Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Discussions of proposals which do not require significant foundation attention or involvement belong at Village pump (proposals)
Discussions of bugs and routine technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
Consider developing new ideas at the Village pump (idea lab).
This page is not a place to appeal decisions about article content, which the WMF does not control (except in very rare cases); see Dispute resolution for that.
Issues that do not require project-wide attention should often be handled through Wikipedia:Contact us instead of here.
This board is not the place to report emergencies; go to Wikipedia:Emergency for that.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Meetings about misinformation with FBI, CISA, etc..

Re: https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ Are there centralized contribution pages regarding changes made that were requested by these organizations, or are any changes made by uncollated accounts? -- Jeandré, 2022-11-02t16:25z

The report says that someone from Wikipedia (which I interpret to mean WMF) spoke to US government organizations about how Wikipedia addresses misinformation. It doesn't say that any changes were made to Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging user @Jeandré:. But as TBUA said, CISA didn't ask for any edits at all from the WMF, and the WMF in turn hasn't made any disinformation edits. Intercept (who I normally like) had a rather poor article here. As well as asking how we address misinformation, the meetings also were things like "we think X might be trying to add disinformation, you guys should be aware" rather than "Remove edits a, b, c to get rid of this disinformation". Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that the Wikimedia Foundation's job ads for Disinformation specialists which started to spring up around 2020 ask for Arabic, Russian and Persian language skills (example; apparently, fighting ISIS is also part of the remit). What would interest me to know is how, to what extent and through which kinds of mechanisms WMF work in this field impacts content.

As far as I am aware, the WMF never volunteered the information that it collaborated with the Department of Homeland Security. "Government agencies" were mentioned, yes, but that is a rather unspecific term. (Corrections welcome; maybe I overlooked a disclosure somewhere.) All of this makes it very clear that Wikipedia is a U.S. project. At least I am not aware of the WMF collaborating with any other country's government in a similar way.

See also ongoing related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-08-31/In_the_media#Foundation_help_with_disinformation, where HaeB mentioned a lo-o-o-ong but notable Techdirt critique of the Intercept article. Andreas JN 466 11:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In France, big websites should write a report about fake news every year (Report of 2021). It's done by WMF (+ me and a staff member of Wikimédia France if it's more informal meetings). Pyb (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, interesting. Regards, Andreas JN 466 00:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF has also worked regarding disinformation regarding Indian and Iranian elections, and this work is not limited to the English Wikipedia (e.g. the main target of many disinformation actors relating to Iran is likely to be the Farsi Wikipedia) which is why they recruited people with knowledge of those languages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this work was coordinated with the U.S. government rather than the Indian and Iranian governments? Andreas JN 466 16:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to have been coordinated with anyone. WMF can have decided, on its own, that deliberately using Wikipedias (of any language) to spread misinformation is counter to its mission, and then it can decide, all by itself, to hire people that can help them do so. I have no idea if this is what they did, but I also didn't jump to any conclusions that they were coerced to do so or coordinated with any government to do so. The best answer is usually the one that involves the least assumptions. --Jayron 32 18:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would further add that while the WMF is headquartered in the US (and, more specifically, is incorporated in the state of Florida), it operates as a Non-governmental organization, not beholden to any government. I see no indication that the WMF would allow itself to be seen as under the influence or control of any government. Fighting misinformation arises out of the second of the five pillars, and is independent of the agenda of any government. - Donald Albury 19:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false should be raised to the status of a guideline. At the moment the second pillar says "verifiable accuracy" but points only to verifiability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I simply commented on the coincidence that for about twenty years, the WMF never hired any Disinformation specialists. But just around the time the meetings with the DHS started, it placed multiple job ads for Disinformation specialists speaking the various foreign languages mentioned.

Certainly, it could be completely unrelated and a complete coincidence, but it doesn't seem very likely to me. Andreas JN 466 20:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the earliest Functionaries emails I have saved that mention disinformation, it seems it was a minor incident during the 2020 US election campaign that made the WMF sit up and take notice. It is very clear that the initiative to learn from the incident and get processes etc in place was the WMF's own.

It seems very plausible the US government's interest originates from the same event, but this is speculation on my part.

Sorry for being vague, but the details are in document marked "Private and confidential - not for distribution" so I obviously have to be very careful what I say. It was primarily handled by Oversight and stewards and there wasn't an ANI thread or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thryduulf, I appreciate it. Was that the case described in the document shown on the right?

