Difference between revisions of "Wikimedia Forum"

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Technical proposals: Information and participation requested in the new phase of my proposals, after Wikipedia in Spanish)
Line 363: Line 363:
I'm propposing a wiki for activities! --[[Special:Contributions/|]] 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm propposing a wiki for activities! --[[Special:Contributions/|]] 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:See [[Proposals for new projects]]. I would also encourage you to get an account so that people are able to directly ask questions of you, and to allow for notifications to you. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
:See [[Proposals for new projects]]. I would also encourage you to get an account so that people are able to directly ask questions of you, and to allow for notifications to you. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
== Technical proposals ==
I am a collaborator in different Wikimedia projects. In the coming months I plan to develop a series of technical proposals within the [[m:Grants:Project/Rapid|Rapid Grants program]] of the WMF, with the participation of the communities of the different projects. In a first phase already started, I am compiling opinions [[es:User:-jem-/Propuestas/1A|on this user subpage of Wikipedia in Spanish]], and now I am asking if other projects are interested in having those proposals carried out in them as well. For this, I would like whoever is interested, or is willing to act as an intermediary to facilitate the adaptation to a project, sign on [[m:User:-jem-/Proposals/1B|this subpage]]. Thank you in advance. [[User:-jem-|-jem-]] ([[User talk:-jem-|talk]]) 14:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:02, 24 February 2019

← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

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
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Lengthy debate about Wikipedia on the Humanist Discussion Group

It would be good to hear what digital humanists think about Wikipedia, also to listen to their negative experience when trying to engage with Wikipedia. The topic has been opened on January 8 and concluded by Ken Friedman on January 26. You are going to find other contributions inbetween at the Humanist Discussion Group under the thread thoughts on Wikipedia? --Hladnikm (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. (If you consider a thread with 20 messages lengthy, you're definitely not used to Wikimedia discussions!) What an atrocious installation of mailman is that? Is there a threaded version? Nemo 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
... lengthy concerninig other topics in that forum. Humanist Discussion Group dates back in 1987, hence such a retro look. The forum software designer Malgosia Askanas proved through debate to be the most passionate opponent of Wikipedia. I was surprised at the lack of knowledge among colleagues digital humanists, how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is all about. --Hladnikm (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

About bots creating a lot of articles

Hello! I was not sure if I should post on this forum about what I plan to say, but whatever. First of all, English is not my native language, so my apologies if you find any mistake. What I want to talk about is about bots who create a lot of articles, like this famous w:Lsjbot. I am not against the use of bots, because in many cases they help a lot for correcting grammar and ortography mistakes and to detect vandalism. But what I do not support is that those bots are used to create massive amounts of articles in Wikipedias like the Swedish, Cebuano and Samareño ones. On this article you can see that the depth of the mentioned wikipedias is very low, so that means that they need a lot of updates and many things to do. I would not like to assume anything, but in this case I can say that most articles of those wikipedias must have a lot to be done, corrected and fixed. I would like to know if it is possible that bot users stop doing that please. For me that list does not make any sense because it is unfair that Wikipedias which use massively those bots are the top ones, while Wikipedias which have a lot of active users, who do their best to improve the quality and quantity of their respective wikipedias, increase slower the quantity of their articles. --Humberto del Torrejón (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Unfair" to whom? We've fixed this problem ten years ago: Top Ten Wikipedias. Some people continue to use article count for their rankings, but that's their fault: go tell them to reach our decade.
The general matter has mostly settled down since the biggest discussion on the topic, Proposal for Policy on overuse of bots in Wikipedias. Lsjbot is an experiment which has potentially harmed only a handful smaller Wikipedias (with some annoying side-effect on Wikidata), nothing most people would need to be concerned about. Nemo 08:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't get caught up in the bots, leave them to the wiki communities, they have control over what happens. Some wiki communities will focus on numbers, others will focus on quality. The proof of success is ultimately the viewer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Daty Wikidata Editor alpha release

Hi everyone,

I am Pellegrino Prevete, aka Ogoorcs and I am proud to officially announce the software alpha version (Q2122918) release of Daty (Daty (Q60949478)), the native Wikidata editor I proposed at the Ideathon of itWikiCon 2018 (Q43527331), which aims to hugely simplify Wikidata UX for new and old advanced users.

