Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68

The importance of using quotes for references is WAY understated

For many years I've been an editor focused mostly on improving existing articles rather than writing new articles. In particular I like to do a lot of the dirty, unglamorous work of checking references and improving them. One thing I've come to believe is that references without specific pages and quotes are half-useless. For one, because our articles are in continual flux, over time references tend to drift way from the sentences they support. BUT it's practically impossible to notice this unless you are absurdly familiar with the reference. Another problem is that people are really bad at keeping meaning the same when rewording statements. Many times I check a reference, spending the time to track down the specific text, only to discover "hey, the Wikipedian either didn't understand the text or distorted its meaning". Very very few editors are checking references once they are inserted. The page and quote parameters dramatically help solve these problems. It makes it MUCH less time consuming to check a source. AND at an instant, all editors can check that the Wikipedia text aligns with the meaning of the source text. In my opinion, we need to get all editors to agree to ALWAYS use the page and quote parameters if possible. The only time they should not be used is when it doesn't make sense because the Wikipedia statements are a synthesis of what's said in a much larger body of text. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, and thanks. Particularly in contentious topics, quotes are needed in references to spell out the point. Unfortunately, another class of wikignome goes around removing "cruft". Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: It's a pleasure to at last find another editor who actually looks at the references. I've found a quotation in an article that did not appear in the work cited which had been in the article for six years, and a mis-attribution (which should have been obvious to anyone who had read the first page of the book quoted) that was 12 years old. I must admit I don't always use a quotation in a reference, but considering the points you make I shall try to do so more often. I also try to use chapter names/numbers as well for citations from books, as this make it easier to check against references to a different edition to the one I have available. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to give a contrary opinion… I have found that when a quote is provided in a citation, we should question it. All too often that quote has been taken out of context. It is a favorite tactic of POV pushers. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that a quote by itself doesn't solve all collaboration issues. I myself have not found the problem you mention to be a common occurrence. But I do mostly edit non-controversial topics where there's little reason or motivation to pull such tricks. Even if it's true that this is sometimes done, it still helps because it leaves actionable evidence of a editor's intent to mislead. So again, quotes are good. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I usually think that quotes are excessive for fair use, and so are a copyright infringement. But certainly pages should be included for anything big that may need to be combed through. Also I would encourage a reference on each sentence. Then it is less likely to be split by subsequent additions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea from? It's totally untrue. If you don't believe me, take the US Copyright Office's word for it:

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See, Fair Use Index, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

