Jump to content

Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2016-12

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

"Mother page" (www.wikipedia.org) content

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not sure where to ask, sorry if a wrong place. And it is not some immediate issue, more just curious.

Who is in charge of the Wikipedia "mother page" (www.wikipedia.org) layout and content? Any particular person(s) or the Foundation anonymously? Also what are criteria and source of the displayed Top-10 Wikipedia projects? I do remember a guy (a steward?) once explained it at Jimbo talk page, but I cannot recall now any key words to find it. --NeoLexx (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

See Project portals. --MF-W 15:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Abusive User:Ibrahim.ID from the Arabic Wikipedia apparently active on this forum

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A user called User:Ibrahim.ID made a comment on this page on 5 November. This appears to be the same abusive admin from the Arabic Wikipedia who wrote the things I translated here and here, and who ignored repeated requests to comment.

If this is the same user, then it appears that he can read and write in English, and he has an account here. How come that he does not explain the nasty things he wrote?--HD86 (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

He was active again on 28 November. He is frequently active on this site and there is probably no practical reason for why he refuses to respond. The only explanation is what he himself told me in the translated messages: he thinks he is too good to talk to someone like me.

It is a shame on Wikimedia to allow a person who said such things to be part of your community. You should at least comment on his behavior and say that it is unacceptable. If you do not do anything, he will keep doing what he does and he will abuse other users.--HD86 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

New way to edit wikitext

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Summary: There's a new opt-in Beta Feature of a wikitext mode for the visual editor. Please go try it out.


We in the Wikimedia Foundation's Editing department are responsible for making editing better for all our editors, new and experienced alike. We've been slowly improving the visual editor based on feedback, user tests, and feature requests. However, that doesn't work for all our user needs: whether you need to edit a wikitext talk page, create a template, or fix some broken reference syntax, sometimes you need to use wikitext, and many experienced editors prefer it.

Consequently, we've planned a "wikitext mode" for the visual editor for a long time. It provides as much of the visual editor's features as possible, for those times that you need or want wikitext. It has the same user interface as the visual editor, including the same toolbar across the top with the same buttons. It provides access to the citoid service for formatting citations, integrated search options for inserting images, and the ability to add new templates in a simple dialog. Like in the visual editor, if you paste in formatted text copied from another page, then formatting (such as bolding) will automatically be converted into wikitext.

All wikis now have access to this mode as a Beta Feature. When enabled, it replaces your existing wikitext editor everywhere. If you don't like it, you can reverse this at any time by turning off the Beta Feature in your preferences. We don't want to surprise anyone, so it's strictly an opt-in-only Beta Feature. It won't switch on automatically for anyone, even if you have previously checked the box to "Automatically enable most beta features".

The new wikitext edit mode is based on the visual editor, so it requires JavaScript (as does the current wikitext editor). It doesn't work with gadgets that have only been designed for the older one (and vice versa), so some users will miss gadgets they find important. We're happy to work with gadget authors to help them update their code to work with both editors. We're not planning to get rid of the current main wikitext editor on desktop in the foreseeable future. We're also not going to remove the existing ability to edit plain wikitext without JavaScript. Finally, though it should go without saying, if you prefer to continue using the current wikitext editor, then you may so do.

This is an early version, and we'd love to know what you think so we can make it better. Please leave feedback about the new mode on the feedback page. You may write comments in any language. Thank you.

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The top panel in the Chechen Wikipedia

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

In anonymous and some participants disappear top panel. Please tell me how to return?. the problem is browser mozile. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Error fixed in MediaWiki:Gadget-collapserefs.js. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Global autopatrolled

