Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2015-08

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.

Underage Wikimedians

Hi there everyone, my name is Rogi and I mostly edit on the german Wikipedia. In the de:Wiki we have an "Organisation" called Jungwikipedianer. It's like a Portal for underage Wikipedians where they can talk, collaborate and take part in some competitions. So, we met up a few months ago and we had the question, if there are other Portals or WikiProjects for underage Wikimedians in other Languages and Projects. It would be interesting to see, how the other language versions of this Project work and if we could collaborate to make something new and revolutionary (Jesus, I sound like a Public Relations Managemnt Officer).
I hope you are intersted in this!
--Rogi (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but there are the various Wikijunior sub-projects which are aimed at younger readers. If it is related (I think it is) then perhaps we should link them through Wikidata? Green Giant (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No, Wikijunior is about articles. The Jungwikipedianer is for underage Wikipedians. I'm not sure if something like this actually exists outside of the de:Wp. --Rogi (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... well if it doesn't exist elsewhere, then I think this might be something worth expanding on and would be very much in the scope of Meta. Perhaps Jungwikimedianer/Young Wikimedians? Green Giant (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Really, it doesn't exist? Great, let's do something new! Do you think, this name is ok? --Rogi (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Since Meta is a multilingual wiki, we can have pages in any recognised language (and maybe even some fictional ones). I would recommend starting with a short description of the DE project and categorising it initially under Category:Community and a new Category:Young Wikimedians. To make it multilingual, you could use {{LangSwitch}} so people see the text in whichever language they prefer. Green Giant (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I created the cat, but I'm not so good in Cats. Could someone correct the mistakes I made in Category:Young Wikimedians? Thanks, --Rogi (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • We must have an effective child protection policy here at Meta before we take action of this kind that might put children at risk. Please stop until there is a clear consensus about the risks involved in any further actions and the advice and protection WMF can afford to children using this site. @Mdennis (WMF):,@Philippe (WMF): please would Community Advocacy look into this as a matter of urgency. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Rogol Domedonfors: I think it's really important, that children Are protected! --Rogi (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I will look into it, yes. Starting enquiries now. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Mdennis (WMF): but in fact: if there is such a matter with minor Wikimedians, how is it possible on the de:Wiki and the zh:Wiki? --Rogi (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Rogi, an enquiry doesn't necessarily mean that there is a matter. :) I will report back any feedback I receive. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If global policy isn't going to be approved yet, we can draft and approve a local policy under Meta:Child protection policy as a temporary solution. Thoughts? —MarcoAurelio 19:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest I'm surprised that there isn't a specific global policy. For the local policy, could we use some of the existing Wikipedia policies/essays? Green Giant (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Green Giant:. I have created a draft at Meta:Child protection policy, and it's open for everyone for discussion and modifications. I'd appreciate if @WMF Legal, Jalexander-WMF, and Mdennis (WMF): could also have a look at it. English is not my mothertongue so I beg to please apologize in advance for any mistakes made. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 16:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio , thank you for starting that. :) I have passed that on to legal. I think probably feedback will not be forthcoming until the workweek, but I am sometimes surprised by the hours people work, so I could be wrong. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Mdennis (WMF): Thank you for taking care of this so promptly. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Friendly spaces expectations revisited

Last spring, as part of the Inspire Campaign, a set of friendly space expectations was applied to the discussions around Inspire grants. The goal was to create an inclusive, collegial, and positive space for community members, grant applicants, the Grants Committees, and program officers to discuss the merits of grants.

The expectations can be seen here. The Inspire trial was successful, with some caveats. The focus of the Inspire campaign (gender diversity) brought some negative and misogynistic commentary to the main discussion page, as well as vandalistic proposal submissions. Meta admins helped to keep discussions on-topic and harassment to a minimum, although there was some differences about what types of comments would be hatted or removed. As this is a new approach, that is to be expected.

This summer, the Grants Committees and Community Resources at the Foundation wish to continue using the expectations, and expand them to all of the Grants pages. I’m posting here to get feedback from Meta admins and community about the expectations, and, importantly, how dispute resolution should be handled. Without support from the Meta community and administrators, the expectations are not enforceable.

The friendly space concept can be a path towards a more constructive, and less divisive, atmosphere on this project. It offers guidance on how to keep discussions moving forward, and how to ensure that participants feel safe being involved. The main question to be resolved is this:

  • While overt harassment and threatening language are promptly removed in the Grants spaces, and dealt with through existing processes, how should we handle more subtle forms of aggression against community members?

Thanks for your feedback, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You may find my perspective on this rather alien. My perspective comes from en.wn; when I first came to Wikinews I'd already been thoroughly indoctrinated in Wikipedia's AGF philosophy, so that, although I could see the importance of not assuming anything on a news project, for years I kept believing that AGF is right for Wikipedia and this is just one of the differences between an encyclopedic wiki and a news wiki.
Eventually, though, I've concluded that AGF is in the long term bad for any community.
  • Superficial civility doesn't prevent various forms of nastiness below the surface (it doesn't even have to be deliberate, though it certainly sometimes is). In fact, it's possible to needle others civilly until they react and then they get in trouble for incivility and/or not assuming good faith, so that AGF becomes not only a protection for those of dubious faith but an offensive weapon for them as well. I suspect even that behavior doesn't have to be deliberate, as one can probably learn it from others as a normal mode of behavior, and perceive oneself as virtuous for doing so.
  • AGF can also be a convenient excuse for not listening to criticism. This, again, has both deliberate and perniciously non-deliberate variants. When, for example, the Foundation does something outrageous (in the sense of creating outrage), it's then easy to dismiss complainants on the grounds they're not being civil.
  • The fact-finding motive to "never assume" on Wikinews applies elsewhere as well, of course: naivity is dangerous in any context, it's just that the consequences are more immediately obvious on a news project.
Do I have a magic solution for all this? Alas, no. Although I'm inclined to believe "never assume" should be a component of a solution, it's not a complete solution even on Wikinews; and Wikinews has an unfair advantage over (for example) Wikipedia in this regard, in that its workflow naturally prevents most disagreements from dragging on: if the writer and reviewer of an article can't cooperate and come to an agreement quickly, the article goes stale and then there's nothing left to argue about. --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Pi zero, some good points here. Disruption is often done through mostly "civil" language, in terms of vocabulary. We're trying to balance the issues you raise with AGF with a framework that looks at the power and effect of the words used, rather than the words themselves. And we don't have the magic solution either - but trying a different approach might get us closer to a better state of affairs. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I support the idea that different spaces in Meta-Wiki can operate differently, so as to facilitate the co-existence of different modi operandi and sub-communities (and therefore the merge of other wikis into Meta-Wiki). However, establishing a policy or even guideline requires consensus of the target community, or concretely some buy-in: top-down approaches and law by fiat not only are contrary to our customs, but simply don't work.
So, where was the local discussion supporting this proposal? If there wasn't one, are you going to hold one and how? If there is no shared space for discussion in the target audience, you can use Meta:Babel (note, this discussion shouldn't be on Wikimedia Forum either) and invite the Grants_talk namespace regulars. --Nemo 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
My thinking for posting here was that Grants brings in participants from the movement as a whole, and that behavioural guidelines, even in a limited space like Grants, are of interest to the movement as a whole. But I take your point about Meta specific proposals being better suited for Babel. In terms of discussions supporting the proposal, the expectations did get some supportive discussion on its talk in the spring. The expectations grew from the real-life events version, which was developed in response to concerns raised by events organizers and WMF Legal, both on mailing lists and privately, that movement events needed a guideline to ensure the safety of everyone involved.
The IdeaLab Friendly Spaces was a pilot, and the subsequent survey confirmed that an unfriendly environment was one of the major limiting factors to wider participation there. There is also this page (Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting), which indicates contributors support more protections for editors and a rethinking of some of our current approaches (or lack thereof). At least one project has proposed a specific sexual harassment policy recently, which appears to also have community support. These are some of the factors that have influenced the Grants team to push for the Friendly Spaces expectations to be further discussed by the community. In terms of consultations with grants space regulars, Alex Wang and I have been working on the mailing lists with committees (Grants, FDC) to gauge support and get feedback. This revision was based on their work. The feedback has been very supportive, with the caveat that several members are rightfully concerned about how escalation and enforcement will work within the F.S. framework. This is partly why I raised the question at the bottom of my original post; this is an aspect that can only be resolved through community discussion. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, what is AGF? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: it refers to the Wikipedia guideline of Assume Good Faith, which basically means that you should try to assume that someone else's edit is made in good faith. Green Giant (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