I still have a hard time seeing how this would have naturally segued into a specific interest in Indian and Iranian elections, as well as Arabic and Russian. That seems far more aligned with U.S. foreign policy interests. Regards, --Andreas JN 466 13:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community has had to deal with attempts by (possibly government supported or aligned) groups trying to control content in various language Wikipedias for a while, now. Simply trying to maintain the neutrality of all language Wikipedias should be enough to explain a desire to fight disinformation with more formal tools. - Donald Albury 14:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the coincidental timing and terminology. The WMF left the Croatian Wikipedia in the hands of right-wing extremists for a decade, despite community outcry ... now the belated WMF intervention in that project is held up as the first example of the Disinformation effort in the context of the WMF m:Human rights impact assessment, which is a project run by User:RGaines (WMF), who says on his user page, Prior to joining the Wikimedia Foundation, I worked at the US Department of State leading a portfolio of foreign assistance programs. Andreas JN 466 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of government alignment, I recall that as far back as 2012, Hillary Clinton sent Richard Boly to Wikimania. Boly was then in charge of "an ambitious State Department initiative that uses social media and online platforms to change the way employees communicate and reach outside their boundaries to advance U.S. foreign policy interests.

There is a video of his Wikimania address on YouTube. The whole thing was part of a Tech@State: "Wiki.Gov" initiative. (More about this here.)

So I have some sympathy for people living outside the U.S. harbouring suspicions that Wikipedia is essentially aligned with, or infiltrated by, the U.S. government.

I love the U.S. but I'd much rather see Wikipedia clearly aligned with the U.N. than aligned with any national interest. I think it is more compatible with the NPOV idea and would enable Wikipedia to make a more effective contribution to international understanding. Andreas JN 466 15:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, see Slate article published today: No, Wikipedia Is Not Colluding With DHS --Andreas JN 466 22:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening this topic up again, on a broader level in some ways, and much narrower in others.

Firstly addressing some of the above the CIA asking what is done to prevent x or y, is not the same as them saying we do x, y and z. Highlighting the issue and actively trying to counter them are two separate things, the Intercept article, probably gave as much detail as they knew and the sources would not give specific examples as then actors would know they may be compromised.

Next, I agree with most of the above and in these times there are 6 or more States (Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, India and Pakistan) that may want to or are already actively engaged in or pursuing such activities. The counter is wiki is heavily populated with western editors that can reverse most of the blatant propaganda.

However, the clever Russian web brigades are not necessarily blatant, and I believe are active today on wiki en and possibly other wiki's, using standard Russian political techniques of telling verifiable truth e.g. the partial truth, obfuscations (e.g. mixing NPOV, verifiability with propaganda even if on a otherwise RS, a deliberate confusion over contentious and controversial, one needs great sourcing, the other should have as well but not so much and can be tagged with a cn tag, the other conflicts with your view), brigade level tactic i.e. many editors agree or oppose as required certain items, removal of content when a cn tag is much more appropriate or additions and much more.

So, to the crux of my post, have we implemented any direct counter or mitigation to this type of activity, whether US, Russia or even little ol NZ (I know we are actively trying to influence), identifying and restricting these accounts in some manner, possibly with some subtly, such as tasking good users to report them, conducting a review and blocking for a week, restricting topics they can edit and see if they disappear, checking locations or VPN use, verifying the same, rechecking SHA, double checking edits for suspicious locations or VPN etc, obviously I have not covered even 10% of possible mitigation or identification methods of such actors and any methodology to combat should probably not be revealed in any public forum, however, at this time I cannot see any and there are far to numerous to mention Russian, Ukrainian and other articles going into various disputes on the talk pages where the tactics above are prevelant. Thoughts2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WMF-Enwiki Communication Venue

One of the issues in the Enwiki-WMF relationship is the lack of communication. A step towards addressing this would be to make this page a formal communication venue, which would require the WMF to commit to posting all communications here, as well as to monitor this page for communications from Enwiki and respond as appropriate.

