Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2023-05-22. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Final decision in "World War II and the history of Jews in Poland" (3,286 bytes · 💬)

The ""reliable sourcing restriction"" as written is problematic; it doesn't allow for the reversion of vandalism, nor for good-faith editors who restore disputed sources without being aware that they have been previously removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Seems like you want to introduce a mens rea "element of the crime", but I don’t think that is necessary. On Wikipedia, blocks are preventative not punishing. Worst case, a well meaning but disruptive editor gets a short block, and finds out about the special sourcing status of this article. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No, I just remember when we used to treat new and good faith editors with a modicum of courtesy and consideration, and would like to return to that ethos. I'm also unclear how changing "no editor may reinstate the source..." to, say, "no editor, once made aware of this restriction (and with the exception of reverting unambiguous vandalism), may reinstate the source..." would lessen its effectiveness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't the decision's wording Administrators may enforce this restriction (emphasis mine) already give admins the discretion that they would have with the additional text you just proposed? In other words, "may enforce...with blocks" doesn't mean "must block". In other, other words, if we have admins zooming around blocking new and good faith editors, maybe it's an administrator problem, not an arbcom problem. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it does say "may". It says an admin may block a user who restores a disputed link, even if they do so while reverting vandalism, and that an admin may block a novice, good-faith user who restores such a link even while being completely unaware of the restriction. Why would we want to say these things? Under what policy "may" an admin make such blocks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
According to media, the Arbcom decision was heart-wrenching for Grabowski and Klein. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured content: A very musical week for featured articles (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-05-22/Featured content

In the media: History, propaganda and censorship (11,866 bytes · 💬)

If there was a manual of style for the Signpost, perhaps I wouldn't be wondering why "chief executive officer" was capitalized, when it wouldn't be if either the Wikipedia or Associated Press style was adopted, for example.~T P W 13:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust / Poland arbitration case

Since we are linking to Richard C. Lukas for context information, and mention related changes to it, it is probably worth noting that right as the ArbCom case was being finalized and this Signpost story was being written, that article was significantly edited by one of the case parties, e.g. to remove the sentence "Several of his books have received criticism for downplaying antisemitism in wartime Poland and overstating the heroism of Poles in rescuing Jews during the war." Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I did some research on Worldcat that may be of interest. First, here are some data on Lukas:

According to Worldcat, Lukas' most well known book on the Holocaust is held by 1304 libraries. His other major book, "Out of the Inferno", is held by 1,255 libraries according to Worldcat. Both were published by the University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.

Now for another author, Nechama Tec, who Grabowski and Klein mention approvingly in their essay:

Tec's major work, "When light pierced the darkness", is held by 1,356 libraries according to Worldcat. Her "Resistance" comes in at 1338 libraries, her "Dry Tears" at 694 libraries, her "Defiance" at 303 libraries.

As for Grabowski himself:

Grabowski's most important work, "Hunt for the Jews", is held by 901 libraries according to Worldcat. His Polish-language "Dalej jest noc" is held by 43 libraries, and his other English-language book, "The Polish police: collaboration in the Holocaust", by 5 (five) libraries according to Worldcat.

As I've mentioned before, Lukas' books are also prominently featured in bibliographies published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: [1], [2].

Judging by the above criteria, Grabowski looks junior to Lukas in terms of academic standing. Lukas looks about equal to Tec, who Grabowski and Klein mention as a bona fide Holocaust expert. --Andreas JN 466 16:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

And this book is held by 2,467 libraries according to Worldcat, a much higher number than any of the above. So by Andreas' criteria, Holocaust denier David Irving is far senior "in terms of academic standing" to all of the above mentioned authors.

A good illustration of the quality of some arguments in this debate. (Andreas' Holocaust Museum argument has also been questioned by several other users, see the talk page of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-03-09/Recent research and the preceding discussion mentioned there. But of course that doesn't stop him from continuing to repeat it.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Good try.

Quoting from our lead for David Irving: "By the late 1980s, Irving had placed himself outside the mainstream of the study of history". The book you mention was published in 1977. Contrast its library holdings against those of Irving's later works: Churchill's War (1987), 346 libraries; Goebbels (1996), 192 libraries; Hitler's Army (2011), 9 libraries; True Himmler (2020), 2 libraries. Surely there is at least some correlation between the worth of a book and libraries' decision to purchase it.

