small, I know, but I work for a living, and I just couldn't stay more on the topic, sorry. It was the day before Christmas' Eve, to be precise, and since with Eve Italian holidays start, it was the last moment in which the test could have been really meaningful (or easy to decipher :-).
Ideological reasons are not the only ones: thinking of how many users will move from desktop to mobile should let us start figuring a WP very soon made by half of its users on mobile devices. This is to say half of us. And since I'm not planning to go to mobile, it must be you who is going to that realm :-) I'm just kidding, but this is seriously what we should be prepared to. So, when half of the current users will be mobile users, would you still think that there will really be anything different between desktop and mobile users? I believe that this "lifestyle" changing is better to be compared with when (in my country) telephone companies changed their fees from a pay-per-minute basis to a flat-forfait fixed fee: when freed from a time-depending cost, WP users doubled themselves and doubled their time in the projects, and vandalism too, of course, doubled. Changing the habits doesn't change the mentalities, if you are ready to be a good user you would be it whatever the medium; and viceversa. But with that historical change about fees, contents grew up in a much much higher proportion tahn expected, and it was the time of the greatest WP's success. To resume, if one bad edit gives me three good edits, this is our constant proportion, if you want 30 good edits you need 10 vandals. We still have a lot to grow, so I'd say go procure me 10 vandals, please, and I'd add: hurry up :-D --g (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Hello Nemo and all. Great to see more excitement towards allowing more edits. I see @Alexmar983: has already suggested moving the discussion to Rfc, which didn't happen. Obviously, there would be a vandalism concern with allowing global IP edits, and naturally, projects with higher mobile traffic would be affected the most. If we need to allow a more through discussion with larger WP projects, to factor in their input, and to allow them to prepare accordingly, how do we do this? Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • saw you ping: i am a newbie on meta and I wasn't sure it was correct, than I went offline. Should I create at least that redirect in that form?
    • Thanks for the comment. Broader communication was already planned, see above; we're doing this in steps. There are two things to do: 1) communicate the current exception (which should have been done years ago); 2) involve in this discussion. I just sent a global notification doing both for ~600 wikis. On ~100 administrator noticeboards I also notified (1), while forgetting a functioning link for (2) :|... I apologise; well, each wiki got one link or more. --Nemo 23:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment if someone need additional data to decide, a possible solution is to target the "medium-large" wikipedias (>500000 articles) with the highest ratio of patrollers (let's say the sum of active administrators and rollbackers) and non-autopatrolled changes and propose a second test. Or just compare them with itwiki, you would probably discover that, even after the selection of new rollbackers which I supported starting this January, we have less "patrolling efficience" than other platforms. If we had no disaster, I hardly doubt more "controlled" wikipedia project will.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support As simply following what the established principles of the wiki are. This is not the time to have the debate about whether anons should edit at all or not, for that will require much wider and bigger consensus. KonveyorBelt 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - ca. 50% unusefull edits. No, too much work, mostly to be done by those people who not say "support" here. Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • How much reverts do you have in your wikipedia project for unregistered users using the desktop site? :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support The risk is not in the media but in the specific IP anon user regardless of the mobile or desktop equipment used to connect. --Andyrom75 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Marcus Cyron. -- M\A 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. It seems to me that discriminating against all mobile users is way too broad a protection. Any wiki that has trouble with vandalism can presumably block the vandals, use range blocks where needed for persistent vandals who use dynamic IPs, and use filters for specific words or phrases a vandal tends to use. Am I missing something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, IPs are human too and everyone should be able to edit Wikipedia. Some exceptions are always possible but its should be justified. --The Polish (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support: There is no reason for such an exception. Logically—because of the up-to-now policy—we have no data that the anonymous mobile edits would be good, but we have also no data that the anonymous mobile edits would be bad. We should make them possible (and we shall see if there will be problems). --Mmh (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support It's even hard to understand why there was an exception in the first place. The whole Wikipedia editing model stems from the principle that anyone can edit: having more contributors certainly means more mistakes and vandalism, but it also means more corrections and useful contribution; that's the classic equilibrium of wisdom crowd… Alexander Doria (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Alexander Doria. Jules78120 (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per PiRSquared17. Ruy Pugliesi 00:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support per Pi. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I would even call it essential for anonymous users of Wikivoyage. If you arrive at a restaurant listed in Wikivoyage at 17:00 because the times of that listing says 17:00-22:30, but you discover that it should be 18:30-midnight, you must be able to correct that at once on your mobile device. Needing to register first, then logon, then correct, is too time consuming for an average anonymous user. --FredTC (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
