Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 77

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). 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: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Party colour templates

Hello! Can somebody give me a link to the page dealing with various party colour templates? Thanks! Mbakkel2 (user talk) 21 February 2024 02:26 (CET)

Mbakkel2, I think that the last big discussion about that was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 24#RfC about party colours. User:Thomediter, User:Howard the Duck, or User:Number 57 might be able to answer your questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You can edit Module:Political party/A and all other letters. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Deploying Edit Recovery feature to English Wikipedia

Hello all,

Community Tech will be deploying the Edit Recovery feature (previously proposed as the Auto-save feature) to English Wikipedia following tests on test.wikipedia.org. It will be available for use by Thursday, 22 February 2024, as an opt-in user preference applicable to wikitext editor.

Edit Recovery was voted the #8 wish in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023. Edit Recovery allows for restoring edits when a browser is closed, or crashes or a power or network outage occurs during editing.

Turn on the feature by selecting ‘Enable the Edit Recovery feature’ in the Preferences ‘Editing’ section. Please give feedback till 31 March 2024 on the feature’s talk page.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Community Tech. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal (WMF), mw:Help:Edit Recovery says this will work on "the" wikitext editor. Which one(s) will it work in? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It should be any wikitext editor, except the 2017 editor as it already has an edit recovery feature. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thank God. Finally. I guess after 23 years is better than never. jp×g🗯️ 21:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Personhood

The Supreme Court of Alabama just ruled on Friday that frozen embryos have the same rights as children. I'm surprised there are not more specific articles on this, but I just updated Personhood and did some cleanup. That article is still a mess, though, and has several cleanup tags. If anyone is interested, now would be a good time to fix it up, in case it starts getting millions of page views as this debate becomes hot. -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an WP:UNDUE issue. The judiciary of one sub-national government issuing a ruling doesn't change anything about the academic understanding of the concept. The article already gives disproportional coverage to unborn personhood as opposed to general personhood and to the ideas of specific nations as opposed to the actual concept as a whole. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Data Citation Corpus

DataCite launches first release of the Data Citation Corpus: https://makedatacount.org/first-release-of-the-open-global-data-citation-corpus/

This appears to be a large database of citations taken from open source journals. The first iteration is citations that contain DOIs.

It is funded by Wellcome Trust serious backing. The first version is available as a data file: https://makedatacount.org/data-citation/

You can explore it visually with a dashboard: http://corpus.datacite.org/dashboard -- GreenC 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is currently not a source of the citations, which has pros and cons, for Wikipedia. Cons because hey, what about us. And pros because it can be a reliable source in creating/modifying citations on Wikipedia (reliable in the sense it has not been influenced by Wikipedia). -- GreenC 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wonder how much that duplicates the citations in Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @GreenC In Arabic, we use the citation in Wikidata, seen here. Mohammed Qays (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Vector 2022 flashed before my eyes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today is Thursday, so anything is possible, but this was a weird one. A page I was looking at rendered in Vector 2022 for no reason that I could detect. I tried reloading the page. That didn't help. I went to some other page thinking I might have turned on V22 by accident, but no; other pages were fine, it was just this one. Eventually, I did a force refresh (which I believe flushes the browser cache for just that one page) and got back to normal. By "normal", I mean "not Vector 2022". I remember looking at the URL bar and didn't see anything unusual there. Anybody have any clue what might have been going on? RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a wild stab in the dark, but I see (two talk sections up) there was a deployment of a new feature. Possibly related? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I posted at WP:VPT about the same issue, everythings fine bar one page that forces Vector 2022. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend moving this to WP:VPT so technical editors can see this and help you out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finding non-redirects that have class=redirect

I want to find articles under a specific category that have a wikiproject 'class' hard set to 'redirect', but that are not actually redirects. Is there a tool to do this? I took at look at PetScan but I don't see a suitable combination of filters. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, I suggest moving this question to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: oh okay, thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Ar-Wiki breaking neutrality on homepage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past few months, Ar-Wiki hosts a banner against "Israeli propaganda" and "Genocide in Gaza" on the frontpage. WMF does not mind it (after a huge number of attempts contacting them), and the chatter at the relevant meta-wiki is full of "justifications". Personally, I'm stopping my donations and contributions for now, as I don't donate to a website / organization endorsing a political opinion on the frontpage, especially not one that is against the alleged "propaganda" of the country I was born in. In my view they have broken the contract with us Wikipedians, promising a free and neutral encyclopedia.

I hope each and every contributor here will make their own decision whether to support the political opinion on ar-wiki's frontpage. By contributing to WMF, you're of course contributing to and are part of that message. Eventually donating to WMF (through the English Wikipedia) means donating for the hosting of a website influencing Arab readers and attempting to sway public politics. Have a good day, Bar Harel (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with enwiki, and the village pump is not a soapbox for ranting about "wmf bad." Firestar464 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't donate to the WMF, and en.wiki has nothing to do with ar.wiki's affairs. Go complain there. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I do not mind the occasional update about what is going on with other Projects, and this is probably the best place on English Wikipedia for those updates. Commander Keane (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your meta.wikimedia.org link is the correct place to discuss this. Nothing we can do here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If Wikipedia turns political, and the benefactors leave (because we lied to them about creating a neutral encyclopedia), enwiki is wiped. Do you think Google would appreciate us using donor funds and lying to them in order to host a political message on a supposedly "neutral" encyclopedia? You're welcome to check what happened to Websummit, so unless you agree with Wikipedia promoting political messages on the front page and risking the existence of this project, it is relevant to each and every person here, before we become websummit 2.0 and the project shuts doors. Bar Harel (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Unlike many Wikipedias in languages with a global span, like English, Spanish or Arabic, Hebrew Wikipedia resembles its Polish or Hungarian counterparts in being more of an "Israeli Wikipedia." It can be seen as having an implicit pro-Israeli bias." That's his opinion of course. According to many people, WP has all kinds of biases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What's Google got to do with it? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger we give donors the premise of neutrality as one of the five pillars of the project. We can't expect donations from large companies when we host political agendas on the main page and claim to be "neutral". I don't think many donors would appreciate us using the funds and resources to push a political agenda. A few months ago the same happened at Web Summit, and funds were pulled.

I'm not a legal expert so I'd appreciate one to chime in, but in our case it's an NGO and might amount to deceptive business practices. While the terms and conditions state that Wikimedia has no control over the editorial content, that would still be a weak case when a donation button appears on Wikipedia, with the premise of the five pillars, and then the funds are used to host content blatantly ignoring it. Furthermore, it is not "de minimis", as it is not a couple of articles that can be corrected. It is placed on purpose on the front page, and as a banner on every page on the website.

Regardless of the current case, I'm actually intrigued by what is WMF's responsibility with the use of donor funds. I'm sure they can't use it to purchase airplanes, but where is the border defined. Bar Harel (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the only few sentences in the donation page is:

"Wikipedia is different: not perfect, but also not here to make a profit or to push a particular perspective."

arwiki is deliberately pushing a particular perspective on every page on the website. Again, I'm not a legal expert, but you do the thinking. Bar Harel (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the point User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång brought up. This is you, who is from IsraeliWiki, trying to drag EnWiki into a political war with ArWiki. Go complain to Meta or ArWiki, not an uninvolved, unaffected third party that doesn’t give a crap. Dronebogus (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's remember that Wikipedia (any language version) ≢ the WMF. The writers own the content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC at Meta proposing to require consensus from the broader Wikimedia community prior to local Wikiprojects implementing blackouts or other advocacy

Interested editors may find the RfC here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal, the RfC is unsigned due to a tilde typo. -- GreenC 02:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This may have been intentional. Some folks prefer to not sign their RFCs. I disagree with this practice of obfuscating who starts RFCs, but I think the idea is that it reduces bias or something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

What does that even mean? What does "Recently, however, communities have started to take position on more contentious topics" refer to? Bon courage (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It probably refers to Arabic Wikipedia adding pro-Palestine banners and doing a one day pro-Palestine blackout. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to send a notification to all of the other communities and projects? By turning Wikipedia into a tool promoting political messages, all of WMF's assets are in danger, and that applies to every language of every project. Bar Harel (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Unless the politics is the right kind.[2] Given the precedent has been set for using Wikipedia assets for 'blackouts or other advocacy', the question is: who decides how? Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

From your link: "In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them."

arwiki atm is promoting political propaganda on its homepage. It's not really a question - in the meta thread it is being defended as the "right thing to do". Bar Harel (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Youve made your view on this very clear already. You can stop now. This project cannot do anything about another project, and hysterical claims of "political propaganda" arent really something that gets dealt with at the village pump last I checked. This isnt an en.wiki problem, kindly stop trying to make it one. nableezy - 16:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Same editor using different usernames

Editor using different usernames (Blackhawk333 and KnowledgeHunter6788), per

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Aloysius_College_(Mangalore)&action=history

Nirva20 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The proper location to report this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Please read the instructions beginning with Before opening an investigation ... before editing there. I will add that, while I do not perform sockpuppet investigations, I think that your evidence is weak. More evidence of the two editors apparently supporting each other would help your case. Donald Albury 17:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

::Based on your comments, I will drop it. I just assumed that two editors making identical edits ... Nirva20 (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that they're probably the same editor due to identical "deemed to be university" edits. Try filing an WP:SPI. They can decide if the behavior is rule breaking enough to justify blocks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your input. Nirva20 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Deemed to be university" is a pretty common phrase in India, so that in itself is not evidence of sockpuppetry. But, of course, it is not evidence against it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity… what is a “Deemed to be University”? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind… I found that we have an article on Deemed university. Blueboar (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nirva20, were you aware that "deemed-to-be-university" is a legal status in India? I've never heard of it myself, but those editors are probably correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably so. Yours, Nirva20 (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Could Wikipedia sue Neri Oxman?

As I ask in my post, does anyone know if Wikipedia/Wikimedia has ever sued someone for copyright infringement? Reagle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Wikimedia cannot sue anyone for copyright infringement because it does not own the copyright for its content. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right unless the Vizio case changes things. Reagle (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

What would be the point? While it is technically possible, and not very uncommon, to CI WP-text, it is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Funny you should mention that. I was at a talk this past weekend when I saw one of my own photos pop up on the screen, unattributed. They had obviously downloaded it from commons. For a moment I thought about pointing out to them that by failing to honor the "BY" part of CC-BY-SA, that had violated my copyright, but I behaved myself. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly prefer to use CC images in my slide decks (as a professor) and always link to the original image or have a credits slide (if the image is a background and can't be clicked on). I've assumed that's "reasonable" but not sure if that has been adjudicated? Reagle (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The point would be akin to @RoySmith's case. Some people contribute to Wikipedia with the expectation that the license will be abided by. In any case, it doesn't sound like a copyright infringement ''of'' Wikipedia content has ever been litigated. Reagle (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That article seems very confused. In the first paragraph it says, "Neri Oxman plagiarized from and violated Wikipedia’s copyright", but later says, "users retain their copyright, rather than assigning or transferring it to the Wikimedia Foundation". The latter is correct, so individual users could potentially sue, but not "Wikipedia", by which I assume the article means the Wikimedia Foundation. Even so it would be very difficult to show any loss, so, if I was a lawyer, I would advise against suing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You could probably get the minimum statutory damages, which in the US is US$750 per infringed work,[3] as long as the work isn't online. If it's only online, you'd send a DMCA takedown message and get nothing. See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter and Wikipedia:Standard CC BY-SA violation letter if you ever find yourself wanting to start that process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The only time I've noticed someone using content I added to Wikipedia without attribution, I notified the administrator of the Facebook group and it was taken down. Anything beyond that seemed to require more effort than it was worth. Donald Albury 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for those violation letters. From their existence, I presume they have been sent, but the cases were low visibility and little has gone before a court -- unlike some of the free software cases. Reagle (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

UK GDPR issue came up in AfD, unsure where to head next

Hello, the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion for Lynn Murray [4] has mentioned that the subject of the article has asked that we delete her page under section 17 of the UK's GDPR law. What are the next steps to follow? I'm unsure where to ask this, the Village Pump seemed like the best place to start. I'm an editor involved in AfD, but not an admin if that helps. Feel free to respond here or in the AfD I've linked. Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As someone has already pointed out, Wikimedia is a US entity operating under California/US law. To my knowledge, they don't appear to publicly talk much about GDPR. That said, the contact point is listed at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department (you'll probably want legal@). A couple of other observations: IMDB gives a recent acting role in 2020, and there's some links on the talk page to her (presumably self-published and presumably recent) profiles, both of which give me certain doubts. That said, BLPREQUESTDELETE is generally honoured in marginal cases such as this, so you might want to see how that plays out before anything else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• Someone needs to read Right to be forgotten. As I understand it, "____ is a Scottish actor" is not generally considered private information by anyone.
• Have you heard of the Streisand effect? Page views are up.

(I'm not sure that we need an article about this person.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia is a US entity operating under California/US law According to the EU, the GDPR is extra-territorial in scope, and applies to any data processor who handles information on EU citizens. Despite Brexit, the data of UK citizens would still be in scope of GDPR compliance as it's not yet repealed it. The Foundation itself maintains a presence in Ireland and the UK for GDPR compliance, though whether that's only for the personal data of editors is unclear from the privacy policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Designing a new Wishlist: Meet Jack, the new Lead Community Tech Manager

Hello community, I want to introduce Jack Wheeler, who has recently joined the Wikimedia Foundation as the Lead Community Tech Manager and is responsible for the Future of the Wishlist.

Jack would like to have a conversation with the community, to get input for the design of the new Wishlist Survey, starting with how to define a "Wish."

Community Tech would appreciate you chatting with him; your input will be invaluable.

You can check out Jack's first message to the community, where you can find a link to proceed to book time to talk to him, or share your ideas.

Best regards,

On behalf of the Community Tech team, STei (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Talking:2024 February 2024 Update from Maryana

Hey all,

I'm following up on the recent request for conversation in the virtual learning and sharing tour, Talking: 2024. Maryana has an update sharing some highlights so far. It has been shared on Diff, Meta-wiki, and wikimedia-l.

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

How to draftify an article that's already been draftified

• Miss USA 2024
• Draft:Miss USA 2024

I went to draftify Miss USA 2024, a new, un-patrolled article with a single press release as a source. I could not, as Draft:Miss USA 2024 already exists. I'm not sure what to do about this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case the mainspace article is an obvious copyright violation of the draft, so it should be tagged with WP:G12. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:G12 work on WP:CWWs? I think the way that's usually handled is a null edit adding attribution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DRAFTOBJECT suggests that we can't double draftify (Draft:Miss USA 2024 was also draftified), so maybe it should go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'm trying G12 first. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:G12 does not apply here as it says public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion - the correct thing to do would have been too request a history merge of the draft to the article and then list it at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The new article and the draft only share about a paragraph, and have significant other differences, perhaps making a history merge not a perfect solution here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that this was solved by a quick redirect, which I think is fine.

I do hope that the decision wasn't based on the sources already cited in the article, as WP:NEXIST is still technically the rule, and a quick search finds sources like this one (300 words directly about the pageant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on Narendra Modi Talk page

{{rfc notice}}

Join the ongoing discussion on Talk:Narendra Modi#"Request for Comment" Thanks BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting a re-direct deleted

How do I go about getting 2024 District of Columbia Democratic primary deleted? As it's now (via a mistake I made) a re-direct to a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Can’t you just edit it so it points to the appropriate article section? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

A bot will be along soon to fix the redirect to point directly to its target's target 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Primaries and caucus calendar. There's no need to delete it. However, if you wish, you can fix it manually yourself or add a {{g7}} (or {{Db-error}}) tag requesting deletion. Certes (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a {{Db-error}}, to make certain it gets deleted. Thanks for the help, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing Redirects Project

I've made a tool at toolforge:missingredirectsproject for creating suggested redirects. I'd appreciate it if anyone's willing to try it out and give me some feedback. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024: We are back!

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the forth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 1st until 31st March 2024. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contribution in every language! The most active contesters will receive prizes.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! ValentynNefedov (WMUA) (talk)

An admirable goal, to be sure, but I'm not sure I like the precedent set by the WMF cozying up to government ministries, no matter where they are. (in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra, Wikimedia Ukraine is not the same as Wikimedia Foundation. Chapters are independent corporations registered in their home country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright notice, appearance

Maybe I'm only noticing it now. But every time I edit a page, a copyright notice appears at the top. Is this something new, Wikipedia has added? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm noticing this too, but did not see any discussion of the change. Certes (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been there forever. It previously said this:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.

