Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.243.247.14 (talk) at 17:05, 18 December 2022 (→‎Alt-Twitter: bah!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Sound logo vote + asking for permission for a banner?

These went live, for issues with the CNB please follow up at:meta for issues with the WLN please follow up at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Sound logo. — xaosflux Talk 10:50, 13 December 2022 (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.

Hi everyone,

Voting in the Wikimedia sound logo contest has started. Crowds, pages turning, drums, chimes, vocals, and the sound of keyboards typing. Wikimedia is alive with sound, music, and everything in between. From December 6 to 19, 2022, please play a part and help identify the Sound of All Human Knowledge. Voting is open until 19 December, 23:59 UTC. Learn more on Diff.

On a related note, we would love to activate banners for the voting component of the sound logo project to ensure Wikipedians are notified. Would this be ok? We will be running banners on Commons and Meta-Wiki with fewer impressions than the submission phase. This has already been approved through the appropriate community means. Would extending the "vote now" banner to English Wikipedia be acceptable as well? Thank you. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPourzaki (WMF) who do you want to target with such a banner (asusming this is a CN Banner). Would a watchlist banner suffice? — xaosflux Talk 16:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xaosflux, yes this would be for CNBs so online editors are also notified of the sound logo vote happening. We will be running them on Meta and Commons already starting December 8. I didn't know about watchlist banners. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPourzaki (WMF) it's probably fine, can you give us a link to one for example? — xaosflux Talk 17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Xaosflux, here is the example. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 21:21, 6 December 2022 (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.

Improper unit "bars"

Hi all. I'm not a very active wikipedian, and am probably posting in the wrong place - please forgive me and gently direct me to the correct forum :-) In today's redactle, for the Mariana Trench, I noticed that the pressure was stated as "1,987 bars". This is not according to convention: the proper way to specify a pressure would be "1,987 bar". When I went to edit the page to correct this, I found that this page text was produced by the code "convert|1086|bar|psi" - so I can't fix this, and it appears that this odd unit convention is probably present on many other pages that use the convert tag. Where would I go to have this addressed? Rob Lushgardener (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lushgardener, I suggest opening up a discussion at Template talk:Convert. Schazjmd (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schazjmd. I'll do that. Lushgardener (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improper handling of assessment for inactive WikiProjects

First, I want to be clear this is not intended as a criticism of any particular editor, it is more of an institutional bad habit that has developed over the past few years and went unnoticed and unquestioned.

Anyway, TL;DR, at some point a few years ago (nobody I talked to was able to figure out exactly how this started and what policy supports this), assessment categories related to inactive WikiProjects (ex. Category:Start-Class Popular Culture articles) started to be deleted as part of broadly understood "maintance". In addition to not being policy supported, this is not just unncessary make-work with zero purpose and benefit, but I argue that this is actively determintal to the project (hiding useful statistics and possibly even introducing errors into the main assessment statistics).

An example of the damage caused is visible in the following aspects:

  • pages like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Popular Culture articles by quality statistics become blanked and are often deleted (leading to red links from inactive projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture; even if these projects are reactivated, it is needlessly cumbersome to restore this)
  • there is no justificable reason to delete/hide such statistics, this is a make-work that does not benefit the project at all and arguably damages it by hiding said statistics. I've seen some statistics cited in scholarly research, I myself became aware of this issue as I cited stats for WikiProject Popculture assessment a while back, wanted to update the numbers - and found that they are gone, and there's no way (that I am aware) to get information such as "list of all start-class articles assessed by that project" - maybe it's doable with Wikidata, I am unsure, but it was much easier before).
  • since assessment relies on category system, it's possible that this is producing fake results for assessment statistics, as there are some articles where there is no other quality assessment than that of the inactive wikiprojects. Example: Marquis de Sade in popular culture. Such articles may suddenly become reclassified as unassessed as the perfectly fine former assessments by the projects declared as inactive become disconnected (they exists on article's talk pages, but is no longer tied to the category system). This likely affects thousands if not tens of thousands article, ex. WikiProject Popculture had over 3k assessed articles before the statistics were hidden/deleted (see last matrix before the destruction). I am unable to determine the number of such articles (with assessments only from inactive WikiProjects, no longer connected to categories), but it is likely not insiginificant.