Requesting this is difficult, because as far as I am aware there is neither a venue to make such a request in nor a contact person to make such a request to, and so instead I am floating the idea here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the note of whom to contact, your best bet is probably community relations? As always, happy to poke people or ask the question internally — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to centralize enwiki-WMF communications here. It'd be good to get a commitment from key people to try to post WMF related correspondence here, instead of at the other Village Pumps. I feel that Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72#Banners and changes at the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72#Join the Movement Charter Regional Conversation Hours, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72#WMF English fundraising campaign update and example banners should have been posted here instead. I also feel it's very important for the WMF to advertise important things going on on metawiki here, so that enwiki is able to participate and doesn't end up out of the loop. Could we perhaps get a notice and/or editnotice placed on WP:VPM stating that WMF related communications should go here instead? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate a bit, I like the idea of a board (this board) where major things going on at the WMF and on meta can be posted, and folks can watchlist it and not miss out on anything big. The fact that this board has a reputation for "complaining" and negativity isn't a good argument for shutting down the board, in my opinion. If anything, it's a good argument for the WMF to assign some community relations folks to watch this board and try to improve relations with enwiki. Community tension with the WMF could be significantly reduced with better WMF communication, and in my personal opinion, that starts with posting big happenings to this board (very early in the process, when we still have a chance to participate in it) instead of surprising us. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having a board be hostile towards some of the intended users is a problem that needs addressing and in my view it's not a problem for WMF employees to solve. It's a problem for us volunteers to solve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comments on the talk page earlier this year I don't think this board should be the place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be one place, even if it's for a one-line "There is an announcement about Foo at WP:BAR#Foo". This page is an obvious place, and I've been posting such signposts here, but somewhere else would work as long as everyone is (literally) on the same page. Certes (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Staff are invited here, however we can post important issues ourselves. We use this page for our discussions and run RFCs as necessary. The WMF's is too often unwilling/unable to constructively address an issue until it hits the final crisis stage. We can't force the WMF to do better, but *we* can try to do better. We can catch issues early, and when appropriate, establish consensus much earlier in the process. Alsee (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my offwiki discussions with folks, it is my understanding that most Foundation staff who are aware of this board view this as the place where volunteers discuss (ie. complain about) the Foundation. What we need is to reform this board and make it more like WP:AC/N (with staff and certain volunteers with official announcements as the arbcom basically). We're as far away from that as possible right now (with this board acting more like WT:AC/N). That's what I want out of this board, and if we aren't going to get that we're probably just going to keep running into this situation. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A model of "announcements only with discussion on the talk page" is an interesting one. I think there might be some value (at least initially) of allowing both community and foundation to make such announcements (perhaps with some reverting mechanism for community adds ala WP:CENT). That's a legitimately intriguing idea to try compared to what had been my preference to just shut it down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 make it like ACN, announcements here, discussion on talk. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they're true announcements, then I'm fine with the community getting to make announcements, too. If we actually do this, and people try to use the board for their own comments/complaints/concerns, then I'm going to revert them as fast as a non-arb trying to post to WP:AC/N (lol). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are interested in the history of this forum, go read Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 168#Proposal: New Village Pump Page. BTW, Alsee did you ever get your bottle? SilkTork what did you send them? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this thread is about encouraging or requiring WMF to use this forum in the spirit in which it was intended is to me a sign that WMF have not engaged. However, I do feel that the WMF response to objections raised regarding the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been encouraging, and I wish for more such collaboration moving forward, though preferably not under the threats of civil action which prompted that collaboration. If WMF and the Wikipedia community were able to work positively together without hostility or suspicion, then everyone would benefit. SilkTork (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's not the only recent major collaboration between community and the foundation. We also have the Vector piece. I would rate that also as a mixed bag but a net positive for collaboration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the tone of community comments on the fundraising subpage (and it was the same at the Vector subpage), I am not hopeful about the prospects of reform. I don't see how we can have meaningful engagement in an environment where anyone can write a pointed diatribe at any time. This of course could be said about every talk page on Wikipedia (and about 20% of my comments). Levivich (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Book Library

Z-lib's death got me thnking: I'm going out on a limb, but integrating a proper book library into the Wikipedia Library may be the highest-impact the WMF can do to promote article quality. There's a night-and-day difference between articles that are based on books, and those that are based on web sources. I know archive.org has a small number of books they allow users to borrow for free; but a true free book library (with DRM, time-limited borrowing, and all the necessary compromises), enabled by deals with book publishers, may be the single best thing the WMF can spend its money on. Publishers may find it benefitial too, since their books will be "promoted" all over Wikipedia.

