Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 75

Village pump
- Policy
- Technical
- Proposals (persistent)
- Idea lab
- WMF
- Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

How's Wikipedia doing lately?

I've been too out of the loop from the Village pump and everything community related for a long time. Is everything running smoothly enough or is there any growing issues like what Twitter has grown cancerous with? Occono (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what issues like Twitter's would look like, but I think the overall answer is some things are better, and some things are worse, and some are about the same. For example: We still have maintenance backlogs. We will always have maintenance backlogs. The existence of maintenance backlogs is what demonstrates to people that their help is needed in this area.

The content itself is objectively better than it was back in the day. For example, the percentage of sentences with inline citations has gone up by about 50% in the last five years (or was it 10? I'll have to find the source later) – not a small feat. The median article is probably a four-sentence stub now (remember when two sentences was considered a decent starting point? And sources were pretty much optional unless there was a dispute?), but the articles produced by new editors are substantially longer and better sourced than that.

Of course, there's the flip side to that: We achieve better-looking articles by rejecting articles on subjects that are probably notable and by blanking apparently accurate, uncontroversial content just because it's not yet cited and one person decides that the article must not contain any uncited content and would rather remove good content than cite it.

The content and contribution systems are also much more complex than they were when you and I started editing. It's harder to learn some things, like coding complex templates. You can't tweak your template into complexity; at some point, you have to re-write it into a Lua module. I think this leads to us feeling less empowered: if it breaks, all I can do is blame and shame the people I believe broke it. I can't fix it. This is a growing problem with old scripts and gadgets. A while ago, the developers removed a bit of code affecting Javascript. In addition to making announcements in all the usual places, they had forced that code to emit console warnings about the deprecation every time the script was used by anyone for seven years(!) before its removal. And on the day of the removal, it was still a complete surprise, because the scripts were written back in the day, their authors were long gone, and editors had copied them and passed them around by word of mouth, without anyone actually knowing how to maintain them. Most of us non-devs don't even know how to find the web console, much less to figure out what to do about any warnings in it. While we still have a group of awesome volunteers at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), we seem to have a lower percentage of technically skilled editors than we used to, and very few people with a broad focus.

And, also obviously, editors live in the real world. The personal, social, and economic pressures of the last couple of years mean that some people can't contribute their time here, or that they are more stressed or less able to cope. The loss of trust in institutions due to political problems and the pandemic mean loss of trust by Wikipedians in Wikipedia's institutions, too. We have always had these problems in smaller ways (e.g., armchair lawyers), but there seems to be more of it now, affecting a larger percentage of editors. So we are stressed, and people in the real world are stressed, and they are passing laws that affect us here, like declaring Wikipedia to be a Very Large Online Platform with specific legal obligations, like a confidential way to report alleged abuse.

Overall, I'd say that the content we have is better, the missing-content situation is a little better, and the average individual, as well as the community as a whole, are a bit more stressed than we were back in the day. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Some pretty good [1], some less pretty good [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

AfD participation seems noticeably lower, I'm not sure about other project-space discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Occono was editing regularly until 2021, and I don't think there have been major changes since then. But over a longer perspective, which most comments above are addressing (I think), most content areas continue to improve, but this is rather slowed down by the regrettable concentration within content addition on brand new articles, rather than improving long-standing ones that get much higher views, but are pretty terrible. Even more significantly, the proportion of regular editors who actually add content in text form at all has fallen off very badly since the glory days of say 2008. Keeping an eye on "Recent changes" (now rather hard to find) shows how very few regular editors add text. The text-adding editors who are left include fewer academics at the doctoral student level or above. This may especially be a problem in scientific and medical areas, where I think much of our content is less good than 15 years ago, purely because it has not been updated with developments in research etc. In terms of our content coverage, the problems I described in a talk I gave in 2011 (summary points) remain not much changed. I agree with most of the points others have made above - participation in discussions of most sorts has declined, and on subjects where nationalism of some sort is involved, the proportion of participants with a strong POV seems higher. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that participation in RFCs is up, largely as a result of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. However, most RFC participation is a vote with a brief justification, rather than full participation in a discussion.

@Johnbod, I've been running a low-key contest about adding citations to article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine this calendar year. A handful of regulars have signed up, and about as many newbies. (It's not too late! Contributions are automatically counted retroactively! Sign up today!) At the start of the contest, all of the regulars who signed up had a net negative number of sources added. Just like "the generalist" or "the gnome" might rack up a huge edit count by correcting typos across thousands of articles without contributing any new information, some of "the regulars" seem to spend more time policing other people's contributions than writing their own. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You must see different Rfc's from the ones I do (in terms of "brief")! On many medical articles "policing other people's contributions" is unfortunately very important. I'm too far away from medical editing these days to contribute, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Licence change

The licence of this and other WMF projects was recently changed from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 (mailing list announcement; ToU diff).

I'm not alone (see responses to the announcement linked above) in wondering how this can be applied to content created (including by people who are no longer active editors, or in some cases no longer alive) under v3.0? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not the first time the license was switched. Ruslik_Zero 18:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I seem to remember a lot of discussion before the previous switch (from GFDL in August 2009?) but can't find links to it. It certainly didn't appear out of the blue one day by someone quietly changing an obscure document on a website few of us visit. Certes (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Licensing update, which I found for searching for wikipedia:gfdl cc-by-sa. Graham87 07:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that we were properly informed about that change and allowed to vote on it. To be honest, I don't care which of two very similar licences apply to my contributions, but I do care deeply that the WMF think so little of the people who write the content that they cannot even extend the courtesy of informing us of their edict, let alone seeking our opinions. It's not enough to make me retire, but it's another straw on this already overloaded camel's back. Certes (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Would posting a notice on this same page inviting people to the discussion count? Anomie ⚔ 11:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies; I missed that. Certes (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The text of the license specifically allows for using later versions of the license for "adaptations", which would include edited content. The people complaining in the linked mailing list thread seem to be concerning themselves with the fact that the wikitexts of the old revisions themselves aren't "adaptations" and so remain under the 3.0 license, but this isn't being indicated other than perhaps as "additional terms may apply". Anomie ⚔ 11:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Are there any differences between version 3.0 and version 4.0 that anyone except a lawyer would notice? I (and, I believe, most editors) am happy with any licence that allows anyone to use the content I provide as long as it is attributed to my userid, and that the same terms should apply if my work is updated. Anything else is noise. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger The differences seem minor. By following Anomie's link to the previous discussion and digging deeper, I found this document from a consultation in 2016 that describes them: m:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0/Legal note#About Creative Commons 4.0. Another benefit not mentioned there (but mentioned in the previous discussion) is that existing content using the CC 4.0 licenses can now be incorporated into Wikipedia articles if desired. Matma Rex talk 23:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've got a question for those who'd like to answer

In regards to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022), how do you feel now, months after the discussion and with certain improvements added?

Before you answer this question, please read my user page to see why I am asking you this question. You do not have to answer this question at all if you wish. If you do answer this question, could you please state if you are okay with your username being used, possibly publicly? Thank you-- DisposableUser12345 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced names on categories split by gender

I notice we have a great many pairs of categories split by gender that use "male" vs. "women" instead of "male" vs. "female" or "men" vs. "women" (nevermind the other possibilities…). Where these exist, they appear at every level of subcategorization that I have checked. For example:

This imbalance in the terminology we are using seems very strange to me. It appears that most of the "male" categories were created well after the corresponding "women" cats, and arguably run counter to WP:CATGENDER (see also this other section on the same page). Because of the large (and indeterminate) number of such cases and my uncertainty about what should be done, I am bringing it up here (for general discussion) instead of going directly to WP:CFD (to seek consensus). I am leaning towards recommending the removal of at least the more specific "male" cats of the kind in the third bullet point (many of which were created by Ser Amantio di Nicolao, whom I have just pinged). Not sure what to do about the imbalance in the higher-level cats, since the construct "women XYZ" is relatively common whereas "men XYZ" is most assuredly not, and changing to "female XYZ" is probably never going to gain consensus. Opinions? - dcljr (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The naming issue: a handful of categories existed when I began creating others in the tree, and they used the word "male" rather than "men"; I simply followed what appeared to be the convention. (There may well be a particular reason for the language; I am not sure, but I preferred to act in the spirit of consistency.)

As to whether or not these categories should exist: that is, in my opinion, a very thorny question, which I've been chewing over in its various permutations over the past few years. I have an answer to it, but it's going to be a bit complex to lay out; right now, it's very late, I'm tired, and I need to go to bed before too much longer. I will attempt to provide a longer and more detailed explanation within the next couple of days. (If I don't, please ping me; I'm enough of a pudding-brain at the best of times that I forget things almost as soon as I've seen them, and certain difficulties in my off-Wiki life over the past few months have only compounded the issue.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Request expedited review of drafts.

I have created and helped others to revise several drafts related to geography, but some drafts have not been reviewed by anyone after more than a month, and drafts with no editing activities for 6 months will be regarded as automatically abandoned.

Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,469 pending submissions waiting for review." Everyone would like their draft reviewed, but there are many drafts and relatively few reviewers. You just need to be patient. The deletion process is not automatic, and no admin will delete a draft for inactivity that is still waiting for review. RudolfRed (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: The first one in your list is mostly sourced to Chinese-language sources, which is perfectly acceptable, but limits the number of people capable of carrying out a review to those comfortable in reading the language. The second has two sources. One is a page on Wikimapia, which is not a reliable source. The other carries a date stamp of "2023-05-17. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04.", which is nonsensical. The latter source is also in Arabic, which similarly limits the number of potential reviewers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Repairing algorithmically generated citations

I've already raised some of these issues and suggestions at mw:Talk:Citoid (and at Help talk:Citation Style 1), so I know some people are aware of it, but in the interest of letting this AN thread die, I've written a new project page about issues with automated references and suggested ways forward at Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup/Repairing algorithmically generated citations. Corrections and additions and participants are welcome. Folly Mox (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Extra spaces between one sentence and another in articles

Something I've been noticing a lot in the articles I've edited lately are that there are many sentences I encounter, where there is an extra space at the end of the fullstop, before the beginning of the next sentence, so i.e. there are two spaces instead of one. I've noticed that Wikipedia automatically removes the extra space from view to the reader (though it is visible in VisualEditor mode).

So my question is: Is this a common (minor) mistake that editors make, or is it a common practice that is perhaps done to tell sentences apart from another when editing the article?

Because if it is common and good practice, then I probably shall stop removing them as part of copyedits (such as this one), and maybe start inserting these extra spaces whenever I add any new sentences or paragraphs to an article from now on. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Two spaces after a period used to be the recommended practice with typewriters. With the advent of word processors that automatically adjust spacing between words, this became obsolete, and so now general recommended practice is to just leave one space and leave it to the word processor. On Wikipedia, to avoid adding noise in your edit diffs, it's easiest to leave it alone in text other than passages you're actually modifying. (Multiple spaces in wikitext will produce multiple spaces in the HTML output, and web browsers will collapse them into one visible space.) isaacl (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

See Sentence spacing#Controversy. It depends how you were brought up. The general rule is that is not a good idea to change the style of an article developed by others to your favorite form. An editor is free to insert pointless spaces in an article they write and they should not be "fixed" without good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

On a side note, that section is about the displayed output. With a typewriter, there's no distinction between source text and displayed text—what you see is what you get. With software, spacing in the displayed text is controlled by the program, so the source text can be different. isaacl (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Double spacing is permitted but not required, per MOS:DOUBLESPACE. It's usually best to leave the spacing as is. In particular, bulk-editing pages just to add or remove the space is strongly discouraged per WP:COSMETICBOT. Certes (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful responses everyone! From now on I will be leaving those double spaces alone. When I 'copyedit' an article, it's usually not because I see one glaring issue, but multiple of them, and when I do so, I take the opportunity to look over the source code of the article and fix other minor untidy bits that I otherwise wouldn't make sole edits to change.

--------------------

Side question: is it a good idea to remove line breaks from citation templates, such as what I did here?

I know it doesn't affect how the citation or the text surrounding it appears to the reader, so I don't make edits solely to change that – instead only doing it as part of bigger edits. In my view, while it may make it easier to look at the cite template's parameters, it makes the text surrounding it a bit harder to work with, as there is so much distance between one sentence and another with the citation inbetween, and also makes the source edit window "vertically" longer, requiring more scrolling. My AGF tells me that these line breaks appeared there because the editor who added the citation likely copied the source code from the section in the template's documentation that showcases the template and its parameters neatly organised with line breaks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The HTML 4.01 spec explicitly stated user agents should collapse input white space sequences when producing output inter-word space, in other words, browsers encountering sequences of two or more spaces should treat the whole sequence as if it were a single space. I can't find the equivalent passage for HTML5, but browser behaviour in that respect hasn't changed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally I use newlines between named template parameters for lengthy template invocations in order to make them easier to read, but I understand why some editors prefer compactness in the source text, particularly when there are many citation templates within one paragraph. Again, it's helpful to isolate the true content-changing portions of your edit diff by avoiding cosmetic changes to other areas of text. (For better or worse, as there are occasions when newlines do affect visible output, Wikipedia's diff tools can't simply ignore whitespace changes, and trying to parse out the significant ones from the insignificant ones isn't an easy problem.) isaacl (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey being conducted

I have been seeing a survey link at the top of some pages for me which takes me to https://questionnaires.marsouin.org - I wonder who designed this and claimed that it takes 10-20 minutes but I have attempted it twice and it is almost impossible to finish without the session timing out. They are pretty complex questions and if the organizers really are interested in getting good data, they ought to think a little more about the design. Shyamal (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I had the same issue too! This has been discussed here previously at this now-archived thread. Apparently it's supposed to have been mitigated, i.e. the session time extended. There should also be a "save" button in the upper-right corner of the page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I timed-out a number of times, so I started saving my responses, then at some point, the page itself started showing time-out error with no way to restore my saved responses, I refreshed and refreshed but nothing happened. I got frustrated and left. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thing happen. No way to complete it in the time allotted. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does it say a Request for Adminship is open, but when I go to that page, there's no current Request?

Race against cache, resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here and on my Watchlist page, it says that a Request for Adminship is open, but when I go to that page, there's nothing happening and it says the last Request was in May? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, if you refresh your watchlist, the message should go away. The RfA that was recently open closed a few minutes ago. Schazjmd (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passive income

Passive income looks like it could use a lot of attention from someone who doesn't find a Get-rich-quick scheme to be seductive. It could be worse, but it's pretty bad. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

2007 admin with strong password was cracked - how?

In 2007, KnowledgeOfSelf got his account cracked. However, he said he was using a strong password. Was there any consensus on how this was made possible? 2A02:AA1:1001:AEB5:8CD1:DB4B:3EBB:2403 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I can think of a few ways, but per WP:BEANS, I'm not going to posting them. Now that Two-factor authentication exists, properly secured admin accounts should be a lot harder to hack. Although I'm unsure what percentage of admins have 2FA enabled (in my mind it should be mandatory). --Chris 08:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that 2FA should be mandatory for admins. And before people object that the 2FA implementation provided by the WMF is substandard, I also agree that WMF should be providing better 2FA support. RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

For various reasons, 2FA is not an option for everybody. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The only people for whom it's totally not an option are people living in countries where possession of crypto tech is illegal. I'm willing to make an exception for them. All of the other objections I've heard are problems which could be solved by WMF investing in better systems and support. RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

People with more than one device. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are multiple devices an inherent issue for 2FA? I can see how some aspects of how WMF implements authentication in general is a pain for multiple devices, but that's an implementation issue. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64 it is possible to register multiple authenticators; it is an annoying process. The easiest way for someone to do so is to enroll them at the same time (unenroll/renroll if already enrolled). Natively, you may also register two different KINDS of authenticators independently. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wait, @Redrose64 when you said "two different devices", did you mean like a laptop and a desktop computer, or did you mean two different authenticators? RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There should be no issue contributing form multiple devices when you have 2FA enabled, I do it all the time. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Two desktops in one location, one laptop in another location, at least one more desktop in at least one more location and upon which I am not permitted to install software. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That’s only one where you can’t use an authenticator. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you need to install anything on any of those to use 2FA. I've got Google Authenticator on my (personal) phone and that's what I use to authenticate when I log in on my laptop. The laptop has nothing more than a stock browser. Not as convenient as something like a Yubikey, but it works. RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There are many ways an account can be compromised, we're not going to spell them all out. The page Wikipedia:User account security helps outline some best practices. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

IMHO if you're not using two-factor, you're not serious about security. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability of a pageant - seeking advice

I originally posted this to WT:Notability (events) a few days ago, but got no reply there.

