Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
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, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Concerns about Internet Archive[edit]

As I have talked about both in Wikimedia Forum and in the Internet Archive's one, Archive's Wayback Machine, being a very important resource for Wikipedia (it's where many article references come from, and where all references will always be forwarded if the original source some day disappears), can't be taken for granted, because almost all its content is hosted only in an area with great natural risks. It strikes me (negatively) that no one has replied to my post on Archive's forums. Perhaps people are more concerned with day-to-day issues, and dismiss this as long-term paranoia, but I think this is currently the most important issue regarding human knowledge's future. If Archive is eventually lost, Wikipedia and its sister projects, will be even more important than they are now, as the memory of the start of 21st century (and of other previous times), but it would be really sad to lose so much content as Archive has. If there's anyone here that shares my concern, he/she could, if has an Archive account (or wants to create one), and wanted to do it, talk about it in the thread that I opened at Archive's forum. I think that this is a very important issue, for everyone, as persons, but especially as wikipedians/wikimedians. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is as big of a problem as you think it is. According to the presentation by Jonah Edwards all of their data is in in the Bay Area in at least 4 different data centers (San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, etc) and data is replicated across multiple data centers. In your post you mentioned the 3-2-1 backup rule, but that rule of thumb doesn't require the data to be replicated to different states or countries. Aside from an event like that from The Day After Tomorrow it is extremely unlikely that anything could cause the data to be lost in all these locations simultaneously. The only real risk is that a power outage can (and has) taken the archive offline. On that risk, I am perhaps less concerned than others as I don't believe an archive needs to have strict availability requirements - libraries and other physical archives close for the night without any problems. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mokadoshi, thanks for your reply. Power outages aren't a big problem, I wasn't thinking about that (the archive ceases to be online for a time, but the important thing is that no data is lost).
you mentioned the 3-2-1 backup rule: as far as I know (unless I'm missing something), they don't store 3 copies of (perhaps an important) part of their data, so 3-2-1 can't be met then. They have 4 datacenters, but not all data is stored in all of them.
it is extremely unlikely that anything could cause the data to be lost in all these locations simultaneously: I hope so. I do know that 3-2-1 rule doesn't require different states or countries, but I fear that all copies are in an area that can (and will) be hit by a huge earthquake. Perhaps I am overestimating the consequences of such an earthquake, and none will ever cause huge damages both in Oakland and San Francisco at the same time, for example. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people like… live in California? Seems like a death trap. Dronebogus (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think a problem with the issue of power failures affecting archived materials/information is bigger than the interruptions of electricity generated by humans. A certain natural phenomenon that occurred last weekend; solar storms that allowed aurora borealis to be seen in areas of the world that would normally remain unaffected. I'd be concerned about a so—called "Carrington Event" wiping out electronic archives. Apparently humanity will have enough notice to react in good time. I cannot pretend to understand this fully but, I am reliably informed that as long as electrical devices are switched off before the event then remain switched off for the duration, all should be well. Does anyone else know or recognise what I'm writing about? Does anyone know who will be performing such duties? Asking for a friend . . . DieselEstate (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turning off a device isn't enough. A strong electromagnetic field can induce a current in a powered-down device - crucially, in parts of the device that aren't designed with that in mind. The good news is that EMI is something that electronic devices already have to deal with, and this is why shielding is used (some data centres advertise their use of a faraday cage). The bad news is that this shielding may not be adequate in a severe event, and I doubt there has been any robust testing. The best defence we have is to keep lots of copies. An internet archive backup site located under a large rock in Australia would be nice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carrington Event took place in 1859. Electric and telecommunication (telegraph) infraestructure at that time was very primitive, even if compared to that of the early 20th Century (let alone the 21st Century). The Wikipedia article on it says:
A geomagnetic storm of this magnitude occurring today has the potential to cause widespread electrical disruptions, blackouts, and damage due to extended outages of the electrical power grid.
I don't think this is likely to cause permanent damage to storage devices. The events this month caused some problems, but I think that even a far stronger solar storm wouldn't cause anything close to an apocalyptic event with today's technology. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly with your concern but not because of natural disaster risk. The bigger risk at the moment is litigation over the former National Emergency Library service. The outcome remains uncertain - it could be a manageable out-of-court settlement with the four companies driving the current lawsuit, or it could be the start of a wave of lawsuits by other copyright owners (and there are a lot of them). There is a possibility that this will pose an existential threat to the Internet Archive, either by bankrupting it, or by forcing judgements that narrow the scope of fair use so as to render their "free access" mission impossible to deliver legally.
Personally I think the IA have acted recklessly, not just over the NEL, but in taking a cavalier attitude towards ingestion and distribution of non-free content. They have allowed members of the public to upload material with very little oversight. They host copies of material which is not significantly at risk of being lost (legal deposit libraries are doing fine). Some of their preservation activity is good and valuable (maintaining copies of niche works that are genuinely at risk), but they are playing with fire by redistributing copies of everything. This all serves to distract from, and endanger, what should be their primary mission: archiving websites. This is the area where nobody else (including the deposit libraries) is stepping up. The Wayback Machine is the unique copy of historical websites. We are used to web sources disappearing; we are unprepared for the Wayback Machine to disappear.
Since Wikipedia relies so heavily on IA-archived copies of website sources, we should have a strong interest in addressing this single point of failure. I have some ideas, but unfortunately the WMF seems to be strongly averse to hosting non-free content[1]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I think that the Internet Archive's primary purpose is to archive everything that's getting outdated and rare; the wayback machine is only one part of this.
Personally, I also feel like is a superior service for everyone not using cloudflare as their DNS. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] is weird and opaque. It’s a very effective paywall-buster, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in its long-term survival. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive Canada has mirrors. I don't know to what extent and capacity as of today, but I know they are working to expand it.
