This is an archive of past discussions about MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Britain Loves Wikipedia - a free photography competition - is running in 20 museums across the UK throughout February. Join in, take photos, win prizes!
One concern, I guess, would be that this would only directly apply to 10% of the people that see it. I've also requested a Wikipedia:Geonotice, but that appeals to a different audience than this (regular users cf. occasional visitors), and this is an event that would appeal to both really. I know that this is a bit unusual, but figure it's worth discussing at least. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Worth discussing, certainly. But as this is likely to be controversial, the edit cannot be made without consensus. I suggest starting a thread on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) as I doubt this page is watched by many, and {{editprotected}} is not supposed to be used to attract attention to a discussion. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, thanks, but I don't accept that answer. Care to elaborate on "no" a bit? My reading at the moment is that the community that watches [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)] doesn't particularly care, so I see no reason why it can't go ahead (at the very least it might cause some critical constructive comments to come back, perhaps?) Mike Peel (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Call for participation: Survey on Wikipedian Motivations
Hi I'm Kay Kiljae Lee, a Ph.D candidate in University of Kansas.
I am currently conducting a research on the motivators of online collaboration.
Hereis a survey page through which I am collecting the initial data (17 Mar ~ 15 May 2010)
The survey is conducted with complete anonymity and the first set of data will be analyzed for part of my research aiming for AIS (Association for Information Systems) conference 2010. You can contact me by clicking here.
Your participation will be greatly appreciated.Kay Kiljae Lee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC).
No.
I do not wish to read any appeal from Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales. OMG I CAN HAS MEDIAWIKI NAMESPAEC? But seriously, Jimbo Wales is a profiteer; Wikipedia is not some grand vision of openness and knowledge. Anyone who has ever edited the damn thing knows THAT. --72.160.80.151 (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Commons poll
{{editprotected}}
The following sitenotice is currently active on Commons:
No doubt, EnWiki users will want to be made aware of this poll too, since we use Commons images in our articles. Could someone add it to EnWiki's sitenotice? --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think such a move is completely out of proportion. I was happy to have a hatnote at the Wikileaks article that would clear up any possible misunderstandings. Such a notice would be aimed at people that had the intention to become informed about the subject, because it would be viewed solely by people that had actually gone to the Wikileaks article. A sitenotice on the other hand is not only taking for granted that all the readers of Wikipedia are ignorant, it would also seem like taking a stand in a controversial issue and would damage the neutrality of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
From my observation a significant proportion of visitors to the wiki have this confusion, even if they do not express it. Dispelling that does no harm. A straw poll of my friends & associates puts this at about 30% (allow a vast margin of error there, most of my friends are "tech enabled"). --Errant(chat!)13:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Even the President of France has got WP and WikiLeaks confused: [1]. Given the extraordinary level of vitriol directed at WikiLeaks, widespread confusion between WP and WikiLeaks and that Wikipedia is a community-edited and largely community-funded encyclopedia, some kind of prominent notice isn't an over-reaction. Rd232talk14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
To me this goes a step too far. The site notice is ordinarily intended for site-wide notice of something relevant to all Wikipedia contributors, or at least potential donors (the fundraiser banners). This is more an attempt to educate the general public. I think the note at the top of the WikiLeaks article has been a good means of doing that. But that article is where curious people go to find out more about WikiLeaks. Wikipedia's other articles are not a place to find out more about WikiLeaks. What's more, in the context of the broad public discourse about Wikileaks, confusion by two people (Sarkozy and Glenn Beck) is not that significant. All of the news publications I've seen have gotten this right. Implicitly, all the other public figures have gotten it right since they haven't substituted Wikipedia for WikiLeaks or mixed the two. The WikiLeaks article is a good and useful tool to educate the public. A sitenotice is not usually for that purpose and it does not seem warranted in this case.--Chaser (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the proper venue for this. I do think the warning would be a good idea to put out there, but not for registered editors for whom the distinction is almost certainly clear; it's the anons and readers who might not know. I've made a note at MediaWiki talk:Anonnotice#Wikileaks. bahamut0013wordsdeeds17:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't be to inform people about WikiLeaks, it would be to inform them about Wikipedia. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this should be put in the Sitenotice (or more appropriately, as you point out, Anonnotice). But I think you seriously underestimate how frequent this misconception is; Sarkozy and Beck just sit on the tip of an iceberg. I wrote a kind of an overview, including an example of real damage, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-06/WikiLeaks (other examples not mentioned there yet: [2], [3], [4], [5]). And yesterday, the Wikimedia Foundation found the problem to be serious enough to post a clarification on their official blog: [6].
