Talk:Wikimedia Foundation website

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


How can we help you?


About this page

  • This page is for discussing wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website. If you have questions or problems related to Wikimedia fundraising or your donation please email donate(a)wikimedia.org.
    • The comments you enter here are publicly viewable, editable, and deletable. If you would prefer to give private feedback about the Foundation website, the Wikimedia Foundation Communications department can be emailed at communications(a)wikimedia.org.
    • Inquiries about a particular Wikimedia project, like a comment about English Wikipedia, are expected to go directly to that wiki. Such comments may simply be removed from this page.
  • You will not receive a reply by email for any feedback given on this page. Instead, feedback will be dealt with by Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors or knowledgeable volunteers. Please note some responses below are from volunteer Wikimedians and have no official approval from the Foundation.
  • All languages are welcome here, however English inquiries are expected to be replied to more quickly.


July 2018 soft launch[edit]

Here is some additional information regarding the July 2018 soft launch of the new Wikimedia Foundation website. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Translations[edit]

Thanks to new partnerships with a number of affiliates and contributors, this site will be initially available in multiple languages. Once the site launches, we will assess how this partnership model worked, make adjustments, and begin assessing additional languages to add. As these translations are entered, additional design features (such as the vision statement being displayed a second time in different languages) will become more apparent. We are excited about the multilingual approach we are taking with this new website, and are eager to show off its full capacity and design in the coming weeks. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Do translations use a modern software, such as the Translate extension? --Nemo 07:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The site uses a CMS-based backend translation system which the designated translators for the target languages will have access to. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Policies[edit]

This site includes a privacy policy for Wikimedia Foundation sites not operating on a wiki platform. Additionally, the content of the site is being made available under a Creative Commons license. We have worked to correctly tag all existing content, and have systems in place to help sustain that as new content is added. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Site performance[edit]

During soft launch, we have identified some glitches with site performance and are working to correct them. We have already reduced site load time by 67% and will continue to work on improvements. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Bugs[edit]

We have eliminated a number of reported bugs over the past week, thanks in large part to the successful soft launch and feedback we received via email and on Phabricator. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

This is apparently a response to a thread on wikimedia-l:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-August/090828.html

where several of the issues mentioned above, and more besides, were raised. I have just replied in the original thread, about two of the issues I raised, which remain unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Greetings, yesterday we completed some additional content review - which among other things included modifications to the content you had concerns with. We have also verified that we are able to utilize the photo you asked about. Thank you. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Broken links[edit]

As some users already pointed out in the wikimedia-l mailing list, all old URLs are broken. It has been proposed to redirect all URLs with prefix https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/ to the wiki. I think that would be a good solution, since now there are a lot of broken links both from other Wikimedia wikis and external sites. --MarioGom (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I’ve said about this and I’ll say it again. Edits like this one (visible on every page of Russian Wikipedia, for example) should’ve been made by Foundation employees before making the site live, if a redirect that was discussed before wasn’t developed by anyone. Keeping 404 links from all pages because of this ‘soft launch’ is unacceptable. stjn[ru] 13:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Updating incoming links beyond the interwiki map is good, but clearly the old https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/ URLs should just redirect to the new URLs foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/ where they fail. It takes a couple lines of Apache configuration to achieve this. --Nemo 07:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello. We agree that maintaining links to active content is important. That is why we setup nearly 300 redirects prior to launch (which included the page that Russian Wikipedia updated). There have also been efforts to update the links in the code (which is where the primary links to policies exists). Given the multiple destinations, planned changes to Governance Wiki (archival content will not be kept there for example), and reality that we want many people to end up on the new site vs. the Governance Wiki, setting up a general redirect is not the best solution. We have documented the redirects on Phabricator, and are monitoring requests there and looking at data on 404 errors to make sure links to active content being used regularly are maintained. Please let me know if there are links to active content which are not working, and we can look into it. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It should be possible to set the general redirect as a fallback when no specific redirect exist. Old content could be tagged as such, but that is an orthogonal aspect. I cannot understand how leaving tons of 404 pages behind is an acceptable migration path. --MarioGom (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Most, if not all, press releases are redirected to a generic press page. That is not useful. If someone linked a specific press release, he probably meant to link that specific press release, not a general press page. --MarioGom (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Other missing redirects: Advisory Board, Consiglio Direttivo. --MarioGom (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. For now, we would like people utilizing press releases to discover the new site. The target audience for them are members of the press, so we want them to discover the new home of information for them. This will help them better find future press releases. We have a link to where past press releases are stored for now. Additionally, many of the press releases from recent years are also on the Wikimedia blog. The other links that you provided are to content which is out of date (the Board page had not been updated since 2013) and are good examples of why we do not want a general redirect and instead want people to land on the new web site. We do not want to send them to content which is no longer being maintained and often contains information which is no longer accurate (and will not be on the Governance Wiki for very long either). Content that is being actively maintained and referenced, we are setting up redirects for. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sending user data to a third party[edit]

