Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Vpw)
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the Foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for engaging with and discussing the Wikimedia Foundation. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the foundation are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Will you be moving operations overseas?

[edit]
CLOSED AS NOTFORUM
This has devolved completely from anything appropriate at VP. Please take discussion of US politics to some forum where it's appropriate. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Trump has a tendency to cause disruptions in a number of different ways. He seriously interfered with a government directed radio station of some sort when he was in office last time (https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/879873926/trumps-new-foreign-broadcasting-ceo-fires-news-chiefs-raising-fears-of-meddling). Will it be necessary for you to move Wikipedia operations overseas or is it already handled in some other way? I'm sorry to voice my concern this directly, but: I'd rather this didn't turn into conservapedia mkII and have Trump attempt to re-write history. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia community is editorially independent of the foundation and has remained so during Trump's first presidency, so I see no reason to be worried. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the users or a part of the body of wikipedia itself? As in, could Trump take over the website or otherwise exert significant pressure that would otherwise be alleviated by relocation? If not, then I guess no action necessary.
75.142.254.3 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing he could do is hire a troll farm of some sort, which I don't expect us to have much trouble defending against. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the servers located in the United States? It's looking like the answer is no, and I'm sorry for being paranoid, it's just that he has done things in this country that we didn't anticipate because we didn't expect anyone to have the sort of character that it would be a problem in that position. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary Wikimedia data centers are located in the U.S., with caching centers distributed around the globe. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country with better legal protections for online free speech, but as you note, it shouldn't be taken for granted. Legoktm (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 1st amendment provides stronger protections than almost all countries have; even if Trump tried he'd be hard pressed to find a court that would agree with Wikipedia censorship (unlike in India...). Galobtter (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about the strength of free speech protections in the US being more robust than just about anywhere else in the world, from a perspective of well-enshrined constitutional protections and the historical jurisprudence and respect from institutions. That said, if there were to be a concerted push by the incoming president and his allies to suppress certain information streams and target free speech that aligns against him, it would not be the first time that he sent shockwaves through the legal world by finding success in overturning long-established doctrines that were until recently thought iron-clad and inviolable, by appearing before a federal judiciary that is now showing the influence of decades of concerted efforts by the GOP and the Federalist Society to pack those courts to the gills with ideologically-aligned and personally loyal jurists. In short, nothing is certain in the current political and institutional landscape. I just don't think a whole-sale move of the organization and its technical infrastructure is either feasible or likely to substantially obviate the risks. The only answer is to take up the fight when and where it occurs. SnowRise let's rap 20:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to add that the Federalist Society is not opposed to the First Amendment, and indeed has been staunchly supportive of what it is and what it means in terms of campaign finance. Unlike with Roe v Wade, where there was in fact a decades long campaign to overturn it, there's no similar movement to overturn key First Amendment precedents. Having said that, I do worry about Section 230's protections for user generated content, which is very important. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Jimbo Wales, and yes, 230 is a concern. I'd request and suggest that you arrange a meeting with Donald Trump and Elon Musk at Mar-a-Lago to discuss how it would affect Wikipedia and other online projects. They both seem open to such meetings, and my guess is that it would be beneficial for the project in several ways. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They both seem open to such meetings. They do? Are you sure it's that easy to get a meeting with the president-elect and the richest man in the world? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Jimbo, pretty sure. Trump takes many meetings, both formal and informal, and I would hope that Musk would be interested in sitting in on their conversation(s). Many things happen in Trump's meetings, and I would assume that a Wales-Trump-Musk sit-down would veer into some interesting directions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not afford either of those an ounce of credibility in any statement they make. Both have shown a willingness to say one thing and do another to an extreme extent, and risking something like this to the whims of people like that is not something I'd personally advise. Though, Trump doesn't appear to be looking too good these days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ir3ULEvRqBU
I'm speaking somewhat plainly, but trying to be appropriate. As for Musk, when he sent his submarine to go rescue some people from a cave somewhere... his response to some of the events was... notable (not for Wikipedia standards maybe though).
