Wikipedia:Village pump (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, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

Could Wikipedia sue Neri Oxman?

As I ask in my post, does anyone know if Wikipedia/Wikimedia has ever sued someone for copyright infringement? Reagle (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia/Wikimedia cannot sue anyone for copyright infringement because it does not own the copyright for its content. Ruslik_Zero 19:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right unless the Vizio case changes things. Reagle (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point? While it is technically possible, and not very uncommon, to CI WP-text, it is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Funny you should mention that. I was at a talk this past weekend when I saw one of my own photos pop up on the screen, unattributed. They had obviously downloaded it from commons. For a moment I thought about pointing out to them that by failing to honor the "BY" part of CC-BY-SA, that had violated my copyright, but I behaved myself. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly prefer to use CC images in my slide decks (as a professor) and always link to the original image or have a credits slide (if the image is a background and can't be clicked on). I've assumed that's "reasonable" but not sure if that has been adjudicated? Reagle (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point would be akin to @RoySmith's case. Some people contribute to Wikipedia with the expectation that the license will be abided by. In any case, it doesn't sound like a copyright infringement ''of'' Wikipedia content has ever been litigated. Reagle (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems very confused. In the first paragraph it says, "Neri Oxman plagiarized from and violated Wikipedia’s copyright", but later says, "users retain their copyright, rather than assigning or transferring it to the Wikimedia Foundation". The latter is correct, so individual users could potentially sue, but not "Wikipedia", by which I assume the article means the Wikimedia Foundation. Even so it would be very difficult to show any loss, so, if I was a lawyer, I would advise against suing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably get the minimum statutory damages, which in the US is US$750 per infringed work,[1] as long as the work isn't online. If it's only online, you'd send a DMCA takedown message and get nothing. See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter and Wikipedia:Standard CC BY-SA violation letter if you ever find yourself wanting to start that process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I've noticed someone using content I added to Wikipedia without attribution, I notified the administrator of the Facebook group and it was taken down. Anything beyond that seemed to require more effort than it was worth. Donald Albury 14:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those violation letters. From their existence, I presume they have been sent, but the cases were low visibility and little has gone before a court -- unlike some of the free software cases. Reagle (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UK GDPR issue came up in AfD, unsure where to head next

Hello, the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussion for Lynn Murray [2] has mentioned that the subject of the article has asked that we delete her page under section 17 of the UK's GDPR law. What are the next steps to follow? I'm unsure where to ask this, the Village Pump seemed like the best place to start. I'm an editor involved in AfD, but not an admin if that helps. Feel free to respond here or in the AfD I've linked. Thank you. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone has already pointed out, Wikimedia is a US entity operating under California/US law. To my knowledge, they don't appear to publicly talk much about GDPR. That said, the contact point is listed at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Legal department (you'll probably want legal@). A couple of other observations: IMDB gives a recent acting role in 2020, and there's some links on the talk page to her (presumably self-published and presumably recent) profiles, both of which give me certain doubts. That said, BLPREQUESTDELETE is generally honoured in marginal cases such as this, so you might want to see how that plays out before anything else. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts:

Someone needs to read Right to be forgotten. As I understand it, "____ is a Scottish actor" is not generally considered private information by anyone.
Have you heard of the Streisand effect? Page views are up.

(I'm not sure that we need an article about this person.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia is a US entity operating under California/US law According to the EU, the GDPR is extra-territorial in scope, and applies to any data processor who handles information on EU citizens. Despite Brexit, the data of UK citizens would still be in scope of GDPR compliance as it's not yet repealed it. The Foundation itself maintains a presence in Ireland and the UK for GDPR compliance, though whether that's only for the personal data of editors is unclear from the privacy policy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Designing a new Wishlist: Meet Jack, the new Lead Community Tech Manager

Hello community, I want to introduce Jack Wheeler, who has recently joined the Wikimedia Foundation as the Lead Community Tech Manager and is responsible for the Future of the Wishlist.

Jack would like to have a conversation with the community, to get input for the design of the new Wishlist Survey, starting with how to define a "Wish."

Community Tech would appreciate you chatting with him; your input will be invaluable.

You can check out Jack's first message to the community, where you can find a link to proceed to book time to talk to him, or share your ideas.

Best regards,

On behalf of the Community Tech team, STei (WMF) (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking:2024 February 2024 Update from Maryana

Hey all,

I'm following up on the recent request for conversation in the virtual learning and sharing tour, Talking: 2024. Maryana has an update sharing some highlights so far. It has been shared on Diff, Meta-wiki, and wikimedia-l.

