User talk:Yngvadottir
 Archives (Index) |
"This edit intended to improve the encyclopedia is not an endorsement of the WMF."
[edit]Hello again! Looks like this is the second time in five years that I've had to give one of your edits more scrutiny than necessary after it stood out on my watchlist for suggesting that somebody had made a possibly controversial edit - where "the WMF" was some aspect of the article's subject who the writer was not wishing to endorse but may have inadvertently done so. The kind of edit that another user should check for neutrality, if so.
I do think this falls under the "misleading" concern of WP:SUMMARYNO, to editors who (like me) do not instantly think of the Wikimedia Foundation when someone uses the acronym when writing a few sentences about, say, the history of a high school.
Please do consider consider setting up a user page and linking to that in your edit summaries, perhaps with a hashtag (eg. School opened in 2023 as scheduled, campus opened August 13. #NOTWMF
). This would also mean that a curious editor could actually see what your view of the WMF was, without having to ask you. Belbury (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Personally I think the edit summary as-is is less confusing than #NOTWMF would be. If there's any vagueness about what the "WMF" is (the acronym is used in the article for something else), it could always be expanded to "the Wikimedia Foundation". Regardless, I see this edit summary as a sort of protest and I'd rather see it than lose good contributions to the encyclopedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Clovermoss, that means a lot. Belbury, here's what I'd typed when I got a double edit conflict. Interesting idea; I assume you've seen my user page and mean a subpage? But I think that would be a violation of WP:POLEMIC, which is the policy that others have raised. It's really quite simple; I love contributing to Wikipedia, but since WP:FRAM I can only square it with my conscience if I add a disclaimer (and also limit my edits to under their threshold for "very active", which at least means colleagues don't have to see the disclaimer very often!). I'm afraid not violating POLEMIC is more important to me than being clear; I believe most editors who read that far will figure out that I mean the Wikimedia Foundation, and I deliberately keep the disclaimer short and unemotional except when editing in my user space. I am sorry for the added length, but more sorry that my edit summaries have always tended to be long, because I often make a lot of changes in one edit. (One of the few helpful things the WMF has done in the past decade is increase the maximum edit summary length.) ... And I think people who clicked on a link to something in my user space, as opposed to seeing a formulaic extra sentence, would have real reason to be annoyed. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've always enjoyed your edit summary, and believe that the WMF needs to greatly enhance its funding to Wikipedia projects and conferences (per its donation request implications and promises). And yes, I liked your well-written comment at Clovermoss's survey. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that she has different priorities for funding than you do, Randy. I get the impression she is way more concerned about technical debt than showy conferences and I'd tend to agree, even if Wikimania and WCNA are fun events to attend. I would imagine the average person donating thinks that it "helps keep the servers running" or whatever. Some organizations offer a drop-down menu when you donate of where you'd wish for it to be allocated. We don't but I think that we probably should. Let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth, Yngvadottir, I'd never want to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, both! A drop-down menu of options for directing donations is an interesting idea, but the WMF might feel it revealed too much of a disconnect between the kinds of things they spend money on and the needs implied in their advertising. I would prefer them to downsize radically and to pause fundraising semi-permanently (they have a sizeable endowment, and a significant part of their workforce is fundraisers). But my disclaimers arise from quite basic disgust at the organization, which came to a head with Framgate and its aftermath. Others left the project. It's not about wanting more resources from the WMF, it's about their responding to the needs and wishes of the community (technical included—the largely ignored wishlist), which should be what they do. (By the way, Randy Kryn, I think you're responding to something I said on that unnameable forum, so I should make clear that it wasn't the thought of your having read my bloviations that gave me an ick feeling, but rather the thought of Jimbo having read them.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
significant part of their workforce is fundraisers
may I ask why you think that? I got the impression that most foundation staff have some sort of tech or communication based role. I could be wrong and I tend to find it valuable to understand why people think the way they do. It's entirely possible my preconceived notions are wrong here.- As for Jimmy Wales, may I ask why having him read your comments would make you uneasy? Is there something specifically you don't like about him as a person or is it more about your unfavourable attitude towards the WMF generally? I think that there needs to be less of a disconnect between the community and the foundation and listening to dissenting voices is important. It gives you a better grasp of a situation compared to people only telling you good things because of who you are (his talk page says he's still on the board unless that's outdated). I didn't start editor reflections thinking that the foundation would care about it but I do think having a variety of perspectives is important. If they're willing to start listening to community voices more, isn't that a good thing?Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The financial statements tell the tale, but some of what you're thinking of as "communications" may be fundraising in my mind. (And there are also a lot of people involved in planning and strategizing that from my perspective is a lot more harmful than useful.) I'll hunt for a link to check out whether I'm wrong; as I recall they reduced their fundraising staff last year. Yes, it's good for WMF employees to listen to us more, and not just as representatives of the WMF but as individuals; the fact there is a disconnect is fundamentally wrong, and I hope that page of questionnaire responses has been widely read. Jimbo is a special case; he was involved in the establishment of the project but I think he was quite surprised how it turned out, he set up the WMF, and he's wisely stepped aside as an admin. It was Jimbo I was being sassy about off-wiki. Messy response, I know, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind messy responses. When I think of communications roles, I mostly think of the few editors I know who also work for the foundation. I don't really know of anyone who does fundraising-specific stuff so if you can find the links for that, I'd be incredibly curious. I liked Jimmy well enough when I met him but I can understand why not everyone would feel the same way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The love of money is the root of The Beatles, or something. My attitude about WMF funding raised and WMF funding spent comes down to sharing the wealth a bit more. I've never read the wish list page, does it have a rundown of top items wished for, the funding needed to achieve the major long-term and agreed-upon goal, and how much of that funding has already been given? From outside thinking about looking in, but not doing so, it seems obvious to me that WMF should be funding Wikipedian initiated and Wikipedian produced projects at the rate of, picking a billfold out of a hat, 20 million dollars American first-time lump sum and then see where that takes it. Probably many donators believe they are funding all of good things aobut the projects, that's how they are presented and believed.
