Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2008-12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in December 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Featured content form other projects

I got a silly idea of featuring content accross projects - like wikibooks, commons, wikispedies etc. on Wikipedia. I know this is already happening (Wikinews on Wikipedia), but couldnt we a kind of catalyze this?--Kozuch 12:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No comments?--Kozuch 20:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We want to start a wikimedia India Foundation.

Hi Friends,

I am Ayush Agrawal, Managing Director of HumInt Consulting Private Ltd, Hyderabad, INDIA.

I take great proud in working with Not for Profit Organizations, be it my locality orphanage or any other such society. I never knew that Wikimedia had any such project in which you can start a new chapter in your country.

Now as soon as I got to know this I contacted Mr. Andrew Whitworth of the chapters committee, and I must say responded pretty generously, but after some time I saw that there is one Wikimedia India chapter is already in bylaws discussion phase with the committee. And I raised this point in reply-mail to him, but ever since then I haven't received even a single mail from any of the committee members.

I am not complaining anything here, and I have my full confidence in the committee members it is just a communication gap I suppose, so please can anyone help me.

You can reach me at


Ayush Agrawal

HumInt Consulting Private Ltd.

Sent a reply via email. --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not clicking icons in "Login successful" page jump to main page of each project

Login successful page after login, the icon of Wikimedia's other projects are indicated. It is desirable that when icon is clicked, it will jump to main page of each project. Also this arrangement should be effective all language edition and all projects. Is any reason unable to change or improve like above ? I believe the most or all user want such jumping ability on this page though clicking icon.--Namazu-tron 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Try asking on Bugzilla. Cbrown1023 talk 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I can quote anything from All non-GFDL texts

I want to cantact the Wikimedia foundation.

How to contact? I can't find the foundation's web page.

Korean Wikipedia Admins say that All non-GFDL texts can not be quoted, because Korean Wikipedia do not approve the fair use.

I can not quote anything from All non-GFDL texts?

What is the foundation's quotation policy?

Why the foundation makes the wikiquote korean?

I think I can quote anything from All non-GFDL texts.

I think I can quote anything from All non-GFDL texts in en-wikipedia, ko-wikipedia, ja-wikibooks, zh-wikiquote, etc.

I am right? or wrong?

Korean Wikipedia Admins are right? or wrong? -- WonRyong (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything that is out of copyright (often 70 years after author died) can be quoted. Many wikipedias also allow small quotes of copyrighted text, using the fair-use clause or something similar. The community at ko-wikipedia decides if quotes of copyrighted text should be allowed there or not. The foundation's licensing policy. --Boivie 08:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redesign of

See template#Redesign. Please comment there. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A Development Policy for Wikipedia

Several surveys performed by Erik Zachte and by RonaldB are indicating a stagnation of participation not only on the Dutch Wikipedia but on the main Wikipedia projects as a whole. Despite reaching 500,000 articles, the Dutch Wikipedia is relying more and more on a hard core users' base estimated between 100 and 1000 users and not growing.

In face of this, I am working at a development policy for Wikipedia (and its sister projects) to cope with future decline in participation. The plan is concerned with 3 models:

1. A minimal model. This should assure future existence even if decline progresses, and is based on measures to minimize maintenance e.g. by further automation of vandalism control.

2. A consolidation or gradual growth model which is mainly based on all currently existing efforts to maintain Wikipedia as is or make gradual growth possible. Practical measures include easing of the wiki software and interface for new users (e.g. 'wysiwyg') and deregulation.

3. An innovation model which concentrates on new ways to implement Wikipedia knowledge in other media and vice versa, as well as modernize the ways in which Wikipedia displays its potential.

The goals of the project are twofold:

I. Promote broader participation in the Wikipedia and sister projects.

II. Promote development of Wikipedia as a "state-of-the-art" project.

Although this is in a very preliminary stage, I would like to encourage everyone to think with me, make comments and do suggestions. For the moment, I welcome reactions on my Dutch discussion page, here. I will also meet comments on this page below. In the future, I'm considering a special project page.

