Meta:Babel

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 ← Index of discussion pages Babel archives (latest) →
This is the general discussion forum for Meta (this wiki). Before you post a new comment please note the following:
  • You can comment here in any language.
  • This forum is primarily for discussion of Meta policies and guidelines, and other matters that affect more than one page of the wiki.
  • If your comment only relates to a single page, please post it on the corresponding discussion page (if necessary, you can provide a link and short description here).
  • For notices and discussions related to multilingualism and translation, see Meta:Babylon and its discussion page.
  • For information about how to indicate your language abilities on your user page ("Babel templates"), see User language.
  • To discuss Wikimedia in general, please use the Wikimedia Forum.
  • Consider whether your question or comment would be better addressed at one of the major Wikimedia "content projects" instead of here.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Semi-protection of certain pages related to WMF and policies[edit]

I wonder if pages like Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (that is, ones that cover the various bodies of the Foundation and policies) shouldn't be semi-protected. While there isn't exactly a huge number of vandalisms on them, I'm also not sure if allowing non-autoconfirmed users to edit them has any real value. We certainly cannot expect such users to expand the content in these pages and the nature of the pages means that usually there's little to have fixed on them either, not to mention how this also may affect the translations. Checking the history, I think I see only vandalisms by non-autoconfirmed, which just waste patroller resources and dirty the history. But it also isn't that I'm insisting on semi-protection, just sharing my thoughts about the idea.
— Luchesar • T/C 10:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So, most WMF staff accounts aren't autoconfirmed, and having at least the possibility of them being able to helpfully contribute is important. I know they currently tend not to so, but I think we should try to leave the option open. --Yair rand (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
This makes sense, indeed. I guess they could also all be confirmed manually, but obviously if there isn't a pressure (i.e. persistent vandalism on these pages or lack of patrollers), it isn't worth the effort. Thank you for the explanation, Yair rand!
— Luchesar • T/C 17:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
An option would be for members of WMF Office IT to add any newly-created staff accounts to confirmed group after creation. Or automate the process either in the software or with a bot. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Ugg please don't that will just pollute the group - especially since we only have it otherwise maintainable by 'crats. (Perhaps if we let admins deal with it). — xaosflux Talk 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would like to go in a different direction, and to start labeling which pages the Wikimedia community is and is not allowed to edit on Meta. Right now there is ambiguity. I feel that if there is a page on Meta-Wiki, then that page should be in wiki-voice presenting the wiki-view, and anyone should be allowed to edit it and discuss on the talk page. In general, the WMF has one perspective because that is what organizations by nature present, and the Wikimedia community presents diverse perspectives because by nature that is what a community like ours does. I sense a growing conflict of interest as the WMF seeks to both control what text is on Meta-Wiki pages and assert that this text is the view of the Wikimedia community here.
To address this tension I propose to post {{community}} on pages where the Wikimedia community would like to edit, but where there is also ambiguity about who is allowed to edit.
Other steps that I propose are the creation of a category, something like Category:WMF maintained or Category:Priority WMF, which instead of a hard protection on the page would set the boundary that community members can make minor fixes but the text is here in Meta to present the WMF view. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is a great example - there is a way that the WMF presents the community engagement process around this organization, and the Wikimedia community presents another view. We should not immediately double all of these things, but in some cases, WMF staff will prevent or revert wiki community changes to certain Meta pages. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: There are no pages on Meta that the community is not allowed to edit. All pages here are community-run. No exceptions. Meta-Wiki is defined as Wikimedia's "global community site". Symbolic of this, we use the Wikimedia Community Logo, which is the one logo that the WMF doesn't have a trademark on.
There is a Category:Maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, which specifically states that "Inclusion in this category is NOT meant to imply that others cannot also participate in maintaining the content." and "The category is primarily for tracking purposes, and not meant to imply ownership of the content." The WMF staffers involved are very clear about this point. --Yair rand (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I presented this discussion at Talk:Office_actions#Concept_of_WMF_prohibition_on_page_editing, where there is some belief that only the Wikimedia Foundation should present its views on that policy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The "Wikimedia Community perspective" is subjective. Those pages serve to document and explain to readers the subject of those pages, not to provide an opinion on it. By no means should it be the "Wikimedia Community perspective". There isn't any other neutral view of office bans, for example, except that which explains how office bans work, plainly, like it currently is. Best, Vermont (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reformation of Babel[edit]

English for Google Translate: Our Babel is very old-fashioned compared to Uncyclopedia. I propose a renovation already! I could even help but I do not know the Wikipedia-Babel source code. If anyone knows, let me know.
Português por eu mesmo: Nossa Babel está muito antiquada em comparação com a da Desciclopédia. Proponho uma reforma já! Até poderia ajudar mas não sei o código-fonte da Babel da Desciclopédia. Se alguém souber me avise por favor.
IPad365 (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

What is "our babel"? Your link is broken. Stryn (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia babel. IPad365 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you link to it? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
~~ IPad365 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
So compared to what? Both the links you're comparing are the same, that's Wikipedia portal: https://www.wikipedia.org. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey, so see my comment up there, I meant Uncyclopedia instead of Wikipedia. I want to change the source code. IPad365 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not true. It was www.wikipedia.org link first before you later changed it. When next you want refactor you comment you should use <s>...</s> tags to strike the old comment. Don't just overwrite what people replied on. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Who is the only person who has the power to edit here? IPad365 (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
We don't know what you're talking about. What exactly are you saying needs to be changed? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Import request[edit]

Copy from outreach:Wikimedia:Village_pump#Auto-updating_WiR_table

I'm in the process of writing some templates to be able to make the Wikipedian_in_Residence table easier to maintain using wikidata. In order to implement w:Template:WiR_table_row here, could I request the import of:

  1. w:module:WikidataIB/sandbox to outreach:module:WikidataIB
  2. w:Template:WiR_table_row to outreach:Template:WiR_table_row
  3. w:Template:WiR_table_start to outreach:Template:WiR_table_start

Let me know if you think there are better locations for it to be hosted than on outreachwiki.

Thank you! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done @Evolution and evolvability: Meta users are unable to assist with outreachwiki imports. Please talk to their admins.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Ah, thanks. I thought there was more overlap. I'll talkpage message a few people on that list. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Updated request to import to meta: Outreachwiki had lower activity than I thought. Per this discussion, it might be better to implement the table on meta at Wikipedian in Residence. Therefore could I update my import requests to be to this wiki:

  1. w:module:WikidataIB/sandbox to module:WikidataIB
  2. w:Template:WiR_table_row to Template:WiR_table_row
  3. w:Template:WiR_table_start to Template:WiR_table_start

Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

To do this we need (per phab:T171140 IIRC) Wikidata to support linking to outreachwiki, and outreachwiki supports query datas from Wikidata, Otherwise nothing can work here. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Do you know when outreachwiki will get it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started[edit]

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Global IP block exemption pages[edit]

Global IP block exemption is currently redirected to Global blocks#Exemptions but we have a Global IP block exemptions page as well. So is there anything to do with that redirect? --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly retargeted the redirect to Global IP block exemptions. May as well make it redirect to the page that has a nearly identical name. Anyone can revert me if they want. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project[edit]

06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Community desysop policy[edit]

It seems we do not have a community desysop policy. Should we have one? The last desysop discussion happened in 2013.--GZWDer (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we need one? As the past two cases show, desysop discussions by the community are already permitted. I don't think we need a policy and formal bureaucratic structure for something that has been used twice in nearly two decades. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)