During this first development month, as hoped, Daty has found approvals outside of wiki communities, too: the GNOME (Q44316) project has in fact accepted to host it on its development platform and the software has already been published on Flathub (Q43089335), the free software GNU/Linux app store in Flatpak (Q22661286) format.

Unfortunately I was not able to pack all planned features in this first release, although I hope that, trying it, you will agree that the work done has been adequate.

Set up sound foundations for the program was where it took longer than expected, i.e. make it work on all supported platforms and on all screen format factors. In fact at the time of writing Daty is one of the few responsive GTK (Q189464) applications and the only cross-platform one.

To calm down the potential storm of people fearing for vandalisms caused by a simpler editor, I must warn you that until an adequate revert tool for mass edits made with the program will be made available, Daty will browse the database *read-only*. At this time already it has been made so (not specifically in Daty) that only registered users will be able to edit entities.


Installer links are available for Microsoft Windows (64 bit) and GNU/Linux (all architectures).

You can read a more complete changelog on my blog; bug reports can be sent on the issues page.

Note for GNU/Linux users

If you use a Flathub-integrating distribution (Linux Mint, Endless OS and others), you can directly install the software from your graphical package manager. If your distribution preinstalls GNOME and GNOME Software (Q15968880), you will just need to open the *Activities* screen and search for "Daty", as seen in this picture.

In any case you can install flatpak on your distribution by visiting this page or follow the distro specific installation istructions on the Daty homepage.

If you already installed a previous flatpak of the software, I advice you to wait for the update of tomorrow (build already scheduled), because of a last-minute bug in the configuration directory permission settings which has been corrected this morning.

Note for Ubuntu users

Since at this time Ubuntu has decided to support by default only the Snappy (Q22908866) package format, you will not directly find the program in the software center. If there are enough requests though, I will make a snap version of Daty.

In any case deb (Q305976) packages will be made available in due time.

Note for Mac users

The software works on Mac, but since I do not own one I could not create the executable file. Again, if there are enough requests, we can find a way to solve this.


First of all I want to thank Wikimedia CH for trusting the idea; without them Daty would still be a mockup this day. I hope that the global community, as the Italian one already did at the ItWikiCon Ideathon, will see the impact and the usefulness of a native editor, to please advanced users and greet new ones.

Of course I have to thank the GNOME project, which accepted the project on its infrastructure, and its developers, volunteers and contributors, who saved me from many headaches this month and before. I think it is a really great community.

Ogoorcs (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Request page translation update

Hello, we recently changed board at Amical Wikimedia and I was wondering whom should we contact for allowing translation updates of that page (as seen Special:PageTranslation). How should it be done for this and other future pages? Thanks! --Toniher (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Toniher: Marked it for translation. Usually these requests would be handled at Meta:RFH as it is a local issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, sorry for the ignorance, what is Meta:RFH. Thanks! --Toniher (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I understand it is this. --Toniher (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Ombuds Commission announcement

Full announcement text (click to expand or collapse)
Hello all,

I'm writing with information about the Ombuds Commission (OC), the small group of volunteers who investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, and in particular concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, on any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees.

I apologize for the length of the announcement. :)

The application period for new commissioners for 2019 recently closed. The Wikimedia Foundation is extremely grateful to the many experienced and insightful volunteers who offered to assist with this work.

As with last year, this year’s OC will consist of eight members, with a two-member advisory team who will guide the new commission and also, if necessary, fill in in the event that a Commission member is unable to act due to incapacity or recusal.

I am pleased to announce the composition of the 2019 OC:


Amanda has been editing Wikipedia since 2009, when she made her first edits to English Wikipedia. Since then, she has served as an administrator, checkuser, oversighter, member of the Arbitration Committee, and Arbitration Committee clerk. She also helps to develop the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) and Account Creation Tool (ACC) used by English Wikipedia.


Habib started editing in 2010 and has been heavily engaged in community affairs, both onwiki and as part of user groups, for years. A native of Tunisia, he has been a free-culture advocate on a wide range of issues in and beyond the movement. Onwiki, you can mainly find him helping out on Commons, where he is a sysop, as well as the Arabic and French language editions of Wikipedia. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2018.


Edilson has been contributing to Wikimedia projects since 2013. He is primarily active on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where he is a checkuser, oversighter, and administrator.

