Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 67. (BOT)
I feel like shit: Archiving thread
Line 32: Line 32:


== I feel like shit ==
== I feel like shit ==
{{atop|1=Thank you to everyone who has commented, especially my former coworkers. It has been over a month since I made this original post, and more than a few people have responded, so I think at this point it's best to close the thread. [[User:Harej|Harej]] ([[User talk:Harej|talk]]) 01:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)}}


I have been sitting on this for around two years. It has taken me a really long time to figure out how to express this.
I have been sitting on this for around two years. It has taken me a really long time to figure out how to express this.
Line 108: Line 109:
===Media report===
===Media report===
[[OpIndia]] has published a – factual, as far as I can see – report on this. I cannot link to it, as the site is blacklisted. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
[[OpIndia]] has published a – factual, as far as I can see – report on this. I cannot link to it, as the site is blacklisted. --[[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

{{abot}}


== Honestly, is everyone else crazy, or is it me? ==
== Honestly, is everyone else crazy, or is it me? ==

Revision as of 01:49, 11 July 2021

 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, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

I feel like shit

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.


I have been sitting on this for around two years. It has taken me a really long time to figure out how to express this.

As you may know I worked for the Wikimedia Foundation from 2018 to 2019. This was following a lifetime of service to the Wikimedia movement. I started contributing my time in 2004 and over time participated in greater and more consequential capacities. I am proud of the work I have done, from making workflows more efficient with bots, to organizing large and successful conferences, to my work on building an open citation graph on Wikidata.

What I am not proud of is working at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I worked very hard throughout my career and ultimately found full time work at one of the world’s most illustrious nonprofits. What I got for my lifetime of work was the experience of working with bullies.

The Wikimedia Foundation is run by bullies.

There are two members of executive management that come to mind. Both have made me the object of repeated ridicule over a period of several years in my volunteer and professional capacities. One has interacted with me a single digit number of times and only did so to make fun of some verbal gaffe I made or otherwise mock something I have said or done. Another liked to make jokes about me as well, often right in my face. I had an experience of interviewing with this executive, only for them to make fun of me to my face in subsequent encounters.

Both of these people still work at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not referring to them directly because I don’t want them to sue me and I don’t want my post to be oversighted, but they still hold positions of power, and they are still responsible for managing staff.

There are a lot of things I could tell you about the foundation, good or bad. I could tell you about the brilliance of the staff, the genuine collaborations between professionals and volunteers that take place, and the sincere dedication of everyone I have met working there.

I could also tell you about the lack of leadership at the highest levels, and the interdepartmental war for resources that resulted. But I was merely demoralized by this chaos; it wasn’t my own personal experience. I could tell you about how women, and women of color in particular, are chewed up and spit out by the management. But that’s not my story to tell. I could complain that their growth strategy is complete nonsense and destined to fail, but that’s, just, like, my opinion.

But this is my story to tell: I am an adult with autism. Over the years, especially when I was younger, it is inevitable that I would say and do things that are kind of funny. And I have been made fun of my entire life for it. I can forgive myself for saying awkward things, and I can forgive people for what they did as children. What I cannot forgive is a fully grown adult, in a position of significant authority, bullying another adult in their workplace. It is unforgivable.

After a chaotic 18 or so months of working at Wikimedia, I turned in my badge. The experience left me with posttraumatic stress disorder, seriously adrift on a moral and emotional level, and occasionally prone to psychotic episodes. Over time I have been able to forgive the dysfunction that defined my work experience, but I could not let go of the fact that there are bullies who work for the Wikimedia Foundation and still work there.

As Wikipedians we are a neurodiverse community and come from many different backgrounds. We need management that is not just charismatic, not just good at giving speeches, but empathetic and compassionate, who genuinely understands our experiences.

