The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.) This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.
You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
There are lots of books and articles at your desk, that you need for writing an essay. Finally you read all the articles and worte your paper, when in the last moment you find another paper you did not find earlier. You know this problem? Wikiabstracts wants to challenge it: A database of abstracts and a bibliography with all relevant texts for your subject. If your interested and think the idea could work - join the project!
I've just created a related proposal: Wikisummary! See this heading just below:
How often have you read dozens of pages of an academic article or book, only to feel that they could have summarised it in two or three?
Wikisummary aims to solve this by summarising academic books and articles, and linking to reviews of them.
See the [project proposal here]
HTTPS for logged in users on Wednesday August 21st
“
As we outlined in our blog post on the future of HTTPS at the Wikimedia Foundation[0], the plan is to enable HTTPS by default for logged in users on August 21st, this Wednesday. We are still on target for that rollout date.
As this can have severe consequences for users where HTTPS is blocked by governments/network operators in addition to users who connect to Wikimedia sites via high latency connections, we've set up a page on MetaWiki describing what is going on and what it means for users and what they can do to report problems.
Please help watch out for any unintended consequences on August 21st and report any negative issues to us as soon as you can. Bugzilla:, IRC (#wikimedia-operations), or the (forthcoming) OTRS email are all fine.
Just added a new project proposal: Concisia - kind of a mixture of Wikipedia, Wikidata, Twitter and user ratings. It's quite different from other wiki projects but I hope you like it.
New WikiVoyage Logo
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
Is not the Chosen design for the new WikiVoyage logo too similar to the logo used by WikiTravel? The only real difference is that the new logo has colours in it, if it were to be reproduced on a monotone monitor or printer it would be confusingly similar to WT's logo. I tried to raise the issue at the Wikivoyage pub page, but mostly just got ad hominem and other personal attacks, appeal to authority and dismissed as I haven't a registered account, none of these confronts the issue of the logo being so similar to WT's. I was accused of "appear to be criticizing the competence of the WMF legal staff" When I had no idea such people would have considered this issue, if they have that indicates that they thought the same thing that I did at one point 81.178.172.5921:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
No. The two logos obviously have very little similarity to each other. That's just obvious on sight, and I don't understand how anyone could seriously think otherwise. If Wikitravel wants to try to sue again over this, they're complete idiots (no comment on whether we already knew that). Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's is I suspect a highly selected opinion. The fact that the arrows were redesigned to be slightly different seems to show that it was considered just how similar the arrows could be to the ones in WT's logo and still get away with it if it was required to argue a case in court. The logo is arrows arranged around prominent text, just like WT's the scale of the arrows compared to the text is about the same as on WT's logo and the arrows point in opposing directions. All it takes is to print it in black and white and it would be hard to tell the difference. given all this I can't see how anyone can honestly state that there is no similarity 81.178.160.11101:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Also I have to ask how can it be claimed that the Globe logo was too like the World trade Organisation,s (pretty much the only similarity was the colour scheme) yet the new logo is not like WT's that's highly selective vision furthermore the WTO wasn't even in the same business 81.178.160.11101:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The WTO issue was not ours to decide. The WTO decided to bug us about it, and the WMF decided not to fight it. That was fine with most Wikivoyagers, who weren't enthralled with the logo to start with. The new logo uses three acute arrowheads, pointing outward from a central point, while the WT logo uses two asymmetrical right-angle arrowheads pointed inward and almost touching each other. Furthermore, the new logo's arrowheads are solid-color, while WT's are two-tone. While they may share a general similarity in theme, they are very different in implementation. (In other words, they may sound similar when described, but the actual visualizations are obviously quite different.) The new logo has been vetted by WMF's legal department, and they apparently don't anticipate any problems.
As a result, any legal issues you think might remain should be brought up with the legal department of the WMF. If you continue to agitate around our discussion fora on this point, it will achieve nothing except to cement the perception of you as someone who's only interested in stirring up a controversy... or perhaps goading IB into suing. If that's your goal, then please save everyone the time and just stop now.
The decision not to fight the WTO was very suspect "most Wikivoyagers, who weren't enthralled with the logo to start with" Odd given it won an actually democratic process, so it was just some influential admin then, which seems to be the whole problem in this case. "While they may share a general similarity in theme" well exactly given they are in a very similar business, online travel guide that is a Wiki. of all the logos that could have been chosen you chose one that aped as far as legally possible, designs were changed throughout the process for "legal reasons". I actually tried bringing up the issue at the legal department, it was moved to here, the continual demands to discuss an issue elsewhere is really just an attempt to silence objections or any opinions you don't like and finally if all else fails the good old Ad ad hominem always works right? 81.178.175.4810:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth:
I was never unhappy with the old logo, though I agree that that original selection process was unfairly overrun by wikimedians who were not even contributors to our site.
