Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2011-12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

More random wikipedians on personal appeals

Hi, I am probably not the only one who believe that it would be cool if wikipedians had opportunity to share their own personal appeals, instead of watching one from Jimbo thousands time, what do you think guys :) I remember last year there was some girl with personal appeal, and it was like the first time after long time I really read it, just because it was different. I don't have anything against Jimbo but having a change even for a while would be cool. Wikipedia is not just done by Jimbo, but also thousands of volunteers, why don't give them a chance to ask others for money? We all work together... so why not. Thanks Petrb 15:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Petrb, Your wish is our command. This year the campaign starts with Jimbo but them moves on to more important people like Brandon and various other Wikimedians. Hopefully you've seen one of his appeals already. WereSpielChequers 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for entry sorting at

Hello everyone,

Recently, I have received an official request to delete all English-language words on tl.wiktionary that I imported a few days ago. As I can't use any bot (due to official request too) to do the task I request, I would like bot owners (and also users) to restore the English-language entries that I have not created on tl.wikt. Any volunteers ? --Jagwar 交談 homewiki 17:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Who did you receive the request from? I'm the admin of the project, although admittedly, having to split my time across at least five wikis, it becomes hard to manage all of them. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Eventually Yes check.svg Done by Quentinv57. This request (of deleting all English words I imported) is from P. Beaudette itself, via a mail. --Jagwar 交談 homewiki 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

News topics for November 2011 "Wikimedia highlights"

As announced last month, suggestions are welcome for important topics to cover in the Wikimedia Highlights, a new monthly update consisting of excerpts from the Foundation's monthly reports and a brief selection of other important events in the Wikimedia movement. A main purpose of the format is to facilitate translation.

The November issue is to go out soon (tomorrow morning UTC) and already has three such news items covered (Wikimania videos, French freedom of panorama, Al Jazeera image donation), but if anything important has been left out, suggestions are still welcome at Talk:Wikimedia Highlights. This is a chance to inform many non-English speaking Wikimedians - the last issue was translated into 11 different languages. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for Wikipedia to cooperate with print media?

I am a user of Chinese Wikipedia. As it has been blocked completely for several times, Chinese Wikipedia is less developed. It needs publicity, but is it possible for Wikipedia to cooperate with paper and print media? Wikipedia provides the source of information, and the print media play the roles of dissemination medium. Through the partnerships between them, print media can attract more readers by this novel relationship in China, and at the same time, Wikipedia can attract more users. We are planning to set up an organization in order to collate the articles from Chinese Wikipedia, then revise them into a simplified form that everyone can understand, and finally hand over them to the media. The benefits will be shared between Chinese Wikipedia and the organization we will found. However, we are not clear whether Wikipedia has any restrictions in this aspect. Do we have the chance to strive for it?--I.R.A.·talk 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Dear IgniX, it is a fascinating proposal you have. I'm not an administrator, but as far as I know, all content on Wikipedia is free or freely-licensed, and can be re-used by anyone for commercial or non-commercial purposes, in modified or unmodified form. Some content may require you to attribute the original authors or artists, so make sure to always check the licensing information, especially on images. Also, for some content you may be able to re-share it only on the condition that you do so under the same license. Kraŭs 15:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I am so glad to hear that. But I hope that I can get some advice from administrators, too.--I.R.A.·talk 16:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of our projects such as the English language Wikipedia allow Fair use images which we can't freely license to others, otherwise yes our content is freely available to Chinese and other newspapers. Certainly the text is available for them to use, modified or otherwise. The difficulty would be that the newspapers would need to attribute the article to its authors, and not claim a restrictive copyright on it, even if they've modified it. I would expect that they would see this as promoting one of their competitors. They might well fear that people will think that if the Newspaper is simply repeating Wikipedia there is no reason for someone with Internet access to buy the newspaper. For more info see these WereSpielChequers 17:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for anwsering. However, the current situation of China is that Internet hasn't been popularized and Wikipedia isn't commonly known. Because the overall impression of Chinese people towards Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia on the Internet which spreads knowledge, so I believe that the print media will consider Wikipedia as a friendly partner instead of a competitor and therefore will not exclude it.--I.R.A.·talk 15:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Trans-Wiki Lins On Language Wikis

