Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2021-02

Where do I request interwiki additions

Because I want to add wd: to the global interwiki table for Wikidata. --LightningComplexFire (talk · contribs · CA) (enwiki talk · enwiki contribs) 17:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Is there a reason why you can't use wikidata: (e.g. wikidata:Q1)? --ZabeMath (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@ZabeMath: It would just be nice to add wd: --LightningComplexFire (talk · contribs · CA) (enwiki talk · enwiki contribs) 18:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Talk:Interwiki map --ZabeMath (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ZabeMath (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now (February 2021)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up to access research materials on the Library Card platform:

• Taxmann – Taxation and law database
• PNAS – Official journal of the National Academy of Sciences
• EBSCO – New Arabic and Spanish language databases added

We have a wide array of other collections available, and a significant number now no longer require individual applications to access! Read more in our blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

--12:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

New Project Proposal - Western Region, Ghana

Hello, I am announcing a rapid gran proposal about a Hybrid Art and Feminism events in the Western Region of Ghana. Please have a look at my proposal here We seek to extend Wikimedia events and activities to the Western Region of Ghana and we need your support. Thank you in advance. --Fibs Addison (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Compensations for Officers

Hello,

I read the following form 990 of the Wikimedia Foundation [1] and I wondered about the height of the compensation for the Officers of the Wikimedia Foundation and other employees I found on page 49. From my point of view it is not good if a non-profit organization pays that much for a little number of employees. It is bad for the image also I wondered that I havent read one of the compensations in a news paper article and so I dont know how many people no that it is published. From my point of view there should be a limit for compensation for officers and employees. What for a mechanism is used to evaluate the height of the compensation. --Hogü-456 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

While the WMF does have a number of roles that I just don't feel it needs, it's fairly high on a per person basis because of the developers (and testers, database admins etc etc) who draw significant salaries once they've had a couple of years experience. Assuming no major change in the last year, the WMF does pay near the bottom of the range, being an NGO Nosebagbear (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW Wikimedia Foundation salaries has these numbers in a less obscure format. Tgr (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The kinds of jobs are one reason for the compensation. I dont understand why the compensation for the Officers is so high. I think there should be no person at the Wikimedia Foundation who earns more than 200.000 Dollar in a year. I think this is enough for a Officer in a non profit organization in the size of the Wikimedia Foundation. At a non profit organisation there should be a responsible way of using money and from my point of view this means a limit in the Compensation. It is not in the interest of the public and the donors to pay high amounts of money to a few persons. The search for a new CEO at the Wikimedia Foundation offers the Chance to think about that topic and I think there are people who are able and willing to do the job of the CEO for a lower amount of money as at the moment. --Hogü-456 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If you do some online looking then most CEOs for charities of the scale WMF is now at ($100m/year) generally get compensation far in excess of $300,000/year. I'd much rather have a better CEO than save 0.1% of the annual salary (even cutting everyone to $200k would be only a c. 0.25% saving) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Call for Feedback: Community-and-Affiliate Board Seats

Hello! The WMF starts a Call for Feedback about community-and-affiliated seat selection processes, resulting from the recent approval of bylaws amendments. This call for feedback started on Monday Feb 1 and will run until March 14.

Full details at Call for Feedback:Community Board Seats. Discuss on the Talk page for general comments. Translated pages welcome discussions in multiple languages. If you are a user of Telegram, you can receive updates in the announcement Telegram group or join the discussion in this discussion Telegram group.

We are looking for a broad representation of opinions. We welcome conversations in any language and in any channel. If you want us to organize a conversation or a meeting for your wiki project or your affiliate, please contact us. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

History of the single-username policy

Perhaps some regulars retain memory of the events in 2008–2013.

I am aware that a global account always prevented unrelated homonymous registration anywhere in Wikimedia. But SULs were a minority, probably, as late as in early 2013. And certainly no policy has been in existence against new clashing local accs for years – for example, this registration in December 21, 2012 went through despite existence of the homonymous acc in enWP. But since some moment creation of new conflating accounts, likely, ceased to be possible.

1. Until when registration of homonymous local accounts has been possible?

   Has been sealed off as late as on February 17, 2015 (https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/newusers&offset=20150217152830&limit=14 and wikitech:Deployments/Archive/2015/02#deploycal-item-20150217T1600), such sites as MediaWiki.org applied countermeasures earlier (wikitech:Deployments/Archive/2014/12#deploycal-item-20141205T0000). 12:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

2. When new accounts (provided no name conflict) began to be attached to SULs automatically?
3. How and when old users (who were reluctant to use Special:MergeAccount and had no name conflicts) were forced to SUL?