Note that I've also reported this to the WikiProject Council (which ironically seems mostly inactive) and V 1.0 editorial team which deals with assessments, where my reading of the short discussion in which Kusma, Chipmunkdavis, Audiodude, CX Zoom and WhatamIdoing participated being that this is indeed not a best practice. I've also raised this at User_talk:Liz/Archive_8#Why_was_this_page_deleted? (also ping UnitedStatesian), where Liz said: "I just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject#Inactive projects, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects, Wikipedia:Content assessment and Wikipedia:Assessing articles and they don't seem to have any information about article assessments being altered, changed or removed when the WikiProject's status changes. It's stunning to think that something so fundamental as this could have been going on for years without a discussion about it. I'll check the Village Pump later today to see if there was any debate about this in the past". She also suggested this needs to be discussed at VP, and since other discussions seem to have pettered out, here we go.

As for the practical aspects, i.e. what needs to be done - it's relatively simple. All assessment categories and associated pages of inactive WikiProjects need to be restored, and they should not be deleted without a consensus at VP or MfD. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way to do this would presumably be to edit Template:Inactive WikiProject banner so that it produces categories in the same way Template:WPBannerMeta does. A wider point is that a simpler process is needed to shift inactive Wikiprojects into places that receive a few more eyes, perhaps by turning them into taskforces of larger projects. CMD (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or even better, merge the banners. —Kusma (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When WikiProjects are merged, part of the process is to merge the banners. If you're interested in doing that, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Converting existing projects to task forces. We really would benefit from someone systematically suggesting some merges to long-inactive WikiProjects. (I suggest doing just one at a time, until you know how the whole process works.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to merge a project before, but found the process cumbersome. The template merging is a particularly tricky issue given the interactions with categories and the like. CMD (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very true, the process is really very difficult. I made so many mistakes in my first attempt. At least, I now know what things not to do. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 15:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That's why I suggest that people do one at a time. It might help if you all banded together (you can use WT:COUNCIL for coordination) to work on this. Category:Defunct WikiProjects has a lot of solid candidates for merging. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Biology, which never really got off the ground in 2006, could be merged up to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping Piotrus. Indeed, the removal of quality & importance data of inactive WikiProjects only help in losing useful stats, with no upside. This also makes it incredibly difficult for an interested editor to reactivate the project because they need to start from scratch, unable to build upon the work by their predecessors as everything is deleted. Merging inactive projects as task forces of larger projects might be a good idea where feasible, see WP:WikiProject Dutch municipalities for example which I merged earlier in the year following a talk page discussion. But outright deletion of such project stats does more harm than favour. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two quite different types of assessment:
      • Quality assessment refers to organization, readability, completeness, citations, links etc. and is project-independent
      • Importance assessment refers to how central the article is to coverage of the project's subject
Removing categories for project-related quality or importance assessments is completely unjustified, assuming the assessments are reasonably accurate. Even is the project is inactive, it is useful to see stats on articles that belong to the project. So yes, all assessment categories and associated pages of inactive WikiProjects need to be restored. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "importance" categories generally are fairly useless and not worth the bandwidth. Arguably tagging a newbie article as "low priority" makes importance assessment a net negative. Quality assessments have nothing to do with WikiProjects anymore (except perhaps MilHist, but that is a fairly active, hence atypical project), so they should be moved out of the project banners. —Kusma (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To return to Piotrus' original point, we should certainly always display article quality ratings, independent of whether the corresponding project is "active" or not. Many projects were founded not because of editor interest, but only to provide a framework for quality assessment. Unsurprisingly, many of these projects aren't very active, but that is no reason not to display quality ratings. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that importance ratings are okay because it, in theory, helps to streamline efforts to improve an article to FA/GA status. For example, if an editor interested in computer software were to put in effort to get an FA, they may start with the High-importance software article, rather than the low-importance one. So, I'd not want to remove them totally. However, several WikiProjects have a local consensus to not use importance ratings and that is respected, as their templates lack this functionality. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, Top-Importance helps people focus on the right articles to work on (haven't seen this happen in practice, ever). In practice, Low-Importance gives newbies a kick in the teeth. In the last 15 years, I haven't been made aware of a theoretical or practical use of Mid-Importance or High-Importance. —Kusma (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this does happen, sometimes. I'm not sure how you think you would "see" this, short of a specific discussion on a project talk page (which also has been known to happen). Not that I disagree that that both ratings are little used, and people whio spend lots of time updating them are largely wasting their effort. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While in theory low/mid/high might have some use, they are of little importance and consequence. I think we all however agree that the quality assessments are useuful. Let's not get side tracket into the discussion of the marginal importance of the, well, importance ratings... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While in theory importance ratings help editors prioritise which articles they work on, does this ever happen in practice? If an editor is sufficiently interested in a subject to bring articles up to GA, let alone FA, I would imagine that if they are concerned about article importance at all, they will be making their own subjective assessment, rather than relying on what is fundamentally the subjective assessment of some random person often a decade or more ago, some of which are frankly bizarre – looking at articles I have nominated for GA, Neaira (hetaira) is listed as high importance to WikiProject Greece, while Women in Classical Athens is low importance to the same WikiProject! I've never encountered anyone who was put off of writing about a subject they were interested in because someone had tagged it low importance, or who had started improving an article because it was tagged top importance. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WPMED has done this in the past; therefore it happens in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support restoring the cats to these banners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've basically been ignoring both the importance and quality ratings for several years, now. Even when I was adding project banners to talk pages, I never rated an article as anything other than 'stub' or 'start'. GA and FA are based on formal reviews, but the other, intermediate, ratings I have always seen as highly subjective, as are the importance ratings. I only follow the projects I belong to for things like notices of AfDs and discussions about problems with articles within the projects' scopes. - Donald Albury 15:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C- and B-class aren't really arbitrary, but there can be wide variation, some of which seems to be due to a reluctance to make major changes to outdated ratings. Even if it really is a B-class article, if it was previously tagged as a Start-class article, editors worry that perhaps the other guy knew more about it than they do.
I think the stub ratings should be applied by bot (mw:ORES has basically no false positives for stubs, though it does skip a few that are on the border between stub and Start), and that anything currently rated C-class or higher that the bot thinks is a stub should be flagged for manual review. Sending a bot around would halve the unassessed-article backlog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assessments are often not based on the guidelines. A high quality and complete article will rarely get assessed higher than start/low if it is short. But that is a different issue. The question here is whether wikiproject assessment categories should be removed if the project becomes inactive. I can see no reason to make it harder to find Stub-Class Ruritania articles or Low-importance Ruritania articles just because not much is happening with Wikiproject Ruritania. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)]][reply]
FWIW, years ago I took the time to review the ratings of a number of stub-Class articles for one of the WikiProjects, & found about a quarter could reasonably be considered "start" quality, & another 10% even higher quality. So the oft-bemoaned issue that about half of all Wikipedia articles are stubs may be wrong, & the true number of stubs is closer to a third -- not great, but not as bad as many people believe. -- llywrch (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improper handling of assessment for inactive WikiProjects – action

