Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danre98 (talk | contribs) at 02:59, 4 October 2023 (→‎Support (Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia): +me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
The 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.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.


« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Significant uptick in spam messages

Not helpful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There's recently been a series of spam messages cropping up on Wikipedia. They've started appearing on certain articles lately, where they do their spiel and then there's a link to where the reader can give their money to the people who published the message. These messages make several explicit or implied claims about where the money is going, but some of these claims are untrue. The spam messages are easy to spot, because they all start with the same phrase: "Wikipedia is not for sale. A personal appeal from Jimmy Wales". Others have already demonstrated that the premises of these messages are misleading. I'm worried that readers might be duped by the messages and part with their money based on a false premise (I believe there's a technical term for that, but it's escaping me). I'm asking the WMF to investigate these spam messages, remove them from the site wherever they appear, and see to it that whoever is responsible for them is caught. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sarcastic tone of this comment is really not helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also heard of some spammy-sounding emails with a false sense of urgency, a tactic also used by spammers. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 17:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a page setup for discussing these banners, comments there might be more constructive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has been somewhat unresponsive. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Fundraising/2023 banners would be a great place to offer constructive feedback. WMF has listened to community feedback regarding the banners quite a bit over the last 9 months or so and made major adjutments. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Novem and also say that the Foundation has been more receptive to community feedback regarding the banners recently from my point of view.
I also feel that the sarcastic tone of the first comment was not helpful. It only makes WMF staff feel less welcome to comment here. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 09:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz I agree. I think it's unacceptable post such comments - we should be trying to work with WMF staff, not against them. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother hatting this? It is on-topic... Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Wikipedia:Fundraising/2023 banners for discussion of upcoming fundraising banners is on topic. The rest is unlikely to lead to any constructive discussion an is better hatted IMO. Anomie⚔ 15:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About a job posting at the Foundation

I'm probably over-reacting at this job posting, but at best the job title troubles me -- "Group Product Manager, Contributors". (So are we volunteers now a "product"?) At worst, this position should be put on indefinite hold until all of the volunteer communities have had a chance to offer input, & the duties re-written. Or maybe this is another case where all of the decisions were made & the die has been cast, & none of us volunteers can change anything about this. -- llywrch (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a little unfortunately worded (would contributor tools be better?), but the role seems to be a relatively standard software UX sort of thing? I wouldn't mind having someone to "understand and faithfully represent the needs and requirements" of the volunteer community, it would probably help with the changing things. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're overreacting. "Contributors" refers to the area of work done by the former Contributors team at the WMF. The posting says, "..managing the product managers of the Editing, Growth, Campaigns, and Moderator Tools cross-functional teams", explicitly not contributors like us. Legoktm (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Llywrch -- thanks for checking out the job posting and reflecting on it. I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a director of product at WMF and the hiring manager for the role. I know that our structure at WMF and the jargon we use can be opaque, so I'd like to take this opportunity to explain it a bit and see what you think.
Much of WMF staff are inside the Product and Technology department, which is run by the Chief Product and Technology Officer, Selena Deckelmann. I report to her. There are a lot of different teams inside the large department, but basically responsibility for all the different parts of the Mediawiki software and all the technologies that operate on the wikis are divided up amongst those teams. Many of the teams are responsible for parts that we don't really see as day-to-day readers and editors of Wikipedia, like the servers, the databases, the APIs, etc. But many of the things that day-to-day readers and editors do encounter are part of the "Core Experiences" group, which is responsible for the software behind much of the user experience -- things like the visual and wikitext editors, the skins for reading, the recent changes feed, discussion tools, notifications, and the iOS and Android apps. I'm the director of product for that group, which means I manage the product managers, who are the people that set the roadmap for their respective teams. There is another director for the group who manages the engineers, and another leader who manages the designers.
The Core Experiences group has about ten teams in it, and that necessitates some additional structure. We're going to be grouping together four of the teams that work mostly on editing functionality: Editing, Growth, Moderator Tools, and Campaigns. I actually used to be the product manager with the Growth team, but my role has since grown. We're calling the group "Contributors", not because it manages contributors, but because contributors are the people whose experience the group is going to be working to improve. The idea is that we always want staff in the group to remember who they're trying to help. And so this role that's posted is going to be working with those four teams and trying to think at a high level how all the different features should fit together to be a coherent whole for the editors, rather than a disjointed and confusing set of tools. For instance, right now there are a couple teams thinking about how machine learning can be used to prevent obvious vandalism -- but we don't want to end up building two features to do the same thing (without a good reason). Does that all make sense? Let me know if there's anything else I can try to explain.
And like @Alpha3031 said, this person will be listening closely and working with volunteers, since those are the people who will be using what the teams build. It's definitely not going to be an easy job -- because our communities of editors are so energetic, creative, and unique. Please let me know if there's anything in particular you're thinking about or caring about as we look for the right person for this job. MMiller (WMF) (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding Marshall. I think it's great when WMF folks answer community questions clearly like you did here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete

Editors may be interested in a discussion on the possibility of creating two forms of deletion, currently at WP:VPI, that could only be implemented by the WMF. BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:BilledMammal/2023 Wikimedia RfC § Just a reminder that there *are* other ways the foundation *could* raise money -- are they better for the project?

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:BilledMammal/2023 Wikimedia RfC § Just a reminder that there *are* other ways the foundation *could* raise money -- are they better for the project?. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Office hours for the Wikipedia mobile app

Further information is here if people are interested. There's also a related MediaWiki page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC to issue a non-binding resolution to the Wikimedia Foundation

Should the English Wikipedia issue the following non-binding resolutions to the Wikimedia Foundation?

