ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 6. (BOT) |
ELappen (WMF) (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
@[[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]], @[[User:JVillagomez (WMF)|JVillagomez (WMF)]], and @[[User:MIskander-WMF|MIskander-WMF]], I find it rather disgraceful that the Wikimedia Foundation [[wikimania:2023:Scholarship_outcomes|accepted only 197]] of the 1209 completed scholarship applications for this year's Wikimania conference, or 16%. While I recognize that travel scholarships aren't cheap, I presume that a sizable portion of the applicants are heavily involved in Wikimedia projects, devoting many hours a week to volunteer work. Wikimania scholarships are one of the few ways the WMF can use its ample financial resources to show tangible appreciation to volunteers and aid participation in the movement. You could have afforded to assist more than 16% of applicants, and it's disappointing that you deemed the expense not worthwhile when you put together your budget. I would appreciate a response from you on this topic. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
@[[User:Gnangarra|Gnangarra]], @[[User:JVillagomez (WMF)|JVillagomez (WMF)]], and @[[User:MIskander-WMF|MIskander-WMF]], I find it rather disgraceful that the Wikimedia Foundation [[wikimania:2023:Scholarship_outcomes|accepted only 197]] of the 1209 completed scholarship applications for this year's Wikimania conference, or 16%. While I recognize that travel scholarships aren't cheap, I presume that a sizable portion of the applicants are heavily involved in Wikimedia projects, devoting many hours a week to volunteer work. Wikimania scholarships are one of the few ways the WMF can use its ample financial resources to show tangible appreciation to volunteers and aid participation in the movement. You could have afforded to assist more than 16% of applicants, and it's disappointing that you deemed the expense not worthwhile when you put together your budget. I would appreciate a response from you on this topic. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
: Hi @[[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]] Chiming in here as part of the team at the Foundation that work with each year's Wikimania hosts. The Foundation sponsors the whole event—not just the scholarships—and in this year's Annual Plan, [[m:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2023-2024/Finances#Overview:_Reducing_expenses|despite reducing expenses across the Foundation, funding for Wikimania increased]]. Not to undermine any disappointment that any applicant may feel for not having been selected, of course that’s completely valid and understandable, but it does feel relevant to mention that this year there are [[wikimania:2023:Scholarship_outcomes|~200 scholarships]], around 66% more than the [[metawiki:Grants:Wikimania_scholars#2019_WMF_Wikimania_Scholarships|~120 from the last in-person Wikimania in 2019]]. Together with each year’s Core Organizing Team, the Foundation always thinks about how to spend the funds to reach the most Wikimedians possible, because we completely agree with you that recognizing people for their contributions is critical. This year, that meant increasing the number of scholarships that could be awarded by the volunteer subcommittee, working to keep virtual registration free despite the costs of the virtual event, and working to keep the in-person ticket subsidized. I know it's of course still disappointing for anyone who wanted to attend in person and didn’t get selected. I really do hope those people will consider applying again for future Wikimanias. --[[User:ELappen (WMF)|ELappen (WMF)]] ([[User talk:ELappen (WMF)|talk]]) 16:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:21, 7 July 2023
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
- Table of contents
- First discussion
- End of page
- New post
- Discussions of proposals which do not require significant foundation attention or involvement belong at Village pump (proposals)
- Discussions of bugs and routine technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
- Consider developing new ideas at the Village pump (idea lab).
- This page is not a place to appeal decisions about article content, which the WMF does not control (except in very rare cases); see Dispute resolution for that.
- Issues that do not require project-wide attention should often be handled through Wikipedia:Contact us instead of here.
- This board is not the place to report emergencies; go to Wikipedia:Emergency for that.
Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.
See meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Draft/Product & Technology § The draft Objectives and Key Results are now published ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Here's a more direct link. meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Draft/Product & Technology/OKRs. Happy reading. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- You both beat me to it! :-) If you've other places you'd recommend I notify, please ping me. LWyatt (WMF) (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024
You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Elections Committee: Call for New Members. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Climate coverage in the main page of Wikipedia, including a feature about environmental footprint/record of Wikimedia
Even though climate change is considered as the biggest threat I do not see much about it in the main page of Wikipedia. Some news outlets not so much neutral, silence it from their reasons, but I do not think Wikipedia should follow them. The main page of Wikipedia has around 125 millions pageviews per month so it can be compared to BBC or CNN, it is important.