@Aymatth2 @CX Zoom @Caeciliusinhorto @Chipmunkdavis @Donald Albury @Johnbod @Kusma @WhatamIdoing The consensus seems pretty clear we want this stoped and done otherwise, but how do we get it done and enforced? @Liz @UnitedStatesian Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way to get the missing categories is to ask an admin for a WP:REFUND. Given that there are 10K possible pages involved, it would be much nicer if it could be managed by bot.
I find these editors in the history of Template:WPBannerMeta: MSGJ, Wugapodes, WOSlinker, and Happy-melon. Perhaps one/some of them would be willing to work on the change to the banner. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way would be to add the |inactive= parameter to {{WPBannerMeta}} and deprecating the {{Inactive WikiProject banner}}. I can add a edit request for it. Although, I was wondering if the language could be improved in a way that encourages the banner reader to reactivate the project, or should the language be kept as it is. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The easy way to recreate the 10k categories would be to authorise a bot to do it. Or authorise an WP:ADMINBOT to WP:REFUND them to preserve history. ADMINBOT requires Village Pump consensus though, which we can gather in a subsection if needed. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire concept of inactive projects is IMHO wrong, but that's a discussion for a different issue. For now, the key point is that assessment infrastructure should not be affected by the activity of a wikiproject.. Depraciating Inactive WikiProject banner is a good idea, there is no need for asessement banner to inform at all about the status of a project. And yes, we probably need an ADMINBOT to REFUND all these categories. It would be nice if one of the people responsible for creating this, well, problem (i.e. deleting stuff for no good reason and with no policy justification), would step up to help. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deleters were following policy. The problem was in the templates. —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. No need to have a separate banner with near identical functionality. —Kusma (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nice praise from Ezra Klein in the New York Times