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to draftify an article that's already been draftified

I went to draftify Miss USA 2024, a new, un-patrolled article with a single press release as a source. I could not, as Draft:Miss USA 2024 already exists. I'm not sure what to do about this. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the mainspace article is an obvious copyright violation of the draft, so it should be tagged with WP:G12. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:G12 work on WP:CWWs? I think the way that's usually handled is a null edit adding attribution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFTOBJECT suggests that we can't double draftify (Draft:Miss USA 2024 was also draftified), so maybe it should go to AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'm trying G12 first. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G12 does not apply here as it says public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion - the correct thing to do would have been too request a history merge of the draft to the article and then list it at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new article and the draft only share about a paragraph, and have significant other differences, perhaps making a history merge not a perfect solution here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this was solved by a quick redirect, which I think is fine.

I do hope that the decision wasn't based on the sources already cited in the article, as WP:NEXIST is still technically the rule, and a quick search finds sources like this one (300 words directly about the pageant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heitor Villa-Lobos Suite Populaire Bresilienne

In addition to Kraft and Zigante, Julian Bream recorded four movements of the Suite in 1978. The recording is principally of the 12 Etudes. If possible this should be included in the article. 2A00:23C5:7F92:A801:E1AE:DFCC:23F4:D34E (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of comments should be placed on the article talk page. Which article? When I figure out which article, I can help you find its talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Suite_populaire_brésilienne#Recordings. The IP is right about Bream. It's absence may be because the section currently only seems to include recordings of the complete 1948 suite (W020). Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2024: We are back!

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, dear Wikipedians!

Wikimedia Ukraine, in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine and Ukrainian Institute, has launched the forth edition of writing challenge "Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month", which lasts from 1st until 31st March 2024. The campaign is dedicated to famous Ukrainian artists of cinema, music, literature, architecture, design and cultural phenomena of Ukraine that are now part of world heritage. We accept contribution in every language! The most active contesters will receive prizes.

We invite you to take part and help us improve the coverage of Ukrainian culture on Wikipedia in your language! Also, we plan to set up a banner to notify users of the possibility to participate in such a challenge! ValentynNefedov (WMUA) (talk)

An admirable goal, to be sure, but I'm not sure I like the precedent set by the WMF cozying up to government ministries, no matter where they are. (in cooperation with the MFA of Ukraine) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra, Wikimedia Ukraine is not the same as Wikimedia Foundation. Chapters are independent corporations registered in their home country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on Narendra Modi Talk page

Join the ongoing discussion on Talk:Narendra Modi#"Request for Comment" Thanks BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a re-direct deleted

How do I go about getting 2024 District of Columbia Democratic primary deleted? As it's now (via a mistake I made) a re-direct to a re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t you just edit it so it points to the appropriate article section? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot will be along soon to fix the redirect to point directly to its target's target 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Primaries and caucus calendar. There's no need to delete it. However, if you wish, you can fix it manually yourself or add a {{g7}} (or {{Db-error}}) tag requesting deletion. Certes (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{Db-error}}, to make certain it gets deleted. Thanks for the help, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Redirects Project

I've made a tool at toolforge:missingredirectsproject for creating suggested redirects. I'd appreciate it if anyone's willing to try it out and give me some feedback. — Qwerfjkl talk 17:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

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

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notice, appearance

Maybe I'm only noticing it now. But every time I edit a page, a copyright notice appears at the top. Is this something new, Wikipedia has added? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing this too, but did not see any discussion of the change. Certes (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been there forever. It previously said this:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.

The primary change made was to put it in colored box, presumably in an effort to reduce banner blindness (which is obviously happening, since you didn't remember seeing it during your last ~400,000 edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder - Wikimedia Foundation South Africa banner fundraising community call tomorrow

Dear all,

As mentioned earlier, we will be hosting a community call tomorrow where you can bring your questions and comments around the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign to.

The call details can be found on the community collaboration page.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Best, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When is an RfC inappropriate?

I've been spectating (and occasionally commenting) on a disagreement between Peter Isotalo, the main author of Vasa (ship), and ThoughtIdRetired. The article doesn't separate explanatory footnotes from citations. ThoughtIdRetired thinks it would be better to do so; Peter disagrees. After posting in several places about the general issue (e.g. on CITE, on the Ships project, and on CITE again, ThoughtIdRetired has opened an RfC at Talk:Vasa (ship), asking if the explanatory footnotes should be separated.