Thank you, - Art Unbound 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view Wikipedia has always been and should always be the organic/anarchical/libertarian oasis free thinkers everywhere are looking for. In fact, I believe that lack of formal structure has been what was drawing people in the beginning; by contrast, I think the beginning of crystallization of structures/plans/hierarchies is what's currently hindering its growth. As such, it's my belief that a coherent Development Policy we should all abide by is as needed as a bullet in the head. My 2c, of course. --Gutza 00:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting. To my mind, you are not responding to a danger I'm signaling of a decline in participation; you are merely stating that growth is hindered by crystallization of structures. I am not aware that anticipating a trend is the beginning of creating a mammoth fossile, rather I'm promoting fresh blood. Maybe you could make it more clear where I said that a development policy is something "we should all abide by"? - Art Unbound 01:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if my comment sounded aggressive, that was not my intention. I understand that your intentions are 100% positive, I was just offering an opinion regarding the current "philosophical background" or "Zeitgeist" if you wish. In essence, I was trying to build upon your thrust by offering an alternative gamut of solutions than the ones you proposed. As I see it, you're considering a set of possible solutions based on coherent, pre-planned development models; I tried to suggest a more organic/grassroots alternative mindset. That's all there is to it. --Gutza 01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of basic policy my sentiment is close to that outlined by Gutza. What I have observed in practice is that where structures/plans/hierarchies are allowed free reign the encyclopedia suffers, sometimes very badly. Lets stick to the five pillars, it is what we have (for better or worse), and it is all we really have. - Brya 05:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
What I will do is, keep this outline in mind for further consideration if there should be a distinguished trend of decline. A grassroots mindset (per Gutza) or a five pillars policy (I know Brya didn't phrase it like that) may be strong enough to counter a decline. The outline above doesn't oppose your line of thought though, even if it tries to structure some of it. Innovation won't harm any organization, not even ours. - Art Unbound 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Anything that involves telling individual contributors what to do won't work. By all means suggest ideas for things interested people can do to help improve matters (eg. making the software more accessible to new users - in fact, that is already being done, the foundation just got a sizeable grant to fund work in that direction), but some kind of "development policy" won't work, you need to let people just do what they want when they want, that's how the projects work. --Tango 00:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Discount book vouchers/coupons and featured articles

I know that any mention of money on wikipedia gets people flustered but has anybody ever considered as scheme whereby editors are given incentives if they develop an article to FA or GA? Improving quality is of primary importance but the number of Good Articles and Featured articles we have in relation to number of articles I'm sure you'll agree it extremely low. I wondered if editors were given a discount book -e-voucher or coupon or voucher for every article they significantly contribute to and successfully promote it to FA whether or not it might speed up the process? If editors thought they could work towards earning a token for working hard on an article I'm convinced it would give them more of an incentive to do so and would attract more editors to developing content. Also some form of book voucher may also result in the purchase of a book which in turn may be used as a reference to improve content on another article so it may be a productive process. WOuld anybody be outaged at such an idea? Does anybody think the idea would have any success in speeding up the rate at which the number of articles are featured? Count Blofeld 14:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Reward board is thataway. You're welcome to offer any reward you like. Algebraist 14:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean something which is funded by the fundraising drive, a small amount allocated to rewarding those who produce the "goods", featured articles. We need to be encouraging as many people as possible to be developing articles to FA standard. Count Blofeld 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who will determine which contributions to an FA are significant enough to merit reward? Algebraist 16:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what the "reward board" should be doing. A panel of judges who are familiar with the featured article process and assess the contribution the editor has made to the article as a percentage and in terms of quality. I know for a fact I and many editors would be far more filling to develop articles all the way to featured status if there was some incentive to do so other than pride. Often I develop an article to GA or even B class status and can't be bothered to continue working on that article. If there was something which lured me to stick with it I'd concentrate more an devleoping them all the way to FA's. If wikipedia is serious about dramatically increasing our proportion of featured articles we need to think of ways in which we can speed up the process and encourage more editors to write full quality articles. Imagine for instance a student required a book for his university studies and was seriously finding it hard to buy it. Now imagine after writing a featured article he was offered a discount voucher as a reward, he could now buy the book he desired and wikipedia would be a featured article better off. Count Blofeld 17:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Dr. Blofeld's idea has merit, but the Foundation should consider it very carefully before acting. This proposal could obviously have many excellent consequences, but also bad ones as well. I haven't thought it through myself, so I'm not prepared to support it, but here are some data that others might consider.
My students' studies suggest that FA, GA and A-level science articles on the English Wikipedia are reliably good, setting them apart from their counterparts at B-level and below. The same studies suggest there is a significant barrier to bringing an article to FA, at least on the English Wikipedia. Generally speaking, progression to the B level happens relatively quickly on scientific topics, whereas advancement to GA and thence to FA can take months of concentrated labor. This is probably due both to the high standards of the FA rank and to the challenges associated with the FAC process. In my limited experience, the bulk of this work is undertaken by one or two committed editors, although exceptions such as en:Immune system (which had 6-8 committed editors working in tandem) should be borne in mind. Taken together, these data suggest that it would serve the Foundation's mission to foster the development of FA's, particularly in less developed fields such as Mathematics. In principle, this could be done with incentives to the chief authors, as Dr. Blofeld suggests; however, there could be alternative approaches that might do this better or more safely.
The chief drawback I see is that such a system would have to be scrupulously fair, to avoid creating toxic resentment and division within the community. I foresee that a tremendous amount of thought and planning would be needed to solve this problem adequately. In comparison, the expense seems manageable; supposing that 200 FA's would be awarded $50 apiece yields an estimate of $10,000 per year. Proteins 00:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of something nearer $15 coupon. 17:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...with all due respect Blofeld, although I think the idea has merit: I believe it would be damaging in the long term. First, I envision nightmares regarding what qualifies an editor for "contributor" status (i.e., digging through page histories and so on). Second, I think it runs counter to the selfless/volunteer aspect of the project. A facet that draws me to the Wikimedia projects is the collaboration of editors for the general improvement of public knowledge -- with extremely limited personal gain.
The above being said, I think it still worthwhile to research ways to "encourage" editors to contribute more to "core" articles; and, hopefully help bring more of them up to FA status. Lazulilasher 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Implement of RevisionDelete

