Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (WMF) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (WMF). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 7

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 4. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

  • Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia. It is the first Wikimedia project that will be able to call and integrate functions directly into Wikipedia articles. Read more weekly updates on Wikifunctions.
  • Edge Uniques: Introducing Edge Uniques, a technical approach which consists of privacy-preserving first-party cookies that will enable usability testing of features through A/B testing, more accurate counting of site visits, and a way to stop distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) with better precision.
  • Tech News: The Design System Team is preparing to release the next major version of Codex (v2.0.0) on April 29; Last week, the default thumbnail size was increased from 220px to 250px. This changes how pages are shown in all wikis and has been requested by some communities for many years, but wasn’t previously possible due to technical limitations. More updates from Tech News week 15 and 16.
  • Outreachy: Celebrating the excellent contributions from both interns and mentors in Round 29 of the Outreachy internship program.
  • Developer Satisfaction Survey: The results of the Developer Satisfaction Survey (2025) are available. Thank you to all participants. These results help the Foundation decide what to work on next and to review what they recently worked on.


Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki · WikiLearn


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

BHL

Is the WMF able to do anything to help with this? Cremastra talk 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

US government questionnaire

The organisation I work for has been sent this questionnaire by the US government. It has 36 questions that produce a score between 12 and 180. I would like to know what WMF's score is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

combatting Christian prosecution I would normally think this was a typo. But given the circumstances... GMGtalk 13:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I keep thinking that they can't be that bad, but then they come out with something that shows that they are. I'm just glad that I don't live in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Me neither, but I still have to deal with the questionnaire. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I have to wonder what the actual US government would score on that thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
The WMF doesn't need to do it though. And I'm not sure why you are posting here instead of contacting the WMF directly. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Universities in Europe are generally advising not to fill in or respond to the survey. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
The advice from the Australian government is: "it is better for researchers to respond to the questions rather than refuse to respond". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
We have to encourage free speech and encourage open debate and free sharing of information but also be sure to not work with any party that espouses anti-American beliefs, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 04:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
All right, I filled it out. Somewhat surprisingly, Wikipedia scores a respectable 90/180 (a lot more than you would expect given the fact the organization has a suspicious absence of minerals):
1: Yes, I would hope so. (5)
2. Yes, collaborating with any such organization (or any organization with a political viewpoint at all) would violate WP:COI (5)
3: No, most Wiki-meetups are informal gatherings of editors so vetting them for being terrorists would be a waste of time as well as pointless. (0)
4: WTF. No. Clear WP:NPOV vio. (0)
5: Yes, per WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:FREECONTENT. Speech is constrained by the practical constraints of an encyclopedia but that’s about it. (5)
6: Yes? We don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)
7: No, per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have abortion information on our website. (0)
8: Yes. Wikipedia is a well-funded organization with more than enough money to cover its operating cost. (5)
9: Yes. Let’s be honest, there is a fair amount of complaining on the site of Wikipedia’s high overhead costs, but the overhead costs of Wikipedia are dwarfed by the impact of the site. (5)
10: No. Why would we? We’re an encyclopedia? (0)
11: Yes? Again, we don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)
12: No. As an international organization with global governance structures, we collectively politely tell you to go soak your head over this one. (0)
13: Yes. Local branches of Wikipedia have, at points, received money from Russia, and worked with groups such as Wikipedians in Mainland China. That being said, Wikipedia no longer receives funding from those organizations and has never partnered with them per WP:COI. (5)
14: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)
15: No. We have programs that seek to include and improve coverage of topics not currently covered by Wikipeda. That’s a good thing. (0)
16: Yes. Endorsing any policy positions officially would be WP:NPOV. We let the facts speak for themselves. (5)
17: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)
18: No. Even though sometimes it sure feels like it. (0)
19: No per WP:NOTCENSORED. Although, let’s be honest, the fact that Wikipedia fails this is more because “Gender Ideology” is really just talking about trans people. (0)
20: No per WP:NOTCENSORED (0)
21: Yes. Wikimedia Enterprise is the business arm of the foundation. (5)
22: Yes. Millions of people across the US use Wikipedia every day. Not to mention search engines rely on it. (5)
23: Yes. We’ve already done so. (5)
24: Yes. If the free flow of and access to information is a national security need, you could hardly find a better organization to fulfill this need. (5)
25: Providing access uncensored information to authoritarian regimes who are (for now) the primary “malign influencers” undermines their interests. (4)
26: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)
27: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)
28: Ironically, we probably do a better job of providing accurate health information than the current US government, which definitely mitigates biological threats and pandemics. As per “foreign dependence on medical supplies”, why even include that in this question you morons? (4)
29: Again free speech has generally helped promote US national security interests (we’ll see for how much longer). (2)
30: I guess disclosing what they are and providing information helps, sort of? That being said, WP:NPOV applies here. (1)
31: WP:NOTCENSORED means Wikipedia has information on most religions, benefiting religious minorities. Unfortunately, as you may know, the facts have a well known anti-Christian bias. (3)
32: None beyond letting the facts speak for themselves. That may be a bad thing for the current regime. (1)
33: People like Wikipedia, and many Wikipedia editors are American. That sort of cultural exchange hopefully helps people abroad see not everybody in the US is quite as bad as the current regime. (3)
34: The financial return of Wikipedia, when taking into account the benefits its provides, is massive. We’re one of the most visited websites in the world (5)
35: Wikipedia Enterprise makes bank, man [1]. (5)
36: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a concept, not a mining company. (0) Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Looks like we need a WP:NOTMININGCOMPANY section. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