I can see why we have a (hopefully temporary) hatnote on Wikileaks, and there might even be justification for a similar caveat on Wikimedia or Wikipedia. But I really don't think a full-blown sitenotice is a good idea - it gives two very misleading impressions. First, that we think a sizable fraction of our readers are not smart enough to notice the difference - whilst it is useful to some, many of the people who aren't confused will resent it being there, because it seems to be us patronisingly stating the obvious.
Second (again, to those people who aren't confused), even if it is simply to reduce confusion, it's a hostage to fortune. It is easily read as implying that we have a desire to explicitly disassociate ourselves from WL; we don't have a position on what we think of WL, but broadcasting a high-profile announcement suggests we do (and that it's negative). As a major part of the "Wikileaks story" is various Internet sites disowning them, cutting ties, etc, many people are inevitably going to parse a sitenotice that way; it may well have the entirely undesirable effect of making us part of the backlash rather than a neutral observer with a coincidental name. Shimgray | talk | 17:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't really think those concerns are warranted. Because the notice would not be restricted to any individual (and be dismissable), only a really brittle person would be insulted by a public notice (do careful drivers get offended by speed limit signs?). To your second point: I don't think that a bit of distance is a bad thing, nor is the notice worded in such a way to give an implicit or subtle POV. Simply stating that there is no formal connection is neutral, and doesn't make any effort to change the relationship at all except to dispel a common misunderstanding. bahamut0013wordsdeeds17:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think "offended" is perhaps stronger than I meant, but certainly I can see people finding it patronising - imagine you go into a library and the first thing someone says to you is "You understand, we have books, but we're not a bookshop, right?" I can tell you first-hand that some people do make the mistake, and it would perhaps be easier in those cases to tell them upfront than correct them later when they've got money in their hands - but it's going to be a bit irritating for everyone else, who thinks it's an obvious error they don't need warned about. We shouldn't assume this sort of notice only has an upside.
As to the issue of a neutral statement - Erik's statement on the blog is a pretty good one; it carefully doesn't say we like them or we don't like them, and it uses the right tone to avoid being interpreted that way. But in a sitenotice, which has to be short and clear, we can't convey nuance nearly as well - we'll end up presenting people with a single very public statement disassociating ourselves from them, and people will, rightly or wrongly, draw inferences from that. We've done well to stay out of this - some people's confused remarks to the press aside - and I really don't want to see us drawn into the current mess. It's not fair to them and it's not fair to us. Shimgray | talk | 19:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Having a hatnote only in Wikileaks is not enough, since some users enter Wikipedia site via main page. User:JzG said "We get maybe a few tens of emails about this per day" in WP:AN and if we follow the 80/20 rule, there're an additional of 80% are misinformed and didn't bother to contact us for clarification. And thanks to User:bahamut0013's analogy of "do careful drivers get offended by speed limit signs?" I don't think any Wikipedian will get offended by seeing this message so sitenotice is a better choice comparing to anonnotice because in this case, you want the message to be delivered to everyone and nobody should miss it. We can follow meta's message and say "Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not associated with WikiLeaks." Simple, short, and clear message goes a long way to clear up the mistaken identity. OhanaUnitedTalk page19:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
But here's the thing: there's a hatnote on Wikileaks because people reading that are looking for information about Wikileaks; we feel it's important to make it clear to the people who are thinking about Wikileaks what the situation is, which is fair enough. We could, likewise, put such notes on Wikipedia or Wikimedia - people may be looking at those pages and wondering. But do we really need to make a point of explaining the distinction to someone reading about dolphins or cubism? The odds are they have given the matter no thought whatsoever... Shimgray | talk | 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
If they haven't thought about it, then they probably won't care or notice. If someone comes to Wikipedia to read about dolphins or cubism, they can do so blissfully unaware of the controversy. But considering the high volume of misdirected hate-mail and other disparigment we've been getting, we need to do something. I'd be happy if one of the bigwigs made a high-profile statement, but in the absence of that, the community has to make its own visible statement of fact to avert misconception. bahamut0013wordsdeeds20:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Shimgray, does it hurt by including this notice? Nope. From ErrantX's figures,[7] 30% is a hell lot of misinformed visitors and I'm sure some of those 30% aren't looking for the Wikileaks article on Wikipedia. Even French's president was mistaken when he got plenty of advisors, clerks, and secretaries to fact-check his speech. OhanaUnitedTalk page20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
