Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

Tɛmplet:Tracked Yesterday around mid-day in my timezone (UTC-1), I emailed emergency@wikimedia.org about a suicide threat, expecting to get an immediate response. But there was nothing, and there has still been nothing. I assumed my message might have got stuck in a spam filter, and solved it by asking Doug Weller to also send my information. He did, and he got an immediate response. This seems a little worrying. If I had been an inexperienced user, I might have waited much longer. How's wikimedia.org's spam filter? Might it dislike a sender address with "Bishzilla" in it? ;-) I suppose it might be safer to use this page, but how are people to know to prefer that? The instructions here are simply "If you are here to report a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs and information". So doing that ought to work, I reckon. (Before you ask if I'm sure I spelled the address right: yes, I am. My message is still in my outbox.) Bishonen | tålk 10:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC).

Not sure whether this helps but a couple of weeks ago I had to mail the emergency and I got an immediate response (within 10 minutes or so). I indeed sent a Wiki mail, if I remember correctly, from Meta. Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've had some pretty long turn-arounds before getting word back from emergency@. I don't know if they start working before responding, but I'll AGF and assume that they just send a note back when they have time, rather than when they look at and start working on something. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

In my experience they'll reply before doing anything else. Bish, you cleverly preempted the question about a typo in the address. Allow me pose another stupid question: Have you checked your spam folder? Personally, I always use the form when I'm anywhere near my account. It has advantages. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

By outbox I assume you mean a "sent mail" folder equivalent ... if it was still in your outbox that means it never got sent in the first place, at least with the mail programs I know about. Graham87 12:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It was sent, Graham. I just used the wrong word. Zzuuzz, I too have always before had the experience that they respond immediately. Which is surely the reasonable way to go about it — we need to know that our message reached them, and that's all we need to know — they can "start working" afterwards, and I'm pretty sure that's how they normally go about it. Anyway, now it's over 24 hours, so something clearly went wrong. And, ahem, I've checked my spam folder now — nothing there. I appreciate all the replies, but I'm also hoping for a WMF response. If we need to use the form, the advice at ANI should be changed. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC).

I got a reply when I posted within 5 minutes. I'm in the UK. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Bishonen happy to help try to get to the bottom of wny your message did not go through. Would you kindly pop me an email so I can see what from address you used, and see if I can correlate that with any errors in our logs. My email address may be found on my user page. Yours kindly, JHathaway (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, JHathaway (WMF). Done. I made it show full headers as best I could (they didn't seem like much, actually; of course the headers in the message when it arrived are of more interest). Bishonen | tålk 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC).

Gmail marked your forwarded message as spam as well @Bishonen. RoySmith opened a ticket as well, https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T338032. I am going to use that ticket to discuss possible improvements. JHathaway (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yus, JHathaway (WMF). Bishzilla has added herself as a subscriber. Not sure what the effect of that is, but since the ticket now has her in the name, it seemed right. Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC).

