Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-06-26

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2022-06-26. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: MoS rules on CCP name mulled, XRV axe plea nulled, mass drafting bid pulled (1,307 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

• The headline seems misleading, as the draftification proposal excluded PRODBLP articles. PamD 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @PamD: Indeed -- fixed. jp×g 23:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• I have been an admin for more than 14 years, and this is the first time I have heard of Wikipedia:Administrative action review. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  OhanaUnited, that's because the page is quite new. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding the close of the XRV RFC: I believe the close was flawed, and further degrades the legitimacy of XRV, but that also means the whole thing can be safely ignored. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Essay: RfA trend line haruspicy: fact or fancy? (3,340 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

A better way of looking at RFA trends is to look at some of the RFAs that have spectacularly changed direction. Usually these are negative trends - someone comes up with a reason to oppose the candidate that gets traction among the !voting community and the RFA changes direction. Usually these are very obvious when you read the subsequent vote rationales. Sometimes it happens becasue of a mistake the candidate or their nominator made during the RFA - one of the classics being when the nominator picked up the wrong laptop and made a comment while logged in as his nominee/girlfriend. Othertimes it happens when one of the few people who actually review the candidate's edits spots a problem and details it in their oppose. The minority of RFA participants who actually spend an hour or so checking the candidate's edits have a huge influence on RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• It seems to me that there is an error here somewhere in the argumentation re independence of samples. Assuming the value of each new sample in this process is partly dependent on the previous sample, then there is no requirement for the population mean to be affected to get biased results - we are not 'selecting samples of a certain value' from the pool, but 'modifying a drawn sample post selection'; 'p' doesn't seem to come into it. - Maybe a better approach to analysing this series would be treatment as an autocorrelated time-series. That would allow identification of inflection points, with some estimate of confidence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I expect that an autocorrelated time-series would still assume that the population of people who !vote in the first day, the second day and so on are roughly identical. But there is a confounding variable in RfA trend lines: the populations of strongest support !vote first. For instance, if I see the candidate's name every week, almost always in a context where they are creating good content or making comments that I agree with, then I'm going to vote immediately; if I see it in a more negative context then I might take more time to decide or take a while to build up my oppose rationale. If I've watchlisted the candidate's talk page then I will see the RfA quicker.
    The message to me is: trend line "haruspicy" is doomed to fail. We should just take the tallies as they are and crats should decide consensus on factors other than trend lines in cases where the tally isn't clear enough. (The exception is if there's a clear information gap e.g. undisclosed COI editing by the candidate was only unearthed on day 6.) And all of this trend line analysis adds to the excruciating pressure and overanalysis that discourages prospective RfA candidates. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Humour: Shortcuts, screwballers, Simon & Garfunkel (1,078 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

• 4 down was a fun surprise. Thanks! — The Earwig (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• 11 down is hard, but I know it! (Another) clue: my username is a bigger version of it. ;) Good luck figuring it out. -- L10nM4st3r _(talk) 09:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was trying to figure out why "cat" has six letters, then I realised how one used to obtain them. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 12:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Great idea, but even if the green blocks aren't in the spelling order, a camp doesn't have light for itself, nor is the basketball team in Cos Angeles! Will fix that even if there's only one C otherwise in the puzzle. igordebraga ≠ 00:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In the media: Editor given three-year sentence, big RfA makes news, Guy Standing takes it sitting down (5,987 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

Minor point, but I'm not sure Tamzin's RFA was by far the highest-participation RFA. Floq 2 in 2019 garnered 325/116/15 which makes it a mere 13 fewer than Tamzin...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Admins for lifetime is something we ended for over ten years ago in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål. Now admins are elected (and most often re-elected) with elections every six months, and the user is de-listed as admin after two years, if not re-elected. When users are nominated, they also mostly get elected, as its not considered a big deal. We basically copied the system from Wikipedia in Swedish, and Wikipedia in English may copy it for free, which I am sure they will do, some time... Ulflarsen (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  For those curious, links: no:Wikipedia:Administratorer and sv:Wikipedia:Ansökan om administrativ behörighet czar 01:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's a very interesting model. Firestar464 (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Reconfirming admins is something that the English Wikipedia has considered. It never came to pass. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• You are correct. Edited. :) Thank you. Andreas JN466 22:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Moreover, the number of successful Requests for Adminship per year is far lower than the number of administrators who die, leave the project, or otherwise lose the tools (voluntarily or otherwise).

  For all the times I've seen this argument, I'd be much more interested in the figure of how many "active" admins become inactive (churn) and reactivate each year. That inactive admins eventually lose the tools does not seem to be of much consequence. Which reminds me, @Widefox, has your User:Widefox/editors active admin trend line remained the same? czar 01:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Re: trendline vs 2019 to 2022 data. Yes, that does sound interesting to compare prediction with three years more of data. IRL is preventing an update, unfortunately. I'll have to dig up the raw data and post it, to give someone else a chance, unless it can wait a timescale of a/a-few month(s). Widefox; talk 19:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The Nature dataset, tucked at the bottom of this report, is quite interesting, and could be summarized in a dedicated Signpost report. Big data summary of Wikipedia and Wikidata, cool stuff. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer, HaeB, and Piotrus: The couple of paragraphs above show my limitations as an "academic reviewer", and of ITM as a forum for this. I won't prohibit myself from doing it again though - "limitation" doesn't mean "total disqualification". In general, I view these paragraphs, as well as the paper itself, as a "starting gun". There's a number of things The Signpost+ could do with this: e.g. a full review at Recent research, and since the paper is CC-BY 4.0 we could feature the graphs, or even an extract of the paper in its own article. Though at 19 pages of small print, it's too long to extract.

I'm super excited about where the authors and others could follow up the paper. It might even open a new academic field - is there a term for the meta analysis of the history of biography? IMHO, this area will go as far as academia decides to take it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smallbones I do find this fascinating, but I'll just note this is not entirely new. A number of prior studies have played with Big Data and Wikidata. meta:WDO, with a bunch of cool graphs, comes to mind. Or my own Wikigender Wikidata Human Gender Indicator, to tout my own horn a bit [1] :P I am reasonably sure there are more similar ideas out there (and do ping me if anyone reads this and remembers some). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• I continue to be slightly surprised but impressed by Stephen Harrison's reporting on Wikipedia for Slate. An RfA is a strangely obscure choice of topic—I can't assess how interesting it would be to a non-Wikimedian—but the coverage is detailed, well-researched, has a coherent narrative, and includes many important points. If Stephen happens to be reading: thank you for the reporting! — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

News and notes: WMF inks new rules on government-ordered takedowns, blasts Russian feds' censor demands, spends big bucks (15,311 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