I feel terrible and exposed writing this. I may be opening myself up to retaliation. But I have been sitting on this for so long, and it has tortured me so much. And I can’t live with myself not knowing that this perspective is invisible. You are not going to hear it from the slick Communications team, and you’re not going to hear it from people who think speaking up will make them unemployable. But at this point, I don’t think I have anything to lose. And if others speak up because of me I hope it will be worth it. Harej (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harej, damn. I'm no WMF employee, but why do I not feel surprised? To answer my own question, it's probably due to how the WMF tends to steamroll over community wishes (Branding project insanity, WP:FRAMBAN, trying to kick out Jimbo, failing to adequately deal with WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and the captions fiasco on Commons which is a story for another day and not sufficiently covered by that link) I've quoted you in full on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Getting bullied is devastating. WMF executive management bullying people is just lunacy. And the worst part is, the people who do it are typically too damn stupid to realize what they're doing. They're not compensating or "secretly insecure" as you often hear. They're just too damn stupid. They simply lack the brain capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'd say that it's due to that, or if they have the same underlying problem (I'd be more inclined to think the latter). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Harej, I'm so sorry that happened to you, and thank you for standing up and saying it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stepping up and writing this. Legoktm (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being honest about your experiences, Harej. It's really disappointing to hear this. As you'll well know, autistic people are a major part of our community, well in excess of their proportion in the general population. Any company which truly appreciated that it is built on and run by our volunteer labour would bend over backwards to be accommodating towards autistic and neurodivergent people. No doubt these management figures have also mocked neurotypicals and made them feel like shit too. And a disorganised workplace is a hotbed for mental health problems. Not a proud moment for the WMF. — Bilorv (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done on speaking out, Harej. As above, neither saddened nor surprised. (I note that this page has been archived in at least two major online archives—multiple times!—so oversighting would be a bit of a horse/stable door scenario.) ——Serial 17:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for sharing your experience James. We have worked together a bit and I'm really saddened by this. I wish WMF would have been a better place. Ladsgroupoverleg 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very sorry you feel like that, and feel ashamed that there could be such people there. You are worth a lot, they are blind if they were simply unable to recognize that, going up to bullying... I don't have words to describe it. It's really saddening that you suffered such experience. Platonides (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good gravy, Harej, I was so pleased when you finally had a career path open up after all your work. We should point out that you are not the only person in our group of wikibuddies who has had real life difficulties as a result of their good faith efforts on behalf of this encyclopedia. Please accept my best wishes in your future endeavors, and know that there are many places where ordinary civility and US EEO/ADA laws have made for a much less toxic environment than what you have experienced so far. It gets better-- stay in touch! Oliveleaf4 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harej, I'm so sorry to hear that. As the parent of child who was bullied because of their autism-spectrum-disorder, our collective failure to protect the neurodiverse members of our communities strikes me as particularly egregious and intolerable. We can and must do better. Thank you for speaking up. Vexations (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for your bad experience and I hope that telling your story helps somehow. Large organizations like the WMF can sometimes be unintentionally cruel and that's why it's so important for everyone to work hard to be extra friendly and inclusive. Flounder ceo (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add some clarifying remarks: I am not referring to the managers I reported directly to; they are incredible people. And I do believe most staff at the foundation are working in good faith and are trying to do right by the people they work with, professionally and in the community. I am gravely concerned that there is a culture among, specifically, the executives (i.e. direct reports to the CEO) that is toxic, and I have been on the receiving end of this in subtle ways that scarred me. While I worked there and especially since I left many of them have been replaced with new ones, and I have no opinion on them because I haven't worked with them. I've noticed a lot of people have brought their own grievances with the Wikimedia Foundation into this, and I completely understand that, just that I think my position is a bit more nuanced than the "community vs. foundation" dynamic I often see. And I also want to note that merely the experience of being able to write what I did, and the outpouring of support, has been immensely meaningful to me. Thank you. Harej (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for speaking out about your experience, James. You've done a huge amount for the project, and I was saddened to read this. It takes a neurodiverse community to build this project and keep it running, and large parts of our movement could probably use more (or any) information and/or training regarding the neurodiversity of our valued contributors. Hopefully this thread helps to spur that on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like others above, I'm saddened but not surprised by this. Thank you for speaking out. One thing leapt immediately to mind when you wrote "We need management that is not just charismatic, not just good at giving speeches, but empathetic and compassionate, who genuinely understands our experiences" - people who are charismatic (or what passes for charismatic in some environments) and good at giving speeches are very rarely also empathetic and compassionate. Our articles superficial charm and psychopathy in the work-place may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, Robert D. Hare coined the term "Snakes in Suits" as a synonym for workplace psychopaths.

Manipulation involves the psychopath creating a scenario of “psychopathic fiction” where positive information about themselves and negative disinformation about others will be created, where your role as a part of a network of pawns or patrons will be utilised and you will be groomed into accepting the psychopath's agenda. Once on to the confrontation stage, the psychopath will use techniques of character assassination to maintain their agenda, and you will be either discarded as a pawn or used as a patron. Finally, in the ascension stage, the role of the subject as a patron in the psychopath’s quest for power will be discarded, and the psychopath will take for himself/herself a position of power and prestige from anyone who once supported them.

