Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)
Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | WMF | Miscellaneous |
Before creating a new section, note:
- Discussions of technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
- Discussions of policy belong at Village pump (policy).
- If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.
Before commenting, note:
- This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
- Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Wikipedia:Perennial proposals.
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.
Toward helping readers understand what Wiki is/isn’t
editI’ve often noticed confusion on the part of both general readers and editors about what Wikipedia articles are AND aren’t. Truth be told, I suspect all of us editors probably had it not only before becoming editors but also well into our Wiki work.
So I got thinking that perhaps a cute (but not overly so!) little information box that would fly in or otherwise attract attention upon accessing a new article could help halt some common misunderstandings or lack of awareness of general readers. Because I think most editors here at the Pump would be aware of many such examples, I hope you’ll forgive my not providing e.g.’s.
(Of course if such an info box were put in place, there’d also need to be a way for readers not to see it again if they so wish.)
I started to check elsewhere at the Pump to see if a similar idea had ever been submitted before, but I couldn’t figure out a relevant search term. And I didn’t want to suggest an outright proposal if anything similar had in fact ever been proposed. So IDEA LAB just seemed a good place to start the ball rolling. Looking forward to seeing where it leads. Augnablik (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a strong supporter of providing more information about how Wikipedia works for readers, especially if it helps them get more comfortable with the idea of editing. Readers are editors and editors are readers—this line should be intentionally blurred. I don't know if a pop up or anything similar to that is the right way to go, but I do think there's something worth considering here. One thing I've floated before was an information panel featured prominently on the main page that briefly explains how every reader is an editor and gives some basic resources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with putting stuff on the main page is that many (probably most) readers get to Wikipedia articles from a search engine, rather than via the main page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Another issue is a large number of these users tend to be on mobile devices, which have known bugs with regards to things like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The main page gets 4 to 5 million page views each day. And even so, I would guess that people who go out of their way to read the main page are better candidates to become frequent editors than people who treat Wikipedia like it's part of Google. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't thinking of the main page. What I had in mind was that whenever someone requests to go to an article — irrespective of how he or she entered Wikipedia — the information box would fly in or otherwise appear. Augnablik (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know you weren't thinking of the main page. My reply was to Thebiguglyalien. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- So I see now. Sorry. Augnablik (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know you weren't thinking of the main page. My reply was to Thebiguglyalien. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with putting stuff on the main page is that many (probably most) readers get to Wikipedia articles from a search engine, rather than via the main page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- What sort of confusion are you seeking to dispel? Looking over WP:NOT, basically everything on there strikes me as "well, DUH!". I honestly can't understand why most of it has had to be spelled out. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Khajidha, i don't see the box as ONLY to dispel confusion but ALSO to point out some strengths of Wikipedia that probably readers wouldn't have been aware of.
- A few things that came to my mind: although Wikipedia is now one of the world's most consulted information sources, articles should be considered works in progress because ... however, there are stringent requirements for articles to be published, including the use of strong sources to back up information and seasoned editors to eagle-eye them; writing that is objective and transparent about any connection between writers and subjects of articles ... and (this last could be controversial but I think it would be helpful for readers in academia) although not all universities and academic circles accept Wiki articles as references, they can serve as excellent pointers toward other sources.
- if the idea of presenting an information box including the above (and more) is adopted, a project team could work on exactly what it would say and look like. Augnablik (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that considerably overstates reality (the requirements are not stringent, sources do not have to be strong, many things are not checked by anyone, much less by seasoned editors, hiding COIs is moderately common...).
- BTW, there has been some professional research on helping people understand Wikipedia in the past, and the net result is that when people understand Wikipedia's process, they trust it less. This might be a case of Careful What You Wish For. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ooops. Well, if stringent requirements, etc., overstate reality, then official Wiki guidance and many Teahouse discussions are needlessly scaring many a fledgling editor! 😱 Augnablik (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- All of these points also fall into the "well, DUH!" category. I did, however, want to respond to your statement that "not all universities and academic circles accept Wiki articles as references". I would be very surprised if any university or serious academic project would accept Wikipedia as a reference. Tertiary sources like encyclopedias have always been considered inappropriate at that level, as far as I know. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Point taken about encyclopedias being generally unacceptable in academic writing.
- But as we’re having this discussion in an idea lab, this is the perfect place to toss the ball back to you, Khajidha, and ask how you would describe Wikipedia for new readers so they know how it can be advantageous and how it can’t?