Elmacenderesi Elmacenderesi has been working on Wikimedia projects since 2007, primarily on the Turkish Wikipedia. There, he has been a CheckUser and a Bureaucrat since 2008 and an Oversighter since 2011. He is also a member of Wikimedia OTRS and serves as a global outreach coordinator, working with academic institutions and GLAMs, for The Wikipedia Library. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2018.


Carlos, currently editing as user:Galahad, has been contributing to Wikimedia Projects since 2009. He is a member of Wikimedia Venezuela and Wikimedistas de Perú User Group. He primarily contributes to Spanish-language projects including Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikivoyage. He has been an administrator and bureaucrat of Spanish Wikivoyage since 2013.

Jamie Tubers

Sam, who edits as Jamie Tubers, joined the English language Wikipedia community in 2011 and has over the years expanded his activities into a wide range of movement activities including co-founding the Wikimedia user group Nigeria and helping to organize events like Wiki Loves Africa and Wiki Loves Women. He is dedicated to correcting our content gaps and biases related to Africa and raising awareness of the projects on the continent. He also just kickstarted a project called "The AfroCine Project" which is a wikiproject dedicated to encouraging the contribution of content that relates to the cinema, theatre, and arts sectors of several African countries, the Caribbean and the diaspora to Wikimedia projects.[1][2] He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2018.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_AfroCine_Project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AfroCine


Emufarmers has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2005. He is a Metapedian who primarily edits the English Wikipedia; he is also a bureaucrat and sysop on MediaWiki.org, and has provided software support to many third-party, non-Wikimedia wikis over the years. He has served as an OTRS administrator since 2015.


Rupika has been editing Wikimedia projects since 2015. She is the co-founder of Punjabi Wikipedians. A free knowledge advocate, she edits primarily on Punjabi Wikipedia and Meta and organizes events such as Wiki Loves Love.

The 2019 OC’s advisors are:


Krd, who is primarily active on German Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and also serves at the Volunteer Response Team as an agent and OTRS admin, and is a member of the German Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. He has served on the Ombuds Commission since 2017.


Lucas became a Wikipedian in 2007 and started to engage with CheckUser rights in 2009, when he became a local CU on the Portuguese Wikipedia. He held both Oversight and Checkuser rights on Ptwiki between 2015 and 2017, when his term with the rights expired. He is currently an administrator on Commons and Ptwiki. His traditional main focus has been on anti-vandalism work. In 2012, the global community elected him as a steward, a position he has held since. He served on the Ombuds Commission for 2018.

Their willingness to remain, to bring their familiarity with processes and their experience to the new arrivals, is greatly appreciated!

Please join me in thanking the following outgoing volunteers, who have given substantially of their time to serve the commission:


Billinghurst is a long-term global, Wikimedian who served as a steward from 2012 to 2016 and still serves as a global sysop. He considers his home wiki to be the English Wikisource where he's performed over 260,000 edits and focuses on transcribing biographical reference data from the 19th and early 20thC. In addition, however, to serving as a local administrator on Wikisource he also holds the sysop hat on Commons, Meta and the English Wikipedia racking up almost 700,000 edits across the projects with almost a million edits when you count his bot. He claims to still have a bit of wisdom and knowledge to give. He joined the OC in 2018.


Saileshpat started editing Wikipedia in 2012 and soon became deeply involved in the Odia community. He has helped organize outreach events and done a lot to spread awareness in his region. In addition he was one of the co-organizers of WikiConference India 2016. Saileshpat has helped in a content relicensing process, where the Government of Odisha decided to release content under Creative Commons licenses. Online he is mainly active on the Odia Wikipedia and Commons. Sailesh joined the OC in 2018.


Pajz has edited the Wikimedia projects since 2005. He was a Wikipedia administrator between 2007 to 2016 and is a member of the Volunteer Response Team. He served as one of the OTRS administrators from 2013 to 2015, before being first appointed to the Ombudsman Commission in 2016.