How do I do a link from, say, the Esperanto Wikisource to the Esperanto Wikipedia? I couldn't find anything on that. Thanks, Kraŭs 13:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kraŭs you need to put it in double square brackets as its a link within the wikimedia group of sites, and you need the language code which is eo plus the project s for wikisource. For example eo:s:Ĉefpaĝo. The pipe symbol lets you just display the word or phrase you want. So [[:eo:s:Ĉefpaĝo|Ĉefpaĝo]] gives Ĉefpaĝo. WereSpielChequers 19:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
(If you're linking from an Esperanto wiki to an Esperanto wiki, you don't need to add the :eo: ) --Yair rand 05:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion

Please, delete all pages from this category. Some are test pages, some are vandalism. Thank you so much.--U.Steele 02:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The wiki has local admins, please ask one of those at from pnt admin list. billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
They are inactive! That's why I asked here.--U.Steele 14:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. They are indeed inactive for quite a while (see here). Thanks for helping! You could request these things a next time on Steward requests/Speedy deletions. Kind regards, Trijnstel 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

don't forget my interest about Wikimedia Forum

hi ; I have the impression not to receive any news from Wikimedia ; it always interests me (especially the manner for asking some money for the Foundation) ; thanks for your attention, yours, Buster Keaton 13:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Geoff's blog about SOPA

Just wanted to let people who are interested in the WMF's stance on the Stop Online Piracy Act before US Congress, and especially what impact it may have on the projects, know that our General Counsel Geoff Brigham has written a detailed blog entry about it at the Foundation blog. --Mdennis (WMF) 14:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Essay categorization

There is a small tension between Category:Essays and Template:Essay: the category page states that individual categories should be included only in more specific sub-categories, but the template, by default, includes a page directly into the top category.

What's the best way to resolve this? I think simply removing the category from the template might be the best way to go. It's not so hard to manually add a category to each essay. -Pete F 16:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't you want to find a solution to the problem “ASKING SOME MONEY WITH BANNERS” ?

hi, you all ;

I see on the Talk:Page of Wikimedia Forum that several persons are speaking in differents manners of the problem of asking some money with banners ; but with which banners ? I always see on the differents WIKIs the photos of differents responsables of Wikimedia, I suppose (I put off those of French Wikipedia, that always hurted me by the great difference between the quality of each page of the French site and these portraits in colours, not adaptated (in my mind) to the graphism of the pages, to the necessary beauty of the Encyclopedia that made a part of its reputation ;

all graphists made beautiful efforts for create an interesting, attractive, <intellectuelle>, professional Encyclopedia, and these banners are shocking with there vulgarity (I apologize for my brutality, but I don't find another manner for saying what I think) ; a bad banner could desinterest the persons who would give some money for helping Wikimedia Foundation ;

so, please you all, do something, ask something, propose something, give or ask some questions about the wikipedian graphism, don't abandon the problem ;

I keep the wish for the comprehension and efforts to do, I would do something myself if necessary, even I am not a graphist ; with my excuses a second time for my brutality (and for my mistakes in English), yours, Buster Keaton 19:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Buster Keaton - we've actually tested those banners quite a bit, and tried some that were much more beautifully designed. Interestingly, these performed far better than the ones that were designed by (award-winning!) national graphic artists. I'm not sure why it is, but we obviously have to go with the ones that worked. Thank you for your feedback. :) Philippe (WMF) 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

How can A picture in Wikipedia be rotated?

