Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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
This box: view · talk · edit

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

RfC on enabling two-factor verification for all users[edit]

There's an RfC on enabling two-factor verification (2FA) for all users across all Wikimedia projects. Please vote and comment! --Rezonansowy (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, this is about expanding two-factor verification functionality access to all users. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines for user pages on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello! I first asked this question in another forum, but am now placing it right, to see if there are more answers/input here. I would like to know if/why policies and guidelines for user pages differ on different languages on Wikipedia? My user page that looks the same in maybe 10-20 languages keeps being deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia and I can´t understand why. I have asked why on my discussion page there and on one of the editors discussion pages, that deleted it but I have received no answer or help to change what ever they think is wrong with it. I can´t see what could possibly be wrong or break any rules and in no other language have there ever been any complaints during my years here. So if anyone can help me get an explanation and straighten out what rules apply for user pages (and if/why they don´t apply for the Spanish Wikipedia for some reason) I would be thankful. I got one answer guessing that it could be because I wrote a couple of (non controversial) personal views there and that these doesn't belong on a user page, in some languages. It seems strange to me but maybe that is so. The person who answered me also said that "there are no global policy for user pages, and some projects are stricter than the others".

I find it strange that they can actually delete an entire user page just because a person writes one opinion on their own page. That seems very harsh, without a warning or anything. On the Swedish Wikipedia's user pages you can write freely about any subjects you wish, expressing/presenting your personality and views, so this is quite different. Had I written it in actual articles I would understand that the sentence would be deleted, but not the whole page. And the fact that no one seems to bother to answer me puzzles me a bit also. So it seems like the Spanish Wikipedia is very strict in this case and maybe it should be made clear whats ok and whats not? It would help if it differs this much on the different projects. I recreated my user page again, without these sentences and will see how it goes, if the problem was that or if they delete everything again without contacting me first. I don´t want to be blocked because Spanish Wikipedia differ so much in rules from other languages and I keep breaking them, not understanding them. But hopefully this will be ok. I think information on whats ok to have on your presentation/user page would be useful to have when you press to create one; before you publish think over if the text contains this that is ok, or this that is not, a little check list so one knows. The way it is when you create an article. Sorry for the long post! Frökennostalgi (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: they deleted my user page again, even though I asked them to contact me instead so I could correct whatever was wrong (and after changing what we guessed was wrong). I don´t understand this. Is there anyone who can help me with this? They seem very hard to communicate with and indifferent to my tries. Frökennostalgi (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest that you have/leave your user page at esWP deleted, and utilise a global user page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your input billinghurst! Maybe I will, it seems impossible to solve this in any other way since no one there answers me. And all this has made my wish to contribute to the Spanish version of Wikipedia vanish actually, for the lack of civility, communication and respect that they have shown this past month. I still think some guidelines should be placed, so they can´t treat people like this just because they have some secret local idea of what is acceptable but can´t inform people of it. Frökennostalgi (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Frökennostalgi, I would guess maybe because you have few contributions at that wiki (and none for a long time), and the quantity of personal information? They may expect local pages to be reasonably affiliated with local work. Tarawa1943 was the most recent person to delete the page. You could try pinging them from your talk page, or ask on their talk page. You might consider posting in both English and Spanish, rather than assuming they should figure out English on a Spanish wiki. is very handy. Alsee (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

[Announcement] Wikimedia Foundation partnership reflections[edit]

To help better understand how teams at the Wikimedia Foundation work on partnerships, staff from multiple departments have been regularly meeting over the last year to exchange ideas and reflect on this important area of our work. In these discussions we realized that the Foundation had not laid out the common practices that we developed for managing partnerships. It wasn’t clear why, how, or with whom we partnered, what worked best, and what was best to avoid.

If it wasn’t clear to us, then it couldn’t be clear to the community either. Inspired by Wikimedia France’s Démarche partenariale, we recognized the value of sharing our own best practices with the community.