This is a function which can make easily delete specific revision. Excessive revision deletions make more difficult to do next time.(admin should check all changes when delete specific revision.) So I suggest implement of this function.--Kwj2772 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That just sounds like oversight? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's the replacement for oversight that has been in the works for years. Oversight was just quick hack, this is a more lasting solution. Kwj, believe me, when it's ready for Wikimedia sites, I think Brion will add it, it's just not ready yet in his opinion. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It's coming. We don't need to vote on it or anything - when it's ready it'll be implemented.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
On top of that, if it is an oversight function, most of us won't really need to worry about it too much unless the specifics become controversial. Even then, it's probably a WMF issue more than anything else. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Its a replacement for oversight, and the current hacky revision deletion (delete the whole page, undelete everything but one revision) that will allow single revisions to be deleted in a much cleaner way. Mr.Z-man 19:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ready, but nobody has tried it enough to make sure it's okay to deploy yet. Werdna 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really not. The UI still sucks in several places, which is probably the primary reason this hasn't been enabled yet. :-P --MZMcBride 16:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge and Delete

mw:Extension:User Merge and Delete

Install this to ko-wikipedia, please.

I have 4 other names in ko.wikipedia, so I want to merge them. -- WonRyong 07:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Such requests should be made on Bugzilla, and you'll need to show community consensus (and if the extension isn't already used on other wikimedia sites, a developer will need to check to make sure there aren't any major security issues, etc. with it, which could take some time). --Tango 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There is basically zero chance of this getting done. I wouldn't bother even asking.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Be aware that this extension can mess up the database. If the deleted account is blocked at the time of the merge, some new user will start with a blocked account. Guido den Broeder 23:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alert: Account Hacker Prowling Around Meta

Hello folks at Meta! I have never really logged into this account and am mostly active at the English Wikipedia. An unsuccessful request to change my password was initiated by this IP address for my meta account: Thankfully the hacker failed at gaining any access. I think it may be because I possess an SUL account but I'm not that familiar with SUL to be honest. Just wanted to let others know to be on the lookout and possibly create stronger passwords if your current one is on the weak-side (good thing mine wasn't :-)....Persian Poet Gal 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't request a password reset, these can safely be ignored. Probably you have irked someone by blocking them or something :)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This is going on all the time. I've received many such fake requests, at other sites as well. Regards, Guido den Broeder 23:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Weird, that ip belongs to Google and this edit is really weird...--Cometstyles 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how to make a wikipedia page appear in the search results instead of the created user's page.

I am asking this because a recently created item's name was searched on google and it redirected to the creator's page instead of the actual article.

Please help.