This regards the notability of Miss Supranational 2023. I think it might need draftification until it's improved but looking for a second opinion. Especially please note a) there's no announced date and b) about half of the text is primary sourced or unreferenced as I noted on the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is now a cited date for the event, so I am no longer considering draftification. The sourcing concerns remain. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Azov Brigade

I am trying to understand the current status of Talk:Azov Brigade. Except for some templates at the top, the entire page follows a {{Archive top}} with no {{Archive bottom}}. Is this intentional? If so, where is one supposed to raise a question about the current state of the article? Pinging @TylerBurden, whose name is on the {{Archive top}}, as the most likely to know the intent. - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if this edit by Lowercase sigmabot III left an archive-top behind when correctly archiving the matching archive-bottom and the content between. That may be because the closing summary was above the associated section heading rather than below. We can probably just move the closing summary to the archive page. Certes (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

DONE, someone may want to verify my edits to the talk page and archive to make sure I have fulfilled the intent. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel My intent was just to close the discussion that had veered off into editors discussing ideologies rather than the article itself and wasn't producing anything constructive, like Certes said something seems to have gone wrong when the automated archiving kicked in causing the mess. Apologies if the way I placed the closing summary caused the issue. TylerBurden (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Lowercase sigmabot III archives threads based upon the convention that a thread extends from one level 2 heading (inclusive) to the next (exclusive), or to the page end if there are no more level 2 headings - this is exactly the same extent as when you edit a single section. The bot doesn't consider {{archive top}} to be anything special, and certainly doesn't look "back" from a heading to see if it's got an {{archive top}} before it. Indeed, there shouldn't be any need for the bot to do this: Template:Archive top#Usage explicitly states Place the {{Archive top}} template below the header containing the discussion, then place {{Archive bottom}} at the end of the discussion. and you appear to have overlooked this advice in this edit. Regarding that: what was the {{Lorem ipsum}} (since removed) intended for? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that's from WP:HATTING, where the example replaces the discussion by lorem ipsum text. Certes (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I clarified it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Announcing the new Elections Committee members

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello there,

We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.

Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Africa Growth Project Pilot: Invitation for Input

Dear Wikipedians, in response to expressed needs of the communities in sub-Saharan Africa to help achieve growth of the editing communities in the region, the Wikimedia Foundation is working on an experiment-based project dubbed the Africa Growth Project. The project seeks to enhance already existing community efforts by creating a more effective online learning component, which would allow in-person efforts to focus on already-engaged newbies who have obtained a solid foundation in Wikipedia policies and collaboration norms, maximizing the return on investment of human volunteer effort. The hypothesis guiding this experiment is that providing high-quality training to new and existing Wikipedians covering the basics of contribution to Wikipedia (including introducing the many ways to contribute beyond article writing) can double the retention rates of active editors in the region.

For the pilot, we will be developing four modules, and we are inviting you to share feedback on outlines for these training modules, which are:

We hope to benefit from your experience as Wikipedians in sharing your input on these module outlines, to ensure that they capture what is needed to support the community's understanding of those policies. We are interested to hear your thoughts on what's missing, what's good, what could be improved, and any suggestions on the modules' and sections' order and pace, great illustrative examples and helpful exercises that would be useful to incorporate.

We will take your input into consideration as we develop the full modules based on these outlines (including whatever change suggestions we accept). We will also be publishing the complete modules on the WikiLearn platform when they are ready.

See the details of the pilot and the modules in the Africa Growth Pilot Page on Meta-Wiki. Kindly share your comments on the talk page by July 21st, 2023.

Thank you, from the Africa Growth Pilot team @DNdubane (WMF), @VThamaini (WMF) and @Asaf (WMF). VThamaini (WMF) (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Scamming

I need to let Lisa Bonet know a scammer is using Jason Momoa name to scam fans and trying to pull her into it too Ellen Bohanan (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, and barely know who that it, and you're probably going to have to find a better avenue other than Wikipedia. GMG ^talk 16:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

can i get a download txt file of all entries in wikt:category:English lemmas

can i — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.159.190 (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You can get a list using the "Download data" here. As the query has only one column, the tsv option will produce a simple text file. Certes (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

WMF English banner fundraising campaign 2023 - community collaboration starting now

Dear all,

We would like to share with you the community collaboration page around the English fundraising banner campaign. This page is for en.wiki volunteers to learn about fundraising and share ideas for how we can improve the 2023 English fundraising campaign together. On this page you’ll find information to increase transparency and understanding of the fundraising program, background on improvements around community collaborations that have been made since the last campaign, new spaces for collaboration, and messaging examples to invite volunteers to share ideas for how we can improve the next campaign together.

The fundraising banner pre-tests phase on English Wikipedia starts on the 19th of July with a few technical tests, using messaging that was created with the community during the December 2022 campaign. We will regularly update the collaboration page with new messaging ideas and updates on testing and campaign plans as we prepare for the main campaign that will launch at the end of November.

Generally, during the pre-tests and the campaign, you can contact us:

On the community collaboration page
Via one the community calls (see more details on the collaboration page)
At an in-person event (see more details on the collaboration page)
On the talk page of the fundraising team
If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Best wishes,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Andrzej Sapkowski and The Witcher Saga

Hello!

In ENG Wikipedia article about Sapkowski, the beginning of the Witcher series is stated as The Blood of Elves book. But, hm... as a Polish fantasy fan, there are 2 short stories collections that truly - in my view - began the saga and without which the Witcher saga wouldn't be created? And the very last short story is about Ciri and the attack of Nilfgaard. And many things characteristics of the Witcher series (moral ambiguity, Dandelion, Yennefer etc.) originated in the short stories.

Thus, my question is - shouldn't the article about Sapkowski be changed to include the short stories as the beginnings of the Witcher saga?

(I mean, I dunno, maybe you already had this kinda talk before and I am spamming? But from my Polish perspective, the article kinda... does not sound right?).

Best regards -- Kaworu1992 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kaworu1992 The best place to discuss things like this is on the talk page for the article in question. You're talking about Andrzej Sapkowski, so the associated talk page is Talk:Andrzej Sapkowski. On the other hand, what you're suggesting doesn't sound controversial, so what I'd really suggest is be WP:BOLD and make the change. If anybody objects, they'll (politely) raise an objection and then you can discuss it further, per WP:BRD. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be a sock proxy

For those of you who have never seen this, there are a number of LTAs who try to avoid scrutiny (or work around page protections) by asking other editors to perform edits for them. Sometimes these are requests on user talk pages. Sometimes they're via email. If you get a request to perform an edit from somebody you've never heard of (especially if they're a new account), just don't do it. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

For example, 27.65.26.100 (talk). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

And 2402:800:6344:6610:E9CA:3119:3C88:9387 (talk), who is probably the same person. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

2402:800:6305:1035:E9CA:3119:3C88:9387 (talk). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna is directly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a tool for auto-archiving citations?

Per title, I seem to recall something like this but not sure how to find it, but I have like 250 citations to archive so it'd be handy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

https://iabot.toolforge.org?page=runbotsingle * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!!Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Movement Charter drafts invitation for feedback

Hello everyone,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that new draft chapters of the Movement Charter are ready for review and feedback. The Global Council draft is available now and Hubs will be published by the end of July.

How can you engage with the Charter content? To create a Charter for our Movement means we need to hear from as many of you as possible. Everyone in the Wikimedia community is invited to actively engage with the content by sharing their feedback on wiki or attending upcoming virtual and in-person events.

We encourage individuals or groups, especially those from under-resourced Wikimedia communities, to apply for grants by July 30. These grants can be used to organize conversations, such as informational sessions to familiarize fellow community members with the draft chapters of the Movement Charter ahead of regional and thematic events from September to November, 2023. The Regional Specialists of the Movement Communications team are available to support community organizers.

Posting on behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, RAdimer-WMF (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I permanently delete my Wikipedia account?

Please, I would like to permanently delete my Wikipedia account as well as all my data if possible. MarceloLanda6 (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

MarceloLanda6, accounts cannot be deleted due to legal requirements related to attribution of authorship. Since you have made so few edits, the easiest solution is to just abandon the account and never log in again. A more comprehensive solution is Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much MarceloLanda6 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on user script chatbot

I wrote a user script called WikiChatbot to assist editors. It can summarize, reformulate, copyedit, and provide suggestions on additional topics, images, and wikilinks as well as assess factual accuracy and bias. It is used by selecting text in an article and then clicking one of the buttons on the right to enquire about the selected text. The chatbot can also be used by typing specific questions about the selected text or the topic in general in the chat panel.

The script uses the AI model GPT 3.5. It requires an API key from OpenAI. New OpenAI accounts can use it freely for the first 3 months with certain limitations. The AI model was not designed to assess or improve encyclopedic articles and has many serious shortcomings. Editors should always question its responses and rely on their own judgment and reliable sources instead. For a more detailed description of all these issues and examples of how the script can be used, see the documentation at User:Phlsph7/WikiChatbot.

I was hoping to get some feedback on the script in general and how it may be improved. I'm not sure how difficult it is to follow the instructions so it would be great if someone could try to set up the script, use it, and explain which steps were confusing. My OpenAI account is already older than 3 months so I was not able to verify the claims about the free period and how severe the limitations are. If someone has a younger account or is willing to open a new account to try it, that would be helpful. Other feedback on the idea in general, its problems, new features to implement, or the documentation is also welcome.

(side note: this text was already posted at Wikipedia:User_scripts/Requests#Feedback_on_user_script_chatbot but it was suggested that here might be the better place to bring up the issue.)

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Not to be a downer, but I think this is a fundamentally bad idea. Or, rather, it could be a good idea for certain "mature" editors, but will be a honeypot trap for good-faith but naive and chatbot-trusting editors to inflict a lot of damage. I see that you're including a lot of warnings like "Please scrutinize this before changing the article" but unfortunately, there clearly exists a group of people who are extremely, extremely trusting of all LLM output and won't see the need (e.g. the famous lawyer who ignored the voluminous warnings about "may invent false data" to trust it as if it was a legal database). And it's precisely these editors who will be most excited to install such a Chatbot script. If nothing else, I would highly, highly recommend removing the "Is this true?" / "Is this biased?" / "Expand this article" options, due to the risk of AI hallucinations, or to mark it as "Does the AI think this is true (use only for comedy purposes)" or the like.

For the hypothetical copyediting ability, I don't think this comes up that often. Maybe if you have a truly poorly written section that was somebody plopping Google Translate'd material in, perhaps it'd be an improvement, but GPT3 copyediting any halfway decent text is not going to be clearly better. Worse, there will be a class of editors who aren't very strong copyeditors who can't tell the difference, and assume that they are being a big help by throwing complicated text in GPT3 and getting something they assume is better out. We've rejected similar proposals to highlight simple "complexity of text" measurements (e.g. Flesch–Kincaid readability tests) for fear of good-faith editors running around in technical articles to rephrase them with a bunch of short sentences with common synonyms and have them think they're "helping." I suppose the one potential good use of GPT is to take an existing high-quality source and summarize it, but that wouldn't be operating on Wikipedia text then; that'd be throwing a reliable newspaper article in and hoping that the result isn't too much of a close paraphrase. But it looks like the script as is works on Wikipedia text. SnowFire (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello SnowFire and thanks for having a look at the script and expressing your concerns. I think you are right that LLMs are double-edged swords that come not only with interesting opportunities but also with significant dangers. As I see it, it may not be the best response to try to avoid LLMs altogether. A different approach is to look for ways to use them productively while also making potential users aware of all their dangers and limitations. For this script, one way to do this is to clearly discuss the dangers in the documentation and include warnings inside the script.

I'm not sure that, as you say, naive editors are most likely to install the script. The great majority of script users are experienced or "mature" editors.

Your idea of renaming the button as "Does the AI think this is true (use only for comedy purposes)" would be one way to tackle the problem. But this would be a rather long button title. Maybe there is another way of addressing your concerns about the buttons "Is this true?", "Is this biased?", and "Suggest expansion". One could add an automatic warning right at the beginning of the chatbot response. For "Suggest expansion", it could be "(Please consult reliable sources to ensure that the following information is accurate before making any changes to the article)" or "(The following suggestions should be scrutinized since they may contain false information)". In my tests, I mostly got helpful results for this button: it did not write new text for the article but make suggestions like "provide more information about the historical context", "explain what this term means", or "mention the scholarly debate surrounding this claim". But this may depend on the article subject. I'll modify the script accordingly.

For copy-editing, it depends a lot on the type of article you are working with. If you prepare a GA article for FA, it's unlikely that you would need it a lot. However, if you work with stubs and drafts, this can come in handy. It can also be a problem for older articles that get very little attention from editors. In my tests so far, I didn't come accross any serious problems with this button. It usually only introduces minor changes, like fixing grammar, changing from passive to active, or splitting an overly long sentence into two parts. But of course, that doesn't mean that it is to be blindly trusted. I'm sure that there are also cases where it misunderstand an expression and changes the meaning in its attempt to copyedit it. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"In my tests, I mostly got helpful results for this button" - ah, but that's exactly the problem. If GPT just spat straight nonsense, it'd be harmless, and if it only told the truth or "I don't know", it'd be fantastic. Instead, GPT will give you the right answer 80% of the time, I don't know 10% of the time, and a wrong but plausible-looking answer 10% of the time. We'd never accept as a reliable source something that just convincingly lied 10% of the time. If someone clicks the "Is this true?" or "Expand this section" button they should just see a preformatted static message saying "Read the sources!" Otherwise, if there's some editor who actually started aggressively using this feature without checking the sources, they will start seeding total nonsense in with the rest of their edits, which can be very bad if done on obscure topics without many other editors checking it. Which are, coincidentally, the areas where GPT is most likely to hallucinate.

Copyediting - I agree with you that it shouldn't be blindly trusted, I'm just saying that there will be editors who blindly trust it.

"The great majority of script users are experienced or "mature" editors." - When I say "naive", I mean in general, not in their familiarity with being an editor. We've had extremely hardcore editors who are astonishingly naive and clueless. This is difficult to get into in-depth without being accused of throwing shade, and even picking only banned editors can result in an accusation of gravedancing, but... we have to remember that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, which is a great thing 98% of the time, but it does mean that there's no "filter" for some people who are not very mature (sometimes for good & proper reasons, like still being 12 years old!). Maybe a "safe" one to mention is Neelix, who was undoubtedly editing in good faith, yet created enough pure nonsense to get an entire speedy deletion criterion named after him (WP:NEELIX). Or for another example of how warnings can go unheard, Wikipedia has loudly said since its beginning that both American and Commonwealth English are supported styles. Yet we still will have editors come along on a mission to "correct" articles to "their" side and feel that they're providing a very important service in doing so.

Anyway, you might find this ChatGPT manuscript an amusing read: https://chat.openai.com/share/183ff912-224c-4846-80f7-13314ce55b48 . In particular, check out the answers on the Ottoman - Ptolemaic War and the surprising new details on the life of Mamiya Rinzō. I knew the answers to these questions as I asked them, and it's very impressive how much ChatGPT got right! ...but... it's definitely still not 100%, and it's not 100% in the dangerous way of "inventing details from whole cloth to justify its fabrications." SnowFire (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion and included automatic warning messages for the buttons in question. I think you are right that the accuracy rate of AI models is not sufficient to implement their suggestions directly into articles. So if someone were to propose a script to directly use text freely generated by AI models to expand articles, I would be on your side. But this is not what this script does. It merely gives suggestions and warns editors about the reliability of these suggestions. This can be useful to many editors since it may prompt them to research what reliable sources say on the issue before working on the article. But it could be misused by editors who ignore the warnings and do not care about what reliable sources say. However, for almost every tool, there are ways to misuse it. If it was a criterion for scripts that it shouldn't be possible to misuse them then there would be very few scripts left on our user script list.

If it turns out that you are right and that this script mainly attracts naive and clueless editors then it would be a good idea to remove functions that could be misused or to remove the script altogether. However, there are good reasons to think otherwise and I'm not sure that these steps are justified based only on the vague assumption that the script will be mainly used by naive and clueless editors.

