Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2022-04
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2022, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Problems with unique central log in for all WMF projects
In the last few days (ok last 1 week), I faced a problem with unique central log in for WMF projects. For example, when I am log in English Wikipedia, and I jumped on to Commons, I got automatically logged out. And again log in and jumped on to Metawiki, I was automatically logged out. When tried to log in, my username was already written in the writing space but I need to enter my password. Do other Wikimedians face the similar conditions? And how shall I solve this issue? Haoreima (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Haoreima: Perhaps a silly question, yet you clicked "keep me automatically logged in"? Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Xeno (WMF) oh I didn't clicked that! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
What Wikipedia means in different projects
Hello everyone! I wanted to draw attention or at least have a discussion about something that has been worrying me for quite a bit. I've been involved with Wikimedia for around a decade now and during that time I've noticed that for many projects Wikipedia is a different thing than what it is for the English one. Multiculturalism and diversification are good factors to look for but this is not what I'm talking about here. What I mean is that some projects may understand Wikipedia as a kind of institution and operate it like one, some may treat it as a certain language glossary, some may consider it a kind of archive, some like a national social forum and some others as a place for an alternative national history. This mostly happens with small wikis I may dare say because of the small number of users they have. I can provide further details on this matter if so needed.
I've recently been reading a lot about the global leadership initiative and in it, many, many times we ask the question "what does 'leader' mean". Now, I know we have a page like this in EnWiki but other than that have there been more discussions or writings in regard to this aspect in a global scale? Should there be? - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- The WP:NOT page exists in many other languages: d:Q4345841; perhaps a comparison could be done across the projects to see what are the shared and divergent views. –xeno 12:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xeno, how would such a comparison be done in very rough sketches? Are you talking about comparing WP:NOTs content globally? I believe that wouldn't be very "organic" as many projects, especially small ones, just translate policies ad verbatim from EnWiki without giving much thought or discussion to them just so they can "have a law to show" in article deletion rationales. I know because unfortunately that's what we've been doing for years at my homewiki (SqWiki). Sometimes translations are not even full translations. Sometimes there aren't translations at all. Some of our policies just straight up interlink to the EnWiki's policies because our translated versions would fall quickly behind in terms of updating content. (A quick example. Try following the links.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Klein Muçi: (had to switch accounts - ) as I was listening, Movement Strategy/Global Approach for Local Skill Development came to mind (which is a prioritized initiative). Either assessing needs or creating a learning resource around this is something a movement strategy implementation grant might apply to, if that would help. Is that an idea you'd be interested in moving forward? (Feel free to reach out by email or my talk page to discuss further) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xeno (WMF), I'm a bit confused. Do you mean to "assess needs or create a learning resource" about What Wikipedia means in different projects or is that an unrelated offer? - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- To your idea - it seemed like you were saying that it's hard to come to agreements on smaller projects about project scope. There are less people writing procedures in the native language. A learning resource that shared knowledge between projects, with best practices in easy to translate language would be useful for contributors to adapt on smaller projects. In essence, a global approach to local skills development. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, so basically to find a way to have a "more organic WP:NOT" globally. Well, I'd be interested in that of course but this differs a bit with what I had in mind when I started this discussion. I was hoping to discuss it publicly here, to be able to see if what I'm talking about has been noticed by other people in other communities or not, express how we feel about that and if it was deemed appropriate to actually take action in regard to it, have the discussion evolve in a brainstorming session in regard to the type of action that should be taken. The initiative you proposed basically starts "immediately" on the "take action" step and truth be told, I don't feel ready in that aspect given that I lack a clear perspective of what it is and what needs to be done about it, aspects which I was hoping to find along the way on the supposed discussion here. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- On Meta-wiki, I found Wikipedia is not paper, which has a few translations. Perhaps directly inviting some of the local creators of WP:NOT pages to share about their local context could be a first step. If you are interested to know there is some research about the state of local policy generally here. That table highlighted projects that had more or less active policymaking at the time. It could be used as a starting point for inquiries into how project scope norms compare based on the development stage of local policy. –xeno 03:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's way more close to what I had in mind. If you go check for the Albanian Wikipedia, you'll see that what I mentioned above is true. Taking my word with a lot of salt, I might also add that we also have an overall "institutionalization" kind of problem in our wiki being a small one, which may be a shared thing among all small wikis. Even though the road is not blocked at all, there are only a few people who "deal with Wikipedia", around 10 people maybe, and those users start becoming more or less the official representatives of the Wikipedia nationwide in the eyes of the overall public. This road eventually starts straying further from "Wikipedia is a place everyone can edit!" and closer to "Wikipedia is an institution you can also be part of if you get accepted, applications are open!", at least in the eyes of the uninformed public.