Who does that make you think of? wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not my place, but that last link has nothing to do with what this discussion's supposed to be about. Golollop (bounce) 16:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I know that link is off topic, and, I hope this sidebar about psychopathy in the workplace is off topic too. If it isn't we need to know. wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're babbling and what you're saying isn't helpful. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi harej, it was sad to read about your experience. The courage you have shown here in expressing how you felt is inspirational and I am glad that taking this step was personally meaningful to you in any case. I hope that others who feel the same way about their current or former workplaces will also express themselves effectively and provide an opportunity for positive changes to occur. Thank you for sharing this and I wish you all the best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harej, it's really a shame to hear that. I've worked at some places like that too, and it really does leave its mark on you. I hope the WMF will take this on board and worry about the conduct of its own employees and executives. We should do better than that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one of the nicest and most dedicated people in the site's history got treated so poorly is a damning indictment. I went through a similar situation as a kid and it's sad to see that that behavior is still considered acceptable that high up. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harej I'm so sorry to hear this. I can relate a little, although what I experienced wasn't nearly as bad as what you've described here. Towards the end of my time at the WMF, I felt quite unwelcome due to the actions of some people there. I tried to find a different position from the one I was in, that would distance me from those people, but was told that that was not an option that was open to me. So, my options were to put up with it, or leave. I wish I didn't feel like I needed to leave in order to preserve my mental health, but I did. In the end, it wasn't the antagonistic relationship between the paid staff and volunteers that made me leave, it was internal antagonistic relationships. It's a shame, working at a company with global impact that isn't totally driven by profit, short term thinking, and next quarter's share prices could easily be the best job in the world... but, in the end, somehow it ends up not being that different from short term profit-focussed companies anyway, and it really isn't the best job in the world at all. I hope you can begin to recover from this trauma. All the best. --Deskana (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also relate. In my case I stuck around and tried to push back against increasing attempts at marginalization and workplace bullying. It got to the point where I officially complained to HR (and in retrospect I should have used stronger wording), they eventually claimed "no evidence" but everything I asked for happened anyway, then a month or so later allowed massive retaliation. It seems to me that the management at WMF has grown pretty dysfunctional, fostering a culture where their own image and career progression is a major goal in a way that I'd associate more with cut-throat for-profit companies than with a non-profit. Anomie 13:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having the pleasure of working with you in the past, and also experiencing executive bullying at Wikimedia Foundation myself, I believe every detail of your story, and I can imagine exactly this sort of stratospheric managerial misconduct going unpunished. I don't want to dilute the conversation by giving my own opinion of how far up the organizational structure this rot extends, but let's say the Wikimedia Foundation would be a much better work environment, and would benefit even on a programmatic level, if the rank-and-file staff and community members were included in a democratic process. Hope we have another chance to work together! Adamw (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adamw I also used to work at the Wikimedia Foundation and everything you and JHare, Anomie, and Deskana have said deeply resonates with my experiences as well. I'm sorry this happened to you and I really appreciate all four of you speaking up. You can add my name to this list. Melodykramer (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, now what? @Harej, Deskana, Anomie, and Adamw:, you have all courageously come forward ... in a thread that was going to be archived in a few days. This should not be forgotten. This deserves about 1000x more attention. But where? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Suffusion of Yellow, like Jimbo's talk page maybe? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps someone can volunteer to work with editors in question to discuss what next steps they'd like to see happen? isaacl (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a February 2021 call for feedback I requested a response to Wikimedia Foundation staff shenanigans from Wikimedia Foundation board members
We need a way to collect reports of misconduct to identify problems and provide de-identified annual status reports
  • "Bullying" is an appropriate term for Wikimedia Foundation staff misconduct There is an unacceptably high rate of Wikimedia Foundation staff and consultant misconduct in the Wikimedia Movement. Where money is involved, there are paid Wikimedia Foundation representatives who violate the meta:Universal Code of Conduct and stifle free discussion about the regularity of this problem. The Wikimedia community of volunteers sets the values and ethics of our movement. However, as Wikimedia Movement goals increasingly come into conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's corporate interests, the Wikimedia Foundation is more regularly putting aside its nonprofit mission and values in favor of more desirable corporate operations for staff. The Wikimedia Foundation's normalization of misconduct is accumulating grievances and undermining community trust in the Foundation's role in the Movement. No one at the Wikimedia Foundation counts, documents, researches, reports, or will publicly discuss how frequently or how severely Wikimedia Foundation staff are reported to engage in misconduct. This failure to document leads to the consequence that every time I hear of someone reporting a complaint, the Wikimedia Foundation's response is always that they have no records of other such problems.
