Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the Foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Discussions of proposals which do not require significant foundation attention or involvement belong at Village pump (proposals)
Discussions of bugs and routine technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
Consider developing new ideas at the Village pump (idea lab).
This page is not a place to appeal decisions about article content, which the WMF does not control (except in very rare cases); see Dispute resolution for that.
Issues that do not require project-wide attention should often be handled through Wikipedia:Contact us instead of here.
This board is not the place to report emergencies; go to Wikipedia:Emergency for that.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for engaging with and discussing the Wikimedia Foundation. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the foundation are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Wikilinking to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Recently an editor removed wikilinks to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation from many articles. [1][2][3][4][5] What are our thoughts on if we should or should not wikilink to the article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation? I am inclined to keep these links and have said so before, but would appreciate hearing some other thoughts. cc Pppery. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae All wikilinks to the article ANI v. WMF should be removed as the article isn't even an article. Its just a template saying "Asian News International is trying to censor Wikipedia for simply telling the truth". DotesConks (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My comment there:

I think it's better we try to heal into a self-consistent state involving that article not existing, rather than deliberately sending people to the memory hole. Reverts are cheap, so when it comes back it won't be hard to revert my edits. I likewise would prefer that the article on the individual case be a redirect to an appropriate section rather than a visible sore (assuming that's legally allowed). I totally get the other viewpoint, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Rephrased, I don't think it's appropriate to have a link that looks like it's going to point to something, but instead points to nothing. The only information the link conveys is that the WMF has blocked access to the article. In all of those cases the article still says that later in the same paragraph, so the link is redundant. I was inspired to do this now (after having been previously reverted in October) because months later I think the case for doing this is stronger than it was back them when things were still in flux. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted but applicable here too) If that is the consensus, is there a Template:ill type solution that could hide the wikilink if that is the case? Usually for pages with possibility redlinks mean there is not a need to redo all links if a page is created, however in this case there the wikilink removal is creating future work that would involve tracking down prior links as well as reverting. CMD (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that we retain the links. The situation has already forced us to make extraordinary against-encyclopedic-interests changes, and modifying other articles as well would be an unforced deepening of the wound. Links, even when not clicked, reveal information to readers about e.g. which topics are notable enough to merit coverage. Removing them would send the false message that we don't consider the topic notable. This is also analogous to the situation with red links for notable topics, which we retain despite them not leading to information, so I don't find the "links need to lead to info" argument above persuasive. Lastly, reverts aren't the most expensive change, but they do take some work, especially once an article has evolved around them (e.g. by providing more context when a link is absent or by adjusting MOS:SOB workarounds). Keeping the links takes the longer-term view, in which the article will eventually go up again and we won't have to reintegrate it into the rest of the encyclopedia. Sdkb ^talk 07:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that links should be retained, unless there is any legal compulsion against it. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb makes sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came in here with no strong opinion, but I think Sdkb makes a good point that the links, even to a removed topic, are valuable information. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the links. Our practice is to wikilink notable topics on which we have no article. These links may be red (for logged-in editors) or may redirect to a related topic such as a list entry. In this unique case, the link is to a page documenting the WMF's redaction but the principle remains valid: if the topic is notable, we link to whatever we have. Certes (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a rough consensus to restore the wikilinks. Any objections before I go making edits? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Status