It's interesting that the WMF is planning on making their pro-Western bias clear on what counts as a "terrorist entity"; given they're likely going to treat US/EU with deference compared to other countries. Aside from the nebulous definition of terrorism w/r/t entities such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [2] or Hamas [3] or the entirety of the United States Armed Forces [4], Western countries also love invoking "national security" or "terrorism" to justify censorship. Have we not forgotten the time when the French government didn't like our page on the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station and coerced an admin into taking it down on the French Wikipedia? Perhaps soon the German government will issue a takedown of our page on the People's Defense Units because their flag is a banned symbol in Germany. The fact a country is in the EU or is the US does not guarantee said country will not abuse their powers we've granted them here. Wikipedia is well-known brand name and the negotiating power of the Wikimedia Foundation is strong. We have successfully stared down European governments before when they were acting unreasonably and we should do so again when necessary.
One also wonders how these new rules will be enforced against the sizable WikiCommunist contingent here on the English Wikipedia. Many formerly-Soviet EU countries consider communism to be violent extremism and ban communists from public life. All Marxist-Leninists agree that a violent revolution is needed to establish communism. It will be entertaining to see how these new rules are enforced in practice against this group; given how many of them have advanced permissions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

One is left to wonder what methods will be used to sort through the conflicting censorship requests of various nations, many of which reciprocally consider each other's actions to be terrorism – will the Indian or Pakistani governments be given precedence in deleting sections from Kashmir conflict? I assume that some additional framework will be necessary, and that the people responsible will do their best, but it's hard to have faith in a process where transparency and community oversight are not present. Hopefully, some clarification can be obtained on the subject. jp×g 00:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG you might be interested in reading this which goes into questions you've raised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: That's a good link, and I think the idea of having community liaisons is quite smart. Having seen what the WMF has done against various threats to our projects' freedom in the past, I am hopeful that this can be handled judiciously. It may indeed be the case that the WMF has little in the way of appetizing options on this kind of stuff, if the choice is between complying with demands and being imprisoned or shot. Hopefully, the world we live in does not go any further in that direction. jp×g 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just worried that governments will start holding editors hostage just to see their requests fulfilled. Firestar464 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firestar464: The French government already did over a decade ago to Remi Mathis, coercing him into deleting an article that they didn't like on the French Wikipedia. The extrajudicial censorship failed because the WMF stood up for the Wikimedia movement's values and a Swiss admin ended up reinstating the page; the French government having never even bothered to get a court order.

Of course, now the French government can just ask politely to delete whatever pages they don't like and we will have to comply. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that it will be far from entertaining to see how these new rules are enforced. My guess is that the Wikimedia Foundation receives few, or even zero, requests for terrorist content takedowns over the next year and what ones it does receive will be uncontroversial in nature. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales Your thoughts? Firestar464 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We need more transparency. The fact that the takedowns and/or reasons may not be public is apalling. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm just not reading carefully enough, but what exactly is "Terrorist Content" supposed to mean? What does this actually refer and apply to? Are the WMF worried ISIS is going to start posting propaganda on our website? Or are they referring to article content which discusses terrorist actions? The first seems unlikely, and the second, if that's what this is, just sounds like a whitewashing procedure for censorship. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have heard that ISIS propaganda is indeed something Trust & Safety is dealing with in the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias (note the recent "Disinformation" hires at the WMF asking for Arabic and Farsi speakers, among others). It's not really surprising, as ISIS' online operations have been very sophisticated – so why wouldn't they be using Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 12:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given some of the comments on the topic, I'm going to have to highlight that when I talked to Jacob (Vice-general counsel) over this topic (around the time of the fr/de discussions), it was abundantly, excruciatingly clear that the WMF did not want to have any say in changing content and even less so when the community might disagree with it. There's no margin in it for them. So I'm confident that based on the policy and their own preferences that they'll only be doing it when literally obliged to and only not publicly post it when again, literally legally obliged to. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear Do we know what particular legal acts, from what jurisdictions, would involve such gag orders? What guarantee do we have that the report won't say "we can't tell you what was removed, if anything, and why (except that it was a legal request from an unspecified authority)". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Piotrus I believe there was a de-wiki case where there was a gag order (it may have been fr-wiki, it may have been both) - injunctions issued by the judge, where it was viewed as counterproductive to the case of removing information to then tell everyone around it. Now, as far as I know those weren't terrorism cases, more biographical info cases. Equivalent terrorism cases are most likely where, again, a judge felt that the information being publicly known (even if not actually in a wikipedia article) was counter to the goal of stopping it being in a wikipedia article.

  In regards to your second - I'm pretty confident they'd be able to say that something was removed, but everything else definitely could be the case. My dislike for private handling is known, but here I'm stating that I'm confident that the Foundation would only do that if it was forced into a legal corner and would also dispute it to the degree possible (at least the secrecy aspect). I don't always have faith that a private WMF action is a good one (or necessary), but in this aspect, I do. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is a result of TERREG (the Regulation (EU) 2021/784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online), which basically allows law enforcement authorities in the EU (not necessarily judges, can be the police) the power to take down anything they don't like on the internet with a 1 hour warning. See https://wikimedia.brussels/antiterrorists-in-a-bike-shed-policy-and-politics-of-terreg/ for more information on one of the latest incarnations. We're going to see more and more politically motivated removals, and unlike with Roskomnadzor or Turkey the WMF will not be able to just carry on. Nemo 15:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Nemo bis: I am excited for Poland to wade into the "Polish death camp" controversy and for Hungary to make an argument that gay rights is violent extremism. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, why can't the WMF just tell a European state to just buzz off when they try to censor content? Do they have substantial assets in the EU? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are agreements in place between the EU and its member states and the US, and it is likely that there will be more to come. So WMF may have to tell the US government to buzz off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

May we please have an inline conversion of "₽5,000,000" (Rubles?) to Euros and US Dollars? 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:ACB3:C300:5CAA:BB93 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The headline is horrible Secretlondon (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, all! Thank you for your interest. A lot of the concerns expressed here are discussed on the Legal department's Meta-Wiki FAQ. Namely, these new procedures are aimed at establishing more clear processes in line with developing global trends on addressing terrorist content, including the EU’s TERREG.

These processes provide an outline for handling valid government requests to take down extremist content, not an expansion into the Foundation engaging in content moderation. Please take note of question 4 in the above-linked FAQ; "the Foundation's role is limited to reviewing and complying with valid legal removal orders from designated government authorities," and "if the Foundation is of the view that the removal order has been issued in error, it shall take necessary actions to challenge the orders before the relevant authority.”