As a solution I will suggest that the Wikimedia community needs a way to collect reports of misconduct for a third-party researcher to de-identify, categorize, and publish so that we can establish a common knowledge and understanding of the extent to which corporate operations are conflicting with the nonprofit mission. Wikimedia Foundation staff misconduct is especially offensive because donor money sponsors it, and because vulnerability to misconduct is the consequence of the Wikimedia Foundation's lack of investment in Wikimedia community infrastructure that would have enabled the community to defend itself. As a Catholic I have great faith in the power of confession and forgiveness, and I believe that compassion can counter misconduct. Through open and transparent discussion I believe that we could effectively, inexpensively, and realistically eliminate misconduct which has negativity as its cause.
I want to clarify: the Wikimedia Foundation does not have higher rates of misconduct than typical corporations so far as I can guess about organizations with US$100+ million in annual revenue; but the normal rates of misconduct for typical organizations are much too high to tolerate in our non-profit, mission-driven, community-centered Wikimedia Movement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for speaking up, Harej, and for contributing so remarkably much in other ways. I'm sorry this happened to you! I will remember this. I'd like to help wipe out bullying at the Foundation and elsewhere. Our movement involves volunteers so it's especially important to keep things positive and supportive. -- econterms (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed but not surprised by Harej's posting. The English-language Wikipedia -- & many of the other language Wikipedias -- function acceptably well with only volunteer contributions; having a paid staff to tend to the servers is really the only requirement we have from the Foundation. Were the Foundation's activities be limited to only that, there would be little or no negative effect on Wikipedia, either short term or long. People would continue to contribute to it, people would continue to use it, & it would be about as reliable as any proprietary, for-profit encyclopedia. Not to say that we -- as well as every other project -- couldn't use more support, but that means a large share of the WMF staff are free to screw off or engage in petty office politics, because there are no metrics to show how their irresponsibility effects the projects. Here we are being shown that some are doing just that: making a living from our altruistic efforts without positively contributing. As I said, this is disappointing to read about. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Harej for sharing your experience, and I'm sorry you went through this. I'll take this chance to thank you for your work that we still leverage on WikiProjects. Thank you Deskana, Anomie, and Adamw for sharing too. It is important for the community to know that this is a long-term pattern and not just an isolated problem. Best, MarioGom (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Harej: I have admired your work for a very long time. Your technical contributions are impressive, co-founding Wikimedia DC was visionary, and I know very well how much effort running Wikimania takes. I also think of your early days with the projects and our first meeting at Wikimania every time someone asks me about people who have spent a long time on Wikipedia. All that is to say is that your work is appreciated, and you should be proud of it. I am very sorry that this happened to you. I would like our movement and core institutions to be distinguished by remarkable kindness towards all of the people who work on our projects. It often is, but in the times when it is not we have failed each other. I will think about ways to fix this kind of failure systemically. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harej, thank you for sharing your story. It is important that this is known, and it has also allowed others (e.g., 1, 2) to speak up about their experience at the Foundation, including myself. I really enjoyed working with you, as your vision and skill for Wikimedia product was exemplary, and your dedication to the projects was remarkable. I always felt very proud when you were able to move to engineering because I knew that's what you wanted, and where you really belonged. It's painful to see that you went through all this suffering and you got all this unfair treatment. You deserve better and I hope you can find healing in the near future. Sometimes it feels like I still am. I send you my love, Macruzbar (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harej, I sent you a private response but I think it’s important to share my feelings here also, in public. You are a brilliant person. Hiring you was one of the smartest decisions I made as the CTO. I am furious learning that you were treated this way. I will not blame anyone else but I do blame myself for not knowing what happened and for not protecting you. It was my job to protect you and I did not. For this I am truly sorry. I will also say that passion, brilliance and excellence shine through. You are so much bigger than these bullies, whoever they happen to be. I hope you are healing. The movement cannot succeed without people like you. Audiohazel (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media report