I will try to submit news at least those who are in the consensus, in the category "in the news" but I think it will be a little bit difficult to express the importance of the issue with this, because:
- I admit that even though it is considered as the biggest threat it will look strange if for example, 80% of news will be about it as in all other news outlets the situation is different.
- It is not so much "newsy" event: the weather is getting worse today, it got worse yesterday and will probably get worse tomorrow.
- It is hard to find an event in the news completely unrelated to climate change but it is not always easy to explain the links.
So I has 2 ideas:
FIRST IDEA:
Almost all large companies in the world have something about their environmental footprint on their site. Including digital like Youtube. The fossil fuel company ExxonMobil has it in the top of its main page. Bayer also. So why not Wikipedia? It will be honorable for Wikipedia and for Wikimedia Foundation if it will put a feature about it in the main page, with link to a page with detailes.
Something like:
" Wikipedia is part of Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia foundation is caring about Sustainability and stopping climate change. It trying to lower its environmental impacts.. for this it is doing... The total emissions on 2022 were 2,955 metric ton of Co2... while during this year environmental pages in Wikipedia only included in WikiProject Climate Change has 346 millions views... for more information look here"
The link that I put is to a special page about environmental footprint of Wikimedia. It includes the report of 2022 from where I take the numbers.
SECOND IDEA:
In the Main page of Wikipedia at the bottom of the cathegory "In the news" there is a category "ongoing events". I think we should enter below this line another line:
" Permanently ongoing event: Climate change".
It is really a permanently ongoing event. From one side it is not always has "breaking news", but from other side while other issues loom and then dissapear, it is constantly present. And it is enough important if only the pages in Wikiproject climate change have 346,000,000 pageviews per year, and climate change exist sometimes in the list of 25 most viewed articles (for example one month ago).
What do you think about it?
--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- While I absolutely agree with your sentiment, it is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia to be pushing any one point of view, especially on the main page. It is appropriate for WMF to be thinking about climate change. Their servers consume power. They fly employees around the world for meetings. These activities have impact on the world's climate. But WMF is not enwiki. This project is an encyclopedia which steers clear of endorsing or supporting any political or social issues. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Where have we come as a society where supporting sustainability plus preventing imminent and catastrophic climate change is something that is considered "political"? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- The user page, talk page, and edit history of this account bring me pause. This account looks like an WP:SPA for environmental WP:ADVOCACY that's not sufficiently fluent in English. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- See m:Sustainability Initiative. Frostly (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Difficulty contacting Emergency
Yesterday around mid-day in my timezone (UTC-1), I emailed emergency@wikimedia.org about a suicide threat, expecting to get an immediate response. But there was nothing, and there has still been nothing. I assumed my message might have got stuck in a spam filter, and solved it by asking Doug Weller to also send my information. He did, and he got an immediate response. This seems a little worrying. If I had been an inexperienced user, I might have waited much longer. How's wikimedia.org's spam filter? Might it dislike a sender address with "Bishzilla" in it? ;-) I suppose it might be safer to use this page, but how are people to know to prefer that? The instructions are simply "If you are here to report a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs and information". So doing that ought to work, I reckon. (Before you ask if I'm sure I spelled the address right: yes, I am. My message is still in my outbox.) Bishonen | tålk 10:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC).
- Not sure whether this helps but a couple of weeks ago I had to mail the emergency and I got an immediate response (within 10 minutes or so). I indeed sent a Wiki mail, if I remember correctly, from Meta. Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've had some pretty long turn-arounds before getting word back from emergency@. I don't know if they start working before responding, but I'll AGF and assume that they just send a note back when they have time, rather than when they look at and start working on something. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- In my experience they'll reply before doing anything else. Bish, you cleverly preempted the question about a typo in the address. Allow me pose another stupid question: Have you checked your spam folder? Personally, I always use the form when I'm anywhere near my account. It has advantages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- By outbox I assume you mean a "sent mail" folder equivalent ... if it was still in your outbox that means it never got sent in the first place, at least with the mail programs I know about. Graham87 12:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was sent, Graham. I just used the wrong word. Zzuuzz, I too have always before had the experience that they respond immediately. Which is surely the reasonable way to go about it — we need to know that our message reached them, and that's all we need to know — they can "start working" afterwards, and I'm pretty sure that's how they normally go about it. Anyway, now it's over 24 hours, so something clearly went wrong. And, ahem, I've checked my spam folder now — nothing there. I appreciate all the replies, but I'm also hoping for a WMF response. If we need to use the form, the advice at ANI should be changed. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC).