WV admins had no part in making the decision not to fight the WTO. No discussions to that effect were ever had, neither on site nor on our mailing list. The decision was already made by the time I heard about it, which was only a day or two before the official announcement from the legal department.
The new logo is not the one I wanted either. I find it boring, sparse, and not very creative, but I do not find it to be in any way dangerously or confusingly similar to the WT logo, which was originally designed as two opposing quadrants of a standard two-tone compass rose, with the text entering on the lower right, while ours is three outward-pointing arrowheads, not suggestive of a compass rose, not two-tone, different color scheme, not a similar shape, rounded on the inside, and with the text starting right in the center.
But listen, 81.178.175.48, around here, we insist that people make their posts and contribute to the discussions in good faith'. When you show up out of the blue and immediately start accusing the admins of conspiracy to control things and shut out dissenting voices, 1) you demonstrate an egregrious and offensive lack of good faith in the efforts and intentions of others, and 2) your insinuations are patently untrue. If anyone posts that you are a troll, a sockpuppet, or that you should be ignored, banned, disregarded, or blocked, it is not because you have differing opinions but because your approach has been unacceptably accusatory. We don't know you, and it is readily apparent that you do not know us either. You are certainly not going to win an ounce of respect stepping in here and unjustly accusing everyone of willful wrongdoing/rigging selection processes/dictatorial quashing of dissenting opinions/using underhanded means to get their way. Those things have not, do not, and will not happen, so for you to suddenly appear out of nowhere and start making such false accusations is simply offensive. Texugo (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
"original selection process was unfairly overrun by wikimedians who were not even contributors to our site" So only a select cabal has an opinion that is worthwhile, if they helped select a decent logo I can't see any problem, but certain admin refused to accept the new choice so this became their complaint,
"WV admins had no part in making the decision not to fight the WTO" I simply don't believe this, maybe you don't know about it, anyhow it wouldn't surprise me if one of those admin that were so against the original choice informed the WTO of the supposed similarity and goaded them into getting it challenged as I was just accused of being about to "perhaps goading IB into suing"
"was originally designed as two opposing quadrants of a standard two-tone compass rose" a casual user cannot know what inspired these things, but can see when something is remarkably similar. the new logo is "rounded on the inside" only because it was decided for "legal reasons" that the other design that even more closely aped WT' logo was not allowed, however as the logo was supported by influential admin so suggestions were at hand on how it could be made acceptable, other logos did not get this favorable treatment.
The constant need for ad hominem, which happened right from the start, says more about those who make it, there would be no troll value if the logos were not similar, if I had said the logo was too like for example apple corp I would just have been ignored, but there is a similarity and that is the real problem. Your assurances that something has not happened hardly mean that they have not happened 81.178.174.10518:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
We do not need your conspiracy theories. There is no evidence to support any of what you are saying. There is no "select cabal", there was no turncoat informant to the WTO, and the "legal reasons" they fiddled with the icon design were in regard to another similar triangular icon, not WT's. This is not the illuminati here. You are talking about real people, many of whom have spent a great deal of time and effort working on this site over the years. Show some respect. Texugo (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
So if you don't like someones legitimate objections accuse them of conspiracy theories...and then demand they show respect, there simply is a select cabal, another user referred to them as the "movers and shakers" anyone who is not in the club is actively excluded, hence the weighted votes. "the "legal reasons" they fiddled with the icon design were in regard to another similar triangular icon," Well since you kept the identity of that icon hidden there is only your word, and honestly that is not really good enough, WT's logo is the obvious similar logo in this case. My concerns remain real despite your attempts to ridicule them. Show some respect 81.178.174.10520:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Also I was accused at an early stage of "appear to be criticizing the competence of the WMF legal staff" in other words it is apparent that they had considered how similar the logos were, it is hard to belive given the similarity and this accusation that WT's logo was not the one being considered as similar 81.178.174.10520:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The logical hoops I would be expected to jump through and the amount I would have to ignore to assume good faith are so great as to be an unreasonable expectation, what you are really demanding is that I keep quiet, again this is yet another way of preventing objections. The fact that you continually need to find different ways to do this shows that you know there is a real underlying problem here, in reality it's not me demands to assume good faith apparently don't go both ways 81.178.174.10521:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
You could of course always prove me wrong by stating which logo it was that the original logo design resembled so much that it needed to be changed....81.178.174.10521:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Concerning the legitimacy of the logo contest
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Apparently also I am unable to express concerns about how the logo contest was run over at Wikivoyage Pub, the following was removed
"I only wish the selection process could have been trusted, you know like the original contest that resulted in the Globe logo. But certain admins did not favor that democratic result, so they looked for the first opportunity to torpedo the Globe logo and made sure that the next contest had weighted votes, pretty much ensuring strategic admin votes could decide the final logo and it did not end there certain logos were allowed that preheps should not have been as they were supported by admins. Out of the weighted votes, (You know the ones that matter) how many were not English? Before you moan I did not bring anything up about the suspect way the contest was run at Meta-Wiki" 81.178.160.11101:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Impression does not help a lot. Wikivoyage administrators had no "special voice". Wikivoyage users had. Please prove or retract you accusions. I published all results transparently at Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/Results and Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R2/Results. There is a table about voters and about candidates.