Latest comment: 8 years ago66 comments25 people in discussion

I am not sure about global patrollers. But I am sure that a global autopatrolled status is needed for administrators and filemovers of the Wikimedia Commons since they correct file names in many wikis, and also for other trusted users who edit in many wikis. Gamliel Fishkin 05:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: it is possible to define, who are eligible for such a status: if an ineligible person would ask for a status, the application would be closed automatically. And is it a hard work for 30+ stewards to give a status to 300+ users? Gamliel Fishkin 12:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: The number of active filemovers and admins at Commons is likely under 100. I would suggest this right be given on request from Commons admins and filemovers who can show a significant amount of activity. You'd might end up with 100 passable requests for the right, but those 100 editors account for thousands of cross-wiki moves and replacements. Also, how do local communities give somebody a right who can't request it in their language? I've nostly been surprised by an email saying my rights on another wiki have been changed. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose some wiki's don't even want separate autopatroll groups. We should not force this change upon local communities. Plus trusted Commons users often are problematic for other wiki's. (Global replace wars, renames in closed archives, removing files from the user namespace because they fancy the svg, you name it.) Natuur12 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Natuur12: But they're fine with Global Sysop which includes the block and deletion functions, or Global Rollback? What? Global Autopatrol seems like less of a risk than the other two. As I suggest above, people should have to apply for this right here just as they do for GRollback and GSysop. As regards problems at other wikis, you and I don't have any, and neither do most of our highly active filemovers and admins at Commons. These concerns, if present, would very likely be brought up and addressed at an editor's request for the right here. Obviously any abuse of the right would warrant removal of it. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    Global sysop follows a WikiSet. --Vogone (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support as per INC. Yann (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If this is an idea for commons admins, I would suggest to make it part of the Global file deletion review which still lacks technical implementation, instead of creating an entirely new user group. --Vogone (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    That's not true, it's fully implemented on a technical level. See phab:T16801#191940. Legoktm (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    It lacks community implementation, i.e. when the RfC was closed and taken to stewards we disagreed that there was consensus to create the group. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    This is interesting. Is there any public record of this decision? The RFC at least speaks of a consensus for implementation. --Vogone (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2015-04. Note that it was essentially vetoed by myself and Billinghurst, with no other stewards offering their opinion. That wasn't my intention at the time, however, and it might be worth revisiting this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    How did we get global sysop and rollback, but no autopatrol? Global sysop is 2nd only to steward... lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    @INeverCry: To be fair, bureaucrats are above sysops but below stewards. (And oversight/suppressor and checkuser have very specific privileges...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Koavf: But there's no global crat group. Having been a checkuser myself for a couple years, I can tell you there were many many times when I wished I was a global checkuser because another wiki had a fresh sock I wanted to look at, or because I would've loved to run check on a certain range to see who was on it on Commons after it was found to be dirty on en.wiki, etc. In the end, though, have you ever seen a crat actually do anything? lNeverCry 02:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    @INeverCry: That makes sense--in terms of global status. I wasn't thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Sounds like collecting of privileges. Unclear what problem is solved by this. The Banner (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    In this case, if a Commons admin moves a file and tries replacing its global usage through his or her account, there are many wikis where the edit will be flagged by pending changes as needing to be reviewed (major wikis like de.wiki and ru,wiki for example). This review is unneeded. The file is moved already, so all the reviewer is doing on the local wiki is wasting his or her time confirming something that's already been done. They can't even revert it locally since the original will be a redirect. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been autopatrolled at 17 different wikis. I would think the reason for those autopatrols was mostly people on those wikis were sick of having to review pending changes that were simple filemoves or dupe processes. It seems strange to me that other wikis are willing to have people with global sysop privileges, but autopatrol would be going too far. BTW, I've actually had people on other wikis revert my edits when I replaced a file through a file move. Then they had to go through the hassle of figuring it out by seeing a redlinked file name, and going back to my good edit. This right would allow other communities to see that the person doing the move is trusted with a global right. I would certainly agree that granting of this right should be done as carefully as global rollback. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Even more, I seen a case, one of the Commons' filemovers was indefinitely blocked at one of the wikis: a sysop thought it is an unauthorised bot (the block was cancelled after my intervention). Gamliel Fishkin 04:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Centralizing rights like this weakens the local projects, in fact it's interesting that local projects don't get to run their own votes on fundamental changes to their own project rights or a chance to opt-out of changes. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support It makes sense to me for cases like those mentioned by Gamliel. Files move in Wikimedia Commons are just innecessary extra work for wikis with a revision system in place --Poco a poco (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Global rollbackers's edits automatically marked as patrolled, and it is central permission and no conflicts before, so the idea is not new nor impossible, I thinks this permission will make some users like filemovers's work easier --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    Strange comparison, global rollback follows a pretty high standard (only very few applications are successful). The proposed user right however would probably be given out to many more users. Whether that is a bad thing is a different question, but the comparison with global rollback seems inappropriate to me. Plus, I don't see how autopatrolled makes filemover's life easier, it's a very passive user right. If anyone "profits", then it's likely the group of local administrators/patrollers; and whether they want this external review is probably different per wiki. --Vogone (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Vogone: global autopatrol would be a less strong right then global rollback. Yes, such a right can be dangerous if given to a vandal; but stewards are not bots to make something without thinking. This right would make filemover's life easier at least in the sence that their risk of being blocked in some wiki would be less high (I seen such an error block). Gamliel Fishkin 02:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    I don't understand. Why would an error block be less likely in case of patrolled edits? Because admins don't check edits without red exclamation marks? --Vogone (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Sysop of one of the wikis seen edits by one of the Commons' filemovers and thought there is an unauthorised bot (that filemover is a human being and so has not local and global bot statuses). The sysop written to the filemover in a language he does not understand; there was no reply, and the sysop blocked locally the filemover for 15 minutes. 