For Trump, there's too many examples (saying that he doesn't know anything about project 2025, and soo many others).
A discussion with him and Musk could be attempted, but whether it would deliver anything, and whether to believe him? I couldn't say. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can cross off Elon Musk about wikipedia https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1760677431961407672 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1849639215199650279 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1860208047865626644 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, is based in the United States, and has to comply with US laws. Unless a relevant law is passed or legal action is taken, there isn't much Trump can do. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump goes authoritarian, which at this point I'm not going to rule out, US Law could be changed on a whim. But, I'm going to try to not be paranoid as much on this and WMF may already have evaluated appropriate courses of action given how they've managed to handle a wide variety of different kinds of disruption already. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is, we just don't know. I'm sure the WMF has contingencies in place for if US law ever becomes prejudicial to the project. Until he actually becomes president, we don't know what will happen. We just have to wait and see. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but considering the current crisis over the ANI matter, I am not at all confident that the WMF does have a proper contingency plan for a concerted litigation campaign from a Trump presidential administration or aligned parties. And actually, in that case, I could forgive their not having one: in that case, it's hard to predict for once bedrock civil and constitutional principles flying out the window, or know the exact combination of legal angle of attack and political pressure which may lead to such outcomes. Unlike certain other recent scenarios where the manner in which things have played out was mostly predictable, there is a lot that could very much be up in the air. The Justice Department will certainly be headed by a political loyalist for the next four years, and SCOTUS and many of the other federal courts are incredibly friendly to right wing causes, but the MAGA movement as a whole has not tended to attract the sharpest of legal minds for advocates, and not withstanding the election results, there is a lot of cultural attachment remaining in the U.S. for robust free speech protections--which afterall, conservative politicians are typically as happy to invoke and benefit from as anyone. So it's very difficult to know how concerned to be or what angle to expect the erosion of expression rights to set in from, if it does occur. In this case, I would sympathize if the WMF felt as much ina holding pattern as the rest of us. SnowRise let's rap 20:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It s about moderations, https://www.wired.com/story/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-speech-social-media-moderation/. Thus it would mean invoking free speeech against the Free speech of a Trumper wanting to use it s Infowars.com episode as a trusted source. As a first step, moving operations wouldn t be needed, just the legal entity for thr new Federal regulations. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That argument only really applies to social media. We aren't a social media platform. Also, I definitely think you're overreacting. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon musk tweets higlight he sees wikipedia as a social media that should have it s said censorship legally fought. At that point, what matter isn t what things are but how they are perceived by the ruling party. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know what will happen. Everything is written and Elon is tweeting about it specifically about wikipedia. https://www.wired.com/story/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-speech-social-media-moderation/. It won t be possible tjrough Executive order, but things laws can be changed by Congress.
We should not act like the Sigmund Freuds sister's who throught they could survive in 1939. I hope Wikimedia is seriously thinking about moving overseas several time if needed in order to gain some years rather than being turned into a Darwin Awards receipient. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear such containgencies would be to fight legally and then Abide after losing even if this results in wikipedia being turned into an other twitter. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution of the United States provides protections that would be very hard for Trump or any other president to circumvent, and the consent of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states is required to amend it, so I'm not too worried yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but we already can handle dealing with edits from congress itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, it would be invoking Free speech against the Free speech rights of the Trumper https://www.wired.com/story/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-speech-social-media-moderation/ though things can be done with Congress appeoval. Clearence Thomas and an other judge are apparently waiting for Trump to step down/retire 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to a recent bill, the President may now strip the WMF of its non-profit status as long as it supports "terrorism". Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite yet. The House passed HR 9495 yesterday, but for it to actually become law there are a few more steps that would need to happen. Anomie⚔ 00:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably won’t pass the Senate this session, and the democrats could also filibuster it when the GOP takes a very slim majority next time. And if it did pass, the main targets would be Palestinian rights groups, which the US already treats inexcusably because it shamelessly supports Israeli war crimes as part of the US-Israel-Iran proxy war. The long game that is international geopolitics makes both Wikipedia and the current office holder’s grievance politics look small. Dronebogus (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And changing laws is indeed the plan https://www.wired.com/story/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-speech-social-media-moderation/. The article tells about executive orders, but I think it would be easy to get Fcc power being enlarged by Congress. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree. He hired the guy that plan to enact laws allowing to crack down on mederation on Project. The Framework would give the power to the Fcc to prevent any kind of moderations by platforms as long as it s not death threats. Wikipedia Articles would be legally compelled to accept Breibart New or Infowars as a trusted source. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? What laws? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Project2025 https://www.wired.com/story/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-speech-social-media-moderation/. Though as suggested by the article, this would require a vote from Congress 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah cause someones gonna use for extreme left leaning content eventually and they will go back. Also I'm sure that it will be such a big screwup in countless of other ways that they will be forced to go back. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at twitter. It s not exteme left who did won but far right. Indeed, we can notice the strange marriage between Healthy food and anti regulationists. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? Gaismagorm (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trumpers now promote less pesticides with Robert Kennedy jr. In my Euoroppean country, the far right still boast that non poisned food is for the richs who have enough to eat anything 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Okay. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, that wash your wishes of wikipedia not going in the right directions as the result of Trump. Moving legally is a lengthy operation that should be srudied in order to be ready when things become required. We can have the WMF as hardware user in the United States were the data is legammy managed from an the new country the WMF have moved to. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but if the WMF does have or in the future creates contingency plans for moving operations in response to political developments, publicly revealing such plans in advance might make it harder to carry them out. It would be like a business announcing that they will build a factory in a given location without having at least an option to buy the land they will build on. Donald Albury 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don t have to reveal which plan, only if they have a plan to move and if no build 1. Moving operations isn t required, just move legally. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop worrying to much, I doubt Trump is going to do anything against Wikipedia. Attacking and threatening to block Wikipedia will only infuriate the centrist voters, which I didn't think anyone would want to do. Some of the editors here are Trump supporters as well! What is concerning for Wikipedia today is the above case in India, where WMF HAD agreed to disclose the editor's information because of a defamation suit. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an important part of the analysis: we are hardly the most vulnerable collective entity in existence: for obvious reasons, we are meant to be apolitical, unaligned, and disinterested in directly influencing public perception of any matter (beyond the core mission of providing information, of course). But the one time this community was willing to flex its muscles to head off a legislative outcome that it felt was a danger to the fundamental viability of the project, the latent power of the project's reach, through the site/encyclopedia was made pretty obvious--and that strength was not trivial, utterly crushing legislation that had been sailing through congress. If pushed into a corner and forced to abandon its apolitical role, this movement is capable of coming back with potent counter-punches in terms of grassroots mobilization, and I think there is some perception of that fact out there now.
There's also the massive legal warchest of the WMF to contend with (which so many on this project have groused about over recent years, but which was well-advised to build up, for exactly this moment in time). Of course, the current ANI situation raises significant concerns about the ability of the WMF and the community to row together, which is one of the most concerning things about that situation. But the WMF will not have the same onerous sub judice principles giving it both legitimate and illegitimate reasons not to communicate clearly with us (at least nowhere near to the same degree) with regard to suits before U.S. courts. SnowRise let's rap 20:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Disagree. He is attempting to appoint the guy at the Fcc that plan to enact laws allowing to crack down on mederation as the part of Project2025 he did write. The Framework would give the power to the Fcc to prevent any kind of moderations by platforms as long as it s not death threats. Wikipedia Articles would be legally compelled to accept Breibart New or Infowars as a trusted source. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, I doubt anything in particular will happen to Wikipedia. But if you want to prepare for the worst, as it were, and you have a machine with some extra disk space, consider periodically keeping an updated copy of the Wikipedia database dump. I get one periodically, just in case, since I've got plenty of spare space on this machine anyway. If worst ever came to worst, plenty of volunteers have the technical skill to get a DB dump up and working on a MediaWiki instance elsewhere, and run it at least while things are sorted out. I doubt it'll ever come to that, but if you want to be prepared just in case, well, the more widely copies of those are available, the better. Just remember that Wikipedia was completely run by volunteers once, from software development to sysadmins, and we could do it again if we had to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem would be providing sufficient server capacity to handle the traffic. Anybody can put up a static mirror of WP as it was on the download date (Lord knowns there are a lot of those on the Internet), but providing an editable version that would be used by a large proportion of current editors would be pretty expensive. And if there were more than one editable version out there, it would be very difficult to ever merge the changes back into a single database, with some clones becoming permanent forks, perhaps sponsored by governments and other large entities. Donald Albury 18:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought of the technical feasibility of a forked encyclopedia more the last few weeks than I have in the last ten years. Not as a serious exercise in making any plans, but just as a consequences of thinking about the relationship between the project and the WMF and what actually keep volunteers invested in this particular, traditional and only mode of building the encyclopedia. Aside from the obvious organizational and cultural ties, there's the obvious cost of maintaining ongoing access and development that you talk about, but then there's also the liabilities and legal fees. If circumstances were drastic enough to take Wikipedia itself down, it would be hard to shield any project with a big enough profile to be able to afford the access and tools for readers and editors from whatever legal forces had compromised Wikipedia's viability in the first place. Even redundancy different jurisdictions wouldn't necessarily obviate the kinds of threats that would be sufficient to take the original Wikipedia out of the picture. SnowRise let's rap 07:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know, unless it's a case of tearing itself apart, I suppose... SnowRise let's rap 07:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about the legal side. Trying to fork Wikipedia may well cause more problems than it could ever solve. I think the best chance of preserving Wikipedia is anything like its current form is to let the foundation do its job. If the foundation cannot protect Wikipedia in the US, there is little hope of Wikipedia surviving somewhere else. Donald Albury 15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m thinking about WWII where many organizations had to move in Paris then in London then in the United States. Moving should be studied, the fundation wouldn t be able to protect as much Wikipedia as in the US but it would be allowed to do better than abide to https://www.wired.com/story/brendan-carr-fcc-trump-speech-social-media-moderation/. We might even gain 10 years by behaving like that. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do own a 200Tb server with 1Tib of ram on a 10Gb/s connection. Enough to power all wikipedia.org websites in read only mode. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it s someone who own the hardware personally. No, as I looked, most of the traffic is static web pages loading numbers aren t that much important. The problem is to have proper physicall backups but this would let the WMF time to organize for moving overseas.
However, as a matter of risks mitigation, password hashes aren t part of data dumps. Until they aren t dumped, admins wouldn t be able to login back. Asking them to be dumped would be an important step. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the entirety of the English Wikipedia as of a few months ago downloaded onto my laptop, plus a few other Wikimedia projects. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worst comes to worst, execute WP:TERMINAL. 2400:79E0:8071:5888:1808:B3D7:3BC1:B010 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case of emergency, one should always know how to use the terminal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if we have the dumps of the passwords hashes, we can just relocate to an other country. Telegram itself is completely unresctrictred by being based in Dubai. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, the US House narrowly stopped a legislation that would give Trump the keys to revoke non-profit status of any non-profit organisation in US. [1], [2]. – robertsky (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I am greatly surprised by the faith you put in the US Constitution. Many of you seem unaware that the threats you are facing are unprecedented. Trump attempted a coup in 2020 and during his campaign he actually said he wants to be a dictator. Or how else are we to interpret such things as "If you vote for me, you don't have to vote at all in four years"? He didn't say all this back in 2016. Neither did he employ such rascals in his government as he is planning to do know. Therefore I find the argument that we lived through Trump's first presidency unharmed very unconvincing.
He and his loyal servants have expressed their contempt of science on numerous occasions, most recently J.D. Vance by saying "professors are the enemy". With both houses of the Congress and the Supreme Court in Republican hands, checks and balances aren't worth much, especially since the party has shown an unfaltering loyalty for its Great Leader over the past few years. A major Gleichschaltung operation is to be expected. What matters most in situations like this is not the law but the sentiment of the people. And that sentiment seems to be strongly in favour of an authoritarian dictatorship. Under such conditions, laws are easily explained the way that best fits the regime.