Hello Bishonen, We sincerely apologize for the challenge you encountered while trying to reach us through emergencywikimedia.org. It’s important to us that this email remains accessible. We have checked our spam folder, and the message was indeed redirected there. This seems to have been a backend issue with our email provider rather than our filters, so we are reviewing the challenges related to this problem with an aim of finding a lasting solution. In the meantime, we’re going to put a note on the emergency@ page letting people know the issue may occur (fortunately it seems rare), and letting them know when they should have a response if the message is received. We wanted to thank you for finding support in getting the message to us anyway so we could process it. We thank both you and Doug Weller for your swift and thoughtful actions. On behalf of the Trust & Safety team, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, JKoerner (WMF). We obviously don't want too much instruction creep about it, but will you also make some addition to the edit notices at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Inexperienced users may be more likely to see those than to discover Wikipedia:Emergency. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Gnangarra, @JVillagomez (WMF), and @MIskander-WMF, I find it rather disgraceful that the Wikimedia Foundation accepted only 197 of the 1209 completed scholarship applications for this year's Wikimania conference, or 16%. While I recognize that travel scholarships aren't cheap, I presume that a sizable portion of the applicants are heavily involved in Wikimedia projects, devoting many hours a week to volunteer work. Wikimania scholarships are one of the few ways the WMF can use its ample financial resources to show tangible appreciation to volunteers and aid participation in the movement. You could have afforded to assist more than 16% of applicants, and it's disappointing that you deemed the expense not worthwhile when you put together your budget. I would appreciate a response from you on this topic. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Sdkb Chiming in here as part of the team at the Foundation that work with each year's Wikimania hosts. The Foundation sponsors the whole event—not just the scholarships—and in this year's Annual Plan, despite reducing expenses across the Foundation, funding for Wikimania increased. Not to undermine any disappointment that any applicant may feel for not having been selected, of course that’s completely valid and understandable, but it does feel relevant to mention that this year there are ~200 scholarships, around 66% more than the ~120 from the last in-person Wikimania in 2019. Together with each year’s Core Organizing Team, the Foundation always thinks about how to spend the funds to reach the most Wikimedians possible, because we completely agree with you that recognizing people for their contributions is critical. This year, that meant increasing the number of scholarships that could be awarded by the volunteer subcommittee, working to keep virtual registration free despite the costs of the virtual event, and working to keep the in-person ticket subsidized. I know it's of course still disappointing for anyone who wanted to attend in person and didn’t get selected. I really do hope those people will consider applying again for future Wikimanias. --ELappen (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF), "it was even worse last time" is not exactly a strong justification. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"it was even worse last time" is not what was said, ELappen said despite all the people losing jobs, all projects being ended the WMF has increased funding for scholarships and for other Wikimania expenses so as many people as possible can be supported in attending. This year its all online and interactive, not just in person as well which is a significant new cost that wasnt part of 2019, while everyone would like to travel everyone can still be there. Gnangarra 00:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's always been competitive, I've been rejected atleast twice or thrice, it's easy to look at the paltry number and think it's very low compared to the entire population, but scholarships are, at the end of the day, competitive. You have to demonstrate why it's needed for you to receive one, sure it would be great if more of us could attend, but I don't think there's added incentive in keeping numbers low, it's a purely logistical decision in the end. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@ELappen (WMF): this year there are ~200 scholarships, around 66% more than the ~120 from the last in-person Wikimania in 2019 - the 2019 figures break down full vs. partial scholarships. Were the proportions the same this time? It'd be interesting to see those proportions by geographic area, too. I'm curious if the goal is to select recipients based on involvement/contributions and give them the best chance of being able to attend, or to maximize the number of scholarships/attendees by granting full scholarships just to those who wouldn't need an expensive flight. Probably some mix, I suppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to generally agree with Sdkb. It's great that the foundation has increased spending on Wikimania, but I'd argue it's long been underfunded and still is. It's the main event for getting the international community together, learn from each other, foster a shared sense of purpose, involve people in discussions that affect the movement as a whole, etc. We're otherwise just on our computers talking to faceless usernames. A few of us live in places with robust local meetup groups, but not everyone has that. Even if everyone did, Wikimania is where those local groups connect with each other and where we can meet everyone who doesn't live nearby. Wikimania should be one of the primary ways the foundation expresses that it values the community -- it should be huge. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would just throw in my hat to say that in-person meetings are extremely important to community building, and should be a priority. You do work with someone differently, and have a higher level of implicit confidence when you've broken bread. GMG^talk 13:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, and any of you who are in London on the second Sunday of the month would be welcome to join us. We can and do have meetups that have zero budget - I think that Wikimedia UK bought some nachos about a hundred meetups ago when we combined a London meetup with a WMUK AGM. But Wikimania is special because of its scale, and its ability to reach across geographic and other boundaries. ϢereSpielChequers 07:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• TBH somewhere between 10% and 20% seems about right, the key is to make sure that the percentage doesn't fall as applications increase. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Why would it be based on a % of applicants? By that logic, if there were only 10 applicants, and they're all great, we'd only give a scholarship to one regardless of the amount of money available? There's not real scarcity here. Nor is the scarcity the number of qualified applicants. If 400 out of 1100 applicants were qualified, what would the justification be for only admitting 200? The $ is there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Presumably the number of applicants will increase annually. Can you provide some documents for your assertion that "The $ is there" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-06-26/Special report or basically half of the Signpost articles Jayen466, et al. has written over the last decade. The point is the WMF can afford to allocate more to Wikimania, bringing more of the community together, and that the conference is presently underfunded. It could simply decide that it's worth supporting the broader community in that way. What "documents" are you looking for? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Most charitable organizations can afford to allocate more to throwing parties and conferences... The question is should they? We're an online community, there is no actual need to get anyone together. The broader community doesn't attend Wikimania, that is not support for the community at large. From what I can tell Wikimania is well funded, what makes you say its underfunded? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• The goal should not be to reach any particular number but rather to have enough funding to be able to support every sufficiently well-qualified applicant. The scholarship committee is clearly unwilling to provide anything more than token transparency about this topic, but if they were, I would be curious to know how many applicants were either admins or had more than 10,000 edits (the rough floor for admin consideration). That's obviously far from a perfect proxy, but it'd at least give a sense of the pool. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd caution against relying on metrics. 10k is a rough expectation for enwiki, but not on most projects, and even here there are a lot of people with edit counts smaller than mine who spend a lot more time than me volunteering in various ways. It should be a qualitative evaluation first. Edit count is a fine data point, but not enough on its own (even if the number is very high -- it's more about who would benefit most from this sort of thing and who would contribute most to this sort of thing IMO). What is clear to me, based on the number of people I've talked to over the years whose applications were rejected it's clear there's no shortage of people applying with experience and involvement, who would also benefit from and contribute to the conference. If the Sdkbs and Qedks of the world are getting outright rejected, it's underfunded. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the evaluation should absolutely be qualitative. When it comes to that, I hope that the scholarship committee gives due weight to online contributions, not just offline affiliate work. The limited info released about the evaluation process this year (e.g. +1 bonus point for supporting outreach, judging competitions, +1 bonus point if they are looking to make connections to establish a project like a Wiki Loves after the event, or create an affiliate, with no bonus points for online equivalents) makes me suspect that that is not currently happening. Perhaps that's to be expected, given that being on the scholarship committee is affiliate-type work that will naturally be filled by affiliate-type editors. Still, it's a lost opportunity to bridge the cultural divide between the online editor community and the affiliate world, and Wikimania would benefit from more presence of the online editor community. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you have an axe to grind with the scholarship committee, if you wouldn't mind limiting your response to me to what I said I would appreciate it. Completely meeting the needs of the qualified applicant in a scholarship setting where there is no limit on the number of applicants is simply not possible, not with a billion dollars could that be made to work (if you've got ten we can talk). Its a nice idea, but its not very practical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am unconvinced there is any benefit to the vast majority of readers and editors in having in-person Wikimania at all. A better use of donor's money, which would actually have an impact on editors and readers, would be plowing the money into significantly improved software (e.g. the mobile version is still not fit for purpose). Or a trial effort to hire professional mediators to try to resolve complicated disputes. And/or training existing editors to do so. Or expanding the laudable WP library initiative even more, to even more directly connect editors with references. Wikimania is primarily a fun little mini-Davos for the WMF elite, and scholarships - even if tripled or quadrupled - are just a way of expanding the elite slightly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. A better use of the money would be to make the product better and continue investing in the tech infrastructure. I've been using the new skin and I think it's a net improvement now that they've worked out a few of the kinks with the inner window size and margins. I will note that a lot of people in the community offered a big petition to the foundation asking for moderation tools for new page patrol. There's also work needed for citation management tools. Or better tools to stop sockpuppetry and deal with IPV6 abuse. It's cool that the foundation is funding some conferences too, but it's largely a PR feel-good thing in my view (I've not attended Wikimania but I've been to the NYC meetup years ago). Not to mention there's still an active pandemic in much of the world that recently rebounded off a bottom and started rising again. So personally I'm satisfied as a volunteer that the foundation is funding some travel. I'm sure if there were any specific cases of individuals who wanted to go but couldn't due to financial issues could bring it up and maybe an exception could be made, or help extended, if there is support and a good reason. Andre🚐 15:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Tɛmplet:+1 --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Shoot. It's still better than spending a zillion years on a code of conduct that most people on most project aren't even aware of. GMG^talk 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  UCoC is creeping its way into block and global lock rationales, too. Not sure how I feel about that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  +1 Levivich (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that all those initiatives would be a great use of WMF funds. And I think that having more community editors in-person at Wikimania to advocate for them is exactly the sort of thing that could incrementally move the needle toward getting them prioritized. It's easy for @MIskander-WMF to decide to ignore my ping and not comment in this discussion and others, but harder to avoid in-person interaction with volunteers at a conference. As Rhododendrites has pointed out, the WMF has ample financial resources, so it's not as if it has to choose between funding Wikimania and funding technical improvements — it can do both. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Every $ spent on Wikimania is a $ not spent on software. When we forced them to change their ads this past winter and they ended up with a 5% budget shortfall, they laid people off. They didn't just pull the 5% out of their cash reserves and keep on trucking. The already-increased spending on Wikimania this year comes after those layoffs. (I bet the people who lost their jobs aren't happy about increased Wikimania scholarships.) Wikipedia shouldn't use donor money to send editors to a meetup in Singapore (or anywhere). There are better uses for the money, like hiring more or better software engineers (among other professionals). In my opinion, they already spend way too much money building a "movement" or "community," and way too little building software. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, don't get me wrong, Lord knows they spent more money on the last CEO's $600k golden parachute than they spent on Wikimania scholarships, so if I were making the cuts, the scholarships wouldn't be my first target, but still. Software is where they need to be spending more right now, nothing else. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is possible to spend huge amounts on software that doesn't address the problems of the users of the software. Wikimania is among other things an investment in improving the dialogue between the volunteer community and the developers. I think it could do with more emphasis on the existing community - it isn't a good venue for outreach. But maybe we should have an EN Wikipedia meetup separate to Wikimania as we aren't going to have a significant proportion of the EN community at a Wikimania unless it is in New York or London again. ϢereSpielChequers 08:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  An organisation with a $200m income should be able to fund both Wikimania and working software. If they really can't manage both, let's concentrate on the software while we look for better managers. Certes (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I attended my first in-person conference in May of this year, and it made me feel very connected to the movement. Was really nice to get faces to the names. So I am all for spending money on conferences and conference scholarships. Let's get as many active contributors to these things as possible.
  Our movement certainly does have a lot of money, but it looks like there is a lot of disagreement about where to spend it. The things that directly affect en-wikipedians (in my opinion) are software (especially community tech), and conference scholarships, so we en-wikipedians are always going to want more of WMF's money spent on those things. En-wikipedians are less likely, imo, to want the money spent on things that don't directly affect them, such as weird software projects, other wikis, the "global" movement, affiliates, machine learning, data science, the knowledge equity fund, and the endowment. For various reasons, these are also WMF priorities, and are competing for time and funding.
  Enwiki is in this weird situation where we bring in a big chunk of the donation money, but the money isn't always spent on our priorities. We are competing with 891 other projects for money, developer time, and scholarships. This may be a source of some of the tension we're seeing, where the WMF is not really prioritizing things like software and scholarships as much as we would like. Software and scholarships are very reasonable things to prioritize, so I think it's good we're speaking out about this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking of priorities, the WMF recently spent nearly $1 million on golden parachutes for two executives. I estimate that this was considerably more than the total cost of these 197 scholarships. Andreas JN466 08:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hey now. Let's not be hasty. How else are we going to find someone with...a uh...degree in Middle Eastern Studies, to head a major tech related non-profit, among the most visited websites in the world, and the largest online collaborative project in history... GMG^talk 11:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Given the problems that some past Wikimanias have had with getting visas for applicants from certain parts of the world, I like the way that the Singapore event has skewed things to reach out to parts of the world that can't attend events in relatively closed countries such as here in the UK. However there was a skew in the selection criteria towards outreach, rather than content, software testing or governance. I think that should change in the future. Wikimania is not just an opportunity to discuss outreach - it is also an opportunity for developers to meet users, except that experience of testing new Wikimedia features did not get preference for scholarships. It is also an opportunity to discuss governance issues, but again no preference for that in the scholarship process. (disclosure, I usually apply for a scholarship, and was successful for Mexico and had a partial scholarship for one earlier Wikimania plus I've travelled to two at my own expense). If you are active in Wikimedia and can afford to go I recommend Wikimania. ϢereSpielChequers 11:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Tɛmplet:+1 {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Amal Ramadan, and I am a Senior Community Relations Specialist supporting the Apps team at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I wanted to inform you about an ongoing project we are currently working on for the Android version of the Wikipedia app. This project focuses on machine-assisted article descriptions. For more details about this project, please visit the following link.