To those who fear more vandalism: Anyone who tries to find the "edit" link can find the "Desktop view" link at the bottom of the page, click it and do an edit. So, there is no real protection by not allowing edits from mobile pages. --FredTC (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I don't see a difference between user behaviour of mobile users and other users. There must be a possibility to edit from mobile without creating an account, let it be less prominent but clearly it must be there. Of course there will be a percent of vandalism, but I don't see why potentially useful edits from IP editors are rejected without reason — NickK (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- Stephan Kulla (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Nowadays many new users are mobile users. We should let them edit even without registering. There is no problem even if they make mistakes. They will learn only after using it. Then they will automatically create their own account. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Being a free encyclopedia means that it should be editable from any devices.Ionutzmovie (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possible strongest Oppose Oppose I believe enabling IPs on mobile will increase maintenance work, and it will be our duty to clean up the mess created by anons. I already have to cleanup the mess created by others, and this will increase local admins and countervandal people's work. — regards, Revi 04:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • So you think the result will be different from it.wiki's? On it.wiki, anecdotally, I see the opposite: for instance, unregistered mobile users clean up broken visualeditor edits by desktop users and reduce maintenance work. :) --Nemo 00:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • itwiki guys and enwiki guys are not same, and enwiki guys and kowiki guys are not same. If it is done per-wiki basis, I feel fine, still big NO-NO for kowiki. — regards, Revi 00:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Revi. Way to much spam and vandalism is entering wikipedia if we allow this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saschaporsche (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2015
  • Support Support as proposer. --►Cekli829 06:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose for now. As more vandalism is to be expected, talk page links have to be fully viable before this is implemented. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 06:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just meant as an "oppose" for general implementation in all the wikiverse, without prior community consultaion in the respective projects. If some community wants it this way, it should be implemented there definitely, the communities of course should have the last say on this. So for deWP: not without MB beforehand, for others whatever the consensus method may be there. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 08:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
So, can we start a MB on dewiki? ;) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Es hindert Dich niemend daran, eins zu starten. Ich würde ohne direkten Diskussions- und Metaseitenzugang dagegen plädieren, eine Plattform ohne direkten Zugang dazu taugt imho nicht zum editieren, aber wenn es eine entsprechende Mehrheit gäbe, dann sei es so. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Prinzipiell nicht, allerdings halte ich persönlich ein MB in genau der anderen Form für nötig, also nicht, ob nicht-angemeldete Nutzer editieren dürfen, sondern das nicht angemeldete Nutzer nicht bearbeiten dürfen, da deWiki dann entgegen der globalen Konfiguration handeln würde/möchte (vorausgesetzt, hier wird entschieden, dass anonyme Bearbeitungen erlaubt werden würden). Grüße --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Wenn der Status Quo, also das Nichteditieren für IPs, in der deWP geändert werden sollte, bedürfe das eines MB in selbiger. Das hier sollte der deWP nicht so etwas vorschreiben können. Das Wikiversum ist schließlich keine zentralistische Veranstaltung. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Das die WMF-Wikis keine zentralistische Veranstaltung sind, musst du mir nicht erklären, ich bin zufällig auch ein kleines Licht in der Community. <Wenn der Status Quo, also das Nichteditieren für IPs, in der deWP geändert werden sollte> -> meiner Ansicht nach würde genau das eben nicht geändert werden, sondern der von der Community akzeptierte Status "jeder kann editieren" (wie übrigens auch in den Hilfeartikeln ausgewiesen, die auch für mobile Nutzer zugänglich sind) für alle Geräte (wieder)hergestellt werden (und damit nicht zuletzt den Grundprinzipien der WMF-Wikis gleichzukommen). Aber das ist natürlich, wie bereits gesagt, meine persönliche Ansicht :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support anon editing is one central feature of Wikipedia, and as mobile units tend to gain more and more use this change would change one of the root Wikipedia philosophy. I strongly disagree to "hide" such a change behind a feature which was started simply as a helper for those users. --grin 06:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support That's what a wiki should be : anyone can edit from anywhere at anytime. Kropotkine 113 (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. No benefits expected. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 07:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --85.181.149.223 08:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support The WMF lets the local communities decide whether logging in should be an option or not (and whether "flagged revisions" etc should be enabled or not). Some projects (including sv.wikipedia where I edit) have actively decided not to require logging in. Then this decision should not be overridden for unnecessary technical reasons. The same should go for the Wikipedia apps for cell phones. /NH 10:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I cannot add nothing else to what has already been said. imo "Anyone can edit" is one of our most important principles, which we cannot disappoint. --Nastoshka (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I see absolutely no reason to discriminate against mobile unregisteres users, compared to desktop unregistered users. --MB-one (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. As long as unregistered anons are allowed on desktop version, same must apply to mobile version. Exceptions can be made on individual project basis if significantly larger vandalism on that project from mobile unregistered users. Nahum (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning to oppose. Arguments of freedom, trust and vandalism all make sense, but editing a mobile version doesn't. Stripped-down mobile pages are barely usable for reading, and outright unusable for editing. They cannot visualise the intended final page layout with all the tables, template and stuff - so what's the point of editing blind? Why not simply prompt the user to edit from a real computer, or at least switch their tablet from mobile to plain page view? It's just one click away. Retired electrician (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  ??? You can edit in mobile, like on desktop, the source code of the page. If you attempt to save the edit, you will see a preview of your edit, which is generated by mediawiki's own parser and includes all tables, templates and so on. If it doesn't fit into mobile, you probably shouldn't save this edit and better rework it, to fit mobile. I see no point, why this should prevent mobile unregistered users shouldn't be able to edit, especially because this problem applies to registered users, too. --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Registered too, precisely. Make mobile read only. The idea of reworking for mobile could have a chance if wikipedia allowed content forks for different platforms. It doesn't. Checking for mobile compatibility is desirable, enforcing it on existing content equates with vandalism. Retired electrician (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Make mobile read only -> sorry, i don't understand why (to explain: i try to find out, what we can do better to make mobile editing possible for all users :)), so maybe you can explain, why you think, that mobile anonymous editing shouldn't be possible :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I see no reason to keep this restriction. Mathis B (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Have faith in mankind! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Serkanland (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Well, let's. Let's see what can be created with touchscreen. It will be fun. — Green Zero обг 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Wikipedia is the site that anyone can edit. But we are talking about a full desktop version. Those who wants to edit Wikipedia anonimously, can switch to full version and do it. Mobile version should be only read-only.--Soul Train (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • But we are talking about a full desktop version -> are we? And if so, why? Why is mobile more bad as desktop (or why is desktop better then mobile?). Maybe i misunderstood your comment, but the mobile editor isn't much different from the desktop editor. You edit the source code of the page and see a preview (by the way: mobile editor forces the preview to prevent possible styling issues or type errors), so the mobile editor does exactly the same as the desktop editor. And mobile apps can already edit without register an account (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hideliu=1&tagfilter=mobile+app+edit). Why no-one complains about it? Why is mobile apps different from mobile web? I would like to read some arguments, instead of just "mobile editing is bad" :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Blue Elf (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support The type of device that someone is using is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed to edit. --Cgt (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Strongly agree. I'm honestly surprised that this is not the case already. "Anyone can edit" is critically important. HiDrNick! 14:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Please not on WikiquoteNL! We have only one active sysop and a few ( Two ore three) editers. We can't handel this, I am affraid. Anonymous edits are very rear usefull, 99% is complet nonsens. (nonsens artikels, etc.) Graaf Statler (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support I absolutely agree. --Uğurkenttalk 15:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support What a good idea. --Turgut46 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I think this is great in theory. In practice, I have a number of problems with this:
    1. Individual communities must be allowed to opt out, as stated above.
    2. Talk page access must be fully implemented, as stated above. Ability to discuss possibly controversial edits on talk pages is one of the things that makes otherwise open editing access work.
    3. What type of device does make a difference. Typing on a device as small as a phone certainly leads to more typographical errors than typing on a computer or tablet.
    4. Especially because of the last two points, I would tend to favor limiting mobile editing to autoconfirmed editors. I want to make sure editing gets done by people committed enough to the project to be responsible in discussing edits and responsible in correcting technical errors.
StevenJ81 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No reason why not to log in when using mobile. Remember the problems with mobile uploads disabled on Commons.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Mobile uploads had a number of specific issues which can't be compared, see above comment 08:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC). --Nemo 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment Our experiment in allowing the uploading of images from mobile devices was not successful because of the vast amount of junk uploads, and has been disabled. Many projects already suffer from almost-overwhelming spamming and junk edits from *desktop* unregistered users. I would suggest that if editing by unregistered users on mobile is enabled, it occur only as an *opt-in* following a well-documented discussion on individual projects. The ability of individual projects to manage increased problematic editing will vary significantly, dependent on availability of recent changes patrollers (or equivalent), the use of pending changes/flagged revisions, and other factors. Keep in mind that range blocks to manage serially problematic editing from mobile IP ranges may have a significant impact on *all* editing from those ranges and may actually have an overall negative effect on the number of edits being made through those ranges. Risker (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per -revi --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Should be the norm. — Arkanosis 18:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose: Editing on mobile without breaking the syntax or page layout is already difficult enough if you've got the time to log in.    FDMS  4    21:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Can you clarify what is made easier by logging in? If some feature is lacking, that can be solved. --Nemo 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: My point is that typing and correcting typed text is often very time-consuming using a touchscreen keyboard, and I think that unregistered users are generally far less likely to spend that required amount of time. Not that desktop edits from unregistered accounts are equally likely not to require third-party copyediting as desktop edits from registered accounts, but mobile plus unregistered is just where I'd draw the line.    FDMS  4    23:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. It makes no sense to require an account for mobile edits and not for desktop edits. Opraco (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support 'Anyone can edit' to promote Wikipedia. --Kumincir (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It depends on which site.
    • For the majority of sites , I Support Support it. There shouldn't be any problem with allowing it , applying what we do for non-mobile devices in the event of vandalism.
    • For Commons , I Neutral Neutral it. While it is still useful(as mobile cameras are being better , photographs of landscapes or animals can now be added faster. But there are issues are this.
    • My previous benefit stated would only apply to high - top end mobile phones. I don't think adding photos from a cheap 2 MP or 3.2 MP basic phone would help.
    • And , as some other users would have stated , what about selfies and the like? If they are also uploaded to Commons and shared , it may end up being something like a photo-sharing website(contrary to what I think that Commons is the database for Wikimedia in images , correct me if I'm wrong).
  • I also have a few questions to this.
    • How would warnings be displayed to users through templates? I do not exactly know , myself using Wikibooks on Windows(laptop) , but these templates look quite small for a 12.5 cm device.
    • How would you make sure that users do not edit by mistake? Again , I do not know much about the experience on a mobile.