In an op-ed piece discussing the conflict-centric nature of most social media, Ezra Klein pivoted to a mention of, by contrast, Wikipedia:

Wikipedia remains one of the most-visited sites on the web, and it is owned and managed by the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation. It shows. Wikipedia has never tried to become more than it is. It never pivoted to video or remade itself around an algorithmic feed in order to harvest more of our attention. It is a commons but one that is governed so we may use it rather than so that it may use us. It gives so much more than it takes. It thrives, quietly and gently, as a reminder that a very different internet, governed in a very different way, intended for a very different purpose, is possible.

—scs (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. It's true too. Apparently building an encyclopedia is the one killer application for self-governance. Odd there is not a Facebook/Twitter-like service with Wikipedia governance models. GreenC 04:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should do some pivoting to video, though. The technology is increasingly making it plausible to construct a collaboratively edited documentary. BD2412 T 04:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A documentary-production project that operated under something like Wikipedia's Core content policies would be compatible with Wikipedia, but, like Commons, should be a separate project under the Foundation. Whether such a project could be started now without being overwhelmed by POV-pushing participants is another question. Donald Albury 13:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2023 opens in January!

Hello

The Community Wishlist Survey (CWS) 2023, which lets contributors propose and vote for tools and improvements, starts next month on Monday, 23 January 2023, at 18:00 UTC and will continue annually.

We are inviting you to share your ideas for technical improvements to our tools and platforms. Long experience in editing or technical skills is not required. If you have ever used our software and thought of an idea to improve it, this is the place to come share those ideas!

The dates for the phases of the Survey will be as follows:

  • Phase 1: Submit, discuss, and revise proposals – Monday, Jan 23, 2023 to Sunday, Feb 6, 2023
  • Phase 2: WMF/Community Tech reviews and organizes proposals – Monday, Jan 30, 2023 to Friday, Feb 10, 2023
  • Phase 3: Vote on proposals – Friday, Feb 10, 2023 to Friday, Feb 24, 2023
  • Phase 4: Results posted – Tuesday, Feb 28, 2023

If you want to start writing out your ideas ahead of the Survey, you can start thinking about your proposals and draft them in the CWS sandbox.

We are grateful to all who participated last year. See you in January 2023!

Thank you! Community Tech, STei (WMF) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the worst template subcategorization I've ever seen

I thought I've seen most of the worst that Wikipedia had to offer, and then I see this mess: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 13/2014 Commonwealth Games table tennis. How was this allowed to happen? RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just like Edmund Burke famously never said; "The only thing necessary for the triumph of bad template subcategorization is for good editors to do nothing." Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And User talk:Choyae1994 has about 340 template deletion notices, which is the worst example of notice spamming I've seen. Hope they don't have a heart attack the next time they login. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Wikipedia rule that forces you to add a separate deletion template for everything you nominate. You could've given a single notice and listed the templates below it, in bullet points. What you did is just insane. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to DYK criteria

There was a recent change to the WP:DYK criteria which was discussed at length on WT:DYK, but I'm noting it here to give it greater visibility to editors outside of the circle of DYK regulars. Previously, hooks were required to include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. The new criteria is that they should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by a reader with no special knowledge or interest.

Reading between the lines of a current discussion, there seems to be consensus that already submitted hooks will be evaluated by the old wording, but new hooks will be judged by the new wording. My personal opinion is that this is quite a minor change, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal. However, I get the impression that reviewers are likely to start being more strict about just plain enforcing the "interestingness" criteria than they were before. I therefore want to make sure people were aware of this change as to not get caught by surprise.