The legal team would conduct a legal review for all the removal orders, factoring in the nature and context under which it is published. During the examination, if it is found that the request attempts to abuse the protocol for inappropriate censorship and/or the content falls under relevant exceptions (such as academic, informative and research purposes), they will take appropriate measures to challenge it. It's also pertinent to note that this process is for requests warranting immediate action, and unless required under the removal order, the annual transparency report will provide information about actions taken in response to terror content removal requests.

The Foundation’s legal team will be hosting community office hours to address any concerns about the protocol. I’ll follow up with the details regarding the sessions in the coming days.

I hope this helps clarify some of the concerns here. Thank you for your time, RAdimer-WMF (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@RAdimer-WMF: Thank you for taking the time to speak here on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. One quick thing: Meta:Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_department/FAQ_On_Countering_Terrorist_and_Violent_Extremist_Content_on_Wikimedia_Projects#12 refers to material related to DMCA compliance (transparently logged here on Commons and here on Foundation), but does not provide links to where "here" is. Do you happen to have those links handy and, if not, would you be willing to ask the WMF Legal people to include the links in their FAQ? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! I've asked what the intended links were, though doing some clicking around there is Category:DMCA on foundationwiki and this DMCA page on Commons. Hopefully we can get that FAQ updated soon! RAdimer-WMF (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

On a related topic, see also the Global Advocacy Conversation Hours on Disinformation: [5] Andreas JN466 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

For the office hours: see the Diff calendar. RAdimer-WMF (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

News from the WMF: Wikimedia Enterprise signs first deals (5,996 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

I am excited for the inevitable future in which we have no visitors because Google siphoned them off to their Knowledge Graph that nobody understands is from Wikipedia while Amazon/Apple/etc reads our stuff with no vocal attribution. It will be even better when we have no editors who legitimately care about our content, as those that take pride in what they have created realize nobody has ever heard of what they do. The point in time where Abstract Wikipedia powers knowledge graphs for much of South Asia's native languages but has 30% brand awareness or less will be shocking. If I wanted to work as a Google contractor I would join the Fellowship of Friends and get paid for my effort. [6] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

+1.

Note that this issue of the Signpost has more on Wikimedia Enterprise, Abstract Wikipedia and Google in News and notes. Andreas JN466 07:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• What will the WMF do when Google or Facebook take issue with content on the encyclopedia, and threaten to withdraw their enterprise contracts unless said content is removed? This seems like a recipe for disaster, and it's not even a necessary one considering how much excess money the WMF makes already.om this source Rabbitflyer (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• • For just this reason Enterprise has promised that it will not raise more than 30% of WMF's annual total from this source. m:Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ#How_much_money_will_this_raise Since there is only one customer now, google, it might be a shock, if google ever said "do xyz or we'll cut off 30% of your revenue" but I'm sure the WMF board will have the guts to say "take a hike". More realistically Enterprise will develop a diversified customer base - say 5 companies paying from 15-30% of Enterprise's revenue, or maybe 10 companies with the largest accounting for only 20% of their revenue. That would make google's possible threat to be only pulling 30% of 30% = 9% of WMF's revenue or 6% in the 2nd case. That would make it really easy for the WMF to say "Don't forget your hat your hat on the way out!" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Smallbones: They can also cut off their support for Abstract Wikipedia, which is primarily staffed by "former" Google operatives. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Chess: Denny (who I assume is who you're referring to) spent at least 8 years as an active Wikimedian pushing the data centralizing/structuring stuff (including founding Wikidata) before he went to work for Google for some years. I don't think it's reasonable to say that he's currently secretly working on their behalf. --Yair rand (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Yair rand: First of all, Wikidata powers the Knowledge Graph as Google outsourced Freebase to us. If there's one project that's customized to Google's interests more than any other it's Wikidata. Second of all, Google is deeply involved with more than just one staffperson. See meta:Abstract Wikipedia/Updates/2022-04-12; Google just seconded "up to 10" fellows over to develop the backend. Keeping in mind that the Abstract Wikipedia team on its own is only 10 people including Denny, Google withdrawing their support would cause issues to say the least. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    @Chess:You make some hard-hitting points. I am of two minds about it; on the one hand I'd say that the WMF has found a way to create a two-tiered system: a "basic" access for free (regular wiki access), and a "premium" access for a cost (Enterprise), which feels anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia. Moreover, as you suggest, in time fee-paying "premium" customers may have undue influence in the direction of the wiki projects. On this front I support ideas to limit or actually to make Enterprise free of use, so that WMF relies only on donations (of money and labor). If Enterprise requires lots of resources, Google et al. can donate engineers' time.

    On the other hand, Wikipedia is so free (CC SA 3.0) that anyone is free to even use it for commercial purposes. That copyleft is also part of Wikipedia's ethos.

    Further, I assume that if Wikimedia Enterprise did not exist within the WMF, some other entrepreneurial business could create something similar to Enterprise and mine the data from Wikipedia and channel it to outside platforms. At least by the WMF creating such a service inhouse, they can better control the terms of use... Thank you for making me think more about it. I think the WMF should proceed with caution. Al83tito (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Already looking forward to a follow-up piece on this! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Opinion: Picture of the Day – how Adam plans to ru(i)n it (5,442 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

• Thanks for your good work, Adam. Given I have about one in twelve featured pictures, every June will be Adam Month... And for making me laugh out loud. Schwede66 23:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I have to thank all the editors who helped keep my sarcasm from falling into the Sar Chasm, from which no enlightenment about my actual plans could emerge. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 23:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thanks for taking on this project with such enthusiasm. I agree with most of what you say above but do think that dealing with random images from sets of banknotes is a good option for displaying them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Cwmhiraeth: Possibly for larger sets. The problem we have, though, is there's no way to flip through the selection if we do, and, as sets get larger, the number of times you need to refresh to have, say, a 50% chance of seeing all the images rises exponentially. I think the current random choice took isn't up to the task (and a bit hard to use), though I'm not against the concept of it if we could do it a bit better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 10:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Given that last year I scheduled both Fuck the Millennium and The Sirens and Ulysses as today's featured article with, so far as I am aware, no negative feedback at all I think that you are going to have to try harder if you wish to turn the main page into a sink of debauchery. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: You know how people won't object if something's never been a controversy, but will if someone in the past had arbitrarily held something back, or suggested it be discussed? Wikipedia:POTD/Unused had a bunch of things put on it by past coordinators, no doubt for well-meaning reasons, but which were quite arbitrary in light of everything else put on POTD, TFA, and so on, and removing things from there was far more controversial than it had any right to be, even when there was no discussion whatsoever to put things on there in the first place. I could try to run Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, but the copy we have is so bad that I find it hard to believe that one's still a featured picture by any quality standard, and I don't really want to be put in the position of having to defend an image I don't firmly believe in the quality of again. Because, from past experience, when you tell people that the appropriate venue to deal with quality objections is WP:FPC's delist system, they won't actually take you up on that suggestion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 14:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, pit of iniquity here we come. Shout if you need any support in getting us there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Adam Cuerden: So, did the June 28th gallery go "horribly wrong"? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 04:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  There were issues on mobile. Think they're fixable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 12:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is such a fun read which also wraps up some of your more serious plans. While I skipped some lines, I didn't miss out on a single image! Now that your despotic regime has dawned upon a larger group of unknowing editors, please make it a criteria for everyone who follows to also write their plans here. A pleasure reading, good stuff! FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  @FacetsOfNonStickPans: Glad you liked it! I figured, if I'm going to be writing about myself, I kind of have to lean into my sense of humour, or I'd just be writing some soulless essay about how great I am that I'd hate. (Not meant as an attack on others, it's more knowing where my strengths are, and where they really aren't.) Then the Signpost staff and volunteers helped me make sure the line between joke and actual information was clear. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 02:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent research: Wikipedia versus academia (again), tables' "immortality" probed (6,403 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