At this time, I would like to reach out to the English Wikipedia community and invite volunteers to join us in this important endeavor. We are specifically looking for individuals who can help us evaluate and provide feedback on the English translations we have.

If you are interested in participating, I would be delighted to provide you with further information and complete details. Please feel free to get in touch with me or reply to this post, and I will be glad to assist you.

Thank you for considering this volunteering opportunity, and I sincerely appreciate your valuable contributions in advance.

--ARamadan-WMF (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@ARamadan-WMF: Seems to have many issues still, so please don't enable it on enwiki without approval from the Village Pump (WP:VPT may be the best location, unless people there suggest something else). In general, it regularly creates long descriptions which are cut off rather randomly, generating incomplete descriptions (test with e.g. "Hunger". And in too many cases the suggested description is wrong (I tested it with 3 suggestions, and usually at most one is good). Examples I got at the testing place:

• "Deforestation in Nigeria" gives "Forest in Nigeria", "Forest deforest" or "Forest"
• "Star" gives "Large star in the constellation of the Sun" (er, what?), "Large star" or "star" (as can be seen here, capitalization of the first letter of the description is completely haphazard in many cases, and sometimes further on as well, I once got "Traditional Food" as a suggestion)
• "Leopold II" (a disambiguation page) gives "Emperor of Belgium" (right???), "King of Belgium", and "pope" (even better!)
• "Isaac Newton" gives three descriptions which all start with "English physicist, physicist"
• "Benjamin Netanyahu" has one good description (Prime Minister of Israel) and two totally wrong ones ("Prime Minister of Israel (1927-2018)" and "Prime Minister of Israel (1996-2019)")
• "Murder" gives "Killing of another without justifies", "Killing of another" and "Criminal punishment"

This doesn't seem ready at all. Fram (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Disambiguation pages should not have manual short descriptions. (Nor should redirects, in case that wasn't obvious.) Descriptions should never begin with a lower-case letter. (We might allow "iPhone model" or "eBay trader" but these are so rare that false positives would dwarf them.) Does the suggestion list include WikiData's description? It often exhibits excessive verbosity (why settle for a star when you can have an "astronomical object consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity"?) but may be suitable for pruning manually to provide a good SD if you uppercase its initial first. Certes (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

...and to echo one of Jonesey's points below: articles which already have SDs are certainly not a priority for receiving a new SD and should probably never be changed by this tool. (I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.) Certes (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @ARamadan-WMF, as I'm sure you know the English Wikipedia has some very well developed guidance at Wikipedia:Short description for writing short descriptions, which enjoys wide community suppport. Could you please indicate how your project tries to ensure compliance with those rules? Do you, for example, run a post-processing step to ensure that you meet WP:SDFORMAT and WP:SDDATES standards, and that you use WP:SDNONE appropriately?

You will want to change your nomenclature, as well, as the expression "Article description" means nothing here. The term consistently used for the last six years, ever since these things were invented, is "Short description". Use of the word "short" is of real practical importance, as new users often tend to assume that descriptions of 60 or even 80 characters are OK. The fact that your system easily generates impossible suggestions of over 90 characters (eg "Hunger") tells me straight away that you haven't considered WP:SDSHORT.