The primary change made was to put it in colored box, presumably in an effort to reduce banner blindness (which is obviously happening, since you didn't remember seeing it during your last ~400,000 edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Heitor Villa-Lobos Suite Populaire Bresilienne

In addition to Kraft and Zigante, Julian Bream recorded four movements of the Suite in 1978. The recording is principally of the 12 Etudes. If possible this should be included in the article. 2A00:23C5:7F92:A801:E1AE:DFCC:23F4:D34E (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

These kinds of comments should be placed on the article talk page. Which article? When I figure out which article, I can help you find its talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's about Suite_populaire_brésilienne#Recordings. The IP is right about Bream. It's absence may be because the section currently only seems to include recordings of the complete 1948 suite (W020). Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder - Wikimedia Foundation South Africa banner fundraising community call tomorrow

Dear all,

As mentioned earlier, we will be hosting a community call tomorrow where you can bring your questions and comments around the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign to.

The call details can be found on the community collaboration page.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

When is an RfC inappropriate?

I've been spectating (and occasionally commenting) on a disagreement between Peter Isotalo, the main author of Vasa (ship), and ThoughtIdRetired. The article doesn't separate explanatory footnotes from citations. ThoughtIdRetired thinks it would be better to do so; Peter disagrees. After posting in several places about the general issue (e.g. on CITE, on the Ships project, and on CITE again, ThoughtIdRetired has opened an RfC at Talk:Vasa (ship), asking if the explanatory footnotes should be separated.

I agree with ThoughtIdRetired that it would be better to separate them, but the RfC bothers me because of the conflict between the idea of bringing in outside views, and the goal of MOS:VAR, which (like the related WP:CITEVAR and MOS:RETAIN) have the goal of avoiding having these discussions in the first place. I won't paraphrase all of MOS:VAR, but the thrust is: don't make changes you can't get consensus for. However, what if the question is raised via RfC? That will always bring in some editors who are not involved in the article via the feedback service, and may bring more in if the usual practice of e.g. posting at related WikiProjects is followed. When a minority position that is supposed to be protected by VAR or RETAIN is exposed to enough other opinions, by virtue of being a minority position it is likely to be overridden. This seems like a bad outcome to me: it means that if an editor strongly dislikes a minority-preferred style in an article they work on, they may be able to override the local consensus by creating an RfC. And we know from experience that forcing a style change on the main editor of an article is a very emotive thing to do. That's why those VAR and RETAIN guidelines exist.

I want to stress that I actually agree with ThoughtIdRetired on the style issue itself. I've !voted in that RfC for the option I would not use myself, because I think MOS:VAR and its cousins are more important. I don't see anything in our guidelines that implies ThoughtIdRetired was wrong to start the RfC, but it seems an illogical result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The 'outside' editors can read the MOS just like the in-group. Trust in the consensus-forming process, I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In general, we frown upon editors opening multiple discussions about the same issue at multiple venues at the same time. It smacks of “forum shopping”. That said, sometimes a discussion does need more participation from a wider audience, and the RFC process is a great way to achieve that. Where you HOLD the RFC does not really matter (since they are all centrally listed, and LOTS of editors watch that list). The key is… if an RFC is opened, STOP discussing it elsewhere and focus on the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• It wouldn't help in this case, but personally I'd like some limit (time or # of edits, or both) on new editors starting RfCs. I saw one recently (it may come to me) of an editor launching one on I think day 4 of his editing. He was firmly sat on, but it wasted a good deal of time. The Vasa (ship) one should have been a general one on a policy page, not just at one article. ThoughtIdRetired is one of those editors who has been going round imposing his personal stylistic whims on various articles, in breach of various policies (WP:CITEVAR etc) that don't mandate a particular way of doing things. We should be firmer in stopping this. Many relatively new editors seem to think this is ok, or even useful. It isn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, RfCs are heavyweight processes not to be used lightly. I know @WhatamIdoing has been trying to raise awareness of this. Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thing is… it doesn’t NEED to be a heavyweight process. The original point of RFC was simply to have a way to request comments and get input from outside editors. It wasn’t always limited to dispute resolution. We used to use the RFC process to generate ideas, and help us think “outside the box”. Questions were sometimes phrased in a more open ended and flexible way. Sadly, in more recent years, it has grown into a bureaucratic process, focused purely on dispute resolution… with questions too often phrased to obtain “judgement” between limited options: X vs Y (or worse: X vs Not X). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Bon courage is correct that I oppose individuals running multiple RFCs at the same time. We added information (think "facts", not "rules") about this in a box at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page a while ago. Between providing that information and the community banning two editors who had been running large numbers of simultaneous RFCs at a time, we haven't really had any problems with it since then. (Brand-new editors almost never start RFCs, and we don't get many complaints about the RFCs that they do start.)

  The idea that people shouldn't use RFC for every little thing has been the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment off and on. It usually appears in the form of someone recommending that WP:RFCBEFORE be a reason to summarily remove or invalidate an RFC. Upon investigation, one frequently finds that the objecting editors feel like they're "losing" the RFC (scare quotes, because it is my belief that everybody wins when a dispute gets resolved). One doesn't want RFCs when they add no value (e.g., if a quick note on the talk page would have quickly resulted in agreement with your idea), but one also doesn't want to avoid RFC out of the fear that a dispute hasn't gotten bad enough yet to warrant it.

  I agree with Blueboar that RFC doesn't need to be a heavyweight process. I think there are two practical things that individual editors can do that would reduce it seeming that way:

  • First, don't claim that the results are binding (WP:Consensus can change, even after an RFC) or otherwise elevate the importance of the RFC process. Most discussions at RFC are about quite ordinary disputes in ordinary articles, many of which are really requests for opinions rather than the next escalation of a fight between mortal enemies. RFC is an advertising mechanism for ordinary, consensus-oriented talk-page discussions. It is not an epic boss level in which disputants fight for the prize of eternal article content. Treat it like a noticeboard for a semi-random selection of ordinary discussions. All the ordinary rules apply.
  • Second, don't encourage voting behaviors. Don't set up separate sections for voting and discussion (almost no RFCs benefit from this), or if you do, put the ===Discussion=== first. Do reply to a couple of people, especially if you can ask any clarifying questions. Make it easy for them to have an actual discussion. Ask open-ended questions like "Are there any options we haven't considered?" or "Do you happen to remember a good example of that?" Say things like "I wonder if we could find a compromise that would both incorporate his suggestion and also her idea" or "That's an important point that I hadn't thought of before". The important point isn't the bolded support/oppose labels; the important point is engaging with people's thoughts.

  I think some of the feeling about RFCs being heavyweight are because, on average, we are more likely to participate in the biggest RFCs than in the many small ones. This tends to skew our perception (e.g., to believing that RFCs normally get responses from dozens of editors).

  Blueboar, I deserve at least some of the blame for the rise of binary questions, as my attempt years ago to discourage vague questions ("What do you think of this article?") was too extreme. We adjusted the examples a while ago, but WP:Nobody reads the directions, and the effects will persist for years to come. I feel like we are making a little bit of progress on that front, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  In the RFCs in a contentious topic area I edit in regularly if there is no separate discussion/survey section what often happens is the same people who had been in dispute continue the argument with great length and vehemence in the survey section. And what I have found is that when when an RFC that looks like sharks fighting with each other in the deep water outside perspectives end up being limited. So I get the idea of focusing more on discussion, but often times the dispute has been intractable and the discussions long-winded and so heated that uninvolved parties would rather avoid it then help solve the dispute. nableezy - 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  The approach occasionally used at AN for that problem is to have separate sub-sections for ===Previously involved=== and ===Previously uninvolved editors===. If you decide to try that out some time, I'd suggest putting the uninvolved editors first, and maybe naming the people who belong in the second category ('cause I'm not really involved; I've only posted a hundred comments about this). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mike, this RFC boils down to interpretation of policy, not the minutiae of a 17th century warship.

If this is a discussion that matters, the RFC belongs in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or something like it. There's no benefit to either the article or the community to have the discussion on an article talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds as though I need to answer some of the points raised above.

• Firstly, the RfC was not my idea. It was suggested by the editor who provided a third opinion[5]. As you can see, the third opinion was not my idea either.
• I had some reluctance to get involved in the escalation of an RfC, but there seemed little alternative but to follow the advice of the third opinion. Rightly or wrongly, I listened to the advice of another editor on this[6]. Looking back at that link, I possibly was too polite and accommodating with the tone of my reply, because I did feel boxed into a corner with the whole thing.
• The primary original point raised at the article focused on the non-use of templates for referencing, so losing out on the functionality that is so useful in an article with short form referencing.[7] This met a lot of resistance from the major editor of the article, so I decided that idea was going nowhere. Then they stated that So you can apply templates and still respect WP:CITEVAR..[8] That seemed to be an OK to use sfn referencing templates (what else can that mean?). Strangely, after a while, that same editor has now installed templates on most, if not all of the article's references, changing the sfns to harvnbs.
• Before I started editing the article[9], it had three usages of {{efn}}, installed by different editors. Rightly or wrongly, I took this as a level of consensus that a separate notes section should exist in the article. I believe that what precipitated the removal of all {{efn}}s was my use of them.
• The whole purpose of seeking agreement to use a separate notes section is driven by the type (and quantity) of content with which the article should now be updated. This need did not exist before late 2023. It does now.
• I do get the feeling that WP:FAOWN is actually a barrier to improving this particular article – perhaps a touch of "not invented here" syndrome. I appreciate that FA enthusiasts will not like that idea. However all I can say is what I feel, which is that the major editor of the article simply does not want opinions that seek to improve the article. That is more than just the notes style – it includes the reaction to flagging of missing citations and failed verifications. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @ThoughtIdRetired: I apologize if I nudged you in a direction you didn't want to go. My goal was to offer assistance, not pressure.

  I'm seeing a recurring theme in this episode in which editors imply that WP:FAOWN says something very different than what it actually says. We should do one of two things: either follow the policy as written, or update the policy to align with our actual practice.

  @Mike Christie: MOS:VAR doesn't say an existing style shouldn't be changed: it says to seek consensus first (effectively, carving it out from WP:BOLD especially for widespread actions). The article talk page is the correct place to determine if there is consensus for a style change, and a RfC is a reasonable tool to use to develop that consensus. !Voting against your stylistic preference in the RfC because of MOS:VAR seems oddly circular to me. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't seem circular to me -- I think MOS:VAR is important, and I think the RfC is against the spirit (though perhaps not the letter, which is why I started this thread) of MOS:VAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  We agree on the first part: MOS:VAR is important. We disagree on the second part: in my opinion, starting a RfC to determine if there is consensus for a style change is precisely within the spirit of MOS:VAR. What makes more sense than using a consensus-building tool to determine where consensus lies? VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think we disagree on what community MOS:VAR implies should be reaching consensus. I think it should be the editors working on that article, without the need for an RfC (per the comments above about it being a heavyweight tool). You (and many others) think it's anyone who wishes to answer the RfC, which will reach many editors with no interest in the page itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @VQuakr: no need for apology. My failure to fully express what I was thinking at the time is entirely my responsibility. The key point is that this was an unstoppable train the moment it went to a third opinion. And however this ends, it is hard to see any other way of reaching a conclusion – presuming that is actually possible. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: In this case the mechanics of achieving a consensus in the article was limited by the numbers of editors in that article willing to express an opinion. (Unfortunately the other users of a separate notes section had fled the scene.) When you have only two people and two different viewpoints, in-article consensus is never going to work. The only recourse is to go outside the article. Perhaps there are other solutions, but I don't know what they are. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  MOS:VAR says If a discussion does not result in consensus for the change at the article, continue to use the already-established style there. That's what I feel should have happened. There's no requirement in any discussion to keep expanding the audience till a decision emerges; we all have to deal with "no consensus" every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would say that a discussion between two editors can reach agreement, but never consensus. For a consensus you need a minimum of three (and even then, it would be a very weak consensus). Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: our policy at WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS specifically mentions RfCs as a way to achieve consensus. A little later in that policy it mentions When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions, then again specifically mentions RfCs. This makes me feel like policy is at odds with the opinion of I think it should be the editors working on that article. Universally on Wikipedia (and I am shifting to speaking from my experience here rather than quoting policy), consensus is formed from discussion amongst those present. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe @ThoughtIdRetired's summary of my part of the discussion is not entirely accurate. The diffs show a much fuller context that is left out and I don't understand why.

I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith, but I believe the RFC is at least in part due to an underlying personal conflict that's muddying the waters. Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to other languages.

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

• May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
• June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
• June-August 2024: Campaign period
• End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
• October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
• Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution when no real dialogue?

I have a question about a problem that may happen from time to time, so I will describe the problem in general, in the hope of getting answers for future situations as well as the present situation, rather than tell what specific dispute I am asking about. Two editors have been in disagreement about an article at least since late January 2023. One of them has requested moderated dispute resolution at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, DRN. DRN requires previous discussion at the article talk page, and it is recommended that each party have made at least two statements, over a period of at least 24 hours. What I am seeing is that the first editor has made edits to the article 10 times, and their edits have been reverted 10 times with long statements, sometimes very long (more than 1000 words). The second editor has sometimes replied with posts that are almost as long. There has been no real dialogue. My first thought was to decline the dispute at DRN, because there has been no real discussion, and no real attempt to discuss, and I have little reason to think that I, or another moderator, will be able to change that. My second thought has been to accept the case with the knowledge that the discussion will probably fail, and be reported to WP:ANI. However, we know that Wikipedia is not effective at dealing with editors who are civil but stubborn, who are known as civil POV pushers. So, should I accept the dispute, knowing that I will probably not be able to resolve the dispute, and the community may not be able to resolve the dispute? Or should I decline the dispute, in which case the community may also not be able to resolve the dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has IIRC declined to participate in the only DRN I've ever been involved in, I'd say accept the case iff the editors are in agreement to try it. Because if the two (or more) editors agree to try the process, even if there hasn't been productive dialogue up until that point, it's worth trying because the mediator may be the thing that makes the difference and gets dialogue going. As long as you have willing participants, it's worth a shot. (And you can end it if it goes nowhere.) Levivich (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Creating and testing a tool

Hi, I would like to test a tool (not a bot) that I can use only with my account that appears in the Wikipedia toolbar and lets me do certain actions. How would I go about this, how can I test it just for myself, and can I use JavaScript? Please let me know if I posted this in the wrong place, IIRC village pump is for technical things. Thanks, Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 02:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is, yes, you can write wiki tools in JavaScript. My suggestion is to take a look at the Wikitech web site for general development stuff and https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API to learn about the APIs that are available to JavaScript apps. RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Will likely get better answers at WP:VPT. Sounds like the tool already exists? Which tool specifically would you like to test? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

pericolonialism

This term has not been defined and is pertinent to decolonising narratives and experiencing 2403:4800:35C9:5535:F4CC:BF6:F2D1:62D0 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It's sufficiently specialist that it's currently unknown to Wiktionary as well, and is only mentioned in ten Wikipedia articles as part of the title of a single work from 2017, but a cursory web search suggests to me that this concept might indeed qualify for an article of its own.

All articles in Wikipedia are created and edited solely by volunteers, so you are welcome to try to create one yourself via the WP:AfC process, but you would benefit from studying our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the other guidance linked there – particularly about Reliable sources and Citation, analysing examples of Good Articles, and practicing with making small (and valid) copyedits to existing articles for for some months before embarking on what is a quite difficult task. Welcome and Good luck! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.188.170 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Opinions on inter-wiki and sister project linking

Hello everyone,

I am fairly new to enwiki and wanted to ask something that might be helpful to me in creating articles. Is inter-wiki linking usually done? Like my example is that, I translated the page of a song that is very important within Turkish Classical Music Yine Bir Gülnihâl. I want to improve it by linking all instances of that song (by different artists etc.) which I want to do through linking Wikidata (because the instances of the song wouldn't be notable on their own). I know this is not usually done, but does it make sense to do it?

Thanks Egezort (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Egezort, I think you're looking for Template:Interlanguage link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is really helpful! But I don't know if it covers items that would not be notable. Like "Yine Bir Gülnihal - Barış Manço" (Barış Manço's version of the song) wouldn't be notable enough to have an article, but it would have an item. Does it make sense to link it and somehow omit the red text? Egezort (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So this would mean:

Jokery -

(but without the dash)

instead of

Jokery Egezort (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Egezort If I understand you correctly, you should not add such links in the en-WP-article text. You can mention some versions of the song in a WP:PROPORTIONATE manner, meaning pick a few that has been noticed by independent WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Central banner for Bengali Wikiquote contest

A contest is going to happen from April 1, 2024 to April 30, 2024 on Bengali wikiquote to enrich the content and a central notice request has been placed to target English Wikipedia users including non-registered ones from Bangladesh and the Indian states of West Bengal. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in Just Shoot Me!

The entire Neilsen Ratings section is gone. I don't know why, it's just gone.