There's a picture of the Lehigh University Alumni building on "The Rivalry" page that is rotated 90 degrees to the left. Can someone fix it to make it vertical? Can't find how to rotate a picture in Commons in the help files 05:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

When you're on the image page in Commons, there's an option to request rotation. (It's possible you need to be logged in to see that option, I"m not sure.) I think this has to do with some software bug where images sometimes get uploaded with the wrong rotation. I'm sure somebody knows more about it than me.... -Pete F 05:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
commons:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets -> RotateLink Przykuta 09:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I found the image and requested the rotation myself. The message said a bot will take care of it within 12 hours. -Pete F 05:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The command should be on every commons image, look for a green rotating arrow and the words (request rotation). Unfortunately there has been a big change on Commons recently and a large number of images which had appeared to be rotated are now as the image was taken. Apparently they had been rotated in a way that not all software picks up, so some users were finding images from commons were upside down or on their sides. We no longer support that type of rotation, but that means we now have a number of images that need to be properly rotated. WereSpielChequers 13:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Personal Appeal" banners

I'd be inclined to donate a lot more frequently if these banners were removed user-end after donation, like, via a cookie or something. And I know for a fact I'm not in this boat alone.

Having Jimmy Wales ask me to give him money right after I just finished giving him money just makes me dislike Jimmy Wales.

Oh, come on now. How could you dislike somebody,who could ask for money with his eyes :-)--Mbz1 04:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait, I thought it did remove all banners after someone donates... ? --Yair rand 05:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, apparently it does not. I wanted to try it, to make a donation I mean, but two years ago a user donated $1,000 to wikipedia, told Jimbo (at his talk page) about his donation, got listed in Sustaining Donors on this page and... got blocked by an involved, bully administrator Gwen Gale for making this donation :( So I decided I'd better skip on this :-) Of course maybe they block only users, who are donating a thousand dollars or more, but who knows... :-) It is better to be safe than sorry.--Mbz1 05:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
In most countries the banners go away after you donate. In some countries where chapters control them, they've elected not to hide the banners after donation. But all the ones that the WMF is running set a cookie and go away once you've donated. Philippe (WMF) 14:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there's a little |x| check box directly on the banner in the upper-right corner that only closes the banner window. I assumed everyone would also have that option to close them manually. (=SebzX= 08:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC))


I'm didn't do the things that they say on here but they block my page to don't let me talk on here: What's next? --Vigilante Satan 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As your talk page is blocked, you may wish to ask a member of that community perhaps via IRC how you go about appealing your block. Different communities have different practices. --Moonriddengirl 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are so very many user accounts on wikipedia banned?

Why are so many blocked as soon as the appear, with no reason given? Is this the way to encourage new editors? Don't understand this reasoning. Why don't blocking admins have to give evidence for a block besides one or too illconsidered edits by the noobie?

Is seems like there is no control over this mass blocking, no attempt to teach the noobie how to make good edits and bring him into the fold. There is no attempt to initiate an interchange with them. One stupid mistake on the first edit or two and the noobie is indefinitely banned.

Admins must particularly relish doing this. Can't admin's be educated. After all, they are usually the first contact a noobie has - and that is in the form of an indefinite block or ban.

Definitely, new editors are being bitten and banned with no recourse. Technical wiki jargon is thrown at them as a way of appealing the ban, jargon that they cann't possibly understand.

And usually they are blocked from editing their talk page and their email is blocked.

No wonder the number of editors is dropping off. All new blood, the future of wikipedia, is being banned, blocked, bitten. Stop throwing the alphebet soup of warning at them. Use plain English! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SplitTooth (talk) , 4. Dezember 2011, 19:37