   P.S. “3.” perhaps is mostly answered in phab:T41817 and phab:T72392.

gu_id = 1 is Tim Starling. quarry:query/51873 11:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And a related question: who is the owner of the first global account?

As a side note, I am also aware of (highly publicized) tilde-making events of March–July 2015 and one has not to remind me about that. Any substantiated suggestion will be welcome. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Much of this is covered in the migration to SUL, there was a migration document produced and it should still be around somewhere. There should also be much information in phabricator. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You may say I was stupid neglecting to check mw:SUL finalisation before posting, but it is mostly focused on old accounts (my question “3.”) and is cryptic, anyway. Of course I could start an own investigation on phab:project/view/39/ first, including butting into several years-old “tasks” and spreading my questions there, mixing it with staunchly technical minutes about patches reverted due to a bug. Just hoped that here somebody helps to collect essential answers in a convenient place. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Found talk:Single_User_Login_finalisation_announcement by chance. There is an extensive archive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Second office hours - Call for Feedback: Community Board seats

Hi all, I want to announce the second office hours for the Call for Feedback: Community Board seats.

The Call for Feedback about Community Board seats selection processes is happening February 1 and March 14. With the help of a team of community facilitators, we are organizing conversations and gathering feedback. It is not too late to join the conversation! Talk to you all soon! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Call for Feedback: Community Board seats - Midpoint update

Hi all, I am writing here to let you know a few things:

1. The third weekly report is now available for the Call for Feedback: Community Board seats.
2. This is the middle of the Call for Feedback, which means we are halfway through! If you have not joined the conversation, please do so. The facilitation team does not want to miss hearing your feedback.
3. For the second half of the Call for Feedback the plan is to promote further discussion around four topics that need disentanglement: regional quotas, candidates' skills, vetting of candidates, and the connection of Board elections with the Global Council and the Regional Hubs.

Do reach out if you have any questions or comments. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage Mobile App

I wrote this same article to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) page but I share my ideas one more time to here. Wikivoyage is one of the best projects of Wikimedia. In last days, I'm so concentrated to develop the new opened Turkish Wikivoyage page. And I think, an official mobile app for Wikivoyage is a good idea. It can be perfect for the travelers around the world. The people mostly use their smart phones during traveling. This project will not make much sense if there is no app of WV. UcuncuUlus (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Strongly second this here, which has been discussed quite a bit on the English Wikivoyage. There is essentially no point to the project without a phone app. It is obligatory. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please no Google Form or Google Meet or whatever proprietary :) ask us how!