Each of the resolutions has its own section for !votes and discussion:

  1. Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia
  2. Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects
  3. Increased support for internal needs

01:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions

Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia

Discussion

The English Wikipedia community is concerned about the distribution of grants related to activity on the English Wikipedia that will either not contribute to our goals of building an encyclopedia or will actively hinder those goals. We request that the Wikimedia Foundation informs the English Wikipedia of all non-trivial grants that will result in activity on the English Wikipedia through the opening of a discussion at the Village Pump (WMF) prior to the grant being issued.

Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects

Discussion

The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has found itself engaged in mission creep, and that this has resulted in funds that donors provided in the belief that they would support Wikimedia Projects being allocated to unrelated external organizations, despite urgent need for those funds to address internal deficiencies.
We request that the Wikimedia Foundation reappropriates all money remaining in the Knowledge Equity Fund, and we request that prior to making non-trivial grants that a reasonable individual could consider unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects that the Foundation seeks approval from the community.

Increased support for internal needs

Discussion

The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has neglected critical areas of the project, and that continued neglect of these areas may endanger the project.
To improve the resilience of the project, we request that money be reallocated to hiring more technical staff, whose role will be to fulfill requests from the community such as those expressed on the Community Wishlist, as well as restoring access to tools such as grapher extension.
To improve knowledge equity we also request that that the Foundation provides funding to assist established editors in accessing the resources they need to improve the encyclopedia, such as by increasing the number of libraries accessible through the Wikipedia Library and by giving micro-grants for the purchase of backlogged items at Resource Request.

Related discussions

There are three related discussions that editors involved in this may be interested in; they are listed here.

Community Response

Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia (Community Response)

The English Wikipedia community is concerned about the distribution of grants related to activity on the English Wikipedia that will either not contribute to our goals of building an encyclopedia or will actively hinder those goals. We request that the Wikimedia Foundation informs the English Wikipedia of all non-trivial grants that will result in activity on the English Wikipedia through the opening of a discussion at the Village Pump (WMF) prior to the grant being issued.

Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia (Survey)
Support (Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia)
  1. There have been many issues over the years where groups have been funded by the WMF to engage in activities on the English Wikipedia, only for the activity to be actively harmful to our project by providing no benefit and resulting in our volunteers having to spend time cleaning up the resulting mess. Often, this result can be reasonably predicted, as it could have been with the Deforestation in Nigeria project, if only the WMF had actively sought our input; hopefully this resolution will convince them to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone unfamiliar, what happened with the Deforestation in Nigeria project?—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x 2) User:Ineffablebookkeeper, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/News and notes#WMF reconsiders Africa approach, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How can AI be applied to Deforestation and Climate Change: Nigeria's Contribution to Global Warming, as a not exhaustive list. The short version is that a USD $20,000 grant was approved in part because of the false claim that Wikipedia lacked coverage on Deforestation in Nigeria, a claim apparently made after an inadequate search and never double checked before the grant was approved. The articles created by the group receiving the grant were of poor quality, some entirely unsuitable.
    This question refers to the original wording of this proposal. Folly Mox (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sandizer (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) per my comments in previous discussions, wasting money on KEF (support for non-Wikimedia-related initiatives) needs to be stopped now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Supporting the amended proposal.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The Wikimedia Community, and not the Wikimedia Foundation, governs the Wikimedia Movement. When donors give money to Wikipedia, they give it to the Wikimedia Community and not the Wikimedia Foundation. It is essential that money go to support the Wikimedia Community, its culture, and its values. With increasing regularity and forcefulness, the values and ethics of the Wikimedia Foundation are contrary to those of the Wikimedia Community. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as amended. Some initiatives seem to be about experimenting with editing privileges as a classroom tool rather than improving Wikipedia, and that's not where these grants should go. Certes (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support as amended. Notifying us ahead of time when a grant recipient's activities are expected to affect this project will allow people to help them course correct in the early stages if lack of competence appears to be an issue, rather than waiting for it to be discovered organically once it has already become a problem. The tighter feedback loop should result in better articles, less discouragement from the grant recipients, more competent new editors, and decreased frustration from en.wp editors. The increased transparency may reduce ill will between this project and the Foundation. Folly Mox (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support with the amendment made. The community should be emphasizing *what* the community wants to happen. Exactly how to make that happen is a separate issue and I think statements like this should be distilled to the key element(s). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. The language requires the WMF to inform the community, it doesn't say the community has to approve the grant. "Non-trivial" should be defined later as some dollar threshold, so there will be large grants and small grants, and the WMF should be required to inform enwiki whenever it is considering a large grant that will affect enwiki. I for one would like to know about large grants being considered without having to read through every grant application on meta. I've been surprised at how many grants are in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars. This would be very easy for the WMF to comply with, and I don't see any downside. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. The fairly recent case of Nigerian deforestation articles springs to mind and asks serious questions about the ability of the WMF to allocate grants. More attention is needed here. Willbb234 20:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as amended. Would be good to define "non-trivial" for clarity. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, but I don't think that the notification necessarily has to be a discussion (alternatively it could simply be a post), and I'd be fine with any discussion ocurring on metawiki. It'd create less work for the folks that review grants and less places to monitor. As for the merits of notification, enwiki might often know more about the state of the wiki than grant approvers when a grant largely concerns enwiki (in my opinion should be determined at reviewer discretion), so I think that it makes sense to notify enwiki as a courtesy. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 02:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia)
  1. Too vague to be useful and doesn't respect the autonomy of other projects. What does "non-trivial" mean? What does "active on the English Wikipedia" mean? While I can imagine what they might reasonably mean, if we're going to support a resolution that we hope will be implemented, we need to provide actual metrics against which we can evaluate compliance. Presumably the resolution intends that non-rapid fund grants made for activities that will result in edits directly on EnWiki seek feedback from the EnWiki community. It could also mean something else (allocations over a particular dollar amount, for example, or organizations doing specific kinds of activities). The risk is we pass this because we all imagine some shared understanding when no shared meaning exists, and then when the WMF does what it thinks we mean the false consensus is laid bare as more backlash ensues. Further, the proposal could amount to an EnWiki veto over what occurs on other projects should a grant cover multiple projects (like Commons or Wiktionary). We could say that the WMF should do the same for those projects too, but if every project impacted by a grant gets its own on-project discussion and potential veto, we now have potentially hundreds of consultations to be managed being tracked across multiple projects and threads. That's why these kinds of discussions on grants already take place on Meta, the wiki for cross-project coordination. Of course, communication as to what's happening on meta could be improved such as when I and others added a dedicated "Meta" section to CENT to raise awareness of important discussion on that wiki, but the "here to build an encyclopedia" argument cuts both ways: EnWiki is for building an encyclopedia, not grant administration. I agree with (what I imagine to be) the sentiment, but as a resolution I think it is too loose. — Wug·a·po·des 02:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the amendment as it addressed a main concern. I'll take some time to consider how I feel about the remaining vagueness but for the moment consider me somewhere between neutral and weak opposition. — Wug·a·po·des 23:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Editor attention is already spread thin among so many (too many) Foundation initatives. Spreading thinner the attention of foundation minded editors further concerns me. The foundation needs to be competent in making grants and to the exten that it's not, that high level problem at the macro level is what needs solving, not micro level feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Editor attention is already spread thin among so many (too many) Foundation initatives. Spreading thinner the attention of foundation minded editors further concerns me.: My hope, by having them inform us rather than expecting us to watch metawiki and inform ourselves, is that we will make it easier for editors to engage with these sorts of issues and thus increase the number of editors willing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. My preference would be that volunteers help the Foundation setup productive systems that do not require constant wide spread volunteer oversight. Grantmaking is a time consuming activity and I'd be happy to let paid people spend the lions share of the time on it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oh dear. Please take a good look at all the formal groups that exist in the movement today - roughly 180 of them, at least half of which will directly or indirectly contribute to English Wikipedia. (Don't forget, almost all of these groups do or can participate formally in discussing global policies and processes that will affect our project; and those supporting international events, as well as MediaWiki, Commons and Wikidata, certainly have a trickle-down effect.) And that doesn't count informal groups, "recognized" groups that aren't affiliates, and individual volunteers. Oh, and hubs - which are deliberately intended to involve multiple groups focused on particular topics. If people want to get stuck into reviewing grant applications, they should go over to Meta, volunteer their time and energy, and do it. They're always looking for volunteers. Oh, and incidentally, deforestation in Nigeria is a real thing.[1] Risker (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) (Adding parenthetically that there are multiple Wikipedias edited by Nigerian Wikipedians; just because there's an article in English - one that has lots of tags on it - doesn't mean there is a parallel article in other local languages. This isn't just an English Wikipedia issue. Risker (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC) )[reply]