You're painting a very general and generalized picture. Please point to specific examples. Seb az86556 00:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Templates {{xxxblock}}: {{softerblock}}, {{anonblock}}, {{schoolblock}} on the recent changes page? (rather understood for newbie) Przykuta 17:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
One stupid mistake on the first edit or two is highly unlikely to get an editor blocked. That usually takes multiple clear vandalisms, and as for being blocked from their own talkpage or email that is rare and should only be when there has been abuse by the blocked editor. As for the idea that all new blood is being blocked, we actually have far more accounts that have edited than we have dished out blocks. WereSpielChequers 19:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I can relate to being a new member as I'm reading this post as I only joined like a week ago and am still a new member myself. One thing I noticed even right from the start was how complex the interface was as it took me a while reading through everything to be able to ask another experienced editor for some advice and tips on an article I am currently working on improving. It's possible that new users are notified of stuff but are unaware of it due to the amount of things on the screen. It took me a few days to become familiar with everything as well such as policies on uploading content, learning how to ask for help via the "Talk" feature, how to sign my name at the end of discussions I post or reply to, and the format in how to write articles properly which was my main concern when I joined. I've seen many new users just like me, but skipping those steps and jumping right into editing posts but without taking a moment to pay attention to what's asked of everyone that posts on Wikipedia, that we follow specific guidelines and use the proper formatting, have verifiable sources, references, citations, and many other things that many new members just skip or don't bother doing. I think it's just due to the complexity of Wikipedia that overwhelms new users which are eager to post, it's easy for new members to make mistakes and not know why edits are reverted or why they got in trouble.
The editor I asked for tips and advice from shortly after joining, Lithorean, had posted a few tips and a very helpful Welcome Helpful Tips & Links Template section on my page to help get me started that had pretty much everything covered in one place. It definitely made things much easier to locate as I spent a good hour before that on just figuring out how to upload an image and learning about Wikipedia:Wiki_commons. More new members should also take the time to learn Wikipedia's policies if they aren't aware of them already as it's something that they'll be using quite a lot if they'd like to edit and create articles, not just posting random things. (=SebzX= 10:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Victims of the Rotate-Mess

In MediaWiki 1.18 "autorotation according to Exif" was introduced. This caused approximately 50 000 images displayed correctly until this update or a purge displaying wrongly orientated. We on Commons try everything to handle those images but we are attacked by upset users who think that those who add the tags to request removal of wrong Exif-data by a bot are responsible for this issue.