OpIndia has published a – factual, as far as I can see – report on this. I cannot link to it, as the site is blacklisted. --Andreas JN466 14:42, 30 June 2021 (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.

Honestly, is everyone else crazy, or is it me?

So, universally (that is, literally everyone ever except me, that I have seen) uses the {{reflist}} template as the sole contents of the "References" section and mixes the body of the refs with the article text. I use {{reflist|refs= [then all the refs inside <ref>...</ref> brackets one after the other, then the "reflist" template closed with an }}]. It's so much better. It is. So when I go to edit a section (of anybody else's page) I see like:

'''The Crab Claw''' is a<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbonline.com/articles/maryland/st-michaels/st-michaels-restaurants-mouth-watering-seafood-eateries.html |title=St. Michaels Restaurants: Mouth-Watering Seafood Eateries |author= |date= |work=Bed & Breakfast Inns Online |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> independent-owned restaurant located in [[St. Michaels, Maryland]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/restaurants/the-crab-claw,1155651.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091029142010/http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/restaurants/the-crab-claw,1155651.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 29, 2009 |title=The Crab Claw |author= |date= |work=Washington Post |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.urbanspoon.com/r/206/1051746/restaurant/Maryland/Easton/Crab-Claw-Restaurant-St-Michaelsdc |title=Crab Claw Restaurant |author= |date= |work=Urban Spoon |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://national.citysearch.com/profile/5022923/st_michaels_md/crab_claw_restaurant.html |title=Crab Claw Restaurant |author= |date= |work=Citysearch |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> They have an extensively large amount of seafood on their menu, and they are known locally for their steamed crabs. The business evolved from a clam-shucking business established in the 1950s.<ref name="roadfood">{{cite web |url=http://www.roadfood.com/Restaurant/Reviews/271/the-crab-claw |title=The Crab Claw |author= |date= |work=Roadfood |accessdate=February 25, 2011}}</ref> In 1965, they added a seafood eatery.

Whereas editing the same section in one of my articles you see:

'''The Crab Claw''' is a<ref name=Bbonline/> independent-owned restaurant located in [[St. Michaels, Maryland]].<ref name=WaPo/><refname=UrbanSpoon/><ref name=Citysearch/> They have an extensively large amount of seafood on their menu, and they are known locally for their steamed crabs. The business evolved from a clam-shucking business established in the 1950s.<ref name=Roadfood/> In 1965, they added a seafood eatery.

Boy howdy, you can read my version better can you not? By Grabthar's hammer, I can barely read the top version. What I usually do is go to thru it add a blank line before and after each ref (a hassle) so I can at least kind of figure out what is text and what is refs. And it's still a mess to work with.

With the "refs=" procedure, the details of the ref are segregated in the "References" section. I mean if you are editing, you very seldom need to know who the author of a ref is or whatever. And you very rarely want to edit an existing ref, unless you are specifically going in to fix an error (also rare, and in which case, knowing it's in the References section is maybe better anyway)

Virtually the only way you want to access an existing ref is to look at it, to check what's in it etc. You want to do that from the actual page by clicking the source's link (if there is one) which takes you directly to the source. If you're editing, you would need to pick thru the mess to find the url, copy it, open a tab, and paste in the url. Hardly any harder to jump down to the References section where it's all laid out neatly like little soldiers waiting for you command. (I usually keep a live version of the article open in a separate tab; if you're editing on your phone, I can't image that the top version above is easier to deal with tho.)

If for some reason you need to find the ref details, they're together with the other refs in the References section. It's not a lot harder to get to them, and as I said this is fairly rare. Also, if you want to look at the refs for the article generally (I suppose this is possible), there they are all together.

With the "refs=" procedure, all the refs are always named, and the contents are findable pretty easily in the References section, rather than having to comb thru the entire article to find the initial definition of the name with the ref details. This makes it much easier for writing the article, assuming you are re-using refs (which is fairly common) I also can copy in a blank ref at the bottom of the References section and bonk-bonk make a copy and fill it in when I'm adding another ref. What you guys do I can't imagine.

Great Caesar's ghost, what am I missing? All this is documented at {{reflist}} and has been since forever. I found it, why can't anyone else? I even (just once) had an admin come in and "fix" my stuff by jamming all the refs up into the article text. He'd never heard of the "refs=" method I guess.