That very much depends on how you define "hurt". I think, with the arguments already stated by me and others, that it does indeed "hurt" more than it would do good. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't argue it benefits the readers who are confused - and I am quite aware there are plenty of them! There are small penalties on other readers - for whom it's just an irritation - but that tradeoff isn't the key issue that worries me. It's my second point I really think we need to consider - the broader repercussions of our putting a notice up, and the fact that this could (and, I fear, will) be picked up, misunderstood, and reported as us Taking A Stand On Wikileaks when we have no desire to do such a thing. We really don't need that. Shimgray | talk | 13:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Or something to that effect. Try and keep it as neutral as possible, while avoiding jargon. I'm absolutely convinced that if this does go ahead, it should be for anonnotice only. --DorsalAxe20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I expressed my concerns mainly on account of the readers, and they would be the main audience for an anonnotice. Personally my quarrel is not with the wording, but with the message and its intent. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the wording at the top of the WikiLeaks article: Please be advised that despite a similarity in names, WikiLeaks is not associated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. That's better because: (1) It avoids characterizing WikiLeaks as a "media organisation" or anything else; (2) It states that WikiLeaks is "not associated" rather than completely unrelated. I think that is less POV and better reflects WP:NOTLEAKS; and (3) The Wikimedia Foundation is not Wikipedia's parent. Wikipedia predates it and (except libel, copyright and BLP issues) Wikipedia manages its own content.--Chaser (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Or the order at the top of this thread: Wikipedia and WMF are not associated with WikiLeaks. That's more to the point than the reverse, although the difference is slight.--Chaser (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
While it is true Wikimedia came after Wikipedia, the former does operate the latter, and is higher up the hierarchy (so to speak). Think of how companies work; if an older company gets bought out by a new company who control the older one, the newer one is the "parent". While I'm entirely willing to just forgo that, and in fact I think I prefer your more succinct version, I just wanted to say that it is a perfectly acceptable usage of the word "parent".
Although personally I think "not associated" sounds less neutral than "unrelated", but I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree on any such wording.
Saddhiyama, could you explain exactly what your quarrel is with the message? Please forgive me here, but I'm uncertain as to what exactly it is about this that you are most concerned about. --DorsalAxe22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Then let's just say "unrelated". My point was more that the defensive registration of domain names means "completely unrelated" may appear misleading. Although the connection of Wales and Davis transferring domain names that they were effectively cybersquatting anyway is ever so slight. I'm trying to avoid even the appearance of misleading people. FWIW, I'm still opposed to this, but if we're going to do it, we need to do it right.--Chaser (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what it will look like with both the MediaWiki:Anonnotice and the meta:Special:CentralNotice (fundraiser banner) going at once? On my screen the fundraising banner takes up more than half of the space for article text. There won't be much left above the fold if we add another banner to every page. We're already getting feedback from people annoyed with the fundraising banner.--Chaser (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
This has crossed my mind, although it's only one extra single line of text really. I'm more concerned about how utterly weird it would look on top, or underneath that massive banner... --DorsalAxe22:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, let's not put up a sitenotice. The media coverage is already dying down and let's not mention WikiLeaks and basically spam them all over the site. Actually, I think the Foundation may want to say something regarding this; I know they didn't want WikiLeaks mentioned on the WP Twitter feeds and stuff. /ƒETCHCOMMS/02:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Fetchcomms. This will just bring unnecessary attention of Wikipedia readers and editors to Wikileaks and will seem as an advertisement. A hatnote in the Wikileaks article is enough for anyone interested. If it would be so necessary to inform the public, the WMF themselves would put up the notice or at least express their recommendation to have the notice. --Eleassarmy talk11:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Advertising is a non-issue. WikiLeaks is big news every day all over the world. A notice prominently displayed while the hue and cry is on is worth considering. Tony(talk)14:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The media also publish articles titled 'Sarkozy makes no difference between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia', 'Sarkozy at-il confondu Wikileaks et... Wikipédia ?' and similar so people will be notified about the difference without our involvement (that could even give the wrong impression that Wikipedia has taken a stance, as said above). --Eleassarmy talk15:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikimedia Australia about (justifiable) concerns for the image of the chapter, given widespread public confusion—not helped by ignorant, lazy journalism—about the difference between the two organisations. IMO, a main page box should be posted on enwiki now, temporarily, stating:
"Please note: Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are entirely unconnected with WikiLeaks, despite the fact that the first four letters of their titles are the same." The Foundation might also be lobbied to write to all major news organisations asking them not to use "wiki" as shorthand for WikiLeaks. Tony(talk)03:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps these few links to meta will open some of your mind to use sitenotice because our mistaken-identity situation is pretty dire (see 1, 2, 3, 4). And some of those messages were posted even though there is a big red exclamation mark stating "Wikimedia is not associated with WikiLeaks". And I only showed you one page. A little bit digging and we will find even more of these messages around in different places of wikis. OhanaUnitedTalk page05:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, that poses a different question: If some people manage to remain confused despite the "big red exclamation mark" in front of them, what chance have we that a relatively muted sitenotice would actually get the idea across to them? We can put up all sorts of warnings and notices and barriers, and some fraction of people will remain insistently holding the wrong end of the stick however much we try to get it over to them - the question is really at what point our "notification" starts getting diminishing returns and nontrivial costs. Shimgray | talk | 19:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That's misleading in three ways. One, the page linked to is a single page on Meta, while we discuss a site-wide notice on Wikipedia (I'm suprised that some of the anons found thier way to that page). Second, that particular page is so cluttered that even the big red exclamation would be lost in it. And thirdly, a line or two notice is certainly not a "nontrivial cost", nor would people that don't bother to read it necessarily constitute "diminishing returns". True, there always going to be idiots who could ignore a flashing light and siren in order to vent anger, but that shouldn't preclude us from a carefully worded short public notice (going back to my driving analogy, we don't remove speed limit signs because a few ticketed drivers say they didn't see them). bahamut0013wordsdeeds21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Me too, I am surprised and don't understand how the anons can find their way to Wikimedia Forum. If one page alone shows that there's problem, then more pages will reveal an even bigger problem if we spend some time finding it. OhanaUnitedTalk page23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, even the foundation felt the need to address this problem to the public by posting on their blog to clarify,[8] I'm going to put up the notice and modified slightly from User:Chaser's wording to "Please be advised that Wikipedia and WMF are not associated with WikiLeaks." OhanaUnitedTalk page19:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're quoting that blog post as justification - it's been mentioned already and factored in to the discussions above. If the Foundation felt a high-profile sitenotice (rather than a low-key blog post) was appropriate, I am sure they're competent enough to do it themselves; the fact that a week later they still haven't, suggests they don't. Shimgray | talk | 21:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Remove the sitenotice
Please remove the sitenotice. The time for clarifying this in such a public place is past. It looks silly and isn't necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Because Erik thought it would be good to clarify the use of the word "wiki"? You're not making an argument for adding more noise to the top of every page, especially as the WikiLeaks story has finally died down. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a real cost to using banners and sitenotices, sure. The more they're used, the more likely they're to be ignored in the future. With a two-inch fundraising banner already in place, the use of the sitenotice should be very limited (reserved for situations like outages or breakages). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
That and the TIME cover article that ran on Monday, which came perilously close to suggesting a connection. The fuss is still out there, and we are still getting emails and messages from people who are the digital equivalent of a mob with pitchforks and torches. bahamut0013wordsdeeds22:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
By analogy to WP:DENY, we're only fanning the media/publicity flames by adding a sitenotice. We don't need to be telling people about this on every single last article; the hatnote on WikiLeaks is entirely sufficient. Anything else is better suited to Foundation press releases, blog posts, and the like. --Cybercobra(talk)02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
How does DENY apply to sitenotice? DENY talks about how to deal with trolls and vandalism (which is not the case here). It's about information. And your remarks "fanning the media/publicity flames" completely misses the point. We could go "business as usual" without doing any clarification, and that will give journalists a field day as they keep writing whoever screwed up in their speech because they mixed up the two. OhanaUnitedTalk page03:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