After more consultation with the committees and users that frequent the pages, we’ve decided to begin using the expectations across the Grants space. Further comments/feedback/suggested improvements are welcome on the talk page. We have started creating some templates and guidelines to help users with enforcement, which is still a challenge in this process. Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Language Portals

Hello everyone. I have started a proposal to create new pages within the "" domain. Please come and have a look and help me flesh out the proposal. Green Giant (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment of pages which were assessed a long time ago ( Re assessment)

I want to grab attention of authority holders towards the fact that many pages were assessed a long time ago and since then have been changed. Thus their re-assessment is required. I can not find the right person to whom I can request for re-assessment. Thus I am posting it here. Help may please be extended by those who have knowledge about it. Vr parashar (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessments happen according to each project's policy. If you're talking about the English Wikipedia (which is not here), anyone can re-assess an article, according to the Assessment scheme. Ijon (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

encoding & Download as PDF

I tried to do Download as PDF on the page 위키미디어 대한민국/Bylaws. But Korean text was not shown for encoding problom like this download link. Please check about this problem. --거북이 (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Glaisher (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello colleagues! I'm user of the Kazakh Wikipedia. I wanted to ask about the creation of the widget of site in visual tabs. How we can do it?--Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If we were to put together a package of universal widgets and templates that Wikipedias could sign up for do you think Kazakh Wikipedia would be interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that It will be good--Мұхамеджан Амангелді (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from July 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in July 2015.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A Copyright-Violating Republication of Chinese Wikipedia

In recent days, blood-boiling anger is rising up among Chinese Wikipedians when a copyright-violating republication of Chinese Wikipedia is discovered. The content of this website, namely TangRen Baike (literally "Chinese people's encyclopedia"), is totally equal to the one of Chinese Wikipedia. However, this website turns the word "Wikipedia" (維基百科) to "TangRen Baike" (唐人百科), "Wikimedia" (維基媒體) to "TangRen Media" (唐人媒體), "Wiki" (維基) to "TangRen" (唐人), etc. This site hosts advertisements unrelated to Wikipedia, while at least one of them probably links to an adult website. Moreover, the site claims that its content is the property of the website itself by adopting the declaration "Copyright © 2015 TanRen.US". Its content, originally by Chinese Wikipedians, is hosted on the misleading domain "".

Many Chinese Wikipedians become furious when hearing about TangRen Baike. I, Carrotkit, organized a petition that intends to show our anger. Some Wikipedians are considering if TangRen Baike has violated their rights. I sincerely ask all users participating any Wikimedia project to lend a helping hand. Please either join the petition or provide us with legal advices. Your help would mean a lot to Chinese Wikipedians. The petition is organized there, while you are welcomed to express your opinion on any related pages.

Thanks & Best Regards--Carrotkit (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is unfortunate when people take our content without attribution. There are 1,000 of websites that are mirrors of Wikipedia and as long as they state were the content is from it is generally okay.
How extensive is the readership / how popular is their website that is taking Wikipedia content? Can you provide a url to their main page? Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to TangRen Baike: [1]. Chinese Wikipedians always have their works copied by other websites, but TangRen Baike changes the word “Wiki” to “TangRen” when coping Wikipedia’s articles. This is the problem of most concern. --Carrotkit (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, Carrotkit: Basically, it is just a mirror site which converts keywords such as "Wikipedia" to "Tangren Baike", and which provides their copyright symbol at the bottom of the page. You can access almost all Chinese Wikipedia articles there (which changes together with zhwiki) except articles with special punctuations. Even all categories and portals can also be accessed there, which made the website more like a hilarious one rather than one written by any editor. In short, the website operates automatically by changing its content together with Wikimedia server. HYH.124 (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You are right, but this conversion of keywords is quite misleading. Readers, especially those who have never visited Wikipedia, might trust the false statements like “TangRen Baike is a project of TangRen Media”, “TangRen Baike is founded by Jimmy Wales”, “TangRen Baike has no relations to TangRen Leaks”, etc. Readers would thus be misled and the reputation of Wikimedia would be harmed. --Carrotkit (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Are they blocked in China? If not that would be a significant benefit to people trying to access our content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know. --Carrotkit (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Uh,they aren't blocked in PRC yet:).--MargokDN (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I would just view them as one more way we can get around the great internet wall of China. People who investigate a little will realize that they are just a copy of us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well at least the domainname is a violation of trademark policy. Informed the foundation by way of —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Carrotkit (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I've filed a logo abuse report to the Legal division, when the head of China User Group, Addis Wang, has reached the WMF for help. Nonetheless, I received comfirmations from the Legal Director yesterday, and confirmations of another man from the legal division - WMF will follow up the matter.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Somewhere, I think on English Wikipedia, there is some Wikipedian who in their own userspace has documented instances of the Chinese government copying Wikipedia without giving attribution to Wikipedia. I forget where - the user kept this up for year and I forgot who it was, but they had a great compilation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There is something similar in Chinese Wikipedia. However, Chinese government has never taken our content. The truth is, many users of Baidu Baike take content from Chinese, English and French Wikipedia. Chinese Wikipedians organized a petition and drafted a letter to Baidu some years ago. Meanwhile, a Wikipedian founded the "Chinese Wikipedia Copyright Affairs Council" which aimed to deal with the same issue, but some members of the council received emails containing virus. Although we have been paying a lot of effort, the problem of Baidu Baike has not been solved yet. --Carrotkit (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah! Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Baidu Baike. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll prefer to identify the nature of for being a mirror site as a comparably minor point, though as mentioned above, many efforts are made to track down those mirror sites/copyvios from competitors in the PRC. PS. As I once remember, Microsoft is also permissive on pirate versions of Windows - which in fact promote Windows' popularity in underdeveloped countries - until these decade, I think. We've a wrong focus, which should be their registration of, which is very misleading. WMF have replied positively, the "anger" is heard (at least for WMF). Now the matter may not be up to the webmaster of - there're signs showed that the webmaster attained citizenship in Canada, if so, he won't able to escape from legal actions. But the thing comes different if he is now in the PRC. --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 09:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have completely different focuses on this issue. Some Wikipedians take the misleading domain as the problem of most concern. I understand that TangRen's domain "" is a highly-probable violation of the trademark policy. What make me angry is that, this ridiculous website converts "Wiki" to "TangRen" when taking our content. I tolerate copiers who aim to provide readers with high-quality articles since we have the same goal. These copiers are similar to "gentleman thieves". However, TangRen Baike probably aims to make money by violating our copyright and hosting unrelated advertisements. This website does not care about readers, who might be misled by TangRen Baike's conversion of keywords. --Carrotkit (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Profit-making, non-free (in terms of copyright) and theft nature exists in virtually all competitors of Wikipedia in PRC. Also, though those conversion will confuse other and making an impression that this site is telling truth when we're telling lies, it would be hard to examine if the webmaster have a bad intention to make such a conversion or just for fun, which is also a challenge to uproot --Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse | Contributions ) 04:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
While one may draw an analogy between the various mirror sites of zhwiki and those of enwiki, pointing to our lenience towards the English mirrors, we must remember that Wikipedia has not been blocked in most enwiki-reading countries, which effectively curtails the popularity of any mirror site. This is the opposite in the PRC, where Internet censorship has led to the overabundance of low-quality, for-profit, legally questionable mirror sites of zhwiki, and the corresponding unavailability of the actual Wikipedia. I can see that the "blood-boiling anger" stems from the helplessness of Chinese-writing Wikpedians in promoting the main site in the PRC, amongst the detestable action of some mirror sites benefiting from the despicable censorship of the government authorities. Yinweichen (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?