You seem to be running a multi-language project that doesn't so far as I can tell take any account of the rules and customs here. I suggest you might like to seek advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions, which is pretty active. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Further test issues: tool doesn't seem to work on Uptown Theater (Kansas City, Missouri). No idea why it turns Beier Ko in all three suggestions into a purely Canadian person. For Napoleon, the three suggestions in full are "1804-1815", "1799-1815" and "1804–1815". The suggestions for Barack Obama are "44th President of the United States" (fine), and "48th President of the United States"(!) and "29th President of the United States". Okay, one could say, just take the first suggestion then, but e.g. for Emmanuel Macron the first suggestion is "Prime Minister of France", a post he never held. For Alpine, King County, Washington, the first description is "village in the Philippines" (what?), second is "Civil parish" (again, what?), and the third is the correct but rather general "village". Oh, and take your pick, is the 2013 Asian Athletics Championships – Women's heptathlon a "Judo competition", a "heptathlon competition", or a "Karate competition"? Note again the inconsistent capitalization.

In general, there is much wariness on enwiki to let any AI tools loose on the contents, whether it is fully automatic or human-assisted like here. I doubt, in its current state, that this tool will be an exception to that rule. Fram (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The tool seems to like "Prime Minister". Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021, is either "Prime Minister of Germany (2005-2018)", or "Prime Minister of Germany (2005-2019)" or "Prime Minister of Germany (2005-2018)". On the other hand, Olaf Scholz, the current chancellor, is, according to the tool, "Former Federal Chancellor of Germany" or "Former German Chancellor of Germany" or "Former German Chancellor".

@ARamadan-WMF, please do not allow anyone to use this tool for editing if it messes up BLPs like this. —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

ARamadan-WMF, the attention to detail surrounding this tool is indicative of a project that is not refined enough to meet the needs of the English Wikipedia. The very first thing I noticed when I went to the tool's page is that one of the option boxes is labeled "number beams" instead of "number of beams" (I see that "beam" is jargon for what we call "short description"). That may seem like a small problem, but when I see small small problems of this type in a project focused on getting wording correct, I know that the project is nowhere near ready for deployment.

I clicked the "Submit" button while leaving the text box blank in order to get suggestions for random articles. I got the following (I have not removed or selected from the results; these are all of my results):

• Walwyn's Castle: Human settlement in Wales (correct); village in the United Kingdom (failure to capitalize); Human settlement in Wales, England (very wrong). Note that this article already has a short description, which you can tell because it is in the category Category:Articles with short description.
• Zorn, Texas: Unincorporated community in Texas, United States (correct); unincorporated community in Texas , United States (failure to capitalize); human settlement in Texas, United States of America (failure to capitalize). Note that this article already has a short description, which you can tell because it is in the category Category:Articles with short description.
• Socioeconomic status and mental health: Studies about the relationship between socioeconomic status and mental health (bad: repeats the title in the SD); Studies about the relationship between socioeconomics and mental health (worse: repeats the title in the SD and uses a word that does not exist in English); Social causation theory (very wrong). Note that this article already has a short description, which you can tell because it is in the category Category:Articles with short description.
• Matthijs Vermeulen: Dutch composer (inadequate); Dutch composer and journalist (acceptable); composer (inadequate and uncapitalized). These are all worse than the existing short description of "Dutch composer and music journalist". Note that this article already has a short description, which you can tell because it is in the category Category:Articles with short description.
• Siemens-Schuckert B: reconnaissance biplane (failure to capitalize); German reconnaissance aircraft (correct); reconnaissance aircraft (failure to capitalize). Note that this article already has a short description, which you can tell because it is in the category Category:Articles with short description.

So that's 15 suggested short descriptions on five random articles, all of which already had short descriptions, so they should have been ignored by this suggestion tool. Of the 15 descriptions, just 4 were acceptable, and zero of them were better than the existing short descriptions. That is utter failure and not indicative of a tool that is ready for deployment on the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at some articles and got the same sort of results as others above.