Thanks for sharing the interesting chat on real and fake wars. Please note that the hallucinations about Mamiya Rinzō (and the Ottoman - Ptolemaic War) occurred after a lengthy chat. Hallucinations tend to become more likely if the chat history gets long. The chat history for my script is very limited. The script ignores the chat history if buttons are used. This should mitigate some of the problems but does not fully solve the issue. Other factors are the AI model used and the temperature parameter. When I tried to put the question about the Japanese invasion of Kamchatka right into the first prompt (replacing the Toledo War), it gave me the correct response. I also tried adding the response you got to our article War (only using the preview function, I didn't change the text) and used the button "Is it true?". It correctly identified the problem.^[a] Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There will be a lot of enthusiasm from people who find editing to be difficult or boring, but there will be skepticism from others who regard editing by predicting what word might go next with suspicion. At a minimum, any tool like this must tag edit summaries with some standard code for periodic checking. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point about edit summaries. In the chatbot documentation, it is stated in the second lead paragraph and later in the section "Usage and purpose" that editors have to mention in the edit summary if they used text created by the chatbot. This is also in tune with the policy draft WP:LLM. However, I'm not sure that it's possible to add new tags directly with the help of a user script. If so, it probably requires special user rights. According to WP:Tags, tags are usually added automatically by MediaWiki. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, we'd have to ask at WP:VPT. Some assistance with setting up a tag and triggering it would certainly be needed although I don't know if it's possible here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Having a tag for AI-assisted edits in general could be considered. One difficulty would be how to find out whether an AI was used for a particular edit. For example, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to simply tag every single edit of editors who have the chatbot script installed. A manual approach would be to add a checkbox called AI-assisted next to the minor edit checkbox and rely on editors to be honest about it. I'm not sure that this is already such a frequent phenomenon to merit its own checkbox. Until that time, the best approach may just be to tell editors to declare AI assistance in the edit summary. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Tags can be made a part of the script in such manner that it is applied only when an edit is made using that script. For example, "AWB", "Twinkle", "AntiVandal", etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The script does not make any edits itself. It only provides suggestions. For example, if editors want to use it for copyediting, they have to copy the copyedited text provided by the chatbot in the chat panel, open the edit page, paste the new text into the textarea with the wikitext, and manually push the button "Publish". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately as shown by the most recent ANI case even long-term editors can fail to understand the short comings of LLMs. They do not understand content, in the same way the Go AI was shown not to understand Go. They are only predicating the best fit text. That could still be extremely useful in giving a starting point for editing, but the litany of recent cases show it should be handle with caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The ANI case you linked is a good example of what can go wrong and the type of AI-assisted editing behavior that should be explicitly discouraged. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

An interesting, but as others, have said, fundamentally dangerous, idea. Sorry. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This script and the surrounding ideas are well ahead of its time, which is to say that Wikipedia, at this juncture, is not prepared to accept the implementation of chatbots and LLMs. Not even for apparently productive purposes. The technology is still too immature, and we're already responding to the fallout of when users acting in good faith (or otherwise) utilize chatbots to make edits, and the edits are not always beneficial.

As I say this, though, I still think you should keep developing and working on it. In my opinion, this is great to see. I feel the time will come when the community reaches acceptance of these sorts of things, but it's not there yet and I don't know when it'll be there. It's not entirely different from the concept of technostress, which we seem to be collectively experiencing. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with LLMs to know whether the provided screenshot is typical of feeding them some text with some obvious verb disagreements, but it looks like it hasn't even copyedited the text at all apart from correcting two obvious basic grammatical errors introduced as a test case.

I'm old and crotchety, and my position is that if people are so inexperienced with communicating in written English that they need a chatbot to help them copyedit, they shouldn't be copyediting at all, with or without chatbot assistance. How will they know their version is an improvement? Because a computer said so?

I agree with someone above who argues the "is it true?" and "is it biased?" buttons have no place at all, since a chatbot is entirely unequiped to opine on these matters, and "is it reliable?" should be a link to WP:RSN with an appropriate search string.

People trust code too much. We see this all over the place already in garbled citations that some script thought were fine, and some editor never bothered to check. I despair to envision what the same irresponsible, lackadaisical attitude would engender were it applied to content creation. Folly Mox (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I followed the advice here and at Wikipedia_talk:Large_language_models#Chatbot_to_help_editors_improve_articles and I removed the buttons "Is it true?", "Is it biased?", and "Is this source reliable?". An alternative to removal would be to reformulate the prompt associated with the problematic buttons. Additionally, one could reduce the temperature parameter (roughly: its creativity). It would be necessary to test first how useful the responses after the changes are and whether the error rate is acceptable. For example, instead of asking about the specific reliability of a particular source, one could ask about the general reliability associated with a publisher. One of the motivations for the buttons "Is it true?" and "Is it biased?" was to assist new page patrollers in spotting hoaxes and the like. But it's true that AI models have significant problems in this area.

In relation to the copyedit in the screenshot: I think there were mainly four changes: correct name (Koneitzo/Konietzko), add a missing verb, split into 2 sentences, and fix tense in the second sentence. The buttons "Simplify" and "Reformulate" produce bigger changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a user script called WikiChatbot to assist editors. Well, there's your mistake right there.

Chatbots don't answer questions; they simulate what an answer might sound like. They are progressively making the rest of the Internet a worse place, and are the last thing we need to bring here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Notes

^ User: Is the selected text factually correct or does it contain false claims?
Selected text: """The Japanese invasion of Kamchatka took place in 1731-32 during the Edo period of Japan. The expedition was led by Japanese explorer Mamiya Rinzō, who sought to map the northern Pacific Ocean and explore the coast of Siberia. After landing in Kamchatka, the Japanese encountered resistance from the local indigenous population and were eventually forced to retreat. The invasion was not a full-scale war, but rather a limited expedition with the goal of exploration and mapping."""

Bot: (Please consult reliable sources to verify the following information)

The selected text is not factually correct. The information provided about the Japanese invasion of Kamchatka in 1731-32 is fictional and does not correspond to any historical event.

Reverse bias.

Seems Wikipedia is all about the factual errors in Britannica, but little interest in the errors in Wikipedia. When someone gets called out for biased editing, it is swept under the rug. i.e. The George Galloway page, rift with unbiased accusations, which he refuted quite soundly, and even won a damages lawsuit, but it was all swept under the rug. Now there is a current article on Wired.com, about edits on the pages of German officials during World War II. Quite the conundrum:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/one-woman-s-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-on-wikipedia?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Please read the entire article before commenting. 207.53.252.58 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure I saw some discussions on Wikipedia about the Wired article when it came out, but that was nearly two years ago. Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And you are an editor, and you do not provide references? That is not very wikipedian of you. 207.53.252.58 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

See the 2021-09-26 Signpost, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

So what? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There is such a long list: Besides degrading the already degraded reputation of Wikipedia and your reputation as an editor: Again, the same as Schazjmd, no link, no source. That is not very wikipedian of you. 207.53.252.58 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have anything else to do besides throw pseudo-insults around please do so, otherwise go elsewhere before someone loses their patience and you wind up blocked. Also, Category:Wikipedia controversies would suggest that there is a lot more interest in the errors on Wikipedia than Criticism of Encyclopedia Britannica (Oh, wait, that article doesn't even exist!). Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly right. The OP's initial premise right off the bat of Wikipedia is all about the factual errors in Britannica, but little interest in the errors in Wikipedia. is dubious and faulty and loses me immediately, considering that we do in fact highlight our own controversies with relative gusto. We had a massive ArbCom case about that very issue, in fact. We don't ever shy away from these things. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia controversies#2018 notes the Galloway incident; that took about 15 seconds to find. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Task forces no longer inherits importance

Moved to Template talk:WPBannerMeta § Task forces no longer inherits importance

AI again

Hi All, The Guardian newspaper has produced a statement on its policy concerning the use of generative AI in their journalism. Their concerns reflect the concerns that Wikipedians have raised, and their policy is very sensible. Here it is:[3] Elemimele (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

halp

there's this humor page that you get to after clicking a link that explicitly tells you not to on wikipedia, and the page shows the destruction of wikipedia by a nuke due to your actions

can someone find it for me i forgot the link

thx DestinyPegasus (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

found it thanks anyways

it was "Don't stuff beans up your nose" DestinyPegasus (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't...I don't...All I had was chickpeas. The whole world smells like hummus! GMG ^talk 23:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

lol DestinyPegasus (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Help page needs updating for Vector 2022

Not sure where else to post this, but Help:How to move a page is a pretty important help page, and needs updating for Vector 2022. Curbon7 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Help talk:How to move a page, because talk pages are provided for suggesting and discussing improvements to the associated subject page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I had checked that: the last two queries on that talk page took 8 and 11 months to be answered, and the page has had an update tag for nearly two months, so clearly it isn't getting through. Regardless, the button seems to be more-or-less in the same spot (tools drop-down?), so it's not a huge deal, I guess. Curbon7 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Share your thoughts on the Hubs draft chapter of the Movement Charter

Hello everyone,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is happy to announce that the Hubs draft chapter is now open for review and feedback. The Global Council was published two weeks ago.

How can you engage with the Charter content?

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee is looking forward to receiving feedback from as many people as possible. Please share your input on the Meta Talk page by September 1, 2023:

Share your feedback on Hubs draft
Share your feedback on the Global Council draft

In addition, we invite you to join the MCDC Live call on July 30 at 14.00 UTC to engage with the MCDC members directly and ask your questions. Please register here to receive a Zoom link.

We encourage individuals or groups, especially those from under-resourced Wikimedia communities, to apply for grants by July 30. These grants can be used to organize conversations, such as informational sessions to familiarize fellow community members with the draft chapters of the Movement Charter ahead of regional and thematic events from September to November 2023. The Regional Specialists of the Movement Communications team are available to support community organizers.

Thank you for your ongoing commitment and participation.

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, RAdimer-WMF (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair Use

Hello

How the fair use work?

I want to update some movie poster

I can update any poster? GEORGEB1989 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@GEORGEB1989 For filmposters, the fair use rule is basically: "We can have a poster-image in the upper right corner of an article (not draft) about that film."

You can upload one by going to WP:FUW and choose "Upload a non-free file", and replace it in the article you're thinking about. A bot will come along after awhile and make the image low-res, because fair use pics on WP has to be low-res.

WP:BOLD applies, but it's possible that other editors will think your choice is not an improvement and revert you. If that happens, you can WP:COMMUNICATE. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång

Hello

Recently i upload a article and a editor moved to draft

How can biblotecary give a review? GEORGEB1989 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@GEORGEB1989, I think you should ask for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. It's a page for new editors to ask questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Names of cleanup categories

Many cleanup categories have a name beginning with "Wikipedia pages..." while many others have a name beginning with "Pages...". This makes it harder to find the category you're looking for. Is there a possibility of standardizing these categories to use one or the other? Kk.urban (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kk.urban, all things are possible, and this one likely awaits only someone with an enormous amount of time and energy. Each proposed change needs to run through Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

If you want to work on this, please go to WP:AFDHOWTO and follow the directions for the picture. (Yes, that page is "Articles" instead of "Categories", but those particular directions work for any kind of page. When you actually nominate the first one, be sure to switch "Choose type of action wanted:" from the default/deletion to renaming.) I recommend that you start by nominating just one at a time, but after you get the hang of it, you can set up discussions for small groups of related categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

4 Updates on the Private Incident Reporting Project

Hello everyone, for the past couple of months the Trust and Safety Tools team has been working on finalising Phase 1 of the Incident Reporting System project.

The purpose of this phase was to define possible product direction and scope of the project with your feedback. We now have a better understanding of what to do next.

1. We are renaming the project as Incident Reporting System

2. We have some feedback from researching some pilot communities to share with you

3. We have updated the project’s overview

4. We have the first iteration of the reporting extension ReportIncident

Please visit the project's update page to get more details.

On behalf of Trust & Safety Tools Team –– STei (WMF) (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point out that a large number of articles are severely biased

Hi, I would only like to point out (think of it like a type of complaint) that certain topics on Wikipedia (I am now referring to religious demographics) are very heavily biased towards a very specific viewpoints, completely going against Wikipedia's rule of a "Neutral point of view". What I am refering to is that articles about countries' and regions' religious demographics are biased towards either a very secularist/non-religious bias or are biased towards a minority religion. I would like to recommend a massive clean-up operation. Hope more people could understand and spread the message. Belson 303 (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Go do it. GMG ^talk 15:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Change starts with you. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You've been on the wiki for 8-1/2 years and you've only just noticed this now? RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"very secularist/non-religious bias", i.e. neutral? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Belson 303 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Which religion do you want to favour? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One example of an unnecessarily secularist bias is the Czech Republic where polls commonly claim now that only about 10% of Czechs are members of an organized religion with nearly 90% being either unaffiliated or refuse to answer, yet according to the Catholic Church's Annuario Pontifico directory just under 31% of Czechs are still at least nominally affiliated with the Catholic Church, the majority of which is non-practising though. Another thing that you ignorantly won't know is that research has shown that people who claim to be or are actually not formally affiliated with a religion are not uniformly "non-religious", i.e. some respondents in opinion poll surveys claiming no affiliation to an organized religion have been found to claim in the same surveys that they still attend religious services regularly or at the very least occasionally. Belson 303 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic Church is an involved source. Stick to the independent, neutral, sources. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Belson 303 your complaint is very vague and non-actionable. Is there a specific article you are referring to or that exemplifies the problem? You mention that, "articles about countries' and regions' religious demographics are biased towards. . ." but you it's not clear what you mean. For example, if an article stated that a particular country was 50% Christian, 20% Muslim, 25% secular, and 5% other, that would be a neutral statement of fact, and I'm not seeing how it's biased towards any particular group. Help us understand your concern. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Demographics can have many conflicts of interest from both secular and religious sources. I would think major NGO non-affiliated sources like the UN etc.. are pretty neutral ground. The proposition by Belson of secular vs. religious sources is a logical fallacy and sounds like an rhetorical technique to get their preferred sources into Wikipedia. -- GreenC 16:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC You seem to be assuming that @Belson 303 sees bias in our source selection, rather than the text of our articles. However, my issue is that Belson 303 has not made it clear where he sees this bias or what bias he sees. I am mearly asking Belson 303 to clarify what he is talking about. I think it's counterproductive to make assumptions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I think opinion polls (apparently the most popular type of source on Wikipedia about the religious demographics topic) are not credible or reliable sources anymore (even in predicting elections (which is how they got credibility in the first place) polls have been missing the mark so badly that poll watchers voice growing suspicion about erroneous methods and potential biases) and opinion poll-based sources are more likely to be based on polls suffering from sample bias or more likely non-response (i.e. less and less people agreeing to participate in a survey) bias. Belson 303 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In some countries, e.g. Australia#Religion, religion is surveyed as part of a mandatory population-wide census. It's self-reported, but is not a self-selected sample. I thought this was the norm not the exception. For countries where there are no census data, then we should report the various sources in a balanced way, like always. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(Oops, forgot ping @Belson 303.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I now see that you have addressed the census question below, sorry. The language about opinion polls threw me. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I can understand what you mean but I think opinion polls (apparently the most popular type of source on Wikipedia about the religious demographics topic) are not credible or reliable sources anymore (even in predicting elections (which is how they got credibility in the first place) polls have been missing the mark so badly that poll watchers voice growing suspicion about erroneous methods and potential biases) and opinion poll-based sources are more likely to be based on polls suffering from sample bias or more likely non-response (i.e. less and less people agreeing to participate in a survey) bias. Belson 303 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One example of an unnecessarily secularist bias is the Czech Republic where polls commonly claim now that only about 10% of Czechs are members of an organized religion with nearly 90% being either unaffiliated or refuse to answer, yet according to the Catholic Church's Annuario Pontifico directory just under 31% of Czechs are still at least nominally affiliated with the Catholic Church, the majority of which is non-practising though. Belson 303 (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Belson 303 You have made very similar statements twice before. Please either show examples of the kind of bias you see, or stop taking up other editors' time by repeating the same non-specific statement. Thanks. PamD 19:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

One example of an unnecessarily secularist bias is the Czech Republic, where polls commonly claim now that only about 10% of Czechs are members of an organized religion with nearly 90% being either unaffiliated or refuse to answer, yet according to the Catholic Church's Annuario Pontifico directory just under 31% of Czechs are still at least nominally affiliated with the Catholic Church, the majority of which is non-practising though. Belson 303 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Belson 303 If you think that a particuular Wikipedia article is misrepresenting what is said in reliable sources, then edit the article or discuss it on the talk page of the article. If different reliable sources give different figures, this can be stated in the article. For UK places, the most common source of content about religion in places is the national cennsus, taken every 10 years, in which people can state their religion, or "no religion", or opt not to answer the question: any data added to the encyclopedia should always be clearly referenced to a reliable source. PamD 20:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Last time I tried that, it was reverted claiming they were "reverting possible vandalism". 176.57.195.131 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So please show us the dif, so we can see whether we agree. PamD 12:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please excuse my unindented intrusion here. This is an attempt to address some of the claims made by Belson 303, not for 'a large number of articles', but solely the only cited article: Czech Republic and in particular, subsection 6.2, which is restricted to the singular category of religious demographics. I agree that polls in general are coming under greater scrutiny these days, presumably because there have been some major mispredictions lately. However, the single subsection in question regarding the country in question is not quoting, citing or referencing any polls. The article reports the results of a question posed in the most recent national census, as well as providing an illuminating comparison with the same question posed over the three previous decennial censuses.