I agree with ThoughtIdRetired that it would be better to separate them, but the RfC bothers me because of the conflict between the idea of bringing in outside views, and the goal of MOS:VAR, which (like the related WP:CITEVAR and MOS:RETAIN) have the goal of avoiding having these discussions in the first place. I won't paraphrase all of MOS:VAR, but the thrust is: don't make changes you can't get consensus for. However, what if the question is raised via RfC? That will always bring in some editors who are not involved in the article via the feedback service, and may bring more in if the usual practice of e.g. posting at related WikiProjects is followed. When a minority position that is supposed to be protected by VAR or RETAIN is exposed to enough other opinions, by virtue of being a minority position it is likely to be overridden. This seems like a bad outcome to me: it means that if an editor strongly dislikes a minority-preferred style in an article they work on, they may be able to override the local consensus by creating an RfC. And we know from experience that forcing a style change on the main editor of an article is a very emotive thing to do. That's why those VAR and RETAIN guidelines exist.

I want to stress that I actually agree with ThoughtIdRetired on the style issue itself. I've !voted in that RfC for the option I would not use myself, because I think MOS:VAR and its cousins are more important. I don't see anything in our guidelines that implies ThoughtIdRetired was wrong to start the RfC, but it seems an illogical result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'outside' editors can read the MOS just like the in-group. Trust in the consensus-forming process, I'd say. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we frown upon editors opening multiple discussions about the same issue at multiple venues at the same time. It smacks of “forum shopping”. That said, sometimes a discussion does need more participation from a wider audience, and the RFC process is a great way to achieve that. Where you HOLD the RFC does not really matter (since they are all centrally listed, and LOTS of editors watch that list). The key is… if an RFC is opened, STOP discussing it elsewhere and focus on the RFC. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't help in this case, but personally I'd like some limit (time or # of edits, or both) on new editors starting RfCs. I saw one recently (it may come to me) of an editor launching one on I think day 4 of his editing. He was firmly sat on, but it wasted a good deal of time. The Vasa (ship) one should have been a general one on a policy page, not just at one article. ThoughtIdRetired is one of those editors who has been going round imposing his personal stylistic whims on various articles, in breach of various policies (WP:CITEVAR etc) that don't mandate a particular way of doing things. We should be firmer in stopping this. Many relatively new editors seem to think this is ok, or even useful. It isn't. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, RfCs are heavyweight processes not to be used lightly. I know @WhatamIdoing has been trying to raise awareness of this. Bon courage (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is… it doesn’t NEED to be a heavyweight process. The original point of RFC was simply to have a way to request comments and get input from outside editors. It wasn’t always limited to dispute resolution. We used to use the RFC process to generate ideas, and help us think “outside the box”. Questions were sometimes phrased in a more open ended and flexible way. Sadly, in more recent years, it has grown into a bureaucratic process, focused purely on dispute resolution… with questions too often phrased to obtain “judgement” between limited options: X vs Y (or worse: X vs Not X). Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bon courage is correct that I oppose individuals running multiple RFCs at the same time. We added information (think "facts", not "rules") about this in a box at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page a while ago. Between providing that information and the community banning two editors who had been running large numbers of simultaneous RFCs at a time, we haven't really had any problems with it since then. (Brand-new editors almost never start RFCs, and we don't get many complaints about the RFCs that they do start.)

The idea that people shouldn't use RFC for every little thing has been the subject of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment off and on. It usually appears in the form of someone recommending that WP:RFCBEFORE be a reason to summarily remove or invalidate an RFC. Upon investigation, one frequently finds that the objecting editors feel like they're "losing" the RFC (scare quotes, because it is my belief that everybody wins when a dispute gets resolved). One doesn't want RFCs when they add no value (e.g., if a quick note on the talk page would have quickly resulted in agreement with your idea), but one also doesn't want to avoid RFC out of the fear that a dispute hasn't gotten bad enough yet to warrant it.

I agree with Blueboar that RFC doesn't need to be a heavyweight process. I think there are two practical things that individual editors can do that would reduce it seeming that way:
First, don't claim that the results are binding (WP:Consensus can change, even after an RFC) or otherwise elevate the importance of the RFC process. Most discussions at RFC are about quite ordinary disputes in ordinary articles, many of which are really requests for opinions rather than the next escalation of a fight between mortal enemies. RFC is an advertising mechanism for ordinary, consensus-oriented talk-page discussions. It is not an epic boss level in which disputants fight for the prize of eternal article content. Treat it like a noticeboard for a semi-random selection of ordinary discussions. All the ordinary rules apply.

Second, don't encourage voting behaviors. Don't set up separate sections for voting and discussion (almost no RFCs benefit from this), or if you do, put the ===Discussion=== first. Do reply to a couple of people, especially if you can ask any clarifying questions. Make it easy for them to have an actual discussion. Ask open-ended questions like "Are there any options we haven't considered?" or "Do you happen to remember a good example of that?" Say things like "I wonder if we could find a compromise that would both incorporate his suggestion and also her idea" or "That's an important point that I hadn't thought of before". The important point isn't the bolded support/oppose labels; the important point is engaging with people's thoughts.