• Battle of the Beanfield: "Human settlement in England" (incorrect), "A battle in 1985" (not incorrect but not very useful), "conflict" (vague to the point of being useless). The exiting short description "1985 conflict near Stonehenge, UK" is superior to all of the suggestions.
• Fire engine: "Vehicle used to carry water" (techinically correct for a subset of fire engines, but miseading), "Vehicle used to fire" (what does that even mean?), "Type of vehicle" (much too vauge). The existing short description "Emergency vehicle intended to put out fires" is superior to all of the suggestions.
• Wat Tyler: "1381 rebellion" (incorrect), "English rebellion leader" (not bad), "1381 rebel" (not incorrect but a bit vauge). The existing short description "Leader of the 1381 Peasants' Revolt" is superior to all the suggestions.
• Railfan: "person who is recreationally interested in trains" (too wordy and incorrectly capitalised), "An railway buff or train buff" (gramatically incorrect and not very helpful), "An railway buff" (gramatically incorrect and not very helpful).
• Open Championship: "golf tournament held annually in Prestwick, Scotland, UK" (incorrect and incorrectly capitalised), "golf tournament held in 1860" (incorrect and incorrectly capitalised, "golf tournament" (vauge and incorrectly capitalised). The existing short description "Golf tournament held in the UK" is superior to all the suggestions.
• British Rail Class 230: "diesel electric multiple unit of battery" (incorrect and incorrectly capitalised), "locomotive class" (incorrect and incorrectly capitalised), "diesel electric multiple unit" (incomplete and incorrectly capitalised). The existing short description "Diesel-electric or battery-electric multiple unit passenger train" is superior to all the suggestions.
• Penis: "organ of the reproduction animal" (???), "organ of the animal" (arguably correct but very vague), "organ" (far too vauge and, like the others, incorrectly capitalised. The existing short description "Primary sexual organ of male animals" is superior to all the suggestions.
• The Boy Bands Have Won: "2008 studio album by Chumbawumba" (correct and identical to the existing short description), "2013 studio album by Chumbawumba" (incorrect), "2010 studio album by Chumbawumba" (incorrect).
• Love: "Emotional state of love" (tautological), "Emotional state of feeling" (arguably sort of correct), "Emotional state" (arguably sort of correct). The existing short description "Emotion" is superior to all the suggestions.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned by others is that the tester says "Seems wrong? Leave feedback on Phabricator." with a link to phab:T318384, but that is a very specific technical subtask of the ML programme ("Put API on Cloud VPS") that has been closed as resolved since December 2022.

This project is not ready for beta testing, let alone production. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she is suggesting letting it loose on en:wp. She says "We are specifically looking for individuals who can help us evaluate and provide feedback on the English translations we have", and she seems to have come to the right place! I tried a few, with similar results to you & Fram. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It is very unclear what is being suggested and in what fase we are. From the link given: "As a first step in the implementation of this project, the Android team will develop a MVP [...] Should the 30 day experiment show promising results based on the indicators above, the team will introduce the feature to all users and remove our 3 edit requirement for suggested edits. [...] The team will partner with volunteers to patrol edits made during the time of the experiment and assign a grade to the edit." (these seem to be the volunteers asked for here). So it looks as if a 30-day period started on 10 July, and after this (i.e. now) it would be turned on "for all users". But it seems the experiment already ran in April/May, and the findings should have been published in June, though I can't find them. The actual status and planning for this tool are to me rather unclear. Fram (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Thryduulf. this project is not ready for beta testing, or production, or implementation. Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

More evidence of how bad this is really isn't needed, but I've been having another play and the last two articles I tried have been particular lowlights - Nicola Sturgeon was variously described as "Prime Minister of Scotland", a position that doesn't exist, and a Scottish politician born in 1984 or 1994 (she was born in 1970, so these two at least are BLP violations); and Tower Bridge described as "Lighthouse in London, England", "Lighthouse in London" and "bridge" - the first two are particularly perplexing as the word "lighthouse" (or "light house") appears nowhere in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, well said indeed. a human editor would never make those mistakes. and since we do seem to have lots of humans here as editors... so therefore, the question arises.... why is this app needed ....at all....? Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

is this a version of Archon? or Nomad? or Vaal? Sm8900 (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sm8900 that is a good question, especially given that nearly every article either already has a short description or has been assessed as not needing one (the title provides a complete description). I can understand that a project with this goal might be useful for smaller wikis, but only if the output was very significantly better than the examples here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, Agreed. as per WP:Identity, the title is both the basis of identity and nutshell formulation of the article's topic. well said! Sm8900 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We are excited to announce a fantastic volunteering opportunity for all Wikipedia iOS users out there. We are currently working on enhancing the "Watchlist" feature for our app, and we need your valuable feedback to create the best user experience possible.

Your input will play a significant role in shaping the initial version of this feature. We value your insights and ideas, and we're looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the design.

You can check out the project's page on Mediawiki for more information: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Apps/Team/iOS/Watchlist/Design_Feedback_Frequent

If you're interested in being part of this exciting project, feel free to reply to this post or send me a direct message if you have any questions or inquiries.

Your contributions will undoubtedly make a difference in creating an exceptional user experience in Wikipedia iOS app!

--ARamadan-WMF (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS/Watchlist/Design Feedback Frequent — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you want feedback? On the discussion page? SWinxy (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

nvm there are sections for that on the page. SWinxy (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I joined WP today to talk about how WP is great. But could be greater. Not in content, but layout. I am a strong believer in VR and AR lays the future of learning. How VR ready is WP?