The site currently uses a tracking pixel to send user data to an external site not controlled by Wikimedia, which uses that data for ad-targeting purposes.

For an extra bit of irony, this happens on the same main page that highlights the WMF's commitment not to "sell or share your email address or any of your personal information with third parties". --Yair rand (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Piping user data directly to stats.wp.com, awesome. Emoji u1f914.svg — regards, Revi 07:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The site is closed-source[edit]

I'm speechless. --Yair rand (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. As I mentioned on the Phabricator ticket you linked to, the codebase will be made publicly available. Additional information and ongoing discussion about the process and related questions are in the Phabricator ticket. Thank you. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

huh?[edit]

feedback will be dealt with by knowledgeable volunteers (At the header)

How can we (volunteer) help when we have no whatsoever-possible way of editing contents there? Foundation should deal with the blames on their own WordPress at their own expense, don't count on us.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I've read the section about 'closed-source' and you have a plan to open it, still my opinion remains same. The task there sounds like the source code, and not the 'contents' itself.) — regards, Revi 07:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I have made some additional copyedits to the above header (which is itself from the old Foundation wiki feedback page). --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about the new Foundation website appearance[edit]

Is it the intention that the mission statement and background image should fill the browser window when one visits the root url of the site?

I ask because, while nice in appearance, it means I must actively scroll down in order to see any links, navigation, etc. Perhaps there could be an arrow or a button or other non-scroll means to reveal the navigation items?

In case it matters: Linux, FF 16.0.1, laptop, browser window is not full screen but is sized to take up almost all of the screen vertically and most space horizontally though leaving a bit more space for stacking other windows.

Thanks! -- ArielGlenn (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@ArielGlenn: Thank you for the feedback! What you are describing depends a bit on the device and screen size. I will bring it up and your suggestions when we next discuss design ideas for this site (which will be in the coming weeks). --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

comment about the new website[edit]

All this money the Foundation has now and it chooses to outsource its own website. How disappointing. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 04:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Basic display and copy editing bugs in the new web site[edit]

I went to the Phab page linked above, which shows only four bugs (how can that be?). I may have gone to the wrong page. Anyway, here are some obvious cosmetic bugs I noticed when I went to the site for the first time today:

  • On the English site, the main header is a long sentence in German.
  • On my screen, the white-space padding next to text is not right. For example, in the sentence "We conduct our own research and partner with researchers worldwide to address change in society and technology.", the line breaks at "worldwide", and there is no white space padding to the left of "worldwide". This also happens to the right of words at the end of left-justified lines, as in the Technology section description.
  • Inconsistent copy editing. Two of the three statements on the yellow background near the bottom say "200,000+ editors contribute to the Wikimedia projects every month" and "1+ billion unique devices access Wikimedia projects every month". Is it "the Wikimedia projects" or just "Wikimedia projects"? I don't care which you choose, but pick a style and use it consistently.
  • More copy editing. The "We respect your data" section is missing the word "and". "in your homework" should be "into your homework".