16 minutes after the end of the first block, the sysop blocked the filemover for one day. Six days after the end of the second block, the sysop blocked the filemover indefinitely. More then three years after these events, I written to the sysop with a link to global replace, and he unblocked the filemover with description "File renaming/Global replace". I think the problem would not occur, if the sysop would see at the filemover some global status like global autopatrolled (most edits of that filemover on that wiki have edit summaries starting with "(GR) File renamed"; so, these links in edit summaries are not enough). Gamliel Fishkin 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    This is perhaps an argument for assigning random dummy flags to trusted accounts (although a weak one, since global group membership is barely visible to users who don't know where to look), but certainly not an argument for global autopatrolled. --Vogone (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    Most technical flags grant an access to some functions. But flags like autoeditor, autopatrolled, autoreview, etc. do not grant an access to any function; they just mean that a person is trusted. I think most sysops know about tools like Navigation popups and CentralAuth. Gamliel Fishkin 01:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    No, this does not reflect reality at all. And no, I have seen many admins who have never even heard of CentralAuth before and I for instance have never heard of "Navigation popups" either. --Vogone (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    "Navigation popups" is a tool, whish displays some contents of a wiki page when a cursor is over a wiki link to that page; when it is an user page, also statuses and some other user info is displayed. You can enable it at your preferences (Browsing gadgets). Gamliel Fishkin 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose, I do not think is is a good idea to give a user autopatrolled rights on the project X if the user does not speak the language X. These edits are not so many and are better checked manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Ymblanter: renames at Commons "are not so many": few thousands per week. It would be a hard task for local patrollers to explore all such edits; it is the cause, why many of the Commons' administrators and filemovers have big collections of local autopatrol statuses. If some person do not make, on some local wiki, edits which require to understand a language, but modifies file links often, and that person is trusted by few other wikis, what is the cause not to trust that person in that wiki? Local administrators explore such trusted persons and give to them an autopatrol status; would not it better if a steward would make this work one time instead of local wikis' administrators to make it many times? Gamliel Fishkin 02:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this proposal doesn't even solve what the proponents want. The only effect of autopatrol is that no red exclamation mark will appear next to a user's edit on Special:RecentChanges, if this annoying setting is at all turned on (see mw:Manual:Patrolling), which on WMF wikis it is by default for new page creations. Flagged revisions rights are completely unrelated. --MF-W 01:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    @MF-Warburg: I speak not about these red exclamation marks, but just about a right, given locally by statuses like autoeditor, autopatrolled, autoreview, etc. Gamliel Fishkin 02:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Please read his message again, he said: The only effect of autopatrol is that no red exclamation mark will appear next to a user's edit on Special:RecentChanges, in other words: users have their own edits automatically marked as patrolled. If that is not the point in granting this right to filemovers & commonswiki admin, what is it? Matiia (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I read her message again because you asked me for it; I found in the message nothing I not replied yet. I already replied, that I speak not about these useless red exclamation marks, but about that patrolling who is named in other words as flagged revisions. Gamliel Fishkin 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Please read mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs#User rights. Here you are proposing to create a global user group with autopatrol right, not autoreview. Matiia (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the link, I think that system is somewhat redundant. I speak about the right which is named there autoreview. Gamliel Fishkin 01:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - on the basis of essentially no change with or without the rights. As people have said above, removing the red ! beside an edit isn't going to make much difference, and could infringe on how local communities want to handle content evaluation. That said, I'm not at all opposed to making the lives of commons users easier because I understand how cross-wiki in nature their activities are. I would be glad to support another attempt at the global file deletion review group along those lines. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Such a global status would make the work of Commons' sysops and filemovers easier just a bit, but it would make work of sysops and especially patrollers of other wikis much easier. If some Commons' sysops and filemovers rename mostly unused or poorly used files, they do not need such a status. But many of them rename files, many of which are widely used. If a renamed file is used in hundreds of wikis, local patrollers at those hundreds of wikis have to explore just the same edit to flag it as good; one work is made hundreds of times. The local patrollers do not need to make it, it the person has a local autoeditor/autopatrol/autoreview status. I am a sysop of Wikipedia in Esperanto; when I see a person, who just correct file links, makes nothing bad and is already trusted by some wikis, I ask him/her for an agree and grant an autoreview status (for now, fifteen persons, in this number five Commons' sysops and five Commons' filemovers). Why this work have to be repeated many times by local sysops, when it can be done one time be a steward? Gamliel Fishkin 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I did in fact read the proposal. But I disagree with your conclusion that removing the ! would make things any easier. Not all wikis even use that system of patrolling, and even among those that do, I imagine that people will still review edits that they find suspicious, regardless of whether they have been marked as patrolled. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    There in the world do exist some human beings who believe to nobody. But it does not mean that the entire system of patrolling/reviewing is useless. Gamliel Fishkin 01:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    At no point did I suggest that it was. I think that there is no useful benefit to be gained from a global autopatrolled group, and a little bit to lose. That makes it a net negative to me, and thus I oppose. What you should be thinking of is why all of the stewards/global sysops here have opposed this proposal. We are the ones with arguably the most cross-wiki experience, and best understanding of the situation. We are all aware of the cross-wiki nature of Commons, even if we aren't active on it. You've taken the time to argue every single one of the opposes here, but why would we all be incompetent with our opinions? Instead, I think it might be wise for you to step back, read what we've wrote, and maybe work with us to re-formulate a proposal or accept that it won't do what you want it to do. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    I suppose the main negative side of my proposal is an additional load on stewards; it can be one of the causes why the stewards oppose. I have a diffident idea how to minimize that possible additional load; firstly, eligible for the proposed status would be only persons who match two conditions: to be at least a filemover at Commons or a sysop at Wikidata or some mature local wiki (I think about wikis with al least ten sysops, in this number at least two bureaucrats) and to be at least autoeditor/autopatrol(led)/autoreview(ed) at not less than two other wikis (Meta, Commons, Wikidata, mature local wikis); secondly, applications for a proposed status would be sent not directly to a steward but to a bureaucrat at a wiki where the candidate is a sysop, and only positive decisions of a bureaucrat would be transferred to a steward for a final decision, positive or negative. I have read all I replied just before to reply, you can be sure. Gamliel Fishkin 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    The increase in steward workload isn't too big of a deal, at least not to me. I'm concerned that the proposal a) won't do what you want it to do, in that the edits of commons users will (rightly) still be reviewed on these projects, and b) will infringe on how local wikis want to run their systems of content patrolling. This doesn't give them any say, and will have implications beyond just edits to where files are. How wikis grant their passive approval rights is up to them for the most part. The only exceptions to this are groups which are either restricted technically, such as global sysop, and/or go through extensive review processes, such as steward and relatively global rollback. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
    As far as I understand, global bot status is valid only in the wikis who allow it, and in some wikis a global bot still needs a local bot status. Even if it is not, such an idea seems to me a solution: global autopatrolled status would be enabled only in wikis who allow it. Gamliel Fishkin 05:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Because otherwise, how do you think users that have Internet censorship issues (e.g. Mainland China) could have time to login, edit, patroll, review... and others everyday or every week? The opposers in this section seems don't care about it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose the original request, global autopatrolled. If this is about global autoreviewed (or autochecked), it's a different thing. --Stryn (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    Oh, there is a spaghetti mix between different statuses in different wikis. There in Wikipedia in Russian exists a status with technical name "autoeditor" and Russian name "автопатрулируемый" (verbatim translation: autopatrolled). The same status in Wikipedia in Esperanto has a technical name "autoreview", its name in Esperanto was previously "aŭtomata kontrolanto" (automatic checker) and now is "mempatrolato" (selfpatrolled). If you think about renaming of the proposed status from global autopatrolled to global autoreview(ed), I do not oppose. Gamliel Fishkin 01:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess there is no consensus to implement this. The last comment was more than a week ago. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose the patrolling system is very different fro wiki to wiki. Version-base, edit-base, automatically assigned or assigned after a human revision. The only way to implement something in this global direction is probably if the number of option of patrolling architecture are restricted to a limited scenario, and based on what they have in common a mechanism in some cases can be proposed. BTW it could also be peculiar to give an autopatrolled status to a blocked user for example, another likely scenario. I am not against the global idea on the long term, I just think we have to make our homework carefully. Also, small wiki have to be integrated in the global workflow in a "proactive" way, if this standardization process becomes too vertical or fast it can be counterproductive. I don't think it is the moment yet. Let's discuss again after a few years and I'm sure we can find some elegant and balanced shortcuts soon or later. The managing of Global file deletion review for example is a good starting point.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose This is problematic, first, this is content related, but said content may not be approved by local communities or local rules, if you want to bypass the local procedures/local filtering/local watchmen,etc , ask them, not bypassing it by using global rights. Even if it's not content related like maintenance related stuff like what SWMT did, they can't escape local communities eyes. For example, until this day, we are not allowed to help with to do an edit mr.wikipedia, because we have to speak local languages to do so, the only allowed to do so are bots, or user on designated place such villagepump.--AldNonymousBicara? 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. As a Commons filemover I am probably likely to request such a flag eventually if it were to exist, as it would be a common thing to do, and on contrary not requesting it while being active could lead to some judgement of possibly willing creating more work for local patrolling (I think). With that in mind, I know that I am prone to eventually do some random wikignome edits in random wiki just out of whim. Now if I am given a local autopatrolled flag there because of filemove activity and then I do something unrelated which will be deemed not appropriate, patrolling requirements wise, there I will just loose the flag in the worst case or be given a warning and stop in a better one. You never actually know what is in those rules in a language you are lang-0 in, so it is not like I am speaking about some harmful stuff, which I definitely not going to do anywhere, but it might be whatever minor detail local community decided to carve in stoneset in rules. In case of global flag though, the community will very likely just be left angry with "global" guys in general and that's not what I would like to see. And another case is that sometimes I might be doing some edit I am not sure about myself. For example, I may be adding an image caption without actual knowledge of the language besides some very initial. In case of wikis where I am a patroller, in case of such edits (well, but of different kind in what they are about sense) I just unpatroll my own autopatrolled revision so that someone else takes a look. In case of the global auto right, I will just have a sip of frustration probably. But perhaps I am overthinking thus just weak of an oppose. --Base (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

