Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Wikimedia forum)
Jump to: navigation, search
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
Arabic Coffee.jpg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki


This box: view · talk · edit

New project proposals[edit]

Hello all. I have put forward proposals for two new wikis at Userwiki and NonFreeWiki. I think they are somewhat similar to earlier ideas but I would welcome any comments and questions. Green Giant (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I would particularly like NonFreeWiki, and I would expect much opposition from other users as well. It goes against Wikimedia's mission and its vision of free knowledge for all. Wikimedia Commons is specifically and deliberately set up the way it is, as a free repository of media files; in this context, it has a specific scope as a wiki to develop free media content for its particular audience, like how Wikipedia has a specific scope as a wiki to develop free peer-reviewed informational article content for its particular audience. Wikimedia Commons also has the ability to be reused outside the Wikimedia Foundation, including for commercial purposes, through InstantCommons; NonFreeWiki can afford no such provisions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you mean and ideally we would use only Commons files but the proposal is not about free knowledge. Despite the vision of free knowledge, we still have a very large amount of non-free content on some projects. My proposal is to put it all in one location and stop local uploads at any other wiki. It is better to deal with such content in one place than in 36 locations, where some of the content is effectively duplicated. I am not proposing that we make this content available outside WMF but to rationalise its use within our projects. Green Giant (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
In principle I like the NonFreeWiki idea (although not the name, maybe "Fair Use Wiki", although FU Wiki isn't great!) if it leads to better control over fair use material. I can see a few potential issues but I'm not expert enough on non-free media to know if I am right or not. @Stefan2: and other experts in this area might have a strong view. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't like the name either but it was the best I could come up with. For the issue of non-free media, I believe all that is needed is for the new wiki to have an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) to host the non-free media and for the other wikis to slightly modify their existing EDP's to enable the use of non-free media from the new wiki. By stopping local uploads it would force people to think more clearly about what they are uploading. Specifically there would be a feature which would prevent such files from being available for use by other wikis until the file had a fair use rationale for each page it would appear on. Read the Resolution on Licensing policy and you'll notice it says that EDP's must be minimal. The idea was to reduce non-free content to an absolute minimum but this is more difficult to enforce on 36 wikis than it would be on a single wiki. In the List of Wikipedias there is a column which shows how many images are held by each wiki. Count the ones with images and you will find there are far more than 36, with at least 80 that host over 1,000 images each. I would be very surprised if the majority of those images weren't fair use. It is almost 7 years since the licensing resolution was passed and yet there are still wikis out there with significant numbers of images but no EDP. I think we have had plenty of time for this issue to be resolved at a local level. This is why we should have a NonFreeWiki. Green Giant (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, I see the points for the wiki more clearly now. I do have at least one concern though: each wiki either has their own EDP, with their own legal language, or simply translate English Wikipedia's EDP and adapt it to their local language project. What do you propose be done with, say, wikis which have EDPs that are more restrictive than that of the English Wikipedia? Differing levels of restrictiveness within EDP language can determine whether wikis would choose to access NonFreeWiki or not, and still must resort to the old practice of local uploads. For example, if the EDP of NonFreeWiki is too lenient, and some wiki EDPs do not permit some media files from NonFreeWiki, they cannot link to it like Wikimedia Commons and would have to resort to local uploading. If the EDP of NonFreeWiki is too restrictive... well I'm not sure what would happen in this scenario, but they probably won't benefit from it as much. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: thanks for raising this issue. My thoughts are that the proposed wiki would be only as lenient as the most lenient existing EDP allows, which appears to be English Wikipedia, judging by the number of images. Using the example I gave in the proposal, let's say I upload an image of the common face of a 1 Euro coin. The design of such coins is that one face is unique to each country and the other side is a common design used by all countries of the Eurozone. In the proposal I highlighted four Wikipedias that use images of Euro coins, namely French, German, Italian and Russian, although there are some others, but for the sake of the example let's imagine it is just these four. The software would allow me to upload the image and I would have to provide details such as copyright status and where I found the image. However, I would not be able to use that image in any articles until I filled out a fair use rationale for each article (for example the relevant Euro articles) and for each wiki in line with their particular requirements. Somewhere on the file page there would be a button I would click to add one rationale at a time. There would be a dropdown menu to let me select which wiki I wanted to use the file on, so if a wiki did not have an EDP it would be impossible for me to select that wiki. Equally, the software would be programmed to flag any wiki that has a more restrictive policy. On Commons, there is a list on each file page which indicates global usage of that file, and the same would happen on the proposed wiki, except that usage on more restricted wikis would be prominently highlighted to alert anybody who looked at the file. In addition it would build on an existing model, which is that when files are uncategorized or they need categories checking, there is a message that appears on the file page. So on the proposed wiki, file usage on a restricted wiki would place that file in a special category until someone checks that the usage is acceptable.