The irony, of course, is that if this were a wiki, editors could easily fix all of these problems. Good luck with the new site! Jonesey95 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Thank you for these edits. We have made the appropriate copyedits and I will pass along the padding note to design team. Thank you! --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick two-day turnaround on the copy edits! The big oops of the large German sentence (in h2 tags and not tagged as German-language text, on a page marked as lang=en-US) on the English page is still not fixed. It should be a quick and easy copy/paste from the screen-filling initial text/image banner above. Good luck with the padding. If you need CSS help from en.WP volunteers, there are plenty at the Village Pump who would be willing to help, I'm sure. Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The German text is still not marked with a lang tag, and the padding is still wrong. I'll be happy to help with the technical side if you need it. Jonesey95 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. For now we have the help needed on the technical side thanks to the amazing folks in the Audiences department, the delay is more related to the translation side. We are working to enable full functionality as quickly as possible, and appreciate the help from affiliates we are receiving in those efforts. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There are some lingering technical tasks related to the new Governance Wiki if you want to check those out on Phabricator. We can always use technical help somewhere I am sure. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Blog migration[edit]

Is it planned to fully migrate the old blog? As in:

  • Will old URLs for posts be redirected to the new ones?
  • Will the new blog preserve translations? For example, for this post translated to Russian ([1]), I cannot find its translated counterpart in the new blog.

Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: The old blog will remain up at its current address, so there are not plans at this time to setup redirects. However, we will review that again when we more completely archive it (right now it is up as a dynamic site, we are looking into switching it to less resource intensive static site). Translations for old blog posts will be worked on after translations for the main site are completed. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Developed and operated by WMF[edit]

The second sentence doesn't seem quite right. As of writing, it states:

Unlike Wikimedia projects, the website is wholly owned, developed, and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Upon initially reading this sentence, I assumed it was just missing the word "not" after "is". Given that the new site was developed by Mule Design and third-party engineers via WordPress VIP, and is operated by Automattic Inc. Looking at the edit history, however, I realized it's been there since the initial revision.

Given the other wording and screenshot at the time, I assume it was meant to describe the site as it was up until last month; the wiki that was moved to foundation.wikimedia.org and renamed Governance Wiki. However, this statement seems inaccurate about that wiki as well. The foundationwiki, just like all other Wikimedia projects and all its public, private and fishbowl wikis are "wholly owned, developed, and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation".

If I try a bit harder, I can guess that the intention was to explain that the foundationwiki is a fishbowl wiki where "edit" access rights was restricted to WMF staff. However, that isn't the case, either. The foundationwiki is, and always has been, accessible to selected volunteers for which accounts with edit rights are created to help keep things tidy and up-to-date. There are numerous active accounts from volunteers on foundationwiki ( example).

With the new site, this last statement has likely become true. The blog administration presumably only has logins for WMF staff, and this may become true for GovernanceWiki as well. But, curation of content is still not site ownership, site development or site operation. I think a rephrasing is in order to better communicate what the website is and is not. Thanks! --Krinkle (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Krinkle: This has been the case for these sites since at least May 2013 when the Foundation more formally decided it was responsible for the Foundation's site (in the same way affiliates are responsible for theirs) and changed the requirements for administrator accounts. That does not mean others may not be involved in helping, but the responsibility for their content and such rests with the Foundation - unlike the project wikis where we often cannot change the content (unless out of legal necessity), let alone take responsibility for the content's maintenance. However, I am certainly open to other wording if you have a suggestion. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gregory: I believe I have adequately shown above that this statement is false beyond any reasonable doubt.

  • The words "owned", "developed", and "operated" all accurately describe WMF's relation to the Wikimedia projects, which your statement directly contradicts.
  • The words "developed" and "operated" are explicitly not true about WMF's relation to the new foundation site, and you know that, and have publicly stated that in numerous places. This isn't a secret. Are you attempting to deny this?
  • The word "owned" is true for both. WMF owns the trademarks and the content in both cases. The copyright in owned in neither cases as the majority of content copyright is held by the original authors and merely publicly licensed on their behalf ("Copyright WMF" on either Wikipedia pages or the foundation site would be incorrect). Yet, your statement explicitly says that WMF does not own Wikimedia projects.

Lastly, there are several statements on this talk page from you about legal responsibility which is indeed uniquely true about the foundation's site (old and new). Those statements are not in question. Perhaps a formulation of them should take the place of the quoted statement on the subject page?

The current phrasing is actively hurting your colleagues who work hard on Wikipedia's independence, and is also actively misleading readers of this page who are unaware of the new site's true nature. If you are unable to formulate a true statement in its stead, it would be best to remove the sentence as first measure. Additionally, I'm sure Melody or Ed on your team would be more than happy to help you devise a statement that isn't false. --Krinkle (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)