I think some of the feeling about RFCs being heavyweight are because, on average, we are more likely to participate in the biggest RFCs than in the many small ones. This tends to skew our perception (e.g., to believing that RFCs normally get responses from dozens of editors).

Blueboar, I deserve at least some of the blame for the rise of binary questions, as my attempt years ago to discourage vague questions ("What do you think of this article?") was too extreme. We adjusted the examples a while ago, but WP:Nobody reads the directions, and the effects will persist for years to come. I feel like we are making a little bit of progress on that front, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the RFCs in a contentious topic area I edit in regularly if there is no separate discussion/survey section what often happens is the same people who had been in dispute continue the argument with great length and vehemence in the survey section. And what I have found is that when when an RFC that looks like sharks fighting with each other in the deep water outside perspectives end up being limited. So I get the idea of focusing more on discussion, but often times the dispute has been intractable and the discussions long-winded and so heated that uninvolved parties would rather avoid it then help solve the dispute. nableezy - 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The approach occasionally used at AN for that problem is to have separate sub-sections for ===Previously involved=== and ===Previously uninvolved editors===. If you decide to try that out some time, I'd suggest putting the uninvolved editors first, and maybe naming the people who belong in the second category ('cause I'm not really involved; I've only posted a hundred comments about this). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike, this RFC boils down to interpretation of policy, not the minutiae of a 17th century warship.

If this is a discussion that matters, the RFC belongs in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or something like it. There's no benefit to either the article or the community to have the discussion on an article talkpage. Peter ^Isotalo 20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as though I need to answer some of the points raised above.

Firstly, the RfC was not my idea. It was suggested by the editor who provided a third opinion[3]. As you can see, the third opinion was not my idea either.
I had some reluctance to get involved in the escalation of an RfC, but there seemed little alternative but to follow the advice of the third opinion. Rightly or wrongly, I listened to the advice of another editor on this[4]. Looking back at that link, I possibly was too polite and accommodating with the tone of my reply, because I did feel boxed into a corner with the whole thing.
The primary original point raised at the article focused on the non-use of templates for referencing, so losing out on the functionality that is so useful in an article with short form referencing.[5] This met a lot of resistance from the major editor of the article, so I decided that idea was going nowhere. Then they stated that So you can apply templates and still respect WP:CITEVAR..[6] That seemed to be an OK to use sfn referencing templates (what else can that mean?). Strangely, after a while, that same editor has now installed templates on most, if not all of the article's references, changing the sfns to harvnbs.
Before I started editing the article[7], it had three usages of {{efn}}, installed by different editors. Rightly or wrongly, I took this as a level of consensus that a separate notes section should exist in the article. I believe that what precipitated the removal of all {{efn}}s was my use of them.
The whole purpose of seeking agreement to use a separate notes section is driven by the type (and quantity) of content with which the article should now be updated. This need did not exist before late 2023. It does now.
I do get the feeling that WP:FAOWN is actually a barrier to improving this particular article – perhaps a touch of "not invented here" syndrome. I appreciate that FA enthusiasts will not like that idea. However all I can say is what I feel, which is that the major editor of the article simply does not want opinions that seek to improve the article. That is more than just the notes style – it includes the reaction to flagging of missing citations and failed verifications. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThoughtIdRetired: I apologize if I nudged you in a direction you didn't want to go. My goal was to offer assistance, not pressure.

I'm seeing a recurring theme in this episode in which editors imply that WP:FAOWN says something very different than what it actually says. We should do one of two things: either follow the policy as written, or update the policy to align with our actual practice.