  4. Per Wugapodes and Risker, with more comments to follow. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We can and should tell the Foundation that they need to rethink the broad direction they're taking on grants. But in no way should EnWiki, or for that matter any community, become the grant overlords. We are hardly qualified to give individual level feedback on grants. There is a reason we have the board and a foundation. Wikipedia's community governance works great at creating an encyclopedia, but it does not do great at managing money. We can effect grant reform without having to become grant reviewers. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Wugapodes, Risker and CaptainEek. Thryduulf (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The amended version is considerably less bad than the previous version, but I'm still not convinced this is a direction we should be going in. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This sounds vague and appears to ask for an enwiki veto of what happens on other projects. I'm not convinced there isn't a problem here, as the deforestation issue highlights, and the WMF should have some introspection of that happened. But I don't believe the current suggest is the right way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't repeat the points made so well by others but I want to note that if we deleted the second paragraph and the last sentence of the first paragraph, then I'd certainly "support", and I think others might too. This having been done, I'll move to support.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Risker. You want to review grants, nobody is stopping you. Also the non-neutral wording declares matters of opinion as matters of fact, enough to oppose on this basis alone. Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grants to organizations intending to be active on the English Wikipedia (Discussion)
  • Comment. Not opposed to this, but it feels like a bit of a sledgehammer–nut response targeted at the single (awful) grant. Would prefer a longer list of grants falling under the education programme, and elsewhere, that have resulted in clear harm to the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a list on hand, but the most common time for it to occur is when the WMF gives a group funds that they use as monetary prizes for editing; for example, Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos in past years, although it is no longer an issue as it no longer offers monetary prizes. BilledMammal (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would love for this to be more general and not exclusive to enwiki. See comments at m:Requests for comment/Democratizing the Wikimedia Foundation, in particular "RFCs where the WMF acknowledges they must abide by the results". Frostly (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I would love it if the WMF did apply this to other projects I didn't feel it would be appropriate for us to ask the WMF to do so without the consent of those Wiki's. BilledMammal (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what does it mean by non-trivial sum? Fresh from organising Wikimania 2023, of which I had a direct hand in operationalising Wiki Loves Living Heritage Singapore 2023, would the sponsored prizes there (offhandedly, not more than 10,000 USD) be counted if it was funded by the Foundation? Of it, it generated 1,180 new images, many are of certain quality that can be used on the articles here. How low do we consider as trivia? This also raises the question of grants that are given that on surface seemingly does not affect enwiki directly, but in reality is. Do we want to or should we be policing those as well? – robertsky (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky Side note. As far as I can tell, WMF does not even support any community requests for funding under 500 USD (rapid grant minimum). If I am wrong, I'd appreciate a link. IMHO 500 USD plus is non-trivial, considering global scale of our project (it is more tham mimimum monthly income in some poor places). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Defining "non-trivial" seems in the cards. I do not know how many grants would usefully be reviewed though if that number is any higher than the floor, since I suspect it is the smaller grants that have an outsized influence on the volunteers here. Pizza for a badly-planned editathon seems more likely to disrupt than most other kinds of grants. Izno (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd support something closer to For any WMF-funded activity that is determined to have had a net negative effect on the English Wikipedia, the WMF will pay an equivalent amount for contract labour to slay backlogs of the community's choosing. I know, I know: who defines and decides "net negative"? It's just a dream. Folly Mox (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there's a resolution to be made here, but needs to be more specific in light of the oppose comments. I would leave out the part which says "and does not proceed with the grant if the English Wikipedia is not convinced of its utility." The foundation should certainly evaluate our comments, but the final decisions should be up to it. Also, this needs to be more narrowly focused on projects which seek to directly affect the content on English Wikipedia. – SD0001 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AndyTheGrump, CaptainEek, Espresso Addict, Folly Mox, Frostly, JML1148, L235, Piotrus, Pppery, Risker, Robertsky, S Marshall, SD0001, Sandizer, Thebiguglyalien, Thryduulf, and Wugapodes: As the proposal has only been open for a few hours I've updated it to remove the second paragraph and last sentence of the first; if anyone objects I will revert, given that it has been open for a few hours and seen a number of votes, but I believe it is better to get a proposal that we can agree and it seems these changes are necessary for that to happen. BilledMammal (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a diff might help? Sandizer (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Change BilledMammal (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the reason for the update? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the original wording didn't appear to have the broad community backing we need for the WMF to take these resolutions onboard; I'm hoping this wording will be more palatable. BilledMammal (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't changed anything that would change my opinion. If people want to get involved in grants, they need to get directly involved. It is incredibly disrespectful to the volunteers who work so hard to analyse grant requests to suggest that *one* community gets veto rights on their carefully considered and nuanced decisions, many of which affect multiple projects. I would suggest that authors of these proposals (I know it wasn't just you, BilledMammal, you're just taking the brunt of the responses) actually spend the time to talk to people involved in grant review and analysis, and perhaps actually try to assist in grant review and analysis, before saying that (a dozen or so people from) a project should be able to essentially veto a grant. Please walk a mile in those shoes. This is WP:IDONTLIKEIT on a global scale. Risker (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a veto here now post-change, I see a required notification so that users who might be interested in specific proposals can indeed actually try to assist in grant review and analysis. If the grants at that point are vetoed by review of interested users from here, that would seem to say more about the utility of the grant than not. The clearly detrimental Deforestation project (and others before it!) should not have been approved and review by en.wp users would likely have identified issues with that grant immediately.
    I have a remaining concern that this could be used to detrimental effect for grants which do not per se target en.wp. For example, the "Deforestation" project was clearly (or perhaps not clearly) intended to be done as work targeting en.wp, and it is this kind of grant I think a notification would be good for. It feels like a miss to notify about a general grant to improve software affecting multiple wikis or multi-wiki coverage of material but not intending to focus on en.wp or even substantially contribute here. Can this framing be tightened? Izno (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does this proposal "suggest that *one* community gets veto rights"? Please, let's not spread misinformation. Levivich (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It suggests that in the past. Folly Mox (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects (Community Response)