This would certainly be nice, and would likely assuage the community's concerns about the WMF's ample resources. I'm sure it would also help the Women in Red project quite a bit, due to biases in what's available online. DFlhb (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea. One problem I see is that publishers are quite protective of their income stream from books. While libraries can check out e-books to patrons, the publishers are limiting how many times a given copy of an e-book may be checked out (their justification is that a paper copy of a book will become unusable after that number of times checked out). If the allowed number of check-outs is reached, the library has to either withdraw the e-book, or buy another license. Unless Wikipedia can convince publishers to adopt a less restrictive policy on borrowing e-books, that could become quite expensive, especially as Wikipedia would not be able to predict how often readers would click on a link to verify citations to a few pages, which would be counted as one of the limited number of borrowings allowed. Donald Albury 19:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a troubling area. On the one hand, it's great that information is on line. On the other hand, we're at the point where so much information is on line that people can manage without ever looking beyond that. If I were the owner of On Line Content, Inc, I'd be ecstatic that we'd cornered the market and made our competitors irrelevant. But, that's not how I feel. I'm horrified that there's so much information which is sequestered away, hoarded by the owners who insist on restricting access to it. It's a lose-lose situation. The world doesn't get the benefit of the information. And the owner isn't getting any benefit either because nobody's paying the fees they demand. So, the old book or photo or whatever sits in some storage room somewhere until the rats eat it or it eventually goes into a dumpster because the owner doesn't want to pay to store it any more. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing a few chinks in publishers' armor. I recently found on-line a book from an academic press that was out of print. The author still held the copyright on the text, and the original electronic files he had submitted to the publisher. The press was not interested in reprinting the book, so he issued it as a free e-book. I'm also seeing academic authors posting on-line articles and book chapters that were published 10 or 20 years ago. Once books go out of print, there are no further royalties (if there ever were) for the authors, and many in academia seem more interested in having their work available than in trying to generate income from it. On the other hand, I see publishers of journals charging high fees for access to articles that are available for free elsewhere on-line. Donald Albury 22:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many are being reprinted, either in whole or part, on websites like academia.edu for free (as in beer). The problem is that unless you upgrade to paid access -- or know exactly what you're looking for -- the hunt can be long & tedious to find what you want. -- llywrch (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cancelled my paid membership in academia.edu after a year. I'm adding links to potential sources far faster than I can use them. Donald Albury 01:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who would have thought the memex would be stopped not by technological limitations, but by a dumb publishing business model.

I still think publishers could be strongly incentivized to participate, if well-negotiated: restrict it to extended-confirmed editors, so that only a small fraction of editors have access and Wikipedia readers still need to buy these books to read them; and heavily emphasize that these books' prominence in Wikipedia might help their sales, and wouldn't be very different from a university library. It's quite common for universities to allow students to check out digital books, too. Frankly, the WMF should be able to secure corporate and government help in funding this, so they wouldn't bear those costs alone. I doubt the proposal is that unrealistic, it just needs a leader with a good vision, some guts, and good negotiation skills to make it real. DFlhb (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming updates to the terms of use

Original post on Wikimedia-l. Consultations will begin in February for an update to the terms of use, with planned changes including:

Universal Code of Conduct
CC BY-SA 4.0
Complying with the European Digital Services Act

The terms of use were last updated in 2015. I have no opinion on these changes yet, but I plan to try to post interesting WMF-related things here more as I run across them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mailing list email in question is also visible at m:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department/2023 ToU updates. The legal team says it will post updates on this page and use it for consultation. isaacl (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF botched the process for the Code, botched the Code itself, has never even sought community approval of the code, failed to get consensus for the proposed Code-enforcement, and the Foundation is going back to their old habits of trying of just steamrolling forwards their assigned work with complete disregard for the fact that they failed 4 step ago. If they want an enforceable Code, if they want to add a Code to the Terms of Service, they have to go back and develop a new Code with actual community consensus. Alsee (talk) 21:07, 14 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]

Vote for your favourite Wikimedia sound logo

Voting in the Wikimedia sound logo contest has started. From December 6 to 19, 2022, please play a part and help chose the sound that will identify Wikimedia content on audio devices. Learn more on Diff.

The sound logo team is grateful to everyone who participated in this global contest. We received 3,235 submissions from 2,094 participants in 135 countries. We are incredibly grateful to the team of volunteer screeners and the selection committee who, among others, helped bring us to where we are today. It is now up to Wikimedia to choose the Sound Of All Human Knowledge.

Best wishes, Arupako-WMF (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is wmf having another fundraising drive at the moment?

when I came to the main page just now, without logging in first, I saw a large banner announcing a fundraising drive for the WMF. it was a message from Jimmy Wales. is the WMF currently posting banners for fundraising? I thought there had been some community discussion in the past about that. Sm8900 (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was, at Wikipedia:Fundraising/2022 banners. In the end, the community and the WMF agreed on some re-worded banners. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current banner campaign runs from 29 Nov to 31 Dec. Banners in other countries and e-mail campaigns run at various times of year. Certes (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uh-huh. one question... What's the relevance of asking for "two dollars"? ...click the preceding link to see my full thoughts on this topic. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]