@Mike Christie: MOS:VAR doesn't say an existing style shouldn't be changed: it says to seek consensus first (effectively, carving it out from WP:BOLD especially for widespread actions). The article talk page is the correct place to determine if there is consensus for a style change, and a RfC is a reasonable tool to use to develop that consensus. !Voting against your stylistic preference in the RfC because of MOS:VAR seems oddly circular to me. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem circular to me -- I think MOS:VAR is important, and I think the RfC is against the spirit (though perhaps not the letter, which is why I started this thread) of MOS:VAR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the first part: MOS:VAR is important. We disagree on the second part: in my opinion, starting a RfC to determine if there is consensus for a style change is precisely within the spirit of MOS:VAR. What makes more sense than using a consensus-building tool to determine where consensus lies? VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we disagree on what community MOS:VAR implies should be reaching consensus. I think it should be the editors working on that article, without the need for an RfC (per the comments above about it being a heavyweight tool). You (and many others) think it's anyone who wishes to answer the RfC, which will reach many editors with no interest in the page itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: no need for apology. My failure to fully express what I was thinking at the time is entirely my responsibility. The key point is that this was an unstoppable train the moment it went to a third opinion. And however this ends, it is hard to see any other way of reaching a conclusion – presuming that is actually possible. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: In this case the mechanics of achieving a consensus in the article was limited by the numbers of editors in that article willing to express an opinion. (Unfortunately the other users of a separate notes section had fled the scene.) When you have only two people and two different viewpoints, in-article consensus is never going to work. The only recourse is to go outside the article. Perhaps there are other solutions, but I don't know what they are. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:VAR says If a discussion does not result in consensus for the change at the article, continue to use the already-established style there. That's what I feel should have happened. There's no requirement in any discussion to keep expanding the audience till a decision emerges; we all have to deal with "no consensus" every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a discussion between two editors can reach agreement, but never consensus. For a consensus you need a minimum of three (and even then, it would be a very weak consensus). Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: our policy at WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS specifically mentions RfCs as a way to achieve consensus. A little later in that policy it mentions When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions, then again specifically mentions RfCs. This makes me feel like policy is at odds with the opinion of I think it should be the editors working on that article. Universally on Wikipedia (and I am shifting to speaking from my experience here rather than quoting policy), consensus is formed from discussion amongst those present. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in Residence: is this a way around conflict of interest rules?

I was alerted to the existence of this Wikipedia in residence page sponsored by a library at Brigham Young University. As far as I can tell, the only people who are eligible to participate in the programs sponsored here are those who are in good standing with the LDS Church. This seems to be somewhat in contradiction to long-standing Wikipedia policies against that sort of coordinated editing (see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology for the long history of these sorts of problems). From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Should such a WiR program exist? What should be done?

I thought of maybe bringing that page to WP:AfD, but likely that's not the right thing to do. This seems pretty concerning to me. Anyone else?

jps (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:GLAM is not exactly the same as Wikipedia:Wikipedian in Residence, although there are some Wikipedians in Residence involved in that program. Do you see anything that says the students actually have to be "in good standing with the LDS Church", or are you just assuming that since most students at Brigham Young University do belong to the LDS church, that all of them do? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is allowed to be active at that library who is not in good standing as such. See the academic freedom policy for BYU. In effect, anyone who would adopt a critical lens towards the LDS faith would not be allowed to work at the library. jps (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. Do you have something more directly relevant, like a job posting that says "By the way, if you're a student here but not actually in good standing with the church, then we won't hire you"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be expelled if you left the church[8], presumably that would end any student employment. Note that as a private organization discriminating on the basis of religion is not illegal (at least not in the US). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, as that link says, they also have non-LDS students enrolled. Is there any reason to believe the non-LDS students are prohibited from getting this campus job? (One expects student jobs to be limited to students.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anything which suggests that non-LDS students at BYU have any more academic freedom than LDS ones. That would be one difference between this program and almost every other related program... They are at institutions which respect basic academic freedoms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-LDS students are subject to the same rules as LDS students and include maintaining Ecclesiastical Endorsement to maintain their standing. [9] It is true that one may obtain such an endorsement from a limited list of alternate ecclesiastical authorities, but an atheist, for example, is not allowed to attend BYU. Nor would a black tea drinker for that matter. jps (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also have a policy against illegal discrimination in employment. But it is perfectly legal for them, as a religious institution, to deny people roles in the institution due to failing religious tests, of course. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, that is only true if the role has some sort of religious component to it. A religious organization can require (e.g.,) a teacher to belong to their religion because of the Ministerial exception, but it can't require the same from a janitor. The low-level staff only have to avoid subverting the employer's goals (e.g., no telling the students that the religion is wrong while you're mopping the floor, no sneaking prohibited food into the cafeteria, etc.). It is unlikely that a student hired to post information about what's in the library would be considered a religious minister. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Beast in 2015 ran a story that included the claim that if a student loses their ecclesiastical endorsement, they will lose their campus job. "Without [ecclesiastical endorsement], they would be expelled. The university would initiate proceedings to terminate their campus jobs." Looks like a religious test to me. jps (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK expelled students are not expected to keep holding their student jobs at any university.