The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 05:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Deutsche Physik(ari) freund

I research any "Deutsche Physik(ari) freund" accept me. They dared:"the speed of light in vacuum can not be a constant" Could you help me? Let you excist by your labour. Bilgelerimiz dogabilimci olsaydı1 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia volunteer email addresses

Wikimania 2015 - "Do we trust these people?"

-- "Imagine trying to do a desk job without a professional email adres." --

Dear fellow Wikimedians,

I suggest we create Wikimedia email adresses for trusted volunteers, of the type Name(_AT_)

When trying to contact professional organisations it can help our trusted volunteers if they have a Wikimedia email adres. Currently thousands of Wikimedia staff and volunteer board members have such an adres. Our trusted volunteers, who do the actual work, do not. I believe this complicates community initiatives. Anything that makes life easy for staff, can make life easy for trusted volunteers. As such, I suggest we create Wikimedia email adresses for trusted volunteers of the type Name(_AT_) This way it is instantly clear that this is a volunteer for Wikipeda/Wikimedia. To ensure safe usage we could let local Wikimedia organisations take any decisions for now and let the WMF allocate them. It would take no effort from the online community. It has been proven to work with volunteer board members, it has worked perfectly for the past 15 years.

Please let me know what you think.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note. I have been pointed to the fact that forwards should work as well. This may also be an option. Hand forwards to trusted editors at no cost, some non-tech administration. This is already implemented by Wikimedia Germany. -- Taketa (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
How to avoid abuse? Why not make a possibility to send mails to non-users through the Wikipedia website the same way we now send mails to users through the Wikipedia website. Other website have that method.--Havang(nl) (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia email adresses are already given to hundreds if not thousands of volunteer board members. To make sure it is not abused I put "volunteers" in the adress. Moreover, I suggest we ask some sort of trust level (for instance allocation by a Wikimedia organisation) and possibly an ID for people who want this. This should give some assurance. I do not like the Wikimedia internal email system to be honest. It has already forced me to change my Wikimedia email adres, because it is given out when you send an email. Moreover, it is limited in formatting. Such a system would also be more phrone to abuse. Also adding a new software would most likely take years. We already have a system for board members and paid personel. This is good enough for our boards, then it is good enough for our volunteers. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Mediator-type Websites use a mailing system which do not give free personal mail-addresses. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
To me it is important that volunteers can send emails and have them recognisable to people unfamiliar with Wikimedia. And the organisation can send email back. If such a mailing system would show the email as being send from name(_AT_) or something similar, and if sending an email back to such an adres would have an email arrive in my inbox, sure. However it would mean no control over who uses this and is phrone to abuse. Some limitation and measure of control would be preferable. Also a minor issue would be that such a system would take years in Wikimedia real time to create. The current proposal however could be up by this time next week. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
With some regularity I send emails for the work that I do. I may not get an answer but I often get back to people either on the phone or by mail. It usually works well when you make your request in a clear way. It may help that I am easy to google.. I doubt that it would make much of a difference. The best reason for not doing it is that it is another layer of complications. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I have also send lots of emails out and received replies, but not always, and only when I put in extra effort and extra contact info. We can work smarter, and easier. Giving someone an email adres has been done hundreds of times, with noone noticing. It caused no complications in the past 15 years. It makes life easier for our boards, it can make life easier for our trusted volunteers. Make Wikimedia easy. Make it work better. Taketa (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
One could get a formal email address through working with the local chapter or with a thorg. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There should be a system for people who are trusted but are not chapter volunteers to get an email adres. It should not be a requirement to work with a chapter. There are initiatives outside the chapters, and these should be encouraged. If you trust someone, trust them. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I see a problem of ambiguity: such an email address could look like the user is endorsed by WMF or like he is acting on behalf of them (I know you added "volunteers" on purpose, but people are stupid or simply don't know how Wikimedia works). This can lead to misunderstandings (which can damage the user himself in the first place, as he could be - wrongly - asked to respond for someone else's edits or actions, based on a misunderstood "employer-agent" assumption that lawyers love to exploit) and is prone to serious abuse (even phishing and impersonations); it is self-evident how the downturns outnumber the benefits. Furthermore I would not feel comfortable in sending a copy of my ID just to get an email address. I would like to hear the opinion of as many users involved in GLAM projects or partnerships (such as Wikimedian in residence and similar) as possible, to see if having a "reputable" email address could have actually helped in establishing a contact. In that case, I would be in favour of enabling such a feature, but only to users who actually need it (I don't think it's necessary to ask for IDs, just require the user to be involved in outreach projects); I would also restrict the use to "outreach activities" only (such that the risk of misunderstandings is minimized and abuses can be downright qualified as breach of the policy and lead to blocking the account). --Dry Martini (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
As a student, I have an email adres from my university. I have never been mistaken as speaking for my university. It does however give people a guarantee that I am a student, when I contact another university for an internship etc. I would like to have the same for Wikimedia. I do not mind the specifics. But having a google or hotmail adres will work against you. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Deutschland is offering business cards and mail-adresses to volunteers, see de:wp:@. User:Sebastian Sooth (WMDE) could perhaps share some experiences. Alice Wiegand (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Alice! That is exactly what I mean. "Often single Wikipedians have it difficult with outside contact, because they are perceived as private individuals" ("Allerdings hat es der einzelne Wikipedianer bei Außenkontakten oft immer noch schwer, weil er meist nur als einfache Privatperson wahrgenommen wird."). Great to read that a Wikimedia Chapter has already experienced this and decided to act. Well done. You are leading the way for the rest of us to follow. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes an Wiki Project Med also has business cards. It would not be that hard to set up email addresses for the corporation. I like using a single email address though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Every email sent by volunteers through OTRS has a disclaimer:
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on
This disclaimer would have to be included in any email sent through but should be set up in such a way that the software checks whether an outgoing email has a disclaimer and adds one if necessary. If volunteer emails are activated, there is the BIG question. How do you define a "trusted volunteer"? Green Giant (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
We have an OTRS email system, we can certainly use what we learned from it. I am not aware of any OTRS abuse. I think we can trust out OTRS volunteers, and such a level of trust could also be what we need for people who want an email adres. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I had the same question as previous volunteer (trusted or not: non lo so). Without a full definition of trusted volunteers it's not really possible to answer this proposal with