--Leaderboard (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • We're not talking about enabling uploading from mobile devices :) It's just about editing pages, if you want to use pictures you need to upload you still need the desktop site. So enabling editing will not enable uploads :)
for your second question: If you want to edit pages, you still need to "tap" the edit pencil (like "edit" link on desktop) to come to the editor, so there shouldn't much space to edit by mistake :) Templates, the other way, aren't visible in mobile (for logged in and logged out users), because we use our own editor. Hope that answers your questions :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
      • How , then , would you notify users about vandalism?(like we do on desktop , issue a warning template)?--Leaderboard (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you an example? I'm not sure, if we're talking about the same thing :) If you mean notification templates on a user's talk page after vandalism-edits were reverted: They will be visible and the user should see a notification, that there are new messages on the talk page. Is that, what you mean? --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support This is good! Regards, Fenerli1978 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No for Wikisource, proofreading is a time-consuming process requiring dedication. Persons having no time to log-in better stay away. --9xl (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
This argument seems to be not mobile specific, but i still can edit without logging in when i'm on desktop? --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --minhhuy (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --ArséniureDeGallium (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support but no major objection to allowing individual wikis to opt out. Rich Farmbrough 02:06 4 March 2015 (GMT).
  • Oppose Oppose IP users are second only to more trouble than vandals become You can't be easy to tell them what wrong they have when They do something wrong.And Create a new account is so easy. ——Cwek (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Allow individual wikis to opt-out (especially small ones), maybe even only allow it for the bigger wikis at first (so maybe opt-in ?). If things don't go well, it will always be possible to disable it later. Darkdadaah (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anyone can edit --Kippelboy (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Epìdosis (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support IPs are usually good users and not only vandals (File:Edits by user type (SVG version).svg). Wikimedia has always worked with and by everyone's help and it can't become a private website. --Tn4196 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support, but wikis should be able to opt-out. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment: I mostly support this, but think it should be off by default with the option for wikis to opt-in. I shudder at the thought of allowing mobile unregistered edits on en.Wikipedia or any Wikisource. Hazmat2 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This could become another shit magnet (like mobile uploads – phab:T64598)--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Because we already able to edit with PC version even it is on mobile (I am editing this way always). However software should make like local community can opt-out this function. Regards,--DangSunM (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose --PaulaMeh (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose It is too early, we should make it easier before applying...☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support w:WP:HUMAN--Antigng (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support that's the idea of wikimedia sites. Editable by pretty much anyone anywhere. I see no reason not, sure mobile traffic tends to have higher vandal % but in the future it will be nothing but mobile and we need to be ready. EoRdE6 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support as proposer. I have made a mobile edit implementation at zh:Template:LSR, anyone who want to update the version information and using mobile devise can edit with mobile version directly, you can try it here, but only logined user can access this feature.--Great Brightstar (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anyone should be able to edit! Nadavangel (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Anyone should be able to edit! --ChristophThomas (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support As long as policy is that anonyms are allowed to edit the platform should be irrelevant. Vandals and angels alike own smartphones. DGtal (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support Of course. If the technical issues that prevented allowing unregistered users from editing have been resolved, we should remove this extraordinary restriction. As a matter of principle, if registered users can edit on mobile, or on any other platform, then unregistered users should also be able to. Not doing so for the time being was justified in order to develop and test the new platform, but if the technical barrier is no longer present, it is only natural to remove this now obsoleted restriction. Cenarium (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose On multiple grounds below:
1. Anonymous users can still edit on mobile devices by switching to the desktop version (link at the bottom of every page). Editors that refuse to register, who take time to familiarize themselves with policy and know how to edit, will realize this.
2. With mobile IP addresses it is nearly impossible to block individuals, as the address changes every time the phone is turned on. enwiki almost IP blocked every single mobile device in a cell-phone company's mobile pool for this reason.
3. This is not the forum for this discussion. For consensus to be made, a global notice would need to go out to every project notifying them of a request for comment. Every project should make a consensus to make the change or keep the status quo.
Mamyles (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I vote for lifting the account requirement when a mobile user wants to edit. I went to the sandbox on an iPad: fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SANDBOX. I cliked on the pencil. I had only the choice between log in and create an account. Wikipedia is supposed to allow visitors to edit. Wikipedia even says that every visitor can modify the pages by clicking on Edit. This is not true. Not even for the sandbox! It would be nice to correct that. Thank you. --Nnemo (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose It should be left to the projects themselves. On a smaller wikipedia with few editors who are not daily (sometimes longer!) present like sw: (where I am active) quality control is a headache. The argument that we should be happy about any contribution and weed out later does not work. African languages struggle anyway to be taken serious on many topics against English/French; if the amount of bullshit goes higher respect goes down further.Kipala (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support fine by me. --Matiia (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Kusurija (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Oppose Spam and Vandalism are bound to increase. Not to forget all the Selfies; rattled edits and pics.
Sorry Nemo to mention it here, but the fact apart from what I mentioned, is this will increase pressure which already prevails on reviewers and admins, bureaus, autos. Further it will give chance to the current vandals to mortify what and how they feel like. Basically ENJOY :( ... Vishal Bakhai - Works 00:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a... afraid I sh... should Oppose O... oppose, if th... this can be... be approved, th... then p... pages like SRCU will... will be paralyzed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral per Marcus Cyron and Revi. There are benefits, but I think disadvantages outweigh advantages. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. Late notice, ask for a decision for ALL sites and languages that can experiment different user behaviours and should have the right to decide separately. Jfblanc (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