As a programmer, it reminds me of mixing in your data with your code, which is terrible. Separate the data (the article text) from the code (the ref details). Using the "refs=" procedure, the refs are like calls to a subroutine, where the code for that subroutine is off somewhere else where it's not bothering you; you know what it does. And you can find it and look at if you want. Again, what is the downside here? (Yeah I know objects can contain code and data, but that ain't anything like the mess I'm describing here.)

I swear, I will give a crisp United States dollar to anyone who can convince me that the "refs=" method is worse, for either the writer or the editor (usually; I don't use this 100%, there are rare exceptions when it's better to use your guys's method. Rare.)

Or is just a matter of advertising this? If so, let's! "It's like discovering sex" might be a good (and accurate!) slogan.

Yr Obedient Servant, Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use the refs= method in my articles that have quite a few refs; I place them with the refname in alphabetical order so it's easier to find the definition. It's particularly useful when refs are reused several times, because I don't have to hunt to find where it's defined in the body. And I agree that it makes it easier to read the body in editing view. (adding) See Literary feud for an example; it would horrid to work on with the refs defined inline. Schazjmd (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One drawback of list-defined references is that they're not compatible with VisualEditor; if you click on a ref defined this way, you get a message that "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be edited in source mode." Additionally, if references are separated from their invocation, it's easier to get mismatches between references invoked and defined, leading to the bright red reference errors that populate Category:Pages with citation errors. This is not to say they're useless, but they're not perfect. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, I was going to disagree with

literally everyone ever except me, that I have seen

but you did add the qualifier "that I have seen" so you may be correcct.
You are referring to LDR - list defined references.
I was a big fan.
Check out Reelin and my edits on 23 October 2009.
I used that approach on many articles for a period, but I stopped.
It used to be the case that creating footnotes was one of the more challenging tasks in Wikipedia. I created a suite of tools to build them in a word processor, and I decided that if I had to build them, the LDR approach was superior.
However, the VE team finally figured out how to do references, and once it was easy to drop in a url or DOI and let VE do the work, I decided that was the better approach even it it meant that the created ref was the old format rather than LDR. Even if you have to edit the ref, it can now usually be done in VE, so you rarely have to see the gory details.
So I stopped pushing for LDR. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree, and I usually use LDRs when I create new articles. One minor downside no-one has mentioned is that, unlike inline references, LDRs entail some manual 'garbage collection'. An editor might delete the last citation of a given work without realizing it, which leaves an orphaned item in the reflist. Though this does lead to a big red 'Cite error' message after the rendered list of references, so it's pretty easily noticed and fixed. Colin M (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I avoid trying to read the "junk code" by opening two windows, one with the article text and one with the code. My PC's CTRL-F works very well for rapid navigation and checking multiple uses of a citation. --Bejnar (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Cities in the MOS or somewhere?

Hello. Sorry if this is an FAQ, stupid, etc. But ... I am pretty sure that I have seen somewhere a policy or guideline, perhaps in the MOS, that suggests that if you are writing about a well-enough-known city, such as Paris, you do not need necessarily to specify that it is Paris, France as opposed to Paris, Texas or [[Paris, Wherever]]. Initial searches have not been a success. If this still exists, can you please point me to it? Thank you. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) talks about this a bit, so perhaps that is what you were looking for? Note that our naming conventions are focused more on how we present place names in article titles than on how we present the place names in running text (in the body of an article we can often be somewhat flexible, due to provided context). Note the section on disambiguation, and also the section outlining our conventions in specific countries and areas. We are not always consistent… intentionally so. Blueboar (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Blueboar for this, and I apologize for my slow reply. It is helpful, thank you. Nevertheless I am left with the weird feeling that I did somewhere – perhaps long ago – see somewhere where it said this quite specifically. As in, it gave examples of, say, Paris or Berlin or wherever and said clearly that it was not usually necessary to specify the country, because you could assume that people knew; plus it was only a click or hover away; and perhaps just that it looks and reads hideously, at least to some of us, if you say Berlin, Germany though I do know that others like it! <g> Or maybe some of that is just wishful thinking and/or my faulty memory. But thank you again for a useful pointer. If I do ever track this thing down I will come back here and mention it. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:OVERLINK sails close to it. - X201 (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:OHTHATPARIS may be the essay you are remembering, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you X201 and Michael D. Turnbull both very much. Both help and neither are quite what I "remember" seeing though that it no guarantee that it actually exists in the form I am thinking ... maybe actually it was just a discussion on someone's own Talk page rather than a policy and in the many years I have been here I have recrafted the memory into something different! But I must say how very much I enjoyed WP:OHTHATPARIS so that is a lovely bonus, thanks. And yes, both do help in the direction I am looking. I think the rest of it may just have to be left to editors' discussion and common sense ... ermmm ... if we can find any on Wikipedia! Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do we find articles that have no files?