- I don't mind messy responses. When I think of communications roles, I mostly think of the few editors I know who also work for the foundation. I don't really know of anyone who does fundraising-specific stuff so if you can find the links for that, I'd be incredibly curious. I liked Jimmy well enough when I met him but I can understand why not everyone would feel the same way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The financial statements tell the tale, but some of what you're thinking of as "communications" may be fundraising in my mind. (And there are also a lot of people involved in planning and strategizing that from my perspective is a lot more harmful than useful.) I'll hunt for a link to check out whether I'm wrong; as I recall they reduced their fundraising staff last year. Yes, it's good for WMF employees to listen to us more, and not just as representatives of the WMF but as individuals; the fact there is a disconnect is fundamentally wrong, and I hope that page of questionnaire responses has been widely read. Jimbo is a special case; he was involved in the establishment of the project but I think he was quite surprised how it turned out, he set up the WMF, and he's wisely stepped aside as an admin. It was Jimbo I was being sassy about off-wiki. Messy response, I know, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, both! A drop-down menu of options for directing donations is an interesting idea, but the WMF might feel it revealed too much of a disconnect between the kinds of things they spend money on and the needs implied in their advertising. I would prefer them to downsize radically and to pause fundraising semi-permanently (they have a sizeable endowment, and a significant part of their workforce is fundraisers). But my disclaimers arise from quite basic disgust at the organization, which came to a head with Framgate and its aftermath. Others left the project. It's not about wanting more resources from the WMF, it's about their responding to the needs and wishes of the community (technical included—the largely ignored wishlist), which should be what they do. (By the way, Randy Kryn, I think you're responding to something I said on that unnameable forum, so I should make clear that it wasn't the thought of your having read my bloviations that gave me an ick feeling, but rather the thought of Jimbo having read them.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that she has different priorities for funding than you do, Randy. I get the impression she is way more concerned about technical debt than showy conferences and I'd tend to agree, even if Wikimania and WCNA are fun events to attend. I would imagine the average person donating thinks that it "helps keep the servers running" or whatever. Some organizations offer a drop-down menu when you donate of where you'd wish for it to be allocated. We don't but I think that we probably should. Let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth, Yngvadottir, I'd never want to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've always enjoyed your edit summary, and believe that the WMF needs to greatly enhance its funding to Wikipedia projects and conferences (per its donation request implications and promises). And yes, I liked your well-written comment at Clovermoss's survey. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Clovermoss, that means a lot. Belbury, here's what I'd typed when I got a double edit conflict. Interesting idea; I assume you've seen my user page and mean a subpage? But I think that would be a violation of WP:POLEMIC, which is the policy that others have raised. It's really quite simple; I love contributing to Wikipedia, but since WP:FRAM I can only square it with my conscience if I add a disclaimer (and also limit my edits to under their threshold for "very active", which at least means colleagues don't have to see the disclaimer very often!). I'm afraid not violating POLEMIC is more important to me than being clear; I believe most editors who read that far will figure out that I mean the Wikimedia Foundation, and I deliberately keep the disclaimer short and unemotional except when editing in my user space. I am sorry for the added length, but more sorry that my edit summaries have always tended to be long, because I often make a lot of changes in one edit. (One of the few helpful things the WMF has done in the past decade is increase the maximum edit summary length.) ... And I think people who clicked on a link to something in my user space, as opposed to seeing a formulaic extra sentence, would have real reason to be annoyed. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the technical side is ultra-important, although I can't imagine how they do the things they do. I read a tech discussion and understand what the term "it's all Greek to me" means. Not to fully wall-of-text this, Clovermoss, your idea of a pull-down funding bequest has merit, a nice thought. As for conferences, WMF giving many more full scholarships to regional and worldwide conventions would give both long-time and newly minted Wikimedians the experience of being in those conference rooms, lobbies, bars, Indian restaurants, and conversational spaces with fellow volunteers. An invaluable individual experience and a culminative plus for all the projects. The North American conference could also use an evening banquet or two. As for fundraising, the more the merrier, and I've advocated for obtaining massive donations from the world's billionaires, many of whom "know" the importance of Wikipedia and the other projects (another avenue where specificities concerning a list of things to be funded would apply). I have more, but my computer screen is running out of ink. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think many people would be rightfully concerned about more funding from large companies and billionaires. At its heart, Wikipedia isn't a for-profit so anything that might interfere with that should get side-eyed at the very least. I do find value in the conversation-sharing aspects of conferences but I don't think they should be the highest on the list of priorities when there's so many other things to worry about. I doubt the average person hearing that Wikipedia needs their money would be that happy finding out that it's going towards a fancy banquet but there's a decent chance they'd be alright with the general concept of allowing editors to connect with each other in person (which is why they should be given the choice in how they want to allocate their funds). Does that make sense? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, all ideas and points of view along these lines make sense. There shouldn't be any problems with funding both WMF and Wikipedian/Wikimedian generated ideas, just more of them and a few billionaires willing to be asked to pet-project WMF programs. Those billionaires would have to understand that their personal Wikipedia biographies would be scrutinized for any favoritism and would almost-necessarily gain negative facts and language as a logical countermeasure to the impression of selling Wikipedia's words. That said, I bet lots of the deep-pocket fans of Wikipedia would love to give the volunteers a banquet, complete with speeches, special appearances, and a show (if VivaWikiVegas26 occurs who knows, we might, unlike the Democratic Convention before us, be voluntarily entertained by Beyonce. Or at least one or two long-time Vegas performers who would love to "give back" to some of the volunteer editors who created this cultural phenomena). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll have to disagree on what is possible. 😅 Fun fact about me: the other top two contenders for my name were Courtney and Beyoncé. I am infinitely grateful that my parents went with Hannah, I could not imagine any of those other names suiting me. I also wonder why my Dad wanted me to have the name of a "worldly" singer given the whole religious upbringing thing. I'm officially named after this Hannah. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously this throwaway line from my childhood is making me question how that's even possible. What was my Dad thinking? Were my parents just joking when they said this? I was looking at the article for Beyonce to see if maybe her music at the time would be something my parents would have been alright with me listening to and that's an easy no. If my Dad wanted to name me after a famous person, he could've suggested Serena given that she was actually raised as a JW (even if she didn't get baptized until recently). Did he just think that the name sounded nice? This is starting to drive me a bit crazy. I almost wish I could ask him why.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose we'll have to disagree on what is possible. 😅 Fun fact about me: the other top two contenders for my name were Courtney and Beyoncé. I am infinitely grateful that my parents went with Hannah, I could not imagine any of those other names suiting me. I also wonder why my Dad wanted me to have the name of a "worldly" singer given the whole religious upbringing thing. I'm officially named after this Hannah. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, all ideas and points of view along these lines make sense. There shouldn't be any problems with funding both WMF and Wikipedian/Wikimedian generated ideas, just more of them and a few billionaires willing to be asked to pet-project WMF programs. Those billionaires would have to understand that their personal Wikipedia biographies would be scrutinized for any favoritism and would almost-necessarily gain negative facts and language as a logical countermeasure to the impression of selling Wikipedia's words. That said, I bet lots of the deep-pocket fans of Wikipedia would love to give the volunteers a banquet, complete with speeches, special appearances, and a show (if VivaWikiVegas26 occurs who knows, we might, unlike the Democratic Convention before us, be voluntarily entertained by Beyonce. Or at least one or two long-time Vegas performers who would love to "give back" to some of the volunteer editors who created this cultural phenomena). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think many people would be rightfully concerned about more funding from large companies and billionaires. At its heart, Wikipedia isn't a for-profit so anything that might interfere with that should get side-eyed at the very least. I do find value in the conversation-sharing aspects of conferences but I don't think they should be the highest on the list of priorities when there's so many other things to worry about. I doubt the average person hearing that Wikipedia needs their money would be that happy finding out that it's going towards a fancy banquet but there's a decent chance they'd be alright with the general concept of allowing editors to connect with each other in person (which is why they should be given the choice in how they want to allocate their funds). Does that make sense? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the technical side is ultra-important, although I can't imagine how they do the things they do. I read a tech discussion and understand what the term "it's all Greek to me" means. Not to fully wall-of-text this, Clovermoss, your idea of a pull-down funding bequest has merit, a nice thought. As for conferences, WMF giving many more full scholarships to regional and worldwide conventions would give both long-time and newly minted Wikimedians the experience of being in those conference rooms, lobbies, bars, Indian restaurants, and conversational spaces with fellow volunteers. An invaluable individual experience and a culminative plus for all the projects. The North American conference could also use an evening banquet or two. As for fundraising, the more the merrier, and I've advocated for obtaining massive donations from the world's billionaires, many of whom "know" the importance of Wikipedia and the other projects (another avenue where specificities concerning a list of things to be funded would apply). I have more, but my computer screen is running out of ink. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
To get a bit more on track though, why do you think something of that scale would be necessary, Randy? It seems like it wouldn't be the most effective use of financial resources. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Randy, you obviously trust the WMF to have the best interests of the projects at heart; from my perspective, they may mean well, but helping the volunteers is not their main focus, and the objectives they do have tend to be damaging. The conventions are an example: not everyone can go (in addition to financial constraints many people have work or other commitments, or can't travel for various reasons, and with the best will in the world there are accessibility issues at a convention), or indeed wants to, and they contribute along with the structure of local chapters and affiliates to a sidelining of the actual volunteer effort on the projects, which is online, and the development of two tiers of editors: the Wikimedians and the rest. On the software, I'm referring to meta:Community Wishlist (which they largely ignore to instead foist on us excrescences like WP:FLOW and bad redesigns of the default skin), and I am unimpressed with the quality of WMF software work, such as the many years required to make VizEd even halfway fit for purpose, and what I am told is an extremely bad mobile editor. There are things I would like the WMF to do, but most of them I don't trust it not to muck up either deliberately or accidentally. On money, I agree with Clovermoss but I'd go further: donors should be appalled at the amount of their money that is already spent on the social side of the projects, and it would be shocking to ratchet