The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has found itself engaged in mission creep, and that this has resulted in funds that donors provided in the belief that they would support Wikimedia Projects being allocated to unrelated external organizations, despite urgent need for those funds to address internal deficiencies.
We request that the Wikimedia Foundation reappropriates all money remaining in the Knowledge Equity Fund, and we request that prior to making non-trivial grants that a reasonable individual could consider unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects that the Foundation seeks approval from the community.

Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects (Survey)
Support (Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects)
  1. In most cases it will not be appropriate for the WMF to provide funds to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects; our donors gave money to support the projects and we should respect that. Rare exceptions may occur, but in such circumstances broad oversight from the community should be sought, to ensure that the grant is appropriate and that it will not damage our image by causing the public to believe that we are becoming a partisan entity. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As I've said in the past, soliciting donations for one cause and then handing them off to a different cause is in effect the same thing as a scam. 100% of funding collected by the WMF should go into supporting the various editions of Wikipedia and its sister projects or to keeping the WMF operating as an organization that facilitates these projects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Frankly, I'd find it astonishing that this needed to be said, if it wasn't for the evidence that it clearly does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Pecopteris (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sandizer (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC) per my comments in previous discussions, wasting money on KEF (support for non-Wikimedia-related initiatives) needs to be stopped now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WMF solicited donations using disingenuous messaging like "Wikipedia is not for sale" and is transferring not-insignificant amounts of such funds to goals that have nothing to do with Wikipedia or with any of its sister projects. That is morally dubious at best and fraud at worst. It needs to stop. Ciridae (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The money needs to be used for the purposes the donors expected it to be used for. If donors were told they were paying to keep the lights on and the servers running, and they were, then it's unethical and duplicitous to spend it on advocacy think-tanks. Also, Wikipedia has a reputation for neutrality that was very hard-won and will be very easily-lost. Don't squander it please. Spending donors' money on advocacy groups is reckless and risks our core mission. I can envisage headlines about "Wikipedia applies political pressure" on a slow news day and I think that would be a catastrophic outcome.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Money raised for Wikipedia should stay for Wikipedia. As I said elsewhere, $200K USD for a non-profit organization based in Indonesia that works on human rights and advocacy issues for indigenous people is a nice plan, but not related to the project in any way. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. If I may, While I understand the concerns regarding the allocation of funds by the Wikimedia Foundation, it's important to remember the wisdom in the quote, 'It's not right to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.' In this context, the children represent Wikimedia Projects, and the dogs represent unrelated external organizations. It's crucial that funds donated for supporting Wikimedia Projects are prioritized for their intended purpose. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the request for the Wikimedia Foundation to reappropriate any remaining money in the Knowledge Equity Fund and seek community approval before making grants that may appear unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects. This approach aligns with the principle of responsible fund allocation. Icem4k (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, in the interests of honesty and transparency. Certes (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The Wikimedia Community, and not the Wikimedia Foundation, governs the Wikimedia Movement. When donors give money to Wikipedia, they give it to the Wikimedia Community and not the Wikimedia Foundation. It is essential that money go to support the Wikimedia Community, its culture, and its values. With increasing regularity and forcefulness, the values and ethics of the Wikimedia Foundation are contrary to those of the Wikimedia Community. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, per S Marshall's points. The bait-and-switch of WMF fundraising has gone on far enough. Even if used for other good things, it's important to be honest about what money donated will be used for. People who provide financial support deserve that honesty, yet we have this yearly débâcle in which we have banners that suggest that donated money will be used for something that's only a small portion of the budget. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. For many years, the WMF has been spending way too much money on non-editing improvements (like trying to solve the root causes of systemic bias or knowledge inequity) and too little money on editing improvements (like upgrading Visual Editor, or the graphs extension). This needs to stop. They need to spend the donations primarily on hardware and software development and maintenance; only when those needs are met should they even consider spending the donations on anything else, and those needs are not met and never have been. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. I believe donors are misguided on where their money will end up. Giving money to other organisations is a big no and I can't believe this has been going on for so long. Willbb234 20:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects)
  1. Knowledge equity and related issues, while not directly related to the projects, are crucial issues that are within the WMF's scope. Frostly (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This seems like an over-reaction to a poorly-communicated initiative; the WMF has conceded that it should have provided more information and explanation as to how funding these groups had the potential to expand available free knowledge that can be used in Wikimedia projects. Noting also that this is English Wikipedia, and should only include proposals that are specific to English Wikipedia. Those grants are at the global/meta level. Risker (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The first sentence is fine. The second sentence is way outside outside the English Wikipedia's area of competence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm especially opposed to demanding the money already allocated for the fund be returned, it seems unnecessary to me and risks stuff being killed off prematurely every time there's a change in leadership in ways we may not like. There seems to be agreement that the KEF is not going to be repeated, so while there are still going to be changes a gradual winding down based on existing decisions is far better than a sudden change. Do we really want when we finally get something we want funded only a year or two later it will be killed immediately just because new leadership no longer agrees? To be clear, I understand the money hasn't been allocated to any particular purpose yet, but it's still been allocated for the fund. I'm also deeply concerned that there is already a serious imbalance between the English Wikipedia and pretty much every other project (some a lot more than others) and while I don't think many or maybe even any other projects agree with the KEF, effectively we're demanding that the English wikipedia