Hello, how do we find articles that have no files? After I tried a lot Such as: Special pages, Categories, Wikidata Query, using Regex in Wikipedia search engine, external ways and more, I found no way to show me articles that had no files used. I think we need a special page in this case. Is there any way to do so? Thanks! ⇒ AramTalk 21:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "no files"? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a specific tool, see mw:Topic:Vkht9t30wpxcw464. For pages that have been identified by editors in need of images see Category:Wikipedia requested images. — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith:, @Xaosflux: replied. Thank you very much! That discussion link on Mediawiki is very useful and led me to a lot of very good ways. Thank you again! ⇒ AramTalk 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aram Technically, quarry:query/56382 is a simple query that shows the articles with no files. However, note that this will not include any article with tags like {{unreferenced}}, {{more citations needed}}, etc since the icons on those maintenance templates count as a file. – SD0001 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: Thank you, but I think the query is not accurate because of that restriction. It may need to be edited a little bit (if it's possible) to make the results more accurate, and so it can be added to here so that other users can benefit from it. ⇒ AramTalk 20:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that has a "limit 2000" on it, the FULL results would be HUGE. — xaosflux Talk 20:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huge, as in 596538 pages. Almost one in ten pages in the main namespace. A couple clicks of Special:Randompage should suit your purpose just fine. —Cryptic 22:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic, could you filter that list to provide the top 10K (or some suitable number) based on the rating system for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team or by page views? That would tend to focus efforts on articles that are getting read more frequently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not by pageviews anymore, I think, now that cross-database joins aren't possible anymore. But quarry:query/56422 has completely-imageless articles rated Top- or High-importance by any wikiproject. Pages assessed by more than one project will have multiple entries; it's not worth the effort to cull them out. And it has the same shortcoming as SD0001's query above, though I suppose images like File:Question book-new.svg that are on particularly common templates could be filtered out if someone were to compile a list of them. —Cryptic 21:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Membership guidelines. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 10:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Getting access to deleted articles

Let us consider the situation. Some Wikipedia user wrote an article. Someone else nominated the article for removal, the nomination was discussed, and the article was removed.

As far as I understand the spirit of Wikipedia, the user should have the right to receive, if desired, the text of the deleted article - for example, for working on it in his Sandbox, or for publication on some other resource.

What should be the actions of such a user? Are there any policies/rules for getting access to deleted articles? --Perohanych (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFUND(Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion) or if you prefer most admins will e-mail you a copy if you ask them nice. If it was deleted due to consensus or because it was inappropriate then it probably won't be undeleted short of a successful deletion review. But again even in cases where it is not appropriate on Wikipedia it can be e-mailed to you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only "rights" editors have are spelled out in the terms of use, for the most part they only deal with copyright. Besides that, there are plenty of reasons to deny such as request. If you write a libelous or attack article and we delete it as such, we're generally not going to restore it for you to continue working on it. — xaosflux Talk 11:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we should elaborate some all-embracing list of such cases, like:
  • copyvio
  • libelous article
  • attack article
"Going or not going to restore" ? Probably "Should or should not restore" would sound better? --Perohanych (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A short introduction to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

Hello, I'm one of the facilitators working on Movement Strategy and Governance.

Today, we are delivering an announcement from The Elections Committee regarding the confirmed candidates for the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections. I have reproduced the announcement (below) and have also provided a brief introduction about the Board (right).

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement
Copied from original announcement (also available in other languages)

The 2021 Board of Trustees election opens 4 August 2021. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 20 candidates for the 2021 election.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are hoping to cover with new trustees.

The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. The Board is expected to afterwards select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees starting in September for a term of three years.

How can you get involved?

Learn more about the candidates

Candidates from across the movement have submitted their candidatures. Learn about each candidate to inform your vote. The community submitted questions for the candidates to answer during the campaign. Candidates will answer the list of community questions collated by the Elections Committee on Meta. In the coming weeks, candidates will have the opportunity to submit videos of themselves speaking about their candidacy.

Participate in campaign activities

The team of facilitators supporting this Board election has planned some activities for the campaign period. These activities can be found on the Board election page on Meta.