I do appreciate The Signpost reporting on my work, although it seems clear we need more volunteers to review recent work (I used to help, maybe I'll again). Reporting on my 2016 paper in the section titled 'recent' whatever is a bit.... illustrative of the backlog and the lack of manpower we have, I think :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: My understanding is that the Signpost always need more people contributing. If you're able to do so, I'm sure they'd appreciate your efforts. Clovermoss (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

True. @User:HaeB, can you link the list of papers to review? I'll try to contribute sth to the next issue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: If they don't get back to you, you could try posting at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. At least that's where people would often participate when I was writing for the Signpost (2 years ago). But it looks like people still post there, so it could still be useful. Clovermoss (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Clovermoss There used to be an etherpad where I left my reviews for papers that were suggested for review... I can always just choose stuff myself I guess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Sorry about the late reply. The current Etherpad is at https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN202207 (and can usually be found via m:Research:Newsletter#How to contribute), and the draft of the upcoming issue is linked there (and in the Signpost's newsroom page). At this point, the next issue is already going to be published in just under six hours from now; but you're always welcome to sign up for a review in future issues. (As mentioned on the pad, there is also a backlog of papers that we have tweeted but not added to the pad yet.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It's honestly less a lack of manpower/personpower in terms of willing volunteers overall than us (Masssly and myself) having skipped our usual proactive outreach to such potential contributors recently, mostly due to lack of time on my part. (I have still been able to set aside time every month to make sure we get our regular issue published, but often that window is already consumed by addressing technical and other issues before getting to that step.) I hope we can resume these regular notifications soon.

I'm fairly relaxed about the definition of "recent" - while covering things earlier is preferable, I would say that if the half-life of a paper's research results is so short that it's no longer worth reading about them after a year or two, then that might be an indicator that it wasn't a top priority to inform readers about them in the first place. That said, 2016 was indeed a bit of an outlier here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Only 2% donate

Re the comment "This admission contains a message that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t seem to understand. When only 2% of the audience for a widely used not-for-profit project is willing to support the project they use, this suggests that the project might not survive as a commercial venture." Firstly those who support the project include those who donate time as well as those who donate money. Secondly a not for profit is not a commercial venture. Thirdly a General Interest encyclopaedia whose target audience is the whole of humanity can afford to operate on a support level from its intended audience that is very different from that of an academic journal. 2% of hundreds of millions of people is going to be a larger number of supporters than any journal that measures its circulation in thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands. ϢereSpielChequers 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Friedman sure has some odd comments. He writes that Wikipedia "suffers from the internally-focused cultural patterns among Wikipedians that prevent the improvements needed for a high quality reference work". No kidding. But does he think things are not significantly worse in academia?
  In addition to WereSpielChequers' point that 2% is not the totality of people who support Wikipedia, I think that's an astoundingly large figure. This is an audience that includes, for example, a lot of El Salvador, a country that has just seen one of its two currencies collapse (its government controls neither currency)—why would we want them to donate money to Wikipedia? Friedman says that "the project might not survive as a commercial venture", and we can only hope so. It's not a "commercial venture", but a non-profit that provides free information across the globe. — Bilorv (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Immortal tables and boxes

I wonder if the scientist accounted for the fact that mboxes, infoboxes, navboxes, and sidebars are all tables in HTML? —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Serendipity: Was she really a Swiss lesbian automobile racer? (3,153 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

• A great one, thanks for writing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm afraid I can't help with any information about her, but thanks for linking to the category listing her photos by country—the ones she captured of 1930s Estonia are amazing! ― biggins (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• I have to really disagree with the idea that different language editions should be tailored to the interests of speakers of that language. I often come across that idea with regard to other Wikipedias, but I think that one of the strengths of English Wikipedia is that it at least aspires to be (≠ succeeds at being) a truly global encyclopedia that provides encyclopedic information weighted in proportion to reliable sources (in all languages) without yielding to the cultural, geographic, or linguistic biases of any particular audience. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I concur with Sdlb's eloquent defense of wikipedia in English aspiring to be a global source of knowledge and not just tailored to native English speakers; and so should other language articles be. otherwise, good Signpost article and thank you for the photographic archival research. Al83tito (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Skdb: While I agree with you that the English Wikipedia, given that it is less tied to a particular country, might be less country or language-centric, there are certain areas where a bias is still shown. For example, most articles on newer artistic works from the anglosphere will generally only refer to English-language reviews in their "Reception"-section despite, e.g., video games and movies being released internationally and being reviewed there as well. Pragmatically, I can see that there's an issue with requiring adequate coverage of all international reviews, but it's a noticable example.

Another example is en-wp's coverage of law. Many articles on legal concepts which exist in both common law and civil law systems will be slanted toward their definition within the common law, with most sources being U.S. or U.K. cases or legal scholarship. Ideally, an overview article would take a comparative law perspective, with specific sections or even separate articles for how a concept is used within a particular system.