In my crazy mind, I see it in terms of a new car that someone has bought to use on a daily basis. I know it sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic but it is the best analogy I can give. I'm sure it is pretty much the same in most countries but in the UK every car needs insurance, road tax and a fitness test (called an MOT). For my uploaded file the equivalent would be the copyright status and where I found the image etc. Even then, there are rules about how you use a car, for example the most common restriction is the traffic light system mainly found at junctions of two or more roads. In case it is different elsewhere, we usually have three lights, red for stop, amber/yellow for ready, and green for go. My uploaded file would initially have red lights for all wikis, and even if I tried linking to the image from de:Euro, all I would see is the text that appears when you link a non-existent file. As soon as I fill out a rationale for German Wikipedia, it would give the file a green light and I could then link it from the article. I would then have to fill out another rationale for each of the other wikis before the file could be used there. Now, let's say that I decided to try and link the file from ca:Euro on the Catalan Wikipedia (which appears to have a more restrictive policy), I would be able to complete the form but it would be tailored to the specific needs of ca-wiki. It would allow me to then link from the article but the file would have an amber light to let other users know that this usage needs checking and confirming. Obviously for wikis that only allow Commons files, there would be no option in the rationale form to select such a wiki and if I tried being a hothead and linking anyway, all it would show is a non-existent file. To illustrate the example, the very bottom part of the file page would look something like this, bearing in mind that the section heading would use the normal === on either side:
File usage on other wikis
  • The following other wikis use this file:
  • Usage on
Yellow Light Icon.svg Euro
  • Usage on
Green Light Icon.svg Euro
If the file has no fair use rationales filled in, then there would be a red light like this (Red Light Icon.svg) at the top somewhere with a message saying something like: "This file does not have any fair use rationales. It cannot be used on any other wiki until a rationale is provided."
On a higher level, I think it would need some software changes but I might be wrong because I'm not a technical sort of person. I hope that clarifies things but as with any idea, it never comes out perfectly formed in one go.
Just as an addendum, I avoided giving too many numbers in the proposal but I think it is worth noting that there appear to be about 2.2 million files on the various Wikipedias, of which English Wikipedia alone hosts more than 800,000. I don't think it is wrong to suggest that a large proportion of those will be duplicates or effective duplicates. Obviously it is difficult to gauge exactly how many unnecessary files there are but am I wrong to think that we probably have at least a million files that don't really need to be hosted? As a comparison, Commons appears to have more than 20 million files at the moment, which would indicate that about 10% of all the files are non-free content. It is fantastic that 90% are free but it would be more fantastic to be able to say that 95% are free files, if we could just weed out all the duplicates and near duplicates. Green Giant (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I have found a clearer example to demonstrate the scale of the problem. I'm sure we all have fond memories of the 1997 movie "Titanic", so I present these copies of the promotional poster, with some variations but ultimately based on the same image:
  1. am:ስዕል:Titanic_poster.jpg - the wiki has no EDP
  2. az:Şəkil:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
  3. be:Файл:Titanic_3D_Poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  4. bn:চিত্র:Titanic_poster.jpg - developing EDP is similar to enwiki, but non-free images of living people strongly discouraged
  5. bs:Datoteka:Titanic.jpg - no EDP
  6. ca:Fitxer:Titanic_poster.jpg - strongly discouraged for images of living people
  7. ckb:پەڕگە:Titanic_poster.jpg - only admins can upload
  8. cy:Delwedd:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
  9. el:Αρχείο:Titanic_1997_poster.jpg - not allowed to have non-free images of living people
  10. en:File:Titanic_poster.jpg - strongly discouraged for non-free images of living people
  11. eo:Dosiero:Titanic1997.jpg
  12. fa:پرونده:Titanic_poster.jpg
  13. fi:Tiedosto:Titanic_poster.jpg - non-free images of living people are forbidden
  14. ga:Íomhá:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
  15. hi:चित्र:टाइटैनिक_(१९९७_चलचित्र).jpg - no EDP
  16. hr:Datoteka:Titanic_poster.jpg
  17. hy:Պատկեր:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  18. id:Berkas:Titanic_film.jpg
  19. is:Mynd:Titanicplakattvo.jpg - strict limits allow such files only when no free file is available
  20. ka:ფაილი:Titanic_ver2.jpg - no EDP
  21. lt:Vaizdas:Titanic_poster.jpg
  22. lv:Attēls:Titanic_poster.jpg
  23. mk:Податотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
  24. ml:പ്രമാണം:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  25. ms:Fail:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki but with some differences
  26. pt:Ficheiro:Titanic_poster.jpg
  27. ro:Fișier:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  28. si:ගොනුව:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  29. sl:Slika:TitanicDVD.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  30. sr:Датотека:Titanic_poster.jpg
  31. sw:Picha:Titanic_poster.jpg - no EDP
  32. ta:படிமம்:டைட்டானிக்_திரைப்பட_உறை.jpg - EDP still being worked on