Góngora, J. Gustavo Góngora-Goloubintseff, primarily edits Spanish Wikipedia, Catalan Wikipedia and Norwegian bokmål Wikipedia. He has been an administrator and bureaucrat on the Spanish Wikipedia since 2007, and an administrator on the Catalan Wikipedia from 2010 until 2017, where he is also a CheckUser. He was a member of the Spanish Arbitration Committee in 2008, before it was dismantled. He was a board member of Wikimedia España in 2011. He is currently a member of both Wikimedia España and Wikimedia Norge. He joined the OC in 2017.

And finally, a posthumous thank-you to user:Lankiveil:


Lankiveil was a long-term user, admin, and oversighter on the English Wikipedia, having made his first edits in 2004. He served as a clerk to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and as an OTRS volunteer. He also sometimes edited at Irish Wikipedia and Commons. He was a native speaker of Australian English and was a member of Wikimedia Australia. Lankiveil died in April 2018, while a member of the Ombuds Commission.

I'd also like to say a big thank you to those returning and those coming aboard for the first time, as well as to all those applied. Again, it was an extremely able group of volunteers, and while this mix of users may best serve the need for this year, I hope that those who applied will consider applying again for future commissions.

Regards, Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The composition on the 2019 Ombuds Commission has just been announced on Wikimedia-L. The full announcement text is above. In a nutshell and in alphabetical order, the OC in 2019 will consist of:

Serving in an advisory capacity, and filling in if necessary, will be:

Many thanks also go to the departing members of the 2018 OC for their service: Billinghurst (served on OC since 2018), Saileshpat (served on OC since 2018), Pajz (served on OC since 2016), Góngora (served on OC since 2017). And a special posthumous thank-you to Lankiveil, who passed away in 2018 while serving as an Ombuds Commission member. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks for namespace now live on Testwiki and Italian Wikipedia

Screenshot of Special:Block with Namespace partial blocks added

Hello all, Special:Block is now updated on Testwiki and Italian Wikipedia to add partial blocks for Namespaces.

For example, a user can be blocked from editing in Main namespace but be allowed to edit in all other namespaces. Or a user can be blocked from Category name space and not be permitted to create new categories but still able to edit in all other namespaces.

There is no limit to the number of namespaces that can be added to a partial block. Namespace and page blocks (introduced last month) can be done together.

In the next few weeks, partial blocks will be introduced into 2 or 3 more Wikimedia wikis. Let me know if your home wiki is interested in being one of the first wikis to try this new feature. You can try out partial blocks on testwiki. Let me know if you are an administrator on another Wikimedia wiki and want administrator access on testwiki. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have seen this work on testwiki: but don't have access to these capabilities on w:it:. Thanks again to all who worked on implementing this! —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi everyone :)

Maybe this has already been discussed, if this is the case, please pardon me and guide me to the corresponding thread, I will appreciate this :)


A record of, fact-checked important information like: - versions of laws - dated and located images - Government declarations - Judgement Resolutions - Dated webpages content - Any other (brainstorming needed)

A process for defining what information is "genuine" should be created.

The innovative point is BLOCKCHAIN! the information will be recorded in a public blockchain.

Advantages of this are that the "genuine" information recorded, will be immutable! that is how it should be because is "genuine" so there is no need for any kind of modification.

(example: If Trump's declarations on the 14 Feb 2019, were: blablabla, blabla, bla; this will be "genuine" information, so there will be no need to change this information never, as this was his declaration)

With this, we can build a "genuine" history book of humanity, as seems like some people (winning the war in the future) would like to change the history according to their interest.

There is a famous quote "history is written by victors",

The purpose of WikiArchive will be to ensure that "History is written as it happened" (need to find a better quote, I know :D )

Another advantage of using blockchain is that availability will be highly distributed, not only ensuring immutability, also the access to the information :)

There are plenty of technical and consensus difficulties to bypass, but I think the idea worth it.

A "genuine" history book of human events, available to everyone is right that we should win ;)

This is high-level Ideas, please share your comments and useful information.

Thank you very much if you have read my words and tried to understand them with an open and positive mind,

Kind Regards,

<3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guillermohierro (talk)

Sbj.: “Technical Documentation”

(En) Sbj.: “Technical Documentation”

  “Technical Documentation” of High-Tech. devices is a subject about which I've developed a strong interest and some experience(*), so that I wander if such an interest is somehow shared by other people here around at Wikipedia, people with whom to possibly discuss ideas and projects. 

Thanks for your attention.