Just Shoot Me! Link 3.14 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

They're still in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It's the chart? 3.14 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Just_Shoot_Me!#Nielsen_ratings Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. The display makes it look like it's blank, but it's just the chart, right> 3.14 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Making Hotel Wikipedia more suited for Wikipedia, also recording the official theme song.

Can we make Hotel Wikipedia more Wikipedia-y? For instance: Steely knives? What about plastic keys? Also, can we actually record the full song? 3.14 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@3.14159265459AAAs: m:Hotel_Wikipedia is at Meta. If you have suggestions to improve it, use the talk page there. I am not sure about recording it, but I think that parody is allowed under fair-use. RudolfRed (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that direction. 3.14 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK to open a NPOV noticeboard ticket after Dispute Resolution noticeboard is archived?

Hi - I'm new here and have made a great many missteps already! I've been trying to move the trap-neuter-return page to neutral point of view. I'm a current practitioner of trap-neuter-return (TNR). You can check out the Talk to see how it's going. I opened a Dispute Resolution ticket: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#trap-neuter-return

It is not moving forward because a second moderator was requested and I posted in Teahouse to see if a moderator could be recruited and that is now archived. From what I understand, the Dispute Resolution ticket will be archived for inactivity at some point (anyone know how long that takes?). I was wondering if it would be ok, after the DR ticket is archived, if I could post on the NPOV noticeboard? This is really where the page should have gone from the start. Do I need consensus from other editors on the page to do so? (This is how it ended up in Dispute Resolution instead.) Not sure where to go from here. Nylnoj (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, posting at WP:NPOVN is fine. The idea behind noticeboards is to get additional and neutral editors to join discussions and help build consensus when things get tricky or stuck. Sounds like this situation might benefit from that. Although don't post in too many more places lest you get accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING, since by the end of this you'll have posted at WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:VPM. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll wait for the DRN noticeboard post to get archived and then try the NPOVN board. Nylnoj (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey

Hello everyone, there is new information concerning the redesign of the Community Wishlist Survey.

Firstly, in case you missed them earlier, the updates we have provided so far are:

Update 1: Early decisions on the future of the Wishlist.

Update 2: Introducing Jack Wheeler the new Community Tech Manager, also responsible for redesigning the Wishlist.

Update 3: How we can define a "wish".

Currently, we have two newer updates:

Update 4: Since we are planning on keeping the Wishlist open all year and also looking at how the community have participated in vetting/refining wishes, should wishes be editable?

Update 5: We have shared a preview of the new Wishlist.

Please have a look at any of the updates that interest you, particularly Update 4 and 5.

To keep the conversation in one place, please leave your feedback on the central talk page for all the updates (preferably). However, you can leave comments under this post too.

On behalf of Community Tech, STei (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Residence: is this a way around conflict of interest rules?

I was alerted to the existence of this Wikipedia in residence page sponsored by a library at Brigham Young University. As far as I can tell, the only people who are eligible to participate in the programs sponsored here are those who are in good standing with the LDS Church. This seems to be somewhat in contradiction to long-standing Wikipedia policies against that sort of coordinated editing (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology for the long history of these sorts of problems). From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Should such a WiR program exist? What should be done?

I thought of maybe bringing that page to WP:AfD, but likely that's not the right thing to do. This seems pretty concerning to me. Anyone else?

jps (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GLAM is not exactly the same as Wikipedia:Wikipedian in Residence, although there are some Wikipedians in Residence involved in that program. Do you see anything that says the students actually have to be "in good standing with the LDS Church", or are you just assuming that since most students at Brigham Young University do belong to the LDS church, that all of them do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is allowed to be active at that library who is not in good standing as such. See the academic freedom policy for BYU. In effect, anyone who would adopt a critical lens towards the LDS faith would not be allowed to work at the library. jps (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. Do you have something more directly relevant, like a job posting that says "By the way, if you're a student here but not actually in good standing with the church, then we won't hire you"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You'd be expelled if you left the church[10], presumably that would end any student employment. Note that as a private organization discriminating on the basis of religion is not illegal (at least not in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But, as that link says, they also have non-LDS students enrolled. Is there any reason to believe the non-LDS students are prohibited from getting this campus job? (One expects student jobs to be limited to students.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have not seen anything which suggests that non-LDS students at BYU have any more academic freedom than LDS ones. That would be one difference between this program and almost every other related program... They are at institutions which respect basic academic freedoms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Non-LDS students are subject to the same rules as LDS students and include maintaining Ecclesiastical Endorsement to maintain their standing. [11] It is true that one may obtain such an endorsement from a limited list of alternate ecclesiastical authorities, but an atheist, for example, is not allowed to attend BYU. Nor would a black tea drinker for that matter. jps (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. But it is perfectly legal for them, as a religious institution, to deny people roles in the institution due to failing religious tests, of course. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In the US, that is only true if the role has some sort of religious component to it. A religious organization can require (e.g.,) a teacher to belong to their religion because of the Ministerial exception, but it can't require the same from a janitor. The low-level staff only have to avoid subverting the employer's goals (e.g., no telling the students that the religion is wrong while you're mopping the floor, no sneaking prohibited food into the cafeteria, etc.). It is unlikely that a student hired to post information about what's in the library would be considered a religious minister. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Beast in 2015 ran a story that included the claim that if a student loses their ecclesiastical endorsement, they will lose their campus job. "Without [ecclesiastical endorsement], they would be expelled. The university would initiate proceedings to terminate their campus jobs." Looks like a religious test to me. jps (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK expelled students are not expected to keep holding their student jobs at any university.

From what I read on their website, students can and do get the ecclesiastical endorsement without belonging to the LDS church. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

They have to belong to some church that is recognized as legitimate by BYU, convince the local LDS bishop to give them an endorsement, or get the endorsement from the BYU chaplain. Those are the only other options. That's a religious test plain and simple. jps (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the library as a resource intentionally censors sources that are not in line with the above policy at the discretion of an opaque process: [12] This looks like a book-banning form to me. jps (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I read "the Library must also make materials available that some may find trivial, challenging, or offensive" in exactly the opposite way: Here's a handy complaint form, but don't get your hopes up about us removing a book just because you find it unimportant, difficult, or offensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know of other examples of libraries with complaint forms of this sort? The plain text read is that they consider removing offensive material from circulation. An alternative would be to say, "We do not censor materials due to some finding them trivial, challenging, or offensive." That's what I would expect for a library committed to the free exchange of knowledge, for example. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a very standard-looking US library complaint form. Such complaint forms are intended, as WhatamIdoing indicates, to channel complaints into a bureaucratic process that primarily exists as a paper trail for the librarians to justify to review boards their decisions to not withdraw an item, forcing complaints to make specific objections that can be refuted and dismissed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it true that standard-looking US library complaint forms include: "The Library intentionally collects materials that strengthen faith and promote spiritual development (D&C 88:118)" as the lead-in sentence to the form? jps (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd honestly glanced past that and assumed it was quoting the library's collection development policy, which would be a very normal thing to include in such a form irrespective of however weird the collection development policy is. But I do see now that it's actually alluding to scripture, and specifically scripture that says 18 Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory, which does indeed seem much more like a call for censorship rather than anything resembling a collection development policy. Concerning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I read it as a standard complaint form with a bit of marketing at the top. A little sugar to make the medicine go down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that such "sugar" and marketing is antithetical to our mission of free knowledge dissemination and the promotion of open inquiry. We are actively collaborating with a group that promotes religious litmus tests as a means to decide a work's availability. Even if they say that apostate literature can sometimes be permitted to achieve certain faith-formation goals, this is still an uneven playing field necessarily skewed away from critical thinking. jps (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All BYU students have to abide by the Honor Code and can be expelled (which obviously would lead to termination of any university employment and eviction from school housing) for violating it--like by swearing, failing to encourage others to follow the HC, having "extreme-colored" hair, not "participating regularly in Church services", etc., on or off campus. And unlike every other college where evaluating grounds for expulsion is up to university officials, HC violations (with the exception of having a romantic (even if non-sexual) same-sex relationship, which is still an expellable offense but goes through the HC Office rather than bishops) lead to expulsion via revocation/non-renewal of the student's ecclesiastical endorsement by their ward bishop (or other ecclesiastical leader or nondenominational BYU chaplain for the 1.5% of students who identify with other or no religions) based on his personal interpretation of their transgressions. Anyone can report HC violations through this form, so students experiencing any doubt in their faith must be sure to hide it extremely well from everyone if they want to continue getting their degree.

So yes I would say all students still have to be in "good standing" with the LDS Church even if they are not LDS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you can be "in good standing" without first being a member. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's an American thing, but why is Wikipedia/WMF associating itself with this irrational and unsavoury religious outfit in the first place? Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Do you have diffs for this? I think that that would be central. Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI; the issue in the cases you linked was that there were coordinated and institutional efforts to influence Wikipedia in a non-neutral direction. The question is whether this is that. At a glance, though, this document (linked on the page you linked) is a bit concerning: How to look like a trustworthy Wikipedia editor. And especially the bit further down about If you are willing to have your edits tracked to measure how edits from Vineyard’s volunteers are doing, click on this link while logged into Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "How to look trustworthy" might sound a bit flippant, but the advice in there is sound: "always log in", "fill out the “edit summary” for every edit", "add a reference for every sentence", etc., and the tracking link is to our own https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not diffs per se, but this To-Do list appears to me to be not much better than an attempt at increasing the coverage of parochial LDS-approved topics. There is a subtle line between promotion of one's faith and documenting the beliefs, practices, and related stories of a medium-sized religion. Given that this is a systematic and sponsored project, I remain concerned. jps (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI" ← it certainly is for that religion, to some degree. And edits made about that religion are COI-tainted, to some degree ranging from the unimportant to the highly-problematic. Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reading this list, I'm not so concerned. I wouldn't consider the anti-Mormon film A Mormon Maid "LDS-approved" (and the to-do list is right that it needs improvement; for a film that was such a cultural touchstone about sex and sex panics, the article's very short), for instance. This assessment seems to imply that Mormonism is parochial, but you might be surprised how robustly Mormon subjects (persons, events, etc.) are covered in reliable, secondary sources. Speaking from the perspective of one who reads a lot in history and religious studies, academic presses and major periodicals publish a lot about Mormons. There's a lot to document about their demographic and social influence across history, and anthropologists, literary critics, and religious studies scholars seem to find Mormon culture and texts useful to study. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  Is A Mormon Maid really anti-Mormon? It's certainly anti-polygamist. But anyway, Scientologists would certainly be interested in helping to form Wikipedia's discussion of Trapped in the Closet (South Park), for example, as I imagine Mormons might be interested in framing the discourse about the film you mention with similar motivations. jps (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  We have traditionally said that being a member of a religion is not a COI, though being on the marketing team is, and being a cleric might be. We say the same thing about being a citizen of a country while editing the articles about that country, being a physician editing articles about medicine, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's right. COI says "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI" and for certain more propagandizing religions (scientology, Sahaja yoga, e.g.) COI has been a significant traditional problem on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, they can trigger a COI. Can≠does. Physicians are paid to provide medical services, which is a "financial" relationship. About 60% of American adults are registered members of political parties, which is a "political" relationship. But we don't tell physicians to stay out of the medical articles, and we don't leave WP:ARBAP2 work to the 40% who don't belong to a political party. If it were automatic, you'd find notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity telling editors not to edit articles about Christianity if they're Christians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  The example of Scientology is illustrative. It seems to me that there is a coordinated effort to skew Wikipedia content towards the approach adopted by the Harold B. Lee Library which, as far as I can tell, is intended to promote Mormonism. The Church of Scientology was basically doing the same thing back in the day when it paid editors to promote Scientology while adhering to Wikipedia principles. You know, just add a lot of content to help people understand the "basic principles and beliefs". jps (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Being a physician is not an external relationship, though of course Wikipedia has had a problem with physician COIs of various sorts in relation to medical devices, practices, fields of work, institutions, etc. etc. I do worry sometimes that COI is seen as a big binary switch. If you're a Christian you have an 'automatic' COI to some degree with with Christian topics, depending on your fervour and the topic, and in some cases it won't matter. If you're a member of Reform UK you have an 'automatic' COI with that topic to some degree which may or may be a problem. As to leaving AP2 "to the 40% who don't belong to a political party" ... ! You can dream WAID, you can dream ... Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's also the very definite, formalized financial relationships LDS members have with their church, and that BYU students have with BYU and the church. These relationships are not present between physicians and medicine or between most political party members and their party or politics.

  From what I have seen of the HBLL group's edits, the non-NPOV editing arises not so much through actively pushing LDS faith but through covering--often extensively--topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic. This predictably results in rather in-universe treatment of scriptural stories and amplifies the reach of fringe topics that have not received attention from mainstream scholars and thus should not have standalone notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  See for example the push to create articles for almost all possible Book of Mormon topics and improve existing in support of a new Church wide Sunday school curriculum. Many of the topics do not have significant coverage outside of the LDS walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  One additional aspect of the financial relationship is that members of the LDS church get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at BYU. Just another way this particular role is being gatekept. Wikipedia is essentially promoting editing collaborations that are necessarily heavily skewed towards LDS members in good-standing. jps (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  And in-state/in-country students get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at most universities. Would a Wikipedian-in-residence at New York University be unreliable for the topic of New York? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am amazed that you would think that this is close to being an equivalency. (Also, just FYI, NYU does not give discounts for New York residents, but CUNY/SUNY does! None of those institutions requires membership in a religious organization to receive such a benefit.) jps (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• There are certainly a number of concerns here, diffs wise I think its helpful to look at something smaller than systematically inserting pro-Mormon POV because that can only be judged at topic not page scale. On the page scale the program leader discloses a personal COI[13] with the Association for Mormon Letters (AMU), GLAM participant Cstickel(byu) has 69.4% of the authorship of AMU[14]. I think its fair to ask if thats an appropriate use of a paid student editor. Can you pay someone else to make edits which would be inappropriate for you to make? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  If we go down the AML page to "Presidents" we find the page James Goldberg. Now James Goldberg was created by... Salem(BYU) who like Cstickel(byu) does not disclose a COI related to the AML. Goldberg is not only an AML President and board member, they're a BYU alum and a former BYU professor. Rachel Helps (BYU) successfully nominated the page to DYK in April 2022, effectively promoting the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are, and as Aquillion points out, Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI (italics in original). My impression is that Wikipedia encourages edit—a-thons, and they sometimes have topical themes, and sometimes those topics are about coverage of religions. One about Jewish women artists happened just the other day. I noticed that Rachel Helps (BYU) (Wikipedian-in-residence at the BYU Library) is listed on the participants page. My interest in American history and articles about book topics has brought me into contact with her for a couple of years by now, and in my experience she and the editing that she encourages are amenable and good-faith, with an eye toward being on the right side of policy with the clear paid editing disclosure on her userpage and the transparent identification in her username. All this to say, while I certainly understand why someone might initially have a concern, I think there's a net positive happening with teaching people about Wikipedia and how to contribute to and further project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't. Is there anything you should be disclosing in this conversation? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So its a coincidence that you just (Redacted)... After being asked that question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Horse, I notice that you have ignored the direct question to yourself, while pushing harder on her. (Also, maybe time to review WP:OUTING?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no COI with BYU, the LDS Church, or any related topic. I don't believe I have run afoul of our outing policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I was thinking more about how at this point you're still hounding Rachel Helps (BYU) despite this being discussed by @Awilley: and @Mackensen: and warned about by @Drmies: over a year ago. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that (Redacted) I don't think this is a violation of the outing policy. Further, I am more concerned by the fact that P-Makato appears to have lied about whether they answered the question Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation. P-Makoto, I think we need an honest answer to this question, including for the discrepency that Horse Eye's Back identified, before someone takes you to ANI or ARBCOM. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The fact that an editor has (Redacted), is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". It says so exactly in WP:OUTING. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; because they have (Redacted), Horse Eye's Back comment identifying them isn't an WP:OUTING violation. Further, I am far more concerned about P-Makato lying, possibly under the mistaken belief that OUTING will protect them from being caught, than I am about an individual who has chosen to out themselves being identified. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So you disagree with WP:OUTING? Because my statement came verbatim from that policy (4th paragraph under Posting of personal information). Both things can be true - P-Makoto lied, and HEB violated OUTING. The proper venue for adjudicating that is not here but via Oversight, which is why this got redacted and HEB was warned by two admins. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You omit the second sentence of the 4th paragraph; Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.