— US Copyright Office FAQ

While I'm not a copyright lawyer or anything, I've read multiple pamphlets on Fair Use from the Library of Congress so I have pretty good idea what's allowed and what isn't. I've never once seen a quote parameter used on Wikipedia that could realistically be considered a copyright violation. You should consider striking your comment. While you may have thought this, it's false. Feel free to start adopting using quotes in your references. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I standby my comment. Although US law permits quoting under fair use, this is an international encyclopedia, where this kind of copying is less allowed. For Wikipedia fair use fules, the use should be minimal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hosted in the US. US Copyright applies to Wikipedia so quotes on Wikipedia are perfectly legal. It's true that US copyright law does not apply outside the US and some countries have more restrictive copyright law. Users, for their legal protection, should always comply with the laws of the countries which from they edit. Any user from such a lousy country that they cannot even quote a sentence or two from a source in an academic work should refrain from using the quote parameter. I'm unaware of any such country in the free world but if such countries exist, the Wikimedia Foundation should also be blocking them from accessing Wikipedia since it would open itself to litigation there. And it should also be preventing those users from even being able to edit at all for their own protection. It seems to me your concern is completely theoretic and non-issue in practice. Please set me straight by making it concrete. Which countries do you have in mind where using small (one, two or few) sentence quotes would expose users to legal accountability? Your country appears to allow fair use, so I don't see what's stopping you from adding quotes. (Just to be certain, I'm talking about the |quote= parameter in cite templates here, which is usually only used for very small quotes. I'm not talking about {{Blockquote}} which is normally used for larger quotes.) You make a good point to mention international copyright laws but despite trying my best, I am completely failing to see your concerns are valid. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't object to quotations but I do object to quotations in citations. Sometimes quotations in citations simply overwhelm what is supposed to be a list of citations that support the en.wiki article text. This kind of citation is, to me, unacceptable. If you believe that a quotation from a source is important to an article, by all means quote it. You can quote the text directly in the article text using <blockquote>...</blockquote> (or {{blockquote}} or other appropriate template) or you can create a separate footnotes section to hold quoted text. Wherever you put the quoted text, cite it at that location; don't put the quotation in the citation. Quoted text should have a citation; citations should not have quoted text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Interesting exchange, quite peaceful. Thanks to all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example of cited quotations in a separate section but not in citations: Hayao Miyazaki § Notes.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Trappist. I think you are conflating two things: the legality of using quotes in citations and the good judgement in how |quote= is used. The example you gave is a remarkably ugly usage of the quote parameter. But it's under no serious risk being guilty of a copyright violation. That particular citation should have been improved by being split into several. I would agree that editors should try quote the minimal amount of text necessary, in part to keep such quotes from being overwhelming as you say. But since the quotes I'm discussing really aren't part of the "article proper", there's no need to use them directly via blockquote or direct quoting. These quotes aren't meant to be read unless a reader wants to check the veracity of the main text. As I argued at the start of the thread, the value in using |quote= is to maintain the integrity of the article. I don't think the assertion that "citations should not have quoted text" follows from the argument presented. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A relevant comment about extensive quoting from User:Moonriddengirl, here - fair use content must be transformative, and we cannot use quotes to supercede the source.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of |quote= material is to support other material in an article. This effectively guarantees it is being used transformatively. In the discussion thread you linked, Moonriddengirl also worries about the market value of the copyright work being impacted as per section 107 of the Copyright Code. That too is an important legal aspect to consider but ultimately nothing to worry about. Even taken in isolation, a defense attorney should be able to easily defend against such a claim. But that doesn't even matter; focusing on just that aspect alone is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees in US copyright law: Broad latitude is given to people to use copyright material for educational/research and non-profit purposes and we fall under those umbrellas. I looked at the specific version of the article they were worried about. It's completely fine by normal application of Fair Use. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

US copyright law has a multi-pronged test of fair use, and it is entirely possible to violate fair use with a quotation if it fails on those fronts. If the quote takes the heart and substance of the original work and the article does not advance the dialogue, for instance. And while you may be speaking about reasonable use of the parameter, we have had editors who have tucked entire newspaper articles into the quote field. NOLO has a nice, brief overview of the matter written by Richard Stim. All that said, I myself have made use of the quote parameter for verification. It just needs to be part of a balanced approach. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This right here: There are four parts of a fair use defense review in US Courts and a court will review all four parts, not any one part in isolation (see for example the SCOTUS ruling on Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.). Hence while we can argue an academic use of a quote, a full requote of a copyrighted work (particularly one made for commercial purposes) will likely be a problem. But one or two sentences of a full article likely is not. --Masem (t) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Sorry for belated reply. I missed your reply. Of course it's possible to violate fair use via the quote parameter, eg, by overquoting; but that in no way undermines the importance of using the quote parameter the way it is intended to be used. So I don't see the point of your argument, which is presumably to downplay the importance of using |quote=. Using the same reasoning a person might argue "It's possible to violate copyright by editing Wikipedia and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't exist, even though I've used it myself." I have edited probably 100,000 cite templates and have yet to come across an example like what you claim. They must be exceedingly rare. Using something so rare to establish a "balanced approached" seems to be applying undue weight to them. Generally speaking nothing more should be quoted than necessary to support the text in the article proper. I am promoting more extensive usage of quote, under the assumption, of course, that it's not being abused, which would be pretty obvious in practice. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Quotes are very useful for verification. Verification is so rarely done, anything to reduce the friction. They also help mitigate (not eliminate) link rot when a link dies and no archive URL exists, a quote will seem like a god send - of course someone could fake a quote but usually it's a misinterpretation of the quote, concluding something the quote doesn't say. Should be done for unusual, surprising or contentious material, or something unique to one source unlikely to be found elsewhere. -- GreenC 17:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely! Link rot is one of the situations where quotes are particularly helpful. Sometimes it's ONLY through the quotes that references are able to be rescued. A search for the quote discovers "oh, the reference still exists, it just changed domains" and you can then repair the citation and add other information to help in the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