- I got a reply when I posted within 5 minutes. I'm in the UK. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Bishonen happy to help try to get to the bottom of wny your message did not go through. Would you kindly pop me an email so I can see what from address you used, and see if I can correlate that with any errors in our logs. My email address may be found on my user page. Yours kindly, JHathaway (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, JHathaway (WMF). Done. I made it show full headers as best I could (they didn't seem like much, actually; of course the headers in the message when it arrived are of more interest). Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC).
- Gmail marked your forwarded message as spam as well @Bishonen. RoySmith opened a ticket as well, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T338032. I am going to use that ticket to discuss possible improvements. JHathaway (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yus, JHathaway (WMF). Bishzilla has added herself as a subscriber. Not sure what the effect of that is, but since the ticket now has her in the name, it seemed right. Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC).
- Gmail marked your forwarded message as spam as well @Bishonen. RoySmith opened a ticket as well, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T338032. I am going to use that ticket to discuss possible improvements. JHathaway (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, JHathaway (WMF). Done. I made it show full headers as best I could (they didn't seem like much, actually; of course the headers in the message when it arrived are of more interest). Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC).
- It was sent, Graham. I just used the wrong word. Zzuuzz, I too have always before had the experience that they respond immediately. Which is surely the reasonable way to go about it — we need to know that our message reached them, and that's all we need to know — they can "start working" afterwards, and I'm pretty sure that's how they normally go about it. Anyway, now it's over 24 hours, so something clearly went wrong. And, ahem, I've checked my spam folder now — nothing there. I appreciate all the replies, but I'm also hoping for a WMF response. If we need to use the form, the advice at ANI should be changed. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC).
- Hello Bishonen, We sincerely apologize for the challenge you encountered while trying to reach us through emergencywikimedia.org. It’s important to us that this email remains accessible. We have checked our spam folder, and the message was indeed redirected there. This seems to have been a backend issue with our email provider rather than our filters, so we are reviewing the challenges related to this problem with an aim of finding a lasting solution. In the meantime, we’re going to put a note on the emergency@ page letting people know the issue may occur (fortunately it seems rare), and letting them know when they should have a response if the message is received. We wanted to thank you for finding support in getting the message to us anyway so we could process it. We thank both you and Doug Weller for your swift and thoughtful actions. On behalf of the Trust & Safety team, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, JKoerner (WMF). We obviously don't want too much instruction creep about it, but will you also make some addition to the edit notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Inexperienced users may be more likely to see those than to discover Wikipedia:Emergency. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC).
- Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, JKoerner (WMF). We obviously don't want too much instruction creep about it, but will you also make some addition to the edit notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Inexperienced users may be more likely to see those than to discover Wikipedia:Emergency. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC).
Paltry funding for Wikimania scholarships
@Gnangarra, @JVillagomez (WMF), and @MIskander-WMF, I find it rather disgraceful that the Wikimedia Foundation accepted only 197 of the 1209 completed scholarship applications for this year's Wikimania conference, or 16%. While I recognize that travel scholarships aren't cheap, I presume that a sizable portion of the applicants are heavily involved in Wikimedia projects, devoting many hours a week to volunteer work. Wikimania scholarships are one of the few ways the WMF can use its ample financial resources to show tangible appreciation to volunteers and aid participation in the movement. You could have afforded to assist more than 16% of applicants, and it's disappointing that you deemed the expense not worthwhile when you put together your budget. I would appreciate a response from you on this topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Sdkb Chiming in here as part of the team at the Foundation that work with each year's Wikimania hosts. The Foundation sponsors the whole event—not just the scholarships—and in this year's Annual Plan, despite reducing expenses across the Foundation, funding for Wikimania increased. Not to undermine any disappointment that any applicant may feel for not having been selected, of course that’s completely valid and understandable, but it does feel relevant to mention that this year there are ~200 scholarships, around 66% more than the ~120 from the last in-person Wikimania in 2019. Together with each year’s Core Organizing Team, the Foundation always thinks about how to spend the funds to reach the most Wikimedians possible, because we completely agree with you that recognizing people for their contributions is critical. This year, that meant increasing the number of scholarships that could be awarded by the volunteer subcommittee, working to keep virtual registration free despite the costs of the virtual event, and working to keep the in-person ticket subsidized. I know it's of course still disappointing for anyone who wanted to attend in person and didn’t get selected. I really do hope those people will consider applying again for future Wikimanias. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)