Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Metapub)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

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


RevisionSlider[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Project proposal: WikiSymbols[edit]

https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiSymbols

"Enabling visual communication"

The proposed WikiSymbols is about symbols/icons that can be understood by people from different cultures and different educational backgrounds as well as illiterate people. WikiSymbols enables (intercultural) communication without words. Contributors to the proposed WikiSymbols design symbols for all kinds of words and upload them with different tags so they can be found. Users worldwide can then download them and use them for websites, presentations, ... simply communication without words. The symbols could also be integrated into other wiki projects.

The contributors can choose whether their symbol/icon has a public domain licence or a creative common licence. The icon can driectly be downloaded in both cases. In the case of public domain, the creator of the icon/symbol has not to be credited. In the case of creative commons, the creator of the icon has to be credited.

Status Quo: There are already a couple of websites that aim to make icons more accessible. To name two successful/popular of them: The Noun Project (https://thenounproject.com/) and iconfinder.com

iconfinder.com recently has reached more than 1,000,000 icons. The most popular sites that sell icons have each 1-7 million unique visitors per month. Estimations are that there are tens of thousands if not hundred thousand contributors to these sites. They are marketplaces with high commission rates. For example, at The Noun Project (a company which started with donations from kickstarter) designers earn an average 0,03$ per sold icon. There are therefore many designers who would rather give them away for free than to sell them at these platforms.

There is already a lot of symbols/icons at Wikimedia Commons. (Maybe someone knows how many?) The symbols at Commons are not that easy to find though. To attract more designers who would contribute it is necessary to present the symbols/icons in a more prominent place.

Symbols There are many free icons on c:. You may want to talk to users there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Justin for the advice, I will talk to users at wikimedia commons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GabrielVogel (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2016

Sanskrit Wikipedia looking for techies[edit]

Looks like they'd like to have their home page compatible with mobile devices, and past attempts to fix the issue didn't work. Anyone willing to help there? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Request a community discussion to unblock my account[edit]

Greetings all, I am requesting my account be unblocked here on meta.

I am requesting here because Barras protected my talk page to prevent me from being able to rebut his baseless accusations on my last request. He is doing this while involved in a dispute because I have criticized him and a couple of his friends for multiple violations of site policy and are now refusing to unblock my account and are preventing other admins from doing it as well. They made the decision to do this unilaterally and without discussion from the community. In fact the last time I requested here AlexZ reverted it to prevent the community from even discussing the issue, which I had hoped someone would have questioned.

So now, I am requesting an appeal of my block, that was placed and is being maintained by 2 involved admins with a personal vendetta against me, to the larger meta community.

So I respectfully request my account be unblocked as it is on every other WMF site except the English Wikipedia (and obviously I do not agree with that either).

One or 2 admins should not be able to ban someone because they don't like the editor. Especially when they are personally and deeply involved with the editor in question. Banning a long term contributor to a project is something that should only be done by the community and in this case there is no reason to do so. Banning someone should be a last resort done after discussion, not to be pointy, to win a dispute, to extort the editor into doing what they want or to get rid of a user who doesn't share that admins viewpoint. Reguyla. 2601:5CC:101:5DEB:6D8D:2D36:7702:1156 02:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy[edit]

When I try to discuss matters on Wikipedia it is very common for someone to come forward and tell me the following:

The community have already discussed this issues and settled it, so it does not matter what you say. We will not listen. You must comply with what has been decided by the community.

This talk can be acceptable if the community decisions were reached by democratic means (i.e. voting of all members of the community, or voting of democratically elected representatives of the community); but clearly this is not what happens in Wikipedia. The "community decisions" in Wikipedia are decisions reached by some little groups of Wikipedians who happen to be there when the discussions take place. Since administrators spend much more time on Wikipedia than other contributors, they have a bigger role in making "community decisions" than the rest of Wikipedians. When administrators consider such decisions as final and nonnegotiable, the situation that arises is close to an oligarchy, where a small elite controls the community.

This is especially true in some non-English versions of Wikipedia where the administrators are practically the only members of the community who are allowed to contribute. The admins write most of the articles' content (which is not a great content), and when others attempt to contribute they are practically not allowed because of some nonsensical rules. When those rules are challenged, the answer will be "those are the community rules and you cannot change them," which is absurd.--HD86 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like some of what you're saying here is completely unfounded generalization. Admins write most of the content? I'm not sure that is the case now or has been the last eight years. With regards to bringing up prior points that are immediately dismissed because of previous discussions, I agree with you. Wikipedians can be mean and sticklers. However, there are some things that are brought up multiple times and still have value in being discussed. Do not be dismayed. As in life, cordially ignore those who warrant ignoring and continue to incite discussion and change. Killiondude (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like some of what you're saying here is completely unfounded generalization. Admins write most of the content? I'm not sure that is the case now or has been the last eight years.

I cannot scientifically prove it because I do not have the means, but given the rules of the Arabic Wiki and how it generally works, it is likely that most of the content there is written by the admins, because it is exceedingly difficult for anybody else to contribute on regular basis. Anyways, I did discuss the Arabic Wiki somewhere else and this is not my main point here. I just wanted to respond to the claim that we cannot challenge "community decisions." This claim has nothing to do with democracy because Wikipedia is not a democracy.--HD86 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I will try to get some update from somebody related to Arabic Wikipedia. --Muzammil (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Which Wikimedia Project?[edit]

I want to contribute to wikimedia by writing a previously-written manual. Should I write it onto Wikisource or Wikibooks? Wetitpig0 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia community! Wikibooks is for manuals. --Doostdar (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)