Support Support. Oppose Oppose or Neutral Neutral.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  12:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure it would help. One of the reason is that if a lot of people knows what Wikipedia is, a very few knows Wikimedia. --La femme de menage (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It is certainly better then current option such as google or hotmail. Trusted users can defined as we wish. It can be user of the level of OTRS access (who already answer Wikimedia email), or admin, or checkusers (users who have given an ID). However not all trusted users take extra responsibilities, and I think it is best looked at case by case with some sort of a general guideline. - Taketa (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
One way of handling the "trusted" aspect would be to use the same identification process as the access to nonpublic data policy (that's the old one, not the new one that is due to replace it). They are not the same thing, obviously, but represent about the same level of trustworthiness. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Anybody can identify if they want to. It has nothing to do with the abilities of a user. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No, and I did not say that it did. I showed that there exist processes that could be followed for identifying to WMF by pointing to one. It seems that you do not dispute that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you did say " but represent about the same level of trustworthiness. " so...yeah. No thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we are more in agreement than you think. The policy I quote shows that the trustworthiness in that case is determined by the community, not by the identification process. Presumably a similar system can be worked out n this case as well. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - I don't agree with the complete rationale behind this. Not only would it be a pretty large undertaking for the Foundation ops to create/add a whole new email system for volunteers but said system will need maintenance and time from, the ops team: And time is money.
Lastly, As an OTRS admin I will say that we have facilitated certain groups who have requested a queue and email address on the OTRS system in order to carry out certain projects or tasks. Those requests are thoroughly reviewed, however and not typically used for one person, but rather a group of Wikimedians working on a specific task or project. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
There are currently hundreds of emailadresses for employees and board members. Adding a few more to that same system will not be a significant expense. How often has OTRS been abused? Maybe you have denied it to people who try to help the foundation, and you stopped it for no reason. Do we trust OTRS members with a simple email, do we trust checkusers, or oversighters or stewards. Every single place I ever worked trusted me on day one. They did not complain about costs. Every single small company ever gave me an email adres on the first day. Have some faith in people. People who have been volunteers for 5-10 years. We can trust our "trusted" volunteers. These people have something to loose and will not abuse it. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a solution in search of a problem, in my opinion. But that's not the only reason I can't support it. It's everything I stated above. Furthermore, you're being extremely misleading. I don't think the staff has time so sit there to maintain volunteer email accounts. And it would have to be staff that does it, if you want to use the same system. There are other much more important things to spend time on. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The German Chapter has this problem written down on their website It is a real problem for some of us. We have 250 staff. Not counting the staf of the local chapters. How can we not have the one or two people to handle this? How can the chapters who are there to support local editors not have the time to support the one or two requests a month they may get. It takes little to no time. Almost no money. If money is the problem, let the foundation state it here. Money is not the problem. Staff is not the problem. Prove me that money is the problem. Let the foundation make a statement here and now. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It is usually difficult to get support for the current volunteer-driven ticketing system (OTRS). Trust me - ops staff time is limited for things like this. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I fully understand and accept ops time is limited. But the foundation has time for this. Time and money are not a problem. Please ask the foundation if you think it is, but do not speculate on such matters. We are not barely hanging on as an organisation. This is more then possible. Taketa (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not speculating. I'm telling you, based on my 5+ years as an OTRS administrator, that time is limited and such things simply are not a priority. I have the personal experience to tell you this. The fact that you refuse to believe it and keep saying otherwise to mislead people in this discussion is unacceptable so please stop (even pending your confirmation if you choose to seek it). In the meantime, your comments should be accurate.. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
How am I misleading people? It is possible. If a new staff is hired, they get an account. No effort. Why is it different for a volunteer. Why should it be so hard? Giving someone an email adres is not a time consuming matter. Specially if trust is already established in some way. We are not talking thousands of people a day. We are talking in small numbers, less then there are email accounts at the moment. Any of the staff can check people, it does not require effort from any specific person. Why would the foundation be able to give email adresses to 250 staff members, yet not be able to give email adresses? It is possible to do this. Taketa (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rjd0060:: I am not technical so I asked Hoo Man for his opinion. Technical implementation "wouldn't be hard" it would be some effort ofcourse. Most would be infrastructure from non-tech staff. Ones it is there all can be done by non-tech staff. Current staff uses google. According to a websearch I just did [2] this would costs 40 euro a year per person. Considering 200-500 people, it would be an investment of 8.000-20.000 dollar. Which is alot, but is possible. Ofcourse forwards is a possibility, with the same staff requirements but 0 costs. Though this would need some instructionsonm how to use it as email. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You continue to present false statements and I'd appreciate you stop it, as I've already asked you. I did not say it would be difficult to implement on a technical level. I said it's a staffing issue. OTRS does not get the support it needs, so this likely wouldn't. Aside from that, I strongly oppose the idea for lack of proper reasoning. This is my opinion, based on experience and my own preference. You cannot argue my opinion. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not arguing your opinion. I think I am not misleading and I will not stop stating my opinion since it is true. If we cannot implement any new changes on such a minor scale, the foundation is in big trouble. I fully understand if OTRS would be considered to have priority. To be solved first. But if we really cannot do something this small, even if we wanted to, then that is a bigger problem. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that the WMF hav the resources to do this if they think it important enough. Whether or not they would think that if asked is a matter for speculation, @Rjd0060: your opinion on whether or not they would is just that -- your opinion. The only way to find out is to ask. So the issues are (1) is there consensus that this is a thing that on balance would be useful? (2) can a case be made with a reasonable estimate for costs both fixed and recurrent? (3) how best to put that case to WMF for action? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose - If 'trusted' means "Access to nonpublic information" I'd say those people should have an email address that shows they belong to sich a priviledged group and not "just a volunteer" who edits Wikipedia (resp. one or more of her sister projects) like e.g. Dutch moderators who have or get in many cases an address in the '' (yes in Belgium which country has his own chapter as well...) domain. If trusted means editing for let's say five years or longer, my opinion might change to support.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  16:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am the longest serving Dutch Wikipedia bureaucrat and list admin for the admin and bureaucrat email. I have a forward It is not enough, since it means you still send out emails via google or hotmail. You oppose in general, I am fully in favor of any change. Also a 5 year minimum edit limit. Anything to change the situation we have now. Any change is better then what we have. Please do not oppose when you are actually in favor. Even stewards are currently counted as not trusted. Even OTRS admins are not trusted. Even Checkusers are not trusted. Taketa (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