The numbers in the article are mostly (but not exclusively) percentages and are directly taken from the results of the authoritative Czech national census. You and I can start our own opinion poll immediately, without difficulty. But we cannot conduct an authoritative national census whenever (or wherever) we feel like it. Such things are important to the overall scientific picture we have of ourselves, and are strictly monitored both internally and externally for precisely that reason. We can run our own opinion polls however we like. We can adjust the numbers, or filter the responses, to suit our own undisclosed purpose. Perhaps we want to expose a perceived bias. Or perhaps we want to sell more newspapers. We don't have to be public about any of that. It's our little (or big) secret. But running an authoritative national census is an entirely different matter. Every number is made public and public scrutiny is encouraged. There is no newspaper to sell, no extra communion wafers to sell, etc. The primary objective is to determine the scientific truth, and a secondary objective (not insignificant where national borders have changed during the last four decades) is to be seen to be an accurate and reliable source on the world stage.

Perhaps you don't like to see that 34% of Czechs claimed to be atheists in the 2011 census. But it doesn't mean 34% of all the people in the Czech Republic are atheists. Did you notice that it is only 34% of the 55.3% of people that answered the question. So that 34% is actually 34% of 55.3%, which is only 18.8% of all the Czech people who returned a census form. Even if every adult in the country returned an honestly completed form, and project that onto today's population, it still means that 81.2% of 10.8 million people (i.e. 8.79 million Czechs DO NOT claim to be atheists). But none of the numbers that concern you should matter at all. Are the numbers an accurate reflection of the census results? I would expect that to be the case. But even if it is not, and it is indeed biased to a level found in some of Czechia's neighbours eighty years ago, the Wikipedia article is not incorrect. The article clearly states the source of those numbers and says what the source says. The census states there's another 10% of Christians who are not Catholic. Is it true? I didn't check, but I will bet that's what the census states. The actual number of Protestants is not something that Wikipedia can get involved with. The Wikipedian editor went to the best possible source of information, clearly stated what that was, and reported the findings. If you are concerned that the Czech national census is biased, and wish to do something about it, then I wish you luck on your journey. But this isn't the right place to start it. Belson 303 may have become 176.57.195.131 (talk) in the time it took me to write this. Either way, I hope dot-131 made it to the end of my response. If so, I hope it helped just a little bit.

ChrisJBenson (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC) P.S. I like your name - except for that weird 3rd letter L where there should be an N ;-)

Hi, the Czech Republic is one of the few countries to still include religious affiliation questions in their censuses, but even censuses still have a handful of significant limitations (though less prevalent than opinion polls), besides the fact that most censuses don't have religion questions, even if they do, censuses sometimes force people to select their religion based on a predetermined list of options. This can result in high-end estimates, where people pick a religion regardless of whether they actually practice that religion. It also has the potential to miss religions that are considered illegal or that are not recognized by the government, notably the Baha'i faith in Egypt and Iran. Related to this, it is also worth to point out that censuses are not completely free from political and social bias and especially controversy. You don't need to take my word for it, just look at the critique of the Australian religious questions from the Atheist Foundation of Australia’s “No Religion” campaign, which objects to the religion question on the census for the following reasons: First and foremost, the question on the Census form is what is known as a “leading question.” That is, it is formulated is such a way as to elicit a desired answer. A survey company using such a method would very quickly be dismissed as not worth hiring. The question reads, “What is the person’s religion?” Firstly, the phrasing of the question suggests the person has a religious belief. The Atheist Foundation of Australia believes this is a false assumption. Second, the response options presented allows the person to write their religion of baptism, or the religion they were introduced to as a child, even though the individual may not hold any religious beliefs anymore. Furthermore, the question lists the common religions at the top and places the “No religion” box at the bottom. P.S. I am actually 176.57.195.131, I was too lazy to login.

Belson 303 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

In re people pick a religion regardless of whether they actually practice that religion: Surely each person is the authoritative source on which religion(s), if any, they have affiliated themselves with. Whether some third party is satisfied by how closely they follow their self-avowed religion does not appear to be something that any of the reliable sources are concerned about, so Wikipedia shouldn't be either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is delving far too deep into the No True Scotsman territory. If someone fills out official government census form and checks a box saying they are Muslim, then I'm not sure there's any way to say that they aren't. Reporting the results of such demographic data from censuses is entirely uncontroversial as far as I can tell. --Jayron 32 17:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Warnings about content(disclaimer)

I love wikipedia and love what I learn here. But I have noticed most of, if not all information gleaned is stated as unambiguous facts. When in fact some content is of opinions, or information garnished from biased opinions. Or proffered by "sources" or "experts" without requisite proof. Why not warn readers with a disclaimer that clarifies this, it approaches propaganda at some points. Otherwise you folks do a great job and Wikipedia is the best resource available. Just letting the reader know in italics or bold lettering to the source of said information would seem clearly more unbiased. Because some information ascertained on here points to fact when it is clearly of an opinion opined from sources. Citations in the reading also may give more of an unbiased look. Just something to think about. Coopaloop1984 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You mean, something like Wikipedia:General disclaimer? Donald Albury 00:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the original poster, and I'm not defending his argument (at some point even putting up flashing yellow text still wouldn't be enough to inform some people), but to me expecting readers to acknowledge a waiver that not even 0.1% of the site's visitors yesterday saw or knew existed seems like a bit of a cop-out to me. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:8518:CAAE:38FE:66F0 (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not really a useful metric for assessing anything; there's no reason for anyone to go back to read the general disclaimer once they know what it says, but people visit the main page multiple times – sometimes multiple times per day. The general disclaimer getting 0.1% of the number of views the main page does is honestly way more than I would have expected... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be useful to know what some of the (alleged) opinions are. I find that sometimes people use the word opinions when they probably should be saying factual errors or fact that I am unconvinced is true.

For example, it's a true fact that inflation has declined in the US, but that does not mean that prices have declined. "Inflation declined" means "prices are still going up, just not as quickly as they were before". Sometimes there can be a misunderstanding in which people think that "inflation declined" means "deflation is happening" (=prices are going down). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Introducing Adiutor Project

Dear fellow Wikimedia enthusiasts, we are excited to introduce the Adiutor Project, an initiative aimed at enhancing the Wikipedia editing experience! Adiutor is a user-friendly gadget designed to simplify various tasks for Wikipedia editors, making editing easier, faster, and more enjoyable. From creating deletion requests to conducting copyright checks, Adiutor streamlines repetitive processes, giving you more time to focus on creating valuable content for the community. If you're interested in using Adiutor on your local wiki, we'd love to hear from you! Drop us a message here or reach out to Vikipolimer with your Wikimedia community details. Let's collaborate to bring Adiutor to your language and wiki! Join the Adiutor Project, and together, let's make Wikipedia editing a more efficient and rewarding experience! For any questions or to express your interest in bringing Adiutor to your local wiki, feel free to contact Vikipolimer - we're here to support and work together with you! Looking forward to your enthusiastic participation! 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 00:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that @Trizek (WMF) will be interested in this.

@Vikipolimer, what's your plan for measuring the effects on newcomers? Making things faster for editors like me can translate into making it quick and easy for editors like me to shut out the next generation of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, WhatamIdoing. Indeed it is an interesting project.

@Vikipolimer, I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's Growth team. our focus is to help newcomers making their first steps.

Like WhatamIdoing, I would be really interested regarding how these tools impact newcomers' workflows.

A research project showed that the gap between newcomers and experienced users is very large. Newcomers don't feel being at their place as they don't understand the processes that are applied to their work. Typically, they get a banner on "their" article, but they don't know what to do next as the banner is full of jargon, no one posts a clear message at their talk page and there is no human visible behind the process.

The more speed you add to the process, the more standardized and the less understandable the process becomes. Hence, it is more difficult for newcomers to understand what went wrong. How would you solve this, while providing a tool that increases speed?

Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Trizek (WMF)! Thank you for your interest. The Adiutor project aims to make Wikipedia editing easier and faster. Our goal is to empower new users by providing a user-friendly tool that simplifies their tasks and helps them understand the processes better. Research has shown the importance of enhancing the experience for newcomers. While offering a tool to speed up workflows, we also aim to make the processes more comprehensible and user-friendly. In the upcoming phases, we will be adding sections to the user interface that explain the actions performed and provide brief information about the processes involved. This way, we hope to assist newcomers in understanding the processes while also increasing efficiency. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 09:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Vikipolimer. I had a look at the list of available features, and I feel that they are all advanced tasks for established users. So, I wonder: which of them are designed for newcomers? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You may be interested in Twinkle, which we use to streamline a similar set of functions on English Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Certes, Thanks for comment, I know Twinkle but we're working on something with a nice UI and easy to adapt to local wikis. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 15:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I read the meta page on it but I'm a little unsure regarding what it actually does. A lot of buzzwords. Is it sort of like Twinkle? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The list of capabilities answered that question for me. It happens to overlap with Twinkle for my needs, but I can see how a generalized project like this would be useful for editors who do more than I do, or for other wikis that don't have any tools like this at all. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vikipolimer: how about a feature that facilitates usage of WP:HATNOTES? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow Sure, can you share this idea on meta talk page please? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WRating is a website that evaluates your contribution to Wikipedia traffic.

Hello. My name is Andrii. I am the developer of WRating, a rating system that has been evaluating the contributions of editors to the Ukrainian Wikipedia's traffic for almost 10 years. Now, it also evaluates your Wikipedia contributions https://wrating.ukrface.org/?le=en&l=en. It was a very interesting challenge, because the volume of data in English Wikipedia is 100x more than in Ukrainian Wikipedia. This website provides an opportunity for Wikipedia authors to assess their contribution to the project's promotion, namely: to find out how many pages were viewed on Wikipedia within one month due to their contributions.

For example, here are the TOP-10 contributors according to the WRating version (number of views in parentheses):

DerHexer (204 827 372)
J.delanoy (201 753 787)
Antandrus (156 911 632)
Luna Santin (142 244 903)
Alansohn (125 505 820)
KnowledgeOfSelf (101 531 346)
Oxymoron83 (100 521 616)
NawlinWiki (100 271 873)
Materialscientist (96 380 913)
Tide rolls (96 288 717)

The ranking is updated monthly, usually by the 5th day of each month.

I will be glad to see you among the users of the rating. UkrFace (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@UkrFace: Potentially interesting, but the top users in this list have all done extensive anti-vandalism work at some stage, mostly before the introduction of tags and filters to Wikipedia. You'd have to filter out edit summaries containing links to anti-vandalism tools like Twinkle and Huggle as well, at the very least. Graham87 04:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a well-known complex problem. I'm still considering how to solve it. This issue is particularly noticeable for the TOP-100 ranking. The site also features a TOP-100 for the month and a personal mark, which are much less affected by this problem. UkrFace (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You might be able to filter out Special:Tags like mw-reverted, mw-undo, and mw-manual-revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This has already been added, all revisions with such tags are discarded. The problem now lies with revisions written before 2018, as Wikipedia did not mark them before 2018. UkrFace (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding how many pages were viewed on Wikipedia within one month due to their contributions, isn't that a correlation fallacy? For example, if I frequently edit the article for subject X, and then the subject of article X becomes a huge news item for an unrelated reason and page views go up, it's not because of my edits. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The idea here is that all Wikipedia views are the result of the joint work of the entire community. Accordingly, it is advisable to distribute all revisions among all editors.

In your example, the WRating rating can be interpreted as follows: What proportion of the views are accounted for by your edits. UkrFace (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how the "Calculation algorythm" <sic> works. -- GreenC 05:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Very simplified: article A, 500 characters long, 10 000 views last month. You have added 100 characters in this article.

Your result is: (100 / 500) * 10 000 = 2 000.

In general, the algorithm works much more complicatedly, because usually users make more than one edit, and not just in one article. Additionally, amendments related to patrolling and vandalism are also partially rejected. UkrFace (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a "Who Wrote That?" style attribution, but that has its limits. For example, if User:Vandal blanks a page I've never edited before and I revert, do I deserve credit for the entire article? Certes (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@UkrFace: Some articles can be made better by deleting text, so that would be a negative byte count. How does your algorithm account for that? Does negative bytes added count against the editor? RudolfRed (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@RudolfRed The rating will take this into account, but not quite correctly. Due to the fact that editing operations are very large-scale (in the English Wikipedia, there are more than 1 billion edits), there is no way to analyze the text. The algorithm works purely with the size of the edits and takes the result with a plus sign. Here's an example: an article of 2000 characters, you removed 1000 characters, then added 400 characters. You will be credited with 600 characters for such an article, and then (600 / 2000) * 'number of views of the article'. UkrFace (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Since 2018, such changes have been marked on Wikipedia (theoretically, vandals can trick Wikipedia, but you have to try), and the WRating algorithm ignores such revisions. The revisions up to 2018 have the issue you mentioned, where 'points' are credited to both users. UkrFace (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The techie in me always gets excited about automated ways to score things, but this looks like a variation on WP:Editcountitis which has been afflicting wikipedians since day zero. We've had highly prolific editors, with long lists of good articles, who ended up being banned because eventually people figured out they were churning out garbage. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith This rating does not encourage you to make many edits, as it does not affect the outcome. The only negative consequence is that some individuals may be motivated to post more frequently on the most visited articles. The primary objective of this rating is to demonstrate to the editor how many people they have benefited. UkrFace (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was excited by my score of 0.0356%, which I initially read as 3.56%, but it's actually three-and-a-half-one-hundreths of one-percent. One idea is it could display as "0.0356 of one-percent", to avoid confusion by the math impaired like myself. Have you looked into the 80/20 Rule? This pattern is everywhere on Wikipedia. It predicts 20% of the users on Wikipedia are responsible for 80% of the results. Which is to say if you ranked all the users in a list and took the top 20% they would account for 80% of the traffic as measured by your algo (give or take some percent). Likewise the Rule can be applied to that list of 20% of users again, and so on, forming a power law curve with the few top users forming the "greatest hits" and everyone else spread out along a long tail. -- GreenC 19:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed question

Dummies 101 question, with apologies for this many years on Wikipedia and not knowing how to deal with this, but most of my editing experience was at the FA level. After viewing a seriously marginal article, I have encountered a prolific user who has 466 (!!!!!) deletion discussions on their talk page, and just keeps churning out low quality articles. Is that a case for asking that extended confirmed be removed so they can't keep creating content that is not checked, or is there another way I should approach this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled may be more relevant than extended confirmed (EC) here, as the relevant pages are unlikely to be under EC protection. Autopatrolled doesn't come automatically with EC, and it can be revoked. If the user is the one I'm thinking of, they don't have autopatrolled, and so their creations go through NPP. Certes (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Certes ... next dumb questions ... I have now located the user rights log, and see the user has never been granted extra rights, so I think that is good news, because they weren't given them to later have them revoked? So I guess that means all of their articles have to be patrolled by someone else, which is good? Which I guess means that isn't happening very well ... sigh ... I think that means the only route for dealing with someone creating boatloads of marginal content is ANI. Unless I have that wrong, thanks for the direction! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, their new articles should be being patrolled, though not necessarily by a specialist (so, for example, a plausible article about a non-notable attorney might slip past a patroller without legal training). If I have the right user, their talk page is half a megabyte, which makes it hard to see whether anyone has started a general discussion about notability rather than specific AfDs. They've also produced quite a few articles which survived AfD, so they're operating on the margins of notability rather than producing clear and obvious junk, and seem to be acting in good faith. Maybe have a word with one or two experienced new page patrollers first? Certes (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ummm, I think that's where the problem lies. I've encountered a couple of the new page patrollers before, and I think we have issues in that those most experienced are seriously overworked (particularly when we have editors putting up work with bare URLs). But I appreciate your help in knowing that I'm at least on the right track in terms of user rights. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not speak of bare URLs. Bare URLs?! Actually, it's totally fine! Only 63K articles – and those are only the ones that are tagged!! Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Community collaboration around English fundraising banners continues - banner examples, in person collaboration at Wikimania, and upcoming call

Dear all,

As mentioned earlier, the WMF is now actively engaging interested editors to work with us on creating messaging for fundraising banners for the upcoming English fundraising campaign.