At Wikivoyage/Logo/2013/R1/Results/Candidates, you can see that is the second topmost voted candidate in total and also the second topmost voted candidate by Wikivoyage users. , the most voted candidate was disqualified by the WMF legal review process.
"Wikivoyage administrators had no "special voice". Wikivoyage users had." By narrowing down the potential voters so much the admins assured they they would have a large percentage of the votes, indeed a special voice if ever there was one.
"the most voted candidate was disqualified by the WMF legal review process." Yes that one was not supported by influential admin aparently as helpful hints on how it could be made acceptable were not forthcoming. For the chosen logo however it was a completely different story as soon as the announcement was made that the chosen logo was to similar to another (Secrret by we all know) helpful hints were at hand on how it could be made more legally acceptable, in other words the legal team were too close to people who had personal preferences. Truly making a mockery of the process.
So we reach a final where certain logos were allowed and others were not seemingly due in no small part to personal preferences and the admins having assured they have a large percentage of the votes, this all has a stench of gerrymandering. 81.178.163.17411:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
May be you should find a forum for your conspiracy theories outside Wikimedia Foundation project. These theories are not really welcome here.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Again another attempt at ridicule, that adds nothing of worth to any conversation, what is truly not welcome here is speaking out about the setup and problems here, thus you need to resort to such low behavior 81.178.163.17418:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sister Projects Committee
Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
The problem is that this committee was to provide a useful function – "developing a clear policy and documentation for creating and reviewing sister projects". This is an important task, and it isn't getting done. Should we try to revive it, start from scratch, or just give up on the idea of having a logical way of handling sister projects? -- Ypnypn (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The last post to mail:spcom was in February (2013). I'd prefer to try to revive interest in it than to give up on the idea entirely. Try writing a post to the mailing list, and a section on its Meta talk about reviving it, and if you want, I can "spam" it to their talk pages. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think we stopped short of writing the charter and getting any official status. Without the status, we can not really decide on any of the proposals.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
+1. Deciding on the creation of new projects is something that has always been a community role. Once there is clear community support for a project, the WMF finds ways to support it and help it get off the ground.
The Board recently had a discussion about committee formation, since a Wikimania Committee also wanted to have Board approval of their status. The Board and WMF feel that, unless a committee is designed to handle an existing task of the Foundation, it does not need approval from any part of the WMF. Indeed it sets the wrong expectation to have WMF approval: such committees should be working on behalf of the community, and reporting to the community. I don't see any status-requirement to reach a committee-wide decision on proposals; but any status-approval should likewise come from the community. –SJtalk06:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Bad certificate at stats.wikimedia.org
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
"Also"? Wikistats is what my original post was about. (!) Or am I misunderstanding your comment? You don't mean s23.org or wikistatistics.net, do you? - dcljr (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I translated the draft of the new privacy policy into Russian, but I don't know how to send it to Wikipedia. I am far from all kind technologies... Should I place it here? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.172.215.200 (talk) 06:36, 10 Sep 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your translation. You can paste it in the translation page: select your language at top right, click the first paragraph you translated, add your translation, save etc. Next time please do it directly there, it has a lot of helping tools. --Nemo08:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As it seems, there’re no active administrators left at ru.wikibooks. Or at the very least, the latest contribution of a non-global sysop dates back to 2013-05-26.