  33. tr:Dosya:Titanik_film.jpg - non-free images strongly discouraged for living people
  34. uk:Файл:Titanic_poster.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki
  35. vi:Tập_tin:Titanic_poster.jpg
  36. zh:File:TITANIC.jpg - EDP is similar to enwiki but strongly discourages non-free images of living people
I had to go through 74 articles about the movie to find these images. Clearly a large number of them are problematic, either with no EDP on their wiki or poorly presented attribution or they are hosted on wikis that strongly discourage non-free images of living people. If we have a single wiki for non-free images, we could detect and deal with this kind of problem more easily than at the moment. Instead of 36 images with varying levels of attribution and policy compliance, we could host just one image with full attribution and compliance and then allow it to be linked from a limited number of articles. Green Giant (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
@TeleComNasSprVen: and @QuiteUnusual:, I have tried to create some example pages for a non-free wiki at User:Green Giant/NonFreeWiki. I invite you both and anyone else who is interested to look at them and tell me what you think, even if it is to tell me that I should just pack it all in. Please do excuse the amateurish attempt to replicate pages but there is not much to go on. I look forward to your comments. :) Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, an EDP must be "in accordance with [...] the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any)". As different Wikipedia projects are accessed from different countries, this means that different Wikipedia projects need to adopt vastly different EDPs, and some files would only be useable on some projects but not on other projects. See for example Wikilegal/Turkish Wikipedia and Non-Free Content for a discussion of what this means for Turkish Wikipedia. One of the problems you mentioned is that some projects still lack an EDP. A "NonFreeWiki" would not solve this; those projects would still have to come up with an EDP which is in accordance with the law of the countries in which those projects predominantly are accessed. Adopting w:WP:NFCC (or a translation of it) would not necessarily be possible as the United States might not be the only country from which the project predominantly is accessed.
If a project only can use a subset of the files in an image repository but not all of them, this risks making file patrolling more difficult. On English Wikipedia, files can easily be deleted if the file is found not to satisfy the EDP (w:WP:NFCC). On the other hand, if a file is hosted on a "NonFreeWiki", the file may have to be kept on the "NonFreeWiki" project because it satisfies the EDP of the Syldavian Wikivoyage or the Brutopian Wikiversity. On English Wikipedia, the vast majority of EDP violations that I find and report concern files where all uses violate the EDP, and much fewer of them concern files used in two or more articles where the file has to be removed from some but not all of the articles using the file. Also, if a decision is taken to remove a file from some but not articles, I sometimes see that file being re-added immediately afterwards. I would therefore guess, although I'm not sure, that it is easier to manage file usage if a file simply can be deleted for violation of the EDP, and that a NonFreeWiki, which would make the same file useable on many more pages, would make such image patrolling more difficult.
I also note a problem with local images which this project would solve. I sometimes find that a different language edition of Wikipedia has translated an article from English Wikipedia and that the translation refers to files under the same names as on English Wikipedia. This gives ugly red links for those files which have been uploaded locally to English Wikipedia. If they instead had been uploaded to a central repository, the translation would still have contained the correct images.
User:TeleComNasSprVen mentioned mw:InstantCommons and claimed that you wouldn't be able to use that feature for a non-free wiki. I'm not sure that this is correct. I believe (although I might be wrong) that you can use any WMF projects as an "image repository" in the same way as mw:InstantCommons by simply adding a couple of lines to your own wikiproject's mw:LocalSettings.php. However, since non-free files on at least English Wikipedia frequently tend to be deleted (for example because of violation of w:WP:NFCC#7), using a "NonFreeWiki" as an image repository sounds unstable.
Also note that different projects define "free" differently:
  • On English Wikipedia, anything published before 1923 is determined to be "free" (because of United States law). Such content is not necessarily free elsewhere, and such content is not necessarily acceptable on Commons (see w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad). Using English Wikipedia content in the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia is often illegal because of this.
  • On German Wikipedia, photographs of buildings and statues are usually determined to be "free" if permission has been granted from the photographer (because of German, Austrian and Swiss law). On the other hand, such content is not necessarily free elsewhere (see for example w:Korean War Veterans Memorial#United States postage stamp court case). It is therefore often llegal to use German Wikipedia content in Belgium, Luxembourg and South Tyrol, because of conflicting laws.
  • On Italian Wikipedia, photographs taken more than 20 years ago usually seem to be determined to be free (because of a short term for photographs in Italian law), but such photographs are not always considered to be "free" in other countries (see e.g. the warning about 1976 in it:Template:PD-Italia), and using Italian Wikipedia content is therefore sometimes illegal in Switzerland.
What would this proposal do about files which are considered to be "free" on one project but not on another project? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
This section is becoming very long, so I have copied it to NonFreeWiki#Comments and replied there. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Language speakers needed to notify wikis of an RfC[edit]