- P.M. [private answers to: Studio-PM <at> hotmail <dot> com]

- - - - -= (*) Some recent works of mine at: https://eric-ide.python-projects.org/eric-documentation.html - = -

[It] Argomento: “Documentazione Tecnica”

  Ho sviluppato un particolare interesse, ed esperienza(*), per l'argomento “Documentazione Tecnica” di dispositivi ad alto contenuto tecnologico, e gentilmete chiedo se tale interesse è qui condiviso da altre persone in ambito Wikipedia, persone con cui possibilmente entrare in contatto per valutazioni e progetti sul tema. 

Grazie per l'attenzione.

-P.M. [indirizzo privato: Studio-PM <at> hotmail <dot> com]

- - - - -= (*) Qui alcuni miei recenti lavori: https://eric-ide.python-projects.org/eric-documentation.html - = - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PMBox12-1 (talk)

Partial blocks on Meta-Wiki

Hello Meta contributors,

Anti-Harassment Tool team's is doing ongoing work to improve Special:Block. Last month partial block was introduced on Italian Wikipedia and is now being used on on a regular basis to address vandalism and other kinds of abusive edits. During this first month, the majority of partial blocks set on Italian Wikipedia were to ip contributors and newly created named accounts that are doing vandalism and other common types of abuse. There were also a few partial blocks of ip range blocks making similar abusive edits. Partial blocks makes it possible for the block to be targeted to specific pages and prevent collateral damage that can happen with range blocks.

Since Italian Wikipedia found partial blocks useful and there are no serious known issues or bugs, our team is planning to slowly introduce partial blocks into more Foundation wikis. Our team decided to prioritize deploying to Meta before other wikis because there is the added benefit of giving Meta admins the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the best uses for partial blocks before it comes to their local wiki. Of course, the primary reason for deploying on Meta is so that Meta admins can get the full benefit of all Special:Block's features.

It is scheduled to SWAT deploy to Meta on Thursday, February 21 at 00:00–01:00 UTC (Wednesday 16:00–17:00 PST.) The interface will change and the new partial block function will be added. I anticipate that the most common uses will be similar to requests for blocks made on Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Since currently Meta does not have a detailed policy about blocks, more documentation and discussion about partial blocks uses is probably not needed before the feature is introduced.

For anyone interested in a more detailed policy or guideline, Italian Wikipedia wrote a page that explains the use of partial blocks. Something similar could be added to Meta.

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about introducing partial blocks on Meta. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello SPoore (WMF). I think this would be better in Meta:Babel. In any case, please let me thank you and the AHT team for all your work. I'm sure it's sometimes thankless or sometimes goes unnoticed, and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and say that your work is appreciated. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, MarcoAurelio. I appreciate you noticing. And also your suggestion. I posted there and also a few other pages to get higher exposure without being too spammy. SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Partial Foundation bans

Yesterday the Partial Foundation ban was added as a primary office action. About three hours later it was implemented on dewiki against a user, whose three accounts were already indefinitely banned. The page Office actions/procedures does not outline the process followed for this new type of office action. This Partial Foundation ban lead to considerable discussion on dewiki (e.g. on de:WD:Kurier).

I have a couple of questions regarding partial foundation bans:

  1. What is process followed for Partial Foundation bans?
  2. For the sake of transparency will statements be made about the reasons for implementing a Partial Foundation ban? Even a statement like "For legal/... reasons we cannot supply further information" would help.
  3. Is the WMF planning to become more active in implementing office actions like this on wikis which have so far been mostly self-governing?
  4. Why were the indefinite bans on dewiki not deemed sufficient in this particular case?

It would be great if someone from WMF Trust and Safety involved with this matter could provide some answers.