While we're all here, can we get an update on the case itself? Is there a time estimate on when the page could be made available again? Are the editors out of legal risk? Is this case going to lead to risks of other articles going down and/or restricted availability in India? Tazerdadog (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tazerdadog: There's been some updates over at WP:ANIVWF, and you can follow the court case directly here. Most recent update is that the WMF has appealed for the plaint to be rejected; the editors' details were disclosed to the court under a sealed cover and they have been served with a summons, but no affidavit has been filed by them and nobody has appeared in court on their behalf. There haven't been any real proceedings since this update as the presiding officer was on leave. Unfortunately I can't answer the rest of your questions, as it all depends on how the court case proceeds. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tazerdadog Recent coverage: ANI vs Wikipedia: Supreme Court questions Delhi HC over Wikipedia page takedown order. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Delhi High Court has now issued an interim order for the WMF to take down alleged "defamatory statements" on the ANI article. (Bar and Bench) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales or anyone from WMF who is reading here...is it possible to get some discussion here of what WMF's response to this will be? The community will want to be able to give input if there's any chance WMF is considering anything like edit/blacklock or remove that article. While either would be objected to, it's likely the reaction from the community will be worse if WMF simply presents us with a fait accompli. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this, editors are trying, based on media-coverage and discussion, to do something constructive with the ANI article over at Talk:Asian News International. However, without any word on WMF-intent regarding article content, it may just be a waste of time and energy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US government questionnaire

The organisation I work for has been sent this questionnaire by the US government. It has 36 questions that produce a score between 12 and 180. I would like to know what WMF's score is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

combatting Christian prosecution I would normally think this was a typo. But given the circumstances... GMG ^talk 13:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking that they can't be that bad, but then they come out with something that shows that they are. I'm just glad that I don't live in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, but I still have to deal with the questionnaire. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder what the actual US government would score on that thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF doesn't need to do it though. And I'm not sure why you are posting here instead of contacting the WMF directly. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universities in Europe are generally advising not to fill in or respond to the survey. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to encourage free speech and encourage open debate and free sharing of information but also be sure to not work with any party that espouses anti-American beliefs, I guess. jp×g 🗯️ 04:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I filled it out. Somewhat surprisingly, Wikipedia scores a respectable 90/180 (a lot more than you would expect given the fact the organization has a suspicious absence of minerals):

1: Yes, I would hope so. (5)

2. Yes, collaborating with any such organization (or any organization with a political viewpoint at all) would violate WP:COI (5)

3: No, most Wiki-meetups are informal gatherings of editors so vetting them for being terrorists would be a waste of time as well as pointless. (0)

4: WTF. No. Clear WP:NPOV vio. (0)

5: Yes, per WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:FREECONTENT. Speech is constrained by the practical constraints of an encyclopedia but that’s about it. (5)

6: Yes? We don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)

7: No, per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have abortion information on our website. (0)

8: Yes. Wikipedia is a well-funded organization with more than enough money to cover its operating cost. (5)

9: Yes. Let’s be honest, there is a fair amount of complaining on the site of Wikipedia’s high overhead costs, but the overhead costs of Wikipedia are dwarfed by the impact of the site. (5)

10: No. Why would we? We’re an encyclopedia? (0)

11: Yes? Again, we don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)

12: No. As an international organization with global governance structures, we collectively politely tell you to go soak your head over this one. (0)

13: Yes. Local branches of Wikipedia have, at points, received money from Russia, and worked with groups such as Wikipedians in Mainland China. That being said, Wikipedia no longer receives funding from those organizations and has never partnered with them per WP:COI. (5)

14: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)

15: No. We have programs that seek to include and improve coverage of areas not currently covered. That’s a good thing. (0)

16: Yes. Endorsing any policy positions officially would be WP:NPOV. We let the facts speak for themselves. (5)

17: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)

18: No. Even though sometimes it sure feels like it. (0)

19: No per WP:NOTCENSORED. Although, let’s be honest, the fact that Wikipedia fails this is more because “Gender Ideology” is really just talking about trans people. (0)

20: No per WP:NOTCENSORED (0)

21: Yes. Wikimedia Enterprise is the business arm of the foundation. (5)

22: Yes. Millions of people across the US use Wikipedia every day. Not to mention search engines rely on it. (5)

23: Yes. We’ve already done so. (5)

24: Yes. If the free flow of and access to information is a national security need, you could hardly find a better organization to fulfill this need. (5)

25: Providing access uncensored information to authoritarian regimes who are (for now) the primary “malign influencers” undermines their interests. (4)

26: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)

27: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)

28: Ironically, we probably do a better job of providing accurate health information than the current US government, which definitely mitigates biological threats and pandemics. As per “foreign dependence on medical supplies”, why even include that in this question you morons? (4)