These are of course just examples, and I'm sure that other areas such as the natural sciences suffer much less from this problem, but they've definitely jumped out at me when reading and editing en-wp. InsaneHacker (💬) 17:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Special report: "Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"? (47,019 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2022-06-26

Discuss this story

Comments

• Last year, there was considerable opposition to the chosen banners that the WMF was using for their campaign. This discussion didn't go anywhere, because the campaign ended and with it the discussion also stopped, but I have wondered if it would be beneficial to require the WMF to get approval from enwiki for a particular banner before running it on enwiki. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Not just last year; it's been like this every year during the big December fundraiser in the US and UK. Remember https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours/ ... Except the WMF is now five times richer. --Andreas JN466 18:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Nice to see that much of the funding will be used to support things like international and national Wikimania conferences (with several years without conferences the accumulated money for the next events should be overflowing). Have been advocating for WikiVegas2023 as the next North American conference (time to bring it back to Western North America, and, well, Vegas sounds just about right - the strip not downtown). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Vegas, in mid-summer, dear god no Nosebagbear (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Nope, October or November, 2023. Leave the Summer to Britannica. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• The WMF is guilty of, at the very least, giving false impressions. They obviously shouldn't do this. It demeans us all. Dutchy45 (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  But it gets them quite a bit of money, so I don't think they care too much if it demeans the volunteers who actually do the work. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, Dutchy45, Intothatdarkness, Betseg, and Bilorv: How about we do some work in October/November putting together a factual summary of Wikimedia finances, along with a critique of the wordings of the fundraising banners and emails (as available), publish it here in the Signpost in the November edition, and then do our best to publicise it – on social media, sending it to journalists, etc. Because I agree with Intothatdarkness that the chances of the WMF seeking community approval for their verbal jiu-jitsu – trying to press just the right buttons of guilt and gratification, fear and flattery in an unsuspecting public – are remote. Andreas JN466 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that the only thing that would possibly make the WMF ever reconsider anything about its finances at this point is the possibility of the outside public becoming more skeptical of it. I fear that with every additional unnecessary dollar the WMF is turning more and more into a standard establishment corporation. It might be worth seeing if Stephen Harrison (Slate) or Omer Benjakon (Haaretz) have any interest. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Something I only saw just now is this WMF tweet: "Wikipedia readers in India, Latin America, and South Africa are an integral part of the global Wikimedia ecosystem. These fundraising campaigns aim to ensure they can continue to access and contribute to Wikipedia for years to come." (my emphasis).

  So the WMF has three or four times as much money as it did five years ago, but needs more money to "ensure" people in India, Latin America and South Africa can "continue to access" Wikipedia. This is not funny any more. Andreas JN466 19:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be totally against complaining or publicizing about how much money the foundation receives or asks for, and with the kind of staff they have working on fundraising they should be having meetings with funding sources which would bring in a few hundred million a year. (Bill Gates, when you read this please consider tossing in half a billion now and then). In fact it would be nice if they had four or five billion dollars in reserve as long as they adhere to their promise to spend 30% over $100million on community projects. Need to send a team of Wikipedians to the Vatican Archives to research the ancient manuscripts for six months?, fine, WMF, do it and pick up every Euro. Sending Wikipedians and Commons volunteers on trips to detail, write articles on, and photograph from multiple angles every statue and painting in South America, of course, fund it. As for yearly established Wikipedia conferences, like the North American Wikimedia Conference (WikiVegas2023) make them blow-out affairs, in-person gatherings of deserving and dedicated Wikipedians, and pick up every cent. Because, ladies and gentlemen of WMF and the endowment, Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, and several others started something, and hundreds of thousands of others then built and continue to build on a minute-by-minute basis, that the world has never seen before - a collaborative educational creation by literal volunteers of such massive proportion that even the Greek Muses couldn't have envisioned it. It occurred as organically as the steam engine ("It steam engines when it's steam engine time"), as unexpected as the leaps and bounds of space exploration from the Wright Flyer to Apollo 11 in 66 years. We should be proud of each WMF staff member for joining this amazing cause, and they should be mutually demonstrably proud of the worldwide community. They have promised the community projects 30% of funds collected over 100 million, and we and they should hold them to it. At this 21+ year mark let's assure that a new era for Wikipedia and its sister projects begins, with fuller cooperation, fuller sharing of continual resources, and maybe fuller respect of each other by everyone involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  And how do you expect to hold them to this promise of spending 30% on volunteers? Considering the WMF seems to be aiming for more control over projects, I don't hold out much hope. Conferences are notorious money pits, and in an era where we're supposed to be globally conscious, is it really responsible to fly lots of people to someplace like Vegas (which is blowing through water at a disastrous rate at a time when the Western US is experiencing record drought)? If they were actually going to sink money into anything aside from raising more money (and hiring more paid staff...they seem to be good at both, and neither seem to benefit the project much), I'd rather see a focus on quality in some way.

  In terms of the fundraising, I have a vague recollection of a major fuss a few years back about the big banners of doom they used to plaster everywhere. I'd be happy to help if and where I can. Intothatdarkness 20:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  A promise is a promise, my word is my bond, no crossed fingers. That's why I'd trust the WMF to keep their word, 31% of any monies over $100million goes to community projects. They pinky swore, good enough for me. And there is nothing wrong with holding Wikimania conferences and everything good about them. Haven't had a live North American conference since 2019 in Boston, so the WMF is coming up on four years of conference funding reserves. Vegas? Of course! It's both fun and the West is due after the last three were held in the East. It would actually save money, as someone has said, because WMF employees in California would have a much shorter distance to travel. Water in Vegas? Anyone who occupies the rooms that attendees would occupy will use the water so no water will be saved by not having a 2023 conference - someone else will just step in and use it, probably much more recklessly. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  So it's ok because someone else would use the water anyhow? And I think there are FAR more volunteers than WMF employees (at least so far), so it being convenient for WMF employees shouldn't really be high on a priorities list. So far what I've seen from the WMF are power grabs, some questionable decisions, and misleading fundraising campaigns. Intothatdarkness 22:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, so let's say 30% of the money (over a certain amount) goes to inaccessible Wikimania conferences and 70% goes to executive salaries—we're getting a good deal from this, are we? And this money is taken from people in the developing world for whom the education we provide (not executives) is priceless, but who can ill afford to donate. And this money for execs is not being given to Jimbo or even the nutter Larry Sanger, but leeches who joined in the last couple of years to siphon off money given generously under false pretenses. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  30% for Wikimania conferences? You're envisioning one hell of a party. Does 70% of total funding go to salaries, insurance, and pensions? I didn't know that (although maybe editors could share in their insurance plan package if it's a good one). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: You mention a WMF "promise to spend 30% over $100 million on community projects". I can't recall such a promise off-hand. Would you have a link to the place it was made? Cheers, Andreas JN466 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Going by the last section of the article above and then other things I've read but didn't memorize where. Maybe someone from the WMF (do they read The Signpost? Who knows.) can enlighten us on their intentions for present and future community involvement in monetary assets, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn: My understanding is that they claim 31% currently goes to supporting volunteers, though I don't know how they got that figure. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. Maybe one or two WMF folks will drop by and explain. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Here are the audited financial statements for 2020/2021: [7]. They show the following data:

  Revenue: $162,886,686

  Expenses: $111,839,819, of which:

  • Salaries and wages: $67,857,676 (this is for US and non-US employees only; it doesn't include the pay of WMF staff who work as contractors)
  • Awards and grants: $9,810,844 (of which $5 million were a grant to the Wikimedia Endowment, see page 14)
  • Internet hosting: $2,384,439
  • In-kind service expenses: $473,709
  • Donation processing expenses: $6,386,483
  • Professional service expenses: $12,084,019
  • Other operating expenses: $10,383,125
  • Travel and conferences: $29,214
  • Depreciations and amortization: $2,430,310

  According to the Annual Report, 31% of spending is for "Direct support to communities", which is defined as follows: Wikimedia projects have global reach. This is enabled by the diverse contributions of volunteers from local communities around the world. We provide grants and other resources to support local contributors, community outreach events, and advocacy for growing free knowledge.