How about the official Wikipedia apps for smartphones? Do they require logging in to edit pages? One editor said somewhere the apps required registration an logging in to read pages, but that was maybe a misunderstanding. I don't own a sufficiently smart mobile phone to investigate this myself :-/ /NH 14:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't need an account to edit or read contents in Wikipedia apps, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hideliu=1&tagfilter=mobile+app+edit --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Is there another step to protect pages for mobile edits? Because there is a need to make different protection level for mobiles.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should a page be not editable by mobile, but for desktop users? --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Because, on hiwiki, I saw that in comparison to desktop, mobile user does more vandalism. (this is relative comparison.)☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That might even be because they are forced to login. :) Seems a paradox, I know, but past research shows that can reduce average productivity. Either way, better not trust intuition for such things. --Nemo 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as i know: MobileFrontend will not introduce new rights or protection levels (i know one, who maybe like this @MZMcBride: :)). The goal should be to make mobile more like desktop (minimize special handlings from MobileFrontend and not increase them :)) and "just make MobileFrontend a mobile view", not a mediawiki inside mediawiki (if you understand, what i mean :P) :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If enabling anonymous editing generates lots of spam and strain on our existing users, how will we respond to this? To be clear the core mobile web development team is currently oversubscribed with various pieces of work and cannot spend time code reviewing/improving interfaces to reduce vandalism so we would be leaning heavily on support from existing tools such as AbuseFilter. In this worse case scenario would we simply turn off anonymous editing or do you have a team of developers familiar with MobileFrontend to improve the interface to support this initiative? I agree it should be enabled but this is the reason it is currently disabled. If the former can we clarify how we would measure success of anonymous editing on mobile and under what conditions we would switch this off? Jdlrobson (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Configuration changes will be evaluated in the usual ways: we have statistics, especially Wikistats, for all languages, and users with specific insight on the area/wiki they watch; users discuss locally and globally; if a local or global consensus emerges on an interpretation of the data/conclusion, a configuration change request is made. There's nothing new here: we evaluate fluctuations of various activities, as well as extensions like FlaggedRevs and AbuseFilter or counter-vandalism tools, continuously. --Nemo 06:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Today I'll be offline all day long, so if someone else wants to wrap this up don't be shy. --Nemo 06:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Who has ruled to leave out mobile user?! (generally and on it.wikipedia) And what does it mean?![edit]