Ok, science could be shown in the way of maps. To get a birds view first. A big continent, the highest mountain mathematics. Like a globe, connected spheres of interests, but also unconnected, where the ocean is, the not known, or unknowable. This would allow a child, or child minded person, to enter a BIIIG picture. There lays the continent of humanities. And there the continent of mathematics, with a hillside full of trickeries around numbers, computer science in a separate valley, watered by streams of specific sources. So, instead of on a book cover, you oversee a whole globe of nothing than science. And here you, as Peter Pan. Wander the long road of knowledge, jump on little islands, esoteric science, neither recognized by the hard science, nor the humanities. It would be a chance to exibit what we know. In total know. All things considered. A globe of knowledge. Overseeable, as a bird, as an astronaut. Good science has also be seen in a bundle, like an archipelago, inhabited by different highly specialised faculties. There can be capitals, where stuff gets remixed, but it would then be more about the little CRACKS, you start to see, when you go REALLY deeep down on this planet of knowledge. I see it as Google Earth, the closer you go, the higher is the resolution. The fine grain of content from WP, what only miles below you, like a map, or a globe, is your starting point. Above that is a new knowledge ordering.

This old idea of mine (I am 67 btw.) would not bring me here, but a rather new one. I am fishing in my own ocean maybe, when I think this globe of knowledge inverted, turned around like a sock. And giving it VR appeal with a beautiful side effect, that now you see all the knowledge, all around you. And then, zoom down, zoom in, go in the detail, let the veins pulse reddish, where distant relations exist. Make it possible to overfly the world of facts, just join them together in the best appropriate way. As map. Not by an alphabet. I suppose my idea will not be taken serious, but I do not mind. I just would KNOW, that I would be every day on WP, if I could fly like Peter Pan over the wide territory of what is known.

Something like this should be done open source, crowdfunded and enginered. Not to touch any of its content, this would in my eyes be the book cover of the most interesting book ever written. While the content is basically traditional, like a paper version, this cover would be the widest funnel to let more people getting to look at your interesting book. Mappify what you have to say, so the lonely walker at night can follow better the springs of wisdom. Make a never ending map, a globe. Buy them from dump shops, repaint them. And then turn the whole concept around, like a sock, so by turning your head with your VR glasses, you get an idea how still big the ocean is. The stuff, we do NOT know....

Tell me what uou think about my vision. I do this in photography already. Check out invearth.com for the GENERAL look, of how an inverted globe looks like.

All this will not make WP look even smarter, than you already are (?), but would maybe suck kids away from Tik Tok. Or such...... Dreamers of all walks of life, who nose in books with appealing covers.

It is just an idea....

Greetings from New Zealand. 2/8/2023

Fitzgeraldo Fitzgeraldo Absentree (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That would be a very ambitious project. For comparison, there is a project to produce audio versions of English Wikipedia articles. After many years, there are 1,710 (out of more than six million) articles with audio versions, and some of those have not been updated in 17 years. Remember, all (with very specific and limited exceptions) of the content in Wikpedia is contributed by volunteers, so what you propose would require large numbers of volunteers to contribute time and effort to the project. Donald Albury 13:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

These are very different arts. Many millions of people have been taught how to write a crude essay or research paper, and when I teach people from among the small fraction who have done these things outside class, it's easy. I just have to explain how a Wikipedia article differs; they already know things like exposition vs persuasion and the structure of a paragraph. Few have been taught how to organize an illustrated lecture or a drama, so the pool of easy candidates is small. Even elementary things like paragraph structure are different, and then, the script is only a small part of the work of video production. As for VR; c'mon! Hardly anybody is good at that; it's a pioneer art. So yes, when such products are made, they should be uploaded to Commons and appropriate articles should link to them. But it's going to be very small for many years. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of the time my boss suggested we video my training sessions for staff and show the video to later groups. I knew just enough about what it would take to do that properly to know I didn't have the experience, time or desire to attempt it. Donald Albury 17:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Whole different art. In the 20th century cheap videotape came along, and since the 2000s everybody carries a video camera / recorder in their pocket. Cheap laptops can run decent editing software with timelines, splices, dissolves, and so forth. The result is, as hoped, a vast output of video shorts on many topics, but it ain't Hitchcock or Goddard or Kubrick.

What we get from Youtube and Vimeo and their competitors are a few somewhat useful Khan Institute items, even fewer, somewhat better TED talks, and a huge volume of poor shooting, poor editing, and very poor reading of a badly written script. As a fairly experienced still photographer, when I point my camera on a tripod at a Wikimedia Lightning Talk podium and set it for video, I don't bother viewing the result; I hand it over to someone who might edit and upload it. Generally they do their job at least as well as I do mine, but it doesn't much matter.

So, when we read an article and wish for a video version, what we should do is search for someone else's already not-bad online video that is relevant, and link to that. Maybe we should have a task force or other organization to search, catalog, and link useful videos. Running our own video operation, analogous to the way we organize text production, is unlikely to create much. And VR? Well, sure, if someone has already put something relevant online. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Whole different art. In the 20th century cheap videotape came along, and since the 2000s everybody carries a video camera / recorder in their pocket. Cheap laptops can run decent editing software with timelines, splices, dissolves, and so forth. The result is, as hoped, a vast output of video shorts on many topics, but it ain't Hitchcock or Goddard or Kubrick.