By analogy to WP:DENY. I analogize WikiLeaks' semi-purposeful confusion with Wikipedia to a kind of vandalism (of the WP trademark/brand). I admit, not the best analogy. My point is that to put up a sitenotice overemphasizes the issue and is cruft when many people either don't care (Just gimme the info, man!) or haven't made the erroneous connection in question, and thus shouldn't be "punished" by adding a distraction to every freaking article. Further, PR seems better done by the Foundation. Have they even done a formal Press Release on this? I would think protecting the brand externally is one of the few things that quite rightly ought to be in their purview. --Cybercobra(talk)07:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Normally I would agree with you about leting Wikimedia handle it, but it's been a couple weeks since this first broke (not to mention the Iraq War video a few months ago), and they haven't done anything, nor given any indication that anything is in the works. And it's quite a stretch to say that a single line notice will "punish" readers. bahamut0013wordsdeeds12:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that "they haven't done anything", at least in terms of notices and so on, is pretty much the intentional WMF response (cf/ Fetchcomm's comment of the 11th). I've made sure the press people are aware of this discussion, just to be on the safe side. Shimgray | talk | 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a comment: this discussion shows that the presence of a similar notice on Meta (not the sarcastically over-done one at the top of the thread) has not solved the problem of people confusing us with Wikileaks. Evidently, many of those who come here to complain are not interested in reading the banners at the top of the page. However, it's certainly possible that it has at least reduced the number of people who are confused. —Soap—13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Consensus was established at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011#Advertising that during the voting phase of the 2011 Arbitration Committee Election, there is to be a Wikipedia wide site notice announcing the election. Pursuant to the RfC, I'm requesting that the following site notice be made: (The RFC only established that there should be a notice, but did not specify the contents)
{{#switch:{{interval|n={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|27 November|11 December|format=time}}
|0-1 = <!--nothing-->
|1-2 = '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/240|Voting]]''' is now open to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011|elect]] new members of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].
}}
This code will need to be updated with the secure poll number when it becomes available. It will display the notice only for the scheduled voting period. Monty84504:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment: There have been several previous instances where a notice for either ArbCom or Wikimedia Foundation elections have been reverted on this page (for example, see the previous discussions sections above here, here, and here). There are a few issues with putting this on the site notice. Among them, if you also put the notice on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, the message is going to show up twice on Special:Watchlist. Second, anon users, who are normally ineligible to vote in these elections anyway, are going to see this (to them) meaningless message unless MediaWiki:Anonnotice is also modified like this.[9] Finally, there is a segment of Wikipedians who historically feel that such information for editors (rather than for readers) should only be confined to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details; Sitenotice should only be for critical notices for all editors and readers (this view has been essentially stated in a number of comments above on this talk page). Yes, I am aware of the RFC, but it does not necessarily represent those who might complain (include those who might be admins and will be willing to revert). In fact, I do not see any relevant discussion on the RFC, among those who participated, where people were specifically commenting and debating how to advertise the elections -- and so including a notice here may be viewed as non-binding. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The decision appears to have been made here, based upon votes supporting a suggestion containing no explanation of why MediaWiki:Sitenotice should be used during the voting stage (instead focusing on why it shouldn't be used during the other stages). I see no actual discussion or indication that respondents considered this specific element and the longstanding objections thereto.
I don't believe that this constitutes a sufficient means of gauging consensus, particularly given the historical lack thereof.
To me, the idea of advertising ArbCom elections to our entire readership (a vast majority of which has no knowledge of or interest in such matters) makes no sense. —David Levy06:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Your concern is certainly valid, but then how do we notify editors who would be interested in voting, but who may not be logged in while reading Wikipedia? Any notice is either going to be over or under inclusive, I think it is best to err on the side of notifying more people. If you think the consensus at the RFC should be re-evaluated or overridden, I think it should be raised at one of the notice boards asap. The closer clearly indicated that a site notice should be used, unless the close is changed either by the closer or after an AN discussion, I think we need to respect it. Monty84502:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the longstanding opposition to the use of MediaWiki:Sitenotice for this purpose, the onus is on those who advocate such a practice to demonstrate consensus. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and it appears that no relevant discussion has occurred. (In fact, there wasn't a "watchlist only" option for which to vote, so even the poll failed to address the issue.) —David Levy06:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
To address David Levy: Since when has an RFC not included statements given by particular editors which are endorsed by the community? Was it that Sven Manguard's statement was not long enough? Perhaps he felt the issue was obvious. Either way, where is the long standing opposition?
