User talk:MusikAnimal (WMF)

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

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | Kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello, MusikAnimal (WMF). Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

xaosflux Talk 18:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi. I've flagged the bot but I can still see their changes on Special:RecentChanges. Maybe you should review its code to see if there's a &bot=0 or something else that allows the bot to ignore their bot flag. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 11:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Should be fixed! I wasn't able to add the assert=bot beforehand because it didn't have the flag :) Many thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

hi Leon Ziemba , I know i'm late & Voting phase will begins November 28th .can i request for adding my proposal.plz.THANKS.

Complete Reliability, Factual Accuracy Solution[edit]

  • Problem: Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. According to Academics [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] & Harvard [8] ,Carleton [9],livescience [10] ,forbos [11],guardian [12] ,nature [13] wikipedia articles are "not enough RELIABLE" for academic research/study.some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. [14] [15] [16]. And there is "Lack of methodical fact-checking "...Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. [17] .. For a list of hoaxes that have occurred on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia .
  1. Accuracy is the biggest problem about Wikipedia . Anyone can add subtle nonsense  or erroneous information to articles that can take weeks, months or years to be detected and removed (which has been happening since at least 2002). Deliberate hoaxes can also be perpetrated.
  2. Even unregistered users are capable of this. For example, some one can just come and edit this very page and put in "khats r four doughs onlee" or add mention of some unrelated topic: ===like how great pineapple pizza is===
  3. Dross can proliferate, rather than become refined, as rhapsodic authors have their articles revised by ignorant editors.
  • Who would benefit: all wiki reader & editor . 18 billion user every month . pageview 18 billion every month.[18][19][20]
  • Proposed solution:I have a five step solution .

1.(Easy reporting): by Making it much easier for people to report "factual accuracy", misinformation faster. google,google news,facebook [21] ,twitter,bing everyone have a interactive reporting & feedback system .We can have a interactive reporting in wikipedia similar to google feedback [22] (with screenshot ; highlight issue in "yellow" & Black out private information private information) for highlighting a specific block/line . In wikipedia articles , we can have a [Report] link in every section ,beside [Edit] link . In reporting , there should have features for adding ,section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category., There are several noticeboards (for  inaccurate content  &  factual inaccuracy) at which accuracy disputes may be listed to gain the views of other editors, particularly the Dispute resolution , Fringe theoriesreliable sourcesno original researchneutral point-of-view, Conflict of Interest and biographies of living persons noticeboards.All report should go there or open a request for mediation (RFM) & Requests for Comment . some report should go here and here.In this way, we have a possibility  to get 18 billion "factual accuracy" report in every month  :) . [23][24][25]

2.(Algorithm): Leverage algorithms and artificial intelligence.Stronger detection Algorithm .Facebook already using machine learning—different algorithms than the ones that drive the Trending section—to try and catch misinformation on the platform . We can have a Algorithm similar to google,facebook [26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] & twitter  [32] fake news algorithm .When a user create a article with Factual Accuracy/misinformation,claim,Fringe theories , original research ; without proper citation ; then the Algorithm should automatically add section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category. ...from reliable sources guideline , we can create a algorithm for "cross check ". when a editor insert a citation then it & will automatically start cross-checking the content with other similar reliable source & will create a " reliability meter ".

3.(Third party verification): Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by many respected fact checking organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter’s Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself. Google added a fact check tag on Google News in order to display articles that contain factual information next to trending news items.[33].Facebook using snopes [34] is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture, receiving 300,000 visits a day. [35] The Reporters’ Lab at Duke University maintains a database managed by Mark Stencel and Bill Adair of fact checking organizations. The database tracks more than 100 non-partisan organizations around the world. Articles are also examined based upon whether the site examines transparency of sources and methods, tracks political promises, examines all parties and sides, and examines discreet claims and reaches conclusions.