Also, regarding the lawsuit: "What the Hachette v. Internet Archive Decision Means for Our Library" which states: "The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections [such as] “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use — for example, Wikipedia references as shown in the image above." So there is no "uncertainty" for Wikipedia purposes, we are clear to continue linking "short portions" of books in citations - almost exactly how Google Books works. The lawsuit only concerned the use of Controlled Digital Lending ie. the lending of complete copies (not "short passages") which is an entirely different animal and not so important for Wikipedia purposes. -- GreenC 18:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, (which is also what Baranards said), but there is a possibility that they go bankrupt as a result of dying on this hill. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baranards said this particular lawsuit is "uncertain". But a reading of "What the Hachette v. Internet Archive Decision Means for Our Library" is helpful. This is where things are today.
In my opinion, as a legal public library, it is the Archive's mandate to lend holdings to patrons. If the courts allow corporations to sue libraries out of existence for doing what libraries do, that is a dystopian vision, because they won't stop at Internet Archive. It's possible we as a society will allow this to happen. My concern is not only for libraries, but all open access knowledge. The solution is to become aware of the war on libraries, the fight against open knowledge, and support politicians and entities who are in this fight. It is happening all over the world in many countries. -- GreenC 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the National Emergency Library wasn't what libraries do, but unfortunately there is a slight possibility that the Internet Archive will continue its current course that die on its hill that unlimited borrowing should be legal as it has costly and fight themselves out of existence. I'd say it's more the Internet Archive's fault. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IA and many libraries around the world believe the NEL and CDL is what libraries do. Explained here. I hope you will consider supporting public libraries vs the controlling financial interests of a few powerful publishing corporations. -- GreenC 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other libraries offer unlimited borrowing? Also, could you point me to a page number? It is definitely true that authors' profits can be seriously harmed when you can just go to the Internet Archive all the time no matter what instead of buying an ebook, not just corporations.
Also, who should win in the lawsuit seems irrelevant to the current discussion about survival of the concerned modules. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IA's Open Library does not do "unlimited borrowing". They require that you make an account and explicitly check out each book. Until you return it, nobody else can check it out. This is precisely what a dead-tree library does.
I can verify that they enforce the single-checkout function. I had a WP:FAC where I had to check something in one of my sources and found that I couldn't check the book out because somebody else had it. It turns out, the somebody else was one of my reviewers! We went back and forth a couple of times with each person checking it back in so the other could borrow it. RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for a period of time in 2020 where anyone could borrow a book as long as they pass a verification against sockpuppets and don't borrow more than 10 books at once. It was called the "National Emergency Library". Aaron Liu (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted here that Green C has been paid by the Internet Archive; he correctly reveals this connection on his user page, but we should see it as relevant to his discussion whenever the IA is the topic.
As a publisher, a Wikipedia editor, and a copyright-holding author of work for which the IA offers an unlicensed electronic edition of their own creation, I've long been concerned about our reliance on IA and the way in which it has been used. While they provide a wonderful resource when they work with material in the public domain, we commonly do things like provide archive links to web pages that are still live, which flies in the face of WP:COPYVIOEL. Years back, they bought used bookseller Better World Books and their ongoing efforts to integrate with Wikipedia are linked to that (To pull something I said in a discussion about IA here in 2020 To quote the Library Journal on the purchase, IA founder and digital librarian Brewster Kahle told LJ’s Lisa Peet that the acquisition—and its pipeline of titles for digitization—would also facilitate broader ongoing efforts at IA to link internet content with relevant, reliable source material. “What we’re trying to do is weave books into the Internet itself, starting with Wikipedia,” Kahle said. [...] "We now have over 120,000 Wikipedia citations pointing to over 40,000 books, but we want to get to millions of links going to millions of books. The way we’re going to get there is by working really closely with Better World Books.” That's pretty blatant.) They put links to their bookstore on the book pages of books that their bookstore has in stock, making these sales pages.
The availability of a digital copy of referenced materials is certainly a convenience when it can be done in a legal and ethical way. However, it is not a requirement for a reference; the existence of a physical copy is sufficient. As such, we shouldn't be too worried about the risks of the Archive's disappearance either from ecological or legal drivers. If it's heavily integrated into Wikipedia, that is in good part due to the efforts of IA and their paid agents. In general, we should be more carefully considering the extent to which we use IA and allow IA to use us.
(In the interest of transparency, I have not gone to check all of which publishers are currently involved in the lawsuit, but it presumably includes publishers who have paid me to write material for them in the past. However, none of this pay was related to my Wikipedia editing.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that our rules accept a citation which contains enough information to locate a physical copy of the book in a traditional library as sufficient. But it's an understatement to pass off a URL to an on-line copy as merely "a convenience".
I am privileged to have access to one of the greatest public libraries in the world. For the portion of their collection which circulates, they'll even deliver materials to my local branch (at no cost to me!) where I can pick them up, a 5 minute walk from my front door. Much of the collection does not circulate, so I need to (first world problem) schlep downtown to view it at a research library, where somebody will retrieve it from storage and deliver it to me at a desk. Again, at no cost to me. It is easy to become jaded when you grow up with this.
Alas, much of the world can't imagine access to a collection of this size and depth. Digitizing materials make them available to a vastly greater audience. There reaches a point where "convenience" transitions into "making possible", and we're already past that point. Today, we can deliver the world's knowledge to anybody in the remotest village anywhere that has Internet connectivity. which is pretty close to everywhere, and getting closer. It is the great equalizer.
At some point, libraries will no longer be able to justify the cost of storing their collections of books on paper, and they'll get thrown out. It is inevitable. If those materials haven't been preserved in digital form, they'll be lost forever. We'll save a few to put in museums so we can show our grandchildren how information was stored in the ancient days. IA may not be how digital libraries will look in the future, but they're a step in the right direction. And it is certainly true that today's copyright laws were designed in an era where "accessing information" and "having possession of a physical object" were one and the same, which is no longer true. As with so many things, when technology moves quickly, the law struggles to keep up. RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all worried about the IA’s book archive (because alternatives exist) and I agree that Wikipedia does not depend greatly on it. Citations to offline sources are fine. It would be great (for readers) if all sources were freely accessible online, but I don’t think either Wikipedia or the Internet Archive should be activist organisations that invite legal trouble by flouting or pushing the boundaries of copyright law.
Rather, it’s specifically the Wayback Machine I’m worried about. There’s nothing comparable, no offline fallback option like there is for books, and if it gets shut down that information is lost forever. I am worried that copyright activism puts this unique resource at risk, and I say that as someone who thinks there is a lot of mileage in copyright reform.