help

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I am from tamil wikipedia.i've got 8th place in Monuments_of_Spain_Challenge, and i didn't recieve the prize which is wikipedia t shirt yet plase help me in recieving it.--Shriheeran (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why are you asking now - it was two years ago? Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Shriheeran,
There are two possibilities:
1. the contest was organized by Wikimedia Espana, perhaps the organizers can help you (@Elisardojm and B25es: would you still have any t-shirt in stock?)
2. if they can't help you (two years after, perhaps they don't have gifts remaining), we can ask the Wikimedia Foundation to send you a t-shirt as a thank you gift
--Dereckson (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I only helped with the translations of the wiki page. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

So how can I get the t shirt now ---Shriheeran (talk)

@Shriheeran:. We (people in Wikimedia España WMES) tried to get the t-shirts that were to be provided by WMF. My companions tried once and again and there was always one problem or another. We never got the t-shirts.
Last Saturday I learnt of your post and commented with more members of WMES (we are quite ashamed with all this). Presently I'm no longer in WMES' council and I thought that recovering the t-shirts had been left as impossible; to my surprise, we are still trying to get them! With no success. Some people have even tried to buy them straight away and they couldn't!
Many people in Wikimedia love learning trends: I've got my own one from all that t-shirt stuff. I no longer offer any prizes I cannot touch with my hands and are under my direct control. Prizes are not all that flashy but they can be delivered and people hasve sent us selfies with them. Great!
I wish I could give you better news. Deeply sorry, B25es (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Ombudsman Commission - selection for 2017 committee

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all, It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to serve on the Ombudsman commission. This commission works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, and to mediate between the complaining party and the individual whose work is being investigated. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Executive Director or the Board of Trustees in investigations of these issues. For more on their duties and roles, see the Ombudsman commission's main page.

This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for appointment to this commission. Commissioners should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tool OR who have the technical ability to understand the CheckUser/Oversight tool and the willingness to learn it. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict. (In the past, commissioners have retired from other roles that could cause conflict.)

Commissioners must be willing to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation and to comply with the appropriate board policies (such as the access to non-public data policy and the privacy policy. This is a position that requires a high degree of discretion and trust.