So for goodness' sake, move! Not just the servers, but also the WMF as a legal entity. I am well aware that no country on Earth is entirely safe of a populist threat, but the situation isn't as dire everywhere as it is in the US. Canada could be an option. Or Spain, one of the few European countries that still welcomes immigration of some sort. Do it, before it's too late! Don't let yourselves and our work be ground among the cogwheels of this vile, narcissistic despotism! Steinbach (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steinbach, you write that the sentiment of the people seems to be strongly in favour of an authoritarian dictatorship and yet the current popular vote count has Trump at 50.1% and dropping as California votes continue to be counted. So, the sentiment is not as strong as you portray it. I too am deeply concerned about the path that the United States is on, but we should not overstate public sentiment for dictatorship. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should rather say enough peoples that want to go authoritharian so that it doesn t matters. Clearly, things like Dark Maga couldn t had been something elected several years ago. An ideological shift happnned. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Billions of people rely on Wikipedia. Trump won't be able to do anything without the world going against him. Tons of his very voters shame his fake news big lie narrative. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! you say that, but look how it ended for Twitter. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that related? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2023, you could had said: Billions peoples relies on Twitter, Elon won t be able to trick it s algorithms to promote disinfo and gender hate speech since the platform rules disallow such thing (and in fact promoting gender discrimination is still among x.com terms of rules but of course the owner is now doing it all the day along and it s 206 millions followers props its content)
There s a flight of course, but it s not massive, and x.com largely keeps the original twitter.com userbase. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's important to note that the twitter changes were due to elon buying twitter, not due to new laws being formed. Elon Musk (no matter how much he wants to try) can't buy wikimedia. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What s the difference between Elon buying twitter and Congress weaponizing the Fcc with a conservative court? I d rather says none! 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is one is just a poor business strategy, and the other is mostly unfeasable (at least to the level that some are wanting, or dreading). Besides, wikipedia isn't a social media site. It is a encyclopedia. Gaismagorm (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elon musk tweets claims highlights that he sees no difference between speech regulation on wikipedia and Youtube/Facebook. I might agree the biggest risk is gettting the fundation non profit status revoked. McCartysm shows how the constitution can little free speech protections. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And McCarthy didn’t last either, because eventually someone called his BS and he crumbled Dronebogus (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the planning purschase of MSNBC by Elon, things will last like in Russia where richs mens that supports the executive using conflict of interests purschase and control the media. It Science evidences that won t last. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are urging is not really feasible, at least not in the short term, and if the fight you fear is coming, it will go best for the movement on the ground that a U.S. base provides. If you think that moving to Spain and putting the project even further under the auspices of EU law will lead to greater free speech protections, I have bad news for you: a substantial portion of the content on this site would be much more amenable to exclusion and state interference under petition by private parties under GDPR principles than it would under U.S. jurisprudence. This is one area of civil and human rights where the EU is much more laissez-faire about suppression than is the U.S., especially when you consider "right to be forgotten" stances. SnowRise let's rap 21:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but we don t have to do it on the short term. We have time before things changes. And that s why we must be prepared to move instead of realizing we have to move within 2 weeks.. We can move in Damage control. For example if we did choose Qatar, we would have to just remove all content that critisize the country. Otherwise they have a strong journalism and allow to critiise anything else, including saudi Arabia. Plus there s no elections there (so stable). There would be no such things as accepting climate changes and vaccine by Trumpers. The United States might had been the best place, but now it risks to become worst than Russia. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not moving to any country that would make us remove all content critical of said country. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It s about a tradeoff. Because you prefer not only letting Trumpers to remove anti trump content but to change all sciences articles at a massive scale? No info is better than conspirasionism and disinfo. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would take longer than two weeks since the WMF would have to legally establish themselves in a new country, and study their laws so they are in compliance with them. So years, not two weeks. Also Qatar would want to delete articles and media of human sexuality and possibly some other highly contentious topics, so that would appear to be a nonstarter for WMF. Abzeronow (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I m noticing Telegram was allowed to let gender discussion happenning by being in Dubai in addition to outright advertising illegal drug trade. Otherwise, exactly! As passing laws through congress takes time' we do have time. That s why it has to be studied now, so when rather than if it become required everything would be ready. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross that bridge if we get there. I don't imagine this would be seriously considered at the current time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard the WMF keeps both the main site and the backup site in the US. Now might be a good time to reevaluate this and move one of them to another country. The WMF is quite good at employing a diverse multinational workforce scattered across the planet, but it is very centralised when it comes to fundraising, a more distributed model where funds raised in particular countries were controlled by affiliate charities or chapters in those countries would in my view be stronger. At least it wouldn't have a single point of failure. ϢereSpielChequers 15:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is wikimedia begin subject of thr incoming Fcc laws. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the WMF has contingency plans for any potential authoritarian steps Trump may take, and as seen with the ANI case, may obey any legal demands the Trump Administration makes of them. WMF does have some flexibility not to do some things since they are not a publisher (that is they don't have editorial control over Wikipedia), and WMF does not want such control. I don't think the WMF would share their contingency plans if they have them though, and by the time Trump or his Administration took extreme authoritarian measures against WMF and its Board, it would probably be too late to do anything. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to ask to etablish such moving overseas plans. They don t have to tell us which is the plan but if they have 1.
Under the project 2025, they would compell the WMF to allow any kind of sources as trusted (and thus requires them to have some controls over Wikipedia). 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:64A1:A0FD:CDDA:2E99 (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF moving its servers to Switzerland has its own tradeoffs (no PD-Art; possibly different fair use/fair dealing laws, some PD-US works would have to be deleted), and such a process would take years so it would not be helpful against a Trump Administration. Abzeronow (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving servers isn t needed, just the legal entity. I m also noticing that by chosing Dubai Telegram was allowed to have no moderation at all to the point of outright being allowed to let opiods advertising posts. United States is clearly the best country, but things can become worst than in Russia and thus have to legally move to a place where things wouldn t be ideal but better thzn the upUnited States2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we hosted some content in some countries and other content in others? I know, I know, that’s probably just the insane troll logic talking Dronebogus (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, would it be possible to have dumps of password hashes for each users? I know it s a little security threat but it would be a good thing in current times, As there s data dumps of everything else, this would allows anyone to resume operations (without physicallly separated backups though). In my case, I personally own what s required for 1/4th of the traffic. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thread a good use of time? WMF will not be moving out of the United States, Elon Musk and Donald Trump will not be meeting with anyone from WMF (nor would it be wise for us to do anything to get on their radar), and WMF is not going to publicly release our password hashes. This thread is full of the most hypothetical of hypotheticals. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not. But it a) helps Wikimedians cope with the uncertainty of the present moment and b) leads to amusing tangents about relocating to Iceland/Switzerland/Spain/the Moon. Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Novem Linguae. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passwords hashes says little about the underlying password as basically it s what things like Bitcoin s security is based on. I m suggesting it as an alternative of moving to a better place if the United States turns from the best place to the worst place in order to to let other peoples take back hosting in other countries. Personally, I created an account in 2013, and wouldn t mind having the password hash being released for thr greater good.
Ok. Guys Makes sure to not have debates https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1835668071773581413. But I m sure to bet something, and I can open a Polymarket about this: Within 11 months you d had lost all your trials by deseparately trying to stay in the United States at all costs, and all langagues of wikipedia would have turned to promoting consiparcies theories even in in maths or wikipedia.org will be shut down. Such passivity in the face of the obvious will be remembered in the history like the actions of the Sigmund Freuds Sisters thinking something like the Shoas won t happen. 2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2A01:E0A:401:A7C0:7829:35FD:7F37:21A2, stop WP:BLUDGEONing the debate with your sensational doomerism. You have made fewer than 50 edits and they’re exclusively to this thread. This is WP:SPA behavior and it’s growing tedious. If you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia then I see good reason to report you to an admin. Dronebogus (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin November Issue 2