So, the Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin has issued a legal threat to the WMF here: [2]. I think a strong community affidavit is warranted. (Perhaps some more artful version of "fuck off we'll see you in court"?) Tito Omburo (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

(Perhaps some more artful version of "fuck off we'll see you in court"?) We could refer them to the response given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram. (I don't necessarily think we should, but we could). Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
...or Moskva vs Snake Island. Certes (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Kaggle

Seriously? The WMF is just gonna give our data to AI scrapers willingly, without our consent? This is revolting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia is openly licensed and we all knew that when we contributed. This seems like a proactive move from the WMF to stop web scrapers from putting a strain on the servers, which degrades Wikipedia for everyone. I don't see any indication whatsoever that anything non-public is being shared here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes this just seems to be some other variant of what's already here [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree. On web scrapers, see https://drewdevault.com/2025/03/17/2025-03-17-Stop-externalizing-your-costs-on-me.html, https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/devs-say-ai-crawlers-dominate-traffic-forcing-blocks-on-entire-countries/. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree, Liliana. This is disgusting, and the community should not accept it. The wonderful Timnit Gebru and many others, especially the Algorithmic Justice League, have worked tirelessly to counter algorithmic bias. Wikipedia is still overwhelmingly written by White Anglosphere males, and disproportionately represents them. What would you expect the result to be?
Currently, training AI on the English Wikipedia would be a horrible thing for informationally marginalized groups. Lindspherg (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
The irony of you responding with agreement with something that appears AI-generated is not lost on me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
ehh I don't see it. First paragraph just sounds like normal Robert Reich–ish rhetoric. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Sharing latest updates to WMF annual plan

Hi everyone - writing to share some good news. The Wikimedia Foundation has just shared the latest draft update to our annual plan for next year (July 2025-June 2026). This includes an executive summary (also on Diff), details about our three main goals (Infrastructure, Volunteer Support, and Effectiveness), and our budget and financial model. Feedback and questions are welcome here or on the talk page until the end of May. KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

WMF CEO Maryana Iskander stepping down

See this news report. Iskander will depart "early next year" and the search for a new CEO is underway. "Iskander said her departure is part of an organized succession plan and that she began discussions with the nonprofit's board more than a year ago.... 'What Maryana did over the last four years is bring [the organization] from post-teenage years into young adulthood,' said McKinsey partner Raju Narisetti, the Wikimedia board member who led the search for Iskander and will also spearhead the effort to find her successor." There's also a long blog post / letter from Maryana on metaWiki here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 8

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 18. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org


Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also: list of movement events · WikiLearn News


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports


Board and Board committee updates
See Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard · Affiliations Committee Newsletter