And while I concede my argument about the USHMM bibliographies has been "questioned", nobody has explained why in a bibliography on "Polish and Soviet civilians, and Soviet prisoners of war" comprising a total of five (5) works, two of which are about Russia, the USHMM would choose to include two books by Lukas. Apparently we're supposed to believe they rolled dice.

(We're having the same argument at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland_closed ... maybe we should agree on having it in one place only. I concede it's my fault, as I posted similar stuff here and there.) Andreas JN 466 18:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Irving may not yet have outright denied the holocaust in 1977 yet. But as noted in our article about this book, he was arguing at that time already "that Hitler was against the killings of Jews. He claimed that Hitler even ordered a stop to the extermination of Jews in November 1941 (British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper noted that this admission blatantly contradicted Irving's other claim that Hitler was ignorant about the mass killing of Jews)". See also this RSN discussion about an even earlier (1964) book of Irving where the same argument that Andreas makes here was roundly dismissed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that anyone is interested in the further back and forth between us they can read my reply over there. Andreas JN 466 21:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter/Turkey censorship

insert Virgin Elon vs Chad Jimmy meme here --Firestar464 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I applaud Jimmy for pushing E.M. on this, and for highlighting our own principled stance. However, one should also be aware that:

The Twitter takedowns appear to have happened due to a new, pretty terrible Turkish "disinformation" law (that we don't seem to have an article about yet), i.e. the Wikipedia block and reinstatement happened before it came into force.
For what it's worth, after these media pieces about Jimmy's comments came out, Twitter said they had filed objections in court at least (and published the underlying court orders and correspondence with the Turkish government's ~~censor~~ regulator; making good on E.M.'s promise after he had been called out by Matthew Yglesias on a lack of "Twitter Files" about this. Although a Turkish activist called them out on *not* publishing the actual throttling threat that was imminent).
IMHO Twitter should get some credit for this publication (even though, again, it only happened after having been nudged very publicly, and after, problematically, having recently pulled out of the related Lumen reporting system). And as Wikimedians we can actually ask if the Wikimedia Foundation is always as transparent (and as promptly transparent) with publishing legal correspondence that resulted in content takedowns. Relatedly, does anyone know why the Foundation stopped publishing the "Right to be forgotten" (RTBF) notices it receives from Google (specifying which Wikipedia pages Google had to legally remove from search engine results)? WMF used to always post these at https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines , but the most recent ones there are from 2019. Did Google stop sending them? See also the talk page there.
Lastly and importantly, Jimmy made his comments - quite intentionally, one assumes - in the content of the current situation in the UK, where the Foundation has recently said it will not comply with doing age checks under the planned "Online Safety Bill". Which could very well end in Wikipedia getting blocked in the UK (as it once effectively was back in 2008 already, until the regulators there backed down). Now I'm fully in support of Jimmy's and the WMF's uncompromising stance there. But it does have to be said that letting the entire site becoming unavailable for an entire country is not a small thing, whether it's WP in the UK or Twitter in Turkey. I hope that the people who cheered about Jimmy's comments because they love dunking on E.M. will also support this kind of difficult stance when it doesn't involve a billionaire that they are preoccupied with.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Modi documentary

What's odd in the petitioner's claims against WMF as reported by ANI is that (among other things), it calls for WMF to cease the publishing of the two-volume documentary series. Unless the BBC free-licenses the documentary, Commons is not going to even start distributing it (not for longer than the few seconds it takes for speed deletion, anyway, I assume). As for the actual informational content, this is Streisand effect territory, and it's good that the 2002 Gujarat riots topic is returning to global attention.

Some of my ancient attempts at mediation and explaining NPOV prior to modern Wikipedia talk page style are the 2002-2003 Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 1 and 2003-2005 Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 2. By 2005-2006, Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 3, the number of South Asians (or others sufficiently interested) willing to edit and discuss edits for the article had grown enough that there was likely a sufficient variety of biases for NPOV to become stable and a good quality article emerge. A quick browse only shows minor issues, such as overcite to a long list of academic sources at the end of the lead. A good challenge now for people who work on promoting "good" and "featured" status for articles would be to see if the article can be brought to either status despite (or thanks to) the increased attention. It might not be too much work. Boud (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

News and notes: Golden parachutes: Record severance payments at Wikimedia Foundation (19,274 bytes · 💬)