The current Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix has the potential to affect a number of different WMF wikis, so all of them need to be made aware of its existence. If you speak any of

Chinese, Spanish, Estonian, French, Japanese, Oriya, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Swedish, or Urdu,

it would be great if you could help out by translating a notification message and posting it to a community noticeboard. Please see Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix#Next steps for details. Thank you. — Scott talk 11:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

These are now Yes check.svg Done. Thanks to all who helped out. — Scott talk 13:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Companies attempting to turn editors into paid sockpuppets - how to publicise/track, who to inform?[edit]

This is republished over from the Meta Help Forum section I added...

I recently received a very cheeky email from a marketing company:

Subject: Glide Utilities Wikipedia Page
From:    "<removed>" <redacted>
Date:    Thu, February 20, 2014 12:33 pm
To:      Me <redacted>

My name is <removed>, I work for a creative agency in Birmingham called Orb Creative.

One of our key clients, Glide Utilities, are a Birmingham-based nationwide company
which is currently enjoying a period of rapid growth and expansion. As Glide continue
to grow, we feel it is important that they develop a Wikipedia page to provide a
recognisable source of information for readers which details everything they could wish
to know about Glide as a company and as a presence, both online and in Birmingham.

To cut a long story short, we are on the hunt for a reputable Wikipedia contributor to
build a page for Glide and the more research we conducted, the more often we noticed
your name cropping up, so we would love to know if this is something you would
potentially be interested in helping us with?

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Warm regards,

Office: +44 (0) 333 240 9090

We're all about sharing 
Hell Yeah! moments

Whilst I have no idea who or what Glide Utilities is, I know I don't want to become a shill for corporate placement. (I've not replied to his email.)

Is there a proper venue on Wikipedia where attempts to induce reputable editors to be marketing sockpuppets can be listed for naming and shaming purposes, Can awareness of this be raised to mailing lists or are there appropriate contacts/mods/admins in the community to make aware that this is going on?

Given that just today I received a follow-up from the same company adding that this needs to be done "urgently" (!) I think this needs to be addressed promptly. Chris W. (talk | WP profile) 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you publicly state that you wrote the article for them and do a good job on that in regard to following Wikipedia Principles and Policies (which means checking relevance, not omitting obvious criticism from different sources, and choosing an adequate language, for example), I wouldn’t have an issue with that. On the other hand, yeah this is an issue - I can imagine not everyone following such high standards - hence a nice-to-have would be an archive containing such e-Mails so we could monitor the desired articles more strictly. However, making private e-Mail available to people who are not addressed may be a breach of law, dependent on the country you live in, so some legal framework/advisory should be created first. -- Rillke (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it'd need a system where you privately assigned a unique ID and then assigned a public name to each unique sender - pasting in the full body of correspondence into a form and leaving out the other details, whilst keeping them available for correspondence should the need arise.

In instances such as mine, as the sender's communication is to an individual with no preagreed privacy or confidentiality agreement there is no legal issue. The boilerplate legalese you see on most business emails is effectively useless if the information is offered unsolicited, disregarding the fact most of them don't even have the minimum required information in.

IANAL so my opinion is not legally binding, but other people are. Depending on where the data's held, Wikipedia may need a formal Data Controller, but they should have one already.

I have been asked by the sender of these emails to redact his last name, which I'll do FWIW. (Never mind that his details are already all over Google, including -- top hit -- LinkedIn!) I've also corresponded with him privately explaining why what he requested is not acceptable; he has apologised and explained this arose due to his misunderstanding rather than something done with intent.

My primary concern through all of this is with the company's original request. Glide purport to be a Midlands-based utilities broker (with some dismal ratings from a cursory Google of the company) and it seems they're pursuing an aggressive SEO / marketing strategy to adjust their online image.

What I was asked to do is tantamount to shilling for a business; whether paid or unpaid, that's expressly against the Wikipedia Terms. With my cynic's hat on, I imagine they'd be hoping to get an SEO boost from having a Glide Utilities page appear with favourably-written content and links appearing above other results.

Aside from the company fundamentally misunderstanding the SEO implications of focused content for an organisation on Wikipedia, the article would probably be peer-deleted anyway for being not noteworthy -- and if someone (like me) then repeatedly restores the page, I would be rightly discriminated for shilling.

This company is the first I've seen so overtly requesting proxy articles to be written for one of their clients - a mistake on their part. I imagine it's something they won't do again, so lesson learnt, but this must already be happening across WP on a more discreet basis. I'm not willing to engage in or encourage this kind of activity - Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Do we need to make this even more abundantly clear to organisations? Chris W. (talk | WP profile) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

there is no legal issue
Actually, it could be a copyright violation. You own the copyright to everything you write, including e-mail messages that you send to individuals.
Also, have you read Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Would reducing the publicly accessible (distributed) copy to quotes/citations be a possible solution? The whole message could be archived for legal reasons... I also find this to be a type of attempt at corruption, although it's indeed possible to not be dishonestly malicious requests, until they're better informed. 04:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You could post a short, factual statement like, "On this date, this company contacted me to ask whether I was interested in being paid to help improve the Company Article. I'm not interested in being paid to write articles." You don't need to quote anything.
You might, however, consider the possibility that, by merely mentioning their interest in hiring someone, you might be effectively advertising the job opening for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mandatory, agreed-upon reasons for Undo[edit]

I’d like to discuss whether it would be helpful to add specific reasons for undoing changes in articles.