4.(User Right): We can have a user right group "Fact Checker". This user group will have some expertise & tools .Or, this right can be added to Admin group. they will get notified , when point 1.(Easy reporting) will happen , mainly for goodA ,GA &  B  articles. They will try to solve Factual Accuracy from these category as much as they can .

5.(reliability meter): in visual editor cite templates , we can add reliability meter . from the help of point 2.(Algorithm) ; every reader will see "reliability meter " , when they click in the "citation " & in "REFERENCES" .there is third party databases [36] [37] [38] [39] or we can create our own . when Reliability/Accuracy 100-81% ; we will see Red dot . when Reliability/Accuracy 80-61% ; we will see Red dot . when Reliability/Accuracy 60-50% ; we will see Red dot .

  • More comments:
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer:--- md masum (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    Community discussion:
@Ahm masum: Hey! I'm sorry to say the proposals phase of the wishlist survey has concluded, and we'll have to decline this for now. I highly suspect the work involved might be too ambitious for our team anyway, if that makes you feel any better. Nonetheless I'm impressed by the research you've put into the idea, and I think it's worth seeking other venues to pursue it. First try consulting your local community, they may be able to help with #4, adding a new "fact checker" user right. These user groups are configurable on a per-wiki basis, and if consensus permits we can help with that. Hope this helps, and sorry my reply could not be more favourable! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

How to do Oppose/Neutral votes in a numbered list[edit]

Do it like so...

  1. Support Support
  2. Support Support
    Oppose Oppose
  3. Support Support

Basically, just indent the 'Oppose' and 'Neutral' votes, and then, they won't be counted. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is less confusing for people, which sifting through the pages appears to be numbering :) We have our own automated system counting supports, so we don't need to indent. I see that's how it was done last year, so numbers it is! Thanks MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

wishlist categories[edit]

the two categories editing and misc both contain the most proposals and the most votes of all cats. would it still be possible to split this two cats for better overview? in the case of misc it might be possible to split a mail&notifications cat?

btw: user page "became in admin" -> "became an admin" ??

--𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 11:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We are nearing the end, so I think at think point we might stick it out, if not just to avoid confusion (there are a lot of links to specific proposals on those pages, etc). Better categorization is yet another thing we'll work to improve next year :) Thanks for pointing out the error on my userpage, fixed! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Log capabilities[edit]

Hello MusikAnimal (WMF), do you know if the logging system has a "cheap" way to query logs for "what was" values? For example on the move log, given the current title - what was the prior title? On the global rename log, given the current username, what was the prior username? If this would be better directed elsewhere - please let me know. — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: If you want to use the API, for global renames, there is an "olduser" value in the "params" hash [40]. If you want to query the database directly, parse the log_params of the row in the logging table [41]. From there you can use regex to figure out the old username, something like /olduser";s:\d*:"(.*?)";/, where the (.*?) would capture the username. For the move log, I'm not actually sure how to do it with the API. With the database you'd search within log_params, instead of parsing it [42]. These queries still run reasonably fast, but if by "cheap" you meant easy, maybe the answer is no :) Hope this helps! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
By cheap I mean fast - as in fast enough to request getting these incorporated to the front end like other log search parameters. — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: It goes sufficiently fast, I think. I'm sure there's a reason it was omitted from the front end, not sure :/ Seems worth investigating, though! Did you create a phab? I would like to follow MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been searching for one - I can't imagine noone has asked for the move log type before - probably in bugzilla land with an odd title. — xaosflux Talk 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Possibly phab:T40123 would encompass? — xaosflux Talk 21:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, actually it that were resolved it should fix our issue. You were right, an old bugzilla with an odd title :) The issue they are having is indeed about moving pages in general, not just when they've been protected. I have ran into this before, where I had to dig through a bunch of logs before I could figure out who originally protected the page (since it will say "User:NotAnAdmin moved protection settings from A to B"). So annoying MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, phab:T152829 and phab:T152830 created - I'm sure someone will jump right on them :D — xaosflux Talk 04:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