alone is able to dictate where money is not spent which is a major WTF. I'd also note that while the general idea may be laudable, it's actually a lot more complicated than that. I've looked at some of the projects and while they may not directly ensure project improvements, they may in the long term do so. It's well known that there is extensive systemic bias in the English Wikipedia and all projects are affected by this in varying ways. Improving access to education etc in places where it is limited increases the chances we will one day have editors from these areas able to contribute. It's clearly a very long term goal and the actual effect from some minor project is likely to be miniscule, so I don't actually think it's an effective way for the WMF to spend their money and would not encourage it but it also illustrates why a vague statement cannot really limit the WMF. I also consider the issue of insufficient funding for important projects separate issue. The WMF is not short on funds and it's clear that the reason why some important areas aren't getting sufficient attention isn't because they're spending all their money on stuff like KEF. This doesn't mean they should be spending the money on such things but it does mean it is unlikely doing this will achieve anything other than prematurely killing the KEF. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. meta:Knowledge Equity Fund clearly explains its relevance to the WMF's core mission: the fund is used to (emphasis added) support knowledge equity by addressing the racial inequities preventing access and participation in free knowledge. The English Wikipedia has struggled to address systemic bias from the beginning. It's a major problem and I'm glad the WMF is using some of its considerable financial resources to try tackling the root causes. You can't fix everything with editathons. – Joe (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is very interesting and unfortunate that the wording of this part of the rfc equates "knowledge equity" with "non-trivial" activities. The self righteousness is not lost on me. I can only reiterate the sentiments on this oppose section. The zero-sum mindset herein is simply unhelpful. I am yet to hear real facts leveled against "the knowledge equity fund" that are worth talking about, other than "we need money to do stuff and we dont like this projetc, therefore stop it and give us the money". --Thuvack | talk 17:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Izno (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with Thryduulf here, although the first sentence is fine the second oversteps. Editors dissatisfaction with current spending shouldn't control specific details.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Nil Einne. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't think having the English Wikipedia community approve all such grants individually is an effective use of either the WMF's or the community's time. The community should help set the objectives of these grants, so they can be filtered appropriately as part of the grant process. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. While I suspect this will find some support, after some thought I find myself in the oppose column -- and for reasons not directly connected to the KEF.
    First, some background: This proposal began as a proposal to hold fundraising hostage unless the English Wikipedia got line-item veto power over all of the WMF's finances. That's been toned down quite a lot, but I can't get over the pervasive sense of English Wikipedia supremacy/exceptionalism running through all of the discussions up to this point. We are already the largest and most powerful of the projects. We already numerically dwarf everyone else. We already have most of our users in the richest countries on the planet. The idea that we deserve total financial power over the entire rest of the Wikimedia universe is shocking, and while that's not being proposed here, knowing that was the goal means I can't help but carry forward some skepticism here.
    I can fully appreciate that the idea of funding projects "unrelated" to Wikimedia projects is going to unite many people with a range of valid criticisms about how the WMF spends its money (i.e. "X feature or Y bug has been missing/broken for ages, but you're funding this?"). But the target of criticism here is something where the feedback has already led to a decision not to fund it again. What we're doing is deciding whether to adopt a general principle about "unrelated" projects using the KEF as an example, but never actually defining "unrelated". Others above have tried to explain the extent to which calling this "unrelated" is misleading. Wugapodes gives some good examples of other "unrelated" (but not actually unrelated) potential grantees. I'd add research into wikis in general, work on OpenStreetMap, research into linked data practices, funding for archives to digitize sources, and other kinds of projects that help us indirectly. And it's in that context that the KEF is indeed related. It's just not an edit-a-thon or Wikipedian-in-Residence. TL;DR - This might look like a referendum on the KEF, but it's actually a broadly worded principle with unclear implications. Given the background of these proposals, I have no reason not to think "unrelated" won't be treated as broadly as possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grants to organizations unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects (Discussion)
So I guess my issue with this text is that the WMF does consult with the community about disbursement of Knowledge Equity Grants. See meta:Knowledge Equity Fund#The Knowledge Equity Fund Committee, which lists five volunteers alongside the six staffers.
It's widely known that the Knowledge Equity Fund is pretty unpopular, and no one seems to have indicated it will recur after the third year of disbursements, which I guess we'll hear about on Friday. Someone on wikimedia-l or some other email thread compared these grants to basic research, like laying the groundwork for a more successful "free knowledge movement", which was a minority view but makes sense.
The thing I suppose rubs me wrongest is that the goal here seems to be to stop giving these planned grants to marginalised groups, and spend it instead on English Wikipedia, the rich white dude of the Wikimedia Party Palace. Yes, that's not stated explicitly, but Resolution 3: Here's How to Spend Money on Us immediately follows. We don't not need Foundation money for staff to maintain technical debt, fix bugs, talk to us, etc., but it just feels... kinda gross? Please note this is a comment, not an oppose. Folly Mox (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, I think you hit the nail on the head with this comment. This proposal feels....entitled. Risker (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a dichotomy between Wikimedia Projects and external orgs that I think misunderstands the relationship between our projects and the wider free knowledge movement. Creative Commons and the Internet Archive are external organizations which are mission aligned, and their success is directly relevant to the success of our projects. If they asked us for a grant would we tell them to kick bricks because it doesn't benefit our projects? A more specific example, I spent some time last year working with Cornell's copyright information center on a grant proposal to increase their staffing so that they could resume and increase their outreach work which our CCI group had found valuable but which had been cut due to university budgetary restrictions (it fell through in the planning stage, unfortunately). Would this resolution have prevented that kind of support for mission-aligned organizations? It wouldn't have been spent "on the projects", but the benefit of being a "good neighbor" and supporting groups who share our values and support our goals has knock-on effects that shouldn't be summarily dismissed. — Wug·a·po·des 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Increased support for internal needs (Community Response)