Description of current problem

Many users have indicated that deletions, or reversions of their contributions, are one of the most annoying and misused aspects of Wikipedia, leading to edit wars. Some state that deletions of contributions particularly affects women contributors, and has been given as one of the reasons why female participation in Wikipedia is low (of course the issue affects all contributors, not just women). As a result there have been proposals to limit the Undo function

The ability to undo changes in Wikipedia is essential to prevent vandalism and delete material that is irrelevant, just plain wrong, offensive, constitutes spam, etc. However, the fact that many people seem to be dissatisfied with the way the current undo process works, suggests that it could be improved.

Currently editors have a lot of leeway to remove contributions. Editors, at their own option, can write a reason for the undo, but the default text is very general (i.e. “Undid revision…”). Even when editors choose to specify a reason, it can sometimes be vague, or in fact deletions may be made for inappropriate reasons. This, in turn, can leave the person whose edit has been deleted, confused, upset, etc.

Description of proposed solution

The proposed change is quite simple - i.e. it is suggested that a defined list of reasons for undoing be added (e.g. Vandalism, Spam, Offensive, Not relevant, etc) Thus, when an editor is performing an undo, she/he must select the appropriate reason (e.g. via drop down list or radio buttons), before the undo can be carried out. If a reason has not been selected an error message would appear

This list would include a short description of each reason, so that everyone understands what are the appropriate, agreed upon reasons for deleting edits. The list can also include an “Other” reason, plus, as now, a textarea where the editor can add additional helpful explanations. Once the delete is confirmed, the selected reason, along with the additional written explanation, will appear on the View history page in the edit summary text.

Of course, a definitive list of valid reasons for performing undos, would first need to be defined and agreed upon


The benefits of this simple change would be twofold:

  1. To editors who are performing undos, it would provide a reminder on what are valid, agreed upon reasons for deleting contributions, and thus make the process less arbitrary. By requiring specific reasons for deletions, the incidence of inappropriate deletions, as well as possibly the intensity of some edit wars, could be reduced
  2. To editors whose contributions are being deleted, the reasons would provide a better, agreed upon explanation of why their contribution was deleted. Thus, the process would appear less arbitrary to them, and potentially less unsettling. This in turn could reduce the likelihood of editors being discouraged from participating, as observers state is the case now

Level of effort

Implementing the proposed change would be fairly simple, requiring relatively little effort

- Ivansfca (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a great proposal; however, this is the wrong place to put it. I recommend posting this at W:EN:WP:VPR or the equivalent at other projects. Meta-Wiki doesn't decide these kinds of issues. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree, this is a great proposal. Am I correct in the belief the proposal will be placed on the w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) ? Lotje (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I posted the proposal on Village pump - Ivansfca (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice idea, thank you. English Wikipedia is one place to discuss this. It could also be developed as a general option for any Wikimedia wiki. It might be easier to test it out on a smaller project (such as Meta!) first, once you find a group of people who want to design it and realize it. Regards, SJ talk  01:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Enabling an opt-in VisualEditor preference on Meta[edit]

Meta:Babel#Enabling an opt-in VisualEditor preference on Meta 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

como activar wikimedia commons para subir archivos?[edit]

¿Cómo activo wikimedia commons para subir archivos? o que otra forma tengo de subir archivos ya que en el menú de la izq. no me da esa opción. gracias

Es necesario registrar una cuenta en Commons para poder subir archivos. Una vez lo haya hecho, le saldrá la opción de "Subir un archivo" en el menú de la izquierda. Aquí tienes un tutorial para ayudarte. Un saludo Raystorm (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume that since User:Escuela TAI is blocked at Commons, this user is asking how to be unblocked. Someone could translate this to Spanish, perhaps. --Glaisher [talk] 13:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. The user was asking how to upload pics to Commons, so I explained you needed to have a registered account and linked to the tutorial in Spanish. No mention about a request to be unblocked at all. Cheers, Raystorm (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Please see: [1], [2], [3]. Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello, you may wish to see Wikimedia_genealogy_project, where plans for a genealogy project on Wikimedia are being drawn up. --Jakob (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed optional changes to Terms of Use amendment[edit]

Hello all, in response to some community comments in the discussion on the amendment to the Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing, we have prepared two optional changes. Please read about these optional changes on Meta wiki and share your comments. If you can (and this is a non english project), please translate this announcement. Thanks! Slaporte (WMF) 21:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Fundraising totals by country[edit]