Putting it simply: Why we do not discuss the other way round? (Wheather forbide mobile user from editing). And what does it means? (Who is a "mobile user?" An user with a large tablet connected thtrough a home wi-fi is "mobile" or not, just as an example?)

Who has ruled to leave out mobile user?! As far as I know no one at it.Wikipedia knows who has rouled this (A sharp exeption from the "WMF projects are editable by everybody" standard). Can oneone set to ban out Mac users? Or left handed users? Or blind users who use screenreader? Or poor English skilled user (as me, for example)? Or typo making user (as me again, even when I owned a desktop PC).

Fhurthermore, I just need to find out that I should switch to "desktop" mode using the link at the bottom of every page. So it's more an obstacle than a ban. And so it's even more a no sense.

it.Wikipedia has setted to leave out this ban, but I can not edit there in mobile mode, and no one can explain. (I don't wheather editing worked for a while and then removed again, or it was never granted.)--2.225.72.22 20:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the disabling was never discussed: this discussion fixed that.
As for it.wiki, that's a bug: phabricator:T91372. Can you check if purging the page helps, and tell us more about your tests (what page or pages did not work, what you saw exactly, what's your device and browser)? Thanks, Nemo 20:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-per-wiki exceptions[edit]

The list below tries to show wikis (or better: (some) users of these wikis), who requested to except these wikis from enabling IP-editing in MobileFrontend (aka mobile view), if enabling should be the global default. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 06:34 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Deleted

I removed the list because it would be confusing. The violation of standard permissions never gained local consensus and can't be affirmed by individual users. As for "pre-per-wiki exceptions", local wikis can express a local wish with the usual process for Requesting wiki configuration changes. In other words, this list must be kept in Phabricator tickets with associated consensus.
Such requests will be dealt with all together and together with the (probable) request coming out of this discussion. There is one month to achieve local consensus and file tickets, it should be enough: if some policy requires more time in your wiki, let's adjust timings. --Nemo 07:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the Requesting wiki configuration changes-page :) I totally agree with this process (and like you explained), my list was just because it seems (at least in my personal understanding of some discussions here) that some wikis want to pre-opt-out :) --Florianschmidtwelzow (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

SUL finalization update[edit]

Hi all, please read this page for important information and an update involving SUL finalization, scheduled to take place in one month. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Distribution of funding[edit]

Where can I read about how funding has been distributed over the past few years? Thanks, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You can look at wmf:Financial_reports. Ruslik (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! However, I might need more details to be able to answer this question. E.g., the document entitled "Financial statements, years ending June 30, 2014 and 2013" only talks about sums, not about any distribution statistics or otherwise. My guess is that the other financial statements are likely to be similar. Does anyone else have an idea as to any sources? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "distribution statistics"? Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
2014–15 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan (PDF) gives a pie chart summary of how money was allocated by spending type. Is this what you're looking for? It's on page 6. Killiondude (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, we are getting a little nearer, I would like to be able to answer questions like the following: How much funding went into IEG grants compared to PEG grants? What type of grants other than IEG or PEG was funded, if at all? What percentage of grants funded were classified as research grants? How much money was spent on projects led my people with male first names? What are the differences between the statistical data from the last 5 years? etc. etc. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you want to ask on the IEG or PEG discussions whether there's a spreadsheet summarizing grants made each year. The raw data is available on Meta, attached to each grant; but this isn't very accessible for the questions you want to answer. SJ talk  17:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
See commons:Category:Wikimedia_Foundation_quarterly_reviews for Grantmaking Quarterly Reviews. Ruslik (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thanks, all. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki 5[edit]

See here: Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Make an updated version of MediaWiki.

I have found that, when searching for an article on Wikipedia, I noticed that I can switch to mobile mode. It works great on my desktop computer.

I have decided to request an updated version of MediaWiki, usually called "MediaWiki 5", with a new interface similar to the mobile version. I have posted a sample so you can see what I mean.

MediaWiki 5.png

The new logo for the new software looks like this:

MediaWiki 5 logo.png

I will suggest to update the MediaWiki software with the above interface. Thanks. Regards, WhiteWindow(History) Date: 14:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks a lot like the "Classic" skin! :) That's called MediaWiki 1.2. While MediaWiki's features of 2002 are being reimplemented, you can use minerva. --Nemo 15:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then, why not try "MediaWiki 1.3"? How about that? Regards, WhiteWindow(History) Date: 22:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Already done, see mw:Release notes/1.3#Version 1.3.0, 2004-08-11 first bullet. Maybe it went in a direction you don't like, though. --Nemo 23:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, they do say that fashion trends repeat itself in 40 years, but for softwares, that might be only 10 years. Good thing about MediaWiki skins is that you can always switch it. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
You can try changing the links into tabs. That way it won't cause confusion between the old version and the new version. Regards, WhiteWindow(History) Date: 02:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Lots of thought went into designing the current skin Vector, led by the Wikipedia Usability Initiative. But you can develop your own skin if you're interested and it doesn't necessarily have to replace the current skin. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Why MediaWiki 5? Did we skip MW 2, 3, and 4? Also it seems you are proposing a new skin change, not a version of MediaWiki per se. (Recently skins have become more separated from MW core) PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Wild guess, inspired by HTML5 after the demise of XHTML2, which was inspired by DOS5 after DOS4 turned out to be a miserable failure in comparison with DOS3.<shrug />Be..anyone (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Guessing that the new skin shows above, we're going to release the update now. Cheers. :-) 99.121.210.109 03:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the Language Committee still active?[edit]

So there is this thing called the Language committee or LangCom, which according to their page should "act in the Requests for new languages process by reviewing the requests, giving advice and eventually recommending the creation of new language versions to the Board". They also have a talk page where people can "add any questions or feedback to the language committee". On that page many users are asking if the project they're working on is ready to be approved, and for advice about how to reach that target. But they almost never get any answer. Check the archive of the talk page: lots and lots of unanswered messages in many past months. I first pinged, and then wrote individually to each member of the LangCom, asking if they can check the talk page. I didn't get any reply so far from any of them. Also, the last activity report is from 2013.

So my question is: is the Language Committe still active? If yes, why don't they answer any message, and how can one contact them? If no, then how are people supposed to develop new projects, if the Committe is not there to give advice and decide upon the requests?