Surely, the Small Wiki Monitoring Team’s volunteers filter outright spam and vandalism (thanks!), but the recent influx of w:WP:Copyvio “contributions” (which I took effort to label as such) probably deserves some attention (and an actual action!) of a Russian speaker.
Naturally, I’m not an administrator myself (and can’t say I’d like to become one.) Any ideas on how do I proceed?
FWIW, I’ve requested (via the respective discussion pages) the assistance of Iniquity,Alex Smotrov & Ilya Voyager, which are the present administrators of the project, and which were active at either Russian Wikibooks or Russian Wikipedia this year. Should that fail to resolve the pending issues, I’ve also filed a request for adminship (which I’ll bring before the stewards, should there be no objections.)
Thanks but there are no lines (Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument, help Wikipedia and win!) (Let your voice be heard! Give your input on the draft of our new privacy policy. ). -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
When I click that link, I get three lines that need to be translated:
//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy policy/BannerTestA Edit
Let your voice be heard! Edit
Give your input on the draft of our new privacy policy. Edit
You just need to click the 'Edit' button to provide the translation.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all. Forgive me if I am asking in the wrong place, but I have a situation I would like to resolve: With the unified accounts, I am User:Texugo on every WMF project except one: wp:pt:. The account there under this name was also created by me way back in 2006, but I cannot for the life of me figure out the password or email account I used, and have had no luck retrieving my password. I never even made a single edit with the account. I would like to usurp it into my global account, and have asked for help on two separate occasions on the forum at wp:pt:, but the best advice I have received there was "why don't you just create a new account". Well, my answer is that I want to keep all my contributions together, obviously. I seem to remember talk back in May or so that many of these situations were supposed to be taken care of automatically somehow, with the unification of accounts, etc., so I feel sure there must be some process established for usurpation, but I don't know the proper place to initiate the process. I have need to become active on wp:pt: soon, so I would like to get this taken care of as soon as possible. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Texugo (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It seems like a partial subset of the tasks of a global requests committee or global arbitration committee. The idea of asking a group to help restart a project is fine; but it shouldn't be a single-purpose group... among other things because there would be no work for it to do most of the time. And electing a committee for a specific task makes it hard to do so quickly or to get neutral participants. If there's to be a high-overhead elected committee, better to make it a GRC or GAC, which could handle not only project restarting but also other cross-project requests that stewards can't handle. –SJtalk07:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's time to reclaim the community logo
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello community,
this is to inform you about the (re)start of a discussion in which you, the Meta-Wiki users, might be particularly interested. In short, myself and a few other Wikimedia editors decided to oppose the registration of the community logo (which, incidentally, is the logo of this very wiki) as a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The history of the logo, the intents behind our action and our hopes for the future are described in detail on this page; to keep the discussion in one place, please leave your comments the talk page. (And if you speak a language other than English, perhaps you can translate the page and bring it to the attention of your local Wikimedia community?) I’m looking forward to hearing from you! odder (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Unified Wikimania wiki
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The idea here is to have a single Wikimania wiki (wikimania.wikimedia.org) for all conferences, instead of the current separate-wiki style (wikimania2012.wikimedia.org). This has been discussed at Wikimania project ___domain in 2011, but seems to have quickly ran outta gas.
Key issues addressed:
Q1: Organizers (alone) of a current conference needs to have absolute control over the conference wiki (aka being an admin).
A1: Wikimania wikis does not run as normal projects. Hence, all organizers shall easily be given admin rights (and former organizers removed) as it becomes necessary. The cycle continues.
Q2: What about archiving past wikis? What if we need to look back?
A2: Except for key pages (such as the Main Page), all other pages of each project could be created under the respective year's subpage. For example, all 2012 conference's pages would be under: http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2012/page/page/etc. Additionally if necessary, any vital page requiring archiving could also be edit protected (cascading style too, if possible).
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Request for consultation on this community logo
First, I’d like to apologize for the English. If you can, please help to translate this for other members of your community.
The legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation would greatly appreciate your input on the best way to manage the "community logo" (pictured here) to best balance protection of the projects with community support. Accordingly, they have created a “request for consultation” on Meta where they set out briefly some of the issues to be considered and the options that they perceive. Your input would be invaluable in helping guide them in how best to serve our mission.
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I know the WMF helps fund Wikimanias (or I think I know that). I've posted over here about issues related to videos/slides for the upcoming 2014 Wikimania. How does the money get to people for Wikimania? I'd like for it to be a settled matter so that this "service" is "bought" with community money for the community. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
And on a related note, can we please get freely licensed videos of the following types of presentations in the future?