In Fundraising 2011/Report we could see Donation totals by country

In the Fundraising 2012/Report one can see the total sums only for the top 10 countries. I suppose the data on every other country are also of great interest. --Perohanych (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 London: Promoting livestream using banners[edit]


I'm leading the team organising Wikimania this year. As an outreach initiative, I am organising a track of presentations by notable speakers; so far I've confirmed Lawrence Lessig, Clay Shirky, Danny O'Brien (Director of EFF), Elizabeth Marincola (CEO of PLOS) to name a few, as well as Jimmy and Sue of course. All of their talks will be on aspects of Wiki*edia, how it functions, its role in education, the role of open licensing, wiki*edia and open access, wikidata, etc.

I'd like to promote the livestream of these talks via banners on en-wp during the conference itself. Does the community have any objection to this? Ignore for now the technical demands on the streaming servers - this is just about whether there are any problems in principle with promoting Wikimania livestreams using banners.

EdSaperia (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean via SiteNotice, CentralNotice, or something else? If not SiteNotice, would you limit it to logged-in users? PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Via centralnotice, to all English speaking users, including anonymous users. 01:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The idea is for people who haven't really thought about the Wikimedia community before to be exposed to some of the complexity. EdSaperia (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot use in new pages[edit]

I want to know about Wikimedia policy about starting new pages on Wikipedia projects. Is it allowed for bots to start pages ? It is an easy method to increase the number of pages on a wikipedia but it looks strange. A wikipedia made by (ro)bots with the most minimum effort. Any wikipedia can hire a bot expert and start making pages and within few days/weeks it can surpass those wikipedias that are developed by slow normal human efforts. At present Urdu Wikipedia is employing this method and churning out pages effortlessly and if this is a right policy than such kind of bots should be presented to other small wikipedias too for speedy growth. Please guide what is the policy.--الیاس سیتاپوری (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi الیاس سیتاپوری Looks like the bot article generation on urWP has ended a year ago:
Or maybe it is a bot without botflag? --Atlasowa (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I am curious about Wiki policy about Bot generating articles. Urdu Wikipdia is increasing its article making speed through this method. And it is advertised on their front page and within weeks they think they are going to reach at the target of 100,000 from mere 27,000 pages. Pages generated by Bot and machine translations will create unhealthy wikipedias. Above facts are perhaps old and Urdu Wikipedia started Bot generating articles in this March.--الیاس سیتاپوری (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi الیاس سیتاپوری, can you link to the specific pages that you are referring to (i.e. front page ad)? Have a look at [4] (gtranslate engl.) - can you explain a little what this is about? How was this article generation project(?) developed/decided? Is it for bot generation or article translation? I'm not a fan of botgenerated Wikipedias (at all), but not all mass-creation projects are alike and "bad". Let's find out what is actually happening! --Atlasowa (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry talk I will not discuss much here on this Bot generating article issue as I am unfairly criticized on Urdu Wikipedia that why I mentioned this issue here. In last 10 years at Urdu Wikipedia 27,000 pages were created but now through Bot use they planned to reach 50k in March and after beyond 100k. It seemed to me unfair. --الیاس سیتاپوری (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr.Atlasowa Whatever they are doing can be verified from the site. I think Bot Generated Pages Wikipedias should have a separate Wikipedia list or at least an asterisk mark indicating how they made their pages as compare to other normal wikipedias.--الیاس سیتاپوری (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You can find resources on the topic at Category:Mass content adding. --Nemo 19:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OTRS statistics for 2013[edit]

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (also known as OTRS[1]) had an extremely busy year answering emails from Wikimedia users, readers and other interested people. We have once again prepared a statistical report of administrator activity and ticket volume for the year 2013.

I invite you all to review this report on Meta[2]. If you have any questions at all feel free to leave them on the talk page. If you wish to review the first report, published last year with data from 2012, you may also view that on Meta[3].

1 - OTRS
2 - OTRS/Reports/2013
3 - OTRS/Reports/2012

For the OTRS administrators, Rjd0060 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to protest about the continued inclusion of Admin:Tiptoety as an OTRS Admin, after he has become a sworn law enforcement officer and is thereby obliged to violate privacy of OTRS complainants by his terms of servitude. HRA1924 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Mapedia - Wikimap[edit]

Hi, my name is Chris Thomas, I and a friend have been working on a Website called Mapedia for a few years now.

Mapedia is a WIKI map, with a focus on culture over commerce. Google maps, Bing Maps and so on are more about cafes and garages. Mapedia's focus is on culture, such as History, Art, Science.

We have been working on a link to Wikipedia via the Wikimedia API. This has allowed us to feature Wikipedia Articles with locations on our map. We did this, as starting with a totally blank WIKI map is not very inspiring. As a result, we have put together our own Mapedia WIKI map for Prehistory (UK centric for now), Architecture (world wide) and Monuments (modern) and we aim to expand our maps to cover the Roman Period, Anglo Saxon, Norman and more....