  31% of expenditure is $34,670,344.

  There clearly isn't any such item in the above list of expenses. Just the salaries, the $5 million gift to the Endowment and donation processing together account for $79,244,159.

  That leaves just $32,595,660 for everything else.

  So that means that some of the WMF salaries must be counted as "direct support to communities" – over $2 million, even if you classify all other expenses as "Direct support to communities".

  This is surely not what the average reader of the Annual Report would expect. So an explanation would indeed be very welcome. Andreas JN466 00:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  So – could we do a straw poll? Based on the above figures from the audited financial statements, does this "31% direct support to communities" seem like an accurate summary to you? --Andreas JN466 07:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  No. Unless you get really creative with salaries and some other line items. Intothatdarkness 12:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayen466: That seems to be an excellent idea, parallel with efforts to get us the ability to vet banners before they are run on enwiki. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jayen466: apologies for not responding to the substance of your comment here. Yes, I am absolutely in favour of this plan. We need co-ordinated outward-facing activity prior to the next big fundraising campaign, rather than (as I am most guilty of) internal complaints during and after it. Contact me nearer the time and I can be more concrete about what I can help with. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  In particular, I would like to see a strong pushback (before the banners go up and it is too late) against aggressive fundraising in areas of the world where poverty is widespread. Telling someone in the EU or US that they need to donate or Wikipedia will no longer be free is one thing. Sending that same message to someone in Somalia ($544/year average income) or Madagascar ($504/year average income) is quite another and is something that most people would find to be deeply offensive. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• see also: WP:CANCER. --Betseg (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding "to support the volunteers": could Wikimedia Foundation start a bug bounty program? That would be a great way to encourage folks to find security bugs, and encourage community volunteers to work on much-needed feature requests by giving them bounties. [Edit]: I proposed this on the WMF village pump if folks wish to discuss there. Catleeball (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, this sort of perverse financial incentive is precisely the opposite of what volunteering on Wikipedia should be. People would start construing everything as a "bug" or only work in "bug"-dense areas of the code. In any case, I have never experienced a lack of identification of bugs or even proposed solutions among the community, just too many technical tasks only deployable by the WMF that they refuse to do. — Bilorv (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  There are of course diverse volunteers; I am partly a word editor, more an image curator, and also a wikiphotographer. Money directed to "support" me in these things is not large and I don't see why it need be. There are also volunteers who write our infrastructure such as mobile apps. To my mind, the resulting tools are inadequate, a patchwork of disparate parts that are difficult for us users to understand. Whether they would better be improved by "supporting" the volunteer coders, or by setting up a larger WMF paid development staff to do it in a more organized manner, I don't claim to know, but this certainly strikes me as something that ought to get some kind of resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  In my view, ad hoc bug bounties would make things more patchwork, as people move from their usual areas to trying to do something else less successfully for a temporary reward. I am in favour of WMF investment in coding areas, though I appreciate it is difficult to balance the centralisation needed for good codebases with the volunteer spirit and the value that volunteer coders bring to the project. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know how much the WMF uses to fund meta:The Wikipedia Library, but I like the idea of getting relevant reference books and periodicals into the hands of Wikipedians who need them. I'd like to see that significantly increased, I hope any WMF staff who look at this page take note of that, yes I realise that the budget for this is going to be peanuts compared to the resources that the WMF now has. ϢereSpielChequers 19:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  User:Ocaasi probably knows the answer to that. Andreas JN466 22:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• All things considered, we could be doing worse. See for instance, the Mozilla Foundation, which sprung out of efforts to maintain a discontinued web browser. Their yearly donation income is several times WMF's, but it mainly comes from their core product's main competitor. The donations by the general public are meagre, perhaps as a result of Mozilla Firefox dropping from leading the market to single-digit market share. What has Mozilla been working on recently? There's Firefox OS, Firefox Send (cf. WeTransfer), Firefox Hello (cf. Google Hangouts), etc. In contrast to these, the Rust programming language has turned out to be a runaway success, but last year it gained independence in the form of the Rust Foundation after a series of layoffs at Mozilla. Could the Mozilla Foundation be said to be of service to its core product's users and donators? While there are beginning signs of Matthew 6:3 thinking in WP/WMF, thankfully, we have not spread ourselves this thin (yet). Daß Wölf 21:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
• I've had some experiences outside the Wikipedia movement with not for profits that combine volunteers with paid staff. The only model I think would work for us is "you pay people to do things that the volunteers want to be done, but aren't volunteering to do". I can't see the WMF adopting that as its strategy, but it would solve a lot of problems if it did. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good luck finding a competent employee with the job advert "Clear the backlog of Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2007". There are a lot of systemic issues created by volunteers only doing what they enjoy, but this is the curse we have to live with. I think the WMF could do extraordinary good without trying to cover the tasks that volunteers are able to do. They could pursue more wholeheartedly the threats of legal action against for-profit paid editing companies that abuse our systems. They could replace all this fundraising nonsense that tricks the public into thinking Wikipedia's main limiting factor is money rather than labour; instead, we could have advertisements that we want more volunteers; here is how you can get started... These two issues—a flood of COI malicious agents and a lack of new volunteers—are something they should be spending much more time helping with. — Bilorv (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously you'd recruit by subject rather than time. But given that millions, probably tens of millons of graduates live in parts of the world where $1,000 a month is good money, I don't see a problem with recruitment "Wanted Chemistry grads to write articles on chemistry for a general audience - applicants can live and work anywhere in the world". As for more volunteers, the biggest bottleneck is that the mobile interface is tuned for reading not editing; Fixing the interface would be hard, creating a tablet interface that made Wikipedia as easy to edit on a tablet as quora is, probably not so hard. ϢereSpielChequers 09:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I find the mobile interface completely useless and generally switch to Desktop view whenever I'm on a tablet or mobile. If the Desktop link weren't so hard to find on the page I'm sure more people would. Andreas JN466 14:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  @WereSpielChequers, that would be a massive cultural change and probably prompt a huge exodus. Once there are 'approved paid editors' operating on any given topic, any other subjet matter expert on that topic will quite reasonably feel that they deserve to be paid as well. ‑ Iridescent 03:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. If the volunteers are in charge, and the staff are being paid at levels that most people in the West would look down their noses at, then no I don't see it would prompt an exodus. I'm sure that some volunteers would be quite happy to have their work translated into Hindi or know that their FAs in key subjects would be maintained after they'd retired from the project. ϢereSpielChequers 14:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  That ("pay people to do things that the volunteers want to be done, but aren't volunteering to do") is, at least from a technical point of view, what the Community Wishlist is, no? — TNT (talk • she/her) 22:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• In Google, the users are the product. In Wikipedia, the editors are the product. The cycle will not stop - because Wikipedia knows that the editors will not abandon Wikipedia, no matter what the editors thought about how Wikipedia spent their money. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Definitely feels like WMF has been over the years suffering from ever escalating mission creep, which is why their spending "needs" have risen so much higher than is truly necessary to keep Wikipedia online. Thus the spammy demands for yet more donations. Mathmo ^Talk 09:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• I couldn't finish reading this. Sorry, but somehow the leed got buried. Best wishes anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• It was suggested I comment here, but I haven't really anything to add other than my comments in this long talk thread. The TL;DR summary of my view is that I think Jayen466 is slightly missing the point in this case; the problem isn't so much the WMF's fundraising per se, but that they've developed such a culture of instinctive evasiveness that they're misleading and obfuscating even when there's no need to. (No donor, supporter or sponsor would reasonably take issue with "owing to where our employees are located your donations won't necessarily be spent in a particular region, but it will still be for the benefit of that region"; the WMF are only lying because it's become their default communications mode.) ‑ Iridescent 03:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
• And the big blue beg-a-thon banner has returned. This time they're humbly ("for the 1st time recently") asking you to defend Wikipedia's independence. Sorry...I didn't realize Elon Musk had tried to buy it out. Had I been drinking coffee at the time that atrocity appeared, I think I would have ruined both a keyboard and a monitor. Intothatdarkness 22:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm increasingly of the belief that we need to require the WMF to get consensus for a banner before running it on enwiki. If I'm not alone in this belief, is anyone interested in cooperating to draft a suitable proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: Sure. Would you want to publish it here in the Signpost, or were you thinking of a petition on Meta? Andreas JN466 11:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think meta is the correct location, given this proposal would solely be for enwiki. My initial thoughts were a (WP:CANVASS-compliant) notification here and the actual discussion at either WP:VPR or WP:VPW, but I'm not set on that; I think the first step is to work out exactly what we want to propose, and from there work out how and where we want to present it. BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: Okay. Would you like to start drafting something in your user space?