Thanks to all of you who already came to the community collaboration space for the English banner fundraising campaign. We are having some fruitful and interesting discussions on the page.

If you are interested in joining these discussions, or are curious about some of the banner language we are working on, come across to the collaboration page.

Julia will be attending Wikimania this week and will be hosting a banner messaging collaboration workshop (Thursday, 17th of August at 9am local time). Come and join or send her an email (jbrungs at wikimedia dot org) if you’d like to set up a time to meet at Wikimania.

We will also be hosting a community discussion call on the 7th of September at 16:30 UTC. If you are interested in joining the call, please email Julia (jbrungs at wikimedia dot org) to register.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk page being turned into a blog, with way too much personal details

I am well aware (and I can only shake my head at this fact), that the article Woman and its talk page are minefields. However, I wonder if the entire purpose of Wikipedia is not shredded with edits like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWoman&diff=1171791336&oldid=1171559669. Is anyone supposed to give as many details about oneself publicly, even for the sake of discussion? Edelseider (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Give me a few hours to read the 2000-word comment, and I'll give my input. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: your link is to a comment that is a response to the personal details, not the actual edit that the person made to give out the personal details 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, my bad. It is all a bit too much for me. Hence, my remark here. I cannot be the only person who feels confused and embarrassed by all these personal details, such as her unshaven legs and her "philosopher's goatee". Edelseider (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the "philosopher's beard" is a reference to Plato's beard. That concept is specifically relevant for a discussion about approaches to defining "women" as "humans that aren't men". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Overall, I think it's fine, we don't need to come down on like a ton of bricks on every comment that edges towards WP:NOTFORUM. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yo, Eddy, you are not an administrator. Edelseider (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 14:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edelseider: Also, I have a perfectly good username; don't hesitate to use it in full. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman: At that moment, @Edward-Woodrow: was surprised to find that he was, in fact, not an administrator. Where had it all gone? All that time thinking he was protecting pages and blocking vandals? Had it all been a dream? GMG ^talk 16:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds more like Kevan Brighting to me. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:2906:65EB:4390:534B (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Review the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello all,

I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.

The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.

Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.

Best,

RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License

We have Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, but not Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Unported License.

Should we? Or should it be a (soft) redirect somewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

In CC 4.0 the comparable document is apparently called "International" instead of "Unported", and can be found here: Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Matma Rex talk 18:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I've made a soft redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation vs. attribution for direct quotes and close paraphrasing

A recent discussion at a FAC led me to realize that there's a difference in phrasing amongst WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NONFREE, and WP:CLOP regarding in-text attribution. V and NONFREE are policy, CITE is a guideline, and CLOP is an essay.

V says Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.
NONFREE says use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline).
CITE says In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words, and it should always be used for biased statements of opinion. The distinction between should be used and should always be used doesn't seem to completely make sense, but I'd interpret this as meaning the former allows for some editorial discretion whereas the latter does not.
CLOP says Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text.

CLOP seems inconsistent with the other three, each of which (debatably for CITE) say in-text attribution is not required and citation may be sufficient. Of course in-text attribution is very often the right thing to do, but there are cases where it can lead to ugly and unreadable prose. For example, in a section on the reception of an album, one might want to write 'The lyrics were poorly received, and were described as "bland", "unoriginal", "tedious", and "derivative"', drawing those comments from individual reviews. I won't write out a fully attributed version but it would clearly be horrible to read. I feel that if each of those one-word quotes has a citation to the review in question, that should suffice. Technically of course CLOP doesn't even apply as these are not paraphrases, but that makes the inconsistency even worse.

I would like to bring CLOP into line with the other three. I haven't yet posted notes at any of those other talk pages; I'm aware CLOP's wording has its defenders and if I get shouted down here there's no point in expanding the conversation. If there seems some support for rewording CLOP I'll add the relevant notes elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

After thinking about it I think it makes more sense to get V, NONFREE and CITE to agree with each other first, and then to address CLOP once that's done. I've posted a suggested wording change to WT:CITE, and will post a note at VPP as well since that page covers guidelines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, CLOP is probably the easier one to fix. The idea that close paraphrasing (which is a copyvio issue) can be solved with in-text attribution to the author came from SlimVirgin back in the day, and it is just not true.

Also, keep in mind that both she as well as the now-banned editor who started that page often used "attribution" to refer to Wikipedia:Attribution (the attempt to merge WP:V and WP:NOR). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the change to CITE will happen; no opposition so I'll make the change in the next day or so. Then I think it should be easy to make CLOP match the other three. I agree with your take on attribution vs. copyvio and after seeing the conversation at WT:CITE I don't think anyone will object at WT:CLOP. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That CLOP statement should definitely be reworded, there should be no close paraphrasing at all unless explicitly quoted. – Isochrone (T) 23:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd make it so clear-cut, although what you're saying is true in the majority of cases. There's certainly an argument for phrasing like "The historian John Smith has called Augustus the worst emperor of all time", particularly when making the original quotation fit the grammatical structure of the sentence would require a lot of butchery. MOS:GID also gives a good example of where someone's name and pronouns have changed: it's better to paraphrase and attribute than to create a mess of square brackets. Granted, all rules should be applied with common sense, but I think people are (justifiably) less willing to stretch copyright rules than they are stylistic ones, so the rules should be written as such. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia clone possibly scraping AfD articles

Not only is this not a problem, it is exactly as intended. --Jayron 32 12:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I found a Wikipedia clone online called WikiAlpha. It seems to have no notability rules (which is a bad idea BTW), however it seems that they have a bot that nabs AfD articles on the English Wikipedia here and could count as possibly scraping pages. You can literally input a page right now and copy and paste the wikitext code. People seem to have used the feature as far as I know. Isn't this a violation of WMF's ToS or something? EnbyPie08 (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

My idiot self just realized it nabs all articles. EnbyPie08 (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As long as they're complying with the CC-BY-SA license, then there's nothing against any rules happening here. Iffy★Chat -- 22:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Even if they straight up copypaste articles like this one? EnbyPie08 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep. There a number of sites out there that mirror WP. It is all legal and allowed under WP rules as long as they attribute the material to WP. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers' rights and obligations. Donald Albury 22:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So this isn't scraping of any kind or something? Well, fine then. EnbyPie08 (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It's scraping, but the license allows that. You can find published ebooks that consist of Wikipedia articles. (Don't know who buys them...) Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I see. EnbyPie08 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

For a premium price you can even find printed books, though probably only printed on demand. The content is as good as our articles but presentation can be hilariously bad. My favourite was "Rugby Line", copying our article about a railway to the town of Rugby but with its cover showing a white line on a rugby pitch. Certes (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

And it is annoying when those books show up in Google search results when I'm trying to find sources to improve an article. Donald Albury 23:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ha! That's how I discovered them. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Good. Deletionwiki went down years ago. We need a place to preserve deleted content for things like seeding generative AI on topics Wikipedia won't cover. -- GreenC 00:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New anti-vandalism tool starting development at the Wikimedia Foundation

Hi - I’m the Product Manager for the Moderator Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation (and long-time editor and admin here). I wanted to let you know that now that we're wrapping up our work on PageTriage, my team is in the early stages of designing and building Automoderator - an automated anti-vandalism revert tool like ClueBot NG. Although most of the details and discussion can be found on MediaWiki, we’ve created a project page here to discuss how this tool might be evaluated or used on the English Wikipedia. We think you have unique insight into how we should build the tool given your experiences with ClueBot NG. Please take a look at our project page and share your thoughts on the talk page. We’ll try to keep the page to date as we progress with the project, so consider watchlisting for updates. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, shouldn't this be also posted in Technical or WMF? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Generative AI from Google

Just a heads up that Google has launched another salvo in the generative AI wars. I just did a search for "geography of the western bronx" and was asked if I wanted to enable their generative AI experiment. I did so, and got back a couple of paragraphs of perfectly fluent and cogent English which would work perfectly for me to copy-paste into the article I'm working on. And a google search for the text comes up with nothing, so tools like Earwig wouldn't notice anything was amiss. This is going to be interesting. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Magnificent. Because NPP and AFC aren't sufficiently flooded, now we'll have even more AI stuff. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It makes verifiable inline citations even more crucial, as proof it was researched and written by a human. Some AI includes cites but often to unreliable sources such as Wikipedia itself. -- GreenC 02:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

What I'd really like to see is an AI that checks whether an article's source likely verify its claims. I know that's a bit beyond the technology right now, but I can dream. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, a few years back, a researcher was developing a tool that would take a sentence or short passage (e.g., something with a {{citation needed}} tag on it) and search through newspaper databases to identify news articles that might be useful as sources for it. It was more of a keyword-matching exercise than actual AI, but it should be feasible to do a basic check. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, there was an editor looking at doing that earlier this year. I think you might do d them in the archives of one of the village pumps, perhaps VPP. They provided most of the code they were using on-wiki. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my, that's a relief

This morning I went to login and got presented with a captcha. Yes, a captcha! Just when the rest of the world is starting to move on from the wretchedly unpopular and increasingly useless things. I very nearly never came back. Glad I did try again later, as it has now gone. If it ever comes back, I won't. Anybody who needs that explaining to them, never will understand. (And before you ask, yes I am an infosec expert in my day job). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You dislike CAPTCHAs so much that you'd throw away your 37,000 edits over having to do two of them? Interesting. Any particular reason why? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

CAPTCHAs are an accessibility violation. Partially-sighted people may have difficulty working out what the oddly-shaped letters are supposed to be; blind people can't see them at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

And AI can beat the CAPTCHAs anyway. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We really ought to do a better job of advertising the CAPTCHA exempt user right, information on it should be included in Special:Captcha. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, if the CAPTCHA is shown when logging in, then that doesn't help. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I know it wouldn't help in this specific scenario, but I still think it is something worth pointing people to. As redrose64 says, these CAPTCHAs are inaccessible to people with visual impairments, and I think that pointing out that there is a user right that allows you to skip them in a lot of situations would be helpful. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

skipcaptcha is already included with autoconfirmed, so that takes care of most everyone with an account. Captcha is not normally triggered during standard log on screens; if it is happening all the time we can check in to that. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I got captcha-ed a few times when creating some doppelganger accounts the other day. Not knowing what triggers the captchas, though, that may or may not have been caused by something like multiple accounts being created in fairly quick succession. A smart kitten (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

B(L)P's and categories Antisemitism vs. Islamophobia

This thing already hinted in title should interest anyone concerned with discrimination and our articles related to various discrimination issues. It's mindboggling disparate in dealing with a categorisation of BP i BLP, in which we are allowed to categorize persons, living or dead, involved with Antisemitism with corresponding Antisemitism category, but we are not allowed to do the same thing with those involved with Islamophobia. The latest example from my own experience is categorization of Milo Yiannopoulos with Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom which was removed on the pretense that "this category is not to include individuals, especially BLPs", which is kinda false since there is no such guideline or policy that say Antisemitism related BLP's can be included into, say, Category:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, but Islamophobia related can't be categorized with these specific categories such as Category:Islamophobia in the United Kingdom. I just would like to hear some reasoning and/or arguments in whatever direction. In a way, this issue concerns whole project and could be deemed a discrimination in itself. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99, I don't know about whether individuals should or should not be categorised in either of those categories, but for anything in those categories, Islamophobia/antisemitism should be WP:DEFINING for the subject. — Qwerfjkl talk 22:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course - so, let's imagine that WP:Defining is not an issue, that the categorisation was, in effect, done with utmost care and consideration. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99, you might find more knowledgeable responses at WT:CFD. — Qwerfjkl talk 18:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I stumbled on this discussion old discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories whose conclusion says what it says, and most of the subcats contain a Hatnote that alert editors what to do and how to use these cats and its subcats, but then I checked few random subcategories in Category:Racism (including above mentioned Antisemitism / Islamophobia in the UK) and it appears only those concerning Islamophobia are emptied and watched over. This discrepancy problem won't be easy to correct since it comprises who knows how many articles and subcategories, maybe many hundreds. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to copy/paste my initial post from here to there and wait to see what happens, thanks I really appreciate it.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

archive.today keeps reCAPTCHAing me

Is it just me or is something wrong with archive.ph? It keeps serving me endless reCaptchas through Cloudflare; I'm stuck beyond it. After a recaptcha it refreshes and has me redo yet another recaptcha. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It's done that for me for years. I'm in Australia, in case that makes a difference. Graham87 09:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I’m on the upper US east coast and this just started a few days ago. Somebody at VPT (where I mistakenly posted this) said they have no issue. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It mysteriously started working again... Aaron Liu (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: You’re definitely not alone with this issue. There’s been some discussion about it going on at Help talk:Using archive.today § Convert to archive.today. A smart kitten (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, well it started reCAPTCHAing me again Aaron Liu (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

So TL;DR switch away from cloudflare's DNS if you don't wanna get cloudflare'd with reCAPTCHAs. Hmm. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu But also seemingly not isolated to Cloudflare’s DNS either, given the reports of issues from users experiencing the issue not using 1.1.1.1. A smart kitten (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See the talk page at archive.today. There was a little discussion about it. I'm able to get around the problem by using Brave instead of Firefox. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Size of large currency

Once again you ignore the obvious question a reader of today’s photo will have — how large are large silver certificates? Even the article buries that information in an information footnote way down at the end of a very long article. I changed that, but my change won’t last long. Wis2fan (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wis2fan Your edit to a featured article needed a little more care. In one sentence you left a typo, omitted a leading zero, didn't offer converted units, and used "current" unclearly ("of the time" or 2023?) That said, yes I agree that it seems useful that when something is described as large sized there should be an indication what "large sized" means. And when discussing an article please do other editors the courtesy of providing a link to it, so we don't need to go to your contributions list to find it. Thanks. PamD 04:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The article is Silver certificate (United States). PamD 04:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

And I've tidied up your edit as best I can. PamD 04:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for tiding up my change. I apologize that I did not realize that for a number less than 1, i.e. .5, that a leading zero is required. I haven’t changed a number before. & I was unaware that the decimal equivalents are calculated through an editorial formula. I’ll try to get it right if there’s a next time. (I’ve finally learned how to get complicated links right, usually.) I replaced "current" with "modern," the word used in the explanatory footnote. I left your editorial comment. I never thought to leave a link, I’ll remember that next time. Thanks. Wis2fan (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wis2fan MOS:NUM includes both the point about the leading zero and the need to offer metric equivalents for US measurements. It's an interesting read, though goes into a lot of detail on all sorts of obscure aspects of numbers and units etc. PamD 08:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at Talk:Silver certificate (United States)? Discussions over the minutiae of article content belong pretty much solely on the talk page of the article itself. --Jayron 32 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jayron32 I replied to the original poster, who seems to be saying that their edits tend to get reverted ("my change won’t last long"), partly to suggest (perhaps too subtly) that this might be because of the quality of their edits: they managed to get a lot of things wrong in the space of part of one sentence added. But you're right that this was the wrong venue anyway: another learning point for them. PamD 17:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Understood. But the OP should have still not asked the question here. Asking why their edits on a particular article were reverted properly belong in one of two places 1) on the article talk page of the article where they were reverted or 2) on the user talk page of the person who did the reverting. This forum is still not an appropriate place for them to ask this question. --Jayron 32 17:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I posted my comments here because I was originally commenting on The Photo of the Day, which included part of the article in question and which prompted my question, "How big is large currency?" which was only answered in a commentary footnote at the bottom of a l o n g article. Wis2fan (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@Wis2fan: Your post appears to be about Today's featured picture of 5 September 2023. Per WT:POTD, if you have an issue with Today's featured picture, you should raise it at WP:ERRORS. The same goes for any other matter related to what is displayed on the Main Page - it's mentioned at Talk:Main Page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sharing the link to the Mental Health Resource Center

Hey all! I work in the Community Resilience & Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing to you today to let you know about the Mental Health Resource Center in case you find this resource useful. This is a new group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community. This project is the result of the work of a Human Rights intern at the Wikimedia Foundation, who wrote a Diff blog post about it.

While we previously provided helpline contact information for people who are in an active crisis or near-crisis, the team’s goal is to provide additional resources to offer mental health and wellbeing information in a number of languages, covering a wide range of topics. Our hope is not only to help people who are in crisis, but help prevent crises.