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l'actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 20:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Article on WMF and UK's Online Safety Act

From BBC. Basically trying to make sure proper exemption is made for WP that it doesn't get classified with large social media sites, as if it were it would be required to collect info on editors and other concerning steps. Masem (t) 13:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Masemfor sharing! WMF also has self-published content on this topic, which preceded the BBC piece and was referenced to create the BBC piece. You can see an in-depth discussion of the topic on our public policy Medium blog, and a shorter version on Diff. Hope that's useful! FPutz (WMF) (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Studying reader behaviour

Has the WMF ever done studies studying user behaviour, and where can I find them? For example I am curious about heatmaps, which external links get clicked, which text gets selected. Polygnotus (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I found the Wikipedia:Clickstream data but that is not really what I am looking for. Polygnotus (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
They do, because I've seen mentions of studying readers in some of their work on new projects. They do a lot of A/B testing when developing new things for example. I am not sure they feel it necessary to put repoprts where we editors can see them. But see meta:Research:Projects. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't see any related research. The only vaguely related thing I could find is meta:Research:How we read Wikipedia and reader navigation but that doesn't answer my questions. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
A bunch of user research gets posted on the wikimedia.org site instead of meta. For instance: [4]. Avocado (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I've been compiling some research results (mostly from non-WMF studies) about reader behavior within pages at m:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read (additions welcome).
Generally speaking, the Wiki-research mailing list may be a better place to ask about research results about a particular topic (and, if I may, searching the archives of the research newsletter can be useful), unless your question was specifically confined to the Wikimedia Foundation's activities.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Rjjiii also summarised a bunch of research (by the WMF and others) about reader behaviour: User:Rjjiii/How do folks read Wikipedia? the wub "?!" 18:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Suppression at Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict

Anyone know what's up with this?[5] At Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict a few hundred edits' worth of revision history is suppressed. There are a couple of cases of "Username or IP removed". I'm unaware if this is being discussed elsewhere Placeholderer (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Placeholderer Likely was personally identifiable information or something like that. Not something I imagine oversighters would want to discuss. (WP:Oversight might have more information) JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
P.S. This is probably the wrong place to post this, since this involves local oversighters rather than the WMF. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
My bad! I was unsure if it was connected to other stuff from the region (having read about government interest in controlling the narrative[6] and coming across a vague legal warning to that effect[7])—didn't realize this was routine/normal! Placeholderer (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Further update on developments in India

Further to our prior update on 10 April 2025, as well as subsequent reporting in the media, we are reaching out to provide a brief update. This specifically concerns the legal proceedings arising from the injunction orders issued by the Delhi High Court (second point in the previous update) that directed the Foundation to take down allegedly defamatory content from an English Wikipedia article titled “Asian News International”.

Following the injunction order dated 2 April 2025 by the Single Judge Bench, and subsequent revised order dated 8 April 2025 passed by the Division Bench, the Foundation filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India challenging the injunction orders [Civil Appeal No. 5455 of 2025].

On 17 April 2025, the Supreme Court set aside the injunction orders, thereby vacating the directions that required the Foundation to takedown the allegedly objectionable content from the referenced article. As the matter remains sub judice, the Foundation is unable to comment further on the ongoing proceedings.