29: Again free speech has generally helped promote US national security interests (we’ll see for how much longer). (2)

30: I guess disclosing what they are and providing information helps, sort of? That being said, WP:NPOV applies here. (1)

31: WP:NOTCENSORED means Wikipedia has information on most religions, benefiting religious minorities. Unfortunately, as you may know, the facts have a well known anti-Christian bias.(3)

32: None beyond letting the facts speak for themselves. That may be a bad thing for the current regime. (1)

33: People like Wikipedia, and many Wikipedia editors are American. That sort of cultural exchange hopefully helps people abroad see not everybody in the US is quite as bad as the current regime. (3)

34: The financial return of Wikipedia, when taking into account the benefits its provides, is massive. We’re one of the most visited websites in the world (5)

35: Wikipedia Enterprise makes bank, man [6]. (5)

36: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a concept, not a mining company. (0) Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MS forums will be CLOSED soon

WMF is closing the MS forums. please see the link below for details.

Here is the official WMF announcement: Based on the data and the learning, we will be archiving the Forum in April 2025. It will be put in read-only mode for a year - during this time all the discussions will be available online, but no new discussions can be started. After this period we will export all the data and retain a full archive.

LINK: meta:Movement Strategy/Forum/Archiving

--Sm8900 (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. Sunsetting the Movement Strategy forum is probably a good move, in my opinion. The Movement Strategy forum's location and software is a bit on the bespoke side, and runs the risk of raising barriers to entry, and fragmenting policy discussions away from the already existing place for such discussions (metawiki). –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I've heard of the MS forums, so anecdotally I feel that the attempts to promote it were unsuccessful. Also, The hosting and maintenance cost of the MS Forum is $20K per year. Even if it had worked, I can't imagine it would have ever given us anything near $20k-worth of benefit. I'm wondering if there was ever demand for this, or if it was one of the WMF's many "initiatives" that no one asked for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was demand from multiple groups:

Groups that needed private off-wiki discussions. For example, event planners or admins sometimes need to talk privately, because you don't want discussions about some subjects (e.g., venue contract negotiations or the latest move by a long-term abuser) to be publicly visible to anyone on the internet. These have always happened, but they have previously happened via private m:IRC channels or private m:mailing lists.
People who wanted a discussion system with built-in machine translation available so they could have discussions across language barriers. Japanese editors have been particularly under-represented in prior movement discussions, and they have been somewhat over-represented in the Movement Strategy Forums.
People who wanted to be certain that the person they're talking to is actually the editor of the same name. On the Forums, you can be certain that "WhatamIdoing" is me. On most other channels used by editors, you have no such certainty, because anyone can sign up under any name. For example, years ago, an LTA impersonated me on a couple of social media websites.
People who don't use the Latin alphabet. Several language communities have relatively little discussion on wiki, because typing in their home language, and especially typing wikitext codes, has been difficult. We don't necessarily want editors to use external apps, with their anti-privacy policies, to talk about Wikipedia's everyday business. Having a bespoke forum under our own privacy policies helps keep editors safe. (The Reply tool is another initiative from the WMF to reduce this voluntary, editor-initiated fragmentation.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing

Agree i absolutely agree with you, 100%!! well said!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing It shouldn't be too difficult to implement oAuth on existing forum software (Flarum?), and add some JS that translates posts. If that demand still exists I'll do it for 19K USD per year. Polygnotus (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Could have its own artificial intelligence from the wikimedia foundation to be consulted in auxiliary ways. (red annales) (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that actually existing ai like chatgpt is useful if one needs it as one possible resource for simple research. Sm8900 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add anything related to AI to WP:PEREN? I feel like by now it's clear how wikipedians feel about the topic by now and the recent AI hype means we'll keep seeing proposals like this until the WMF makes a statement mgjertson (talk) (contribs) 19:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 6

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on 21 March. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues

Progress on the Annual Plan: Six-Month Snapshot.
Global Trends: A message from Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees on global trends and strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.
Wikimedia Hackathon: The registration to attend the Wikimedia Hackathon is still open until midnight April 13.
Central Asia Wikicon: The Central Asian WikiCon 2025 will take place on April 19–20 in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

Infrastructure: How crawlers impact the operations of the Wikimedia projects.
Tech News: The CampaignEvents extension will be released to multiple wikis (see deployment plan for details) in April 2025; The Editing team is working on a new Edit check: Peacock check. This check’s goal is to identify non-neutral terms while a user is editing a wikipage. More updates from tech news week 13 and 14.
Wikifunctions: Read the latest status updates.

Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki

Wikipedia Library: What’s new from January to March 2025.
Let's Connect Learning Clinic: Missed the last Learning Clinic on "Safe Spaces, Strong Voices: Advancing Inclusion through the UCoC"? Recording is now available.

Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog

Transparency report: The Wikimedia Foundation’s publishes its latest Transparency Report covering the period from July to December 2024. View highlights from the report.
Global Advocacy: Read the latest developments on public policy advocacy from Wikimedia Foundation's Global Advocacy team.

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports

Wikimedia Enterprise: Wikimedia Enterprise Partners with ProRata.ai to Champion Sustainable Search Engine Practices.

Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter

Elections Committee: Wikimedia Foundation Governance Committee has appointed a new Elections Committee.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!

MediaWiki message delivery 15:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on developments in India

This communication is intended to provide an update on ongoing developments in New Delhi, India, involving Wikipedia, which have also been reported in the media. In the interest of transparency, our endeavour remains to keep Wikimedia volunteers informed regularly; however, please note that, in accordance with the applicable law, commentary on pending litigation by the parties involved is limited due to the sub judice rule.

We currently have two important updates to share:

Supreme Court Proceedings: On April 9, 2025, the Foundation concluded its arguments before the Supreme Court of India in its challenge [SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 2483/2025] to the Delhi High Court's takedown order concerning the English Wikipedia article "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation". The Supreme Court has now reserved its judgment (i.e., it will deliberate and deliver its written verdict in due course).
Delhi High Court Proceedings: On April 2, 2025, the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court issued an order on interim injunction in the ongoing civil suit titled ANI Media Private Limited v. Wikimedia Foundation and Ors [CS (OS) 524/2024, IA 32611/2024]. In response, the Foundation filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court [FAO (OS) 41/2025]. The Foundation's Legal Department is currently awaiting the Division Bench's order.

Please note that the Foundation is unable to respond to specific questions or discuss the ongoing proceedings further at this time; however, the Foundation has also taken note of concerns raised by members of the Wikimedia community.

As developments unfold, we will continue to provide updates to the extent permissible under applicable laws. The Foundation remains steadfast in its commitment to access to knowledge as a global human right and will continue to take all necessary measures under applicable laws to ensure that everyone can share and access free knowledge on Wikipedia in accordance with its Terms of Use and applicable policies. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): On April 8, the Division Bench upheld the single bench judgment and ordered the content to be taken down. Wikipedia is an intermediary, can’t appeal takedown court order on merits: Are you not updated with this news? GrabUp - Talk 04:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They will have been, by their lawyers, and not a media source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update Joe. I hope for the best possible outcome from the Supreme Court proceedings. Unfortunately I can't say I'm optimistic about the appeal to the Delhi High Court, given how it's gone so far, but it's good to hear the WMF is challenging these orders at each possible opportunity. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, the Division Bench's order has long been available. Upd Edit (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a backend tool for WMF legal that gives HTTP 451 for specific pages might actually be better than a plastered notice. I don't think anyone likes censorship (not even me), but this may be the best option to preserve access to the most number of Wikimedians. And if it is necessary to block VPNs from those same pages, so be it. It unfortunately would also mean that the page would be inaccessible from logs and recent changes. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the update: Relief for Wikipedia as Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court order to take down defamatory edits against ANI Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 7

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 4. Please help translate.