[edit]
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation from November 7 to November 21, 2024. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Talking: 2024 continues

Wikimania logo
Scholarships open for Wikimania 2025

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

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

Annual Goals Progress on Effectiveness
See also: quarterly Metrics Reports

  • Audit reports 2023-24: Highlights from the fiscal year 2023–2024 Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports.
  • Wikimedia Enterprise: Financial report of Wikimedia Enterprise for the fiscal year 2023–2024.

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

  • Board Updates: The Board met in Katowice, Poland on August 5 and held its quarterly business meeting before Wikimania. Learn more about the outcomes of the meeting.
  • AffCom: The Affiliates Committee has resumed User Group recognition work after a pause to improve the User Group recognition process.

Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · other newsletters:

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

Previous editions of this bulletin are on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 18:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the US starts next week

[edit]

Dear all,

As mentioned previously, the WMF is running its annual banner fundraising campaign for non logged in users in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the US from the 2nd to the 31st of December 2024.

You can find more information around the campaign on the community collaboration page.

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:

Thank you and regards, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it starts next week, then why have I been seeing it for several weeks already? 216.147.127.204 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The future of US government web sites as sources

[edit]

I am posting this here because it has very broad implications for the project and may require foundation help in the coming weeks. Wikipedia articles on energy and the environment and other many other subjects rely on data from US government web sites, which are generally regarded as authoritative. There is a significant likelihood that many or all of these sites will be taken offline after January 20, 2025 when the US administration changes over. Is the foundation participating in any organized effort to back this material up? Can we just rely on the Internet Archive? What happens if the new administration puts up conflicting data? Will editors be free to "correct" articles based on what newer Government websites say, regardless of scientific backing? We do not have a lot of time to think this through.--agr (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (and share) your concern, but deciding which sources are reliable is an editorial decision which the WMF does not get involved in. Sources that were once considered reliable can have their reputation reevaluated if conditions warrant, and even sources that are generally considered reliable should always be examined with a critical eye to ensure that any particular statement holds up to the general reputation.
This is an important issue, but it's just not one that the WMF has any input on. I would suggest asking this at WT:RS or perhaps WP:RSN. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, whenever something is cited on Wikipedia, the Internet Archive automatically takes a snapshot of it. You can contact someone like GreenC to confirm this.
The rest of your post seems like it would be a good fit for WP:RSN. Reliable sources have become unreliable before, and RSN can handle reducing a source's ranking on the WP:RSPSOURCES list when that situation comes to pass. A note will even be added to the entry stating that it used to be reliable, and after what date it became unreliable. However, it might be jumping the gun to post about this before it actually happens. There's not really anything to do yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a specific source for the allegations that many or all of these sites will be taken offline after January 20, 2025? Yes, the Dept. of Ed website's not going to be up anymore if that agency is axed, but this isn't the first post that I've seen here predicting that the administration change will be the end of America as we know it. Yes, if the energy/climate/public health sites go downhill we can/will revisit how we handle those sources. But all of this doom and gloom is overwrought, like when people I knew thought Obama was the antichrist or that Hillary was going to put Christians into death camps. This is Wikipedia, not Reddit. I thought we were a little more level-headed here. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had a nice four years where the main agitators in AMPOL were right-wing nuts. These are pretty easy to take care of, since they have virtually zero social capital on Wikipedia. They can be overruled and the community is ready to ban them at the drop of a hat if they get frustrated and lash out. Now we can look forward to four years where the main agitators will be left-wing nuts and #Resistance. This is harder to deal with because these people do have social capital on Wikipedia and have wikifriends (including several established editors and admins) to come back them up in disputes or tilt consensus. I suspect we can also look forward to more Anti-American bigotry toward subjects and editors as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent WMF update on ANI case

[edit]

Noting that the WMF has posted an update on the ANI case here on 2 December, for those interested. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t upload Auferstanden aus Ruinen

[edit]

You see, the East German anthem doesn’t have an audio file because when I tried to upload it, it doesn’t work. It keeps telling it is unconstructive, but there is no other file. Same thing for the Chechen anthem, even thought the file doesn’t work on mobile. 197.167.245.218 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried uploading it to https://commons.wikimedia.org? If that doesn't work, maybe post on their commons:Commons:Help desk. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&oldid=1261649384"