Something is not right here... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not in the spirit of the premise I agreed on to contribute.Frdp (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Good coverage. Thank you! Tony (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure of what "local salary levels" is supposed to mean for a company that is now fully distributed. Even if the CEO were required to work in San Francisco, where I live myself, I feel some kind of way about donating my labor while folks at the top get these kinds of salaries. Funcrunch (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I asked some related questions at [3]. I got in before the deadline so hopefully they will be answered. Sandizer (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Why should they be required to work in San Francisco? Why can't they be based in a LCOL area?? Mathmo ^Talk 12:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the WMF CEO should be required to work in SF. I'm saying that even if they were required to work in SF, one of the most expensive cities in the U.S., I would consider these salaries to be too high. Funcrunch (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Clearly an unpopular opinion in these discussions, but I have a difficult time bringing myself to care about stuff like this. I feel like maybe I should care, but I just don't. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It's wild that these people get hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, plus nice benefits, while my own work compensation is miserable, and I'm paying for camera equipment, books, and article access in order to contribute here. $ɱ$ (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ɱ In theory, there are WMF-run grants for some of that. In practice, they are IMHO way red-tapish, sadly. But that's a different problem. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
The "rapid" fund is for "projects" from $500-5000. Neither the occasional book wish nor article/document scan requests cost $500. Perhaps photography equipment could, but I am not sure it would be eligible anyhow? $ɱ$ (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This book grant project would be great if still active, and where I live... $ɱ$ (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ɱ Considering that most editors need only a tiny amount of funds for stuff you mention, this does seem like a major oversight. Perhaps consistent with the other issue raised here: someone who earns six digits a year likely forgets some folks may have needs that for them are "petty cash". In other words, the distance between decision-makers at WMF and grassroots (us here) is growing larger and larger. Since we are talking about grants, this is well illustrated by those "big" grants, which I occasionally review even, and which increasingly have nothing to do with us here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

These executives are far too often out of touch with the actual activities of the projects, yet somehow are worthy of such extreme salaries. IMHO the salaries ought to be more like $250,000/year -- perhaps even enforced upon the current executive staff -- & if they whine about such a sum being "insufficient", they should have the fact we volunteers work for free drummed into their skulls, with no serious hope of receiving more than a tee shirt or two for our labor. (And yes, I am unhappy about this imbalance of compensation.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for researching and reporting on this. DanCherek (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Now we know, only extremely rich people can expect less than 500.000 dollars for leaving a job. Shameful. Ignacio Rodríguez (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

How much money has the WMF spent on trying to free Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani, who were imprisoned for contributing to Wikipedia? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien Or for suppporting their families? Who probably need basic resources (food, shelter) more than WMF staffers need another luxury item that comes with 6-digits saleries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, according to m:Legal/Legal Fees Assistance Program, the Foundation still offers to "help secure funds for legal assistance in appropriate cases for Wikimedia users" in certain roles. (Then again, as someone noted on the talk page there back in 2019 already, it is unclear whether/how much this program has been used; it is certainly not widely publicized. Also, regarding these two Arabic Wikipedia editors, the reporting some months ago raised the distinct possibility that the WMF's Trust and Safety team may actually have been oblivious of their arrests until they were reported by other organizations a year or two after the fact.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I wanna see the WMF do another donation drive. I double dog dare them. Because if they can burn so much money in severance packages, then there's no damn way they need any more of us regular people's money. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thing is they were presumably in a position where if they didn't burn that amount they couldn't get rid of the people in question. And in theory at least they are at least trying to avoid being in that situation in future.©Geni (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

If both the number of jobs were scaled back and also the amount of excessive numeration packages were scaled back, would there even need to be multiple hard hitting donation drives every year? Would you even need one per year?? I think not. Every second year perhaps. Mathmo ^Talk 12:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
MMM yummy money... It would be pity to give some away... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
HR can be a legal minefield. It's common practice to pay people in lieu of notice for lots of reasons, probably more so in a society as litigious (and lacking in a healthcare system) as the US. It would cost the WMF more in the long run if they were sued because they left themselves exposed. The new policy looks like an attempt to standardise things and introduce transparency while limiting potential future liability, which should be applauded. As imperfect as the WMF is, people are entitled to be paid for their work. The distinction between WMF staff and Wikipedians that amny people miss is that employees are told what to work on, how to work on it, when to work on it and that is how they make their living. If a Wikipedian refuses to follow our policies, they risk having their participation in a website restricted; an employee refusing to abide by workplace policies is jeapordising their livelihood and career. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
As for healthcare, the WMF offers a good set of benefits and perks, at least for its US employees – fully paid medical, dental, and vision insurance premiums for employees and their eligible families, wellness reimbursement, retirement plan etc. (These benefits are included in the total compensation shown in the Form 990.)