- As I see it, that sort of information is a real need for those who consult Wikipedia — just as customers appreciate quick summaries or reviews of products they’re considering purchasing — to get a better handle on “what’s in it for me.” Augnablik (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the logo at the top left already does a pretty good job: "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". Especially if you look at the expanded form we use elsewhere: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Khajidha, a mere tag saying "The Free Encyclopedia" seems to me just a start in the right direction. The addition of "that anyone can edit" adds a little more specificity, although you didn't mention anything about writing as well as editing. Still, I think these tags are too vague as far as what readers need more insight about.
- I'm working on a list of things I'd like to bring to readers' attention, but I'd like to put it away tonight and finish tomorrow. At that point, I'll humbly request you to "de-DUH" your evaluation of my idea. Augnablik (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to me the problem is that people don't understand what an encyclopedia is. That's a "them" problem, not an "us" problem. And what exactly do these readers think editing the encyclopedia would be that doesn't incude writing it? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is very different from the historical concept of encyclopedia. The open editing expands the pool of editors, at the expense of accuracy. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)
- Wikipedia may have put traditional general encyclopedias out of business, or at least made them change their business model drastically, but it does not define what an encyclopedia is. One example is that Wikipedia relies largely on secondary sources, but traditional encyclopedias, at least for the most important articles, employed subject matter experts who wrote largely on the basis of primary sources. It is our job to explain the difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- After a little longer gap between than what I thought it would take to create a list of things I believe all readers need to be aware of from the git-go about what Wikipedia is and isn't, due to some challenges in other departments of life, here's what I came up with. It would be in sections, similar to what you see below, each surrounded by a clip art loop, perhaps golden brown, and perhaps a few other pieces of clip art to set it off visually.I wish I knew how to separate paragraphs with line spacing ... I know this looks a little squished.
- Seems to me the problem is that people don't understand what an encyclopedia is. That's a "them" problem, not an "us" problem. And what exactly do these readers think editing the encyclopedia would be that doesn't incude writing it? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the logo at the top left already does a pretty good job: "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia". Especially if you look at the expanded form we use elsewhere: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- _____________________________________
- New to reading Wikipedia articles? Here are some helpful things for you to be aware of about Wikipedia. They'll help you get more clearer ideas of how you can use the articles to best advantage.
- If you'd like to go into more depth about all this, and more, just go to the article in Wikipedia about itself by typing WIKIPEDIA in the Wikipedia search field.
- Wikipedia is a different kind of encyclopedia.
- — Its articles can be written and edited by anyone.
- — They’re supposed to be based completely on reliable outside sources.
- — They can be updated at any time, thus allowing for quick corrections or additions if needed.
- — Wikipedia is free.
- That’s the main difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias.
- BUT:
- All encyclopedias serve as starting points where readers can find out about information — especially the main thinking about particular subjects — then follow up as they wish.
- Students and researchers: keep in mind that schools and professional research journals don’t accept encyclopedias as references for written papers, but do encourage using them to get some ideas with which to go forward.
- Wikipedia has become popular for good reason.
- — Wikipedia is the world’s largest-ever encyclopedia.
- — It’s consistently ranked among the ten websites people visit most.
- — Because it’s all online, it’s easy to access.
- — Because it’s highly interactive, it’s easy to move around from topic to topic.
- Quality standards for writing articles are in place and in action behind the scenes.
- — Wikipedia has high standards for choosing the subjects of articles.
- — Wikipedia also has high standards for writing articles, especially freedom from bias.
- — Certain editors are assigned to ensure that articles follow Wikipedia standards.
- — Although differences of opinions naturally arise about whether a particular article does so, there are sets of procedures to work them out and arbiters to step in as needed. Augnablik (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The
<br />
tag should take care of line spacing. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)- Is this possible to do in Visual Editor instead (I hope)? Augnablik (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you put information about "reading Wikipedia articles" in an editing environment?