- Another problem we've had in the past, that I've been able to witness by looking at old pages in SqWiki, is that, for example, the whole Portal namespace was treated mostly as city forums, in which you could go to Portal:NameofCity and interact with other people from the said city and learn about what was going on around, news, activities and parties. I've also seen old archived discussions where Wikipedia was treated as a kind of "alternative national history", with rationales like "The XxWiki says X about us! We should put our dignity where it belongs and say X about them too! - Yes! That's what we'll do!" (The Croatian Wikipedia also comes to mind with examples like this.)
- I searched for the Latin Wikipedia in that list you sent above, another small Wiki which I've interacted with organically (and still do) but I didn't find it. Again, take my words with a lot of salt but the whole community there seems more interested in the Latin language preservation and usage itself than the "Wikimedia part". Some of them go as far as "despising" edits made in the template or module namespace because they may see them as more or less as "useless", as they see any edit which is not in the mainspace or in the article talk pages.
- I believe there are 2 topics which should be addressed:
- In general, should we ratify policies from EnWiki (or Meta) or should local projects create their own policies?
- Should we allow small wikis to crystalize their own identity gradually, which may mean that we eventually allow some Wikipedia-s that don't follow the traditional "wiki ways", or should we guide their development along the way?
- Both of these topics deal directly with "What Wikipedia is" or "What Wikipedia is not", if we prefer that approach. Maybe, inspired by what you just wrote, the first step would be to directly invite communities globally to come in here (Meta) and write their own versions of WP:NOT? (Maybe we should consider writing What Wikipedia is instead [WP:IS] or would that be too constricting?) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- A great point you raise; certainly this is different in each language. And I think our wiki model is most successful in communitie that exceed a certain size and have some connection to ideas about what it IS and IS NOT that are transformative, generative, welcoming (and rather different than the default organizations or institutions that most members are part of in the rest of their lives, online and offline). Meta pages for WP:IS and WP:NOT that at least catalog the elements that are present in different local projects, and talk about what gives things a wiki spirit, could be a fine idea. My take is: 1. There's no need to ratify central policies for all, but good reason to gather arguments for common + successful policies. and 2. we should guide development, as we collectively have long experience with models that have worked, and those that have not; and indeed there are plenty of other outlets for "non-wiki" approaches to similar goals. –SJ talk 00:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sj, I do agree with your point of view. Do you have any idea how we could organize a global "survey" on this matter? Starting simply with questions like: What WP:IS and WP:NOT for them and then decide what can we do with that kind of data?
- @Xeno/@Xeno (WMF) maybe can also help. - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- On Meta-wiki, I found Wikipedia is not paper, which has a few translations. Perhaps directly inviting some of the local creators of WP:NOT pages to share about their local context could be a first step. If you are interested to know there is some research about the state of local policy generally here. That table highlighted projects that had more or less active policymaking at the time. It could be used as a starting point for inquiries into how project scope norms compare based on the development stage of local policy. –xeno 03:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, so basically to find a way to have a "more organic WP:NOT" globally. Well, I'd be interested in that of course but this differs a bit with what I had in mind when I started this discussion. I was hoping to discuss it publicly here, to be able to see if what I'm talking about has been noticed by other people in other communities or not, express how we feel about that and if it was deemed appropriate to actually take action in regard to it, have the discussion evolve in a brainstorming session in regard to the type of action that should be taken. The initiative you proposed basically starts "immediately" on the "take action" step and truth be told, I don't feel ready in that aspect given that I lack a clear perspective of what it is and what needs to be done about it, aspects which I was hoping to find along the way on the supposed discussion here. - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- To your idea - it seemed like you were saying that it's hard to come to agreements on smaller projects about project scope. There are less people writing procedures in the native language. A learning resource that shared knowledge between projects, with best practices in easy to translate language would be useful for contributors to adapt on smaller projects. In essence, a global approach to local skills development. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xeno (WMF), I'm a bit confused. Do you mean to "assess needs or create a learning resource" about What Wikipedia means in different projects or is that an unrelated offer? - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Klein Muçi: (had to switch accounts - ) as I was listening, Movement Strategy/Global Approach for Local Skill Development came to mind (which is a prioritized initiative). Either assessing needs or creating a learning resource around this is something a movement strategy implementation grant might apply to, if that would help. Is that an idea you'd be interested in moving forward? (Feel free to reach out by email or my talk page to discuss further) Xeno (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xeno, how would such a comparison be done in very rough sketches? Are you talking about comparing WP:NOTs content globally? I believe that wouldn't be very "organic" as many projects, especially small ones, just translate policies ad verbatim from EnWiki without giving much thought or discussion to them just so they can "have a law to show" in article deletion rationales. I know because unfortunately that's what we've been doing for years at my homewiki (SqWiki). Sometimes translations are not even full translations. Sometimes there aren't translations at all. Some of our policies just straight up interlink to the EnWiki's policies because our translated versions would fall quickly behind in terms of updating content. (A quick example. Try following the links.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia editor in Belarus sentenced to 2 years of prison
Today, local court in Brest, Belarus, sentenced Wikipedia user Pavel Pernikaŭ (Pavel Pernikov) (User:Pr12402, ~84,000 edits in different languages) to 2 years of prison [1] [2] (for now, links are in Russian only). He was found guilty of "committing acts that discredit the Republic of Belarus" (article 369-1 of the Criminal Code of Belarus): "providing to the public deliberately false information about the activities of law enforcement and state bodies of the Republic of Belarus" and "delivering deliberately false information about the involvement of Belarusian authorities in the murder in October 2004 of journalist Veronika Cherkasova, as well as to torture and murdering people". According to human rights activists, only 3 edits (2 in ru-wiki and 1 in be-tarask-wiki) were mentioned by the court. — Homoatrox (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
How central were those 3 edits to the overall case presented? –SJ talk 00:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Nouveau chapitre de thèse
Bonjour, voici un nouveau chapitre de ma thèse que je vous invite à commenter si cela vous tente. Je décris tout le système politique du mouvement cette fois-ci. Une belle journée à tous ! Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact (Fr-N, En-3, Pt-3) 20:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements
Hello!
Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?
Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 29 April 2022 at 13:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 88045453898. Dial by your location.
Agenda
- Update on the recent developments
- Questions and answers, discussion
Format
The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English.
We can answer questions asked in English, French, Italian, and Polish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.
At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.
We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now - April 2022
Hello Wikimedians!
The Wikipedia Library has free access to new paywalled reliable sources. You can these and dozens more collections at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/:
- Wiley – journals, books, and research resources, covering life, health, social, and physical sciences
- OECD – OECD iLibrary, Data, and Multimedia published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
- SPIE Digital Library – journals and eBooks on optics and photonics applied research
Many other sources are freely available for experienced editors, including collections which recently became accessible to all eligible editors: Cambridge University Press, BMJ, AAAS, Érudit and more.
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: log in today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.
Join the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan conversation with Maryana Iskander at 17:30 UTC 27 April and 16:00 28 April 2022
The final general call about the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2022-2023/draft will begin in 50 minutes. I hope you can join us at the following Zoom link. The languages supported with live interpretation for this call are English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
There is also a final call focused on Wikimedia Commons tomorrow at 16:00 UTC, and comments can also be provided on-wiki: Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2022-2023/draft/Your Input. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Version provisoire de ma thèse au sujet de Wikimédia
Bonjour, voici pour ceux que cela intéresse le lien vers la version provisoire de ma thèse de doctorat portant sur le mouvement Wikimédia que je destine à mon jury en première lecture et en vue de ma défense privée prévue le 17 mai. Sa mise en page a été un vrai calvaire pour réussir à transformer des pages Web MediaWiki en pdf, mais voilà j'ai fait ce que j'ai pu. Il doit certainement rester pas mal de fautes d'orthographe que je corrigerai pour la version définitive. N'hésitez pas à me contacter si vous avez des remarques, suggestions ou autre. Voici le lien vers le PDF de la version provisoire. Une belle fin de journée à tous ! 130.104.34.102 18:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Coming soon: Improvements for templates
Hello, more changes around templates are coming to your wiki soon:
The template dialog in VisualEditor and in the 2017 Wikitext Editor (beta) will be improved fundamentally: This should help users understand better what the template expects, how to navigate the template, and how to add parameters.
In syntax highlighting (CodeMirror extension), you can activate a colorblind-friendly color scheme with a user setting.
Deployment is planned for May 10. This is the last set of improvements from WMDE Technical Wishes' focus area “Templates”.
We would love to hear your feedback on our talk pages!
-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 11:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 6
Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 6, April 2022Read the full newsletter
Welcome to the sixth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board of trustees elections and other relevant MSG topics.
This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while the more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.
- Leadership Development - A Working Group is Forming! - The application to join the Leadership Development Working Group closed on April 10th, 2022, and up to 12 community members will be selected to participate in the working group. (continue reading)
- Universal Code of Conduct Ratification Results are out! - The global decision process on the enforcement of the UCoC via SecurePoll was held from 7 to 21 March. Over 2,300 eligible voters from at least 128 different home projects submitted their opinions and comments. (continue reading)
- Movement Discussions on Hubs - The Global Conversation event on Regional and Thematic Hubs was held on Saturday, March 12, and was attended by 84 diverse Wikimedians from across the movement. (continue reading)
- Movement Strategy Grants Remain Open! - Since the start of the year, six proposals with a total value of about $80,000 USD have been approved. Do you have a movement strategy project idea? Reachout to us! (continue reading)
- The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is All Set! - The Committee of fifteen members which was elected in October 2021, has agreed on the essential values and methods for its work, and has started to create the outline of the Movement Charter draft. (continue reading)
- Introducing Movement Strategy Weekly - Contribute and Subscribe! - The MSG team have just launched the updates portal, which is connected to the various Movement Strategy pages on Meta-wiki. Subscriber to get up-to-date news about the various ongoing projects. (continue reading)
- Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)