I want that the people responsible for these impacts will create a global banner with apologies that links to a page explaining the details. I don't want any more message neither on on my talk-page nor on commons:Commons:Helpdesk or commons:Commons:Village Pump. -- Rillke 17:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of the 50,000? If so I'd have thought the quickest way to fix it would be to call for volunteers to rotate them - I've done a few I've come across randomly but I'd happily do a batch as I'm sure would many others. WereSpielChequers 19:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Rillke asked me to comment, so I'll add my two cents but I really think you should read the extensive Wikitech-l archives about this issue. I'm not on the tech team so I can't speak for them, but to be honest I doubt they're going to run a banner with apologies in the middle of the fundraiser. As for the images... I think WereSpielChequers suggestion is good. As another option: if it's the tag about EXIF data that bothers them, then make it a hidden category instead of a visible tag. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem *is not* the making a list (user:Umherirrender made one) or rotation (done by a bot). The problem are the upset users who do not take the time to read what we wrote about Exif-autorotation (which is difficult stuff). And the developers who do not explain anything to the users and just publish software without caring about the impacts. Commons' admins and experienced contributors are the scapegoats. If you add a hidden tag, it would be just more confusing. -- Rillke 21:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Let's look at this from a data-driven perspective: can you quantify the raw number of complaints that are being seen on this? We need to know what we're talking about, really. You mentioned talk page edits, etc... how many are we talking about? Philippe (WMF) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Philippe, I think Rillke is making a good point -- though I don't agree with his specific proposed solution -- and I don't think it's fair to ask him to spend his time looking for specific numbers. There are very few people taking care of administrative tasks on Commons; the deletion backlog, for instance, is substantial, and most deletion decisions seem to be made with only one or two people's input. An action that results in a sudden, large number of files to be turned on their sides has two kinds of negative impacts: (1) it affects the quality of a large number of articles on multiple projects, and (2) an unknown, and more importantly a difficult to count, number of people are wading through the wiki maze to find the apparent culprit: Commons, where the files are hosted.
I think Riilke's point is a principled one, I don't think the effort of trying to quantify the number of complaints/notices is going to move anything forward. If a technical change has brought this problem on, those making the decisions around that technical change should take responsibility for the results. I think acknowledgment of that principle is the important thing here. I don't know exactly who made the decision for that feature to go into the software and missed this substantial side effect; but it would be really nice to hear from those people "Whoops, we missed this, and here's what we propose doing about it." Unlike Riilke, I don't think an apology is needed. But a little tactical thinking and communication about a way to undo the damage in a timely fashion, that doesn't ask for more volunteer work by a group that's already snowed under, would be nice to see. Asking those highlighting the issue to count the number of complaints is just requesting another kind of extra work. I can vouch for this being a problem; I have seen several complaints about this issue while tracking deletion requests and other pages in the last couple weeks. -Pete F 06:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really looking for exact, I was looking for "one, one hundred, or one thousand". But Bdk helped out with that, thank you very much. :) Philippe (WMF) 09:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Philippe, I had (mis)understood from the term "data-driven" that you wanted something rigorous. Thanks for clarifying. -Pete F 16:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Whilst an apology is perhaps not realistic, the amount of disruption caused by this change absolutely should be treated as an episode to learn from. In general, the developers do seem careful to consider disruptive impacts from tech changes; I do not understand why this case was an exception, and I think it is worth some discussion to see what went wrong in that respect and what can be learned from it. One of the underlying problems, of course, is that lack of a good means for interaction between the community and the developers. I tried once to combat that (en:WP:DEVMEMO), without success. Really, squeezing all such communication through the meat grinder of Bugzilla is unhelpful; I don't understand why there isn't some kind of a tech wiki to go alongside it. Rd232 14:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
+1, and regarding the amount of complaints please note this section on Commons' village pump which gives a first impression --:bdk: 07:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
+1, I think Rillke makes a good point: only some few admins on commons are still confrontated with a change of a software, that surely could have been checked on a dummy-wiki etc., not introduced this way. -jkb- 14:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have added rotation templates to a lot of images on Commons, and I agree with Rillke that it would be very handy to have some clear statement somewhere which informs about the problem. Users have several times come to my talk page on Commons and asked questions because they don't understand what's going on. Presumably, they have received an e-mail because a page on their watchlist has been changed by me, and so they ask me about it. I have also seen countless discussions on the Commons Village pump and other places (and I see that many village pump discussions were mentioned above, but only from the English one -- there are also discussions in other languages, e.g. Commons:Commons:Bybrunnen#Rotering, Commons:Commons:Bistro#Problème avec une image., Commons:Commons:井戸端#縦長写真の縮小写真が横長になる現象 & Commons:Commons:Forum#.7B.7Brotate.7C270.7D.7D). Commons:COM:ROTATEFIX describes the problem in detail, but users don't find that page before someone points them to it. Can't a message just be added to Commons:MediaWiki:Sitenotice with a link to Commons:COM:ROTATEFIX? A similar message already appears at ja:MediaWiki:Sitenotice. --Stefan2 01:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As RotateBot is limited to a little over 2,000 images a day this could take weeks to resolve. Is there any chance of getting another bot operator to operate a bot wit a copy of rotatebot's code for the next few weeks? Aside from speeding up the whole process the most confusing scenario that is liable to lead to complaints is when an image user goes to the commons page of an image they've long been using but which is now on its side, and sees a rotation request from an editor...... So in my opinion reducing the time from someone requesting a rotation to the image being fixed would be helpful. WereSpielChequers 09:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A second bot: already suggested and might happen. See various sections at commons:User talk:Rotatebot.
Users confused by rotation templates on their images: good examples are commons:User talk:Stefan4#Please do not interfere and commons:User talk:Stefan4#Misrotation by automatic bot. --Stefan2 11:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Brending John Zarlino Can some help me with the editor that updated this new word Catalan. He has blocked my efforts (newbie) to correctly publish my work and copyright. My word is brending and would like your help. I support anything to do with W3C and HTML5. AI will move forward one RDF pack at a time. I promised Steve Jobs to pick u where he left off my Interntwork Expert processes will provide those fact. (Please advise) Need your help. 614-448-0090 brending@live.comJdzarlino 16:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


You are close to implosion. We will had been. Stop it, immediatly.