- Also, several things you've written are just wrong. Wikipedia is not considered a "highly interactive" website. "Certain editors" are not "assigned to ensure" anything. Wikipedia does not have "high standards for writing articles", and quite a lot of readers and editors think we're seriously failing in the "freedom from bias" problem. We might do okay-ish on some subjects (e.g., US political elections) but we do fairly poorly on other subjects (e.g., acknowledging the existence of any POV that isn't widely discussed in English-language sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Is this possible to do in Visual Editor instead (I hope)? Augnablik (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I think a more magnetic format for this tool I'm hoping can one day be used on Wikipedia would be a short series of animated "fly-ins" rather than a static series of points with a loop around each set thereof. Augnablik (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Augnablik, personally, I think your idea would be great and would help bring new editors to the project, especially with these messages, which seem more focused on article maintenance (more important nowadays imo) than article creation.
- JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 02:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- The
- Idea Labmates …
- Because I had such high hopes of being on the trail of something practical to help prevent some of the main misunderstandings with which readers come to Wikipedia — and at the same time to foster awareness of how to use it to better advantage — I wonder if a little spark could get the discussion going again. Or does the idea not seem worth pursuing further? Augnablik (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I guess not.
- At least for now.
- 📦 Archive time. Augnablik (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you won't be disheartened by this experience, and if you have any other good ideas will share them with us. There are two stages to getting an idea implemented in a volunteEr organisation:
- Getting others to accept that it is a good idea.
- Persuading someone to implement it.
- You have got past stage 1 with me, and maybe others, but I'm afraid that, even if I knew how to implement it, it wouldn't be near the top of my list of priorities. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Phil. No, not disheartened … I think of it as an idea whose time has not yet come. I’m in full agreement about the two stages of idea implementation, plus a couple more in between to lead from one to the other.
- When we in the creative fields recognize that continuum and get our egos out of the way, great things begin to happen. Mine is hopefully drying out on the line.😅 Augnablik (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you won't be disheartened by this experience, and if you have any other good ideas will share them with us. There are two stages to getting an idea implemented in a volunteEr organisation:
Wiki AI?
editI would happily pay 25 cents per query if Wikipedia had its own AI chat interface. I use the Co-Star app (astrology) in this way already. I find the cost is worth the value. Free AI summaries available in search engines suffer from having too much garbage input (aka, the unrestrained data of the internet) to produce viable output. I would find it useful to have an AI interface built into Wikipedia. I already trust the information here and all "training data" for the hypothetical bot would effectively be open source. I would trust an AI bot managed by Wikipedia much more than I would trust an AI bot managed by any other entity. And I would be willing to pay for the service more often than I would be able to continue supporting the site through donation. 2603:6080:9F00:B05D:6205:4DF2:8C83:4343 (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Wikipedia is free and open-source, so we won't be implementing a paid AI chatbot on principle. Regarding the idea of an AI chatbot in general, they are often prone to hallucinations and not necessarily as accurate as they are confident. And they can't be edited by individual users in case they were trained on factual errors, which again goes against Wikipedia's principles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I find the cost is worth the value. But is the value worth the cost? —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- You could try NotebookLM from Google Labs as your interface to Wikipedia content. It's a pretty useful tool in general. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
New users, lack of citation on significant expansion popup confirmation before publishing
editThere are many edits often made where a large amount of information is added without citations. For new users, wouldn't it be good if it was detected when they go to publish an edit lacking citations with a large amount of text, and came up with a popup of some sort directing them to WP:NOR, and asking them to confirm if they wish to make the edit? I think you should be able to then turn it off easily (as in ticking don't remind me again within the popup), but my impression is that many make edits without being familiar with the concept of rules such as WP:NOR. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're describing mw:Edit check. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- We can deploy it. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh, I didn't know we and dewiki didn't get deployment. Is there a reason? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm thinking of the right tool, there was a discussion (at one one of the village pumps I think) that saw significant opposition to deployment here, although I can't immediately find it. I seem to remember the opposition was a combination of errors and it being bundled with VE? I think Fram and WhatamIdoing were vocal in that discussion so may remember where it was (or alternatively what I'm mixing it up with). Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu, Edit check is available on the visual editor. Having it on wikitext won't make sense as the goal is to teach users to add citations, not to teach them both about citations and wikitext. Let's reduce complexity. :)
- And the visual editor is still not the default editor at de.wp or en.wp. I advised to work on deploying both in parallel so that newcomers would have a better editing experience all at once (less wikitext, more guidance). Why am I not working on it now? Because it would take time. Now that the visual editor was used for years at all other wikis to make millions of edits, we should consider making it the default editor at English Wikipedia for new accounts. It could be a progressive deployment. I've not yet explored past reasons why English Wikipedia didn't wanted to have the visual editor being deployed, again for time reasons. But we would support any community initiative regarding VE deployment for sure.