As with the Helpline information page, the Foundation’s Trust and Safety team is tasked with maintaining the pages. They will do a quarterly review of the content, which will include reviewing any recommended changes left on the talk page. Because this is a page they send to people who are in crisis, for liability reasons they do have to review substantial changes. However, they very much hope for recommendations and ideas and especially notes of problems.

The Resource Center contains the helplines, a glossary of mental health terms, and resources divided by category with supported languages listed next to each resource. There is also a table available if community members wish to view the resources sorted by language. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Currently, translations into several languages are underway.

Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the culture of this website, I'm not currently able to imagine a scenario where this link could be provided directly to someone on-wiki, even in good faith, without running the risk of (at minimum) a stern warning for "speculating about the mental health of another editor". While we try to figure that out, I've added it under ==See also== at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Folly Mox (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, what do you think about adding a link in Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh, it already links to m:Mental health resources, which looks similar to m:Mental Health Resource Center. @JKoerner (WMF), do you know anything about the differences between the two pages? Is one or the other better suited for different purposes? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

meta:Mental health resources seems to be mostly crisis lines and similar, geared towards more urgent incidents than uh chronic intractable problems, like meta:Mental Health Resource Center. The current linkages to those two pages seem appropriately placed, but there are probably more places to link the new one. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for your very thoughtful reflection on this. You are right about the differences between the pages. The Resource Center is aimed at better understanding mental health, whether purely informational or a temporary or long-term need for support, while the Mental Health Resources are crisis helplines. The folks working on this Resource Center are looking at how to rename the "Mental Health Resources" page to more clearly identify its purpose. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

How many edits have I made...

Is there any way that I can see the amount of edits I've made without counting them all? 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

[4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Or just go look at your contributions page. Special:Contributions/CooperGoodman says "A user with 78 edits. Account created on 9 May 2023." — Qwerfjkl talk 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

thanks bruv 𝒞𝑜𝑜𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒢𝑜𝑜𝒹𝓂𝒶𝓃 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

~~But remember that one good edit outweighs any number of bad ones.~~ I haven't looked at your editing history, but quality is what counts (or at least should count), not quantity. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Promoting your userscript

Last month I rewrote a userscript into User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin. Besides listing it, are there good ways to promote it? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. WP:S++ when it's active, WP:US/L, and your userpage are places that come to mind. Oh, and maybe put a description of your user script on its page. You have a list of the new features, but both your userscript page and the old userscript page don't appear to describe what it fundamentally does. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There’s a description in the infobox. Should I also copy the description to the body text? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Since I missed it, yeah, that might be a good idea. Up to you though! –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Redirect category suggestions

Would it be helpful to have categories for redirects from non-Latin script to Latin script, and vice versa? Template:R from alternative transliteration is similar, but it doesn't quite capture the meaning. Red Panda 25 21:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Is {{R to ASCII-only}} (e.g. Karlı) appropriate for your cases? There's also {{R from ASCII-only}} for redirects such as Koklu. Certes (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for! Red Panda 25 21:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

University at Albany professor repeatedly vandalizing articles to conduct research

I'm not sure where to post this as the research-focused Wikipedia pages all seem to be moribund. In this newly published journal article, the author describes a research project in which they vandalize several articles solely to collect information about how editors respond to vandalism. This was done 15 years after publishing a similar article that used the same methods to explore the same topics. There is no mention of IRB approval and I like to believe that an IRB would not allow this kind of research that blatantly violates our community norms and formal policies. It would be trivial to identify vandalism committed by other editors to observe how the community responds so this method is completely unnecessary.

Yes, it's only a handful of edits (33 if I understand the 2023 article correctly). And we now know exactly what articles were vandalized. But it would be very helpful if the Wikimedia Foundation could say something to this researcher and their institution to firmly note, on the record, that this is kind of unethical research is unwelcome and unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit, I found the results quite interesting. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and he does revert everything not reverted by the community after 48 hours. I think he is wrong that the community has completely renewed since 2008 - I remember the first time around. A further excercise would be to see if any of the reverters are the same. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. Answers an important question, upside worth the downside. -- GreenC 00:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTLAB is quite explicit that this type of experimentation is forbidden: research projects that are disruptive to the community or which negatively affect articles—even temporarily—are not allowed and can result in loss of editing privileges RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, ethics in science is important, see "The 'Forbidden Research' That Tantalizes Some Scientists", but like I said, this research is so trivial in its harm, and the results so interesting, it's worth it to break the policy, which is governed by WP:COMMONSENSE (a policy that is above policy). Not everyone will agree, but that's how I see it. -- GreenC 01:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Committing vandalism is completely unnecessary because it's trivial to find existing vandalism to see how/if editors respond to it. ElKevbo (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the paper? The vandalism needs to be of a consistent type and style to make the study unbiased. -- GreenC 16:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You also have to factor in the costs from weakening the norm against harmful experimentation. If policy is ostensibly "no disruptive research" but de facto "you can do disruptive research as long as the benefits outweigh the costs", sure, you might get some interesting results that wouldn't be found under a stricter policy, but in the long run you will get many more cases where researchers think their disruption passes a cost-benefit analysis, but are mistaken because of inexperience or wishful thinking. – Teratix ₵ 14:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a slippery slope argument based in what-if, thus hard to say what would happen if anything to the norm. If there was evidence of the norm changing along these lines it would be different. Like, we see more experiments doing this and citing this one (granted this one ran twice, but it is part of the original experiment). Your point raises the question, should we enable experiments like this "legally" so scholars have an outlet to ask for permission and the community has a chance to accept or deny. -- GreenC 17:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:NOTLAB does say Before starting a potentially controversial project, researchers should open discussion at the Village pump to ensure it will not interfere with Wikipedia's mission. So, we do have a process for this. Somebody could propose, for example, I'd like to insert 15 specific known false statements in specific articles and measure how long it takes for them to get fixed. To avoid affecting the experimental results, I won't publicly disclose what articles will be affected, but a list is available for inspection off-wiki by any interested party. Maybe people would find it reasonable and there would be consensus to allow it. Basically, this is what you'd put in an IRB proposal anyway. If you need IRB approval for this, it stands to reason you should also need our approval as well. Otherwise it would be like your doctor enrolling you in an experimental new drug trial without your knowledge or consent. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It was easy to find contact information for the paper's author. I have dropped him an email explaining our policy and inviting him to join this conversation. RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm P.D. Magnus, the researcher in question.

I appreciate the concerns raised here. I did consult with the IRB beforehand, both for this study and for the one 15 years ago.

Here is my thinking: The original study was conducted 15 years ago, before WP:NOTLAB was written. The recent study is a follow-up to that one. Because it used the same targets, it could not be openly discussed on forums before it was conducted. A user seeing those forum discussions might have decided to watch the articles in question, changing the results of the study.

I agree that tracking existing vandalism is a better methodology, especially for larger scale work. However, using the same targets as the study 15 years ago for this study allows a more direct comparison with the earlier result. 169.226.152.134 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. This is all water under the bridge at this point. I will admit that some of your "fibs" were amusing and did an amazingly good job of simulating typical childish vandalism, but please don't follow up with the same methodology in 2038. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There's vandalism and then there's vandalism. These edits only affected dead people and were all quite light, with the possible exception of the John Stuart Mill fib. It's fine.

That said, I will slightly quibble on one aspect: if you're only using 48 hours for the study, then I'd expect the fib to be reasonably rapidly reverted after the 48 hours are up. I get that weekends, vacations, etc. happen, but still. This example (fib diff,reversion diff shows a good 5 days passing between the self-reversion, and I'd hope any future experiment could be a little prompter on doing this - within a day after the experimental time period expired, say. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

A brutal backlog, if anyone wants something to work on

This search yields 1,245 pages that have manual superscript tags containing bracketed numbers. These will mostly be well-intentioned attempts by new users at making ref tags or weird errors in copy-pasting rich text, with maybe some outright duplicity mixed in. In each case, fixing the problem is rather tedious: One has to find the edit where it was introduced, see what that number referred to then, and check whether that citation verifies the claim, before deciding whether to fix the faux-citation, replace with a {{cn}}, or remove the statement outright. So, if anyone's looking for a new backlog to work through and likes tedious citation repair, it's your lucky day! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking in with WP:CITECLEAN on this one. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It's caused by an unresolved bug in VE. User:GreenC bot/Job 18 is approved to fix it. The bug has so many permutations, I can't say how well it work now after 4 years. I can try to run it again, and see what happens, but I don't have time to manually fix anything. It is a "devilish bug" as I noted in the original BRFA in 2019, when there were about 1,500 instances, which were fixed at that time. -- GreenC 04:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There are new variations to the bug, but I seem to be able to make easy modifications to the bot to catch them eg. Special:Diff/1174486072/1175459048 .. will see how far it goes. -- GreenC 05:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Tamzin & User:Daniel Quinlan: Determined it's not possible to fix those of form [1] because there is not enough information to know which article footnote #1 was copy-pasted from. That is unfortunately the majority of them in the above 1,200 search. I am able to fix some (bot still running), which are explicit what the source article was, like [[Golden Gate Park#cite note-15|[15]]]. We know this was footnote #15 in Golden Gate Park. But [1] is footnote #1 from an unknown article. It takes so long and is so much manual work to verify if it's from the same article, I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to ever resolve it at scale, we should be switching from a rescue operation to a cleanup by deleting them all. Alternatively, we could assume it's the same article, and add footnote #1 with a {{verify}} and inline comment to check it out. The one article I manually verified, it was not the same article, and my previous experience with the bug is editors often copy-paste content from other articles, so it's not a great assumption. -- GreenC 14:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
We should have an edit filter that blocks the addition of any new ones. There is already an edit filter based on the RfC: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_161#RFC:_Block_edits_that_contain_a_VisualEditor_bug so I think we can include this variation as part of the same bug, when making the edit filter request. This bug is still active for [#], I saw one added as recently as June 2023. I made a filter request Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Filter_861_modification_/_VisualEditor_bug. -- GreenC 14:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Scams

Scams are a fact of life everywhere, and wikipedia is no exception. There seems to be an uptick in wiki scams recently, so I figured a reminder would be useful. There's a bunch of variations, but they're mostly something like, "If you don't pay me money, I'll make sure your page gets deleted". Often the scammer claims to be an admin, or to have admins on their payroll. They often want to conduct the transaction using cryptocurrency. One that I saw recently included a LinkedIn page. If you get some unsolicited email to this effect, don't engage. Instead, report it to Trust & Safety (ca@wikimedia.org), or to arbcom or a functionary. All these people want to do is get your money, and they've been honing their game for a long time so they can sound pretty convincing. Don't fall for it. RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Piri in the did you know section

I've seen multiple mentions of the artist Piri in the did you know section. Why? I cannot remember another topic or artist getting put into the did you know section multiple times? Or atleast with such frequency? Breckishere (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest picking this up at WT:DYK#Words (Piri & Tommy song) (nom) where there is already a discussion on this topic. RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

cheers! Breckishere (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Community discussion on Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

Hi everyone. About a week ago, RamzyM (WMF) posted the following message to VPM, which was probably overlooked because VPM is a relatively low-engagement forum:

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Hello all,

I am pleased to share the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct work. The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) draft charter is now ready for your review.

The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.

Join the conversation during the conversation hours or on Meta-wiki.

Best,

RamzyM (WMF), on behalf of the U4C Building Committee, 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This draft Charter defines the election procedures and mandate of the U4C (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee). Under the previously-ratified UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, the U4C is an elected body with responsibility for enforcing various provisions in the UCoC and coordinating others.

I am posting this here because I'd like to invite comment from enwiki folks on this, and will be posting this thread to T:CENT. You're welcome to comment in this thread here or directly on the meta consultation page. If you comment here, I will be sure to summarize the discussion and post it on the meta consultation page. This is a similar model to how some other projects are soliciting feedback: for example, the German-language Wikipedia had a local discussion on their equivalent of the village pump and posted a summary of their discussion to meta for consideration by the drafting committee.

I urge the community to participate. Under this draft Charter, the U4C in most cases would not have authority on enwiki absent "systemic issues" (Except in instances of systemic issues, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists, warranting effective self-governance.). Nonetheless, based on the Enforcement Guidelines that have already been ratified by the global community, the U4C will have an important role in the governance of the Wikimedia movement going forward. This is a good chance to help shape how it will look — only a small handful of people have commented at the meta consultation page. I have my personal opinions, but welcome feedback from this community more broadly (whether it aligns with my opinions or not, of course).

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I continue to believe that, absent an enabling act, that the UCoC has no applicability on the English Wikipedia, and arguments based on it should not be considered when assessing consensus.
As for an enabling act, I would advocate against passing one. Consider the strength of our existing policies and institutions it has no relevance here and will bring no benefit; it would only serve to worsen our current instruction creep. It appears to be little more than yet another example of the WMF overstepping its mandate, and any attempt by the WMF to enforce it through the use of office actions would both be ill-advised and unnecessary. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the lack of ratification of the UCoC itself was a mistake and an ongoing one and I wish the board would decide to fix it sooner rather than later. But that said what's the precedent for board policies needing an enabling act on enwiki? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
My view is that we are setting precedent here; we are determining whether we will allow the Wikimedia Foundation to write our policies and guidelines. They want us to quietly accept that they have the right to do so, but I do not believe we should - we must make it clear that their proposals will only be internalized with the consent of our community, before they use that power to try to curtail our independence further.

My reading of WP:CONEXCEPT aligns with this; while the current wording gives the Foundation the power to directly enforce the UCoC, through office actions or similar (although any decision to do so would be very ill-advised), it doesn't give them the authority to grant local admins the right to enforce it, or to have it treated as policy. BilledMammal (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that there already is a precedent from the past 15+ years that the foundation can do this. Enwiki has followed and incorporated the policies made in the past. So really this would be about setting a new precedent. Not to mention that the terms of use, even the old one that didn't incorporate the UCoC and which would be the status quo even under the new precedent you're proposing, says The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable. While your reading of CONEXEMPT is reasonable I don't think the totality supports that part of things. That said I will repeat that the failure to hold a vote on the UCOC was a real mistake and one the foundation board has foolishly and stubbornly refused to correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It may be because I'm relatively new to the project, but I am not aware of any examples of the WMF decreeing a policy and Enwiki following - while some of the earliest policies emerged in a way that could be seen as analogous, such as NPOV with the statements from Jimbo, I think the situations were sufficiently different to mean that no relevant precedent was set.