In other words, just as under the right circumstances it is permissible to bring up their past edits, under the right circumstances it is permissible to bring up off-site information. I would say that an editor lying about a COI is "the right circumstances" for both. BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

a.k.a. the "exceptions" section of WP:OUTING, Exception #2. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because this keeps coming up in multiple locations: P-Makoto has not made any on-wiki declaration of their real-life identity, and thus connecting them to a real-world individual using social media and other similar "personal bio" sites is a violation of our harassment policies. Per a discussion on HEB's talk page they have emailed me regarding this COI (per our policies); if anyone else feels the need to do similar please feel free. Primefac (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Since it came up in this thread, and since it was my own behavior that muddled the topic, it seems like my responsibility to clarify. In a conversation with Levivich, the latter helped me recognize my misunderstanding of the conflict of interest policy. Based on the examples provided on the policy page (permanent link, like the business owner or band manager), I was under the impression that extant financial relationships are the conflicts of interest that require disclosure and that terminated relationships fall under the clause How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. Levivich said otherwise, and while I am now bothered that the policy page itself doesn't actually bring up terminated relationships, I can understand where Levivich, and probably others in this thread, are coming from. With this in mind, when I answered Horse Eye's Back's question about if I had any conflicts of interest I should be disclosing when participating in this conversation by saying no, that I didn't have conflicts of interest that I should be disclosing—under the impression that the current state of my employment and education was at issue, not past states—I see that my answer fell substantially short of what others in the community expected. To the extent that terminated relationships matter to the conflict of interest policy, my past relationship to BYU overall is something I should've disclosed.

The long and short of it is that I have a terminated relationship with BYU: I was previously an undergraduate student and had a couple student jobs (none of which involved Rachel Helps (BYU), who I met through Wikipedia). Since then, a lot has happened. I came out as trans, I ended my education and employment at BYU, I'm at a different institution that doesn't have denominational/religious ties. I'm sorry for my misinterpretation and misapplication of the conflict of interest policy. I have disclosed this on my user page and think that under the conflict of interest policy it'll be appropriate for me to refrain from editing article space about BYU topics and appropriate that if I participate in current/future conversations about BYU-paid editors my terminated relationship with the BYU institution be disclosed (all this in addition to being more rigorous about how I understand and apply the COI policy).

As Primefac states, I don't disclose other information about myself. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think HEB even actually "identified" P-Makoto, as he didn't link to the social media profile in question or even suggest the profile and wiki username were the same. That said, mentioning the existence of a particular social media profile does go beyond what P-Makoto has declared on her userpage, so the better response would have been to state "I have seen evidence that contradicts your claim and I am emailing it to [admin active in this discussion]". JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are Most estimates put the percentage of non-LDS at BYU to be 2% or less. jps (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think it would impossible to hold this Wikipedia-in-Residence position without gaining the imprimatur from BYU. A critic of the LDS church would not be allowed to have this position. Wikipedia is endorsing ideological discrimination by supporting these programs even if in so doing they are introducing Wikipedia principles to a wider audience than would otherwise be exposed to them. jps (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:COI says (emphasis mine):

There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums.

Brigham Young University's mission statement begins:

The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life.

It doesn't seem like a mission-aligned organization to me. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Although to be fair, the editors with "(BYU)" in their usernames are disclosing with every edit, which is more than others do, and probably as much as Wikipedia can ask. Levivich (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we be aiding in organizing this sort of thing and providing institutional support? jps (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The part of BYU's mission statement that says "All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved." seems to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's mission, and its policies, which essentially prohibit emphasizing Christianity. But "aiding in organizing" and "institutional support" also increases scrutiny and communication, which is a good thing. More transparency and more eyes is good, and I feel like removing the WiR would mean less transparency and fewer eyes. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we promote transparency, scrutiny, and communication through something like the COI policy instead of through the WiR program which typically serves as an endorsement rather than a scrutinization of the activity that may be contrary to Wikipedia principles? I worry that the pages that seem to indicate that the organizing is being done with the knowledge and support of Wikipedia as an institution may mislead people into thinking that such activity is being actively supported by our community which, I guess, it seems to me that we have been doing in any case if perhaps unwittingly. jps (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the WiR program is an endorsement of anything except our desire to have free knowledge. Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums have knowledge in them. If they want to pay people to make that knowledge free, why should we object? If there are, to some editors' tastes, too many religious organizations and not enough anti-religious organizations that are willing to pay people to share their knowledge, that isn't really a good reason to hamper our free knowledge goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If they want to pay people to share their resources on Wikipedia, that's great. But if they want to pay people to advance their religious beliefs on Wikipedia, that's not great. Advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics is not the same thing as sharing the resources of BYU. I'm not sure how much of each is being done, but I've seen enough of the former to wonder how much sharing-of-resources-not-related-to-Mormonism is being done. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that "advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics" is importantly different from "advancing their religious beliefs".

(Also, if, and to the extent that, our articles might contain serious misrepresentations of their religious beliefs, then advancing their religious beliefs would be indistinguishable from improving Wikipedia. If your religion believes ____ and the Wikipedia article says something completely different, then nobody is served by preserving the error.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that the employees of a proselytizing institution of a proselytizing church in a proselytizing religion who are paid to edit Wikipedia are doing so without proselytizing. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Heck, an NPOV summary of anything having to do with any religion would include the mainstream scholarly view that the religion was false, that whatever the holy book said was not true, that the whole thing was invented by people and, basically, that there is no such thing as a "god." Writing such things in Wikivoice would be blasphemy in many, probably most, religions. How can somebody with serious religious commitment possibly write about their religion in an NPOV way? I don't see it, maybe I'm being close-minded or unimaginative, but it seems like an "obviously not" situation. Levivich (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You'd think... JoelleJay (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And here I was under the impression that the mainstream scholarly view, among those who actually study this subject (e.g., not biologists) was "it depends on how you define god". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Except biologists (and other academics in a variety of discipline) absolutely do study this subject especially as "god" is conceived of by Mormons. Mormon declarations of faith almost without exception argue for the existence of an interventionist deity. Are there progressive Mormons who stray towards some of the accommodationist and modernist approaches? Absolutely. But the vast majority of their literature (read "sources") argues in favor of claims which are demonstrably false when it comes to the empirical evidence. jps (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Do they? Can you name several key biologists or their important publications in this alleged subspeciality? Not in the "Albert Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god" kind of way, but the sort where you'd actually publish it in a biology journal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with Einstein believing in Spinoza's god as a reference? Why do any of these ideas need to be published in a biology journal? It's not as though the believers in god are publishing in those venues. Nevertheless, believers make definite empirical claims about biology as it pertains to their faith in god all the time in their own venues. To the extent that those claims are noticed by biological experts, we include them in Wikipedia. If no biologist has bothered to comment on the subject, we exclude it per WP:NFRINGE. Are we just talking past each other here? jps (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How about all the archaeobiologists and population geneticists whose work directly contradicts Mormon claims like "American Indians are descendants of Hebrew BoM characters"? JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Jps asserts that biologists...absolutely do study the subject of whether god(s) exist. That's news to me, so I've asked for sources to support the assertion. I mean, it's entirely possible that a biologist also happens to be a theologian or philosopher, but I've never heard of one studying the biology of whether there is any such thing as a "god." That claim is at least {{citation needed}} in my books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No he didn't, he asserted that biologists study "the topic", which in this case is Coriantumr and broadly other claims of historicity of Mormon figures. JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

How would the existence of a God(s) even begin to fall under the scope of biology?? (also this entire discussion is very interesting) vghfr, harbinger of chaos 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with biologists...? JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Jps asserts above that the mainstream view is that no gods exist. I suggest that the mainstream scholarly view from relevant disciplines (e.g., philosophy) is that the answer to the question about whether gods exist depend entirely on what you mean by the word god (or good or evil or beauty or truth or any number of other intangible concepts). Some definitions are unfalsifiable; some are self-disproving; some are real. Donald Trump exists, and this man worships him; for some definitions, that makes at least one god "real". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

AFAICT your comment about biologists is a reply to my comment of "you'd think", which is in turn a reply to Levivich's comment. You're the first one in the thread to say anything about biologists. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It is instead a reply to the comment by jps that includes (as my comment does) the phrase "the mainstream scholarly view". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I finally understand where the divergence between your and my interpretation of this discussion lies, but I think it is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. I am happy to concede the point that any biology journal that published an article on "the existence of God" would almost certainly end up being cast aside by us as an unreliable source for good reason. jps (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

When looking at the source text, your comment appears directly after mine and is indented as such. The first time jps mentions academics studying the topic is at 17:12, in response to your comment at 17:04. Is Discussion Tools or whatever combining comments for you or something (it does that for me sometimes)? And still, no one at any point is claiming anything about "biologists" until you bring it up. JoelleJay (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

One last time:

• Jps said: "an NPOV summary of anything having to do with any religion would include the mainstream scholarly view that the religion was false, that whatever the holy book said was not true, that the whole thing was invented by people and, basically, that there is no such thing as a "god.""
• I said: "the mainstream scholarly view, among those who actually study this subject (e.g., not biologists) was "it depends on how you define god""

In other words, I am making a distinction between "beliefs held by people who are experts in unrelated fields" (e.g., biologists) or "beliefs held by some academics in general", and "beliefs held by the very small minority of academics who are actually experts in this particular field" (i.e., philosophers, including philosophers of religion). Jps has agreed that non-experts do not generally publish research into whether there is no such thing as a "god". In case there is any doubt, I agree with him.

I urge you not to assume that providing the visual convenience in the form of indentation – which was the recommended practice for 90% of the time you and I have been editing, and has only shifted recently due to the Reply tool and specifically its ability to silently resolve edit conflicts, so you don't even have a chance to adjust it – is proof that every comment posted is a reply exactly to that one single comment. If the content in a comment doesn't appear to be directly related to the immediately preceding one, that's because it's probably not exclusively or directly related to the one immediately preceding it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Levivich wrote that comment. And gee, forgive me for thinking that your comment--placed directly below and indented after mine 13 hours after I made it--that pointlessly and apropos of nothing claims biologists don't have the standing to weigh in on the mainstream consensus on topics of faith, might just be directed at me, a biologist (as you know) who is weighing in on topics of faith.... JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused because these four pages say rather different things about what a WiR is and does: meta, outreach, glam, article, including whether or not a WiR should edit articles about their institution. But I don't see any of them characterizing WiR as an endorsement of the institution by Wikipedia; if anything, it's an endorsement of Wikipedia by the institution. Still, the missions of Wikipedia and BYU are so different, for example: the BYU honor code prohibits same-sex relationships and beards, whereas the Wikipedia UCOC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical appearance. So any official-seeming affiliation does seem awkward, to say the least. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't do anything to stop anybody from organizing their own paid editing campaigns of Wikipedia if they do this with their own time and money. But we are under no obligation to host these campaigns on our project pages. I'm suggesting that by allowing such on-wiki organization, the appearance of our acceptance and toleration of this activity cannot help but be assumed. If nothing else, they are using Wikipedia's servers for that purpose, after all. That's as about a big as an endorsement as many of us volunteers ever get from Wikipedia as an institution. jps (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Joelle and jps broadly above. The reality is that even if people are disclosing their COI (and frankly I don't think most are, at least to the level of adhering to the spirit of our directives, which would strongly discourage most of this editing) it's still a problem. I encountered the issues with this kind of editing firsthand at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Book of Mormon monetary system, where an article essentially treated an ahistorical topic as real until the AfD, and even then BYU editors managed to sway the deletion discussion to no consensus, and argued that content published by BYU or the LDS church counted as independent for the purposes of notability. This is simply fundamentally incompatible with building a neutral encyclopedia, and it's a distinctly different and bigger issue than museum editing (which, to be clear, can have issues with distorting our coverage as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In part prompted by this discussion I have been taking a look at our Mormonism content and I have to say I am alarmed. There seems to be an undue reliance on "in universe" sources, and this results in an "in universe" POV which seems coy on certain topics and out-of-kilter with what independent sources are saying (nothing in Mormon on the role of women? really?). I am reminded of, a decade ago, when the Christian Scientists tried (and failed) to make Wikipedia a mirror of their "church line", fended off largely thanks to the efforts of the late great @SlimVirgin. I wonder if the LDS movement has succeeded where the Church of Christ Scientist didn't. Bon courage (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The only edit to Mormon I could find from a BYU-employed editor going back five years was Rachel Helps (BYU) reverting a probable Latter-day Saint's edit good-faith but misguided edit. If Mormon is in bad shape, it's probably because it seems like an unnecessary fork from pages like Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A more instructive edit I think is this one, in which Rachel Helps (BYU) added cited content saying that Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks's interpretation of the Christian Fall has no textual basis in the Book of Mormon. That didn't seem particularly orthodox. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "women" does not even appear in the Mormonism article. Which is ... quite something. And Mormon gets 4,505/hits day, much more than the Mormonism and LDS articles. So it's not some kind of neglected fork – it's the daddy article.Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "men" only appears three times. And the word "women" does not appear in the Atheism article. So I'm not sure what the point is? -- Colin°^Talk 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I had a weird sample, but browsing through academic books on mormonism in the WP:WL it seemed like the role of women was much discussed. I don't think the role of women in atheism has been a topic of much academic interest? Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, here's a handful to get you started on improving that article:

• doi:10.1080/09589236.2018.1523053, "“Atheism is not the problem. The problem is being a woman”. Atheist women and reasonable feminism" (2019)
• doi:10.1163/18785417-01002002 " Feminist Women’s Attitudes towards Feminist Men in the Canadian" (2011)
• doi:10.1177/03616843221115338 “Breaking Free”: A Grounded Theory Study of Atheist Women in the United States (2022)
• JSTOR 24462263 "Black Women, Atheist Activism, and Human Rights: Why We Just Cannot Seem to Keep It to Ourselves!" (2013)
• JSTOR 24462265 "The Non-religious Patriarchy: Why Losing Religion Has Not Meant Losing White Male Dominance" (2013)

I don't know how it compares to men specifically, but it's easy to find journal articles about atheism and women. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. I was looking only at books to try and get a higher-level view of the themes. In fairness, there are Mormonism and women and Mormon feminism articles. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

But no atheism and women. We do have Atheist feminism, though. One of the sources I link above says that both feminism and atheism are only considered desirable (i.e., by society at large) when men hold those views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a view; hard to test mind you. I suspect 'society at large' differs quite a bit between countries. Anyway, we have gone into the undergrowth. Bon courage (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

E-post 📧 hottentott newest version available now in 169.224.86.103 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh? vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, after more thought, I would support an ANI proposal for TBANs from from LDS, broadly construed, for Nihonjoe, Thmazing, P-Makoto, the (BYU) editors, anyone else associated with BYU/AML. We've spent enough editor time on this. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people have indeed spent a lot of time posting in this thread. And in all that time, we have seen them post no diffs evidencing a structural problem; no evidence of the need for escalating warnings and blocks; and no list of deleted articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly big fan of diff culture, but I can say that I have been going through the contributions of the four student editors employed by Rachel Helps. As I've mentioned on her user talk page, the question for me is actually one closer to, "which of their edits are not problematic?" To give a few examples: here we have the addition of devotional interpretation to an obscure story from the Book of Mormon, here we have uncritical discourse added trying to claim an uncritical connection between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, here we have some anti-semitic canards added about "saving the Jews", here we have a section being added which looks like a discussion amongst Mormons about the implications of a story that mentions drinking animal blood -- unnoticed by anyone who isn't Mormon, I guess?, here we have some precious commentary that pretends an authorship for part of the Book of Mormon by someone other than Joseph Smith, here we have insertion of commentary by BYU professor Sharon Harris about how themes in this part of the Book of Mormon "preserves teaching of the prophets". Should I go on? This is systematic and widespread treatment of Wikipdia as a kind of devotional study group for the Book of Mormon. jps (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the first link. Instead of "devotional interpretation to an obscure story", I see "expanding a stub about a WP:Notable subject by adding information from a relevant (and notable) author and scholar".

This kind of framing is consistent with the fear I'm perceiving from some editors in this discussion. It's automatically suspicious because of who they are, rather than what they wrote. I wish we could have discussions about religious content without anti-religious discrimination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this isn't anti-religious discrimination. This is concern over extremely specific beliefs about a text which are entirely religious in nature in the sense that the text itself was written in the nineteenth century by a person who claimed it the text was actually composed much earlier. Devotees of this person then attach interpretations to the text to add elaborate apologia and hermeneutics in support of a particular doctrine or dogma held by the devotees. Wikipedia could include such discussion if this was noticed by scholars of religion who believed that such commentary had larger implications for the religion, the social context, etc... but that is absolutely not what is going on here. Jana Riess is writing the primary-sourced devotional herself. She is not providing a scholarly contextualization to the text. She believes the text is as Joseph Smith claimed it to be and so can hardly provide disinterested or critical commentary. Nor should she: that's not her goal. But Wikipedia is not done any service by documenting what essentially amounts to a Sunday School lesson without any further context. We need to serve the dissemination of knowledge including knowledge about what people believe. We aren't here to promote those beliefs by stating them in plain text as fact. jps (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The first one begins with "The servant in the allegory is interpreted to represent the Savior, or Jesus Christ."