  Here are some press articles for reference, just in case they're useful – 2015: Washington Post, Süddeutsche Zeitung (Google translation); 2021: Daily Dot. Andreas JN466 15:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Already started drafting something; thank you for those articles, they will be useful. I'll post here when an initial draft is ready. BilledMammal (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: See this proposed statement (#33) for the Election Compass, which cited your post above (click Expand to see the diff link). Andreas JN466 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  That ("defend Wikipedia's independence") has been a standard phrase for at least a couple of years now. :( Andreas JN466 11:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's very misleading; if the ads were honest I wouldn't have an issue, but as it is... BilledMammal (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've somehow managed to miss the Tuesday beg-a-thon banners until yesterday. I can't say I feel diminished in any way because of that. There are a number of issues with the thing in my view, starting of course with the "defending Wikipedia" line. It's also hard to claim to be humble when you're splashing a huge banner across the page, and using the word humble twice is usually an indication you're anything but. Also, it appears you're not an "exceptional reader" unless you give them money. Honestly, they should just go over to the format the public radio station in GTA Vice City used: "If you're reading this without donating, you're stealing." Intothatdarkness 15:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Friday's San Francisco Examiner interview with Maryana Iskander contained the following exchange: Why does Wikipedia have banners on its website asking people to give money? They’re a small invitation for folks who find value in Wikipedia to chip in and ensure that this can remain as it is: An enterprise that doesn’t rely on selling you anything with ads. I’m not incentivizing you to stay longer than you need to stay.

  Now WMF fundraising has never been about things remaining the same – it's always been about growth. I've made that point to both Maryana and Jeff Elder, the SF Examiner journalist, with a copy to Wikimedia-l. Andreas JN466 19:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also don't think I'd call these later banners a "small invitation." It's more along the lines of 'help us or you're a bad person' or something similar. A small invitation would be "if you like what you see, kick in a bit to help us keep it going," not a plea to "defend Wikipedia's independence" highlighted with a little heart-shaped icon shaming you into contributing the 'average donation,' which of course is higher than their 'suggested' $2.75 (the screenshot I took had it at $16.36). Intothatdarkness 21:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  And the banners just keep on coming. Now you have the red-bordered Wednesday beg-a-thon saying it's the second time they've interrupted your reading recently and insisting you help "protect Wikipedia." And if you don't give, you're part of the 98% who don't. This time they only humble themselves once, but it's also a shorter appeal (only seven sentences instead of ten like the original appeal. There's also a stealthy "I already donated" option at the bottom of the red border, but if you click it you end up with another red-bordered banner which generously allows you to suppress donation banners for a whole week! Intothatdarkness 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe Elon Musk will buy Wikipedia. His decision to purchase Twitter because they were suppressing certain political views seems to be going smoothly...

Elon Musk Takes on a Beleaguered Icon

What is a recession? Wikipedia can't decide

Yes, it is possible. Musk would have to create a non-profit to buy it and keep it non-profit[8], and the W?F would have to be willing to take Musk's money - and when has the W?F ever not been willing to compomise their integrity for personal gain? (Example: fibbing to poverty stricken parts of the world to get them to give more.) Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the actual claim that Wikipedia "Wikipedia has changed the definition of ‘recession’ and locked the page from further edits"[9] is unadulerated bullshit. Just look at Talk:Recession#ATTENTION NEW VISITORS TO THIS PAGE and the "The infamous sentence in various revisions" section of Talk:Recession#RfC: Phrasing of the infamous sentence. One can only hope that the various media outlets pushing this will read the actual evidence and issue a correction. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dining out a few early evenings ago my companion mentioned that I'm a Wikipedia editor. Got the frequent "OH, wow, I send a contribution every year." Gave the usual answer, "That's nice but what we Really want is your mind. Go ahead, click EDIT and fix something. If you do it wrong the cleanup crew will take care of it. Yes, me and several thousand others." No time to go into details, of course, nor the question of where the money goes; the main point is "Anyone can edit".Jim.henderson (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

English fundraising emails

The WMF has posted samples of the English fundraising emails to be used in the upcoming email campaign, scheduled to run from September 6 to November 20. The texts are almost identical to the ones critiqued here – asking people to donate to "keep Wikipedia online", "protect Wikipedia" (I've copied the email texts below, for reference). Everything is focused on Wikipedia, as though the Foundation were struggling to keep Wikipedia up and running, and there is nothing specific about the WMF's many other projects and activities, including the Strategic Direction.