I would like to see a Wikimedia-hosted Limited Access Source Archive designed specifically for our needs, along the following lines:
  • Automatic archiving of cited URLs across all language Wikipedias.
  • Entirely independent of the Internet Archive.
  • Focus on web archiving only; leave books, video, audio, and software out.
  • No crawling / spidering / indexing the whole web. Just archive the links that are used in Wikipedia articles.
  • Legally defensive "fair use friendly" features:
    • No public access by default
    • No access at all to archived content until 30 days have passed, to discourage being used as a hot news paywall-buster
    • Access granted to editors on similar terms to The Wikipedia Library (6 months / 500 edits / good standing)
However, I think the WMF has deep rooted opinions/principles on non-free content (see the link I posted above) and this would be a significant departure. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this (not relying on external resources for archival of web citations) is a really great idea. For the scope of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, it would fully solve the exposed problem. Of course, thinking more broadly, a solution that preserved all Archive's content would be better. For that to be possible, perhaps a review and purge of unnecessary content (especially, really big unnecessary content; I bet there is, and a lot of it) should be carried on at Archive itself, but this exceeds Wikimedia's scope. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should impose that much of a burden on WMF. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I/we don't have power to impose anything on WMF. It's only an idea, and I think it is a very good one. It could be feasible if WMF has enough financial resources and wants to do it. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To better clarify it, when I say perhaps a review and purge of unnecessary content should be carried on at Archive itself, there I'm not talking about any WMF involvement, I say that Archive itself perhaps should address this issue if it's blocking them from having enough backups (but of course this isn't a Wikimedia issue at all). MGeog2022 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect (he says, waving his Not A Lawyer flag vigorously) that any "fair use" defense of such a scheme would be strengthened by simply not displaying the archive link for pages that are still live and substantially unchanged, addressing the fourth factor in fair use evaluation (the effect upon the work's value.) This would show Wikipedia is not attempting to compete with a commercial display of the copyrighted material. Frankly, it is something that we should already be doing -- designing the templates so that the archive listing is displayed only if the page is no longer available or reliable as a source. Instead, web references are being turned into advertisements for the IA by a bot sponsored by the IA. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Production scripts in the Wikimedia ecosystem can't even differentiate between live web pages and custom 404s (to say nothing of whether a live page reflects the same content it had at time of citation), so that would be a whole entire project unto itself. And what if the site is live but region locked? Or won't load on my browser even though the archived copy does? Or won't load unless the domain is whitelisted on the client's ad blocker? Folly Mox (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can, at the very least, use the same user-marked method that we use for whether to display the archive link first -- if someone marks url-status as dead. We cannot be responsible for every possible impediment to reading the source; we should take a path of minimizing both legal risk and damage. Verifiabiility does not call for every reference being readable at a single click on every browser in every condition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive Canada has mirrors. I don't know to what extent and capacity as of today, but I know they are working to expand it. If a full (or almost full) copy is really under construction in a distant location, it's really good news. Greater transparency about it on their part would be appreciated, though (there is almost no updated information about it since it was first proposed in 2016; the only articles that I could find about it only talk about the opening of their Canada headquarters, but make no mention about if they actually host any content). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that natural disaster is indeed by far the greater risk. Any attempt to destroy Internet Archive judicially would be such a barbarity that it would probably be stopped and a more logic agreement would be reached. Even if Internet Archive as such disappeared, I think some wealthy people would finance the creation of a new foundation to preserve its contents, given the catastrophe that its disappearance would be.
With all copies in an earthquake-prone area, I think this is by far the biggest risk. Unlike judicial procedures (or even hurricanes), the time to react to save it is absolutely 0. That's the really terrible thing about earthquakes. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might hope that there are enough philanthropic tech billionaires for one of them to step in and save the archive, but would we definitely trust them to run it? We take the integrity of the IA for granted. I'm not sure I'd automatically extend that trust if it were reincarnated as Even if we had nothing to fear from from judges and earthquakes, a second independent archiving service would be a great reassurance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking about a single billionaire running the Archive, but some wealthy people (not necessarily billionaires) or foundations donating large sums of money, and ordinary people donating the remainder (that is, basically the same way that WMF and the current Archive work). Of course, the scenario you mention wouldn't be desirable at all.
a second independent archiving service would be a great reassurance: I couldn't agree more on it. Or even the same archiving service, but with better backups and financial/legal reliability (for example, there is only one WMF, but I haven't the same fears about it than I have about Archive: it has standard backup practices, no main datacenters in big earthquake areas, it takes no legal risks, and has very solid finances). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concerns but disagree fully with the proposed stance: if we're going to treat these archival services like infrastructure in this imperfect situation, and we are, we should treat them like infrastructure, and not scatter our resources around. It wouldn't constitute redundancy, it would constitute weakness and two dead archives to cry over instead of one with enough flexibility and support to adapt to material and societal adversities. Remsense 12:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 2 dead archives is something highly unlikely (unless both are placed in San Francisco or a similar place, of course :-D). But I understand that a single organization is much more efficient, as long as it offers the necessary guarantees, such as proper backup policies (at suitable locations carefully selected), and perhaps something like Wikimedia Endowment, to secure its financial future. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're building an archive, you need to be thinking deep about the threats and how to mitigate them. For sure, the physical threat of earthquakes argues for geographic diversity. But it's also good to have corporate diversity; two sites run by different corporate entities are not going to be taken down if one entity goes out of business, or gets bought out. See, for example MySQL or Freenode.
For that matter, infrastructure diversity is valuable. Having one copy hosted on linux and another copy hosted on Windows eliminates a lot of OS-targeted attack surface. RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph maps onto IA's status as a non-profit which on some level intends to be public infrastructure. Remsense 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that I no longer have full faith in the IA to deliver on that public infrastructure mission without getting distracted by legally risky activism. Looking at their blog post from last year on the Hachette matter:

Libraries are going to have to fight to be able to buy, preserve, and lend digital books outside of the confines of temporary licensed access. We deeply appreciate your support as we continue this fight!

This suggests to me that they intend to keep pushing boundaries. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment most of the way. I am conflicted, but can't help but come to the conclusion that you have to dance with the one who brought you, both because they're right to some degree (the activism is important if risky, it will only get worse without someone with clout in court about it) and there's simply no other game in town. Putting a thumb on the scale isn't free, it's exactly that they're worth something to society (even many of the otherwise apathetic or antagonistic power players out there—it's nice to have a copy of the internet for them too) that gives them a chance. Maybe. Remsense 14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "corporate" in the broader sense of "whatever person or group of people controls the entity". Even non-profits have changes of control and the new administration may not be as good stewards as the old ones. Or they may suffer from fiscal mismanagement and just plain run out of money. Or, as discussed above, they may be sued into oblivion. RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Archive seems to have two rather different functions: to preserve the Internet and to let people read books online. Both are helpful to Wikipedia but neither is crucial. Sources do not have to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the former is? If the IA got knocked out, a huge chunk of claims made on Wikipedia would no longer be verifiable. Remsense 14:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; Bridger's comment is silly to say the least. Yes, it's true that sources don't have to be available online, but they do have to be available somewhere. I'm as surprised as anyone that is still kicking, but the IA remains the only platform that can make a somewhat credible case for at least having the potential to stick around longterm. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and to let people read books access rare material Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they limit themselves to "rare material", you have misestimated what they're offering. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they've extended into a great library, but their primary purpose is to prevent loss of information. Just look at their folk song collection. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC[edit]