Please do check out the site, and let me know what you think. I can be emailed at, and I am open to any questions you may have on the map, on its content, the technology and so on. We think the website could be a valuable window onto the data that Wikipedia has provided. We also think that in time it could evolve into a secondary source of information for Wikipedia and any other Wikimedia projects that suit. We would hope to build some form of cyclical symbiosis, where Articles that appear on Wikipedia appear on Mapedia, and locations/articles added directly to Mapedia (remember, it has its own WIKI engine) could in turn be used to create new Articles on Wikipedia etc. Anyway, here is some info on to how to use Mapedia.

Searching To get going on it, simply select the Pick Location Type icon at the top left of the UI, select Prehistory and then click on the orange Search button to get some results back. The markers on the map can be clicked on, and if they represent a group of locations, you can hover over the group to see what is within, and double click that group to zoom in on it, so its members become visible. If you click on a single marker you can see info on it in the left hand pane.

Changing Location From there you can adjust the searches location using the type in Location box, or by dragging the blue (C) icon on the map. Dragging the green (R) icon adjusts the radius of the search, and you can also use the Max Distance slider to do this as well. As you drag the C icon around the map, the results are updated in real time. This allows you to move the focus of the Search around and explore the landscape. This works even better once you have ticked some Options.

Options For Prehistory we have Location and Facilities & Orgs Option groups. Options are filters that can be changed to limit the locations that you can see. For Prehistory you can choose the larger periods, Stone Age, Bronze Age and so on. You can also filter your locations by their type, like Settlements or Burials. In Facilities and Orgs we list which organisations are associated with these sites. You'll note that Wikipedia is associated for all of our current sites (as they are sourced from there, live!) and we also give credit for this on each Article as it is displayed, with the Wikipedia name.

All of these Locations and Options were gleaned from Wikipedia. However, if you create an account with us, you can....

  • Create new locations, using a drag and drop system
  • Edit existing and new locations, by changing their Title and Options
  • Add new material to the location, allowing you to contribute informational articles, photographs, comments, reviews and so on.

So, if you do find any locations that you know the Options are wrong on, or which could be improved with adjustments to its Options, adding more accuracy, then please do create an account and have a go at editing these locations.

Anyway, please do check out the map, and let me know what you think.


Chris Thomas

Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan[edit]

Save the dates. ;-) --Nemo 21:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Two years to plan and implement Wikimania[edit]

I have added a discussion topic on Wikimania discussion page about "allowing two years to plan and implement Wikimania". This topic relates to Wikimania Esino Lario bid, but it is something that can have larger implications and it would be relevant to hear your thoughts about. --iopensa (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon[edit]

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

Western Punjabi Wikipedia isn't neutral[edit]

Most of western punjabi wikipedia articles are not written with nutral point of view even their Main page, Their articles have a smell of propaganda against Urdu language and Pakistan. i complained their but all admin also spreading propanganda.--Saleem1511 (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, "complained" is usually the wrong approach, if you're felt as an hostile enemy the logical consequence is "ignore and destroy" so you won't achieve anything. When a wiki is in its infancy (which can last for many years), it can happen for the editors to be less familiar with the Wikimedia and Wikipedia projects practices, often due to a language barrier: what did you try to help them understand the best practices you feel a local lack of? Also, we don't know anything about you (five edits in total and no user page), what makes you think you know better? :)
If you know the language, you could for instance start translating some global policies and guidelines here on Meta: Special:LanguageStats/pnb shows there isn't a single page translated in pnb, so you have plenty to do. Then you can start linking what you consider important for the community to learn/think/discuss, in a constructive way, and at any rate you'll know you've done something useful, as opposed to wasting time sulking or whining or arguing. :) --Nemo 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

CIS-A2K Work Plan July 2014-June 2015 (Requesting Feedback)[edit]