The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has neglected critical areas of the project, and that continued neglect of these areas may endanger the project.
To improve the resilience of the project, we request that money be reallocated to hiring more technical staff, whose role will be to fulfill requests from the community such as those expressed on the Community Wishlist, as well as restoring access to tools such as grapher extension.
To improve knowledge equity we also request that that the Foundation provides funding to assist established editors in accessing the resources they need to improve the encyclopedia, such as by increasing the number of libraries accessible through the Wikipedia Library and by giving micro-grants for the purchase of backlogged items at Resource Request.

Increased support for internal needs (Survey)
Support (Increased support for internal needs)
  1. What we need from the WMF most of all is tech support; for them to maintain the website and develop the tools that we need to build the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this support is often lacking; despite the criticality of New Page Patrol it took a massive lobbying effort to get the WMF to dedicate any resources to it, and it has been six months since we were notified that the graph extension had to be disabled due to security risks, but there has been little progress on restoring it despite its utility. Hopefully the WMF will be willing to take this resolution on board and in its next budget direct a greater proportion of resources towards providing this support. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Easy support, though I'd encourage removing "established" from "established editors". While accepting this non-binding resolution is several steps removed from actually seeing a change in TWL resources, what would help knowledge equity is actually to lower the requirements to access TWL. Help people get off on the right foot when they're editing rather than assume they'll slog through 500 edits without access to good sourcing. Certainly not enough to cause me to oppose, but I'd like to see that word removed (apologies for not catching it before the proposal went live -- perhaps it's not too late, BilledMammal?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I understand your concern, I'd prefer to leave "established" in there. Realistically publishers offering resources are going to want to have some idea of the hit rate they are signing up for. I can't see Elsevier, for example, wanting to open ScienceDirect much more widely than they already have. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what is the funding going towards? Last I checked, everything in TWL isn't because the WMF paid for it but because someone simply asked the publisher for it. WMF could help close the gap. I cannot imagine the WMF paying to add these resources, as that would lead to all the other publishers saying "wait, we don't have to give it away?" — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If they say they're raising money to support and improve the encyclopedia, they should do so. Intothatdarkness 01:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Frostly (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've said as much before and I think leveraging existing resources like the legal fees assistance program and Rapid Grants would be an efficient way to make progress on this in parallel with increasing Wikipedia Library holdings. — Wug·a·po·des 02:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Community Wishlist items that consistently receive high support are continually being overlooked due to currently insufficient funding for technical staff. Reallocating funds from such editing grants would arguably enable editors to more efficiently pursue these grants' aim of increased article coverage BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Hire more devs" is a no-brainer. The microgrants sound like an interesting idea as well, and the Wikipedia Library is already amazing. But yeah, hire more devs. Help us align with our shared goals. Folly Mox (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is what people are donating for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The WMF has more than enough money to do these things, but it has inexplicably decided to spend a large sum of this money on things that do not help Wikipedia and its sister projects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mainly due to the graph extension being disabled and the lack of work going towards fixing it. It's like a ghost haunting the talk pages of most Wikipedia articles. I've noticed a concerning amount of decay when it comes to tech support, and if additional funding will help then I'm all for it. Deauthorized. (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. While I'm a little worried about monkey paw effects here, that doesn't diminish my support per BilledMammal. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. In agreement with Barkeep49, with more comments to follow. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Common sense. There have been several technical issues at NPP that we have had to beg and grovel for the WMF to fix. More resources towards technical development is self-evident. Curbon7 (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pecopteris (talk) 04:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. While I understand that the Foundation has had some growing pains in the tech department, that is no excuse to not continue to put effort into our software. If that requires some radical changes, so be it, but we need more effort going into our backend. That means more money. There are far too many tech issues that have lingered for years. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 100%. Don't know if this is going to move the needle but it couldn't hurt. Nardog (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Sandizer (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC) per my comments in previous discussions, wasting money on KEF (support for non-Wikimedia-related initiatives) needs to be stopped now. Instead, we have our own needs (software, database suscriptions, outreach) that should be supported. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tech support and maintenance, and development of features requested by editors is the minimum that is expected from the WMF. Ciridae (talk) 06:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. The implementation of wishlist proposals every year leave out a lot to be desired. – SD0001 (talk) 08:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Absolutely. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I'm not generally as critical of the WMF as many but this is the one areas I agree with the critics. The WMF has been slack in supporting the communities needs. I appreciate that it doesn't always go well since some features have been implemented on request then disliked and abandoned, and that there are a lot of communities with differing needs to support, but they can and should do better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Clearly. Edward-Woodrow • talk
  29. Micro-grants for old Resource Requests seems like a pretty good idea. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  30. This is what the WMF was created for. Certes (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  31. The Wikimedia Community, and not the Wikimedia Foundation, governs the Wikimedia Movement. When donors give money to Wikipedia, they give it to the Wikimedia Community and not the Wikimedia Foundation. It is essential that money go to support the Wikimedia Community, its culture, and its values. With increasing regularity and forcefulness, the values and ethics of the Wikimedia Foundation are contrary to those of the Wikimedia Community. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  32. It's the primary mission of the movement, after all. The execution should match the sales pitch. Many of the other things they do are, I feel, for laudable goals, but fundraising shouldn't be pretextual in this way. There are many projects related to the core mission that receive anemic funding. The core mission is the reason the WMF exists. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. The Night Watch (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  34. WMF has consistently shown that it is willing to spend any amount of money needed for fundraising, and the fun parties that are involved with that, and very little on actual needed functions. The leadership has been a disgrace for years, and is part of the reason I don't spend more time here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  35. WMF has been neglecting its core function for too long. Levivich (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. I particularly like the idea of widening the scope of the Wikipedia Library. I think this is a resource which so many editors use and could do with additional investment. Willbb234 20:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. There shouldn't be long outstanding issues while the WMF remains well funded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Increased support for internal needs)