After much drafting and revising, we are happy to announce the publication of what we have learned in our Wikimedia Foundation partnership reflections, now live on Meta-Wiki. The page will be an evolving document, and we encourage feedback from the community: please join us in the conversation.

What we hope this can be used for[edit]

We hope that the reflections document offers an expression of what we do as Wikimedia Foundation employees and also helps the volunteer community and Wikimedia movement Affiliates think about how they define the scope and measure the impact of their work on partnerships.

We also want this document to help facilitate better interaction between the Foundation the global community. Take for example, the Partnerships & Global Reach team’s recent collaboration with the Iraqi Wikimedian User Group. They were able to work closely with the local community over the course of a year to develop a partnership with one of the leading mobile organizations in Iraq, providing data-free Wikipedia access over mobile phones through the Wikipedia Zero program.

Departments at the Foundation including Legal, Communications, and Community Engagement frequently work with volunteers and organizations to find the right combination of tools and support for their partnerships. We look forward to doing more with you.

Doing even more in collaboration with Affiliates[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation is certainly not the only organization within the Wikimedia movement with expertise and experience creating partnerships with external organizations. With the lead of Wikimedia Sverige, Wikimedia France, and Wikimedia Deutschland, an informal working group has been meeting to bring together Wikimedians working on developing and maintaining partnerships.

This ‘Affiliate Partnerships Group’ helps support activities and has collected the public learning and resources from their experience doing partnerships in a Partnerships and Resource Development portal on Meta-Wiki that includes support materials, lessons learned, frequently asked questions, and other resources.

After meeting at the Wikimedia Conference 2017 in April, the Affiliate Partnerships working group have launched a Facebook group: the Wikimedia & Partnerships Learning Circle. If you participate in Wikimedia Partnerships for your local volunteer community, we encourage you to join the group, and ask questions of various teams that work on partnership activities.

Join the conversation![edit]

Please join us in conversation at the Partnership Reflections page and in the Wikimedia & Partnership Learning Circle: we want to learn from and with you on how to best benefit the community with partnerships.

Thank you!

--Jake Orlowitz, Wikipedia Library, Wikimedia Foundation Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy[edit]

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, quite messy discussion/options. As noted in the discussion, we may need some additional options from the W3C Candidate Recommendation authors. --Nemo 22:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Translating Ibero-America is back! Come and join us :)[edit]

Dear all,

Please apologies in advance if this is not the place to post this message! The initiative Iberocoop is organizing again the editing contest Translating Ibero-America to promote our culture in other Wikipedia as way to build new diverse content.
We would like everyone to join us in this challenge!
Hope to seeing you there!

Hugs!--Anna Torres (WMAR) (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Search results from sister projects enabled in all Wikipedias[edit]

Just found out that search results from sister projects are now live in all Wikipedia language sites. Nonetheless, the results at English Wikipedia are limited to just Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikivoyage (title matches only), and Wikisource. Currently, some people aren't pleased with the enabling of cross-wiki results at English Wikipedia. BTW, what to do with the results at non-English Wikipedia sites? May we announce this on every one of them? Also, expanding cross-wiki searches to other projects is considered yet not implemented. When is the right time to consider it to every other individual project? --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC); amended. 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Example search with results even from Wikiversity
Some nitpicking: what you said is not entirely correct (or relevant for all languages), for instance [1] finds a full text (non-title) match from Wikiquote and [2] finds a Wikiversity page as well as Commons media. It's just hard to find good matches for most searches on Wikinews and Wikiversity, which is why in many cases it's better to not show any result at all. (I'm not sure how exactly this desirable result was achieved.)
This is a long-time community-demanded feature which was disabled in 2009 only for performance reasons or whatever (see phabricator:T46420). Fixing such regressions doesn't require big advertising; moreover, the feature is quite easy to discover for anyone using Special:Search. :)
We can and should distribute messages if there is some action required from locals, but I don't know of anything (the icons used to be configured with system messages, now they seem quite ok; the project are referenced by their domain name so there aren't big localisation issues). Do you know of something we should ask/suggest? --Nemo 09:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, an option to disable/opt-out cross-wiki search results via user preferences is proposed at English Wikipedia. Unsure about local wikis as I don't know the languages and which other language wikis have the results besides Italian, German, and Japanese. --George Ho (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I amended the OP to avoid misleads. --George Ho (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Exploring how the AbuseFilter can be used to combat harassment[edit]


I’d like to invite you to participate in a discussion about how the AbuseFilter can potentially be used to combat harassment. The Anti-Harassment Tools team is looking into improving performance and adding functionality and we need your input to make our work successful.