Wikimedia Foundation highlights
Foundation staff report on their work at Wikimania
From August 7 to August 11, Wikimedians from around the world came together in Hong Kong for this year’s annual Wikimania conference, organized by Wikimedia Hong Kong in partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Switzerland (see also this month’s movement highlights). The keynote of Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner was titled “The Year in Review and the Year Ahead” (slides, video), and the schedule included many other presentations by WMF staff and contractors:
WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner presenting her Wikimania keynote
Steven Walling, Siebrand Mazeland, Diederik van Liere, Maryana Pinchuk, Howie Fung, Fabrice Florin, James Forrester (with Denny Vrandečić): “What is a product manager, and why does Wikimedia need them?” (abstract, slides)
Philippe Beaudette: “Working together, but separately: a gathering of functionaries” (workshop; abstract)
Arthur Richards; Siebrand Mazeland; James Forrester; Diederik van Liere: “Hacking our teams: Flexible ‘agile’ development at the WMF” (panel; abstract, slides)
Tilman Bayer: “Editor surveys: Taking the pulse of the community” (abstract, slides)
Siebrand Mazeland and others: “Ask the developers” (abstract)
Santhosh Thottingal, Niklas Laxström: “MediaWiki i18n getting data-driven and world-reusable” (abstract, slides)
Niklas Laxström, Amir Aharoni: “Multilingual Wikimedia Commons – What can we do about it?” (abstract)
Sumana Harihareswara, Guillaume Paumier, Quim Gil, Andre Klapper: “Transparency and collaboration in Wikimedia engineering” (abstract, notes)
Dario Taraborelli (submitted with Ryan Faulkner): “The UserMetrics API: Measuring participation in Wikimedia projects” (abstract, slides)
James Forrester, Roan Kattouw, Ed Sanders, Timo Tijhof (with Inez Korczyński): “VisualEditor: The present and future of editing wikis” (abstract, slides, extended slides, video)
Siko Bouterse, Heather Walls (with Jake Orlowitz): “Fun user experience is SRS BZNSS, and so can you” (abstract, slides)
Katy Love, Anasuya Sengupta (with FDC members): “Nobody knows, but everyone cares: How to submit an awesome application to the Funds Dissemination Committee” (panel and round-table discussion; abstract)
Asaf Bartov: “WMF’s New Global South Strategy” (abstract, slides)
Diederik van Liere, Dario Taraborelli: “Datafying Wikimedia: Data products and services to empower our communities” (abstract)
Brandon Harris: “Flow: The future of collaboration” (abstract, slides)
Maryana Pinchuk: “Roundtable on Messaging and Discussions” (abstract, slides)
Jessie Wild (with Martin Rulsch): “Wikimania scholarships” (discussion; abstract)
Geoff Brigham, with the WMF legal team: “Discussing Our Legal Strategy Going Forward: A Talk with the WMF General Counsel” (abstract)
Luis Villa, Stephen LaPorte: “Licensing Trends in Open Culture, Open Data, and Open Source” (abstract, slides)
Pau Giner: “Improving the user experience of language tools” (abstract, slides)
James Forrester: “Improving ‘admin tools’” – workshop (abstract)
Matthew Roth, Victor Grigas, Tilman Bayer (with Eddie Erhart): “Wikimedia storytelling: how we show the movement to the world” (panel; abstract)
Steven Walling and others from the E3 team: “Forget the tutorials, be bold! How one feature has attracted thousands of new editors” (abstract, slides)
Fabrice Florin: “Notifications: A new editor engagement tool” (abstract, slides)
Ryan Kaldari, Benny Situ: “How to enhance your MediaWiki extensions with Echo notifications” (abstract)
Marc-André Pelletier: “Presenting the Tool Labs” (abstract)
Erik Moeller: “Ghosts of Wikis Yet to Come: Three Stories of Wikimedia’s Future” (abstract)
Jon Robson, Maryana Pinchuk: “Wikipedia Mobile – The Trojan Horse. Why MediaWiki has a separate mobile site” (abstract)
Fabrice Florin: “Engaging users on Wikipedia” (abstract, slides)
Matthew Flaschen and the E3 team: “Make your user experience easy to learn: a guided tour” (abstract, slides)
Andre Klapper: “Improving MediaWiki quality: How everybody can help with bug report triaging” (abstract, slides)
Fabrice Florin: “Article Feedback: New forms of collaboration between readers and editors” (abstract, slides)
LiAnna Davis (with Mohammed Ouda and Aya Mahfouz): “Growing the Arabic Wikipedia through the Wikipedia Education Program” (abstract, slides)
Howie Fung: “A look into next year: WMF Product Roadmap” (abstract)
Pre-conference:
Various WMF Engineering staff took part in the Wikimania DevCamp (hacking days)
Rod Dunican, LiAnna Davis, Sophie Österberg, Frank Schulenburg: Various sessions at the Education Program Pre-Conference
Siko Bouterse, Heather Walls: “IdeaLab Brainstorm” (workshop; abstract)
Fabrice Florin, Rob Lanphier, Erik Moeller, Ryan Kaldari (with Andrew Lih): “Multimedia Roundtable” (abstract, slides)
Beyond these, Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors also participated in various other panels and workshops, and gave lightning talks.