100% agreed. Coincidentally, I gave a talk today at WikiConference North America where I mentioned this. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Just watched your talk. Thanks for that. I found your "Gap of Despair" diagram interesting. We lose a lot of new editors because they unknowingly jump right into the hard editing of the upper stairs that can get them in trouble. The thing I wanted to say is there's another dimension to the learning curve that is not policy-related but social: new editors are unwisely drawn to edit hot button topics. It's a double whammy: 1) they are making poor edits (because they are inexperienced) and 2) tons of watching eyes are ready to pounce on them for even small mistakes. In an ideal world, the "Gap is Despair" is spanned by the "Bridge of Common Sense" where users understand the value of taking baby steps before wading into challenging editing environments. It would perhaps make sense if certain topics could be flagged to warn new users "Hey, successfully editing of this topic may require in-depth understanding of policy." before they even start typing. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with everything you're saying. I'd like to get a group brainstorming on both ideas (breaking up editing into smaller tasks, and showing alerts when new users try to use the editor to do things that don't seem good, like adding unsourced sentences or citing social media) at some point. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: if you create a project page for such brainstorming, please ping me to it. I've long had thoughts about this wrt translation from other Wikipedias. Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot and everyone else, I just started Wikipedia:Making editing easier 2021. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with User:Jason Quinn's original comment. Graeme, you can put aside your concerns about copyright infringement in text included in |quote= params inside {{citation}} templates and {{blockquote}}s and safely use quotations to your heart's content. I assume you've used Google books before and perhaps added some content to an article based on what you read in snippet or preview mode there. As you've no doubt noticed, although Google books that are available in preview mode only provide a fraction of the book content for open viewing, there are frequently runs of several consecutive pages available, and even whole chapters are not rare. While the copyright status of this open display was not always clear, it is now; it was decided in 2015 as fair use under U.S. copyright law. I'm not recommending that you copy an entire page, or a book chapter from Google books into a citation or a blockquote; even if U.S. law on fair use approves, Wikipedia guidelines would not. But in deciding whether to use |quote= and how much text you may place into it while improving an article at Wikipedia, U.S. copyright law regarding fair use is not a factor. Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Y'know, instead of copying and pasting text from the source and making our copyright editors sad, you could just include a few words from the beginning and end of the specific text that's being referenced (however many words are needed to uniquely identify the text). Then have a little widget to grab the source, look for the text, and pull it up. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Just wanted to endorse the OP. Excellent and correct position. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

References

WP:ELECTCOM2021 community endorsements

Hello, just a reminder that all editors are invited to provide feedback on the nominations to serve on the 2021 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC). Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 08:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reminder to anyone that this RfC closes in a couple of hours, if you have time and haven't yet contributed - your feedback is welcome! Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone who participated, an uninvolved editor is welcome to close this RfC. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Voting to elect members to the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open (October 12 - 24)

Voting to elect members to the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians are running for 7 seats in these elections.

Voting is open from October 12 to October 24, 2021.

We are piloting a voting advice application for this election. It helps show which candidates hold positions similar to the choices entered.