You can configure your email client to send emails with your address. -Ash Crow (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally I am very non-technical. I don't have a clue how. However, most of us do not have an @wikipedia adress. It is a simple matter of trust why stewards, checkusers, OTRS admins, buraucrats and trusted editors for 10 years do not have an email while staff does. It is a trust matter. We trust staff on day 1. We do not trust volunteers, unless they work with a chapter. This should not be the case. We need to trust certain people. If we trust them, there is no reason whatsover not to give them an email. Staff get it on day 1 because we trust them. If we trust an editor, we should give them equal treatment. Taketa (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose for three reasons:
  • There are quite high chances that owners of these emails will be considered as volunteers for Wikimedia Foundation and representatives of the Foundation, not volunteers of Wikimedia projects. You mentioned Wikimania: when you asked a Wikimania volunteer in a yellow T-shirt, they usually provided you an official answer from the team, not their own view as a volunteer.
  • There are people who are trusted as content contributors, but not quite as public representatives of the movement. I personally know a few experienced editors who made unpleasant public statements about Wikimedia (e.g. criticism of behaviour of some users in an interview for the media). The fact that one is an experienced editor does not mean one should be able to publicly represent the movement.
  • Managing such system would be quite complicated, we must have a system in place for requesting access (requires knowing if a person is trusted enough to represent its community) and a system for monitoring abuse (requires having someone capable of understanding any language used by volunteers).
Due to these reasons, I think that it would be more meaningful to let local communities decide how to manage volunteer emails: they are better both at knowing members of their communities and understanding respective languages — NickK (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
So am I correct you suggest that for example the English Wikipedia community would be allowed to choose to give for example one of its arbcom an email forward for @wikipedi.en, instead of a central system? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly, I am more supportive of the German model Alice was writing about. It is easy to manage (same language, same country, same community, same culture), its volume is not that high as it would be in cross-project list and address cannot be interpreted in a different way than "a user of German Wikipedia". It is up to local communities to decide whether they need those and how to manage them — NickK (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am fully in favor of introducing the German plan everywhere. If you support that, yet vote oppose, you will not get the German plan but get nothing instead. You really should have voted support if you want to support the German plan. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I can't support the proposal for centrally managed addresses, sorry — NickK (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I see alot of usefull input in this discussion. I am now leaning more towards local forwards. This would be free, and easy to arrange by local chapters. I am still thinking some central help and guidance would be good, more so because some Wikis do not have a local organisation. But yes, we can drop the idea of "" I think. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see us explore, as an initial step, making Wikimedia wiki usernames redirect to the associated e-mail address, if present. This would be equivalent to Special:EmailUser, except you could use your own mail client. The addresses would be,, etc. Facebook did this a while ago. All we'd be talking about initially is a pass-through (as opposed to setting up mailboxes). I think such an idea is worthy of investigation. I'm less sure about the proposal put forward here regarding "trusted volunteers" and a dedicated domain. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    @MZMcBride: Who do you foresee using these? If I have e-mail activated, presumably I'm willing to be contacted. If I don't, then I don't want the communication via e-mail. Do you think there are users who want to be contacted via e-mail but only in a separate e-mail account? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
    Hi Koavf. I specifically mentioned that this is not about having a separate e-mail account/mailbox. If I want to e-mail you (the user Koavf) with Outlook or Gmail or Yahoo! or whatever, how would I do that currently? I don't have your e-mail address, I only have your username. The idea that I'm discussing is about having or or whatever available as a pass-through/forward/alias/redirect so that users aren't forced to use Special:EmailUser in order to e-mail you. I believe this is very similar to what Facebook and other sites do. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    @MZMcBride: I understand that part but what I mean is, some users don't want to be e-mailed--they haven't enabled that. Would e-mails to such users be bounced? (As an aside, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here: but when you're adding that link, it is a 404... Can I help?) —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, those e-mails would bounce, preferably with an error message that clearly states what went wrong. (I've addressed your aside on your talk page, as this thread is clearly an inappropriate forum.) --MZMcBride (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This is an unworkable proposal.
  • First, email addresses associated with the foundation have only been available for foundation paid staff and a small number of volunteers. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it is not the encyclopedia or organization that anyone can speak for.
  • Second, the current staff who hold foundation associated email are subject to policies that would not be acceptable to most editors (trusted, new, or anywhere in this range). We cannot expect the public (ranging from users to people associated with the subject of articles) to correctly assume the correct connection between the email address holder and the organization/movement.
  • Third, any email address that associates the user with the foundation or Wikipedia (as a movement), subjects the holder to direct contact; handling a difficult conversation will be problematic. The editor is then left with the decision whether to forward the email, or muddle through. Which is exactly the current situation; no gain and some pain.
Personally, I like anyone who speaks for Wikipedia to be readily identifiable and subject to supervision by the bureaucracy already in place (and ultimately all editors). This proposal seems to lack concrete examples of how it could be helpful. How exactly would an email address containing the string wikipedia for each and every editor be of help for any purpose that can not be served by the current forwarding service? Otherwise this is a solution without a real problem. A gimme hat with no more meaning. - Neonorange (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not talking each and every editor. We are talking about starting with the few editors that we trust and can use this. The German Wikipedia chapter has this problem outlined on their website. It is usefull to many. To give myself as an example; I am organising a writing week in several languages of Wikipedia about music. For this I approach prominent musicians if they would like to have a meeting with some of our writers as a thank you and extra motivation. All I have is a hotmail adres. The first impression as such, could have been better if I had what every staff has, every board member has, an email adres. I am not asking that people be associated with Wikimedia. All I want is that people can be recognised as Wikimedia volunteers. Nothing more or less then the truth. Yes forwards may work. But we don;t have such a service yet for most of our people either. I would support a service that provides forwards as well. Taketa (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Deutschland is already offering email addresses and business cards (sample) to volunteers. We are also currently working on a new learning pattern about that. The following domains are available for email addresses (e.g.:


Users need to sign our terms and conditions, we usually check their right to vote in Wikipedia and set up their requested address, not with a postbox but as a forwarding to their own email. We are offering that service, which is gratefully accepted, since 2011 and have not made any bad experiences up to now. Furthermore we think about expanding it. For further information (in German) see, regards, --Nicolas Rück (WMDE) (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support with caveats: It would be helpful to be able to use such an address for specific purposes, e.g. working with GLAMs, and asking journal providers and other resource gatekeepers, on behalf of en:WP:LIBRARY, to provide resource access to Wikipedians, etc. A way to ensure that it's not abused is to archive messages sent to/from the address, and for all the outgoing messages to include a privacy notice that mail to and from the address is publicly archived, and that the sender does not represent official statements of the organization. When I'm writing to a newspaper asking for a copy of an old article, or many other circumstances of this sort, it would be helpful/persuasive if the message came from a role address instead of from my personal one. This would also help protect editors' privacy, especially for those who edit under pseudonyms in controversial topic areas. That said, you should not get such an e-mail address simply for registering a user account. It should be a "bit" like template-editor, account-creator, etc., that one applies for with a rationale.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion or vote?

I think the intention of this thread was to start a discussion, but a few people seem to have tried to turn this into a vote. I think it's premature to be using colorful icons to oppose an idea when it's still being fleshed out. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Support discussions with freedom to use icons. Voting...discussions...semantics...why does it matter. It wasn't meant to be anything. Oppose Oppose making a big deal about this Neutral Neutral issue. This is just a distraction. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Rjd, Wikimedia Germany shows forwards can be arranged without any Wikimedia technical staff involved or OTRS technical serviced delayed even a second. It is a problem as stated by Wikimedia Germany, it can be solved as shown by Wikimedia Germany. No tech staff needed, no project harmed, actual content providing wikimedians helped. A distraction is quite a rude word for something you think is a distraction. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Taketa, I'm afraid you misunderstood my comment. What I meant was that this subection, created by MZMcBride is a distraction to the actual issue we should be discussing above. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose OpposeToo early to consider voting. There is too much missing, including benefits, if any. I have not seen an example of how a person would use the Wikipedia branded email address, and why that is a necessary function. A cogent statement of why the proposed solution is necessary should come first. After that, well, we have something to modify and !vote. Until then, not so much. - Neonorange (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Examples from me personally: As a Wikipedian I actively organise wikimeets. Last year I organised 3 wiki starter courses at a University. It would be nice if the university could instantly recognise me as a Wikipedian instead of seeing a hotmail adres. It would be nice if the participants saw a Wikipedia adres instead of a hotmail adres when they signed up. I co-organised a GLAM meeting at a museum, for which it would have been nice. I contacted professional sporting organisations if I could come by and take photos of their players (~20 per organisations) who alle have articles in 10 languages but no images. I am organising writing weeks about music and nations, for which I approach prominent people to ask if they want to meet Wikimedians as a thank you and extra motivation. I do not work with a chapter or the foundation for this. As such I do not have a chapter email. I am not allone. Many people in the world take images or organise things. This is great. We should make it easier for them by either an email or at least a forward. I may not be that good at introducing a new system in Wikimedia, and this request may be technically lacking, but there is a problem that could be easily solved with little to no effort as Wikimedia Germany shows. Why not all work to have it solved, so people can get on with improving content. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Comment This can only be progressed through a scoped request for comment, and it relies upon where this fits in how this would fit the goals of WMF.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Taketa's own example of organizing an event in country C could make the volunteer eligible for an email-address within C's TLD (probably or [he seems to have it yet and can ask an expert to configure his emailclient to use it]). First to find out are the mailserver guys and gals of the chapter in the case either Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland or Wikimedia Belgium vzw. Only in cases where an area has no chapter someone who cares to organize such an event, may ask an official or the board of WMF. My €0.02. Kind regards from Tuscany,  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  07:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is the line I am currently thinking in as well, after the discussions here. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment Comment@Taketa; thanks for your answer. I can see your point. But, for example, you set up to take pictures at sporting events, using an email address associated with Wikipedia - who is then responsible for possible injuries - is Wikipedia (or a local chapter) exposed? Or, say a casual editor uses the Wikipedia email identity to wrangle press passes - who then is responsible for supervising such requests? And how? The possible problems of supervision and responsibility go on and on. It may be convenient for certain purposes, as you mention in your reply. But convenience for a few volunteers fails to outweigh the very real problems. And restricting the Wikipedia email addresses to a few volunteers just creates another class of Wikipedia editors - and at a great price. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - but that does not, and should not, extend to the encyclopedia that anyone can claim to represent. - Neonorange (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It differs by region yes you are right. A local chapter can weigh the local possibilies. For example in the Netherlands every person is insured by law and we do not have a claim culture. So any problems with damgaes or injuries would be covered by my own or that person's insurance, and no claim will follow. Ofcourse this differs per country, but I think a local organisation can make a decent estimate of possibilities. As such, I think we should as WMF make an advice for local chapters, inform them of the possibility, and some help with FAQ etc. Last year I checked with Wikimedia Netherland to ask for forwards for the admins of nl.wikipedia. They did not know how. So some guidance from experts like the German Wikimedia maybe. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment How about this, what if we only allow people who already identified by foundation here on Identification noticeboard to be allowed to have these volunteer email addresses?--AldNonymousBicara? 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I definitely think we can trust people who perform an elected function that requires identification to some extend. For me this includes trusting them with an email adres (not this list, since identification does not equal fulfulling such a function in all cases). - Taketa (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Again, we need to stop using the ID noticeboard as a location for a list of "trusted people". Anybody can identify, even if they are not required need to (not planning on acquiring any rights, etc.) Rjd0060 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think that ID noticeboard is actually good to look at for who will be eligible to get an email address. However, if we don't trust people having a wikimedia mail address, but maybe trust some to have access to personal identifiable data, then we've got a problem. I think that damage that can be done with a mail address is by far lower than what one can do with certain tools here. -Barras talk 13:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI: WMDE does not operate an e-mail infrastructure for volunteers with It only set up a forwarding service to one address provided by the volunteer. So we (I am trusted by WMDE with business cards and an e-mail-address) cannot send mails over a server by WMDE but only receive them via this forwarder. To be able to send mail under this address, I need a provider who allows me to send under verified third-party-addresses. -- 15:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Then what if we doing it like we do to OTRS? OTRS recruiting to be specific.--AldNonymousBicara? 10:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Hello, I think that Wikimedia volunteer email addresses could cause identification issues. As Dry Martini said, "such an email address could look like the user is endorsed by WMF or like he is acting on behalf of them".

I think that Wikimedia email addresses should be restricted to the Foundation staff, chapters and user groups. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Support Not prematurely using colorful icons.
  • Also Support Support this handy idea, the only question is what the base domain for the email addresses should be. Options: (since a friendly wikipedian runs the .wiki TLD) (identifying a specific language of wp? sorry, sister projects?) (no member of the public knows what wikimedia is to begin with; the WP trademark is safe)
I don't think can work; there might be conflicts with actual staff emails. And seems confusing, though I'd like to hear what you say facebook and other orgs are already doing.
SJ talk  04:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Long ago, I made a similar suggestion on En WP Village Pump proposal. We may have a separate domain like wiki-volunteers or wiki-editors. --TitoDutta 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC) The discussion may be seen here --TitoDutta 02:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading strategy

Hello, just headsup that reading strategy is currently soliciting community input for the upcoming strategy of the reading department. Feel free to take a look and participate :) --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

15 years of Wikipedia

Less than six months away. Perhaps it is time to share the planning with the community? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I'll start by questioning the terms "story", "brand" and "positioning". Who is telling what story? Wikimedia is a community, not a brand. We shouldn't be positioning, we should get people to write and read. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. These marketing efforts seem pretty silly given that Wikipedia already has enormous brand recognition. We don't need to explain what Wikipedia is to people, per se, we need to find ways to motivate people to edit and contribute. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Katherine (WMF): is this an activity for which you wish the volunteer community to assist in the planning and execution, or are you confident that the Communications team have it covered? Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Other than this, En WP is going to have 5 million articles. --TitoDutta 02:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Katherine (WMF): It seems you are confident that your team can manage entirely on their own without any help and that there is nothing that anyone else needs to know about it. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rogol Domedonfors: Thanks for the second ping, I somehow missed the first! I really look forward to working with community, and sharing the ideas from the WMF Comms team. It's my understanding that right now people are having conversations about this in different places, including their home Wikipedias. Fortunately, Pharos started a page here on Meta that seems like a good place to organize. I expect WMF Comms team will start contributing thoughts there soon, and I hope other do as well. Although it may seems obvious to say, the WMF Comms team has been anticipating the 15th birthday for some time, but conversations and focus have intensified since Wikimania. That said, we're still gathering ideas and doing our research. For example HWalls (WMF) held three workshops at Wikimania on ideas for the 15th birthday, and the WMF Comms team met last week with people involved in organizing the 10th birthday to learn what they felt worked, and what they felt should be improved for this year. I expect that we'll start posting to the page Pharos started soon, and would of course welcome everyone else to join there as well. If there's anything specific you think the team should be considering, people we should be talking to, or ideas we should be exploring, please let me/us know! Katherine (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

special:Notifications at various WMF projects

Dear friends! I wondered how and where special:Notifications works. Neither does w:de:special:Notifications support @[[user:Foo bar|]] nor:

  1. pa: w:pa:special:Notifications
  2. pnb: w:pnb:special:Notifications

At some other projects notifications are delayed:

  1. d: d:special:Notifications – notification delayed
  2. si: w:si:special:Notifications – notification delayed
see testwiki:user:לערי ריינהארט/! messages#links to test pages at other WMF projects

note: I did not test all WMF projects ;-)
question: Is this behaviour intended? Best regards lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (leri raynhart)

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether a certain edit is supposed to trigger a mention notification or not is partially described at mw:Manual:Echo. --Nemo 11:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Nemo. I posted the question at mw:project:Support desk. ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 11:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


it is very difficult to find original info from wikipedia because everyone can have it's own idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

How do we actually encouraging vandalisms and how to fix this

Sorry for the length of this post. Still I think it is a worthy read.

As an ex-vandal (I sadly must confess) and an ex-admin I think I do have a considerable view of the problem of vandalism, from both sides of the barricade.

To clarify: as a vandal I mainly wasn't active on Wikipedia, but rather different smaller wikis not related to Wikimedia, and sometimes some forums. And I hope this was long before enough.

And I gotta say your methods dealing with it are ineffective at most! It is ridiculous that people got to stare in the screen for hours playing Whac-A-Mole with vandals to prevent the site being flooded; it is ridiculous that sophisticated tools have to be developed just for this purpose! Do not be deceived by 'Pedia's popularity – while this is undoubtedly a significant factor, I'm positive the current flood is far too large to be explained just by popularity.

No, all of those public discussions, info and intervention pages, complaints, RFCc, public logs… You're asking for this yourselves! You have wise and enlightening pages like w:wp:DENY, w:wp:TMOAV, w:wp:RBI, but you don't practise your preaches. In the dark times I was vandalizing myself, I'll tell you, when I was seeing a FRACTION of all of this I was bursting out laughing uncontrollably! Why do you think do vandals always keep their style and leave traces? Because they WANT to be recognized, of course. You're just a one huge canteen for trolls. And again, I'm telling this from the perspective of an ex-vandal.

As a result of this people have to direct a large fraction of their energy to combat trolls, rather than help newbs, fix errors on pages, etc. Vandals' harassment techniques and burdensomeness make some productive users to grow in frustration and eventually leave. Newbies are being scared off, some fraction of the sneaky vandalism passes uncaught.

As an admin, I've been fending off vandals long enough; and I don't really wanna to be doing this again. I simply have a too big feeling of the utter pointlessness of my efforts. I'm tired of fighting it in such a way that I know my actions are actually counter-productive.

In this case Wikipedia's openness works against it. Do understand that vandals really do crave to see any impact of their actions. That's their goal, their reason to vandalize! When I was vandalizing, I was waiting for the results and looking for them, staring at the RCs, reading certain meta-pages and users' discussions…

That's not the way at all. The vandals' actions, from their perspective, should go to a black hole or /dev/null. No impact of their actions should be visible to them. Reverting, Blocking, Ignoring is important, but it's not enough. All pages like w:wp:LTA or w:wp:AIV should be removed from the public and be made visible only to trusted users. Also any discussions, RFCs, etc about them should be held somewhere unreachable by vandals (but reachable by all good users, not only admins). There should be consensus not even to mention their nicks in the public, even less to complain about their disruptiveness. Obvious vandalisms should not only be rollbacked; no, the vandalized versions should be removed from the page's history, at least from the vandals' perspective. The right to do so could be granted to anyone with the rollback right. If you ask me, I'd say the vandals should not even see who has blocked or reverted them; also the block reason should be left empty. Again; when I was vandalizing, I was sticking to pages that responded in a Wikipedia-like manner. If I saw a page that was removing traces of my vandalisms and made it impossible for to witness the results of my actions, I was going elsewhere.

Please learn from the experience of other sites, where this is exactly what is happening. On StackExchange banned users do not see their deleted content. On many forums vandals are just being arbitrary banned by they-don't-know-who, and their posts are being deleted. By the way, perhaps StackExchange's privilege system is worth considering?

By the way, I know I'm somewhat not practicing my preaches myself by publishing this very essay. But I really think this must be brought to attention.

Finally, it is important that I was talking only about die-hard vandals. These methods should never be applied to hot-blooded users, users that are just suspected of being vandals in disguise, etc… I am aware of Bang Bang's case, AFAIK there was not only one such mistake in the history, and well, I am in no way promoting this kind of hasty administrative actions.

I am also posting this on w:wp:VPIL and w:User:Marcgal/How do we actually encouraging vandalisms and how to fix this. Regards, Marcgalrespons 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, @Marcgal: I agree with this 100%. No question that many, many other sites have succeeded in this area where mediawiki currently does not. It's hard to change such a deeply-rooted aspect of current wikis, but some of the tools and techniques you mention can be very effective. At the very least it's worth implementing or testing them on new wikis, and offering standard tools that deny attention. SJ talk  03:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of truth to that and I would add 2 things that IMO the sites culture creates a lot of vandals. The lack of trust and the general us and them mentality of the admins, especially on ENWP helps to create vandals and rather than deescalate issues they do more to escalate them and ensure that people don't want to contribute and view the projects as a joke. Its gotten to the point now on ENWP that innocent editors accused are blocked, just in case, IP's and new editors are automatically assumed to be vandals, sockmasters or trolls with no AGF whatsoever and every attempt by some of the admins to find a reason to block or revert actions is made rather than looking for a reason to keep and welcome. I have seen all of this first hand personally in the same way as the testimony above. In my case the community voted to unblock me but a couple people who didn't agree got the outcome changed and now the admins won't unlock my account and really never intended too because I criticized some of them for being abusive. So now, ENWP loses a high output editor with more than 500, 000 edits lots of featured content and passion for the project because a few admins want to prove they are in control. My block isn't preventing anything other than edits getting done and all the block is doing is causing disruption because admins won't remove it. I am just one example of hundreds or thousands and if we start being more welcoming to people and judge them on the content they do and the contributions they make to improve the project rather than one or 2 people with the ability to block making accusations or not liking the person, then these projects would b a far more productive and collegiate place. Reguyla (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi

Any users can freely comment on this proposal.--GZWDer (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed "Wikipedia End Of Knowledge Project” - WEOK Project


(This submission was intended to use RICH TEXT, to help the reader get the main points. But that stuff has all been stripped away. Any ideas how I might write my way?)

My understanding is that what happens on Earth, grossly, is typical of what happens on all Earth-like planets, everywhere in the Cosmos. This includes evolving-experiencing what I call the Terminal Stage of Socioeconomic-Psychological Evolution - the time when everything that can ever be known is known (including knowing all things that can never be known). This is the time when Humanoids on Earth-like planets reach the end of knowledge, science, discovery, change, evolution, competitive advantage, history, newness.