that up any further. There's an important difference between using donor money for on the one hand, donating laptops and wifi hubs to widen access to the projects and providing scholarships to enable non-wealthy people to present at conferences/conventions, and on the other, laying on banquets or just increasing attendance at the conferences/conventions. The WMF has an awful lot of money for a non-profit, especially considering it uses ads insinuating the servers may need to be shut down, and especially considering it also gets grants from Google and others. We've had donors posting at noticeboards about how they gave money they really needed for rent and food. That makes me feel ashamed; those appeals were nominally made on my behalf. It also makes me ashamed to think what worthier causes some of those donations might have otherwise gone to. If the WMF wants to spend down its stash a bit, it would do more good supporting the Internet Archive than almost anything it spends money on. So I'm afraid I disagree with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not being conference-centric, just one of many ideas. By "banquet" I mean a Saturday or Sunday evening buffet or catered box dinner with pre-packaged good but not overly expensive food, not a seven-course meal served by Britannica workers. And no, not every Wikipedian can attend or even has an interest in a conference, but a couple of hundred more scholarships for each conference seems feasible, especially when major donors are given that funding option (and especially for the 2026 25th anniversary conference in Paris). More importantly, as long as there is a well-developed wish list of feasible projects awaiting funding, the WMF should be allocating yearly funds toward those goals (i.e. some of the initial 20 million mentioned above).
- As long as this discussion has veered into in-depth analysis, what about the so-called Wikimedia Movement and its goals. Why not add, if it isn't being done already, a major emphasis on funding programs to promote and enhance early childhood reading? The earlier a child can read the earlier the brain's pathways develop specific cognitive abilities, and early childhood reading seems to directly coincide with the structure of WMF's hopes and dreams. Things like that, summarized and presented as funding options (such as your mention of donating new computers to long-time users), would give non-donating billionaires more tangible ways to focus their money (a deep dive into Elon Musk's mind: "I certainly don't want to fund Wikipedia, where the wild things roam, but since the WMF is coming to me with several funding options, their early childhood reading project has success written all over it.") In other words, tech upkeep first, the sky is the limit second. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that seems a bit more reasonable to me although I can't speak for Yngvadottir. I'm uncertain about the WMF funding other things that aren't directly project based given how much is already spent. Something that was interesting about Wikimania was getting the chance to interact with affiliates and other partners like the Internet Archive because those sorts of inner workings are somewhat of a mystery even to someone like me whose become incredibly involved on the community aspect of the movement. I felt a bit out of place at times because it sometimes felt like everyone I was meeting was involved in an affiliate or a grant funded project. I'm in the middle of writing an interesting essay about those sorts of things. That said, you might want a better example than Elon Musk. I can't see him being supportive of anything involving "wokepedia". He's kind of the poster child for why people might be wary of anyone with a bunch of money throwing it at the foundation, even if that might also come with access to resources we wouldn't otherwise have. I do think Yngvadottir makes a good point that the foundation isn't broke either and there's good reason to be concerned when the fundraising campaigns imply otherwise or employ manipulative tactics. Tech upkeep should definitely come first because I'm under the impression we're years behind on that and that's not a good state of things for a tech-based nonprofit. Even newbie me had some thoughts on that even if she was a bit more naive on how all this works [1]. As for mobile editing, oh wow do I have thoughts. I'd encourage people to take a look at CENT and read my essay on that. Anyways, I'm off to go take a long walk off to a library I wrote an article about recently (no freely licensed photographs exist yet). I also have high hopes for learning about how Norway funds religious communities and maybe expanding Jehovah's Witnesses. That situation seems complicated, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well what I thought was on CENT. Apparently someone removed it for "inactivity" even though plenty of people have commented there. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, sounds like you rode a great learning curve at that conference. What jumps out for me is that the foundation is years behind with some tech? I'm not functional in techspeak, and even the CENT page and topic is new to me. Yet I'm surprised there may be problems in the tech area of WMF, they should get the best people in the world working on the things, even if they can only be hired for a week or two. Not my area of knowledge in any way. Elon Musk, I've got more hopes for him and WMF getting together on something than most. With his smarts and perception of the world he likely has a well-developed sense of the importance of Wikipedia, historically and culturally, and part of him loves it. He seems angry enough at it to offer that billion-dollar challenge, and he wouldn't have done that if he was totally anti, just frustrated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we have very different ideas about Elon Musk. I'll leave it at that. As for tech issues, yes it's a very well known problem. It's not a failure to innovate, it's that a lot of stuff simply doesn't work the way it should. There are much better people than me to explain all the ways this sucks and how frustrated they are about it. CENT is a shortcut for Template:Centralized discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're educating me on an area I know little about, and I didn't realize the extent that such tech problems existed. Hopefully there's a worldwide task force of the most capable minds on the planet working on it (whatever it is, and for someone on the outside looking in the technology of Wikipedia seems magical and works amazingly well, so whatever the problem is I hope it's not leading to potential breakdowns, harm, or lessening of Wikipedia's day-to-day operations). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Um, well, people have known that these issues for quite awhile. I imagine that's a big part of why relations with the foundation can be a bit messy, alongside those other factors. May I ask why you have so much faith in the foundation's abilities? I have more optimism than most but yours is like on an extra level. I wonder why that might be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, the extent of the problems is news to me, and you've gotten my interest up about what they are (although, if mainly tech, I won't be able to understand them anyway). I don't have great faith in the foundation's present-time abilities and their oddly low communication level with the community. My comments on WMF focus on "best possible results" based upon Wikipedia's well-earned reputation, what I imagine donors may expect for their money, and the vast untapped potential for further funding of specific projects. Combined with a bit of faith that the foundation will evolve into funding much of the communities wish lists, adding things like an early childhood reading project into the mix seems reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just realized, is the main tech problem that brouhaha over the default Vector skin? That was/is a grindy issue. I'm happily outside of its range as I use the Monobook skin. Took a quick look at wishlist but didn't study how it works. Are people happy with the results of the interaction between Wishlist and the Foundation? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, definitely not. It's way more complicated than that. As I said, there are way better people than me out there to explain all the bugs and technical debt that frustrates them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I once had an interesting conversation with SMcCandlish who could probably explain all that a bit better than I could. I will say that I have noticed a good trend in the foundation listening to community perspectives more, even if there's still a ways to go in addressing people's concerns. I just don't want to sound all doom and gloom when there are some good things that are happening. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, Randy Kryn, people are definitely not happy with the WMF's response to the Wishlist; they habitually ignore all or most of it, instead imposing changes that tend to get in the way of our work, and in the case of the Visual Editor, they added it after years of imploring and it was horrendously bad and I think they still have aspects of it (like talk-page editing) that aren't fixed. Their testing is not only inadequate, they ignore feedback, and there are urgent bug reports from years ago that still aren't fixed; it tends to take someone with inside contacts yanking their chain before the devs will fix something. There's been more than one occasion when community members have had to step in and code a fix or a bypass for something the WMF broke (off the top of my head, two examples: (a) when they removed the "orange bar of doom" and gave us the ping/notifications system, but forgot to give unregistered editors any notification of posts to their user talk pages, so that IP editors were about to be blocked after a series of warnings to their talk pages that they had no reason to realise existed, and we were unable to get anyone at the WMF to realise this needed fixing urgently—someone whipped up a notification for IP editors; (b) when they pulled the plug on the toolbar most of us were still using—someone, I think the same person, recreated it and told us what to add where to carry on editing with the shortcuts we all variously needed). The "technical debt" thing has to do with the underlying code, which needs updating, as well as with the need to adapt to new devices (cellphones and tablets), but the WMF fails chronically at providing for how people actually work on the projects, even at testing adequately for the fact this is not some social media thing where the sky will not fall in if there's downtime or if some function breaks temporarily, but live creation and maintenance of a Top 10 website and associated websites. Plus they may be headquartered in SF, near Silicon Valley, but they do not have a top-tier programming team by any measure, and the community includes some extremely good programmers. (Same embarrassing thing goes for editing and indeed for contributing to Commons; there are some frighteningly accomplished and distinguished people among the doofuses like me.) From some of what you're saying, I wonder whether you think the WMF actually started and runs Wikipedia? It was actually instituted several years after the project began, so all its movement strategising is actually beyond its remit. The WMF has no right to claim credit for my work whatsoever, although I gritted my teeth and tacitly accepted its doing so until Framgate. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yikes, thanks for the long and detailed response, I'll have to reread it a couple of times. One reason I may have missed the depth of this is that the only tool I use is Hotcat, and that's never had problems as far as I remember. What stands out quickly is that you think the wishlist isn't being regarded by the Foundation with the respect it should have, and is not being fully funded. That seems a problem. Does the Foundation assign a very large team of coders and tech people just to work on Wikipedia and the other projects' maintenance and improvements, and nothing else, along with interested tech savvy Wikipedians and Wikimedians? WMF came into existence fairy long after Wikipedia was up and running, and as I understand it, formed to maintain and fund Wikipedia and then the growing list of other projects. It does not have any say over content. Wikipedia content is off the table for the Foundation, I think they understand that. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I generally concur with Yngvadottir's summary of the issues, even if Clovermoss has detected some improvements. As I've been saying for over a decade now, WMF has an organizational lifecycle problem, in which it refuses to move on from the "visionary founding by myopic and control-freak nerds" phase into the "operated by experienced nonprofit/NGO people and leading intellectuals in the target issue area" phase. It is operating like a software company with product/service deliverables to the commercial market, instead of behaving as what it actually is, a not-for-profit charity with a public-interest mission. Its board and staff are chock full of software and ISP industry people, and its tech development is run on a basis of pushing features (dreamed up by marketing) to try to grow a customer base, instead of listening to an serving the actual needs of the active constituency using or trying to use the tools. I've (professionally) been through this sort of stalled-org-development problem twice before (at EFF, which fixed it and flourished; and at CRF, which did not and collapsed). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those they do hire from the non-profit world, particularly their recent CEOs, have clearly been chosen for their fundraising acumen. I'm not sure there's a good comparison for the WMF. Unlike other charities, they are not in control. We volunteers don't volunteer for the WMF (except for a tiny minority in the chapters, on the WMF strategy wikis, and at Wikidata who may see their volunteer work that way). The WMF's function is supposed to be ancillary, to support what the volunteers do. Drmies once called it a secretariat, which I think is a good word. Apart from their ineptitude, the basic problem is that, while demurring to avoid falling foul of Section 230 or whatever its number is, they keep trying to steer the projects. Pronouncements that indigenous knowledge must be given priority and that behaviour policies must not favour established users (in fact almost the entirety of the "universal code of conduct", as underlined by the fact they ignored the community's disinclination to ratify it) influence the writing of the encyclopaedia, and are intended to. Campaigns against "toxic users" at Wikimania do too. Projects such as WikiEdu (no longer officially a WMF programme), the now notorious experiment with targeted recruiting of editors in India, and the ongoing contests to add as many images as possible, etc., etc., are all well intentioned interference; they are bad not just because of their poor execution (the WMF consistently fails to emphasise the seriousness of copyvio or build in adequate mechanisms for finding and dealing with it when participants in these programmes commit copyvio) but because they jump over the project communities (and expect us to clean up the resulting messes, of course). The whole "movement" thing is in large part a fiction to justify the WMF's curated image as the owner-controller of the projects; the great majority of volunteers, including highly active volunteers, work almost entirely on one project, and the attempt to rebrand themselves as the "Wikipedia Foundation" was revealing as to the extent they seek to claim the credit for what we do. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just realized, is the main tech problem that brouhaha over the default Vector skin? That was/is a grindy issue. I'm happily outside of its range as I use the Monobook skin. Took a quick look at wishlist but didn't study how it works. Are people happy with the results of the interaction between Wishlist and the Foundation? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, the extent of the problems is news to me, and you've gotten my interest up about what they are (although, if mainly tech, I won't be able to understand them anyway). I don't have great faith in the foundation's present-time abilities and their oddly low communication level with the community. My comments on WMF focus on "best possible results" based upon Wikipedia's well-earned reputation, what I imagine donors may expect for their money, and the vast untapped potential for further funding of specific projects. Combined with a bit of faith that the foundation will evolve into funding much of the communities wish lists, adding things like an early childhood reading project into the mix seems reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Um, well, people have known that these issues for quite awhile. I imagine that's a big part of why relations with the foundation can be a bit messy, alongside those other factors. May I ask why you have so much faith in the foundation's abilities? I have more optimism than most but yours is like on an extra level. I wonder why that might be. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. You're educating me on an area I know little about, and I didn't realize the extent that such tech problems existed. Hopefully there's a worldwide task force of the most capable minds on the planet working on it (whatever it is, and for someone on the outside looking in the technology of Wikipedia seems magical and works amazingly well, so whatever the problem is I hope it's not leading to potential breakdowns, harm, or lessening of Wikipedia's day-to-day operations). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we have very different ideas about Elon Musk. I'll leave it at that. As for tech issues, yes it's a very well known problem. It's not a failure to innovate, it's that a lot of stuff simply doesn't work the way it should. There are much better people than me to explain all the ways this sucks and how frustrated they are about it. CENT is a shortcut for Template:Centralized discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, sounds like you rode a great learning curve at that conference. What jumps out for me is that the foundation is years behind with some tech? I'm not functional in techspeak, and even the CENT page and topic is new to me. Yet I'm surprised there may be problems in the tech area of WMF, they should get the best people in the world working on the things, even if they can only be hired for a week or two. Not my area of knowledge in any way. Elon Musk, I've got more hopes for him and WMF getting together on something than most. With his smarts and perception of the world he likely has a well-developed sense of the importance of Wikipedia, historically and culturally, and part of him loves it. He seems angry enough at it to offer that billion-dollar challenge, and he wouldn't have done that if he was totally anti, just frustrated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well what I thought was on CENT. Apparently someone removed it for "inactivity" even though plenty of people have commented there. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that seems a bit more reasonable to me although I can't speak for Yngvadottir. I'm uncertain about the WMF funding other things that aren't directly project based given how much is already spent. Something that was interesting about Wikimania was getting the chance to interact with affiliates and other partners like the Internet Archive because those sorts of inner workings are somewhat of a mystery even to someone like me whose become incredibly involved on the community aspect of the movement. I felt a bit out of place at times because it sometimes felt like everyone I was meeting was involved in an affiliate or a grant funded project. I'm in the middle of writing an interesting essay about those sorts of things. That said, you might want a better example than Elon Musk. I can't see him being supportive of anything involving "wokepedia". He's kind of the poster child for why people might be wary of anyone with a bunch of money throwing it at the foundation, even if that might also come with access to resources we wouldn't otherwise have. I do think Yngvadottir makes a good point that the foundation isn't broke either and there's good reason to be concerned when the fundraising campaigns imply otherwise or employ manipulative