Join the conversation at Talk:Community health initiative#Exploring how the AbuseFilter can be used to combat harassment. I hope to see y’all there!

Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager 🗨 23:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the Anti-Harassment Tools team

Results of the RfC discussion at Eng. Wikipedia regarding "Outing" policy and WMF essay[edit]

The RFC discussion regarding w:en:WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received substantial support; so did concrete proposal #1. Recapping the results already done at WP:administrators' noticeboard:

Milieu 3:

"The balancing COI and privacy/outing means that the only option is that people investigating COI must submit information in private to the relevant people. Currently this is the arbitration committee and/or the WMF, but other bodies could be considered if there is consensus for this."

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the proposal with the obvious caveat, that this approach needs a lot more details and clarification.Many have clarified that other bodies shall only refer to editors who have been vetted by the community to handle sensitive and personally identifying information.There has been concerns about the use of the word only as it seems to nullify on-wiki processes based on CU and behaviorial evidence."

Milieu 4:

"We need to balance privacy provided to those editing in good faith against the requirements of addressing undisclosed paid promotional editing. To do so can be achieved with a private investigation with some release of results publicly to help with the detection of further related accounts. These details may include the name of the Wikipedia editing company with which the account is associated (such as for example the connections drawn here)"

Closing rationale: "There is consensus for the above proposal, with a condition that the proposal must be clarified to remove vaugeness, and that any information released must be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation".

More specifically, the information that is to be clarified is:

  1. Who is doing the investigating? (this looks like it's covered by Milieu 3)
  2. What information is to be released? The proposer has stated in the discussion below (and other editors agreed) that the information that is released is to be limited to "employer, client, and affiliation". This renders the argument of wp:outing invalid, which really was the only argument brought up on the oppose side."

--George Ho (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

While I don't really dispute that there was consensus along those lines, the fact that all the key closes were done by non-admins of meager experience is not encouraging. Due to the significance of the disagreement, I would generally hope for a decision where multiple admins reached agreement on the outcome. As something meant to resolve a dispute between the most powerful community body on Wikipedia with the most powerful organizational body on Wikipedia this is sorely lacking in official legitimacy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The Devil's Advocate, why do you expect the Board to reject the rationales due to inexperience? --George Ho (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Re-pinging The Devil's Advocate. --George Ho (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record, individual key closures were done because the team closers tried to close the whole thing, but the team closure was rejected. See history and separate section challenging that closure ([3]). I even individually closed the ones that easily lacked consensus. Casliber and Smallbones can clarify why the archiving was done without full closure. --George Ho (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I was aware of the abortive close, but even that was one non-admin (albeit one who has experience doing non-admin closures) and one admin. None of this changes what people said in the discussion, but part of the reason finding consensus in a formal discussion is traditionally the domain of admins is it requires a great deal of understanding and judgment regarding the policies as well as experience with closing contentious cases. Guess I just feel it would have been much better if the close had been done by more experienced members, especially admins. Hard to expect anything to come from the discussion when it is closed off this way. Smallbones was involved in the discussion as well so archiving without a full closure as requested is a bit improper.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if folks don't like my archiving - I did it only because we need a clear talk page for further discussions on COI. It looks to me like discussion went for a month or so and then has been left alone for over 2 months. Taking up the discussion again on the en:WP:Paid talk page looks fine to me. But it's really going to have to start at square one for several reasons. Smallbones (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)