According to the set up process, the committee will initially consist of 15 members in total. 7 members elected in this process, 6 members selected by Wikimedia affiliates, and 2 members appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Up to 3 additional members may be appointed by the committee, and steps may be taken to replace members as needed.

More details and the voting link is on Meta.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this process.

Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC) (Movement Strategy & Governance Team, Wikimedia Foundation)

• @Xeno (WMF): (and anyone else) FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Urgent:_MCDC_election_watchlist/MassMessage_and_local_info_page is open around the corner. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note, we really appreciate folks working on highlighting the visibility of this. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

← As a gentle reminder, the voting period is about halfway through, and will be closing about 6 days from now. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with Wikipedia editors..?

I still remember the days you all drafted Lil Nas X album. The editors say the album article should be drafted until there's an official announcement. While we all know Lil Nas X has already revealed the tracklist, it's still drafted WHILE the editors don't do the same to Adele's album. Now she only reveals the title AND its article has already been released. What's wrong with Wikipedia editors? Racism? Or homophobia? Should I complain Mr. Jimbo to solve this internalized homophobic/racism behaviour? -GogoLion (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by less severe issues. Yes, we are inconsistent. Yes, the album was clearly notable before its release and should not have been moved back to draft. No, Adele still plays in a different league (established artists with multiple albums vs. newish artist without an album). But the wrong drafts get rejected and the wrong drafts get accepted all the time, without there being racism or homophobia involved. If you would notice a pattern with any of the editors that kept it out of the main space, then you can start accusing people of such things. Until then, such things are personal attacks and while I understand that you are pissed off about a poor decision, you should refrain from making such accusations. Oh, and it is considered best practice that you inform people when you are talking about their actions here. Fram (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Fram, You talk like I didn't know there was any discussion before drafting. The Adele's album already discussed. YES IT EXISTS. But what the editors do? They want to keep it. Why? Because she is white. Yup, white and straight. And what about drafting discussion of the Lil Nas X's album? Did it exist? If it exists, what the editors say? Why they draft it? Why they don't accept official announcement from the artist (Lil Nas X, the black gay man)? Why you don'think this is not racism/homophobia? Can you explain? Where's the drafting discussion of Lil Nas X's album? -GogoLion (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's apparently no use talking to you, so don't expect me to respond any further. Fram (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Fram, ok bye. I want to talk with another editor.

LivelyRatification what's good? -GogoLion (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GogoLion: you've now started casting aspersions. Do you have any evidence that the reasons for drafting one and not the other were related to the race or sexuality of the artists? You can't just assume it is the case, you must assume good faith first. —El Millo (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, don't change the conversation. Let's speak it to the point. What's the reason?

-GogoLion (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't know what the reason is, but you can't just jump to racism and homophobia because you can't think of anything else. You can start by linking to the discussion where the Montero draft was declined, see if some editors participated in both discussion, see if their arguments are logical or not, genuine or disingenuous. Rembember Wikipedia editors aren't just a big entity that all think and act the same way. If none of the editors participated in both discussions, then the racism–homophobia accusations likely won't be valid, at least not for this specific case. —El Millo (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GogoLion: I'm sorry but the hysteria surrounding musicians and their articles is frankly ridiculous, and something we keep seeing over and over. I think the core of your message is a good one (Wikipedia does have a systemic bias, there are editors who push homophobic/racist points of view) but what I see here, right now, is an angry person with their own bias trying to "shout the loudest". Is this really needed? Is this? I want to hear your complaints, but you need to calm down first. Please ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, thank you for understanding me. You're the only one who understands that something is wrong in the Wikipedia editor circles.

-GogoLion (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

On another point, you GogoLion, are just as much a Wikipedia editor as anyone else, so you can make edits and argue for them if they are contested. Of course systemic bias exists, although it usually works in favour of Americans, even if they are black and gay, but in any particular case it may just be that nobody has got around to making the necessary edits, which is where you come in. It detracts from this process if you make unfounded accusations of homophobia and racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Little to no idea why I was involved in this conversation but, sure, I'll give my two cents. Yes, systemic bias is a thing. Wikipedia in general is biased towards the Western industrialised world. If you're a white straight man you're much more likely to be viewed as notable than a black queer woman. That bias should very much be acknowledged and tackled. But from what I'm aware, the situation with the Montero draft article is that it simply didn't have enough detail to actually be reviewed.