From what I read on their website, students can and do get the ecclesiastical endorsement without belonging to the LDS church. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have to belong to some church that is recognized as legitimate by BYU, convince the local LDS bishop to give them an endorsement, or get the endorsement from the BYU chaplain. Those are the only other options. That's a religious test plain and simple. jps (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that the library as a resource intentionally censors sources that are not in line with the above policy at the discretion of an opaque process: [10] This looks like a book-banning form to me. jps (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read "the Library must also make materials available that some may find trivial, challenging, or offensive" in exactly the opposite way: Here's a handy complaint form, but don't get your hopes up about us removing a book just because you find it unimportant, difficult, or offensive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of other examples of libraries with complaint forms of this sort? The plain text read is that they consider removing offensive material from circulation. An alternative would be to say, "We do not censor materials due to some finding them trivial, challenging, or offensive." That's what I would expect for a library committed to the free exchange of knowledge, for example. jps (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very standard-looking US library complaint form. Such complaint forms are intended, as WhatamIdoing indicates, to channel complaints into a bureaucratic process that primarily exists as a paper trail for the librarians to justify to review boards their decisions to not withdraw an item, forcing complaints to make specific objections that can be refuted and dismissed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that standard-looking US library complaint forms include: "The Library intentionally collects materials that strengthen faith and promote spiritual development (D&C 88:118)" as the lead-in sentence to the form? jps (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd honestly glanced past that and assumed it was quoting the library's collection development policy, which would be a very normal thing to include in such a form irrespective of however weird the collection development policy is. But I do see now that it's actually alluding to scripture, and specifically scripture that says 18 Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory, which does indeed seem much more like a call for censorship rather than anything resembling a collection development policy. Concerning. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as a standard complaint form with a bit of marketing at the top. A little sugar to make the medicine go down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such "sugar" and marketing is antithetical to our mission of free knowledge dissemination and the promotion of open inquiry. We are actively collaborating with a group that promotes religious litmus tests as a means to decide a work's availability. Even if they say that apostate literature can sometimes be permitted to achieve certain faith-formation goals, this is still an uneven playing field necessarily skewed away from critical thinking. jps (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All BYU students have to abide by the Honor Code and can be expelled (which obviously would lead to termination of any university employment and eviction from school housing) for violating it--like by swearing, failing to encourage others to follow the HC, having "extreme-colored" hair, not "participating regularly in Church services", etc., on or off campus. And unlike every other college where evaluating grounds for expulsion is up to university officials, HC violations (with the exception of having a romantic (even if non-sexual) same-sex relationship, which is still an expellable offense but goes through the HC Office rather than bishops) lead to expulsion via revocation/non-renewal of the student's ecclesiastical endorsement by their ward bishop (or other ecclesiastical leader or nondenominational BYU chaplain for the 1.5% of students who identify with other or no religions) based on his personal interpretation of their transgressions. Anyone can report HC violations through this form, so students experiencing any doubt in their faith must be sure to hide it extremely well from everyone if they want to continue getting their degree.