Should the volunteer community try to provide donors and the public with more background information? If so, what's the best way to go about it? --Andreas JN466 11:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Email 1

From: jimmy@wikipedia.org donate@wikimedia.org
Subject: You are one of those rare exceptions
Date: August 3, 2022 at 7:58 PM
To: nisrael@wikimedia.org

My name is Jimmy Wales, and I'm the founder of Wikipedia. In the past, you donated to keep Wikipedia online for yourself and millions of people around the world. Each year, fewer than 2% of Wikipedia readers choose to support our work. You have been one of those rare donors, and for this I want to thank you warmly. I'm grateful you agree that we can use the power of the internet for good. We will achieve this not as individuals, but as a collaborative movement of knowledge seekers. Together, we can rebuild trust in the internet, and by extension, in each other.

Will you renew your solidarity with a donation?

This is awkward to admit, but I have to be honest: 98% of our readers don't give; they simply look the other way when we ask for an annual donation. We choose not to charge a subscription fee, but that doesn't mean we don't need support from our readers. We don't send a fundraising email every month. We respectfully ask for just one donation this year so that Wikipedia may continue to move forward and offer knowledge to the world.

If all our past donors gave a small amount today, our fundraiser would be over. Unfortunately, most people will ignore this message. We have no choice but to turn to you: please renew your gift to ensure that Wikipedia remains independent, ad-free, and thriving for years to come.

We're a non-profit. That means we aren't selling the articles that millions of people read on Wikipedia each day. We don't profit from the knowledge you seek. In fact, we firmly believe that knowledge should exist outside of the realm of supply and demand. That's hardly a given nowadays; so much of the world's digital knowledge is driven by profit.

Wikipedia is different in that it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations. It belongs to you, the readers, editors, and donors. You're our community, our family. You're the reason we exist. The fate of Wikipedia rests in your hands and we wouldn't have it any other way.

It's readers like you who safeguard our non-profit mission. You help us maintain our integrity, quality, and accessibility. Today, please consider giving again, or even increasing your gift, to keep Wikipedia free and independent.

Now is the time we ask: can we count on you to renew your solidarity with a small donation? It will keep Wikipedia online, ad-free, and growing for years to come.

https://donate.wikimedia.org

Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Founder of Wikipedia

Renew your donation

Where will your donation go?

42% of your gift will be used to sustain and improve Wikipedia and our other online free knowledge projects.

31% of your gift will be used to support the volunteers who share their knowledge with you for free every day.

27% of your gift will give the Wikimedia Foundation the resources it needs to fulfill its mission and advance the cause of free knowledge in the world.

Email 2

From: jimmy@wikipedia.org donate@wikimedia.org
Subject: It's non-negotiable
Date: August 3, 2022 at 8:01 PM
To: nisrael@wikimedia.org

WIKIPEDIA

You have been a Wikipedia donor in the past and have donated once.
You've unlocked: Bronze Badge / Silver Badge / Gold Badge / Platinum Badge

When you gave in the past, you were one of those rare donors who kept Wikipedia thriving for yourself and millions of other readers.

Ready to earn your next badge? Please match your last gift today.

I took the liberty of emailing you a second time on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization responsible for the protection of Wikipedia), because I wasn’t sure you got a chance to read the first email we sent to nisrael@wikimedia.org, the address we have on file for you since your last gift. I hope this badge will act as a reminder of how crucial your commitment to supporting free knowledge has been and still is to us.

At every turn, we have been pressured to compromise our values, but I'll be honest: This isn’t negotiable for us. People always ask us, why not just run ads to make revenue? Or capture and sell reader data? Or make everyone pay to read? While these things seem like the norm online nowadays, we'd like to remind you that there is another way--a way that doesn’t jeopardize the neutrality of our content and threaten your personal data. We just ... ask! Not often, but it works. After 21 years of saying no, I can still say we are proud to have left that money on the table.

We’re a non-profit. Only 2% of our readers give, but we manage to serve hundreds of millions of people per month. Imagine if everyone gave? We could transform the way knowledge is shared online.

I've been happily stunned by the response from our donors, but we haven't reached our fundraising goal and we don't have a lot of time left. We’re not salespeople. We’re librarians, archivists, and information junkies. We rely on our readers to become our donors, and it’s worked for over 20 years.

This year, please consider making another donation to protect and sustain Wikipedia.

We know people’s circumstances have changed a lot in
the last year. Some find themselves with less to spare, but
a lucky few happen to have a bit more. If you’re one of
the lucky ones, will you give a little extra to keep Wikipedia growing?

Renew your donation

Give 5

Give 20

Give 35

Give another amount

Any gift will unlock your next badge.

Thank you,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

DONATE NOW

Email 3

From: jimmy@wikipedia.org donate@wikimedia.org
Subject: Our final email
Date: August 3, 2022 at 8:01 PM
To: nisrael@wikimedia.org

I know you've heard from me twice already, so I'll get straight to the point. In the past, you were among the extremely rare readers who made a donation to invest in the future of free knowledge. If you've made it far enough to open this email, could you take a minute to help us out?

Many of our readers see our emails and think they'll get round to it later, but life happens and of course they forget. Our annual email fundraiser is coming to an end, so if you've been holding off until “later”, this is your moment.

I'm asking you respectfully: Please, renew your donation; it matters.

Around the time our fundraising campaign starts, I hear from friends, family, and long-lost classmates who see our fundraising messages while they're looking something up on Wikipedia. It's a reminder of how many folks, from all walks of life, rely on Wikipedia.

This incredible public support is crucial for our organization and our movement to thrive. It allows us to serve the world, and to do so with independence and integrity. We don't belong to anyone, because we belong to everyone.

You donated in the past and we sincerely thank you. If you still see value in Wikipedia, please sustain your support in 2022 and keep Wikipedia thriving.

This is our biggest fundraising moment of the year. It's when we launch the online campaign that brings in donors who will propel us throughout 2022 and beyond. I'm one of them. I'm a regular donor.

We are the non-profit that supports one of the world's most visited websites. We don't generate revenue by selling off our users' data to the highest bidder. We don't run ads that could jeopardize the integrity and neutrality of our content.

Though our size requires us to maintain the server space and programming power of a top site, we are sustained by the support of our donors who give an average of about $16. This year, will you take one minute to keep our work going?

5 / 20

25 / Other

Renew your donation

Give less this year

Thank you,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

Discussion

• See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Review_of_English_Wikimedia_fundraising_emails --Andreas JN466 22:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)