- We could deploy Edit check without VE, but I'm afraid of a low impact on newcomers: they are less likely to be helped as long as VE remains the second editor.
- @Thryduulf, there were a discussion about Edit check in the past, you are correct. It covered multiple topics actually. I let you re-read it if you like; I didn't found "significant opposition" there, more questions about Edit Check, VE, citations and more, concerns on Edit Check and VE integration, and support for a better experience for newcomers (as long as it doesn't impact existing personal experiences).
- Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you didn't see "significant oppo sition" there, then perhaps reread it? The tool you deployed elsewhere had no measurable positive impact (when tested on Simple or French Wikipedia). As for past reasons why enwiki didn't want VE deployed, let's give you one: because when VE was deployed here, it was extremely buggy (as in, making most articles worse when used, not better), but the WMF refused to undo their installation here (despite previous assurances) and used enwiki as a testing ground, wasting tons of editor hours and creating lots of frustration and distrust towards the WMF. This was only strengthened by later issues (Flow, Gather, Wikidata short descriptions) which all followed the same pattern, although in those cases we eventually, after lots of acrimonious debates and broken WMF promises, succeeded in getting them shut down). As shown in the linked discussion, here again we have two instances of WMF deployments supported by test results where in the first instance reality showed that these were probably fabricated or completely misunderstood, as in reality the results were disastrous; and in the second instance, Edit Check, reality showed that the tool wasn't an improvement over the current situation, but even when spelled out this was "misread" by the WMF. Please stop it. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you provide a couple of links to comments from people other than yourself, and which specifically opposed EditCheck (not the 'make the visual editor the default' or 'Citoid has some problems' sub-threads)? I just skimmed through the 81 comments from 19 editors in the proposal that Robertsky made, and while I might have missed something, your first comment, which was the 69th comment in the list, was the first one to oppose the idea of using software to recommend that new editors add more citations.
- Most of the discussion is not about EditCheck or encouraging refs. Most of it is about whether first-time editors should be put straight into the visual editor vs asking them to choose. The responses there begin this way:
- "I thought Visual Editor is already the default for new accounts and unregistered editors?" [1]
- "In theory, this sounds like a great idea. I'm eager to try it out..." [2]
- "I'd support making Visual Editor the default..." [3]
- "Agree 100%." [4]
- "I totally agree that VE should be the default for new users." [5]
- which is mostly not about whether to use software to encourage newbies to add more citations (the second quotation is directly about EditCheck; not quoted are comments, including mine, about whether it's technically necessary to make the visual editor 'the default' before deploying EditCheck [answer: no]).
- Then the thread shifts to @Chipmunkdavis wanting the citation templates to have "an easily accessed and obvious use of an
|author=
field, instead forcing all authors into|last
and|first
", which is about how the English Wikipedia chooses to organize its CS1 templates, and @Thryduulf wanting automatic ref names that are "human-friendly" (to take the wording RoySmith used), both of which entirely unrelated to whether to use software to encourage new editors to add more citations. - I see some opposition to putting new editors into the visual editor, and I see lots of complaints about automated refs, but I don't see any opposition from anyone except you to EditCheck itself. Please provide a couple of examples, so I can see what I missed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- "which is about how the English Wikipedia chooses to organize its CS1 templates" is perhaps one way to say that the VE has no functionality to accept the synonyms, which I discovered in a few disparate conversations following that thread. I still have a tab open to remind me to put a note about phab on this, it's really not ideal have VE editors shackled with the inability to properly record author names. CMD (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- VisualEditor is perfectly capable of accepting actual aliases such as
|author=
, and even non-existent parameters such as|fljstu249=
if you want (though I believe the citation templates, unlike most templates, will emit error messages for unknown parameters). It just isn't going to "suggest" them when the CS1 maintainers have told it not to do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)- If you know how to solve the problem, please solve the problem. Per Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 95, "The solution to the ve-can't/won't-use-already-existing-alias-list problem lies with MediaWiki, not with editors adding yet more parameters to TemplateData". As it stands, VE doesn't do it, and I've seen no indication that they consider it an issue. CMD (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you want this wikitext:
{{cite news |author=Alice Expert |date=November 20, 2024 |title=This is the title of my news story |work=The Daily Whatever}}
- which will produce this citation:
- Alice Expert (November 20, 2024). "This is the title of my news story". The Daily Whatever.