I spent some time looking before I published it last week, but at that point it seemed to me that only the sessions in the main hall - keynotes etc. - were online at that point (and the VisualEditor presentation that was separately recorded by a WMF staff member, as opposed to the rest which were done by the local organizing team, I believe).
These are good questions; answers should be summarised at Flagged Revisions. As you can see on w:sq:Special:validationStatistics, the average time required for an edit to be reviewed is about 314 days. On wikis where this works, it's few hours. I agree that we should have global tracking of these stats (bugzilla:42360) and global standards below which the extension must be disabled on wikis where it's failing. --Nemo10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
The time to review does not necessarily indicate it is "failing." For example, on the English Wikibooks our backlog is 70 days average at the moment but only 1,200 out of the 30,000 reviewed pages are waiting on attention. The reason this happens is that some pages have been checked for vandalism but left outstanding by the reviewer as they need the attention of an expert to validate the change to a higher standard than "not vandalism". Leaving them outstanding doesn't cause a problem for a reader or an editor. In fact it provides greater visibility to the reader of what has been validated and what has not - so they can choose to read either version. So, this isn't just a "numbers game" in judging success. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say that the average time to review would be the only metric to consider. I agree that in the case you describe it can make sense, however here we're speaking of 60 % of the articles. You can set the bar at 95 % of the articles and 5 years average time to review, if you want, but I'm positive we can find a minimum requirement. --Nemo20:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
So how can someone get clearance to actually clear revisions and edit the Albanian Wikipedia then? The great thing about Wikipedia that I like is that ones changes are immediately visible. I have lots of pages on my watchlist, but only en:breast cancer has the revisions on them. I can't say they're helpful or popular on English Wikipedia. What's the average amount of time on the Albanian Wikipedia? Biosthmors (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
How can we ensure that the tabs for "edit" and such are in the language of our own choice? It's awfully hard to try and help out other wikis with minor edits if you don't know that language. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Chiefly, I would hope to see English, at a minimum, since it's a global language. How about at least the main global languages? Maybe 10 or so of them? Biosthmors (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Not sure where the best place to ask this is, but I have question maybe someone can help me with:
Is it possible to use Lua from Wikivoyage to access image data such as dimensions (width or height in pixels) from image files on commons (or their respective copied-info page on WV)? This would be very useful for us, so we could automatically police banner images which are not the right size or aspect ratio. Something where we could, for example, use calls like these:
{{#invoke:imagedata|width|Example.jpg}} would return 172
{{#invoke:imagedata|height|Example.jpg}} would return 178
I believe that vandalism and copyright violations are the two most prominent issues there these days. (Even though the overall volume is probably lower than that on ru.wikibooks just a few weeks ago.) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 16:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The last notice I can find on Editor surveys was December 2011. What were the results? Did you discontinue running Editor surveys? If "yes", why? If "no", where can I find more information about WMF analysis of their users? Thanks. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I didn't get a notification about your comment, only seeing this now (I think user mention notifications work only in the talk and project namespace, i.e. not on this forum page, which is in the main namespace). The end date on that page refers to the end of the data collection phase, not to the processing and publication of results, which was always anticipated to take at least a few months like in the previous editor surveys (the first editor survey done on behalf of the Foundation actually took 17 months until the publication of the final results, although we surely want to stay below that this time). At this point, first results have already been published in the slides for my Wikimania presentation and my short talk at last month's WMF metrics meeting, and blog posts with the full topline reports should come out soon. It's possible that the Wikimania presentation may have been recorded, but I have no idea when a recording might be published - you will have to ask the Wikimania organizers about that (see the #Wikimania 2014 thread). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Nwjerseyliz, the results of that December 2011 survey were published during 2012, see here (the page is linked from the blog post you found, admittedly not very conspicuously). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Tbayer (WMF). I think this is extremely important data. I saw a stat yesterday that the actual number of very active Editors (100+ edits/month) on en.wiki is ~3000 (and lower, of course, on other wikis) and I think it's ~10K for 10+ edits/month. I had no idea such a small number of people were carrying so much of the work. But this number is dropping, just like the number of Admins. Granted much of the encyclopedia has already been written but it still requires a lot of maintenance just to keep it from deteriorating. It would be interesting to discover what influences a casual Editor to become an active one. Liz (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wikimedia date