What we get from Youtube and Vimeo and their competitors are a few somewhat useful Khan Institute items, even fewer, somewhat better TED talks, and a huge volume of poor shooting, poor editing, and very poor reading of a badly written script. As a fairly experienced still photographer, when I point my camera on a tripod at a Wikimedia Lightning Talk podium and set it for video, I don't bother viewing the result; I hand it over to someone who might edit and upload it. Generally they do their job at least as well as I do mine, but it doesn't much matter. So, when we read an article and wish for a video version, what we should do it look for someone's already not-bad video that is relevant, and link to that. Maybe we should have a task force or other organization to search, catalog, and link useful videos, but making our own video operation is unlikely to create much. And VR? C'mon. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Google Earth VR does something close, and I think they take snippets from Wikipedia. SWinxy (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Online News Act is a new law in Canada which gives news organisations the right to claim funding from "digital news intermediaries". It takes effect at the end of 2023 but is already having an effect as Meta is now blocking Canadian news links from its platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.

This may affect Wikipedia as it is a digital news intermediary too. I noticed the issue when working on the Yellowknife evacuation story at In the News where the issue is having an impact – see Yellowknife wildfire: communication issues and Facebook news ban hamper evacuation efforts.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

What is your point here? If Wikipedia is or will be affected by the Canadian law, then that is something the WMF have been/are/will be dealing with there is nothing we can do here. The ITN link seems to be just you disagreeing with a very clear consensus (something that is quite common at that venue). Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No idea why @Thryduulf is balking at the thread. Per the header of this 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. Andrew Davidson has information, a concern that may be of significance to the community. So it belongs here to be discussed. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do indeed expect that the WMF will be taking an interest in this. And so that's why I started some discussion here, as this page is for such WMF-related issues, right? There's another act in the offing in the UK – the Online Safety Bill – and that may have some impact too. "Forewarned is forearmed"! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the Online News Act has direct relevance for Wikipedia. I see nothing that affects citing and linking to sources. Unlike Meta or Google Wikipedia doesn't show snippets or previews, nor does it embed content. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The Online Safety Bill on the other hand could have very real implications. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, although the WMF is clearly well aware of it, since they formally stated they wouldn't carry out age checks in direct response to the OSB. It's terrible in both core aspects and in actual execution of those aspects, and despite a majority of parliamentarians disliking it, I suspect whipped votes will see some form into being. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479 Per the lead of the article Online News Act, "or facilitating access to their content via their platforms.". Wikimedia projects including Wikipedia does facilitate access to their content. Besides, governments often love to abuse their power and many times come with novel and sometimes even arbitrary interpretations of their laws. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that the ONA restricts directly presenting (parts of) the content of a news site, e.g. in the form of previews or snippets. I don't think that any news corporation has an interest in restricting mere links to their content. But the law is indeed hopelessly vague in this respect. The text is:

Tɛmplet:Talk quote block

It is indeed possible (maybe even natural) to read (2)(b) as including simple linking. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

[...] the news content, or any portion of it, is reproduced. This is literally Wikipedia! @SMcCandlish:. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm no expert in Canadian media and free-expression law, but that does sound vaguely worded enough to accidentally net Wikipedia and anyone else who ever just quotes ("any portion of") or links to ("access ... is facilitated") any Canadian news source for any reason. It's apallingly poor policy writing, and I think the Canadian courts would recognize that such a strict interpretation would be overreaching in the face of section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Candian Supreme Court caselaw permits the government to impose some "reasonable" limits on freedom of expression, but this clearly wouldn't be reasonable. However, a test case could take years to work its way through the court system, and one might not happen anyway if no enforcement action is taken in the direction of this strict interpretation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds as if we need someone who is an expert in Canadian media and free-expression law. I trust that the WMF can find funding to consult such a person. Certes (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What can we do about it, anyway? The Canadian government will not be able to charge the Wikipedia community with breaking the law. Most of us are beyond their reach. Their target for enforcing a strict interpretation of the law, if they should choose to do so, would be the Foundation, but the Foundation is a corporation in the US. Also, the Foundation has a legal staff, who are better qualified than I and almost all other editors are to judge the impact of that law on the operations of Wikipedia. This is something that I will gladly leave to the Foundation to worry about. Donald Albury 02:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury you stated, "The Canadian government will not be able to charge the Wikipedia community with breaking the law." Except of course, Canadian Wikipedians.

• Wikipedia admin jailed for 32 years after alleged Saudi spy infiltration^[1]
• The DCRI (French intelligence agency) forced Rémi Mathis, an administrator of the French-language Wikipedia and president of Wikimedia France, under threat of detention and arrest, into deleting an article about the Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station.^[2]
• A country has the right to prevent the world’s Internet users from accessing information, Canada’s highest court ruled^[3]

Really worrisome! Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Oshwah, Koavf, and The Transhumanist: Thinker78 (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Super-interested in the topic, but not 100% clear on why I was pinged. Is there something you think I in particular can add to this conversation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless "digital news intermediary" ends up being defined to include individuals with no formal relationship with an on-line organization, I do not see how individual editors, Canadian or otherwise, can be forced to enter into bargaining with Canadian news organizations for payment for linking to stories published by those news organizations. Donald Albury 11:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. An extreme reading could indeed include quoting. This is really worryingly vague language. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Tɛmplet:Reflist-talk