Follow-up discussions should happen on Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

For those not familiar with DYK, the elevator pitch is that it's an easy way for authors of new (or newly improved) articles to get their work highlighted on the front page. There's some basic quality criteria that the article needs to meet, but it's really nothing that every decent article shouldn't meet already. So, if you write something new, please consider submitting it to DYK. We even relax some of the rules for first-time submitters to make it easier for new people. If you find the process intimidating, dropping a note on WT:DYK asking for help with your submission will get you the support you need.

And for those of you who have had a number of submissions accepted already, please consider getting involved in some of the back-end work. We need more people willing to do reviews and help build hook sets in the prep areas. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto - Donation Payment Option on Wikipedia

Transactions by the use of Cryptocurrencies has rapidly been adopted and are used by many people now. Hence, why I think it makes sense for Wikipedia to add crypto as a payment method for donations. I believe they will see a rise in donations as crypto users are far more used to making transactions with crypto in current day compared to users two years ago. MattTheXPat (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donations are received by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), not Wikipedia. The Wikimedia community discussed the matter earlier this year and decided (71% to 29%) to request that the WMF stop accepting cryptocurrency donations. Certes (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read a news article about this here. That being said, if someone wanted to make a "major" donation in crypto (or really in anything, art, bars of gold, barrels of oil, ....) I'm quite sure WMF will figure out how to accept it from you. — xaosflux Talk 15:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private Incident Reporting System Update

Hello

Hello community, we have some updates on the Private Incident Reporting System – The system is looking to make it easier for editors to ask for help if they are harassed or abused.

Our goal for the past months was to understand the problem space and your expectations of this project. Following the feedback submitted to date (thank you!), we have developed the next steps. We would like to invite you to read about the new proposed plans and offer further feedback on the project talkpage, if you have any. If you prefer to talk privately, please get in touch with Madalina Ana.

Best regards –– Trust & Safety Tools Team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaWiki message delivery (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-Twitter

Who better to create a well governed space for the exchange of info and ideas than the Foundation? The world needs such a forum that provides the benefits without incurring the costs and risks of a free-for-all that are increasingly apparent.

Funding could be by direct appeal to those harvesting value for commerce (politicians, Government Agencies, Associations, businesses, and similar enterprise users could be asked for a "suggested" donation (starting at a very nominal level) with a "badge" or icon to show that they support the project. Same with individuals but the suggestion would be "whatever you think reflects the value you receive".

Such a forum seems very much in keeping with the Wikipedia Ethos. 104.218.174.130 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This idea doesn't seem to be about building an encyclopedia; too view all of the foundation projects and how to propose a new one please see meta:Complete list of Wikimedia projects. — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the train wreck that Twitter is becoming, the Foundation probably should consider setting up a Mastodon server for use of employees & registered volunteers. By this, I mean they should crunch the numbers, get an idea of the labor required to set it up & support its use. That would be a benefit in that they could continue to pursue their goals thru social media. But as for actually doing that... despite my dislike for Elon Musk's actions & the fact I have moved onto Mastodon, if I had any say I'd wait until Twitter actually crashed & burned before taking this step, & devote the resources to other immediate needs. -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikis World, although that was set up by volunteers rather than the WMF. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing Wikis World :) I've discussed this privately with a few people, but I don't currently see having the WMF run, maintain, and most importantly moderate a Mastodon server for community use as a good use of time and resources. There are plenty of other things the WMF needs to do; I fail to see moderating social media conversations as a good one. I think it's more useful for Mastodon servers to grow organically and develop a culture through volunteers, just like Wikipedia originally. Once there's a need for professionalization, then we should come back to this discussion. Legoktm (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why "the world needs" yet another forum for the exchange of anything. Also, define "well-governed". And "Wikipedia Ethos". In addition why do you think that WMF "should" be doing anything outside of supporting Wikipedia? And, why it is suited for/to be trusted with such a project? 67.243.247.14 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broken English

Is there a good way of dealing with text that is in broken English to the extent that it is incoherent? I mean in cases where it can't be corrected because the intended meaning is unclear. I don't have any specific example in mind. Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove it. Ruslik_Zero 11:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the instance, one may also consider if WP:COMPETENCE applies & act accordingly. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&oldid=1128147012"