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was in doubt if they were meaning October 1/Spetember 30 or perhaps in their part of the world they changed calender system and introduced a special date. Klaas|Z4␟V: 11:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I believe that "all content" means "all encyclopedic articles and similar materials", not "all rule-making discussions". For example, voting is the normal method of deciding who is an admin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
All projects may choose to make a decision after normal majority (50%+1), 75% (as Dutch WP does with voting for admin rights) or whatever they find appropriate in certain cases. Many times one can discuss the meaning of the word consensus. Klaas|Z4␟V: 11:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
At the same time, my conclusion above would contradict both:
(EN)
Level of consensus - Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.&
Decisions not subject to consensus of editors - Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.
Les décisions consensuelles dans des cas spécifiques ne peuvent pas primer sur un consensus établi dans un cadre plus large, du moins rapidement. Par exemple, une discussion dans un projet ne peut pas supplanter le consensus plus large derrière une règle ou une convention qui s'applique à toute la communauté. La règle ou la convention doit s'appliquer à ce projet en question.
Les founding principles(English) présentent les principes de base présents dans tous les projets Wikimédia. Ils représentent le consensus le plus large possible à travers tous les projets Wikimédia. Ces consensus sont fondamentaux et affectent toutes les autres décisions wikimédiennes. Ils évoluent donc très lentement.
Решения, принятые внутри одного из проектов, не могут изменять более общих решений, принятых на основе более широкого консенсуса. В рамках того или иного проекта не может быть принято решение о том, что на статьи проекта не распространяется то или иное общее правило.
Принципы Фонда Викимедиа представляют собой базовые принципы всех проектов Викимедиа и, таким образом, основываются на наиболее достижимом консенсусе в рамках всех проектов Викимедиа. Эти консенсусы имеют фундаментальный характер, и ими определяются все остальные соглашения Викимедиа и Википедии.
Where is the contradiction? Those projects have said that within their own projects, a couple of editors at one page of that project cannot overrule all the other editors at that project. They do not say that rules or ideas that were made outside that project matter at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your consideration and comments. The idea that Founding principles are to be enforced in Wikipedia and its sub-divisons seems to be supported by the following:
This category is for Wikimedia projects wide policies, i.e. projects which apply to each and every Wikimedia project. Policies enforce required practice (as differentiated from guidelines, which document and explain best current practice).
and Wikipedia is one of these Wikimedia projects.
2) Also, referring to the first quote above - I added the missing part from EnWiki (TtWiki users mainly quote RuWiki policies, and the EnWiki statements are scattered in the policy, so missed when copying), and also add the French wiki text (for illustration only, as it's otherwise identical to the quoted from RuWiki). All three seem to refer to the fact that wider global community consensus is more important than local wiki or wikiproject consensus. The difference between French/Russian (Founding principles) and English (Wikimedia Foundation policies) can be explained by the fact that EnWiki community and also its policy system is better developed and thus members of the latter community can find it appropriate mentioning only the Wikimedia Foundation role, as otherwise EnWiki has numerous policies describing each and every aspect of the 6 points mentioned in Founding principles).
A "WikiProject" (on the English Wikipedia) is a small group of editors who want to work together as a team to improve articles. This is not the same thing as "a project". "A project" means "the entire English Wikipedia" (or the entire Russian Wikipedia, or the Tatar, or the Russian Wiktionary, or Commons, or Meta, or whatever).
The English Wikipedia rule that you quote is perhaps more clearly expressed this way:
...editors who decided to work together in a small group at the English Wikipedia cannot decide that policies or guidelines written by the thousands and thousands of English Wikipedia editors outside their little group do not apply to the English Wikipedia articles that the small group wants to work on
1. Founding principles are part of Category:Global policies, which states:
This category is for Wikimedia projects wide policies, i.e. projects which apply to each and every Wikimedia project. Policies enforce required practice (as differentiated from guidelines, which document and explain best current practice).