tactics. Tech upkeep should definitely come first because I'm under the impression we're years behind on that and that's not a good state of things for a tech-based nonprofit. Even newbie me had some thoughts on that even if she was a bit more naive on how all this works [1]. As for mobile editing, oh wow do I have thoughts. I'd encourage people to take a look at CENT and read my essay on that. Anyways, I'm off to go take a long walk off to a library I wrote an article about recently (no freely licensed photographs exist yet). I also have high hopes for learning about how Norway funds religious communities and maybe expanding Jehovah's Witnesses. That situation seems complicated, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- As long as this discussion has veered into in-depth analysis, what about the so-called Wikimedia Movement and its goals. Why not add, if it isn't being done already, a major emphasis on funding programs to promote and enhance early childhood reading? The earlier a child can read the earlier the brain's pathways develop specific cognitive abilities, and early childhood reading seems to directly coincide with the structure of WMF's hopes and dreams. Things like that, summarized and presented as funding options (such as your mention of donating new computers to long-time users), would give non-donating billionaires more tangible ways to focus their money (a deep dive into Elon Musk's mind: "I certainly don't want to fund Wikipedia, where the wild things roam, but since the WMF is coming to me with several funding options, their early childhood reading project has success written all over it.") In other words, tech upkeep first, the sky is the limit second. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
the now notorious experiment with targeted recruiting of editors in India
haven't heard of that one before. What exactly are you referring to? I'm aware that WikiEd has inadvertently caused huge cleanup messes but I'm not really aware of other things that directly involve the foundation. Just to be clear, you're mostly concerned about the implementation of these initiatives and not the ideas themselves, correct? Or am I not getting what your argument is? I think that knowledge (and in this case, institutional knowledge) is power because I think a lot of people genuinely don't understand the reasons behind why there's tension with the foundation and the community. One could probably write a whole book about it, honestly. So that's why I think it's important to have clear things to point to when people are confused about the why. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir:, I've decided to go ahead and make a statement about the Wikimedia Foundation on my talk page after giving this some thought. After nearly 20 years of building articles on the site, I have to say that nothing good seems to happen around here under the Wikimedia Foundation's hold on the project's purse strings. I believe the Wikimedia Foundation should outright be dissolved at this point. Maybe then all that money collected under our names will have a chance at actually improving Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bloodofox, hi again, and that's a good statement. (For others, it's on their user page.) If only we had a lean, mean secretariat supporting our work rather than this albatross flopping around our collective necks. Clovermoss, I'm afraid it's both, but primarily their meddling by doing such things. They're trying to direct the projects, to determine their priorities and impose WMF decisions on them. I tracked down specifics about 2 things: * The India thing was the India Education Program, in 2011, ended in January 2012. It may have predated WikiEdu. It was a bit of a disaster and has been cited ever since as Exhibit A for the WMF sticking the community with a big mess to clean up. Their own summary is pretty bad. So far as I can reconstruct, they decided that since India is a massive country with a large number of people literate in English, the WMF should get more editors from India by running a training program to teach them how to edit (from my perspective, paternalistic condescension towards Indians on top of the arrogant notion that the WMF should plan and steer how Wikipedia participation expands). So far as I can see, they only trialed this in Pune before they pulled the plug; there were massive, pervasive problems with copyvio. Searching the AN/I archives, I also find someone reporting in September 2012 that large numbers of articles from the program were being AfDed; that short discussion, and the red links in it (which of course I can't see even if I could understand the technical and scientific topics) suggest there were also problems with notability. * User:Guy Macon/Wikipedia has Cancer turned out when I looked at it again to be heavily focussed on the growth in WMF funds, both income and end-of-year surplus. Its table has been updated almost to the present (through June 2023, possibly the latest figures available) and links to pdf statements; there also should be a graph but the WMF still haven't fixed the graphs extension (it's been at least a year, that can be used as an example of poor responsiveness to Phabricator tickets.) Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding about the graphs extension is that they're planning to replace it with something else. Thank you for linking those other pages, I'll take a look at them. Something written in the cancer essay caught my eye:
We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details
. Do they not do that? Like I know I suggested that donors get a dropdown menu of where they want to allocate their funds (technical support, community support, etc) but do they really not keep track of these things internally? That would be shocking. In regards to political advocacy, I don't know about the past, but I asked a question about this at Wikimania and was told that they only get involved in things that directly involve the projects. I've seen at least one person get upset that they "weren't doing enough" when it stopped affecting the projects and they stopped caring. I'd have to go digging but I'm fairly certain it had something to do with some government regulation somewhere. - It probably sounds a bit stupid that this conversation got me thinking of "what if they spent money doing something?" It might be a better prioritization of funds spent elsewhere. Imagine if the foundation provided some sort of stipend for experienced editors to improve a certain amount of articles. Maybe it'd be a specific topic area (like women or developing countries) that are considered underrepresented or maybe it'd even just be more generalized. A lot of donors already think they're supporting volunteers directly with their donations. But you'd be less likely to run into massive cleanup problems involving copyright or notability if you're directly supporting