- then (a) I just did that in the Reply tool's visual mode, so it obviously can be done without any further coding in MediaWiki, VisualEditor, or anything else, and (b) you need to convince editors that they want "Alice Expert" at the start instead of "Expert, Alice" of citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to convince editors that they want "Alice Expert" instead of "Expert, Alice". The issue is, as covered in the original discussion with some good input from others, non-western name formats. It is a cultural blindspot to assume all names fall into "Expert, Alice" configurations, and it seems that it is a blindspot perpetuated by the current VE expectations. CMD (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- More precise link to the conversation: Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 95#Allowing Visual Editor/Citoid Citation tool to use more than one name format Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, I guess I'm having trouble understanding what you want.
- You said in the linked discussion that "My understanding is that the VE tool does not allow for the use of aliases". I'm telling you: Your understanding is wrong. It's obviously possible to get
|author=
in the visual editor, because I did that. Either this diff is a lie, or your understanding is mistaken. I'm going with the latter.|author=Mononym
is already possible. So what change are you actually asking for? - The linked discussion seems, to my eyes, to be a long list of people telling you that if you don't like the description used in the TemplateData (NB: not MediaWiki and not VisualEditor), then you should change the description in the TemplateData (NB: not MediaWiki and not VisualEditor) yourself. You say the devs told you that, and I count at least two other tech-savvy editors who told you to WP:SOFIXIT already. Neither the part that says "Last name" nor the part that says "The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'author-link'; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors" is part of either the visual editor or MediaWiki. Any editor who can edit Template:Cite news/doc can change those words to anything they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having to type source wikitext completely defeats the purpose of the visual editor; why not just type in the wikitext editor. This "solution" is a blaring technicality.Perhaps you should read the last four replies in the linked discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right, this is the sort of odd reply this topic inexplicably gets. You can just type in source code in the visual editor, I mean, why have visual editor at all. Just change the description so people can pretend someone's name is their last name, now being suggested yet again as a simple SOFIXIT, and no I'm not going to deliberately and formally codify that we should mislabel people's names, for what I did think before these various discussions were obvious reasons. CMD (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis, what I'd like to clarify is:
- If I type
|author=Sting
vs|last=Sting
, will this make any difference to anyone (human or machine) that ►is not looking at the wikitext. That last bit about not seeing the wikitext is the most important part. If the complaint is entirely about what's in the wikitext, then Wikipedia editors should treat it as the equivalent of a whitespacing 'problem': it's okay to clean it up to your preferred style if you're otherwise doing something useful, but it's not okay to force your preferred style on others just for the sake of having it be 'the right way'. - The options are:
- Those two are used as exact synonyms by the CS1 code, in which case it make no practical difference which alias is used, or
- Those two are handled differently by the CS1 code (e.g. emitting different microformatting information), in which case the CS1 code should not declare them to be aliases. AIUI aliases are only supposed to be used for exact substitutes.
- So which is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Misnaming someone is not a style choice. (It is literally an item explicitly mentioned in the UCOC.) Even if it wasn't, your professed solution is that a new editor open up the visual editor and see "Last name: The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'author-link' instead; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors. Please also use this field for names which don't have a first name last name structure."? That doesn't seem sensible or effective. CMD (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the "misnaming" happen? To be clear, I'm expecting an answer that either sounds like one of these two:
- "Only in the wikitext, but that's still very bad".
- "In a reader/user-facing location, namely _____" (where the blank might be filled in with something like "in the COinS microformatting").
- Which is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would refer to the previous discussions above and elsewhere where it has already been extensively covered that both of those options are true. It would in the wikitext, and is currently in the visual editor citation creator. CMD (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Both of those options are true" is not possible, when you name as the two locations:
- a place readers do not see ("in the wikitext") and
- another place readers do not see ("in the visual editor citation creator").