[43][44]: Perhaps you and User:DannyH (WMF) should agree on a "correct version" instead of changing it forth and back. ;-) --Vogone (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep :) The process sort of changed, and there was definitely also some lack of communication. At any rate, we've learned a lot. Next year will go much smoother, I think! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Ha, silly. I was trying to be helpful. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Me too :(( … Is it possible to seperate the support votes section next year? I mean comment, neutral and oppose aren't insignificant, but it is very confusing to find a proposal having 25 entries and only six supporters. Yesterday I wanted to read less supported proposals primarily to save a bit time – nonessential to raise strong supported entries. But that's no fun on a controversial topic, because »only support votes are counted« in any case. Only how many? --Plagiat (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Community_Tech_bot/WishlistSurvey/Votes might be helpful. --Vogone (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thx! Can we announce this pagelink within template WISHLIST2016/Category header? Okay - now it's a bit late, but next year? --Plagiat (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
That report is meant for internal purposes. Guess the word got out :) Not sure if we'll advertise it next year either. We will share a nicely formatting table when voting closes, though. Thanks MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

#188: Two Factor -> T129747[edit]

Sure? Seems to be a mismatch? --𝔊 (Gradzeichen DiſkTalk) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

A bot parsed all the proposals to find the phab tickets. Seems there was a bug! :) Thanks for letting me know. We still need to go through all the "related" phabs, as they may or may not be actually relevant (the bot lists any phab that's linked to in the discussion/voting sections). This obviously will take considerable time, and we didn't want to hold back the results from everyone in the interim. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey Templates[edit]

Hello MusikAnimal!

May I ask you why you are using 2016 in following pagetitels?

  • 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/ar
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/de
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/en
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/es
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/fi
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/fr
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/ja
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/lt
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/pa
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/pl
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/ro
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/tr
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/vi
  • 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/ar
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/de
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/en
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/es
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/fi
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/ja
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/lt
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/pl
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/ro
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/tr
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/vi
  • 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ar
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ba
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/de
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/en
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/es
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ja
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/lt
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ro
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/tr
2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/vi

I think it would be better to remove the year, so that we can use them every year. I would do this, but I have no authorization. Could @Johan or @Danny contribute something? --Plagiat (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Plagiat: Wonderful idea, we can definitely re-use these next year, along with other similar messages :) Community Wishlist Survey exists as a redirect to the current survey, but indeed we could start nesting all reusable pages under it. I will try to do this soon, but in the meantime I'll update 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Lessons learned to suggest we centralize anything that could be reused year to year. Thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


About stats: mw:Talk:Wikistats 2.0 Design Project/RequestforFeedback/Round1/Site dashboard. Wikisource stats: Aubrey (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been using Massviews with your edit for over a week now, and I love it. It is definitely something we needed, so thanks! My only desire now (but I really don't know the depth of the complexity here), would be a combination of Massviews + Topviews: would it be possible to count the views of the books (with subpages) and order them by count? At least weekly/monthly? Right know I'm checking book by book, but it's not sustainable. As you can see our Topviews gives us single pages. Not sure if I already asked you this, in any case thank you again. Aubrey (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aubrey: That would be quite nice! However, this indeed would be very complex. The issue is Topviews pulls from the /top endpoint of the Pageviews API, which only gives us single articles. What I could do is automatically process those pages and subpages, but then the ordering may be off. I'd have to go through all 1,000 top pages to ensure the ordering is correct. Additionally some of the pages the API gives us may not actually be the main page of the book :/ Worst of all, this approach would slow things down tremendously.
One thing I can do, which is not a solution, is include a link on Topviews to view the page and subpages in Massviews. That way you at least don't have to copy/paste the page titles into Massviews one by one. How does that sound? Not ideal, but hopefully an improvement :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a low-hanging fruit useful enough. I don't really care about the correct order of the first 1000, but it's important to me to know the core books of Wikisource. As Wikipedia, we follow some kind of power law, so it's important to know which are the most read books we have. Aubrey (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)