This was english, to mee.

Wikipedia is a great organization but just post ads to sustain (transfered message)

1 : I use and fully support Wikipedia and their diligence in purity of information. I do believe, however, that posting one ad at the top of the page to fund and sustain the organization should be done. It will be as intrusive as the plea from Jimmy Wales. Seriously, one tasteful ad is more than reasonable for sustainability. (without any signature ; see

etherpad + bugzilla + weblog Downtime again tonight

The maintenace for db9 was successfully completed but some followup maintenace is needed. As a result, you might have trouble with Wikimedia's Etherpad or Bugzilla or CiviCRM sites/services tonight. If interruption continues after 1820 PST please tell us in #wikimedia-tech (webchat link). — MarkAHershberger(talk) 15:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet another way to ask for money

I Just proposed it Jimbo, but I'll post it here too. I am sure this appeal posted below will attract more donors because it is simpler, cuter and different.

Please read

Puffer Fish DSC01257.JPG A personal appeal from a puffer fish.

I was photographed in Hawaii by a volunteer photographer. My image was uploaded to Wikipedia by a volunteer contributor. Another volunteers wrote article about me. My image is absolutely free. You may use it for your school projects, to print it, and to hang in your office and so on. But images and articles require lot's of space on servers, and servers cost some money. So, if you'd like to see more images of me, and more images like these ones Kissing Prairie dog edit 31.jpg and Ursus maritimus us fish.jpg and Green turtle in Kona 2008.jpg please donate to Wikipedia today. Thank you.

--Mbz1 14:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I love this idea. Have you proposed it at Fundraising 2011? -Pete F 18:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I proposed it at Jimbo's talk, but there was no response. It was a good faith proposal and I wish the very best to Wikipedia.--Mbz1 17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if I won't run it on Wikipedia, why not on Commons? It will certainly get lots of clicks since people are curious. -- Rillke 12:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Puffer Fish DSC01257.JPG
Please read:
A personal appeal from a puffer fish.
Read the story

-- Rillke 13:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'd really strongly suggest bringing this up at Fundraising 2011 -- that's where decisions about the banners are made. Jimbo's talk page can be a good way to reach a variety of volunteers, but you won't get to the WMF's fundraising team there. -Pete F 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This was already brought up with a link to this thread at Talk:Fundraising 2011#A good idea in the Forum, so I think the fundraising team is aware of the suggestion. As Pete indicates, that is the better place to discuss it. ~ Ningauble 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to WMF on Taking a Stand! (and Christmas wishes)

For what it's worth, here's a happy rant I just posted about how pleased I am with WMF today and how desperately it makes me wish they would take on larger challenges beyond Wikipedia. User:AlecMeta/Christmas Eve 2011- Commendation on WMF taking a stand .

I have philosophically tourettes-- I won't post it to Foundation-L myself and force it into everyone's inbox, I'll leave that to others to decide what weight to give my words. But if there are people who would benefit from hearing about it, please make them aware of it. :)

Good work, WMF. We're all extra proud of you today. AlecMeta 11:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Template bug

See Talk page of GeoTemplate. Solved there and on Dutch Wikipedia. Probably affects more versions. It's about external linking on Yahoo Maps, a subdirectory called 'broadband' does not work anymore. Happy New Year and cheers, ZeaForUs 12:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not ads but sponsored links

I'd like to propose the idea of sponsored links as used widely across The Net.