So yes I would say all students still have to be in "good standing" with the LDS Church even if they are not LDS. JoelleJay (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can be "in good standing" without first being a member. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's an American thing, but why is Wikipedia/WMF associating itself with this irrational and unsavoury religious outfit in the first place? Bon courage (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, many of the participants from the programs and edit-a-thons have been inserting pro-Mormon POV into the encyclopedia fairly efficiently and effectively without much in the way of concern over WP:NPOV and the like. Do you have diffs for this? I think that that would be central. Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI; the issue in the cases you linked was that there were coordinated and institutional efforts to influence Wikipedia in a non-neutral direction. The question is whether this is that. At a glance, though, this document (linked on the page you linked) is a bit concerning: How to look like a trustworthy Wikipedia editor. And especially the bit further down about If you are willing to have your edits tracked to measure how edits from Vineyard’s volunteers are doing, click on this link while logged into Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"How to look trustworthy" might sound a bit flippant, but the advice in there is sound: "always log in", "fill out the “edit summary” for every edit", "add a reference for every sentence", etc., and the tracking link is to our own https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not diffs per se, but this To-Do list appears to me to be not much better than an attempt at increasing the coverage of parochial LDS-approved topics. There is a subtle line between promotion of one's faith and documenting the beliefs, practices, and related stories of a medium-sized religion. Given that this is a systematic and sponsored project, I remain concerned. jps (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI" ← it certainly is for that religion, to some degree. And edits made about that religion are COI-tainted, to some degree ranging from the unimportant to the highly-problematic. Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this list, I'm not so concerned. I wouldn't consider the anti-Mormon film A Mormon Maid "LDS-approved" (and the to-do list is right that it needs improvement; for a film that was such a cultural touchstone about sex and sex panics, the article's very short), for instance. This assessment seems to imply that Mormonism is parochial, but you might be surprised how robustly Mormon subjects (persons, events, etc.) are covered in reliable, secondary sources. Speaking from the perspective of one who reads a lot in history and religious studies, academic presses and major periodicals publish a lot about Mormons. There's a lot to document about their demographic and social influence across history, and anthropologists, literary critics, and religious studies scholars seem to find Mormon culture and texts useful to study. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is A Mormon Maid really anti-Mormon? It's certainly anti-polygamist. But anyway, Scientologists would certainly be interested in helping to form Wikipedia's discussion of Trapped in the Closet (South Park), for example, as I imagine Mormons might be interested in framing the discourse about the film you mention with similar motivations. jps (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have traditionally said that being a member of a religion is not a COI, though being on the marketing team is, and being a cleric might be. We say the same thing about being a citizen of a country while editing the articles about that country, being a physician editing articles about medicine, and so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's right. COI says "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI" and for certain more propagandizing religions (scientology, Sahaja yoga, e.g.) COI has been a significant traditional problem on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they can trigger a COI. Can≠does. Physicians are paid to provide medical services, which is a "financial" relationship. About 60% of American adults are registered members of political parties, which is a "political" relationship. But we don't tell physicians to stay out of the medical articles, and we don't leave WP:ARBAP2 work to the 40% who don't belong to a political party. If it were automatic, you'd find notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity telling editors not to edit articles about Christianity if they're Christians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example of Scientology is illustrative. It seems to me that there is a coordinated effort to skew Wikipedia content towards the approach adopted by the Harold B. Lee Library which, as far as I can tell, is intended to promote Mormonism. The Church of Scientology was basically doing the same thing back in the day when it paid editors to promote Scientology while adhering to Wikipedia principles. You know, just add a lot of content to help people understand the "basic principles and beliefs". jps (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a physician is not an external relationship, though of course Wikipedia has had a problem with physician COIs of various sorts in relation to medical devices, practices, fields of work, institutions, etc. etc. I do worry sometimes that COI is seen as a big binary switch. If you're a Christian you have an 'automatic' COI to some degree with with Christian topics, depending on your fervour and the topic, and in some cases it won't matter. If you're a member of Reform UK you have an 'automatic' COI with that topic to some degree which may or may be a problem. As to leaving AP2 "to the 40% who don't belong to a political party" ... ! You can dream WAID, you can dream ... Bon courage (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the very definite, formalized financial relationships LDS members have with their church, and that BYU students have with BYU and the church. These relationships are not present between physicians and medicine or between most political party members and their party or politics.
From what I have seen of the HBLL group's edits, the non-NPOV editing arises not so much through actively pushing LDS faith but through covering--often extensively--topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic. This predictably results in rather in-universe treatment of scriptural stories and amplifies the reach of fringe topics that have not received attention from mainstream scholars and thus should not have standalone notability. JoelleJay (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See for example the push to create articles for almost all possible Book of Mormon topics and improve existing in support of a new Church wide Sunday school curriculum. Many of the topics do not have significant coverage outside of the LDS walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One additional aspect of the financial relationship is that members of the LDS church get a not-insignificant discount on tuition at BYU. Just another way this particular role is being gatekept. Wikipedia is essentially promoting editing collaborations that are necessarily heavily skewed towards LDS members in good-standing. jps (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly a number of concerns here, diffs wise I think its helpful to look at something smaller than systematically inserting pro-Mormon POV because that can only be judged at topic not page scale. On the page scale the program leader discloses a personal COI[11] with the Association for Mormon Letters (AMU), GLAM participant Cstickel(byu) has 69.4% of the authorship of AMU[12]. I think its fair to ask if thats an appropriate use of a paid student editor. Can you pay someone else to make edits which would be inappropriate for you to make? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we go down the AML page to "Presidents" we find the page James Goldberg. Now James Goldberg was created by... Salem(BYU) who like Cstickel(byu) does not disclose a COI related to the AML. Goldberg is not only an AML President and board member, they're a BYU alum and a former BYU professor. Rachel Helps (BYU) successfully nominated the page to DYK in April 2022, effectively promoting the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are, and as Aquillion points out, Simply being of a particular religion is not inherently a WP:COI (italics in original). My impression is that Wikipedia encourages edit—a-thons, and they sometimes have topical themes, and sometimes those topics are about coverage of religions. One about Jewish women artists happened just the other day. I noticed that Rachel Helps (BYU) (Wikipedian-in-residence at the BYU Library) is listed on the participants page. My interest in American history and articles about book topics has brought me into contact with her for a couple of years by now, and in my experience she and the editing that she encourages are amenable and good-faith, with an eye toward being on the right side of policy with the clear paid editing disclosure on her userpage and the transparent identification in her username. All this to say, while I certainly understand why someone might initially have a concern, I think there's a net positive happening with teaching people about Wikipedia and how to contribute to and further project. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any conflicts of interest with the BYU Library (such as past or current employment) you should be disclosing when participating in this conversation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Is there anything you should be disclosing in this conversation? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So its a coincidence that you just (Redacted)... After being asked that question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse, I notice that you have ignored the direct question to yourself, while pushing harder on her. (Also, maybe time to review WP:OUTING?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no COI with BYU, the LDS Church, or any related topic. I don't believe I have run afoul of our outing policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While a lot of students at BYU are Latter-day Saints, not all are Most estimates put the percentage of non-LDS at BYU to be 2% or less. jps (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would impossible to hold this Wikipedia-in-Residence position without gaining the imprimatur from BYU. A critic of the LDS church would not be allowed to have this position. Wikipedia is endorsing ideological discrimination by supporting these programs even if in so doing they are introducing Wikipedia principles to a wider audience than would otherwise be exposed to them. jps (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI says (emphasis mine):