  1. Oppose Until the foundation manages to get its overall spending levels under control this is a bad idea.©Geni (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Should the WMF devote more effort to community requests? Sure! But I've been here nearly two decades and I've never used grapher extension. And tools I use every day you've probably never used. We're not all going to agree on what is a critical request, so this is pretty pointless. Gamaliel (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Increased support for internal needs (Discussion)
  • I'm not going to read any of these long-worded points, I started to but am guessing that they all come down to WMF has control of the money gained from touting Wikipedia so of course they owe us anything we want and they should also include the community in almost everything they do. Why not? And more power to WMF in everything. I hope some wonderful billionaires will be giving them (and, in turn, some trickle down to Wikipedia please) $100 million at a pop. Bill Gates, donate a 100 million, or 200, give them a lot, and kindly stipulate that 1/3 of that should go to the projects conceived of and organized by Wikipedia editors. Every year someone else should step up and do this. Taylor Swift, a million would go a long way, and Elon, how about funding Commons to the hilt, create the creation. By the way, VivaWikiVegas could use a few million in cash/and or MGM housing donations to throw the bash of the century for Wikipedia's 25th birthday. As for Editor Expeditions...
For just one of a thousand examples, this is something I literally thought of yesterday. WMF Wikipedia coffers (which should be overflowing with kindness) can send teams of Editor Expeditions out in the field. An individual or a group, say an art editor, a technology editor, a city-specific subject-expert, a few fill-in-the-blank editors, sent or a week or two as individuals or as a team to a city, a nation, to the citadels of a scientific field, to work on article sources, photographs for Commons, meeting with local officials to promote Wikipedia etc. Participation of the local community with the Wikipedia community to give options for growth. A team would have a back-up crew working with them daily, maybe the people who will be leading the next on-site expedition.
Things like that. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randy, I admire your unselfconsciousness. In your first sentence you call others' contributions "long-worded points" and decline to read them, and then you've written all this.—S Marshall T/C 08:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I learned at my father's knee. In my above comment I was referring to the many varied questions and proposals on this page and the others put up yesterday. Brevity might do all of us a favor, but in this case I've added my comments concerning all of them in one place. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deauthorized: On graph extension. The extension is disabled, but there is no lack of attention from the developers. From phab:T334940, the amount of work to be done to fix the extension is... non-trivia, with no direct path to upgrade the underlying engine to the latest version. Just that the conversation isn't happening here, it doesn't mean there is a lack of work. – robertsky (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also an active discussion at mw:Extension talk:Graph/Plans. – robertsky (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link; the page is on MediaWiki-wiki. Remagoxer (talk) 04:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the catch! – robertsky (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone understand what the plan actually is? If so, what can editors do to help fix broken graphs which presumably need to be edited somehow, e.g., to make them compatible with Vega 5? This is a good example of something that fell apart when a vulnerability was discovered, because there were no staff resources devoted to fixing emergent faults. That does indeed seem like a money allocation deficiency to me. Sandizer (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically a fix will involve a bot any anyone who can code that can work out what the shift from Vega 2 to 5 involves. Not likely to be something general editors can help with much.©Geni (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Robertsky said. There are thousands of us who remember the early WMF having the total staffing of what is today the staffing of the smallest team in the Product & Technology sphere. There are thousands of us who remember hours-long and even occasionally days-long downtime. I can still remember the time there was nobody officially "on call" for keeping the site up, and one of the few capable individuals actually had to deplane just before take-off in order to get Wikipedia back up. (And never did get reimbursed for their missed vacation.) We cannot be complaining about the WMF spending too much money on staffing and benefits while at the same time complaining that there aren't enough staff to do everything. The technological debt is significant (although being worked down). Part of that debt comes from extensions built by volunteers years ago that managed to get into MediaWiki core, only to have the maintainers leave. We may have to give up some extensions that are difficult or impractical to maintain, or consider other ways of doing certain things. But that would mean change, and we all know how Wikimedia communities respond to changes.... Risker (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "We cannot be complaining about the WMF spending too much money on staffing and benefits while at the same time complaining that there aren't enough staff to do everything." True, but it's almost inevitable that growing organizations will eventually lose focus on some if not most of their core needs, resulting in too many people and not enough vital work being accomplished. Sandizer (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to Wikimedia Foundation staff hired to do things best done by the non-technical community, including convening conversations on ethics and values, doing outreach, and community organizing. I support Wikimedia Foundation hiring technical staff for code development. The coders are not the ones who find themselves in conflict with the community. The staff who speak on behalf of the Wikimedia community and for the Wikimedia community frequently do. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should ask the technology staff this. When I sit with developers, they point to the differing expectations between communities, and the disproportionate entitlement of English Wikipedia, as major issues. They aren't here to build English Wikipedia, they're here to support 800 projects, all with different needs and demands. Those staff you're worried about were brought in to act as buffers between the very demanding individuals in many communities, and the developers who (as a group) are quite conflict-averse. When it used to be the developers talking to communities, they were pilloried, too. Risker (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"buffers" has historically been part of the problem. With the foundation tending towards treating them as ablative meatshields rather than conduits of communication.©Geni (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really insightful point, which is in some ways at the crux of this: what amount of entitlement is appropriately proportionate for the English Wikipedia? About half of the 820 Wikimedia projects appear to have fewer than 20 active editors. I'll not touch on revenue or mindshare / reputation. That acrimony is best handled elsewhere. I will say that Community Wishlist items are often unfulfilled, which affects all projects, and the priority of the survey results is already determined by devs, so they're free to rebalance to help serve smaller communities disproportionately to their sizes.
Do the dev teams not want more crew? I understand there's a point in software engineering where throwing more people at a problem loses effectiveness, but we're hardly close to that point. Folly Mox (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They want the supporting arms. Lawyers to make sure they don't get sued, the talking to the press people to try and prevent media fires from getting to bad, the talking to government people, the talking to community people so people mostly aren't pissed at them. The HR and accounts people so they get paid.©Geni (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm not seeing anywhere in the proposed resolution where it recommends cutting staff positions that are ancillary to development and maintenance in order to pay for the proposed new technical positions.
In any case though, I think I misunderstood Risker's Perhaps you should ask the technology staff this as something more general than a reply to the sentence directly above it. Folly Mox (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&oldid=1178506491"