→Very bad and corrupt: new section |
→Request for Arbitration notification: new section |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Will there be any repercussions or consequences for your team? Of course not, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. management and its board of trustees provide no actual accountability or oversight. But please don't think long-time community members haven't noticed you enabling this trash behavior. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 17:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
Will there be any repercussions or consequences for your team? Of course not, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. management and its board of trustees provide no actual accountability or oversight. But please don't think long-time community members haven't noticed you enabling this trash behavior. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 17:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Request for Arbitration notification == |
|||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration guide|guide to arbitration]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitration proceedings|Arbitration Committee's procedures]] may be of use. |
|||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 01:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:34, 20 February 2023
RfC on blockers
Thanks for taking the descriptions from Wikidata down from displays of en-WP on mobile. If you would like any input framing the RfC about "blockers" I would be glad to provide it. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrong survey link
I saw a box at the top right of Weightlifting at the Summer Olympics. It contained this text (boxes and some formatting omitted):
Take a short survey and help us
improve Wikipedia
<ext-quicksurveys-affinity-survey-
description>
Visit survey No thanks
Survey data handled by a third party. Privacy
I haven't heard of the survey and post to you because you created MediaWiki:Ext-quicksurveys-affinity-survey-description. "Visit survey" goes to a wrong page. I guess the page should have been [1] where I see a survey. "Privacy" was linked but I didn't test the link and no longer have the page open. I was logged in and have many users scripts but don't know of any that should break the text or link. I have the default "en" interface language. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @PrimeHunter: thanks for pointing this out. We're aware - there were some issues with the initial configuration of the survey that we're currently fixing. The fix will be out in the next deployment (4 hours from now) OVasileva (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Being cautious about changes
I appreciate that you considered possible consequences before implementing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 185#Next steps for enabling talk links for mobile anon users. While I think the first proposal was overly cautious, I think it's a good thing to at least consider the possibility of disruption before deploying a big change. So strangely..
- I see a lot of disruption caused by the current fundraiser, mostly in the form of rants and questions on Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse where helpless Wikipedians get chastised for something they have no control over. I'm not sure if it's worse than previous fundraisers, but subjectively it feels like it is. Where was the caution before launching the fundraiser in its current form?
- Cross-wiki uploads have bombarded Commons with copyvios for years and continue to do so. Where was the caution before introducing that?
- When structured data was introduced, the implementation was very poorly thought out and the result was a bunch of incorrectly licensed captions (to this day unfixed) for which no use case existed anyway and an ongoing creation of duplicated data that has to be externally synchronized. Where was the caution before enabling that?
I assume you don't have absolute control over everything, but it's a stark contrast between the extreme caution when the community asks for something and the complete lack of caution when the WMF or developers initiate something. (I have more examples but this is already too long) What I'm saying is, please, don't limit your caution to community initiatives. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Metadata presentation for readers
Hi Olga! Picking up from your comment here at VPT, I think there's potential in presenting some metadata to help readers better understand the degree to which they can trust an article. It'll have to be done well, though, since article quality is a tricky thing to measure, and not all pieces of metadata speak to it, and even if they do, not all readers may know how to interpret it.
First, to clarify the goal, it should be what I said above — helping readers better understand the degree to which they can trust an article — not "getting readers to trust us," which is what I saw in the consultant report, and reflects some unfortunate bleedover from the corporate world.
On the pieces of metadata to use, let's go through some of the featured criteria and see which things can speak to them:
well-written
– An article that's had more contributors is more likely to have had its grammar refined.comprehensive
– This is correlated with article length. However, it's not equivalent to it: very niche topics like Yugoslav submarine Nebojša can be FAs without being very long. Perhaps you'd want to consider factors like incoming links or pageviews to estimate how long an article ought to be and then compare its actual length against that.well-researched
– This is basically references. With very few exceptions (e.g. leads, plots), everything should be referenced, and any segment of an article lacking references should ding its quality rating.neutral
– This is tricky to measure: more talk page activity (relative to the popularity of a topic) often means it's more controversial, but doesn't necessarily mean it's unbalanced (and in fact often means the opposite). The only really reliable indicator of neutrality issues is the presence of a maintenance tag indicating such.stable
– This can be measured algorithmically, but you have to go beyond just "most recent edit" (which could just be someone archiving a reference). The percentage of article text that has been modified recently would be a much better indicator. Reverts in the recent edit history would be a strong indicator of instability, as would be an open RfC on the talk page.
Brainstorming on some other factors: Protection status could certainly be a relevant piece of info to present here, and per the VPT convo we may be looking to move that anyways. The date an article was created is relevant, as are deletion nominations. The XTools article info page has some things that might be relevant. In particular, the authorship section (readers will likely want to know if one editor has authored 90% of a page) and the year counts (that graph is very useful to see when an article has gone through a growth spurt). Who Wrote That? could be useful if it was improved to the point where it didn't have to be a separate browser extension (something there's no intrinsic need for). And I'm curious about ORES scores, which in my experience tend to be fairly accurate.
Hope all that is helpful, and curious to hear your thoughts! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You are seen.
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you, OVasileva. Not only in appreciation for great work on the years-long Vector 2022, but for suffering slings, arrows, incivility, and personal attacks because of it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC) |
Very bad and corrupt
Hi. You're enabling a very bad and corrupt organization and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's truly despicable that Wikimedia Foundation Inc. is taking in donations from readers by lying to them about the state of its finances and then using that money to hire folks like yourself to push through horrible software changes. A majority of respondents, when asked whether to deploy this worse skin, said no. And yet you and your team have wasted millions of dollars of donor money and barreled ahead despite this, all the while making false claims such as "if the community decides against deploying the skin, no deployment will be made" and writing misleading summaries about what the discussion "really" shows.
Will there be any repercussions or consequences for your team? Of course not, Wikimedia Foundation Inc. management and its board of trustees provide no actual accountability or oversight. But please don't think long-time community members haven't noticed you enabling this trash behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiMedia Foundation involvement in software deployment on the English Wikipedia and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.