Hi, please see CIS-A2K's annual plans for July 2014-June 2015. Based on the 18-month experience of working with various Indic Wikimedia communities, CIS-A2K has developed this plan. The work plan consists of 21 plans across 6 verticals. Would appreciate your feedback and inputs in improving the plans. Thanks. --Visdaviva (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Does this incorporate extra resources for legal support / litigation as a result of the anti-pornography initiative against grossly pornographic images on WMF's Indic domains ? HRA1924 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi HRA1924, sorry for this delayed reply. AFAIK this is a not a concern on Indic Wikimedia projects. CIS-A2K does not take any liability for the content on any of the WMF projects including Indic projects and would not need resources for litigation.--Visdaviva (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think you are not aware of the massive problem on WMF's Indic language projects which India Against Corruption has begun to highlight to the concerned authorities. If the outrageous grants WMF gives to known pornographers in India is multiplied by x10, that would be the first estimate for the litigation budget the WMF is looking at. HRA1924 (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with CIS-A2K, though. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
"CIS" is among the known on-line pornography vested interests. Its in the public domain. HRA1924 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
HRA1924, you have been told, repeatedly, that the proper place to address your concerns is the legal team. The fact that you are not getting the resolution that you want does not mean that the proper place can be moved at your whim to another venue. Your comment here is out of place and off-topic. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It is completely ON-TOPIC because this is about CIS's grants and User:Visdaviva works with CIS, and CIS is openly hugely funded by Online Pornography and Online Gambling interests (ie. persons other than WMF) to lobby to get India's stringent Cyber laws changed to allow pornographers like WMF to peddle their smut in India in these Indic languages. Does User:Visdaviva deny that CIS is significantly funded by online Gambling and online Pornography interests operating out of Gibraltar and Estonia ? Was WMF unaware of this when they selected CIS to give these huge (disguised) grants which are mainly used for lobbying and bribing Indian decision makers, or was this the prime reason for WMF's selecting CIS as a grantee ? If WMF's legal team wants to contact us, they know where we are ? HRA1924 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

SWMT Twinkle[edit]

Hello, could someone please tell me how to get Twinkle on small wikis? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

See User:Snowolf/How to globally Twinkle. Maybe this is not the right place for this. Talk:SWMT is a better venue. --Glaisher [talk] 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't edit the page (when I try the border goes down and I can't see anything. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Greek Wikipedia[edit]

Yesterday, Greek Wikipedeia counted 99450 articles. Few hours later counted more than 100 000 articles List of Wikipedias. But only few new articles were created, less than 30 from yesterday. How that can happened? Xaris333 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some stuff was undeleted? Or moved from userspace? --Jakob (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not. See el:Special:Log/delete and el:Special:Log/move. --Glaisher [talk] 11:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Possibly because it's not updated in real time. It means that the 99.450 is not really yesterday's number of article, it might be from several days ago. --Ricky Setiawan (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ido Wikipedia[edit]

Could anyone make the template in this article appear on the right side of the page, please? I don't know how to do that. Thank you in advance. --Chabi1 (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chabi1: Yes check.svg Done io:Special:Diff/871566 Perhaps a template should be created for the infobox. Could you also translate the references to Ido? --Glaisher [talk] 10:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't lnow how to create a template for the inforbox but I'll translate the references into Ido. --Chabi1 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is the Foundation serious about privacy?[edit]

On the 9th of August 2013, over eight months ago I reported a serious flaw in the privacy of default Mediawiki installations, that breaks the Foundations Privacy Policy. At least one Foundation employee commented on the report.

On the 18th I logged a bug pre-filled request, and on the 20th Louis Villa form the Legal team commented. Various clever people have commented and linked similar bugs. A patch was uploaded by Saper to Gerrit (92254) on 28 October, though as Please Stand commented, it did not remove all the fields required.

While I thank all those who have commented and worked on this issue, both from the community and the Foundation, there does seem to be a lack of urgency by the Foundation. Perhaps it is my background in compter security, but I would have assigned something like this TOP PRIORITY.

We are doing three things we don't want to do here:

  1. Showing a careless attitude to security and privacy. That alienates a lot of people these days, not just the core of the Open Movement.
  2. Exposing our editors' private details (editing history) to colleagues, family, housemates, fellow pupils/students, etc.
  3. Becoming liable for civil actions as a result of damage, injury or distress caused by 2., if nothing else.

Please assign resource to implement a fix and roll out this change as soon as possible.

The change to the software is trivial, I will put the required code in the Bugzilla bug as soon as I have saved this edit. I will copy this post to Legal and Sue.

Rich Farmbrough 04:46 16 April 2014 (GMT).

These claims about WMF having a careless attitude, potentially creating legal liability, seem excessive. Your initial inquiry received a response, identifying the scenario as an edge case (users sharing an IP address and one of them being blocked and that resulting in victimization of the blocked user by the unblocked one, all in real life, not here). See

"We're talking about a very narrow case here, as I understand it: when multiple users are using the exact same IP address and one of the users is blocked. The likelihood of this rare case directly leading to harassment, as you're suggesting, seems almost non-existent, or at least statistically insignificant..." per MZMcBride on 16 August 2013.

Is this scenario have a greater scope, potential contributor vulnerability than is apparent from prior discussion?--FeralOink (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Security and privacy concerns are often based edge cases. That doesn't make them invalid.

  • I provided an example of where we have published (to the world) the IP address of an editor. I chose an example that was subsequently redacted.

  • Common carrier exemption is probably moot in this case, because the default message to an auto-blocked user encourages her to publish the IP address and the user name on their talk page.

  • Moreover the software removes the ability of local administrators to completely suppress this information. The buck, in this case, stops firmly with WMF.

Rich Farmbrough 21:46 16 April 2014 (GMT).