Let's ping all members again for their information: (@Amire80, Antony D. Green, Bèrto 'd Sèra, Maor X, GerardM, Jon Harald Søby, Karen:, @Arria Belli, MF-Warburg, Evertype, Millosh, Baba Tabita, SPQRobin, Santhosh.thottingal:, @Shanel, ZaDiak:)

Candalua (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Candalua. Many of the members are inactive, but the committee itself is still (barely) active. You can check their internal discussion archives for a peek into their activity. —Pathoschild 13:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Pathoschild, but still the issue remains. If some members are inactive due to lack of time or other, why don't they simply resign and ask to be replaced? And why nobody bothers to answer any message? Why do they only talk between themselves on a mailing list, instead of actually talking with the users? What are users supposed to do in this situation? Candalua (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
LangCom has always seemed inactive for as long as I can remember. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Active. Antony, Maor, Gerard, Jon, MF-Warburg, Evertype, Millosh, Santhosh, SPQRobin, and myself are definitely around and participating in the mailing list discussions. I'm not sure about the other people above. It is not very proactive, however. We are all busy with other stuff in real life, so we need to be poked. MF-Warburg is probably the most proactive member (thanks a lot for that).
We approved several new wikis recently, and are going to approve more soon. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile for the committee to take a look at its components and remove those who are no longer active/interested. At least one of them has not edited any Wikimedia wiki since 2008... Snowolf How can I help? 14:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I found another one who's got one edit since 2006... I might make a chart so the committee can tackle this matter more easily. Snowolf How can I help? 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Amire80: wikimedia: active, mailing list: active.
Antony D. Green: wikimedia: inactive (17 global edits, all on meta, last edit in 2013 - how did somebody with 17 Wikimedia edits get appointed to the committee? I'm confused...), mailing list: one post since January 2014 (october 2014).
Bèrto 'd Sèra: wikimedia: inactive (no edits since 2008), mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
Maor X: wikimedia: active, mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
GerardM: wikimedia: active, mailing list: active.
Jon Harald Søby: wikimedia: active, mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
Karen: wikimedia: inactive (no edits since 2012, not sure if they even own the SUL, as the meta account - which has only one edit. If they are the enwikinews user, two edits since 2006. If they are the etwiki user, inactive since 2011 save for one edit in 2012), mailing list: one post since January 2014 (february 2014).
Arria Belli: wikimedia: inactive (no edits since 2013, no edits on meta since 2008), mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
MF-Warburg: wikimedia: active, mailing list: active.
Evertype: wikimedia: active, mailing list: active.
Millosh: wikimedia: active, mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
Baba Tabita: wikimedia: active, mailing list: active.
SPQRobin: wikimedia: active, mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
Santhosh.thottingal: wikimedia: active, mailing list: active.
Shanel: wikimedia: inactive (no edits since 2014, one edit since 2013), mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
ZaDiak: wikimedia: inactive (no edits since 2014, half a dozen edit or so on a single day since 2013, no edits on meta since 2012), mailing list: inactive (no posts since January 2014).
This is hand compiled so there can be mistakes although I have tried to make it as accurate as possible. I have used the list of users on Langcom, SUL and the mailing list archives as sources. Snowolf How can I help? 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Too often we accidentally still use the old mailing list unfortunately, so there is quite a bit of activity of several members that is not counted in the above overview. SPQRobin (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to say that I am active, but I have some technical issues related to the access to the list. --Millosh (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

At last, some answers from the members! Better late than never. Of course I understand that you guys, like everybody, are often busy in real life and don't get much time. But I hope all of you also understand that to get some feedback from you, I had to first drop a message on the LangCom talk page, then drop a message to each and every one of the 16 members, then write here in the Forum and now at last, after some weeks have passed, I'm finally able to communicate with you! I think it's clear to everybody that this situation is not acceptable. I'm not personally much involved in the development of new projects, I'm just helping a little on Wikisource; but I see many users who have been working hard on their project for a long time, and I see how much they would like to receive a bit of attention from the Committee. Not much, just a "hey, we see that you're doing well, we'll try to get your project approved soon" or "sorry, we think you should work more on this and that". That's it. Too many projects are being abandoned after a good start, because the users feel their work will never get any consideration at all. So please, please, guys, come out of those obscure mailing lists and start talking with the people! And if some members aren't participating, replace them. Otherwise you can as well remove the "giving advice" part from your stated goals, and close the talk page, which is currently useless. Thank you very much Snowolf for the chart, I hope some decision will be taken. Thanks everybody for your attention. Candalua (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Username changes[edit]

See also: Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement#I don't understand and Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement#Bug?