I have trouble imagining that this would be upsetting to anyone if the sentence were in an article about a Shakespearean sonnet and said something like "The servant in the poem is interpreted to represent the spirit of caring for others".

It is normal and encyclopedic to provide (all) common interpretations of stories, religious or otherwise. It doesn't matter what the author "believes". What matters is that this is (apparently) a common interpretation of the symbolism in the story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the egregious use of the passive voice to indicate that this is an inarguable point, there is absolutely no context for this statement being made and sourced to the devotional written by Riess. It would be one thing if the text said, "Jane Riess believes that the servant in the allegory represents Jesus Christ." but it is entirely unclear to me whether this view of Riess is one that is widely held by Mormons or whether it is her own special interpretation. Did you see whether there was any scholarship done to confirm how widely accepted this interpretation is? jps (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I find that a lot of POV pushing happens in the form of "It's only this one cited author who says..." I wouldn't want to write that unless I had another source suggesting something different, or at least some rational basis for suspecting the existence of a different opinion.

In this particular conversation, it feels like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth: "Don't trust them, because they're just giving the official church view" on moment, and then "That needs to be given in-text attribution to a single human, because we can't trust that it's the official church view" the next. One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others), and not in a good way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty standard that religious belief is at once heavily controlled by authorities while also subject to wild in-house confusion about which detail beliefs are proper, widely held and licit, and which are not one or both of those things. A huge chunk of European philosophy in the Middle Ages was all about stressing over similar types of problems. The best scholarship identifies this tension and uses careful scholarship and data to make sense of it. I see little in the way of that in these contexts. It's all declarative sentences about what belief connects with what other belief without clear identification of provenance, evidence, or interfacing with critique. jps (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that articles on religious topics should be sourced (and sourceable) exclusively to publications by adherents and apologists? Because that is what I am seeing in a huge number of LDS articles. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I think that the solution in such cases is to add independent content rather than removing the little bit that we've got. In other words:

• It is best to have both Mormon and non-Mormon interpretations (assuming they differ, which has not been demonstrated);
• It is acceptable to have a Mormon interpretation and hope that we will m:eventually improve the article to include any other significant viewpoints;
• It is worst to have no interpretation at all, because a bare plot summary is not an encyclopedia article.

In the case discussed above, one might consider some slight copyediting (e.g., expanding "it is interpreted" to "it is interpreted by Mormons" – though if nobody else interprets it any other way, then that would actually be non-neutral), but I don't see any problem with the existence of the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Except in many cases there are no non-LDS interpretations, or at least not enough that the article doesn't rely heavily on adherents' views. If no one outside of adherents pays attention to a topic, that topic is not notable enough for a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have a genuine concern that it's non-notable, then you know how to do a WP:BEFORE search and what to do with the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

When we have no mainstream contextualization for fringe content, that content should be removed, not retained as-is in the hope that context does exist. If we don't have any coverage of that topic as a result, then that is better than having non-neutral coverage of it from adherents. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

An article is neutral when it fairly and proportionately represents the views of all the reliable sources that exist, not when it fairly and proportionately represents the views of all the reliable sources that Wikipedia editors wish existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

? And? If there's no proportionality possible on a fringe topic then we do not cover that topic even if there are otherwise-reliable sources on it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The definition of proportionality is whatever extant reliable sources say about the subject. There is no "but I say it's spinach, so if the article only cites those fringey sources, then it isn't fairly and proportionally representing my views" clause. The NPOV policy explicitly says the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV says fringey ideas are either to be contexualized as such with mainstream views, or omitted. That's in WP:GEVAL. Whether something's fringey is not, however, wholly down to editor say-so. Bon courage (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not somethings fringe comes down to mainstream views. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 02:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

And mainstream views come down to available sources. When 100% of reliable sources say that this character in a religious story symbolizes something, then the mainstream view is that this character actually does symbolize that thing.

The problem with "contextualize or omit" is that you can't omit the whole subject of the article. You either have to get it deleted, or you have to do your best with the sources that exist at this point in time.

We run into this problem in other areas, too. There are medical subjects that are definitely notable (e.g., drugs entering Phase III trials to grand acclaim – in the business news section), are purely mainstream medicine, and for which there are exactly zero sources in the world that MEDRS would consider "ideal". When this happens, we find ways to cope. We don't "contexualize or omit" everything about it just because ideal sources don't yet exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I hope the way we are dealing is by not having an article on the topic until we have reliable sources (in a medical context, MEDRS compliant sources) containing significant coverage of the drug exist? BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

In practice, we can't get those articles deleted. An upcoming blockbuster drug is a legitimate business subject, and billion-dollar business products tend to get hundreds and thousands of words in reliable sources. They pass GNG and CORP with no trouble at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Drug trials are (probably) not fringe. There is indeed a tension between NPOV and N for certain fringe subjects and so yes there needs to be a way to cope; but NPOV is not the flexible part of that coping process. Sometimes a successful argument for article deletion is that it's not possible to write a NPOV article on the topic. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You really think keeping an article with no contextualization is the proper, MEDRS-compliant way of handling a topic on, say, some ayurvedic decoction that has gotten huge, credulous coverage in Indian RS media and review articles in "selectively-indexed" ayurveda journals but has zero coverage in mainstream medical sources? JoelleJay (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that there is tension between subjects that the GNG and CORP declare to be notable, and what I can source exclusively to the MEDRS-ideal standard.

If you can't delete the article because it's a notable subject and you can't find sources that support your POV, you have to go with the WP:BESTSOURCES that currently exist, rather than adding unverifiable information or blanking the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit abstract. Has the community in practice ever kept articles on FRINGE topics that don't have appropriate mainstream sourcing, in a way which leaves the fringe view unchallenged? If so, what? Bon courage (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you utilize the strict guidance in FRINGE and NOPAGE and do not retain an article on the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

...if, and only if, you can convince the community that the subject really is FRINGE, really isn't notable, really should be NOPAGE. But when the complaint amounts to "they used a religious source to say what the symbolism is for Parable of the Olive Tree, and I can't find any non-religious source that says anything about the symbolism in this story is", I really don't think you will be able to declare that subject FRINGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"they used a fringe source to say what the symbolism is for Parable of the Olive Tree, and I can't find any non-fringe source that says anything about the symbolism in this story is" seems like an excellent argument... Note that religious and fringe are synonyms in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that "religious" and "fringe" are synonyms, and I don't think that WP:FRINGE supports your interpretation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that religious and fringe are synonyms in this context. Emphasis mine.
Treating this parable as a work of ancient literature, interpreting it as though it correspond to and is contemporaneous with historical and non-LDS theological events, is fringe. The mainstream scholarly consensus is that the BoM was invented in the 1820s, thus it should be distinguished from religious narratives actually written thousands of years ago and for which modern academics' approach to interpreting symbolism is informed by historical context and prior religious scholarship. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is one of the complained-about edits. Do you see anything in there that is Treating this parable as a work of ancient literature? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you focusing on a single diff? I was evaluating the article as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Because that diff was specifically complained about, and because the article as a whole can't be blamed on the student editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant the article from before JPS edited it, which can be attributed to BYU editors. JoelleJay (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The student editor cut the number of words by about 25% and made sure that there was at least one inline citation in every paragraph. The article was created in 2009 by an editor who does not appear, at a glance, to have any connection with this library program.

Looking at the last version edited by the recent student, I still see nothing that says it's treating the parable as a bona fide work of ancient literature. Maybe you could provide a quotation that concerns you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am very concerned at the way that this discussion has been going. As it has progressed, it has gone from some possibly legitimate concerns about specific edits to a collection of statements and accusations that can only be considered 1) examples of anti-Mormon religious bias; and 2) hostile to the conventions of scholarship. Here are a few observations that I think are essential to understanding some of the things that are actually at issue in this debate.

1. Accusations of biased editing have to be accompanied by actual examples of bad editing. A large number of people are saying, in effect, that certain editors are students at BYU; BYU is owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a proselyting entity; therefore, anything that these students say on Wikipedia must be viewewed as proselyting. This is bad thinking and clear bias. It doesn't work to say, "what entries don't have problems." It doesn't work to simply assume that anyone who professes a belief is incapable of presenting elements of that belief in appropriately nuetral terms. The line of reasoning above is simply an ad hominem attack. It cannot be accepted as a valid argument. Let's look at some actual edits and have discussions about them
2. The Book of Mormon is a legitimate subject of scholarship, commentary, and Wikipedia articles. Like the Bible, the Qur'an, the Discourses of the Buddha, and hundreds of other religious topics, the Book of Mormon has millions of believers and has had a significant impact on history, culture, and religious practice in the United States and the world. The topic has been studied by thousands of serious scholars, some of whom professor membership in one of the dozen or so denominations of the Smith-Rigdon Restoration movement and some of whom do not. A great deal of very good scholarship published by major university presses (Oxford, Illinois, Harvard, North Carolina, etc.) has been writen and published by people afiliated with BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To rule out this scholarship is to rule out scholarship on the Book of Mormon altogether and would not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
3. The question of the Book of Mormon's origens is an open question. This is not an evaluation, it is a fact. Around 20 million people believe it to have ancient origins. It does not matter if you agree with this. Lots of people don't. But to say that it MUST be treated only as a nineteenth-century text, and that this should be the official editorial policy of Wikipedia, is to require editors to take a side in an open controversey. That is not appropriate. I have read many of the pages that Rachel Helps and her students have written. All of them that I have seen have been agnostic on the question of the Book of Mormon's historical nature. They frequently talk about the way that certain passages support both an ancient and a 19th century origin. What I have seen here is an insistence that articles come down on the side of the nineteenth century. This is not an appropriate way to handle open questions, nor is it applied to other logically implausible beliefs of other religions (i.e.e the resurrection of Christ, the visions of Mohammad, the reincarnation of them Buddha). The insistence on including material critical of LDS claims is anti-scholarly, since actual scholars are trained not to criticize anybody's religious beliefs but only to analyze and explain them.
4. Explaining what people who believe the Book of Mormon believe is not the same as arguing that the Book of Mormon is historical or theologically true.What BYU Professor Sharon Harris believes about the Book of Mormon is relevant to anybody who wants to understand how the book is seen and used by adherents. Quoting Dr. Harris in the context is no less relevant than quoting what St. Augustine said about Genesis. Any good Wikipedia article on religion is going to explain how the text is used.
5. Treating the Book of Mormon differently than other religious texts is straight-up religious discrimination. Every religious text makes truth claims that cannot be supported outside of the faith community, and yet Wikipedia has thousands of pages on the Bible, the Qur'an, and other religious texts that explore these texts from a nuetral perspective with lots of citations to scholars who believe these texts that explain how they are used by the communities that believe in them. We do not demand that everything written about the Qur'an include anti-Islamic sources or that everything written about the Bible avoid anyone who works for Notre Dame or Baylor. We cannot treat the Book of Mormon differently because its implausible truth claims are a few thousand years more recent. I would not be surprised if there are a few edits on the Book of Mormon pages that do not meet schoalrly standards of neutrality. Let's talk about those and maybe recommend some suggestions. But these sweeping denunciations of anyone who works for BYU or participates in the LDS Church are discriminatory and bigoted and have no place in a genuiine community of knowledge.

BoyNamedTzu (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, do you need any further evidence than the post above? Do you want to join this editor in saying with a straight face that Wikipedia should say, in its own voice, that maybe the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century, or maybe it was written by God? Do you still claim that there is no evidence of a "structural problem"? What we have here is a group of Mormon editors blatantly pushing Mormon theology in Wikivoice. Just look at Origin of the Book of Mormon and tell me you don't see a problem there. Look at this post above and tell me you don't see a problem here. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't need any evidence at all. But the community should - and I trust will - demand far more evidence than than the thin claims you have posted above, before applying the kind of draconian bans you call for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

OK it's beyond me why you're defending this. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That you take what I said as "defending this" makes your own biases clear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am unapologetically biased (lol get it?) against anyone who wants Wikipedia to say that a book was written by God. Or "maybe" written by God. I hate to reference WP:YWAB but yes when it comes to Wikipedia editing, I am biased in favor of the claims of science and against the claims of religion, why aren't you? Levivich (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you're just flinging unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations. For shame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The attempt to adopt the Wikipedia:Scientific point of view as policy failed years ago. The neutral point of view does not support having Wikipedia being against religion; it supports Wikipedia asserting facts, including facts about people's beliefs, opinions, and claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact that Joseph Smith, and not God, wrote the Book of Mormon. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It is also and equally a fact that people believe the opposite. There is nothing wrong with us writing the fact that millions of people believe _____. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Where have I even made an allegation? There is an editor here who is saying Wikipedia should present, as an NPOV significant viewpoint, the viewpoint that the Book of Mormon was divinely written. Do you think that's OK? If your answer is "yes," you're "defending" it, and that's wrong. Your answer should be no, that's not OK. I am not making any allegations, I am just fucking shocked that your answer (which you're weirdly not giving) might be anything other than no. Do you think Wikipeida should say the Book of Mormon was written by God is a yes/no question. There are editors who are answering that question with "yes." That is why those editors should be TBANed. My viewpoint here is damn logical and based in ample evidence including on this page. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What illustrates the problem is that you do not understand the difference between viewpoint neutrality (which I advocated) and taking a side nin an open debate (which you are advocating). No legitimate scholar, and nobody who should be quoted on Wikipedia, fails to understand this difference.And nobody who doesn't understand this difference should be editing Wikipedia. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I understand WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The "viewpoint neutrality" is neutrality among the viewpoints of independent scholars, not the viewpoints of believers and non-believers. No historian thinks that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate. No scholar says the Book of Mormon -- or any bible -- was written by God, or by angels, divinely inspired, etc. The views of believers and non-believers are not the two views that Wikipedia should present neutrally. To argue that Wikipedia should treat faith as a "significant viewpoint" is patently nuts. Levivich (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you do not understand how v iewpoint neutrality works in scholarship. Scholars are trained not to try to attack or defend religious truth claims. This does not mean that they say, "hey, maybe Jesus was resurrected after three days," They simply use language that explains what people who believe that Jesusn was resurrected believe and why they believe it. What you are advocating is a patent editorial rejection of truth claims. You will not find that in the independent scholarship of the Bible or the Book of Mormon or any other religious text. Schoalrs don't work that way. It is entirely possible to write about a religious texts without validating or rejecting its truth claims. All of the "independent scholars" you cite do exactly this., So should Wikipedia. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Scholars are not "trained not to try and attack or defend religious truth claims," I have no idea what you're talking about. Scholars debunk religious claims all the time, with, e.g. archaeological evidence. It's a huge industry of scholars specifically writing to debunk religious truth claims. When we accurately summarize scholarship, we will also say that, for example, the Bible was not written by God, and neither was the Book of Mormon, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, and so forth. "Anti-religious" is just another word for "pro-truth" when it comes to summarizing sources for Wikipeida articles. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Part of NPOV is a description of how we treat WP:FRINGESUBJECTS. The idea that the Book of Mormon was written by "ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from 600 BC to AD 421" is simply nonsense supported by no rational source. Wikipedia doesn't given credence to nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this particular example needs a somewhat more subtle approach than "It's all 19-century fakery, so get over it". Because millions of people have been told it has an ancient origin, it would be appropriate both to say that it has a 19th-century origin and also to point out whatever features appear to suggest a pre-19th-century origin (e.g., if a particular story is known to be derived from older material) or to report facts like "____ is commonly put forward by proponents to justify their claim of an ancient origin". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, nuance is good. But ultimately as far as summarizing knowledge goes, Wikipedia is not going to say there is an "open debate" on the matter of authorship where these ancient prophets are on the table. Bon courage (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So is the idea that Jesus was resurrected after three days, or that Mohammad traveleld to Jerusalem in a night vision, or that Rama was the seventh incarnation of Vishnu. As a general rule, scholars of religion do not attack the truth claims of the religious texts that they are studying. Most Wikipedia articles about Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism do not attack the truth claims they are trying to explain. The idea that articles about the Book of Mormon should do so is plainly discriminatory. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If editors started asserting myth as truth without superb sourcing there would be pushback, yes. YOU are asserting there is an "open debate" about the reality of the ancient USA-dwelling prophets, which is textbook WP:PROFRINGEing. A comparison more apt would be Scientologists saying there is a "debate" over whether the E-meter measures emotions, or "debate" about whether Hubbard really did fly the Thetans to a volcano in a B-52 (or whatever). You're wanting to elevate nonsense claims about the real world onto the plain of rational academic discourse where they do not actually belong or exist. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That there is an open debate is not an assertion. It is a fact. When millions of people believe something, then you cannot say that nobody believes that thing. When hundreds of scholars publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presses believe something you cannot say that no scholars believe it. It is a viewpoint that has to be acknowledged.