To address Zzyzx11: The RFC was open for 45 days and was well publicized which allowed plenty of time for anyone who would be opposed to the sitewide notice, including David Levy, to wage their opinion. They did not. Going against consensus at this stage is disruptive.--v/r - TP14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.
In this instance, no relevant discussion occurred. And as noted above, the notice's non-use wasn't included in the polling, so we can't even compare vote counts.
MediaWiki:Sitenotice wasn't mentioned, so it isn't obvious that respondents fully understood what was being suggested (let alone pondered the ramifications thereof).
By "longstanding opposition," I'm referring to the community's response when this has been proposed on prior occasions and actually discussed, with arguments for/against presented and considered.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that this was an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Sven Manguard is a trustworthy editor who made a good-faith suggestion (presumably without realizing that it was controversial). —David Levy15:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I would oppose a Sitenotice, and would revert the addition of one unless a strong consensus was established here that it was necessary and that a watchlist notice was not sufficient. The vast majority of people who would see a sitenotice would not be eligible to vote in the ArbCom elections and probably wouldn't know what ArbCom was anyway. I think sitenotices should be reserved for issues affecting readers as a general rule, since they form the vast majority of the people who would see it. I would also say that it would be unfair to bombard our readers with a sitenotice for something they don't care about at the time of year when they're already confronted with the fundraising banner. I see no reason why a watchlist notice and Signpost coverage shouldn't suffice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Reading the linked discussion, it seems many of the people who wrote something more than just their signature imply that they would prefer to not show this to unregistered users. ("However, I do not think this should be displayed in the all-users banner that is shown to unregistered readers and editors during fundraisers; ACE is strictly an internal matter, and our readers undoubtedly do not give a toss"; "Yeah lets not become VSCA with our own stuff") Also, the discussion conflates what to advertise as well as where. Due to that, I also oppose putting a sitenotice about it, as it goes against the standing tradition that the sitenotice is only used for matters that affect the entire community of editors and readers. On another note, we have the WMF fundraiser running concurrently with the election, and the plaintext ArbCom election announcement would be dwarfed under the massive fundraiser banners. If you still decide to go ahead, then at the very least the Anonnotice needs to be modified to hide this message from unregistered users. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)05:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The site notice should be placed. The Arbitration Committee Elections are last I checked, the sole purely democratic institution on Wikipedia, and also the only way for the editorship to voice an opinion on the entity that is ultimately responsible for settling all behavioral disputes. More over, all are effected by the Arbitration Committee. The Committee provides oversight for the use of revision deletion and the checkuser tools, and thus (potentially) the privacy of all editors, as well as a number of other problems that effect Wikipedia-en as a whole. That all editors should be given friendly notice of an election is actually pretty obvious. While I understand and actually largely agree with the sentiment that most editors neither know of, nor care to know of the Arbitration Committee, it is inexcusable arrogance to presume to potentially keep them ignorant of the elections.
As a related point, the procedural objections raised here are unsound, if not also invalid. The RFC was public, long, and fair. That some here would presume to invoke a supposed "long standing consensus" and other empty catchphrases is disappointing. While we all understand that votes and polls are not the way things are decided on Wikipedia as a oft repeated truism, that is not license for a handful to judge the persuasiveness of arguments after the fact. It is not for any of us to elevate our own sentiments and preferences to the Way Things Are, or to defend a fiefdom by demanding a second achievement of consensus that you will immediately attempt to make impossible. Likewise promising to revert any changes is uncalled for, and smacks of a threat to get into a foolish permission fight, since the rest of us with permission can always threaten to revert it back.--Tznkai (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
RFCs in and of themselves have no compelling force; only consensus has, and RFCs are but one way to achieve it. Clearly in this case, the RFC failled to achieve consensus, in that as Carcharoth mentions, it was not appropriately advertised, and therefore did not present an opportunity for a contradictory debate on this matter, which is a prerequisite for consensus. Cenarium (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, no actual discussion occurred among those who did participate. It isn't even clear that the respondents fully understood what they were supporting, let alone the longstanding objections against it. Tznkai refers to "a handful [judging] the persuasiveness of arguments after the fact," but no arguments were even made. —David Levy04:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