Community members are welcome and encouraged to organize activities in their own communities. We do ask that any activities intended to involve candidates remain respectful of their time, since candidacy can be very time-consuming. Please list activities you organize on the Board election page on Meta so more people can find them. Facilitators and Election Volunteers are available if you need support.

Vote

Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election opens on 4 August 2021 and closes on 17 August 2021. The Elections Committee chose Single Transferable Vote for the voting system. Learn more about voting requirements, the process, and frequently asked questions about voting.

Single Transferable Vote

This voting system allows voters to rank candidates. The benefit of this is voters can rank their choices in order of preference. This helps share your preferences more clearly than support or oppose. If your top choice candidate already has enough votes to be selected, your vote will be moved to your second choice candidate. If your top choice candidate will not win, your vote will be moved to your second choice candidate. And so on. The facilitation team came up with a fun example. More information will be coming mid-July.

Please spread the word so more people can support finding the best candidates to help guide the Wikimedia Foundation and support the needs of the movement over the next few years.

Best,

The Elections Committee

Redirects

The following redirects were undone WKPJ-LP and W10DD-D. These radio stations aren't notable and were redirected for a reason. Also WDSJ-LP and WOFB-LP had there categories restored, these radio stations aren't notable either and were redirect for a reason. Enough is enough of editors not logged in undoing redirects!Catfurball (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough when it comes to editors (logged in or not) who edit war rather than discuss things on article talk pages when they are disputed. Just talk about it rather than assume that you are right about content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove categories from redirects without reason. In many cases they should be categorised. Eurohunter (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I restored them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan situation map RFC

An RFC is undergoing about whether or not a live situation map including information apparently partly sourced to the Taliban should be used on EN Wiki. The RFC can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Commons of fictional flags and of deleting files in use on English Wikipedia

On Commonsc:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fictional_flags_-_are_they_in_scope? there is a discussion of fictional flags etc. and that include deletions of files in use in articles and on userpages on English Wikipedia. There is also a test DR c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Flag of the British Isles where it have been suggested to delete a file that is used on almost 100 userpages on English Wikipedia. That would be a change of c:COM:SCOPE where the general rule is in use = in scope. You are welcome to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiredia

I searched for something using Bing (normally use Google 95% of the time) and a website called wikiredia.com came up in search results, second or third down the page. Just wondering what this website is and does it contain malware or viruses? 158.222.185.250 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed at Wikipedia:mirrors and forks… but it is not connected to Wikipedia or any of its sister projects… so I would avoid - just to play it safe. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do fork websites like this typically contain viruses? I clicked on it by mistake because it looks so similar to Wikipedia, it's only different by one letter. 158.222.185.250 (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Movement Strategy and Governance facilitation team will be hosting round-table discussions for Wikimedians to talk together about the Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Charter, ongoing 2021 Wikimedia Foundation Board Elections, and other Movement Strategy initiatives.

The next call is 17 July 2021 at 15:00 UTC (check time). Conversations will be hosted in at least French, German, Spanish, and English.

The calls will last between 90 and 120 minutes and involve open discussions. The ideas shared during the calls will be summarized for the Wikimedia Foundation teams working on these topics.

We look forward to talking with you. Please see further details and sign up here.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today going paywall

Per https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/07/business/usa-today-paywall.html, USA Today is going to put most of their content behind a paywall. Actually, based on what I can see, it's already happened. I suspect that means we're going to have a lot of inaccessible links in references. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thay are accesible for those who paid for content. News at Nytimes is also restricted to registered users. I think free accessible sources should be preffered in articles. We can use archived versions too. Eurohunter (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Free accessible sources should be preferred only when the content can be cross-verified through reliable sources writ large. For example, if a fact is publicized by Buzzfeed and that fact is not circulated through New York Times or other reliable sources that happen to be paywalled, that does not mean we publish that fact. WaltCip-(talk) 23:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:PAYWALL this doesn't change the ability to use USA Today, just like the NYTimes is not diminished due to most of its current content being a paywall as well. --Masem (t) 05:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend archiving links to it when you can, websites like archive.is allow for paywalled content to be viewed. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good number of "paywalls" are a simple CSS/JavaScript popup overlaid over the actual article content. It's possible to dismiss the popup with an extension like Bypass Paywalls (Chrome Firefox). Doesn't work for everything obviously, YMMV. -FASTILY 23:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]