And as far as "rational academic discourse" goes, all I am suggesting is that Wikipedia use the saqme standards that EVERY PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC SOURCE uses in neither accepting nor rejecting the truth claims of the religious texts being discussed. In the canons of academic writing and scholarship (with which I am extremely well acquainted), this is not a controversial statement. It is simply how it is done. BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You are asserting there is an open debate. In Wikipedia, that means in RS. Loads of people believe a lot of silly stuff: like that vaccines cause autism, black people are stupider than white people, or that the Holocaust didn't happen. It doesn't mean there's an open debate on these things; it means people are deluded and wrong. Wikipedia has rules on neutrality, and they are not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Go take a look at Talk:Functional medicine#Source review and behold: peer-reviewed academic sources that Wikipedia rejects in accordance with WP:FRINGE guideline. Levivich (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop holding up "scholarship" as an example when you reject the viewpont neurtrality conventions of actual scholarship. Religious studies scholarship has adopted a very clear set of guidelines for how to discuss religious truth claims. They are always treated nuetrally. These scholars do not see it as their job to either defend or attack religious texts--simply to explain them. If that is not what Wikipedia wants to be, that's cool. But you are going to have to re-edit pretty miuch all of your articles on Christianity and Islam and stop saying that you are summarizing relevant scholarship. Because that is not what you are doing.^, BoyNamedTzu (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It'd be a lot easier to re-edit pretty much all of Wikipedia's articles on religion if churches would stop organizing efforts to edit pretty much all of Wikipedia's articles on their religion. Levivich (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Doubt it. In fact it seems its Mormonism which is getting special treatment right now. Compare the matter-of-fact Authorship of the Bible's lede with that of Origin of the Book of Mormon, which goes so far as to entertain the idea that, you know, God might have written it. The idea that it might have been written by humans is ascribed merely to "Non-Mormon theories of authorship". Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The unfalsifiable, spiritual aspects of any faith are treated on WP as topics of religious belief, and as they do not necessarily assert themselves as historic or scientific, we do not necessarily need to debunk those aspects in their articles with the overwhelming scientific evidence against their plausibility. But while we don't need or want Wikipedia to say explicitly "the Mormon god does not exist", we are required to contextualize any claims regarding the historicity or scientific accuracy of religious topics with the mainstream consensus view, and when that consensus differs from religious dogma it is the latter that is regarded as FRINGE.

And unlike with Abrahamic, Vedic, and other ancient religions where there can be intersections between stories from scripture and real geography, people, and events (as validated by examination of contemporaneous narratives, anthropology, archaeology, geology, etc. by independent non-adherent scholarship), we actually have ample evidence that the characters and places novel to LDS scripture never existed. And thus the consensus (among those actually qualified to contribute to consensus) is that BoM is strictly a 19th-century creation of Joseph Smith and that concepts like Zarahemla and Nephites are purely literary. There is no "open question" because the views of adherents are not treated as equivalent to those of independent academics. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Just as one example, Andrew Tobolowsky is the Robert & Sarah Boyd Associate Professor of Religious Studies at College of William & Mary, and in his book The Myth of the Twelve Tribes of Israel: New Identities Across Time and Space (Cambridge 2022), he directly debunks Mormon truth claims (and other claims to Israeli descent), which he describes as "redescription posing as description" (p. 184). So, yes, religious studies scholars do debunk religious truth claims. Levivich (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also maybe just a little odd that in the last four months this user has only shown up on WP to defend Rachel Helps and P-Makoto, with their comments here at VP and their Jan 2024 comment at ANI being literally their first edits to wikipedia-space... This kinda smacks of meatpuppetry/canvassing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be no disparity of treatment between Mormon texts and (say) the Bible, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures or the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Simply follow the WP:BESTSOURCES. When a text (say the Bible) obtrudes into the real world Wikipedia tends to be robust, again following the best sources. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the concerned editors have found any sources that are any better. I think their concern is about having articles that do use the best available sources, but those best available sources are not valued by them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The question of the Book of Mormon's origens is an open question. This is not an evaluation, it is a fact.

Holy shit. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I would support that; I've also opened a discussion about the use of such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have alerted Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about this discussion. I have also asked two of her student workers to consider stepping away from editing Mormonism-related articles. jps (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Rwelean = User:Rachel Helps (BYU) (self-declared, both directions). Rwelean twice created The ARCH-HIVE, a Mormon art collective. They won an AML Award in 2019. Rachel Helps was a judge on the 2019 AML Awards, is a board member of the AML, and is or was a a contributor to the Arch-Hive blog, zines and podcast. I can find no indication that Rwelean or Rachel Helps has indicated her COI with the collective anywhere. Fram (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I've had no interaction with the LDS and have no particular feelings for or against it, but our coverage of that topic has often struck me as unusually partisan. I always assumed that they had some sort of blanket exemption from our usual policies on neutrality and that there was some consensus somewhere that we would refer to them using an in-universe style as we do with plot descriptions for works of fiction, etc. If there isn't then we do need to review our coverage. Certes (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Using the rules on works of fiction for discussion of the Book of Mormon seems to take a definitive view that the Book of Mormon is a fake created by Joseph Smith. While there *may* be a point that the Book of Omni should be covered differently from the Book of Samuel due to evidence that Jerusalem existed, treating it the same as the first half of Genesis doesn't seem unreasonable.Naraht (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I look forward to the principled call to ban Catholic University students from writing about Catholic thought due to Ex corde Ecclesiae --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

[15], [16]: "Do you have to be Catholic to go to Catholic University? No, students of all faiths and backgrounds are welcome at Catholic University." Wanna try again? jps (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats because, according to my TradCath friends, CUA is too worldly and corrupted by liberalism. I am on my phone, so I can't look it up, but I can think of several Catholic colleges that have at least a de facto policy of being nearly all Catholic. It may be enforced through informal social control, but it is part of the culture.

On the protestant side, which I know better from my college se several years agoarive protestant colleges tend to have a statement of faith one has to agree to for admittance and staying in good standing. It is oftentimes used as a selling point in their marketing. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these tradcath/uber fundamentalist colleges have Wikipedians in Residence exclusively employing students to write articles about their faith for Wikipedia. How would you feel if they did? If Liberty University had a Wikipedian in Residence that started to write detailed exegetical treatises sourced entirely to Fundie journals, would we just be okay with that, you think? jps (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments get really tiring absent examples of similar organized edits by editors of other denominations and sects who have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. (And yeah, there's potentially the same issues with using, say, Jesuit publications uncritically on a subject close to the Catholic Church or related to Catholic teaching, depending on the context. But that's a digression from what's being discussed here.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Other ways in which this is a straw man:

• this is about employees, not students -- the aforementioned BYU "students" are student employees, paid to edit Wikipedia
• Catholic University doesn't have a WiR
• BYU's Mission Statement and CU's Mission Statement are really not comparable, except as examples of how religious-affiliated universities can have wildly differing academic policies and goals
• Ex corde Ecclesiae isn't at all comparable to a university's mission statement or code of conduct
• Authorship of the Bible isn't comparable to Origin of the Book of Mormon, except as examples of NPOV and non-NPOV articles

These are some of the reasons I won't be calling for a ban on CU students editing Catholic topics. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

ජපසAs was pointed out above, you do *not* have to be LDS to go to BYU. You need to have the fact that you are a believer of a specific faith by a faith leader *and* you can not leave the LDS faith while at BYU and remain there. But a believing Jew with a sign off from their Rabbi that they are a believing Jew *can* attend BYU, same for a Catholic, a Muslim or a Protestant. I'm not quite sure how it work for a Quaker, but for the most part.Naraht (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You cannot be an atheist and attend BYU. I documented that above. You need an ecclesiastical endorsement. There is also no academic freedom per se. If you criticize the LDS Church in, let's say, your campus job writing for Wikipedia, you are running the risk of being expelled. That's just BYU's policy. jps (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I look forward to the principled call to ban Catholic University students - it is worth pointing out that these students are being paid to edit wikipedia by an avowidly Mormon organization; that substantially changes things. Obviously simply being Catholic isn't a COI; but being employed by the Catholic Church or by an organization that works to advance Catholicism clearly is. This strikes me, now that I'm looking over it properly, as closer to the latter. And in that respect the arguments over whether you have to be a Mormon to participate strike me as missing the point - certainly the context means that their employers can be overwhelmingly confident they are likely to be Mormons, but whether they are or they aren't, anyone participating in this project could reasonably believe that that there is a risk of being removed from it for saying things their employeer disagrees with. That's a very straightforward and uncontroversial WP:COI. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, there's a lot here. I'll respond to a couple of random points, make some suggestions, and then butt out.

• Technically you can be an athiest and attend BYU, though I don't know why you'd want to. Basically you'd have to live by their rather strict code of conduct (conservative dress code, curfews, no sex outside heterosexual marriage, no alcohol, and on and on) and submit to a yearly interview with a nondenominational chaplin to answer questions about how you're living up to the code of conduct. And you'd have to take several religion classes. It's odd, but their house, their rules.
• "The question of the Book of Mormon's origins is an open question." Well, technically that's true, but not in the way you're thinking. There is some scholarly debate about whether Joseph Smith composed the thing in real time, secretly wrote sections the night before and then "dictated" them while reading the notes out of his hat, or published a manuscript that was ghost-written by a colleague. And within Mormonism (broadly construed) there's some debate as to whether the golden plates actually existed.
• The concern about people getting excommunicated and losing their jobs for writing things critical of the LDS church is real. The September Six (6 Mormon scholars excommunicated in 1993) come to mind. I highly doubt that's a concern for us lowly Wikipedia editors, but it is something to think about. In the specific case of Rachel Helps (BYU), she has been in my opinion a model editor, and it bugs me to see her dragged through this every couple of months because she's doing the right thing and disclosing her COI. She's already said that there is zero oversight of her editing and no expectation to take positions that favor Mormonism. And I've seen her take positions that don't favor Mormonism but that are true to the reliable sources often enough to trust her objectivity.
• I reviewed jps's diffs of Rachel's student editors. I see newbies who need education, not wholesale AN/I bans. We all started out passionate about some niche topic and made some poor edits before we learned better. They need to learn that Wikipedia isn't like a Fandom Wiki where you can assume all the readers are "in world".
• As for editing articles about religion in general, I think many people here are missing the point. As much as we may want to reach out through articles and slap readers of religious articles with a dose of cold reality, it's beyond the mission of Wikipedia to point out each time a religious belief is scientifically false. In a way it boils down to WP:Reliable Sources. Wikipedia should reflect the best scholarly sources. And when sholars write about religion, they aren't bludgeoning readers with all the ways the religions they're writing about are wrong. When I was editing articles about Mormonism I picked up the habit of trying to find the best sources about the subject—the books that all the other books cited—and purchasing those. I still have a shelf full of them. The books are, for the most part, respectful and nuanced. Scholarly articles about religion are similar. They compare and contrast and analyze religious beliefs, but it would be an odd article that came right out and said "this belief is false, that belief is false, all the beliefs are false."
• I wonder if it is time to take another look at WP:Religion. The page needs some work, but there's a lot of good advice and guidance in there that could help newbies struggling to think outside their world to understand NPOV. It could also help senior editors trying to find the best way to write about some odd religious belief. We obviously can't write articles that are completely "in-universe" but it's also unnecessary to pepper our religious articles with the words "falsly claimed." There needs to be a balance.

Oh, and some final notes: @jps: I appreciate the careful and respectful way you're going about this. And Horse Eye's Back, you really should take a step back and stop wikihounding other editors. ~Awilley (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting all articles on LDS topics need to be "debunked"; what we (or at least I) mean when asking for non-religious sources is that such topics should be contextualized with their reception in the broader world rather than relying solely on adherents' interpretations of primary sources. However when it comes to faith-based assertions of historical or scientific plausibility (as with the claims about Native Americans, Egyptians, ancient coins, etc.) those must be disclaimed in wikivoice and cannot be presented as if they are valid scholarly perspectives. This becomes more of an issue the more detailed an article is on niche aspects of scripture; while there may be plentiful content from LDS authors theorizing on what the economic system looked like in the time of Nephi, if no scholars who don't believe in the historicity of BoM have given the topic enough attention to write about it--with a perspective that clearly treats it as ahistorical--then we shouldn't be including those details on WP. This should be the case even when opinions are attributed to specific LDS authors, since simply stating "FirstName.LastName of BYU considers [exegesis of BoM story]..." does not clarify to the reader that the entire topic is fictional and thus no in-universe perspectives on it are valid as historical analyses. JoelleJay (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we're already in agreement on most of this. It's obvious to me that we can't be talking about religious belief in wiki-voice as if it were real. And where there is a direct conflict with science, whether that be 7-day creationism or claims about Native Americans, yes, we should obviously debunk that. The part that's not as clear to me is why an article like Nephites could not be developed into something like the article on Noldor. Mormon scholars might find the economic system of the Nephites fascinating, just as members of The Tolkien Society might be fascinated by the family tree of Finwë, or Trekkies might be fascinated by the Klingon language. Yes, there's the sticky complication that some (though not all) Mormons and Mormon scholars truly believe that "the universe" is real, but I wouldn't disqualify their scholarship based on that alone. I think that beginning paragraphs with phrases like, "in the Book of Mormon narrative..." or "Mormons believe that..." are tactful ways of making sure that readers don't accidentally get fooled into thinking we're talking about the real world. ~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes

~Awilley (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, I feel like this misses the point that these are paid editors. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that an editor employed to edit Wikipedia by an organization whose ultimate parent org has a dedicated mission (whether religious, political, or whatever) is going to be working to advance that mission and will reasonably understand that editing in ways that starkly diverge from their employers' interests could get them terminated. That's a pretty clear-cut WP:COI, even if the restrictions on their editing are never formally stated. Would we accept political think-tanks employing editors who spend their time on Wikipedia advancing the think-tank's mission? If not, how is this any different? --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Question. I don't know if WhatamIdoing is well placed to answer this or it should go to someone else, but how many jobs at the WMF depend on the Wiki[m/p]edian-in-residence programme? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Forgive me if someone's brought this up before, but Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedians_in_residence,_reward_board already addresses Wikipedians in residence. That section states "WiRs must not engage in public relations or marketing for their organization in Wikipedia, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there." Jessintime (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Jessintime, I believe the concern here is that if "their organization" is a religious one, then writing about religion is automatically, inherently, and unavoidably "public relations or marketing" for the religious organization.

  (Additionally, one editor has stated elsewhere that they believe creating any article for pay is a COI, even if neither the WiR nor the organization have any connection to the subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  No I get that (and their employer isn't just a religious one, it's the church itself). I just felt it was important to point out the actually policy, which I don't believe anyone had done at this point. Jessintime (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A personal analysis and proposal

Disclaimer: if not mentioned, any similarities between personal names in the below links and Wikipedia usernames should be taken as entirely coincidental. As a volunteer Wikipedian, I would expect paid Wikipedians in Residence (WiR) to adhere to WP:COI scrupulously. Rachel Helps has not done this, and neither have the cadre of editors with whom she collaborates. If anyone is unaware, Rachel Helps operates two accounts on Wikipedia: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), her "work account", and Rwelean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), her "personal account". In practice, she often does not appear to know the difference. Let's take a look:

• In October 2023, Rachel Helps proudly stated that her first peer-reviewed article had been published. This article (available to read here) was co-written by a Michael Austin, who has an article on Wikipedia; it was created by Rachel Helps in September 2022, using her personal account. Rachel Helps has since edited the page a couple of times, including in September 2023. As the academic peer review process she was so proud of takes a number of months, it is certain that she had a professional COI with Austin by this date, if she did not before. This COI is not admitted on either of Rachel Helps' userpages, nor on Talk:Michael Austin (writer).
• Michael Austin (writer) has also been edited by User:Thmazing and User:BoyNamedTzu. User:BoyNamedTzu has contributed significantly in the discussion above; as noted by other editors, he has a curious predeliction for appearing on Wikipedia only for these types of discussions. He has previously self-identified as "a publication reviewer for various Mormon-themed journals"; I have asked him whether he has a professional relationship with any of the editors involved in the BYU WiR scheme. At Austin's page, he added Austin's wife's middle name's initial; as this is not in the cited source, one wonders if BoyNamedTzu knows Ms Austin personally. (EDIT: (Redacted)).
• BoyNamedTzu's first edits were in September 2022, when he started to rewrite Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love; within a few days, it was noticed by Rachel Helps, who began editing it with both her personal and professional accounts. The same happened near-simultaneously with Julia McDonald, an article created in BoyNamedTzu's userspace and moved to mainspace by Rwelean two days later. As BoyNamedTzu did not edit anything other than these two pages, one wonders how Rachel Helps became aware of their desires. Over a year later, using her professional account, Helps again moves a BoyNamedTzu userpace draft to mainspace, presumably after being asked to do so offwiki—there is no such a request on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the Corianton page was also soon edited by User:Nihonjoe, which takes on an interesting light in the face of conversations such as this, the ongoing ArbCom case, and confidential information I am not at liberty to disclose.
• Thmazing self-identifies as Theric/Eric Jepson, a former president of the Association for Mormon Letters (AML) and the current editor of its magazine, Irreantum; we know this because he added himself to the respective pages, in addition to creating and maintaining the AML Awards page. Thmazing is currently incommunicado, having gone to "breathe" after this exercise in arrogance; this came after he mentioned reading about Fram on an unknown Discord server, presumably the one run by Rachel Helps. I wonder if it is being used to strategise responses to this thread as I type?
• While the AML article was created by Thmazing, the Irreantum article was created by User:Cstickel(byu), one of Rachel Helps' "student-employees", in June 2020. By this time, her employer Rachel Helps had been an AML board member for five months; she disclosed this COI only after a year and a half.
• As noted above by Fram, Rachel Helps has also twice created the The ARCH-HIVE, on an "artist collective" she has previously contributed to; after it was deleted, she worked on it with her personal account before moving it to mainspace. Rachel Helps has justified its existence with the reasoning that the "ARCH-HIVE" is partly notable for receiving an AML award she was on the judging panel for and presented by Thmazing. She, once again, has not disclosed her COI with the article on either account's talk page, or at Talk:The ARCH-HIVE.