If you are interested in serving on this commission, please drop Karen Brown in the Support & Safety team (kbrown(_AT_)wikimedia.org) a note detailing your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the commission and what you hope to bring to the role. The commission is deliberately quite small, so slots are limited, but all applications are appreciated. The deadline for applications is January 2. Any timezone. :) Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be interested. Thank you! Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@PEarley (WMF): I suppose this section is misplaced here and belongs to Talk:Ombudsman commission (per "A call for volunteers is issued each year in early December on the Wikimedia-L mailing list and on the talk page of this policy."). Regards, --Vogone (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Vogone, thank you for reminding me to post on the talk page, I have posted there now. We wanted to reach a few more people to get more applications, as we had a limited number last year (although they were very good candidates!). We will update the infomrmation on the main OC page to reflect that posting to those two locations is the minumum, and wider outreach may be necessary. Best Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Politization of the use of terms in Wikipediara.-

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reviewing the article that exists about various Navarrese institutions (Gaiarre antzokia, Iruñeko Udala, Nafarroako Unibersitatea, Iruñeko Pablo Sarasate Musika Kontserbatorio Profesionala ...) I have detected an error, since all are located geographically (Herrialdea) in "Euskal Herria", when Should be "Nafarroa". On the contrary, in other institutions like the Nafarroako Unibertsitate Publikoa, the Nafarroako Comptos Ganbera, does not appear Euskal Herria. Eskerrik asko denegatik.--Hard (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiWrite

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
WikiTalk

I created the proposal of some sort of a social network. Feel free to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Now it's changed to WikiWrite. --George Ho (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki homepage for formal education courses

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Alright, so I am new to Wikimedia in general, and I'm not sure if I am posting this in the correct place, but here it is anyway:

I would love to see wikimedia used more frequently in the formal education environment. I notice that when students communicate with each other and share resources, everybody learns more easily.

Can a wiki be effectively used as "homepage" for an ongoing class?

  • Random class is in session at a random university/college/etc.
  • Somebody makes a wiki page and invites all students in the class.
  • Syllabus and related info for that class get posted there
  • Students can post relevant info or discussions
  • Other students can easily view page and find resources (especially helpful when they are lost or confused)
  • After class is over, the information can be merged into wikipedia

I think it's nice when a course has a website, and a place for students to have discussions. I've taken a look at wikiversity and it appears to be similar to what I am imagining.

Anybody have thoughts on this? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Popcrate (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Popcrate Wiki software is available for anyone to install on their own server. The software is en:Mediawiki and is free. Various services like en:Wikia offer online hosting of wiki software for people who want an automated install.
Wikimedia projects will host some class materials, but only for classes which are collaborating to participate in Wikimedia projects and only the parts of those classes which relate to that collaboration. For more information about that consider reading File:Wikipedia Education Program Case Studies.pdf or visiting https://wikiedu.org/. Questions? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response =) Yeah I've been testing the mediawiki software a bit, I was also testing bitnami's mediawiki stack to host with cloud service, I'm wondering if there might be any similar alternatives (I want to avoid wikia if possible). My goal is to run a bit of an experiment during a college course: It starts as a separate wiki just for that class, and then at the end of the course: Merge well-written content into real wikipedia articles (or other mediawiki projects). It's a slightly different approach then what I was reading at wikiedu.org, but It's an experiment I'm really interested to try. Popcrate (nice span style, blue raspberry) --Popcrate (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Popcrate The approach described at wikiedu.org is designed to be minimal. There have been about 2000 iterations of that since 2011. A typical goal is getting each student in a class to contribute 5-8 sentences of content to Wikipedia in 10 hours. This minimally viable outcome happens sometimes when everyone prepares enough and focuses on the goal.
If you have plans to do something more complicated than the least complicated plan, then you can be successful. Some others have done more involved class experiments, as one-offs that suited their own case. There is no documentation or precedent to guide anyone beyond the minimal model. If you are seeking guidance, then consider the minimal model, and be conscious of the time investment that requires and how your plans go beyond the simplest case.
Lots of web hosts provide tools to automatically install Mediawiki. I would not recommend anyone in particular, except to say that I would expect this service from most of the biggest hosting providers. Without making any service recommendation, here is a typical service offering from a big company which I present as an example. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
With 1 post you have given me more helpful information than I got from 3 different people at the Teahouse. Thank you Blue Raspberry!! --Popcrate (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2016-12&oldid=24910097"