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__) and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!

MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Should English Wikipedia enable the Suggested Links newcomer task? regarding the technical implementation of the "add a link" newcomer task. Thank you. Folly Mox (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Wikipedia Search Result[edit]

Inappropriate, rude nastiness appearing in blurb of search result for "The Spike" essay by George Orwell. Can anyone help get it deleted? It is only returned +/- 1 in 5 times of search. Seemingly linked to website although I am not suggesting they are responsible. DieselEstate (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DieselEstate: can you confirm if this is the Wikipedia search function or Google? I can't reproduce this on Wikipedia. We have no control over the Google blurb or the knowledge panel here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign in Malaysia starts next week[edit]

Dear all,

As mentioned previously,  the WMF is running its annual banner fundraising campaign for non logged in users in Malaysia (on English Wikipedia only) from 28th of May to the 25th of June..

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

Thanks you and regards, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign in South starts next week[edit]

Dear all,

As mentioned previously, the WMF is running its annual banner fundraising campaign for non logged in users in South Africa (on English Wikipedia) from 28th of May to the 25th of June.

You can find more information around the campaign, see example banners, and leave any questions or suggestions you might have, on the community collaboration page.

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

Thanks you and regards, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working closely with the South African community @JBrungs (WMF). If there are any inputs from our end, we shall let you know.Bobbyshabangu talk 10:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art Project about Userboxes[edit]

Hello, I'm an art student conducting research on Userboxes.

I made a tool to browse through your Userbox social graph, which you can check out at: And I'm hoping to gain more insight into why Wikipedians put Userboxes on their User Pages, and what the social function of them can be.

Do you have Userboxes on your page? Or do you actively choose not to use them? I'd love to interview you about your Userboxes (or lack thereof), and for your insights to be published on a website, together with the graph.

If you're interested in participating, please send me a message on my talk page, or send me an email via the sidebar. As a reward for participating (for all you Userbox collectors out there), you'll get a special Userbox to put on your User Page.

Thanks a lot!

Lucasorigami (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle[edit]

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

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]