As a fellow user said on Montero's talk page, "I agree that this album is plenty notable (possibly one of the most anticipated albums of the year, in fact)—but not enough of that coverage has been included in this draft yet, hence why it's yet not an article. A number of the Twitter and other primary sources need to be replaced first before it can be moved to the mainspace."

Are there underlying systemic factors that may have contributed to the article on Montero not being fleshed out as quickly than the one on 30? Of course. Does almost every Wikipedia editor, including me, have some level of bias underlying? Yep. Does that mean that the reason Lil Nas X's album page wasn't published earlier was because of racism among Wikipedia editors? I don't really think so. I'm not saying it wasn't a factor, but the reason that page stayed in the draftspace for so long is because it didn't meet Wikipedia's standards. --LivelyRatification (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

LivelyRatification, so people drafted the Lil Nas X album because they use Twitter for reference? This is weird... Look at Adele discography, they using Instagram as reference for Easy On Me but nobody cares about "is it acceptable or not?". Also, Lil Nas X's announcement also had official announcement from acceptable sources (one of them is People magazine) but the editors still make it as draft until it really been released. -GogoLion (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@GogoLion: Firstly, yes, that page shouldn't use a source from Instagram. Thanks for pointing that out to me, I've now fixed it. I'm not saying that Montero had no reliable sources covering it, it definitely did, the issue is that the article didn't have as many. I was wrong in saying that the article didn't have enough primary sources, having now looked back at the revision history, but I still don't think that the article here (when it was rejected for the mainspace) was suitable. I do think that Montero should have been moved to the mainspace much earlier (it was moved about 2 days before release), but the issue to me was a lack of content - people not working on improving the article, basically. That is a problem, but it's a separate one from an issue of double standards. --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: did you really mean to suggest that Wikipedia has a racist/homophobic bias? Doug Weller talk 14:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Not at all.. I suggested that it has a systemic bias (but that's something we can only counter, not avoid), and mentioned that there certainly "are editors who push homophobic/racist points of view". Thankfully all the admins I know are adept at spotting people like that and showing them the door. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: thanks, that's what I assumed you meant but I didn't want there to be any chance that User:GogoLion misunderstood you. I of course am one of those who show editors like that the door. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have anything on the early history of talk pages?

I'm doing some research for something. Interested in knowing where the conventions came from, when we ditched horizontal rules in favor of level-2 headings, and so on. I recall reading something about this years ago, but of course can't find it. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: not sure, but a place to start may be whenever the "new section" control was added to the interface. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Per WikiBlame, the "new section" feature was first mentioned at Wikipedia:Talk pages in July 2003; the above-linked edit replaced advice about horizontal rules with a mention of the comment-posting feature. This among other things was new to MediaWiki, which was then still known the Phase III software (along with the TOC and section editing) per this announcement. Graham87 08:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also see the old page at Wikipedia:Software updates and its talk page. Graham87 08:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the pointers. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Before talk pages.Moxy- 01:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone should write up a whole history of talk pages, including their initial adoption and expansion of use, the differing conventions, the bots (Sinebot, the archive bots...), the whole collection of gadgets that were put together, the brief experiments with LiquidThreads, and the more recent Talk pages project. Also the customizations on different wikis, the MassMessage systems and their impacts, the things with the tabs, signatures and their customizations and policies, namespaces, Echo and the old Orange Bar o' Doom, processes that were built up, talk templates, policies, etc. (Sounds like it would be best placed on Meta.) --Yair rand (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey, have you seen mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Discussion tools in the past?