I'm not sure that Founding principles, which is actually Wikipedia-specific, applies to non-Wikipedia projects, like Meta. It is possible that this page should not be in that category at all.
But even if that page does belong there, there is nothing in the Founding principles that says the specific rules in place at the English Wikipedia must be followed at the Tatar Wikipedia, or the other way around. The Tatar Wikipedia is allowed to hold plain majority votes about what their policies and guidelines should say. The English Wikipedia is allowed to do the same, only they don't want to. At the English Wikipedia, they want to require much higher levels of agreement (in practice, usually at least a 70% majority for adopting a guideline, and sometimes even higher; also, the views from some users [often me, for example] seem to count for more than other users'). The Tatar community can choose to use a 51% majority for adopting policies and guidelines if that works better for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm not an expert in Meta. Was I wrong when I assumed that principles, described in Founding principles, apply to all language projects in Wikipedia? If so, are there any Wikipedia/Wikimedia-wide principles one can refer to as a minimum standard? -Frhdkazan (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell (is anyone really an expert in Meta?), the Founding principles were meant to apply to all languages of Wikipedia.
As far as I can tell from your description (I do not understand the Tatar language at all), their use of a strict majority vote to write policies and guidelines is 100% compatible with the Founding principles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for clearing it out for me. I accept community freedom to set own rules. I'm mostly concerned about 1.Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a guiding editorial principle. and 4.The creation of a welcoming and collegial editorial environment. principles being disregarded by our current admin/bureaucrat, as well as selective application of voted rules (policies). Majority of Tatar Wikipedia folks recently voted that Founding principles don't apply thereto, so it's not something uniquely true for our sole admin, & we certainly have a long way to go :). - Frhdkazan (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Toolserver account and User:Tangotango's milestone tool
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I've looked for the most appropriate place to post this, and I hope this is it. User:Tangotango, a former admin on en.wiki, appears to be a missing Wikpedian/Wikimedian. He had a Toolserver account with a nifty tool, Milestone. It reported your Nth non-deleted edit on a given wiki. Since Tangotango's Toolserver account expired in 2010, it seems unlikely that the tool will become available anytime soon. I saw that one of his other tools had been moved to another ___location, and it is being maintained by other people. Would it be possible to do the same with the Milestone tool? How would one go about requesting and/or implementing that change? Thanks! —Willscrlt( Talk | w:en | com | b:en )21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Where may I translate the orange fundraising banner that starts like this: Dear Wikipedia readers: We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world.? --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
This community consultation was commenced on September 24. The following day, two individuals filed a legal opposition against the registration of the Community logo.
The question is whether the Wikimedia Foundation should seek a collective membership mark with respect to this logo or abandon its registration and protection of the trademark.
We want to make sure that everyone get a chance to speak up so that we can get clear direction from the community. We would therefore really appreciate the community's help in translating this announcement from English so that everyone is able to understand it.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! I would like to learn in detail about principles and technology used in Serbian Wikipedia to create/store/update twin articles in CYR/LAT. I'm from Tatar Wikipedia, where we also write in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts. Our articles are available in either or both scripts (linked via manually added TwinLAT/TwinCYR templates) which is not very convenient. The need to learn about such principles and technologies is relatively urgent for us, as the issue of ArticleCount has now caused a contentious vote about forced deletion/merging of such articles (closed yesterday), which wouldn't allow people who can use only one script, to contribute into Tatar Wikipedia articles originally created in another script. History of the issue: Latin script was used for Tatar language in parallel with Arabic from the end of 19th century, gaining wide acceptance by early 1920s, both choked in USSR following Stalin's 1939 decision to enforce Cyrillic. Now predominantly Cyrillic Tatar Wikipedia started as TATLAT by Tatar diaspora outside of Russia, currently ~25% of Tatars live outside of Cyrillic use area. On Dec.24, 2012 Tatarstan parliament has formally approved use of Latin & Arabic scripts again (see TATCYR article or Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty published article in Tatar. Currently, active user contributions are ~ 50/50 in Latin & Cyrillic. - Frhdkazan (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
is the second topmost voted candidate in total and also the second topmost voted candidate by Wikivoyage users. 
, the most voted candidate was disqualified by the WMF legal review process.
was the most voted candidate by both, all users and Wikivoyage users. If you are interested in where voters are eligible, confer to the voters table or evaluate the JSON data dump. -- Rillke (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