people who already know what they're doing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- That would almost certainly fall afoul of Section 230 though. (I looked it up, and had remembered the number correctly.) As it is they push up to the line with GLAM fellowships (and other programmes involving grants from 3rd parties), and I believe there are sponsorships at one remove through the chapters. And they do what they can to support Women in Red. (Also the laptops are given to people after applications that highlight their contributions record.) In addition to the legal issue, the community as a whole is vigorously opposed to paid editing—for many, the GLAM positions don't pass the smell test for that reason, and when Dr. Blofeld organised content improvement contests with prizes (I think the prizes were subscriptions to journals or credit to buy books), there was disapproval. If the WMF were to pay editors, there'd be an outcry. I'd be strenuously opposed too because it would be another instance of them deciding what content we need or whose work should be promoted. That's not the wiki way, it's astroturfing. They do not have a mandate to oversee our work. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The way I was thinking of it was more focused on content improvement (give experienced editor x for their rent and they improve 30 articles of their choice). I thought it might be a useful idea because experienced editors are less likely to run into issues like copyright infringement or lack understanding about notability. It'd also be a way to support editors without the foundation directly interfering and a common misconception donors have is that they are supporting content (so why not actually do that?) But I understand if actually implementing something like this would bring more disadvantages than benefits (did not even think of the possible legal implications there). I was under the impression that the community was generally more favourable to responsible GLAM and Wikimedian in Residence programs (my definition of responsible is basically being a decent editor that's following all the rules but also compensated for their work). So I didn't think my random idea would necessarily lead to a massive community outcry but it's possible I'm a bit out of touch on that. After all, I did just recently spend a bunch of time interacting with a bunch of people involved in affiliate work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to Dr. Blofeld. I'd be interested to hear about your experiences trying to organize content improvement challenges. Also I apologize for taking over your talk page, Yngvadottir, let me know if you prefer I move this discussion elsewhere. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Yngie and Clover! I think contests and challenges are the best thing we could do for Wikipedia, but they are very time consuming to run, particularly if you have bills to pay like most of us. Unfortunately the WMF were not willing to fund multiple contests, in fact I found the head of the grants team Marti Johnson to be quite rude and difficult. Private funding for contests from weslthy people like Elon Musk with big prizes offered would be ideal, but would probably cause contention with those against "paid editing". The Africa contest was amazing in paricular I thought, over 2000 improvements to articles that nobody ever edits. I wish there was a way to scale that globally long term, and could be done with decent funding and competent people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good to see you, Dr.! (I must admit, it would be fun to read an announcement that Elon Musk was underwriting an effort by Dr. Blofeld to improve Wikipedia '-) I might even dust off my YouTube channel to vlog about that one. Ahem.) Clovermoss, no trouble at all. Now that it's a new month, I can respond :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Yngie and Clover! I think contests and challenges are the best thing we could do for Wikipedia, but they are very time consuming to run, particularly if you have bills to pay like most of us. Unfortunately the WMF were not willing to fund multiple contests, in fact I found the head of the grants team Marti Johnson to be quite rude and difficult. Private funding for contests from weslthy people like Elon Musk with big prizes offered would be ideal, but would probably cause contention with those against "paid editing". The Africa contest was amazing in paricular I thought, over 2000 improvements to articles that nobody ever edits. I wish there was a way to scale that globally long term, and could be done with decent funding and competent people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- That would almost certainly fall afoul of Section 230 though. (I looked it up, and had remembered the number correctly.) As it is they push up to the line with GLAM fellowships (and other programmes involving grants from 3rd parties), and I believe there are sponsorships at one remove through the chapters. And they do what they can to support Women in Red. (Also the laptops are given to people after applications that highlight their contributions record.) In addition to the legal issue, the community as a whole is vigorously opposed to paid editing—for many, the GLAM positions don't pass the smell test for that reason, and when Dr. Blofeld organised content improvement contests with prizes (I think the prizes were subscriptions to journals or credit to buy books), there was disapproval. If the WMF were to pay editors, there'd be an outcry. I'd be strenuously opposed too because it would be another instance of them deciding what content we need or whose work should be promoted. That's not the wiki way, it's astroturfing. They do not have a mandate to oversee our work. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding about the graphs extension is that they're planning to replace it with something else. Thank you for linking those other pages, I'll take a look at them. Something written in the cancer essay caught my eye:
"27712 Pacific Coast Highway" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect 27712 Pacific Coast Highway has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 11 § 27712 Pacific Coast Highway until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPathtalk 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Friendly notice
[edit]This isn't a "formal" notice and you're accused no wrongdoing, but since your name was mentioned, I feel it's appropriate that you're aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Two editors unable to participate collaboratively regarding the recent dispute at EEng's talk page, assuming you haven't yet seen the notice there. Here's hoping that this can finally be addressed before more harm is caused in mainspace or a good faith contributor gets run off the project. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)