The Foundation remains committed to defending the community's right to access and share neutral, verifiable, and reliably sourced free knowledge. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The page Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation has now been unavailable for more than 6 months. is there some maximum length of time that the WMF will keep this thus, or can the litigator draw this out for years and years without the WMF saying "screw this, it's back online"? Fram (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Our prior update concerning SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 2483/2025 relates to the takedown of the English Wikipedia article titled "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation". The proceedings have concluded, and the appeal is currently reserved for judgment by the Supreme Court. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF) "Win for Wikipedia as Supreme Court quashes Delhi High Court's order to takedown page on ANI v Wiki case" Soooo... Can we have it back now? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
As much as I would like to celebrate the win, let's wait awhile more for the Foundation's legal team to receive the written order if they have not and have WMFOffice to undo its actions instead of the community. This is in case there are some unexpected challenges from the other side. – robertsky (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Reuters also reporting on the WMF's win. Hopefully the page will be restored soon. This looks, in the end, like some good work from the WMF to defend Wikipedia's principles. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I like how the Reuters article itself says "Reuters, which owns a 26% stake in ANI, did not immediately respond to a request for comment." Anomie⚔ 23:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Definitely an RS on that particular statement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Helpful reporting. So it looks like no ruling was made on WMF's argument, instead the takedown order did not provide evidence of contempt. CMD (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Your edit summary was Very narrow ruling and I disagree with that. I think it was a pretty broad ruling not only for Wikipedia but other sources of reliable information about the Indian Court system, dismissing the idea that reporting on the courts - and even critiquing it - is a contempt of the courts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the judges' ruling speaks to the broader implications and applications of such practices. I know its a cliche to consider any favorable legal ruling well written but this one is well worth reading... They seem to have a stronger grasp of digital culture than most US judges. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Happy to be corrected on the eventual scope of the impact. "This is the first case, so far as I know, where this Court has been called on to consider an allegation of contempt against itself." is surprising to me. CMD (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I will concede that the larger battle around defamation remains to be won and as important as this ruling is, that one is even more important both in how it woudl protect content and in protecting editor privacy in the future by not subjecting editors to this kind of lawsuit. So one fight won in a manner that was more sweeping than I'd expected even a victory to be, but the underlying issue remains undecided and also incredibly important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
That quote was from Lord Denning in the UK's Court of Appeal in 1968; I guess it might well have been the first time for that court. The part of this new ruling that intrigued me was the right-to-know principle. This corollary of freedom of expression has been recognised in Indian law for a long time, but the Supreme Court's forceful expression may be new: "People at large have a right to know in order to be able to take part in a participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know is a basic right which citizens of a free country like ours aspire in the broader horizon of the right to live in this age under Article 21 of our Constitution. This right has reached new dimension and urgency." NebY (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
It wasn't narrow. The Court spent 30+ pages citing and quoting from case after case about how courts must accept reasonable criticism, as a matter of judicial humility and to respect the rights to free speech and press, and that criminal contempt and prior restraints can only override those considerations in narrow situations. The Court also highlighted the WMF's argument that all of the statements in the ANI v. WMF article are supported by secondary sources, quoted the Single Judge's statement that he would get the government to shut down WMF in India, and quoted from several journalists/columnists criticizing the lower court's decision as censorship and a threat to free speech. The Court didn't outright hold that the lower courts were engaging in censorship, but it pretty firmly smacked them down: "we are of the firm view that the Division Bench had reacted disproportionately while issuing the impugned directions." The Court noted but did not address the WMF's argument that it wasn't a publisher because it's just an intermediary for publishers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Joe. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I am back with some good news from our legal team, who have been working diligently on this for the past few months with our legal counsel in India. On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India set aside the Delhi High Court’s order directing the takedown of the article titled "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation". We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s verdict that upholds the right to report and share information on matters of public interest, including legal proceedings in open courts.
In today's digital age, the Supreme Court's recognition of the importance of open discourse and the vital role of platforms like Wikipedia in facilitating such discussions and providing reliable information is significant. This judgment is also a testament to the role of the Wikimedia Community - you all - in discussing, documenting, and sharing knowledge.
In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, we are reinstating the article "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation".
On a separate note, the primary defamation suit filed against the Foundation is sub judice before the Delhi High Court. As I said in my last update, the Foundation remains committed to defending the community's right to access and share neutral, verifiable, and reliably sourced free knowledge. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank the legal team in India from us, Joe, and thank you for the update. I'm glad the WMF did it's part to step up for free knowledge. Any updates on how remaining proceedings may be affecting the individual editors who ANI sought information on in court? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
The remaining proceedings are sub judice and our previous update is still current. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
thank you for delivering the good news. – robertsky (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Very cool! Valereee (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
A thousand thanks to the WMF legal team for their excellent work pushing back against this. Delighted to see the page is back up. This is a good day for Wikipedia and for freedom of the press. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)/Archive_9&oldid=1292634511"