I agree that the new policy looks sensible; the question is whether exceptions will continue to be made at the top, and how often. (I guess there will always be a risk of exceptions being made to avoid litigation, which then might prove even more costly.) Andreas JN 466 07:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I honestly didn't think that the outrageous salary is a good use of our money. Any WMF executives should realize that the "product", the meat of the company, is provided by the free labor of thousands of people. WMF expanding to social issues is fine, but how much they pay these executives baffled me. I would prefer WMF to be focusing on providing the encyclopedia and running this like a good IT company - low cost on administrative tasks but spend more on IT infrastructure and development. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy [than the WMF]". ~ HAL333 14:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
that severance does sound like a lot. The only counterpoint i can think of is that Lila left under a rather public cloud (when the press is talking about what a terrible boss you are, it has got to affect future employability). Maybe Katherine was able to negotiate extra severance to hedge against the risk of walking into the ceo position of an org that was clearly going through issues. Bawolff (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but these salaries are fair. People want to make money, and while many are willing to take less to work for a non-profit, it can't be absurdly low. A director at Google makes upwards of a million dollars a year,[4] and others here propose capping salaries at $250k. Why would anyone be the CEO of the WMF if they could quadruple their salary by going to a mid level role at another tech company? The only answer is being independently wealthy or if they have ulterior motives. It's pretty rare to find someone who is willing to donate $750k a year in opportunity costs to the Wikimedia foundation, so we're mostly left with ulterior motives.

And re: to the claims that WMF isn't a tech company, if you don't like it, you can try using your vaunted volunteer effort to fix the Graphs extension. If it was up to the community we would've just left it enabled until someone 0-days en wiki. The WMF constantly puts in technical work for new features and maintaining old ones. They have to pay SF software salaries to do so. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 17:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the full value of the organization is often reflected in its salaries, which hopefully attracts top of the line people. What Wikipedians should obtain from all of this is a much greater yearly increase in funding of Wikipedia projects and conventions (Viva WikiVegas2025 comes to mind). The funding appeals usually mention Wikipedia, and seem to imply, unless I'm misremembering, that's where much of the funding will specifically land. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Worrying about severance pay seems a bit like missing the forest for the trees. We can't possibly know the full decision making process behind these particular cases. The main evil is the deceptive way the WMF gets it fortune in the first place, and least this way of spending it is better than on further screwing up the design of the site. small jars tc 03:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
This is one of the best articles the Signpost has ever written. See: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer: Wikimedia Foundation Org. It is interesting to look at the greatly increasing salaries of CEOs of nonprofits over the years. Far faster than other salaries. Salary transparency is a wonderful leveling tool. ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer shows how some CEOs tried to sneak in a $300,000 pay increase one year, but had to drop back the following year. Why would I donate to a "nonprofit" like that? This is part of a pattern: Richest 1% bag nearly twice as much wealth as the rest of the world put together over the past two years. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The big question is - even if we are unhappy about something, what can we do about it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Heads up that this got to the front page of Hacker News

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36029115 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" that quote from Oscar Wilde was a very appropriate quote that one of the Hacker News commentators made. Mathmo ^Talk 13:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow. A lot of the comments there fall into a tiny few categories: (1) Wiki[p|m]edia is a tech company, so it should be compared to Facebook, etc. (no, it's an educational/information project -- something the people at the Foundation seem to have forgotten); (2) complaints about not being able to edit (the few times I've investigated these claims, I've found them to be a mare's nest); (3) Wikipedia has a political bias (sorry, we aren't Fox News). So far, the Oscar Wilde quotation is the most insightful comment made. -- llywrch (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement 1 represents the biases of Hacker News, but it's also a legitimate way to think of the WMF in terms of its budget, function, etc. That's just a lens and that can elucidate some things if you view it thru that lens. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Given that WMF staff do not edit articles but run servers and write software, i don't think the tech comparison is out of line. FAANG might be over the top, but WMF hires tech people to do tech things. Bawolff (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"Given that WMF staff do not edit articles but run servers and write software"