There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums.

Brigham Young University's mission statement begins:

The mission of Brigham Young University — founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life.

It doesn't seem like a mission-aligned organization to me. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although to be fair, the editors with "(BYU)" in their usernames are disclosing with every edit, which is more than others do, and probably as much as Wikipedia can ask. Levivich (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be aiding in organizing this sort of thing and providing institutional support? jps (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The part of BYU's mission statement that says "All students at BYU should be taught the truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Any education is inadequate which does not emphasize that His is the only name given under heaven whereby mankind can be saved." seems to be in direct conflict with Wikipedia's mission, and its policies, which essentially prohibit emphasizing Christianity. But "aiding in organizing" and "institutional support" also increases scrutiny and communication, which is a good thing. More transparency and more eyes is good, and I feel like removing the WiR would mean less transparency and fewer eyes. Levivich (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we promote transparency, scrutiny, and communication through something like the COI policy instead of through the WiR program which typically serves as an endorsement rather than a scrutinization of the activity that may be contrary to Wikipedia principles? I worry that the pages that seem to indicate that the organizing is being done with the knowledge and support of Wikipedia as an institution may mislead people into thinking that such activity is being actively supported by our community which, I guess, it seems to me that we have been doing in any case if perhaps unwittingly. jps (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the WiR program is an endorsement of anything except our desire to have free knowledge. Galleries, libraries, archives, and museums have knowledge in them. If they want to pay people to make that knowledge free, why should we object? If there are, to some editors' tastes, too many religious organizations and not enough anti-religious organizations that are willing to pay people to share their knowledge, that isn't really a good reason to hamper our free knowledge goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they want to pay people to share their resources on Wikipedia, that's great. But if they want to pay people to advance their religious beliefs on Wikipedia, that's not great. Advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics is not the same thing as sharing the resources of BYU. I'm not sure how much of each is being done, but I've seen enough of the former to wonder how much sharing-of-resources-not-related-to-Mormonism is being done. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "advancing Wikipedia's coverage of Mormon topics" is importantly different from "advancing their religious beliefs".

(Also, if, and to the extent that, our articles might contain serious misrepresentations of their religious beliefs, then advancing their religious beliefs would be indistinguishable from improving Wikipedia. If your religion believes ____ and the Wikipedia article says something completely different, then nobody is served by preserving the error.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it hard to believe that the employees of a proselytizing institution of a proselytizing church in a proselytizing religion who are paid to edit Wikipedia are doing so without proselytizing. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, an NPOV summary of anything having to do with any religion would include the mainstream scholarly view that the religion was false, that whatever the holy book said was not true, that the whole thing was invented by people and, basically, that there is no such thing as a "god." Writing such things in Wikivoice would be blasphemy in many, probably most, religions. How can somebody with serious religious commitment possibly write about their religion in an NPOV way? I don't see it, maybe I'm being close-minded or unimaginative, but it seems like an "obviously not" situation. Levivich (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think... JoelleJay (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because these four pages say rather different things about what a WiR is and does: meta, outreach, glam, article, including whether or not a WiR should edit articles about their institution. But I don't see any of them characterizing WiR as an endorsement of the institution by Wikipedia; if anything, it's an endorsement of Wikipedia by the institution. Still, the missions of Wikipedia and BYU are so different, for example: the BYU honor code prohibits same-sex relationships and beards, whereas the Wikipedia UCOC prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical appearance. So any official-seeming affiliation does seem awkward, to say the least. Levivich (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't do anything to stop anybody from organizing their own paid editing campaigns of Wikipedia if they do this with their own time and money. But we are under no obligation to host these campaigns on our project pages. I'm suggesting that by allowing such on-wiki organization, the appearance of our acceptance and toleration of this activity cannot help but be assumed. If nothing else, they are using Wikipedia's servers for that purpose, after all. That's as about a big as an endorsement as many of us volunteers ever get from Wikipedia as an institution. jps (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]