To be clear, I see a difference between the WMF enforcing the UCoC, and the WMF requiring us to internalize and enforce the UCoC. The former I agree the WMF can do, through office actions and similar, although it would be ill-advised and likely end very badly, but the latter I do not believe they can do. BilledMammal (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I concur that the UCOC is not required, needed, or wanted, on English Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that anything we say here will matter. They're not going to give up the language that lets them swoop in here if they don't believe we're enforcing the vagueness in the UCoC properly. Even the election system seems designed to only represent whichever viewpoint votes in the majority in each geographical region (not that our variation on block approval voting does much for proportionality either). Anomie ⚔ 10:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has not requested, approved, endorsed or accepted UCoC. We can and should ignore it unless and until the WMF steps in and abuses its position as our web host to impose restrictions, e.g. an office block. That would lead to another Framgate, which would be unfortunate but might lead to a revision of our relationship with the WMF. Certes (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- This is the "revision of our relationship with the WMF" after the first Framgate. Next time it won't be the WMF overstepping, it'll be this "community"-based committee enforcing the "community"-based and board-approved UCoC. Anomie ⚔ 12:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  That's right. hich is why it's important to get the separation of powers right and to have a good charter that will keep this community body on track. I'm also not sure why you're putting community in scare quotes when the charter currently prohibits staff from running and it's based on something that had 75% approval in a community vote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  There's no singular community. Even here on enwiki there's not one community. But if/when this committee does something controversial here, there will be claims like yours that it represents "the community" anyway from those who happen to agree with it. Anomie ⚔ 18:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  Thanks for the explanation. I use community differently but your explanation makes sense (as I agree enwiki is hardly a monolith). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Concur with the comments above: let the communities regulate themselves without (more) interference from the WMF. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the WMF is trying to be even-handed, lumping the English Wikipedia in with those for languages with far fewer speakers where we may get problems such as has happened with some languages spoken in the Balkans and the Caucasus. There needs to be someone who can check that Wikipedias do not get dominated by an extreme nationalist clique of administrators, who block anyone who doesn't edit according to their world-view. The UCoC may not be required, needed, or wanted, on English Wikipedia, but something on those lines is needed badly on some Wikipedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Per Barkeep49, the WMF does not need an enabling act in order to enforce any of the relevant terms of the UCoC on the English Wikipedia, anymore than they need one to enforce the ToU or office actions. "We won't allow this" might be a popular stance to hold, but that ship has already well and truly sailed. (Didn't we have a secure vote on something like this recently anyway?) _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Since I'm the one who will be summarizing these comments over on meta, I've reviewed this discussion and would recommend that comments here focus on things that the U4CBC could change about the U4C Charter. The Enforcement Guidelines (as opposed to the Charter) are already final and aren't under the control of the U4CBC. The question of whether enwiki needs an enabling act to authorize U4C enforcement on enwiki, for example, is outside of the mandate of the U4CBC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- IMO that's part of the problem with this whole process. The UCoC was put together by pieces, and once discussion was "closed" on a piece it wasn't allowed to be revisited. A promised final community review/vote on it was skipped with the justification that all the pieces had been individually reviewed. Only after the UCoC was final were the enforcement parts even written. And now we have the same with the committee.
  But as I said above, I don't believe comments will change anything material. The people behind this will keep the loopholes they want, if necessary counting on enough people approving a second or third attempt because it's "better" to get a vote showing approval. The real test will be when they get this committee to try something controversial based on all the vagueness and loopholes. Would another Framban succeed this time because it's U4C rather than WMF doing all the same things? They hope so. Most of the people above will think not. I don't know, but I don't see anything anywhere in all this that would stop the attempt. Anomie ⚔ 12:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- @L235: would you please help me understand how ratification of the U4C Charter couldn't be the enabling act to authorize U4C enforcement on enwiki? My opinion is that the UCOC shouldn't be used on enwiki as long as existing dispute resolution continues to uphold its principles. Therefore my comments on the charter are that the Scope, Monitoring, Jurisdiction, and Proceedings provisions are all WP:CREEPy and over-broad, and should be narrowed so that U4C action doesn't involve enwiki editors unless there is a substantial public outcry in the form of a Meta RfC that they need to step in. I suggest that the push-back from others you are perceiving here comes from very similar motivations. Sandizer (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  - @Sandizer: This is a very helpful question. The answer is that the U4C's Enforcement Guidelines, which have been ratified by the global community with 76% of the community voting in favor (see m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Revised_enforcement_guidelines/Voting_statistics), are binding upon the U4CBC. Therefore, the U4CBC's lacks the power to propose any jurisdiction for the U4C that doesn't allow it to intervene on wikis where there is a Systemic [issue or] failure to follow the UCoC as defined in the Enforcement Guidelines, because those Guidelines say unequivocally that any such issues are [h]andled by U4C.
    Fortunately, that is the only circumstance in which the U4C's powers extend to enwiki under the draft Charter because it states in the "Jurisdiction" section that Except in instances of systemic issues, the U4C will not have jurisdiction when a NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists, warranting effective self-governance. (Enwiki's ArbCom is our "NDA-signed, high-level decision-making body exists".) The U4CBC simply doesn't have the option of proposing anything less than that for the U4C.
    Now, I think it very much is still a valid grievance, and a useful one to share. In the early stages of the draft Enforcement Guidelines, I pushed to make it harder for the U4C to intervene on enwiki — I have no desire to let the UCoC make ArbCom merely an intermediate appellate court of some kind, because that would invite gamesmanship and interfere with ArbCom's ability to actually resolve disputes. However, it may be even more helpful at this stage to share comments about the parts of this that the U4CBC has the authority to change. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, that is very helpful. In light of this, I'm happy to revise my comments to merely ask that "systemic issues" be given a concrete, operational definition, ideally with a bright line distinguishing when U4C action on wikis with active NDA-signed adjudicators would occur. Sandizer (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Sandizer: Thanks. My old feedback, which I will be reviving and re-posting in light of the discussion here, is that (a) it should take a 2/3 vote in the U4C to find "systemic issues", and (b) because the Enforcement Guidelines explicitly provide that the U4C is a "co-equal body" (not a higher body) "with other high-level decision making bodies (e.g. ArbComs and AffCom)", the U4C Charter should provide that ordinary differences in opinion or interpretation of the UCoC is not a "systemic issue", and the U4C should recognize that there is a broad zone of reasonableness in interpretations of the UCoC among these co-equal high-level decision making bodies. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Sandizer: You might appreciate this comment I submitted just now about "systemic issues". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for making those important points in the right forum. One part still troubles me: because high-level decision-making bodies are co-equal to the U4C, those bodies also have the responsibility for applying, interpreting, and enforcing the UCoC. If I'm interpreting it correctly, this suggests that because ArbCom etc. are in some way equal to U4C, ArbCom etc. must impose UCoC on enwp. That reads like a non sequitur. The French government is equal to the German one, but that does not oblige it to impose German law on the French people. I hope I've misinterpreted. Certes (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
As we haven't even ratified the Universal Code of Conduct, it's clearly premature to have this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The dilemma for me is that I think it is an ongoing mistake to not have the community ratify the UCOC and 75% of people did ratify the Enforcement Guidelines which calls for this work to happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've become deeply cynical about UCOC ratification. I think they're not willing to risk a ratification process because we might not ratify, or even worse, we might ratify subject to wording tweaks. I think they've decided not to risk either possibility because from their point of view there are only downsides. But of course the fact that our community hasn't ratified them derails every UCOC-related discussion almost immediately.—S Marshall T/C 06:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
There's an unanswered (and possibly unasked) question of who gets to decide whether UCoC applies to enwp: enwp editors, the WMF or someone else? I'm sure the WMF like to think that it's their decision and that we will comply with whatever they impose, just as we woke up one morning to find the skin had changed. That may not happen. Certes (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The highest authority would be the Board of Trustees, I think, and they can impose the UCOC on us summarily. It would be extraordinary and remarkable for them to do that over the community's objections. Currently we do not know whether the community has any objections because we haven't had the discussion. The nuclear option would be for us to start such a discussion on en.wiki now, but I remain hopeful that if we're restrained and respectful, the WMF will see reason and start it themselves.—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The nice thing about being a volunteer is that the WMF has no power over me. They can't fire me. They can't impact my retirement account, or my stock options, or my health coverage. They can't even stop feeding me free lunches or give me a bad reference on my next job application. All they can do is revoke my editing ability (and access to administrative tools), but if things ever got to that point, I'd be gone on my own volition. So, S Marshall is right about who has authority, but authority != power. RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The WMF's current roadmap is to say "Here's the UCoC we have decided to impose on you; obey it or retire". They seem very unlikely to start a discussion which could only result in their self-awarded authority to control our community being questioned. Certes (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
No, look, be fair. The WMF's authority isn't self-awarded. The UCOC was a necessary and proportionate response to some rather problematic events on smaller wikis. There should be a UCOC, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't understood the developments that brought it about. But the en.wiki community hasn't ratified the UCOC and we haven't agreed how and when it applies to us. I think the answer to that last question is "never", or at least never while we have robust and decent governance for ourselves, but I don't know for sure because the discussion hasn't happened.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Just as long as we do take an explicit decision on whether to ratify UCoC for enwp, rather than waking up one day to find an announcement here that it is now in force. Certes (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused @S Marshall. The Board is who imposed the UCoC on us without a vote. I certainly don't begrudge anyone their cynicism but I admittedly lost some of mine when they decided to revise the Enforcement Guidelines rather than say they passed with only 56% in support. 75% support seems far more reasonable for something like that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes. I'm not sure why you're confused? The Board haven't imposed the UCOC over the community's objections -- because we haven't objected, to the best of my knowledge?—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I have said my piece there - notably about the Jurisdictions and the term "systemic issue". The term is not well defined, and U4C or some other agencies could easily declare "systemic issue" without a clear guideline to assert control over the wikis. Who defines "systemic issue"? What if the local wikis disagreed? If the term is obscure and there are no clear and exact guidelines people could declare "systemic issue" all the time, just like American president invoking "national emergencies" to get additional funding or power. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Translation robot

Is there a robot or template or ... for article automatic translation? Masoud.h1368 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because that would be a bad idea. WP:CXT, on other wikis, adds a machine-translated version of the text, but I believe that feature is disabled on enwiki. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Does it not exist in other wikipedias too? For example see ca:Plantilla:Petició de traducció which is not used now. Masoud.h1368 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand what you're asking, but as Novem Linguae said, machine translation of any kind is generally a no-no on Wikipedias. Some other wikis might allow them, but guidelines vary, and the consensus at enwiki seems to be "no". Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, "enwiki" means the English Wikipedia, if that wasn't clear. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Content translation tool (editing software) is available. Machine translation into English isn't. Each community decides what they find desirable for machine translation tools (language pairs + percentage revisions required + services; sometimes, e.g., editors decide that going between these two languages works in Google Translation but for these other two languages, you want Yandex). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Machine translations tend to be too low quality for use on Wikipedia. They sound fluent but they get details wrong. They can be helpful for reading foreign language sources, but should not be used for article writing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

For a good description of why robots should not be trusted to produce accurate text, read the short story "Galley Slave". It's still in print, 65 years on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A contemporary example is ChatGPT translating from English to Lojban, which is based on predicate logic, and then (in a new "chat") translating the Lojban back into English. Hallucinations galore. E.g., Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All people are afraid of Tommy and Jane, and they agree and love them. They imagine, and not differently so, something like a brother. kencf0618 (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: This is not what chatbots such as ChatGPT were designed to do.

Translation is out of their scope, except for very simple sentences.

I think in this discussion we're talking about dedicated machine translation models which were designed for this specific task. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 00:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

WMF banner fundraising campaign 2023 - collaboration and updates

Dear all,

This is a friendly reminder for anyone interested in the Wikimedia Foundation’s upcoming banner fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia to continue to share your banner ideas and look at our latest update on the collaboration page. This upcoming month is crucial in our testing operations, and the page has an update on new messaging and tests we performed based on volunteer suggestions. While the page will remain open through the end of the campaign, we are best able to test and incorporate your ideas over the coming 3-5 weeks. Please reach out to me with any questions. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

When do we start to top out?

Wikipedia now has 6,710,730 articles, and my sense is that most of the substantial encyclopedic topics are covered. While there are certainly pockets of information for which thousands or even tens of thousands more articles are needed, I think that by the time we hit 7,000,000, additions will have slowed to the trickle of new articles being created almost entirely in response to new events, rather than any previously uncovered topics being newly covered. Does this sound right to others, and if so, does this affect how we structure our approach to developing the encylopedia? BD2412 T 17:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Define "new articles being created almost entirely in response to new events". For example, if archeologists discover a previously unknown species of dinosaur, would you consider that a new event (despite the fact that the dinosaur lived millions of years ago)? What about historians writing about events that happened in the past that were previously understudied? The event happened a long time ago, and obviously the primary sources the historians use are from a long ago time, but the secondary sources we would need to write an article may not have existed. Is that a "new event"?

There will always be things about our past and our environment that, while they have been around, our understanding of them continues to evolve and so there will always be unwritten articles to write about. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're a long way from the slowdown point yet. Just in the area I contribute most to, historical magazines, I would guess we have articles on no more than half of the US and UK magazines that meet the GNG. For magazines in other languages I doubt it's more than ten or twenty percent. Yes, the high profile articles in all areas are very well covered, but human interests are fractal, and you have to get a long way down the fractal tree before the sources aren't there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that's still a bucket of no more than a few thousand new articles. BD2412 T 18:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for magazines. Multiply that by every category you can think of -- newspapers, notable books, authors, journalists, editors, publishers -- and that's just a few ideas from one small part of human culture. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think efforts dipping to that level will run into encyclopedic notability barriers sooner rather than later. Most individual authors, journalists, editors, etc., are not notable. BD2412 T 18:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And even if they were notable, there is simply an information gap for noteworthy subjects owing to lack of reliable secondary sources. Simply put, if the world willingly turns a blind eye to something important, then it is no longer important. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There are also always new notable people being born, new scientific discoveries, old manuscripts, etc. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Uncle G/Missing encyclopaedic articles * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For another example see this book, which provides bios of 850 people. I created Xavier Ract-Madoux citing that after coming across him in another context, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are less than ten articles in Wikipedia for the others in that book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There's also Category:Redirects with possibilities, which has ~90K pages. I suspect that it is significantly underpopulated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. One of my recent creations is Still Life with Bread and Eggs, an 1865 painting considered one of Cezanne's most important early still lifes. The reason I created it was a recent event that brought it into current discussion. It was just as much a notable painting before this recent event, but the coverage of the recent event brought the painting to my attention, and I created an article. So it's not "Pop star announces upcoming album" and all her fanitors rush to be the first to create the article. But it was indeed created because of a recent event. Valereee (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We'll run out of new articles to write when reliable sources run out of different things to talk about. Since their livelihood depends on not doing that, it's my feeling the encyclopaedia will probably continue growing until other factors cause it to stop. Folly Mox (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In my view, as someone's whose article creation centres on taxon articles, we're nowhere near slowing down. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm rather gobsmacked by this thread. Anyone who thinks that the notable topics are anywhere close to being completed here must have a severe lack of imagination. Just one small part of what needs to be done is creating articles about the villages and towns in India, China, the rest of Asia and Africa that don't have articles yet. There are millions of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Consider what Albert A. Michelson said in 1903, The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.q:Albert_A._Michelson - Donald Albury 23:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

When we're done writing an article for every person who ever walked onto a cricket pitch, every TV or radio station that ever transmitted, and every song that was ever recorded, we could work on something really worthwhile like "between six and ten million" articles about insect species? That'll keep us busy for a while longer. RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know why, but thinking about that makes me smile. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

More or less what Phil said. But there's a subtext in Phil and Roy's comments that I think deserves closer attention: this implies that growth will mostly take place at the "tips" of fractal interest, producing articles about well-delimited but very narrow or niche topics which exist in large numbers as part of some system (geographic places, biological taxa, etc.) I think there are many potential articles that, in theory, could be written; i.e., as I sit here, I'm holding a book entitled Movable bridge engineering, which could spawn an extensive set of articles. In practice, this rarely seems to happen. I suspect this is a byproduct of our (necessary!) quality-control efforts. Someone trying to write the latter type of article is much more likely to run into OR/SYNTH issues, or sources that almost support a statement but have a slightly different scope, and so forth. It's much easier to gravitate to the former type of topic and avoid those issues.

So I don't think any perceived levelling-off of article creation reflects the exhaustion of the world's existing corpus of knowledge outside of Wikipedia; rather, our (again, very necessary) defenses against editing by partisans and imbeciles have also defended us very effectively against the help of actual subject matter experts. Choess (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the lack of good content on deeply narrow technical subjects is more due to a lack of interested and motivated editors. My own personal shameful example is artificial neural networks; it's a topic that I could have helped out with years ago, but yawn, who cares, right? But now that everyone's interested in how our future AI overlords work, the article has expanded 25% in the past year. And the best part is that most of the newly-added content is existing foundational research— stuff I could have added 10 years ago. In that case, the extent of our knowledge hasn't grown, just the number of editors who are willing to write that knowledge down. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is going to level off; instead, it is going to slow down. There are tens of millions of topics not currently covered by Wikipedia that warrant coverage, but we have made it harder to create articles on these topics - and that is a good thing. There is never going to be another Lugnuts, mass creating substubs on topics that likely warrant mentioning on Wikipedia but currently lack the content to justify articles.

