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



In the Netherlands Wikipedia is the project that most people know. Wikipedia is also the project that gets the most attention. This year we want to start an initiative to promote the sisterprojects. Facilitated by the chapter we want to make a plan and a vision that will be discussed with the community. I posted this message because maybe other languages/ countries can share some of their experiences with promoting the sisterprojects. I would like to get in contact to hear some best practices. ~


Tim Ruijters, Timboliu (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create a Wikimedia: Not Only Wikipedia.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sort of experience you are looking for, but Wikimedia Italia and other chapters promote sisterprojects since 2008 or earlier: you can find a trace in chapter reports. Nemo 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Whom you're commenting, Nemo? BTW, I suppose Tim means Wikipedia in the Dutch language since it includes part of Belgium and some areas inn the Americas, not only the kingdom.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  10:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nemo, I find the chapter reports of Italia ( And when I read them I see lots of initiatives. I don't think we have such chapter reports in the Netherlands (maybe I'm mistaken). And according to me, the Dutch community is very focused on Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians see the sisterprojects even as a waste of time. Do you have suggestions how we can change this situation? We are now in the process of creating a team that wants to start up a discussion about sisterprojects. I find it difficult to think about next steps. Timboliu (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The Knowledge Engine - a post by Lila Tretikov[edit]

There has recently been a good deal of discussion on the Wikimedia-L email list and elsewhere about the Knowledge Engine, a project that has not been well known outside the Wikimedia Foundation staff until recently. Foundation Executive Director recently posted a message about it. Worth discussing at Talk:Knowledge Engine. -Pete F (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of an article on another project.[edit]

I can't find the administrator's page on Vietnamese, but Desyra was deleted as a hoax on Simple English Wikipedia. Could a Vietnamese administrator please delete the page, since it is a hoax. Thank you. Nepaxt (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nepaxt: I tagged it {{delete|C3 - hoax}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The deletion tag was removed. I put it back on. Nepaxt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted and blocked sysop, many thanks. Tuanminh01 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed WMF board resolution on the unreliability of Wikipedia[edit]

I've asked the WMF board of trustees to pass a resolution acknowledging Wikimedia content is generally unreliable, and encouraging the WMF to support efforts aimed at improving reliability.

Please have your say here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Manipulation in Wikipedia[edit]

There are a lot of manipulation in Wikipedia. That means a lot of editors are "killed" by opposing editors by means of accusations without evidences.

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia of gladiators ? I red on the pages of some administrators: I killed 20,000 editors, I killed 19,000 editors... Generally, scientific world try to avoid such horrible source when editors kill other editors to have free way to manipulation.

libertad de expresiòn en publicaciones en wikimwdia[edit]

¿Por què se intenta oprimir la libertad de expresiòn a travès de la censura de la opiniòn de cualquier individuo? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jafe anmo (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Your libertad de expresiòn is a constitutional right allowing you to say what you want, without having BEFORE to get approval for government.
What that means?
It allows you to say what you want, without being mollested, arrested by the state.
Only laws, in Spain, as in other countries of Council of Europe, when these laws are strictly necessary in a democratic society and proportional to the pursued goal, could restrict a posteriori your freedom of speech, asking you to assume responsibility before courts (e.g. difamación cases).
But even in this worst hypothesis, you were able to state what you had to say, without any prior interference by the state. This is different from censorship, which blocks the expression.
Freedom of speech and Wikimedia projects
The Wikimedia projects are worldwide community projects to "collect and collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally".
They are not the government, they don't block your freedom of speech: you're still free to write what you want in any space you own.
But Wikimedia projects are not your private personal space, it's a community space, where the content is the fruit of the community.
Each time you want to publish something and have full control about it, please publish it in any space you own, your own website for example.
In a nutshell.
When your writings are removed from the Wikimedia projects, or when an user is blocked, freedom of speech constitutional right is not impeded. --Dereckson (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Model categories[edit]

Is there an "ideal" category tree for a small Wikipedia? I'd rather adapt a solid model to our situation than re-invent the wheel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any but can not you use enwiki? Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest to change policy on Flow (global or WMF)[edit]

Because I can't enable the Flow beta function in English Wikipedia, so I would like to suggest to change policy on Flow (global or WMF). My suggestion is the WMF should allow all language versions' Wikipedia users to enable Flow feature which skipped the community's consensus. The Chinese version is already allow users to enable it and I think English version can allow users to enable it, but it has been strongly rejected by the English Wikipedia community. I also think the current policy on Flow is irrational. Please start the new topic, thank you!--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Enabling Flow on your user talk is not a decision you can make on your own. By doing so, you force other people to use a software they may not want to use, or they might not be able to use with their software, as well as remove data from the data dumps. Hence it makes sense for a wiki to be able to decide that no Flow usage at all be allowed on that wiki.
If you want to use different discussion software or contact methods, you can always kindly ask people to use those methods (e.g. by linking a Flow page you follow elsewhere). You are just not allowed to force them. Nemo 11:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I just to come here to suggest to change the policy on Flow. In additional, I think the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese and Korean (major languages) Wikipedia should enable the Flow function with the new policy.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)