What should have happened is that the RfC should have been publicised here. As part of the RfC was proposing an announcement be made via the sitenotice, whoever made that proposal should have: (a) left a notice here directing people to a draft proposal; and (b) modified that draft proposal based on any advice obtained here, before putting it live at the RfC. That would have avoided most of the objections outlined by others above, as well as ensuring that those who object above would have received direct notification and been more likely to participate in, or make relevant arguments at, the RfC. Planning ahead and gathering consensus before launching an RfC proposal reaps dividends in the long run. Hopefully that will be done next year. No comment about what should be done this year, except to say that it looks a bit too late now. As long as voter numbers are holding up compared to previous years that used SecurePoll, I wouldn't worry too much. Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Sitenotice for only people with greater than a certain number of edits
Is it possible to do that with the tools we currently have onwiki? If not, how hard would it be to design software that would do that? NW(Talk)02:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia is constructing a new Terms of Use agreement. The time allotted to comment on the new Terms will expire after December 31st. This document will affect all submitters of content, including anonymous, unregistered contributors. We recently added a Watchlist notice, but anonymous contributors won't be able to see that message. I believe that anonymous users and those not using Special:Watchlist need to be alerted to the Terms of Use discussions. I guess that we could use the text from the Watchlist notice for the notice. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As you can see from the rvs of past banners this month, the fact that there are fundraising CentralNotice banners running constantly means both fundraising staff and community members seem to be uninterested in running two large notices at once. If we want to reach anonymous users who might care enough to comment, you might encourage Geoff and others to write an update blog post about the discussion wrapping up soon, and make sure it's disseminated on our Twitter and Facebook accounts (which get thousands of readers, mostly non-editors). Even just 3-4 paragraphs would be good. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there a standard set of criteria that define what sort of thing should be put on the sitenotice? I am running an RfC which needs fairly wide publicity, and one or two users have suggested a sitenotice to publicize it. I'm not sure it justifies it but would like to understand the criteria. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm one who suggested it. I'll grant that it may be too much, but still support this. FA is a site-wide process and mostly it's only regulars participating. At minimum a note needs adding above watchlists, like another RfC currently is. Alarbus (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Since I posted this I found that another user has requested a watchlist notice. I think that's more appropriate than a site notice, since any editor who sees a site notice but would not see a watchlist notice is unlikely to be active enough to be able to make an informed contribution to that RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, most readers are not editors, but may-well like to see more featured articles produced than the current philosophy is intent on. WP:RFC is not specific to seeking input from just editors. I'm not seeing this note on my watchlist, so I'm going to go and urge that along. Alarbus (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The time has finally come to settle the mess left over from last year's RFC. A carefully structured RFC to be overseen by three previously uninvolved admins (already recruited) is ready to go live, but I'd like to have some sort of site-wide notice right away, rather than a week into it like last time. As soon as that is ok'd the RFC will open and the notice can go live. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, the consensus stated in most of the above discussions on this talk page is to reserve the Sitenotice for critical notices for all editors and readers, including anon IPs and registered Wikipedians that only edit once in while. Such RFC and other policy changes and debates that largely are only discussed by active regular Wikipedians should only be posted on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. In fact, during the previous times that Pending Changes was discussed or debated as RFC's, announcements for these were only posted on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details and WP:CENT, and not here on the SiteNotice. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Voting will end on 2012-06-06 21:00:00 (UTC)
Please, either, add a site notice or, perhaps more appropriate and less annoying, a watchlist note (read the box on top of the page on how-to, if you are unfamiliar). Thank you in advance. -- Rillke (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I added to the watchlist message in this version. I had to tweak it a bit (the standard {{display/watchlist}} template was using li coding) so please feel free to make another edit request (hopeful on that talk page) to tidy it up or anything if it is needed. Killiondude (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for displaying the Round 1 banner. Will you display POTY2011 Final banner, too? If no-border(li coding) text is preferable, in the style as below if possible. Thanks.--miya (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Display/watchlist |until=21 June |cookie=124 |text=
Free research accounts available, signups ongoing now
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Sign up for free research databases: There are 125Credo Reference accounts available here; 250HighBeam Research 1-year accounts available here; and 1000Questia 1-year accounts available here. You need a 1-year old account with 1000 edits on any Wikimedia project.
I want this message to go to *editors* on any Wikimedia projects that could benefit from free access to these English language research databases. I am frankly not sure what the best way to do that is. 'Blanking' the anonnotice and replacing it with <p></p>, would display only to editors. Alternately, we could use a watchlist-notice.Ocaasit | c03:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done I have made this a watchlist notice instead. If there is still a good reason to request a sitenotice, though, feel free to make another request. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