Best regards, --Count Count (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

+1--Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Count Count,
Thank you for bringing these concerns and questions to us, which we have seen from other members of the German speaking community, too. I will try and answer your questions in order:
  1. As an office action the process leading up to a partial Foundation ban is the same as the one laid out for Foundation global bans here.
  2. The reasons for implementing a partial Foundation ban will be the same as the ones for a global ban with one exception - the problematic actions have not taken place across multiple projects.
  3. The Foundation will continue to investigate cases under the framework of the existing office actions policy. The only change is that it now has new tools that are less intrusive in addressing certain types of concerns.
  4. The investigation explored the community’s deliberations late last year but also took into account that not all of the blocked accounts of the individual were also banned.
You can learn more about this case in the clarifying note on office actions available on the Kurier’s talk page.
I hope the above helps, best regards, --WMFOffice (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. From your answer I got the impression that the main reason why you deemed the actions already taken on dewiki insufficient is that two of the three accounts still had "voluntarily blocked" set as block reason. Is that correct? --Count Count (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Count Count,
The aspect you raise did play a role. As noted in the statement on the Kurier talk page yesterday, not all relevant accounts were covered by steps the community had taken last year. The office actions policy covers bans against individuals and looks at blocks against accounts primarily in such a context. --WMFOffice (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

Trizek (WMF) 15:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): Why is this not taking place on the community venue of the wikiverse, i.e. here, but on the strictly programming only Mediawiki? On MW it's just about the technical implementation of some desired community tools, how they should look like and what features they should have should not be restricted to the pure technical nerds, but those, who have to use those work pages to create better articles. The move from here to MW was definitely a wrong one, as it's not a technical issue but a community issue. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
User:DannyH (WMF) moved it from the community space over to the nerd space. Why did you, Danny, do this? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
It would seem that the issue has been identified and it is working to a mediawiki (software) solution, rather than identifying whether there is a problem. It would also seem that this is being considered a bigger issue than just wikimedia wikis. After consultation at wikis, I would hazard a guess that it is taking conclusions to developers for next steps, rather than discussion here about whether we have an issue. With regard to Danny shifting the page that he started, I am not sure of your concern. There are many like pages that have moved from metawiki to mediawikiwiki when they are bigger than just the wikimedia wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This is about talk pages in the Wikiverse, I couldn't care less but about those other projects, that use our software as well. The central and all encompassing use-case is the Wikiverse, all others have to use, what the Wikiverse will offer them. Whether rechenkraft.net or any other users of our software will have minor problems with it, is not of any concern for us, as long as the Wikiverse gets exactly what it wants. And what the Wikiverse as a community wants ist usually discussed here, on Meta. And of course in the decentrale projects as well. If this is again taken as a pure technical issue, I expect the same disaster as with VE (first implementation) and MV and Flow: some programmers with obviously no real grasp of the projects they are serving with their menial work create some shiny bling that flat out rejected by those, who have to really work with this stuff. Some antisocial dickhead will again use superputsch to get this unwanted bling implemented against the wishes of the only valuable instances: the communities of the running projects in the Wikiverse. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I note that maintaining talk pages as we know them (status quo) is explicitly marked as a non goal. I do not feel invited to contribute then, but I'll try my best; and overall looks like some people is attempting to force onto us a new Flow 2.0. No thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sänger, billinghurst and MarcoAurelio: The purpose of the consultation is to collect information about how people are using (or not using) wiki talk pages, and then discuss possible conflicts and tradeoffs in order to get to a rough consensus on a product direction that we can work on. There's no preconceptions on our part about what the result is going to be. The reason why "status quo" is listed as a non-goal is that there are requests for changes even by people who like the existing talk page system -- like being able to use VE on talk pages, or being able to follow individual threads. It's also possible that we design more than one feature, based on different use cases. Those are all on the table as possibilities, and where we end up depends on everybody's participation.
For Sänger's concern about which wiki the centralized project page is on, I disagree with your interpretation of the symbolism (project page on Meta means we care about users, project page on Mediawiki means that we don't). There are going to be lots of conversations hosted all around the Wikiverse; we're asking right now for people to sign up to help host a discussion on the wikis and in the groups that they call home. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki for Activities

I'm propposing a wiki for activities! -- 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

See Proposals for new projects. I would also encourage you to get an account so that people are able to directly ask questions of you, and to allow for notifications to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Technical proposals

I am a collaborator in different Wikimedia projects. In the coming months I plan to develop a series of technical proposals within the Rapid Grants program of the WMF, with the participation of the communities of the different projects. In a first phase already started, I am compiling opinions on this user subpage of Wikipedia in Spanish, and now I am asking if other projects are interested in having those proposals carried out in them as well. For this, I would like whoever is interested, or is willing to act as an intermediary to facilitate the adaptation to a project, sign on this subpage. Thank you in advance. -jem- (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)