Instead, we will be seeing more coverage of Indian villages and insects in list articles or similar, rather than standalone articles - and the millions of topics that there is sufficient content to justify an article will slowly have one created. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

By the time we've written biographies of every national parliamentary politician in Europe, they'll have elected new ones. We can't keep up.—S Marshall T/C 06:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The US has had somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 state legislators in history. I've found the vast majority of these surpass WP:NOPAGE. Same with others from federal states like India, Germany, Brazil, etc. That's at least 500,000 articles on notable subjects right there, most of which are redlinks. Curbon7 (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we'll slow down at around 7mil. There'll always be elections, and (notable) political parties, and (notable) politicians. There'll always be (notable) natural disasters. There'll always be award shows, and nominated films, and perhaps important characters from those films, and maybe studios from outside the US (indeed I wonder how many African and Asian cultural milestones we're already missing?). There will always be a world to write about, even if we might not have an encyclopedia to expand doktorb _words^deeds 15:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
And you're only considering the linear array of topics. There's always the quadratic array of cross-topics. We've got East Timor–Kosovo relations, but we don't have East Timor-Vatican relations, East Timor-Malta relations, etc. And if we're going to have History of the Jews in Brazil, and History of Buddhism in Brazil^[1], why not History of Zoroastrianism in Brazil or History of Atheism in Brazil? Surely there must be something interesting to say about the latter. And when we run out of terrestrial topics, we can move on to stars. There's a lot of those. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
We also have a lot of closed deletion discussions for "country A-country-B relations" where it was determined there was nothing encyclopedic to be said about these. There may be millions of possible combinations, but only a handful of notable ones remain unmade. BD2412 T 15:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
East Timor-Vatican relations though, surely one of that handful. (Give or take overlap with the very undeveloped Catholic Church in East Timor.) CMD (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Over the years, people have often said this, but it never seems to be based on anything other than a feeling. Actual attempts at quantifying this indicate that we're not even close to covering the majority of relevant topics, aside from a few subsets. Dege31 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Does my expansion of Leskov Island and Peinado count? There are plenty of articles that could undergo this kind of expansion work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think so. Doing that is as much fun as starting a new article from scratch. Donald Albury 20:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some editor whose name escapes me said something along the lines of "Wikipedia is doing well on its "thing" articles (people, places, creatures), which are easy to identify and write basic prose for, but less so on its "topic" or "concept" articles" (see RoySmith's examples). That seems right to me. – Teratix ₵ 14:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Might that have been me, in [talk given in 2011 (notes at link)]? I agree with the slowing down rather than levelling out or stopping. But more and more our priority should be improving the 7m articles we have already got, vast numbers of which are very poor, rather than creating new ones. We shouldn't be training people to create new articles at the start of their editing. Every few years I propose that we should ban all new biographies for six months, except for genuinely newly-notable people (sports signings, election winners etc). People laugh but I think the effects would be wonderful; so many of the dwindling band of editors who actually write text spend their time on articles that get vanishingly small views, while nonsense in old articles get very high ones. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems to assume that volunteers come to the site with the versatility of a staff writer at a newspaper, eager to write about any assignment that we the assignment editors throw their way. I can assure you this is generally not the case. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but with some 10 times more edits than you on en:wp I don't need your assurances. It doesn't assume that at all; most editors have their areas of interest, and would stick to them. Indeed for quality reasons, it is better that they do stick to what they are familiar with. But virtually every area has lots of very weak articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC) -

My apologies for insulting your intelligence. All I mean is that people often become editors on a whim. They only get addicted to editing in a given topic area after completing that loop of I know something specific, I can prove it, I can tell the world about it – whether or not that requires starting a new article. A moratorium on biographies won't deny everyone that great first impression, but it will deny it to some. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod I agree that we should, somehow, be encouraging editors to spend more time on maintaining our existing articles. I had a nasty shock when I found that an article on a major English novelist Elizabeth Gaskell had suffered a major misguided edit in May 2020 from a non-English-speaking editor which had mangled quotes, "corrected" to US spellings, added total rubbish (their spellchecker had inspired them to replace "bibliomemoir" by "bibliometric"), and no-one had noticed most of the mistakes till I found it in Sept 2022 (and couldn't understand what "bibliometric" meant in that context...). So if it was on anyone's watchlist they hadn't noticed. I wonder what proportion of articles are on watchlists, whether of the original creator or anyone else, and how many bad edits, whether good-faith or casual vandalism, go unnoticed and uncorrected. Then there's the question of out of date content (publications lists incomplete, etc), sources going offline, etc. The ratio of number of articles to number of active editors is ever-increasing, and the attention paid to old articles is not enough to prevent the encyclopedia from drifting down the quality scale. Depressing. PamD 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my impression is that, among the arts, our English literature articles are oddly weak and unattended compared to say music and visual arts. And of course if there is another harmless edit by someone else quickly after a bad edit, even watchlisters are unlikely to catch that. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It has always been more challenging to write an analysis or synthesis than a profile, even outside of Wikipedia's sourcing and POV constraints. Such articles are more or less the difference between a general reference encyclopedia and a serious reference work, but there aren't many resources to help editors write them. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a very salient point – I don't have an example handy but some red links just boggle the mind – but it's worthwhile noting that in terms of sheer article numbers broad concepts are a small percentage of what's left to cover. There are mountains of 'things' that have received 2 or 3 pieces of SIGCOV and in the process of writing them 3rd-world development, journalism, and scholarship should continue to bloom. J947 † ^edits 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There has been an attempt to figure out how many articles a complete wikipedia would contain. see d:User:Emijrp/All Human Knowledge which suggests that a complete Wikipedia would be around 119,535,085 articles in size. Personally I suspect this being a bit generous in terms of what is actually notable but 10s of millions is a good minimum for a reasonably complete Wikipedia. As for what new articles are being created it will depend on the areas editors chose to focus on. There area areas where there are a lot of articles yet to be created and others where expanding existing ones is far more practical.©Geni (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Really, it's only just begun. J947 † ^edits 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic for sure. There's also User:Fdizile/All Knowladge, which I find almost overwhelming. NotAGenious (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I have long felt there is too much interest in creating new articles and too little in improving bad ones. In recent years I've been doing occasional mergers, and other editors have done the encyclopedia a favor by killing or merging some of the stubs I created before seeing the light. Some articles are hastily created because an event has attracted much attention; individual small battles of the early months of the current Ukraine war have their own article, whilst much bigger battles of the Iran-Iraq war of a quarter century ago are ignored. Edit-a-thons tend to concentrate on studying news coverage in order to bring a biography over the notability bar, of someone who gets no inlinks because whatever they did, it wasn't itself notable or even important. So, many new articles are only momentarily interesting and will attract little attention from readers, or from editors other than vandals, ten years from now. Probably someone will celebrate when ENWP clears the 7 million and 8 million articles marks; I'll be one of the grouchy old fellows complaining that quantity has trumped quality. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe (as I think I stated above) that we have got anywhere near creating all of the articles on notable topics that we could, but agree that far too much emphasis is placed on news sources. We should stop following our very idiosyncratic definition of secondary sources that includes news articles for the events that they describe, and start following WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone will agree, right up until the moment that the next Nobel Prize winner is announced, and everyone runs around wringing their hands and saying "I can't believe we didn't have an article on _____!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We still don't have an article on the culture of Guinea. There's still lots to do even at quite high levels, so perhaps there's even more holes at more specific levels, although ceteris paribis I do agree that you would expect a shift towards editing poor articles than creating new ones as more articles are created (Culture of Ivory Coast needs your help!). CMD (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It does seem inevitable that growth will slow as the low hanging fruit gets picked, but consider that the vast majority of information ever produced is still under copyright, which has a restrictive influence on how we find and consume it. There are about 130 million books, most of them not yet freely available online. There is also a huge amount of material locked up in archives and offline repositories. Museums hold half a million cuneiform clay tablets which haven't yet been translated. Only a small fraction of newspapers have been scanned. In the late-21st and 22nd century there will be an explosion of content coming into the public domain, which will vastly increase the surface area of verifiability, and as curators sift it, notability is sure to follow. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Fun fact: I originally wrote that as a "why not" example and was surprised to discover it show up in blue!

Deleted drafts

I started what I expected would be a useful stub on Australian mezzo-soprano Fiona Janes, and discover, via a fork or mirror site (EverybodyWiki.com) that a substantial article once existed in draft namespace. Is that article, with history and references, gone forever? Doug butler (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, deleted pages still exist and can be viewed and undeleted by admins. I have undeleted Draft:Fiona Janes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Heh. We undelete-conflicted, which generates error messages I've never seen before :-) RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow! That was quick service. Thanks. Doug butler (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A curious rationale for deletion — Janes is a rolled gold notable, a lot of work has been put into the article, inline references are sadly lacking is all, IMO. Doug butler (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Not just inline references - linking only imdb, the subject's own website, and www.jsrbfoundation.com (six! times), it has no usable sourcing at all. Given the state of AFC, I'm not surprised it was rejected on that basis. —Cryptic 00:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cryptic: It didn't cite www.jsrbfoundation.com as you said, only six times. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 00:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Very nice. Mathematical puns are rare, good ones more so. Thanks, @QuickQuokka: you made my day. Doug butler (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that a fact? RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Knowledge Equity Fund Community call

Hi all,

With the announcement of the Knowledge Equity Fund’s round 2 grantees, we’ve seen a lot of questions and feedback about the Knowledge Equity Fund, how the Committee works and how the work of the grantees will contribute to the projects and to the movement. To help answer these questions, The Knowledge Equity Fund Committee will host a community conversation on Friday, October 6, 2023 at 1400 UTC to hear ideas, concerns and to answer questions. The Committee would also like to hear ideas for how the fund should be used in the upcoming third round of grant making.

To register for this conversation, please email us at EquityFundwikimedia.org You can also send us questions beforehand. The call will be held in English and we will have interpretation in Spanish; if you would like interpretation into other languages please let us know. If you’re not able to attend, we will also share notes and a written list of Q&A after the call.

On behalf of Knowledge Equity Fund committee member, Biyanto R (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Finding how many times a book has been cited

Is there a way, perhaps using ISBNs or OCLCs, to find out how often a given book has been used as a source throughout Wikipedia? A list of the most-cited books would be interesting in its own right as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Easiest way right now would probably be just running a few insource: searches (Special:Search/insource:978-0-306-47754-6 and Special:Search/insource:9780306477546 for example) which kinda works but not great. Probably the most useful way of doing it would be to extend the bot that does Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia to handle books as well. This was mentioned as possibly of interest in the Signpost article. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/In focus) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- those are helpful links. I somehow missed that Signpost article. Headbomb, just a ping to support adding "books cited by Wikipedia" though I understand the caveats you give in that article. Among other things I think it would help with identifying the use of unreliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Mike Christie, you might be interested in the meta:WikiCite/Shared Citations initiative, and possibly also this conversation from August. Folly Mox (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Just be aware that tracking by ISBN may not be what you want. Different versions of a book (say, hardcover vs paperback) get different ISBNs, but the distinction is probably not significant for this purpose. So if you do go tracking by ISBN, you'll want to build a map which accounts for this. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those pointers and caveats. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Knowing the article size

How can I know the size of an article without going to its page? Masoud.h1368 (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Masoud.h1368, you can use Special:PageInfo. Folly Mox (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Heads up for arbcom elections

This is in no way an official anything; just me speaking as an individual wikipedian.

Around six weeks from now (WP:ACE2023 says November 12), a call will go out for people to self-nominate for the arbcom elections. By my count, there will be nine slots to be filled. Historically, we've had fewer candidates than I think is healthy. Last year, we had 12 people running for 8 slots. In 2021, it was 11 candidates for 8 slots. In both cases, it wasn't clear if we'd have enough candidates to fill all the slots until very close to the end of the nomination period.

This is my call to folks to start thinking about running. While I have only admiration for the folks currently on the committee, the long-term health of the project requires that we get new people into leadership positions. Although traditionally only admins have been elected, that's not a requirement and I think a well-respected editor with lots of experience has a good shot at ~~winning~~ being elected. In any case, it's a big commitment, so the time to start thinking about it is now. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As a further note, if there is someone you'd like to see run in the 2023 arbitration committee elections, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to get in touch with them now! For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Misleading map

The map from the article Azerbaijani language (this map — [5]) is false.
The description of the file states that this is “own work”, which is based on two other maps:

But look for example on Talysh region ([6]). On this map, the darker blue shading of Azeri Turkish prevalence "cuts" the shading of the Talysh language and dividing it goes perpendicular to the Caspian Sea, which is not shown on these two maps on which it is supposedly based. I think this map is unreliable and needs to be replaced. I am writing here because this map is used in other interwikis, from where it should also be removed. Smpad (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Smpad, you might wish to raise this concern at commons:File talk:Map of the Azerbaijani language.svg or commons:User talk:Golden. Folly Mox (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Colleague, but who then will pronounce the verdict on it? With respect. Smpad (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking for consensus for your proposed changes (which is how verdicts are pronounced), Talk:Azerbaijani language is a good starting point. The situation is a bit complicated, because the uploader and primary maintainer of the map on Commons (from where it is linked to multiple language Wikipedias) is blocked on the English Wikipedia, and as such would be unable to participate in the conversation. If you're able to generate consensus for your changes and can link that consensus to an appropriate place on Commons, the uploader may make the changes when asked. Otherwise you could find someone who knows how to edit SVG files and have them create an updated inage, with the established consensus linked in the upload description. Folly Mox (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC) edited 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been blocked this whole time? You learn something new every day!^[sarcasm] I can participate in any discussion regarding the file. — Golden ^talk 16:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow where on earth did I get that piece of misinformation? How embarrassing! I'm sorry, User:Golden, I'm not sure what happened here but please accept my apologies for besmirching you 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, Folly Mox. — Golden ^talk 18:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Golden, could you please provide your thoughts on the map's accuracy on commons:File talk:Map of the Azerbaijani language.svg? Smpad (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are Air and Earth's Atmosphere considered the same?

Moved to Talk:Atmosphere of Earth § Why are Air and Earth's Atmosphere considered the same?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User interface feedback

Not sure where I can put this down but someone in a training was a bit confused by the words "publish changes" versus "save" especially while editing in the sandbox. I think they would have understood "save" in that context better than "publish". I understand that it can be termed as an education issue but I think we should note confusions like this somewhere. Would be happy to be directed to a better venue. Shyamal (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

IIRC "save" was changed to "publish" at some point because some people in other user experiments didn't realize that "save" would immediately make things publicly visible (versus saving a draft or submitting for some sort of review before publishing). Anomie ⚔ 12:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

See the announcement on this board (almost six years ago now!): Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 57#Change to the edit submission button label. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot, this user's expectation was that it should automatically save as draft - I am sure the gmail interface has set this expectation. Shyamal (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Also WordPress, which allows saving a private draft before (scheduled) publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I remember being confused by this too back when I was a new editor—"publish" sounds like it should move the sandbox/draft to mainspace. I'm not sure there's an easy solution, though, since (as Anomie notes) the alternative has the potential to be equally confusing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

A clearer term would be better but it's hard to find one. Some e-mail software uses "Send" but that's just as ambiguous here – are we sending to article space? "Post" is a possibility but hints at social media and might encourage unconstructive "posts" – hi i'm N00b420 how is every1? Certes (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I do remember when I was editing as an IP, I was writing a draft (a very poorly sourced one, if I remember, that would in no way have passed AfC), I spent the whole time in preview and visual editor because the "publish changes" button was so intimidating. I can't remember if I ever even published the draft. I certainly never submitted it. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The current status definitely does seem confusing to newer editors, especially since we talk about "publishing" drafts to mainspace upon AfC acceptance (that is, the second editorial concern around the proposed label change has been borne out in practice). Maybe a single word is not what we're looking for. "Save publicly"? "Save (publicly visible)"? "Publish to FULLPAGENAME"? Folly Mox (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page from draftspace to mainspace should never be described as "publishing". Publishing is the act of making something available to the public. That happens when you click the big blue button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way to find certain templates in an article?

If not, then I think that would be a good feature for those of us on mobile. It’s a feature on computers that you can search specific characters in a web page, but mobile doesn’t have that. It would be really handy to be able to search for a “citation needed” template in an article and jump to it. Professor Penguino (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like an issue to raise with whoever makes your phone browser. On my phone, both Firefox and Chrome have a "find in page" option under their ⋮ menu. Anomie ⚔ 12:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Safari on iPhones have that option too, under the Share menu of all things. (Though I will say if one uses the Hide IP Address VPN that Apple provides, the "Your IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia" popup that appears if one attempts to edit an unprotected page doesn't actually provide any way to see that page's source.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:B0C2:E6A5:3653:3559 (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I found it. I feel pretty stupid now lol. Well, have a good one! Professor Penguino (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it took me two years to find that option on my phone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Same, except it took me 4 years. :) It’s really hidden. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

[1] User: Is the selected text factually correct or does it contain false claims?
Selected text: """The Japanese invasion of Kamchatka took place in 1731-32 during the Edo period of Japan. The expedition was led by Japanese explorer Mamiya Rinzō, who sought to map the northern Pacific Ocean and explore the coast of Siberia. After landing in Kamchatka, the Japanese encountered resistance from the local indigenous population and were eventually forced to retreat. The invasion was not a full-scale war, but rather a limited expedition with the goal of exploration and mapping."""

Bot: (Please consult reliable sources to verify the following information)

The selected text is not factually correct. The information provided about the Japanese invasion of Kamchatka in 1731-32 is fictional and does not correspond to any historical event.

[2] Fun fact: I originally wrote that as a "why not" example and was surprised to discover it show up in blue!

[a]

[1]