Hello :) Talking with User:Civvi (WMF) (for the Code of Conduct survey) and User:JHernandez (WMF) (for the WikiTech Annual Survey) and User:CKoerner (WMF) (for the Community Wishlist) and here and there, we were reasoning that it would be better if everyone would pay more attention to respect digital freedoms and the privacy of other people. Maybe with this rule of thumb: "in private you do what you want, but in public you give your best!" In short, Google Form and Google Meet are not our friends :D I don't want to repeat myself so here my latest thoughts: Talk:Wikimania 2021/Call for participation#Please no Google Form. Having said that. How can someone contribute to stop this trend as soon as possible and as broadly as possible at least for the Wikimedia Foundation staff? Feel free to include me in whatever discussion and I will do my best to find a good freedom-respectful solution! Thank you for your work! <3 --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Valerio Bozzolan (Boz), I just saw your ping here. Since you've posted Greg replied on wm-l with an update on Foundation use of the tools you mention. I encourage you and others reading this to read and engage there if desired. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't do everything yourself AND get work done. When it comes to WMF and google forms, don't look at the forms. Look at it like 'WMF buys a certified data silo with very capable apps, backups and uptime guarantees from Google at a ridiculously low price'. Taking any component out of that will only increase the overall price for WMF. It's economics. In my opinion, the only way to improve this is to make something better than the big companies can make and turn it into an independent non-profit organization from which the WMF can buy the resource. Because it's not just the software; it is the hosting, the integrations and the knowhow. This by definition is hard as the big companies are well funded and have the customer base to support it and anything else likely will not. It can be done of course WMF itself is such an example in another space, but it was 'first' and here you won't be first. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I know my position on this is different than many (and at one time nearly all) of the rest of the movement, but I will just say that I applaud the foundation prioritizing security and functionality over FOSS. I'd feel differently if we were ever talking about moving away from mediawiki to something proprietary but outside our core expertise in FOSS (wiki software), I don't know that our mission (advancing the world's knowledge) needs to be advanced by using FOSS. Of course where the evaluation of security/functionality is close between FOSS and propiratary sofware, let's use FOSS but it should, in my opinion, be a secondary rather than primary consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think Microsoft Teams is more user friendly, for what it’s worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheDJ and TonyBallioni: I understand that I'm a minority spending lot of time trying to free myself, incidentally creating a Free encyclopedia :^) I don't want to bother anyone with my contributions. @CKoerner (WMF): Thank you. I was very happy to be able to free the Wikimania 2021/Call for volunteers in the last hours. Please, if you see another Google Form, feel free to count on all my support! You are all welcome in this project: Wikimedia Italia/LimeSurvey. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I find Teams and Google Meet both very crash-heavy for those without good internet. Zoom is significantly more tolerant Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Today I received another Google Form from Wikimedia Foundation about the UCoC :( How can I contribute in stopping this trend? Feel free to try this powerful and libre solution: WMI-LimeSurvey. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they keep using this for privacy concsious people unusable junk despite knowing they exclude lots of people with this, but obviously they don't care about privacy. Google must not be used, otherwise the report has far less value because it excludes large swaths of the community. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) Hold the election 09:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Proprietary is not "bad" and free is not "good". It depends on the specifics of the product, its vendor, the license and the legal position. It is entirely possible for proprietary software to have high security standards and not allow the exploitation of the data by the owner of the product. E.g., on the wm-l thread "...our Enterprise agreement with Google prevents Google from accessing the data for their own uses and requires them to inform the Foundation of any requests for data that they receive prior to disclosure". This is a better outcome than a free product that is less secure and may result in data loss. It's a very simplistic argument to focus just on the licensing of a product and not on the full range of issues. I challenge the assertion that "large swaths" of the community won't use a Google product, but even if it is true, using a product that is non-intuitive (for example) will exclude a similarly large "swath" of the community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Well. Tomorrow we can also add Google Analytics and other proprietary trackers into all Wikipedia editions, just to see if people is happy to have "this very secure piece of code" executed on their computer. But I really suggest to do not try to promote this POV in this movement. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, no one is proposing that. dwf² ✉ 12:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Google is Google Analytics, they use everything to gain private data to make profit, they are absolutely not trustworthy for anything, they are plain evil. Using Google (or any other of these big data privacy raping behemoths) for anything in a free software context is a strict no-go. And it's a huge difference to use proprietary software on your own servers, without the proprietor having access to it, and doing anything on a server at Google, as there is no such thing as privacy with Google, they don't know the concept of privacy, they live from destroying privacy. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) Hold the election 17:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
Hello! Today I received another Google Form from User:Mervat (WMF) :( I know this is not your intention but I feel quite outcast. Is there any way we can help WMF for the adoption of Free surveys, not related to Google? e.g. I can help with LimeSurvey right now. Thank you so much! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And please no Google reCAPTCHA tool on Wikimedia websites

Agree with the concerns @Valerio Bozzolan: is expressing - Not so much because money can be made with our data, but because of the possibilities of profiling. In that frame we should not forget that everywhere on Wikimedia-Projects the Google tool reCAPTCHA is being offered by the Wikimedia Foundation. ([2]) This way the WMF offers Google the possibility to collect data about the topics users work on. Wikimedia Foundation should replace the reCAPTCHA tool for Foundation owned software. Being aware that Google is a main sponsor and being grateful for that. Google should not however earn the spandengs back this way. Unless that is an Agreement between WMF + Goog. But htan maybe users should be informed. Can you, @Civvi (WMF): @JHernandez (WMF): @CKoerner (WMF): please share this concern with people able to work this out? Thanks, IoviBovi (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What? Where did you see ReCAPTCHA on Wikimedia wikis? I only see the usual FancyCaptcha (which is worse than useless, but that's another story).

Did you mean it's used in some websites of the Wikimedia Foundation, other than the Wikimedia wikis? That's indeed one problem of using services which do not care about software freedom and privacy. Nemo 20:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)