I know that this is against the ethos but general internet buying advice says: before you buy anything, go to a voucher site and get a voucher code. I have bought things from sites that offer the opportunity to enter a promotion code. One is lead to believe, by the press and consumer TV programs that one would almost be a fool not to find a voucher code before buying.

Therefore, retailers expect voucher codes as the norm. Therefore sponsored links are the norm.

Readers, please try altering your browser's cookie handling to Always Prompt. You will be stunned at how many ADThis, TrackThat, MediaTheOther cookies have been arriving on your computer without you knowing and every one has generated a small amount of money for someone. Add them all up.

What is a cookie? A small text file that YOU ALLOW to be stored on YOUR COMPUTER. Most people don't even know they exist. For instance, an Ad box at the side of the page may store a cookie signaling that it has shown you Ad 123 already so it can move on to Ad 456. They're mostly harmless BUT EVERY ONE MAKES MONEY!

Challenge: Set your cookie (aka privacy) handling to Prompt Always. Visit your usual websites. Count how many cookie requests you are presented with that are NOT You will be astonished. Every single one of those cookies has made cash for an advertisting company and their clients.

When you move from one website to another, either following a link or otherwise, the new website can enquire as to where you were before you came here i.e. the Referring website. Wikipedia, I believe, should be paid for its referrals. No money attributed to contributers, so that's that scam squashed, all referral money goes to WP.

I'm now going to stand behind the bomb-proof wall and await the incomming...

Andy North

  • (Sponsored links are ads, albeit small ones.) In case anyone is wondering why we are constantly barraged with suggestions that would principally benefit advertising, marketing, and SEO companies, or wondering what impact it would have on the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt these suggestions, I highly recommend Erik Barnouw's book The Sponsor: Notes on a Modern Potentate. ~ Ningauble 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Whether the ad is in the form of a banner or a "sponsored link" if the foundation takes money for them part of the price is our neutrality. I'm sure there are plenty of car companies that would like to put ads on our articles about their competitor's products. The problem is that as soon as we do so we lose our neutral status. Better in my view to stick with an annual fundraiser. WereSpielChequers 17:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A wonderful way to fundraise!!!

I would love to be able to help this wonderful organization. I recently found an organization that helps non profit organizations receive a residual income through fundraising. I think that It would be a Great way for Wikipedia to receive funds. You can find the information at <redacted>. I think this could be a solution to any funding problems that any non profit may have. Some non profits that use this site are the Ronald McDonald house and MS Society.

I know that this can help you raise funds.

B Sparks

This company has been able to help my childrens school and many churches and other non profits. They say no matter the size of the non profit they can help fundraise.

Thanks for the suggestion, but that would involve advertising which would compromise our neutrality. WereSpielChequers 10:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
They do not use advertising. You generate income through the use of tool bars. Let any of your supporters down load a tool bar that will generate money through there clicks. :)
OK I didn't spot they were doing that as well, I just looked at the online shopping mall bit on the site you linked to. If the toolbar is just an alternative search engine then it would undermine our neutrality in the eyes of search engine providers, if it included commercial links it would involve advertising. Neither would be a good move for us. Also the fundraiser we currently use so successfully asks for money from the more than 400 million readers of our sites. Tool bar and per click type schemes are more focussed on your known supporters, as we have a declining base of active editors and a vastly larger and fast growing readership it makes sense to me that we ask our readers for money and don't try to gain a relatively trivial sum from our editors. Especially if that compromised our "No Advertising" ethos which is so fundamental to our editors motivation. WereSpielChequers 17:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok Understood. I'm sorry that I couldn't help. Have a wonderful holiday!!

Not a problem, and a happy holiday to you too. But if you want to help there are plenty of areas that we do need help in, its just that the fundraiser is one of our more successful areas where we look for incremental improvements not revolution. By the way I've taken the liberty of redacting your actual link as it might seem a bit spammy to leave such a link here. WereSpielChequers 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)