Nope, not relevant to any of the staff member salaries being mentioned in this Signpost edition. They are not doing that. Mathmo ^Talk 12:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

the ceo manages people who manage people the majority of which do that. Organizations are what they do. It might be an educational non-profit in name, but its a tech company with an educational focus in practise. Bawolff (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I am one of those who are not much concerned that a few bigshots are getting paid more than I ever got in my 41 years of working for one company, and only a little more annoyed that they got a much larger golden parachute after only a few years. Top execs are a relatively small part of the cost of running a moderately big org, and if they were incompetent they could screw up the job in ways costing more than my errors on the job ever did. Yes, I buy my own computer and a fancier smartphone than I otherwise would and, last month, a fancier new camera. Also shortrange travel every week and, until a family matter came up, I was ready to pay my own way to the other end of the world for Wikimania. It's my hobby. Some hobbies are expensive. This one doesn't have to be, but I'm doing it in a fairly expensive way. Still, I am pleased at the prospect that future parachutes may become slightly less golden. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent research: Create or curate, cooperate or compete? Game theory for Wikipedia editors (3,757 bytes · 💬)

those closer to the community’s core are assumed to be more cooperative – hmm... – Joe (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to read the Gatekeeping article. Does anyone have a preprint? Sandizer (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sandizer: It's accessible via The Wikipedia Library. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I feel like the game theory paper is interesting but it also feels like it could be empirically tested to see if its findings hold up in reality because like Joe Roe I'm not sure their statrting assumptions are correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, the authors actually did extensive empirical testing, on a dataset spanning more than a decade of edits (as I already briefly mentioned in the review but should probably have expanded upon). From the abstract:

We validate the model’s prediction through an empirical analysis, by studying the interactions of 219,811 distinct contributors that co-produced 864 Wikipedia articles over a decade. The analysis and empirical results suggest that the factor that determines who ends up owning content is the ratio between one’s cooperative/competitive orientation (estimated based on whether a core or peripheral community member) and the contributor’s creator/curator activity profile (proxied through average edit size per sentence). Namely, under the governance mechanisms, the fractional content that is eventually owned by a contributor is higher for curators that have a competitive orientation.

But I guess what you and Joe are concerned about is rather what is often called construct validity - i.e., do these metrics defined in the paper really capture what we would commonly perceive as an editor's cooperativeness vs. competitiveness, say? And that's a valid question here. (Of course all models are wrong and it's virtually always possible to pick on some shortcoming where this kind of modeling doesn't fully reflect reality. One would need to ask whether and how much it affects the overall conclusions.)

Relatedly, while the paper's data availability statement claims that "All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files," the dataset provided there appears to be very incomplete. For example, it does not seem to contain the information necessary to calculate the creator/curator metric, and only contains data on 16,383 users instead of the aforementioned 219,811 (i.e. consists of 16,384 rows including the header, a suspiciously round number). It is also anonymized, meaning that one can't evaluate construct validity by inspecting the ratings for some concrete editors in the dataset manually.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how good the definition of "owned" is. If I for example say "that's a fair enough copy edit which doesn't change meaning, does the other person "own" the sentence that says exactly the same thing as I added. Talpedia 16:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Traffic report: Coronation, chatbot, celebs (458 bytes · 💬)

Nice The Cure reference for Deaths in 2023. Sandizer (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Dafoe as Waluigi would be a terrible voice casting. Izno (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Wikipedians Convene for Queering Wikipedia 2023: The First International LGBT+ Wikipedia Conference (1,887 bytes · 💬)

Great to see more focus on LGBTQ+ topics - while the wiki certainly has a way to go in this regard, it's certainly better than some places and I have a lot of hope for the future ^^ Remagoxer ^(talk) 11:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As someone who's dabbled a bit in the topic area, I wish I had known about this beforehand! Looking at their program page it seems like quite a few of the sessions were recorded - I'll have to block out some time to get caught up. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ThadeusOfNazereth - Anyone interested in these topics is welcome to join the next Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group meeting on 30 May, 2023 m:Wikimedia LGBT/2023-05-30 and also propose items for the agenda. =) Hexatekin (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

misleading WikiProject report category

WikiProject report category is a bit misleading as the event was organized by WM LGBT+ User Group and Queering Wikipedia organization team, not any WikiProject, though some WikiProjects were presented at the event, they were also not the majority. --Zblace (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Correction

Hi thanks for the article ! Could you please insert the global link for Wiki Loves Pride 2023 which is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Pride/2023 ? Hyruspex (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)