Ann Ariel Wilson 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments on moderated

Is it really needed?--Kozuch 03:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a large amount of spam. We couldn't give ourselves extra work if it weren't necessary. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you did not publish my commnet... hopefully was it not spam for you :(.--Kozuch 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken link on Special pages

If you go to the Special pages, External links tool, there is a reference to the "Crosswiki linksearch to search for links in other Wikimedia projects". The hyperlink there is broken. It should point instead to: I would change this myself, but I have not been trusted with the Meta admin bit to alter a Special pages script. -- Thekohser 18:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Majorly talk 18:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The tool is broken anyways.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes it's out of date, but I suppose it's better than having a broken link up there. Majorly talk 18:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted the administrator at, and one Wilhelm Schnotz replied to me, saying he would hopefully get the tool fixed tomorrow (Dec. 23, 2008). Thanks! -- Thekohser 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am one and the same, Wilhelm Schnotz. I'm trying to fix it at the moment, I can estimate it being fixed today or tomorrow (hopefully). Is there a particular link we want to query for in the meantime? I'd be glad to produce a report containing that link. —— nixeagle 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Blah that was quicker then I thought, should all be fixed now. :) —— nixeagle 17:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Nixeagle, you da MAN! This is a very useful tool. I take it that the findings reflect only certain "Space" links, because the counts from the tool do not nearly match the External links tool counts from within each project. Consider
Can you explain this discrepancy?
Regardless, according to this tool, I was quickly able to determine that across the leading 10 Wikipedia projects, the website (ad profits kept by editors) has enjoyed a total of 36 outbound links; however, the website (ad profits kept by Wikia, Inc.) enjoys 1,804 outbound links from the top 10 Wikipedias.
Yet, strangely enough, I am accused by the co-founder of Wikia, Inc. of facilitating "spam" for the former site, but she is free to add links for her latter site, without accusations of spamming. The ability to track evidence this way is, to put it mildly, delightful. -- Thekohser 18:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Not commenting on your findings, however the tool only counts mainspace... ie article space links (outbound). Ie only external links in articles are counted—— nixeagle 18:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't actually seem to be the case. I see links counted from User, User_talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia_talk spaces, for example. -- Thekohser 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
In that case I'll take a look tomorrow, but generally that was the purpose of the tool if I remember correctly. —— nixeagle 19:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh I see, first off some articles might have a link more then once, in that case wikipedia's search will count it more then one time. This search only counts each article. Secondly file links are not counted. (eg links that are in image: or File:) namespaces —— nixeagle 19:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that accounts for a lot of the discrepancy. But, I think I just figured out the other major factor. It appears that your tool only searches through the first 250 external links spotted by the resident Wikipedia search function. In the case of a virally spammed link farm, such as, the links between 251 and 12,400 would not even enter your tool's consideration set. Still, it is an excellent resource for quickly and simultaneously looking up links on multiple 'pedias. -- Thekohser 19:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken "privacy policy" link in the fundraising 2008 (fr)


In the donate now page for the fundraiser 2008, there is a link to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. However, in the French version (at least), this links to an nonexistent page ([1]). It should instead link to this page : Politique_de_confidentialité on the same wiki... I'm not sure who's taking care of that, so if someone knows it'd be nice to correct it!

The broken link is in this part of the Donate Now page :

J’accepte de recevoir des courriels ou des communications officielles de Wikimedia Foundation dans le futur. (Nous ne vendrons ni n’échangerons vos informations personnelles. Notre politique concernant la vie privée peut être lue ici).

chtit_draco talk page 12:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now, thanks. --Az1568 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Let it go, or not?

I have this simple question: on our wikipedia, we meet a conflict about naming. For some reason, naming of articles always meets with conflict, more than content - emotions seem to get in the way. When that happens, you can do two things; just let it go, or try to "moderate" the discussion. I chose to do the latter. Consensus was not reached, however I found that discussion did help to find better understanding of each other's views of opinion. Wat do you think: "you need to let people just do what they want when they want, that's how the projects work", "Anything that involves telling individual contributors what to do won't work". Or try to work for consensus if possible - and "agree to disagree" if it doesn't work? Give it a try to avoid conflict, or let it go? - Art Unbound 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

None of the above. Instead, ask someone who is kwowledgeable about the topic. Guido den Broeder 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)