I think it quite clear that Rachel Helps has been engaged in COI activities on Wikipedia for years, with her conduct far below what is expected from a normal editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence with a position of prominence. I therefore propose (EDIT: apparently not within en.wp's purview) to remove her from her position of Wikimedian-in-Residence, and to place on her a topic-ban from LDS Church and BYU subjects. I look forward to your thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that the GLAM organized out of the BYU library ought to also be reconsidered? It's a separate but related issue here. Also, there are right now apparently four students who are being employed to write Wikipedia articles at the direction of Rachel Helps. If she were to be topic banned, I assume that would mean we would treat her assignment of such topics to her students as a violation of WP:MEAT or something.

I think the issues you raise are important and need to be considered. Some of them are separate from the main issue I am concerned about which is that BYU seems to be paying editors through Rachel Helps to add content about Mormon religious issues, and I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous and I expect there will be some pushback from other editors who may have gotten used to a pretty unusual approach to article writing when it comes to content about the Book of Mormon.

On a personal note, this is something of a perfect storm of problems for me. If any one of the ingredients weren't there (paid editing, Wikipedia "endorsement" through WIR/GLAM, the restrictive ideological rules of BYU, and the proliferation of really poor article writing), I don't know that I would have brought this up. But all put together it's just too much for me.

jps (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like Wikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee Library is an endorsement, but I'd like you to consider the fact that if we delete it here, it could be re-created at outreach: or other wikis. "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" includes people who want to write about their religion based on the reliable sources they happen to have access to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can request no recreation of outreach:, but wikis are constitutionally independent, so that's something I just have to lie with. As we cannot prevent recreation at other wikis ever, I don't think it is a reason to drop the discussion. We also cannot really stop her from continuing to employ and assign these projects with pseudonymous accounts and the like. I will reiterate once again that my concern has nothing to do with wanting to ban people from editing the wiki for being religious. This is wanting to put a stop to the following tetrapartite scenario: (1) paid editing that is (2) only open to people who pass BYU's religious tests that are (3) assigned by someone who also is required to pass BYU's religious tests about (4) said religious content. As I've said, if any one of these points was not true, I would not really be that upset about the situation, but as it is I think this is unjust to the students first and foremost. If a student in their time working on Wikipedia became a critic of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they almost certainly would end up disciplined by BYU. That is antithetical to the way foundational principles of my collaboration with this community. jps (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Since sanctions are being proposed, should this be moved to WP:ANI? Also, do Wikipedians have the power to remove a "Wikimedian in Residence"? I was under the impression this is bestowed by an employer rather than under enwiki's control. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"bestowed by an employer" You a correct (even if you were not, the role is "Wikimedian in Residence", not "en-Wikipedian in Residence"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, having already been one twice (and beginning another) neither the en:wp, the WMF, a local chapter, or any language community need to give an approval; it is a personal relationship between a Wikipedian and an organization (unless money from the WMF or a chapter is involved of course). As a WMUK trustee, I expressed concerns about this informality over 10 years ago, but nobody else was very interested. As far as I'm aware, this case is the first to raise serious concerns. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't we just block the Wikipedian-in-Residence account and not the personal one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If no one has any objection to my opening an ANI section, I shall do so shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea.

I think that most of the complaints you make above could be leveled at most of the editors in this discussion. For example, you accuse one editor of helping a newbie, and you suggest that this indicates an inappropriate off-wiki connection (as opposed to the many totally appropriate ones, like teaching an edit-a-thon participant how to edit). I have helped many editors I don't know, because tools like User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult let us know about new articles in subject areas that we're interested in.

Similarly, you accuse an editor of personally knowing someone mentioned in an article on the grounds that he corrected the name based on some other source. You assume the other source is personal knowledge (how many of your friends' middle initials do you know?). I have made similar edits based on Google Scholar using middle initials, or otherwise with uncited sources. It's true that my preference is to remove family members' names, but I think that "A person with access to the internet figured out someone's middle initial" is poor proof of a conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Everyone else is playing inside baseball with a ball you can't see. There is factual information behind those accusations/assumptions but they can't be shared on-wiki without violating outing restrictions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. "how many of your friends' middle initials do you know?", in particular, seems rather like attempting to hit the ball and whacking yourself in the face without realising. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I've added more middle initials to Wikipedia articles than I have ever known for my friends. "Hey, guys, I've been doing opposition research and have concluded that these people know each other at work/are friends on Facebook/whatever" is not good behavior (and might even be a violation of the Wikipedia:Harassment policy), but it doesn't require silly claims that adding someone's middle initial is proof of anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, how about (Redacted) (the ball you couldn't previously see)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Whenever you think you have information about an editor's real-world connection to a subject:

• Do say "I think I'll quietly send e-mail to ArbCom about this right now".
• Don't say "Someone with access to the internet allegedly knows her middle initial, and other editors should accept that as proof of a conflict of interest".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:ANI thread is open; all participants above should have been pinged per WP:APPNOTE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: The only editing I ever did to the Corianton: A Story of Unholy Love article was breaking up some paragraphs that were too large. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was directed to me? jps (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@ජපස: Sorry, it should be directed at AirshipJungleman29. Sorry for any confusion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am aware. If there was any more information regarding your potential COIs, it would have been a contravention of WP:OUTING, and ArbCom would have been contacted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

TIL this 2020 COIN: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University with extensive discussion of WiR in general and BYU WiR. We're having the same conversation again four years later. Levivich (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh. vghfr (✉ Talk) (✏ Contribs) 03:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence that "Part of me suspects that if SlimVirgin's illness had not progressed this issue would have been addressed before I ever came across it." and after reading the linked discussion I no longer just suspect... I am pretty damn certain, she was on the ball but couldn't beat the clock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

RIP. jps (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Vami_IV

Guys, maybe we should honor Vami_IV for all the contribs he's made? 3.14 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would probably support that. How do you suggest going about it, other than the obituary we already made at WP:RIP? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a Wiki-page all about him? Or we award him a completely new barnstar? 3.14 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The first idea is against the rules of Wikipedia, but I like the second one. If you would like to make him a new barnstar, go ahead. There is no reason why you can't. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, such a barnstar was already made. It's at Template:The Completionist Barnstar and he was its first recipient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh. 3.14 (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should put something to reference him in our User Pages? 3.14 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia WP:DISCORD had a custom banner honoring him for a week or two too. It has been really nice to see the community come together to honor Vami_IV in various ways. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want an example, I've been working on it. Click my sig to see it. Check the userpage. 3.14 (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

because Wikipedia might, like IV, die. sounds a bit blunt. Might want to reword that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pumpernickel

Pumpernickel is great. It's bread. It's a Fortnite emote. Additionally, there's a Great Gable song called "Pumpernickel." Tell me if you also like pumpernickel! GetLost4Gud (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with Wikipedia, but I love the bread and have never heard of the other meanings. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, you could add the song to Great Gable (band). The gaming term is covered in https://fortnite.fandom.com/wiki/Pumpernickel, which contains much more detail than would be appropriate for Wikipedia. Certes (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

?????????????????????????????? 3.14 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Article about Tounsaint Movie

Hello i want to create a article about a unmade movie called Toussant and directed by Dany Glover, this was very noticed at the time. GEORGEB1989 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What are your sources? Please see Wikipedia:Notability (films) for what you will need to be able to cite to establish that the film project is eligible for an article in Wikipedia. For future reference, the Teahouse might be a better place to ask for help in editing or creating an article. Donald Albury 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Korean Wikipedia blocked

I was blocked for three months from another korean Wikipedia. However, I thought the blocking was unfair, so I challenged it in my user discussion. However, the administrator blocked the user discussion without reasonable refutation, repeating the word that the blocking was justified. I have also sent an email to the administrator, but there are too few active people in the Korean Wikipedia and no one is reading it. I need the help of the English Wikipedia users. Mamiamauwy (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing we can do here. English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Korean Wikipedia, just as that one has no jurisdiction over us. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that someone here has some familiarity with Korean WP and has some advice to give. But en-WP has no authority over other WP:s, so your problem must be solved there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You reached out to me via the embassy but the embassy can only help you if you don’t speak Korean and need help for co-ordinating help between different langauges. --Kjoonlee 11:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not donate to the Wikimedia Foundation

I'm posting this rant here because I'm furious. I've just learned from a discussion in WT:MATH of some basic rendering bugs in SVGs served by Wikipedia. Which is perfectly normal. Except that these bugs have already been fixed upstream for years, and Wikimedia Foundation just can't be arsed to upgrade MediaWiki to the version of the library with the fixes T97233. Wikimedia Foundation also refuses to switch to a less buggy SVG rendering library T40010 or to let the browsers do the rendering themselves T5593. They just couldn't care less. Because of this other users were saying that we should give up on SVGs and revert to PNGs. That's depressing.

To compound the pattern, there is the well-known issue that graphs are "temporarily" disabled. Because again they couldn't be arsed to upgrade a simple library for years, and suddenly it had to be retired due to a security issue. And now they can't be arsed to do it either. It's specially heartbreaking to read the thread in Phabricator T334940 where user after user volunteers to fix it only to be told "no" by WMF.

This is why I will no longer donate to the WMF until they get their shit together. I hope people join me so that they get a wake-up call. I don't know what on Earth they did with all the money I have donated over the years, but clearly they don't have their priorities straight. I'm not demanding them to do some great software development project, but the bare minimum to keep the website running. It's been abandoned, it's been left to rot. It still runs on Debian Buster, ffs, and that will be end-of-lifed in three months. Then we will have one of the largest websites in the world running on unsupported software.

Keeping the website running is the top priority. Without the website Wikipedia is nothing. And WMF needs to understand that. Tercer (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that under all of that you remain optimistic that the WMF will one day get their shit together. I will continue to donate, but on the other hand I have no expectation that they will get their shit together (I'm not ever sure I actually want them to, IMO a weak WMF is good for the project as a whole). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well without your help it won't. And please don't be so cynical, there's nothing good about a "weak" WMF. Tercer (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I think in many ways the WMF is like a standing army... We want them to be strong enough to fight our external enemies but not strong enough that they become a threat to our freedom and way of life at home. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, the reason graphs are disabled isn't (AFAICS) that the Wikimedia foundation isn't willing to upgrade to Vega 5, but instead that Vega 5 itself has more unfixed (?) security vulnerabilities. Otherwise this seems accurate, although I've already been abstaining from donating for years so can't abstain again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a compound issue. Vega 2 was end-of-lifed 7 years ago, and WMF kept using it regardless. Last year the time bomb finally exploded, and there was a rush to upgrade to the (incompatible) Vega 5. While doing that they realized that there was a security vulnerability in Vega 5 as well, so work stalled. They decided that the upgrade would only happen if they managed to sandbox it somehow, and it has been stuck in limbo ever since.

Now if WMF had been doing the bare minimum, it would have been upgrading Vega together with upstream over the years, so they wouldn't be hit with a Jurassic security vulnerability in the first place, it wouldn't need to handle tens of thousands of incompatible graphs all of a sudden, and when the security vulnerability in Vega 5 appeared they would have only one problem to handle. And hopefully they would actually handle it instead of telling the volunteers to pound sand. Tercer (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

An issue with SVG files sounds irksome, but doesn't rise to an existential level of outrage where I want to undermine the entire project using cancel culture strategies. -- GreenC 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not an issue with SVGs files, it is a generalized failure to do basic maintenance for years. If you don't like my strategy I'd love to hear a suggestion for a more effective one. Tercer (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you they could be spending more on maintenance, always. So, maybe document. Make lists. Show the problems, be vocal. I deal with this also, in some projects, basic problems go unaddressed for years. But we do see movement, the recent changes at Toolforge converting from Grid to Containers was a major effort. They are upgrading from Buster as far as I know. I wanted a recent version of GNU Awk for many years and they finally did it at some point. The bot override for spam black list was finally implemented after about 10 years. The EventStream API is buggy, they know it and there is no timeframe when it will be fixed, but they know. It can be slow. -- GreenC 15:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I put up a proposal on VPWMF. Another fun fact for you: the planned upgrade from Buster is not to Bookworm, but to Bullseye, so they will upgrade from being 5 years outdated to 3 years outdated. Tercer (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 The WMF itself is a non-profit, but with the lucrative pay the higher ups receive and the other ways they choose to allocate their abundant funds, it's clear that they see you and me as nothing more than a product, where "donations" are the income we generate for them. (See also: WP:CANCER, Signpost May 2023, Signpost August 2023) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the information. So it's not a lack of money but precisely the opposite: they have so much money that they don't know what to do with it. They're burning millions on supersalaries for the CEOs and donations to unrelated projects. Just the waste that you have pointed out would be enough to hire more than a dozen full-time devs. Tercer (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ever since the WMF was created it has tended to place more emphasis on job preservation and expansion than "boring" things like infrastructure. Most people do not donate money to the WMF anyway, but everyone reading this, by definition, donates some time to Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm proud to donate time to Wikipedia. I would also consider helping to fund Wikipedia if I could. English Wikipedia and sister projects need hosting, technical, legal and similar services, but they cost a fraction of the WMF's budget. Over two decades, the WMF has quietly elbowed its way from facilitator to governor, grown exponentially, and diverted the majority of its budget to activities that some of us consider irrelevant and inappropriate. I don't donate to the WMF. I would advise others to donate if and only if they feel that their money will be spent wisely. Certes (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never donated money to the WMF myself, but I think people who wants to should keep doing so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Folk who denote want to know that the lights will be kept on and the roof kept on. I see no reason not to donate to it. It of fundamental importance. Its unfortunate that they are fuckwits who don't know how to use the money wisely but the software has been running fine for decades without a hitch, even though it is canker on the face of humanity, which is a good thing as it's enabled a very large community to come together to build a rather nice encyclopeadia. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. For me, the question is what difference my hypothetical donation would make, i.e. which currently unfunded activity it would enable. If it would be spent on making the servers faster or more reliable or on fixing bugs on our wishlists, then prima facie we should be donating. However, one would then have to ask why those vital activities were considered so unimportant that they happen only if donations increase. Instead, they should be prioritised above inflated management salaries, eco-friendly diversity workshops and other expensive, ultra vires and WP:NOTHERE activities. The WMF has ample income if it is spent on what our readers come here for rather than becoming a bizarre hybrid of corporate behemoth and socialist activist. Certes (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that an increase in donations would lead to improved software. WMF simply doesn't see it as important. It would just invent new methods of setting money on fire. If they started a donation drive specifically to fix this antediluvian horror I would actually chip in. Tercer (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully my response on this related thread on VPWMF has some clarifications on how we do and prioritize maintenance at WMF. Mark Bergsma (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

About GNOME Products

I apologize first for my weakness in English. I am not very active on the English Wikipedia. But some time ago, I saw the article on the GNOME Panel while doing a Google search. Then I proposed its deletion. Later, I saw that there are articles on Wikipedia for almost all of GNOME's products. You can find them in the following categories: Category:GNOME Applications, Category:GNOME Core Applications, and Category:GNOME Developer Tools. Some of these articles do not have more than 3-4 references. Many of the others do many references, but always they are all primary sources. Those that are not primary sources are just passing mentions. I don't think they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like to draw the attention of the experienced Wikipedians to this issue. ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In general, many software articles rely entirely on primary sources, so the problem is bigger than these specific articles. Some articles I see in your list do have independent, reliable references (even 3 quality references can establish notability). Others may not have these references now but if those references exist elsewhere they should be added to the article. But, if you see an article that relies entirely on independent references and there are no other independent, reliable references that could be added, then those can be nominated for deletion. As I said, many articles suffer from this problem so your contributions are welcome. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:NEXIST. The sources that exist in the real world (e.g., on websites, in newspapers, as books in libraries) are more important than the sources that have been cited in the current version of the article.