Anyone who was around (or has looked into it) is welcome to expand the page. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a possible doctoral thesis for some energetic and enterprising student :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That's exactly what I was looking for. Could use some more information, but there's one way to fix that... :) Enterprisey (talk!) 04:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you when they were dropped, but the horizontal rules are a conventions we took from UseModWikis before us (Meatball and/or C2 wikis), which had mixed-mode pages that included the talk discussion directly on them. --Izno (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

WikidataCon 2021

Hi all. I'm posting here as a co-curator of the 'Sister projects' track for WikidataCon 2021, which will take place online on 29-31 October 2021. The conference website is at [1].

Integration with Wikidata is a controversial topic here, and we would like to talk about both the pros and cons of Wikidata integration with the other Wikimedia projects during this conference. Whether you like Wikidata or not, please consider submitting a session proposal to explore the issues that you are most interested in.

You can find information about how to submit a session proposal at [2], and you can access the submission form at [3]. Please submit a session proposal through the Pretalx process so that we can review and schedule it appropriately - and make sure to mark it as a 'Sister projects' track proposal. Please note that we cannot accept a session outside of the Pretalx process. We also encourage you to submit talks to other tracks if you are interested!

Note that the deadline for submitting proposals is the 20th October - sorry for the short notice! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope one of the topics that will be discussed at this conference will be: “Are WP and WD incompatible projects (and thus should NOT be integrated)?” Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I encourage you to propose a presentation about that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Effect of Apple’s iCloud Private Relay

Hello!

Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users. Usually, it has been about “open proxies” or virtual private networks (VPNs). Now, there's a new Apple service called iCloud Private Relay that obscures the IP addresses of desktop and mobile users of the Safari browser.

As Apple users adopt this new service, we estimate that 3-5% of all logged-in and logged-out editors will have these obscured IP addresses. If we don't change anything, they may be blocked within a few months. This wiki may be severely affected. A lot of people editing here use the Safari browser. Next, other browser providers may do the same. The problem will grow.

The communities, users with advanced MediaWiki permissions, the Wikimedia Foundation and others need to work together. We all need to decide how the security of the wikis can be maintained. At the same time, the pathways to editing should remain open for all good-faith participants.

Read more on Apple iCloud Private Relay. Answer the questions and comment on its talk page.

Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please, also see meta:Talk:Apple iCloud Private Relay, where a few of us are discussing this, including serious concerns about the above messaging. MarioGom (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Movement Strategy Implementation Grants have been re-launched to support Movement Strategy plans

Movement Strategy Implementation Grants provide resources and support for implementing strategy plans and ideas. The Movement Strategy and Governance team is available to provide support. Learn more. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"Movement Strategy Implementation Grants support projects that take the current state of a Movement Strategy Initiative and push it one step forward. This way, all initiatives are implemented collectively one step at a time, from research and planning to development and launch. " That... doesn't really make sense. If you want to "collectively" implement them one step at a time, then all initiatives first need to take step 1, then all need to take step 2, and so on. However, the grants are for one initiative at a time. So, which is it? Fram (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

While each grant is meant to refer to a specific initiative, taken as a whole the goal is to move initiatives a step forward from where they are now (not necessarily the same steps, as some initiatives are further along than others - links to detailed examples are now available). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, and of course the goal is to move initiatives a step forward, but that doesn't mean that "all initiatives are implemented collectively" at all, but that each initiative is implemented individually (as each grant is for one initiative separately normally). I'm sorry, but I really loathe such management speak which sounds good but which is either meaningless or wrong. Fram (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I think here the term is intended to refer to all the grantees working towards the common overall goal of implementing the initiatives together (as multiple grants can be working on the same initiative). Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk to the Community Tech

Read this message in another language

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will begin on 27 October (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

• Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
• Update on the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes
• Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to [email protected].

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

• Join online
• Meeting ID: 83847343544
• Dial by your location

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)