It’s also the point when they must inevitably-necessarily (naturally) accept-adapt to a dramatic and fundamental transition. They have been hurtling through the most rapid and dynamic phase of Human-oid Socioeconomic-Psychological Evolution, during which change was the norm (what we're experiencing now). Over a generation or two, they must accept-adapt to the Terminal Stage of Socioeconomic-Psychological Evolution. This is the very, very long time - the remaining 1.2 billion or so habitable years for their planet - during which their previously hyper-dynamic Socioeconomic-Psychological System merely cycles through the standard-fixed-Universal set of Socioeconomic-Psychological Fashions that are known to be efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable.

Arriving at the End of Knowledge is a very big deal for Humanoids. It changes everything.

I think we Earthlings will reach our End of Knowledge within the next 250 years (before the year 2250). Then, the last of our biodynamic research scientists will discover the last of the cascades of chemical signals that Manage our individual body-brain-mind systems. Then, the Earth's Humans will know everything they can ever know about the Evolution of the Cosmos, Life, Human Socioeconomic Progress, the Individual Human Lifetime, and everything else.

The process has already begun, judging by the recent closure of physics and astronomy departments in many colleges and universities. Too few bright students (especially white, male, heterosexuals) were applying for physics and astronomy courses, because they knew these fields were dying, and that future jobs in physics and astronomy would be given to the best qualified among the pool of politically-correct/affirmative-action students.

Indeed, in the Western-white nations, all aspects of social participation (which were originally established to serve only white, male, heterosexuals) are now evolving away from the capitalist policy of “equal employment-performance opportunity” and toward the socialist ideal-manipulation-bluff of “entitlement of full equality for all” (this process hasn’t yet begun in any Asian, Negro, or Arab-Muslim institution or nation).

Around the year 2250, this process will be complete worldwide. Education will no longer be linked to getting a job, but will become just another fashion-entertainment. By that time, the zillions of detailed files of Wikipedia will (inadvertently) prevent ordinary people from making sense of being alive in Modern Times. A clear, simple, and comprehensive text will be needed. The Earth’s great thinkers will gather and finish the WEOK Project, perhaps labeling their file The Big Bang and Its Consequences.

I’m Asperger Autistic, prone to obsessions and lists, and have been focused on ‘knowing about everything’ since I finished my PhD in 1975 (social psychology, based on a BA in biology and chemistry). It's become a 40,000-word draft (later, if enough readers are interested). Its working title was, The Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances, with the subtitle The Four Great Systems of Change: Evolution of the Cosmos, Life, Human Socioeconomic Progress, and the Individual Human Lifetime.

The root “Manage” includes the processes of controlling-ordering, and making decisions about, and deciding outcomes for, resulting in “knowing.” The word “Appearance” includes the way something physically looks, as well as the way it is mentally perceived (impressions, illusions, semblances, pre-tenses, facades, veneers, guises), and also includes the processes of physically Appearing, originating, emerging, Evolving, Devolving, ending, Disappearing.

I’m most interested in the PROCESSES that drive the four great systems of change-evolution (Cosmos, Life, Human Socioeconomic Progress, Individual Human Lifetime). My view is that each system involves a very limited set of Laws of Nature (variability, choices), which, by successive iterations among those fixed laws-antecedents-causes must inevitably-necessarily-naturally, in the fullness of time, produce-generate fixed sets of consequences-effects, critical masses, Stages (the last of which is Terminal). I’ve labeled this process The Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances.

Plato (423-347 BC) was the first to establish this line of logic, arguing that all evolution moves-progresses toward the perfection of ‘Universally favored’ forms - his metaphorical shadows cast on cave walls by a central fire. I think Plato imagined-understood that all change-evolution must inevitably-necessarily-naturally operate via fixed sets of extant-behavioral repertoires and physical environments (the Physical, Biological, Socioeconomic, and Personal Appearance Managers), and that they would inevitably-necessarily-naturally select particular-limited-Universal forms that are efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable in each current, extant, here-now environment-situation.

Establishing the WEOK Project might involve asking interested people to apply and say why they want to join-contribute, providing a few revised-new paragraphs.

I'd like (but don't require) to have the role of inviting the first few dozen applicants to join the Project; when I resign, become disabled, or die (I'm 72), the current editors will democratically, together with Wikipedia man-agement, decide how to proceed.

Information about each of the editors will be held in a dedicated section, which has Wikipedia links with each of their contributions.

An automatic mechanism will invite the current editors to vote on each paragraph or section when they think-feel-believe it is complete-correct-unimprovable.

Only what is now known about each topic will be included-described: • All text will be in clear, simple, direct, and engaging language (I'll prefer Standard American-English, because it's my native-thinking-analytical language). • No history of science will be included (because nearly all of it is wrong, and therefore useless and a waste of time for ordinary people). • No sources-citations will be included (because they just get in the way of ordinary readers, and are easy to find online). • Contributors may use the following literary devices: hyphenated sets of synonyms; bulleted-indented blocks of text; bold, italics, underlines, CAPITALS, lower-case, ([parentheses]), and “quotes.” • The essential minimum of scientific terms will be used (which readers may Google if they wish, preferring .org and .edu websites, because they're more likely than .com websites to be free of bias and self-interest).

Nearly all of the material in my draft was drawn from established experts (mostly Wikipedia), following the procedures I’ve just described. But I’ve included a few personal-original theories:

The first is mentioned in the Introduction and detailed in Section II, about Biological Evolution. It involves the powerful process of convergence. A simple example of biological convergence is the independent evolution of the Old World Wolf and the Australian Thylacine, which share the same body-behavior system. But the idea of convergent evolution is much bigger than the independent Appearance-creation of two wolf-like species in different parts of the world. Convergence is at the heart of what I mean by the Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances. Specifically, all systems of change-Evolution, that is, all cause-and-effect relationships, must necessarily converge on a surprisingly small set of outcomes that are efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable for particles-planets-suns-singularities, body-behavior systems, socioeconomic systems, and psychological situations.

A second bit of original thinking also involves the Biological Appearance Managers (chapter two), but focuses on the Biological Evolution of Modern Humans, due specifically to the Biological Appearance Manager I call preemption. Two causes (forcing agents) Managed the Biological-Appearance Evolution of all of us, Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), about 50,000 years ago: 1) The onset of the Most Severe Ice Advance, which forced the Old World’s Human population toward the equator and into hyper-competition for living space-resources. 2) The inevitable Appearance-Evolution of the Socioeconomic-Psychological Appearance Manager that I call preemption, dominated by the inevitable logic that it’s much more efficient, practical, realistic, and sustainable to kill the other guy before he kills you - then, having killed all of the other men, you get to mate with their women and draw them and their children into your power network.

In other words, my view is that Natural Selection produced, in place, the racial-ethnic groups of Modern Humans we see today (rather than pretending that there was another out-of-Africa migration of superior people). My view is that no other physical cause-and-effect mechanism could have produced us. Why didn’t it happen earlier - 1.8 MYA, 2.5 MYA, 1.3 MYA, or even a few hundred thousand years ago? Because it wasn’t yet physically possible for a critical mass of Homo sapiens members to evolve-Appear. And, of course, there hadn’t yet been a sufficiently catastrophic-selective Ice Advance.

And, of course, it’s my personal-original idea to construe The Knowledge as the direct-inevitable-necessary-natural result of the Appearance Managers, Managing Appearances.

Sincerely yours, Peter Norris The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Scott Norris (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 August 2015‎ (UTC)