This is Y good:

• Editor #1: There are very few sources cited in the article, and they are not very good.
• Editor #2: But I looked for sources, and I found a dozen books, so we should keep the article.
• Editor #1: Thanks for doing that search. I hope you will improve the article some day.

This is N bad:

• Editor #1: There are very few sources cited in the article, and they are not very good.
• Editor #2: But I looked for sources, and I found a dozen books, so we should keep the article.
• Editor #1: I don't care! Your library might have a dozen books, but we should delete the article anyway, because articles need to cite all of the sources right now.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

quick Question

what is the most used template on the english Wikipedia

I suspect it is the reflist template, but i would like to know if i am correct or if there is maybe another one. 5.2.195.104 (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

See Special:MostLinkedTemplates. As I write this the top ten are Lua modules, then there's {{Yesno}}. Reflist is #41 on the list. Graham87 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very useful question unless it contains some qualification. I suspect that what the OP means is, "what is the most used template in article space on the English Wikipedia that is coded directly by humans?" or something on those lines. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably {{Banner holder}}, then. (Which is surprising— we have more banners than reflists?) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra banner holder has all of ONE use "in article space". — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with "coded directly by humans" 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the one that fits all those criteria really is reflist Mach61 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What about templates that are only (or commonly) used with subst? Is there any way to count those? RudolfRed (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Used on the largest number of pages, or used the most times total? Some templates, such as {{cite web}} get used many times in a single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Repetition of the same thing in different articles

Hello, I'm working on Turkish makams, I started with Rast. In it, I have a section comparing it to Western scales. It starts with:

Since the makam is based on 53-TET, it is impossible to directly tie it to 12-TET Western scales. However, using the 48-TET model, while worse than many other models in approximation, allows for such comparisons.

I want to continue with other scales, and this information is relevant. But do I repeat it for each scale? I had read that abundancy was okay on Wikipedia, but there must be a better way than this. I'm open to your suggestions. Egezort (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm that's a really interesting question. My first thought is maybe instead of having a full section on each individual makam's page comparing it to 12-TET Western scales, creating a table of all the comparisons on the overall Turkish Makam article, and then linking to that table from each individual page? I can't say that I know enough about tables or makams to know if that's a feasible idea though. I'll keep thinking about this Librarian of Sand (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I may do a comparison table for that page yes, but yes also more detailed analysis on each page is probably for the best. Thank you, I'll let you know if I start doing it (and if I don't forget) Egezort (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Some elements of the periodic table repeat the same thing. The 'Introduction' section of flerovium (a good article), tennessine, and oganesson (both featured articles) are the exact same. 115.188.147.27 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! This is a good example for me to look at. Egezort (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the repeated text is substantial and there is an obvious main article to which it is most relevant, consider writing it once and using labeled section transclusion (LST) or {{Excerpt}} in the other places where it should appear. Despite its name, LST is not limited to entire sections in the sense of the text between ==Heading==s. Certes (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Oooh these are both things I don't know about, I'll take a look. Egezort (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Special:WantedPages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Special:WantedPages. Mach61 03:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tame One

Hi, Please check latest edits by DBrownHarris to this article. It broke the "flatlist" template in the Infobox. I also think there aren't enough references. This is following a question on Commons about the picture, which was removed here. This editor also has a conflict of interest in this article. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation's Product and Technology key results are now available

Hi everyone,

The Product and Technology Department at the Wikimedia Foundation has now published draft key results for the upcoming 2024-2025 fiscal year. Key results are measurable goals that we hope to achieve, and they build on the higher level objectives we shared a few weeks ago.

Like with last year, we’re sharing them with you before the full draft plan is released. This is both to highlight the technical work that will drive the overall focus of the organization, and also to give folks here the opportunity to weigh in about if we’ve chosen the right priorities. We welcome your thoughts and ideas on the talk page. I’ll add a small caveat that a large amount of the maintenance that we do for existing technical functions will appear in the full annual plan draft that will be shared in a few more weeks. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is "#article-section-source-editor" appearing in edit summaries?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T361495

Why is "#article-section-source-editor" appearing in edit summaries e.g., [17], [18], [19]? I have searched for information but found none. ElKevbo (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like something to do with the iOS app, probably https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios/pull/4738 which refers to phab:T355265. Someone apparently decided that sticking that on the end of every edit summary would somehow be useful. Anomie⚔ 01:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this! ElKevbo (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me this should have been implemented as Special:Tags, not as unstructured text in the edit summary. RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @JTanner (WMF) @SNowick (WMF) @Tsevener, from T355265. Could you folks please comment here on why this was done this way? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The event_comment additions were a way for us to track edits from new in-app editing features. We are planning to move these event_comment values to Special:Tags, we are in the process of mapping out this transition. SNowick (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@SNowick (WMF) thanks for your response. Would it be possible to disable this until you've got the transition completed? It's kind of sub-optimal. A while ago, foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation staff test account policy was published; while that was taking about a different kind of situation, the broad intent was that there shouldn't be live testing which affects production wikis, at least without prior noitce. Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting what you said, but it sounds like this was a rollout of an intermediate version of an experimental feature on the production enwiki for testing purposes, which is what we were trying to avoid when we wrote that policy statement. If the dev team needed to see how their code behaved in the wild, could it not have been enabled on just testwiki?

In this case, a heads up on meta:Tech/News would have made sense, although maybe there was one and I just didn't notice it? RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

phab:T361495 opened requesting this stop. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Xaosflux thanks for filing this ticket! I appreciate the ping @RoySmith and you raising this issue @ElKevbo.

I think there may have been confusion, we weren't testing a feature, rather we released a new editor in the iOS app that got rid of the bugs and incorporated a lot of requested enhancements. Previously, the way in which we tracked if these improvements were positive (and didn't lead to things like reverts) was by using edit summaries and our data scientist was able to look through mediawiki history to run queries. We learned recently, that is not the right method, instead we need to use tags. We are in touch with some of the web teams who have created tags to migrate from using edit summaries and instead use edit tags. Our team will be at an in person meeting all of next week, where we will create a plan for migration, this week our goal is to get necessary approval. When we return from our in person meeting, I will update this thread and ensure this specific edit summary is at the top of the list of migrations and the change goes in our next release. JTanner (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Offensive search result too prominent

When I type "Boris Johnson" (in fact even "Boris Jo") into the Wikipedia search box, a barely noteworthy yet highly offensive result comes up second in the list. Yes, if people want to find that content then they should be able to do so by typing in enough of the title to firmly identify it. It should not come up straight in the face of the no doubt large numbers of people who simply wish to look up the article on Boris Johnson. Please can this be fixed. Thank you. 2A00:23C8:7B0C:9A01:FC37:861A:7F07:13E9 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's search results are WP:NOTCENSORED just because the article title "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" uses offensive (or even BLP-violating) language. The result is one of about 10 articles one could be interested in when typing "Boris Jo", and the search box clearly pulls in the article's short description, showing that it goes to an article about a song, and only represents the songwriter's view on the person, not anyone elses. Iffy★Chat -- 20:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, let's censor things we don't like. That will make everything all better. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Unifying monsoon page names?

Very unsure where to go with that. While I looked at Monsoon#Global monsoon, I noticed that all articles used in the main article templates are inconsistently named.

There is:

• North American Monsoon
• Monsoon of South Asia
• East Asian Monsoon
• Australian monsoon (note that monsoon is not capitalized in contrast two the first two)

There might be more pages about regional monsoon than just these 4 which also need to be accounted for.

Every page there is named differently. Where is the right place to discuss the proper format and moving those pages to reflect the format decided on? Is this the right place? Asked the IRC, too but no answer there. NetSysFire (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Individual article titles are governed by Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names, i.e., what do most reliable sources call the topics. I think that takes precedence over a desire for uniformity in a set of article titles. If there are no strong preferences shown in reliable sources for a particular form for the titles of those articles, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather would be a good place to discuss this. Donald Albury 14:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Major problem with mobile app: lack of translation

I work with a lot of not-native speakers (students) and we use a lot of Wikipedia (I assign my uni students to write on it). It is very common for them to translate Wikipedias in their non-native language (ex. English) to their language, something that is easily done these days in browsers. The problem is our mobile app, which does not have a translation functionality. You can switch to other language articles, sure, but you cannot translate them in app without some third party screen translation app. A simple hack is to search in browser, open the article in a new tab which does not launch Wikipedia app (at least for me) then use the browser to change languge/translate in browser (since most browsers support page translation). Still, this points out to the fact that our mobile app is not serving people who want to check Wikipedia in more than language well (if they want to translate stuff). In fact, I'd even say that for those people it may be better not to use the app, since by default, otherwise, they open wiki articles in the app which then fails to give them the expected translation feature. I also understand we have issues with lack of open source translation alternative, but this is something to discuss given that in theory we want to be friendly to the developing countries / non-English speakers, and they want to use English Wikipedia, but on mobile, they cannot do it if they have an app installed, unless they figure out the 'open in new tab' workaround or what third party soft to use to translate the screen. This is not ideal, to say the least. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Piotrus,

This is Amal Ramadan, I am Senior Community Relations Specialist and I support the Wikipedia mobile applications team; thanks for flagging this, we hope to bring section translation to the Wikipedia apps, which should make translation on the apps a lot easier.

We are currently undergoing annual planning for the year and there are a lot of features requested that we are in the process of prioritizing based on the organizational goals that are being set in partnership with our communities.  it is important to hear which features are most important to our communities so that we can prioritize our effort on what will have the greatest impact; I encourage you to join the discussions about our annual plan, but we have noted this feedback.

I've also subscribed you to the section translation ticket. I also encourage adding the Community Wishlist to your watchlist. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia in a browser has many useful functions that are not available in the app. Unless they have a specific reason for using the app, many readers and editors would be better served by switching to their preferred browser. Certes (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia and COI

Hypothetical question: if I got, say, Tom Clancy to do a WP:SPOKEN Wikipedia version of the article on Clear and Present Danger, Jack Ryan (character), or the Tom Clancy article for that matter, would that constitute a COI? He wouldn't be modifying the text or inserting commentary -- just reading the article. Would anyone see an issue with that? (For the record, no I do not personally know the ghost of Tom Clancy). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The only scenario in which I could see a serious issue is if there is disagreement about which version of a given Wikipedia article should become the spoken Wikipedia version. I could imagine some disputes when one part of the article is narrated quickly, as if it get past it as fast as possible, when another isn't. But beyond these two specific situations I wouldn't think that there would be COI issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is kind of an interesting question. It's not clear to me what status these spoken article have. Are they part of the encyclopedia? If so, then I would expect them to comply with all the enwiki rules about COI and such. bit my hunch is that's not the case.

On the other hand, under our CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, anybody is totally free to create a derivative work (i.e. a spoken article recording) and upload it to commons or wherever they wanted. They would have to comply with all the CC-BY-SA requirements, but enwiki policies like WP:COI aren't included in that, so they would be free to edit out whatever parts they don't like. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I was pondering this recently also. I thought it may be redemptive to adapt certain quality articles into distinct, possibly shorter, possibly less strictly encyclopedic podcasts, basically. I still think it's worthwhile to explore the ways Spoken Wikipedia can be value added for readers or listeners in 2024, when most people who need one to read have access to a screen reader that can be dialed to their specifications. Remsense诉 17:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We'd want Commons uploaders to declare COI -- and align to other WP P&G like V and RS -- should their content be included in WP articles. This is rarely the case. For images, this is something we can and should enforce, but for something like spoken articles, it may not be practical to be too picky about what gets offered for lack of volume. Having that initial spoken upload is kinda what gets the ball rolling for others to improve on it if it's insufficient. (And COI editors are sometimes among the few actually motivated to do that kind of thing.) Once there's a few to choose from, it may then be more appropriate to audit the editor on something like COI.

That said, on Commons I usually get quick responses by just messaging uploaders when I've had questions on things like verifiability, sourcing, etc., especially if they're active on a WP as well. So if you suspect an editor or uploader of undeclared COI, the first step is just to politely ask them. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's been done before at [[Chris Nunn. Graham87 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify my original question, while I have some interest in getting unique voices (think comedians, voice actors, etc.) to record articles about which they'd have a COI, I'd be the one soliciting/vetting/uploading/adding it to the article. How nice would it be to have e.g. Tom Kenny do a spoken version of Spongebob Squarepants, or Jerry Seinfeld to read the article on Seinfeld? Last year a couple people who work for a foundation asked me for ideas to push attention towards Wikipedia's coverage of a certain topic rather than to some TikTok influencer. I suggested using the celebrity cache they had to read articles on the topic. So -- and these aren't the real examples -- something like George Clooney reading the animal welfare article. No COI involved. Now, obviously if they wanted to add anything beyond the content of the article it would have to be edited and uploaded as a separate file, but that could be a fun side project (have Seinfeld criticize how we write about the show, for example). Anyway, none of this is actually happening at the moment. Trying to think about other potential pitfalls before I consider whether to spend time on it. I see there's a good piece in the most recent WP:SIGNPOST from MPinchuk_(WMF). Wonder what they think about this sort of "personality-driven knowledge". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, this is a neat idea! I'm also curious what the community sentiment would be about the appropriateness of this kind of content on English Wikipedia. Note that the Basque Wikipedia community is exploring the "personality-driven knowledge" space through a tangentially related project called Ikusgela, in which they get well-known Basque personalities to narrate educational video explainers based on Wikipedia content and add these videos to Commons and articles on Basque Wikipedia, e.g. the video at the top of this article: Inflazio. Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @MPinchuk (WMF)! I have been pinged about this conversation and I would like to precise that these videos are not done by "personalities" but hired actors. Is to say, the idea is to "build" a youtuber, not to use famous people to narrate those. Also, the video script is created, and is not a narration of the exact content of the article itself.

What @Rhododendrites is proposin is very interesting, and it is more related to this other projects: WikiProject Idazlezainak, where librarians recorded writers reading the lead section of their article and also an excerpt of one of their works (they chose youth literature). You can see all the audios here: c:Category:Audio_files_uploaded_in_Idazlezainak.

The other related project I see is this one made by Catalan Wikipedians, recording voice actors and some of the characters they had dubbed. All the files are here. And you can hear to ca:Son Goku or .

I think that those projects are more related to the proposal. Theklan (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This is interesting, but I'd think that Spoken Wikipedia is more likely to be shut down than reorganized or updated with new projects. It was rendered obsolete years ago when text-to-speech technology caught up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, MPinchuk (WMF), and Theklan: We have a project to get article subjects (or people with Wikidata items) to record their speaking voice for us: WP:WikiVIP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Graph of Wikipedia

I NEED a discussion of this most excellent video: Video on YouTube. Please link me to one :-) Cheers Video "I Made a Graph of Wikipedia... This Is What I Found" by adumb if it for some reason disappears. Cross posted from Talk:The Signpost#Graph of Wikipedia. CapnZapp (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we make this the discussion? :P Thanks for sharing this video, I found it very interesting. Here's some of my notes.

Off the top, it was very cool to see the ways different communities are segmented on Wikipedia, and especially seeing how they interact with each other. I guess I can't be surprised that "United States" is the most linked article, although it is good that we now have a visual representation of US-centric bias on the platform. We desperately need more users to write about different areas of the world, and the map of linked countries is very good at showing just how under-represented the global south is in our catalogue.

The section on orphaned articles, with the demonstration of how much the graph changes when they are accounted for, I think demonstrates the importance of us de-orphaning articles wherever we can (WikiProject Orphanage is doing very important work, consider helping out!). I also loved the six degrees of separation segment, it's so interesting how articles all follow the same pattern in terms of degrees of separation and completely plateau in terms of new links soon after the 6th degree. The follow-up on Orphaned groups is something I think gets missed a lot when we discuss orphaned articles, we often don't look further into how these kinds of article cul-de-sacs can get created as well, even by articles that aren't themselves orphans. Orphaned groups are something we should probably look into. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)