Can anyone explain this message about a username change?. I have an unified account and don't want to change my name. --Keysanger (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Keysanger. The message was probably intended for user talk:Createaccount, which redirects to your talk page. The bot that placed the message follows redirects. —Pathoschild 13:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikinet[edit]

Hello, I proposed a project to create here. Wikinet is a free search engine where everyone can add quality site. We're sure to have interesent and acceptable sites for everyone.
If you are interested, you can enter your pseudo here.
You can see to the test build here (link in French)

Thank

--Bastenbas (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A wiki could never be an effective search engine. You would need to crawl/spider a large portion of the web for one to even be useful. What you're proposing seems to be more like DMOZ. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Bring inactive users in a sleep-modus (for end-user information)[edit]

Hello, I proposed a feature to show real information about user statistic (count) information, like users count information, watchers of pages (or user count of specific gadgets).

Reason: All such information, still lose more and more (in years) of their usefulness (so this feature proposal is a question of time). All in all it makes a project more of impression of alive.
Furthermore: It's suggested to add an automated message on the concerned user page. (Some gadgets for this will be replaced)
I would suggest an automate process to fill this group with users inactive for more than 2 years. What do you think about this?

Thanks User: Perhelion  14:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Thanks to Dereckson's comment on T93345 I have a vague idea what this is about.:tongue: Two years of inactivity sounds okay, maybe one year would also work, it's anyway far too long for anti-abuse applications, leaving lots of other legit uses. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What was the purpose of the fundraiser survey[edit]

It can't have any connections with the critics expressed in the mailing lists by the community, which were not only about the huge size, but as well about the misleading content, and reactions of donors, who will get aware that they were treated with not-so-right messages. In this Op-Ed at the current signpost the survey is harshly criticised for failing to ask this questions. These questions where asked here as well, and consequently not answered by the fund-raising team as well. The whole survey looks like something especially commissioned to support the justification lyrics for this scare-mongering begging spree with huge banners. It's just a meaningless powerpoint presentation, obviously made by some tie-wearing consultant clones, that misses the main questions. A lot about meaningless formal questions, nothing about the blatant lies in the message. Will there be any more answers to this questions? Why were they avoided in the survey? ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The Simple English Wikipedia needs your help![edit]

For those who don't know, the Simple English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia that attempts to use simpler English to allow readability by children and those who are learning the language. The wiki can be found here. Flicking through the page index, you will see that most of our articles are in need of expansion, which we strive to improve. (you can also see that we are also lacking many articles) Unfortunately, we only have a handful of active editors, most of them being admins. We have three sister projects, although two (Wikibooks and Wikiquote) are closed, and one (Wiktionary) is currently inactive.

We are therefore seeking active editors who wish to contribute in any area, we welcome any new editors that wish to contribute positively and constructively. If we don't have a policy, we follow the English Wikipedia by default. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at our village pump (dubbed Simple Talk) or join us on #wikipedia-simpleconnect! Regards, Caliburn (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (on behalf of the Simple community).

Has the number of FAs (or as simplewiki calls them, "VGAs") improved significantly over the last 3 years? PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure, we've had two successful VGAs in the last two years, which isn't much at all to be honest. Caliburn (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Simple Wikipedia is that the content overlaps with what Wikipedia provides for. Since it is more popular , that's where most editors edit , not here. Also , Wikipedia is not much more complex than what Simple Wikipedia has. --Leaderboard (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat For All Wikis[edit]

I propose re-allowing granting bureaucrat access for small wikis. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 23:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Define "small". And when was this disallowed exactly? Link to discussion(s) or edit(s) please. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It isn't banned. I suspect this refers to the Steward practice of not usually granting Bureaucrat access to projects with no or a very small number of permanent admins and / or a very small active community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from February 2015[edit]

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in February 2015, covering selected activities of the Wikimedia Foundation and other important events from the Wikimedia movement.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Query with regard to the article stats on Hindi Wikipedia[edit]

One of my colleagues @ Hindi Wikipedia has queried about the sudden anomaly in the list of articles on Hindi Wikipedia. According to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias HiWP has 117,557 articles. But according to just updated data on https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics?action=raw , HiWP has 1,03,000 articles. How is it possible? Have thousands of article been deleted overnight? If so, no massive deletion entries are seen in the deletion log. Please help me & my friend understand this. --Muzammil (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Statistics were previously not always updated in case of deletions, imports etc. Special:Statistics on hi.wiki (and some other wikis) accumulated errors across many years, which will now be corrected monthly. For official numbers, always refer to Wikistats. --Nemo 18:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Thank you very much! --Muzammil (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sudden changes of numbers of articles[edit]

Today many Wikipedias experienced sudden changes of number of articles. For example, English Wikipedia has increased by 95,000 articles, Italian by 9100, Russian by 5600. German one has decreased by 29,000 articles. Does anybody know what is happening? — Ace111 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --Nemo 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. A more detailed answer could contain a reference to phabricator:T68867. Your link for Wikistats says it is outdated. Where I can see an official article count for today? — Ace111 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be also nice to have a logbook somewhere for completeness. It should say something like: "29-03-2015 23:59 UTC - Article count of Russian Wikiquote has been replaced: 13205 --> 9979". — Ace111 (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)