- So again: Where is the place readers see this "misnaming"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- It feels deeply uncivil to say "So again" for a question you haven't asked before. It is really surprising to see "misnaming" quoted as if it's something incorrect; it's hard to word this but that comes off as a shocking level of continued cultural insensitivity. At this point the various questions at hand have been answered multiple times in the different discussions, and we're wandering again towards odd red herrings that have little relation to the fact that VE source generator users are forced into a single naming system, something long solved by the non-VE source generator. I recommend the link RoySmith provided in the previous discussions if you haven't already[6], and remain hopeful one day that others will try to care about the non Alice Experts of the world. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought I had already been quite clear about that point:
- Are we now agreed that no readers and no actual article content are affected by this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- New editors see the VE citation creator, and that is the concern. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- People using the visual editor's template editor never see
|last=
on the CS1 templates. That is only visible to people using wikitext. - People using the visual editor's template editing tools see the locally defined TemplateData label "Last name", which CMD is free to change at any time to anything he can get consensus for, e.g., "Last name, sole name, or non-Western style name". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- People using the visual editor's template editor never see
- It feels deeply uncivil to say "So again" for a question you haven't asked before. It is really surprising to see "misnaming" quoted as if it's something incorrect; it's hard to word this but that comes off as a shocking level of continued cultural insensitivity. At this point the various questions at hand have been answered multiple times in the different discussions, and we're wandering again towards odd red herrings that have little relation to the fact that VE source generator users are forced into a single naming system, something long solved by the non-VE source generator. I recommend the link RoySmith provided in the previous discussions if you haven't already[6], and remain hopeful one day that others will try to care about the non Alice Experts of the world. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Both of those options are true" is not possible, when you name as the two locations:
- I would refer to the previous discussions above and elsewhere where it has already been extensively covered that both of those options are true. It would in the wikitext, and is currently in the visual editor citation creator. CMD (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the "misnaming" happen? To be clear, I'm expecting an answer that either sounds like one of these two:
- Misnaming someone is not a style choice. (It is literally an item explicitly mentioned in the UCOC.) Even if it wasn't, your professed solution is that a new editor open up the visual editor and see "Last name: The surname of the author; don't wikilink, use 'author-link' instead; can suffix with a numeral to add additional authors. Please also use this field for names which don't have a first name last name structure."? That doesn't seem sensible or effective. CMD (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right, this is the sort of odd reply this topic inexplicably gets. You can just type in source code in the visual editor, I mean, why have visual editor at all. Just change the description so people can pretend someone's name is their last name, now being suggested yet again as a simple SOFIXIT, and no I'm not going to deliberately and formally codify that we should mislabel people's names, for what I did think before these various discussions were obvious reasons. CMD (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Editing the templatedata for |last= has been verily rejected in the discussion CMD already linked. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- So we want text that is defined in TemplateData to say something different, but the method of changing that must not involve changing the text that is defined in TemplateData.
- I don't think that is a solvable problem, sorry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. How did you do that?
2. The author parameter is useful and used iff the author has no last name; e.g., byline being an organization, mononymous person, no author stated, etc. This is documented at the citation-style help pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)- The
|author=
parameter behaves the same as the|last=
parameter, so there's little point in changing the wikitext to say|author=
. - (In this case, I took the quick and dirty approach of typing out the template by hand, and pasting it in. The Reply tool's visual mode normally won't let you insert a template at all, because block-formatted templates completely screw up the discussion format. Normally, if there's no TemplateData to provide you with the options, then you'd click on the "+Add undocumented parameter" button and type in whatever you wanted. If there is TemplateData, then see my earlier comment that "It just isn't going to "suggest" them when the CS1 maintainers have told it not to do so.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- The
- It's semantically different, like the em tag vs italicizing and whatnot. And as I've said before, the documentation doesn't suggest it so that the clueless will not use both |last and |author. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I've never had much sympathy for prioritizing COinS. If it's an area that interests you, then I suggest watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to convince editors that they want "Alice Expert" instead of "Expert, Alice". The issue is, as covered in the original discussion with some good input from others, non-western name formats. It is a cultural blindspot to assume all names fall into "Expert, Alice" configurations, and it seems that it is a blindspot perpetuated by the current VE expectations. CMD (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you want this wikitext:
Aaron Liu (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)If someone adds |authorn= as a separate parameter, I fear that we will see an increase in the number of articles that populate Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter because OMG!-there's-an-empty-box-in-the-form;-I-must-fill-it. This is why I suggested radio buttons for aliases; something that MediaWiki would needs implement.
- If you know how to solve the problem, please solve the problem. Per Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 95, "The solution to the ve-can't/won't-use-already-existing-alias-list problem lies with MediaWiki, not with editors adding yet more parameters to TemplateData". As it stands, VE doesn't do it, and I've seen no indication that they consider it an issue. CMD (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- VisualEditor is perfectly capable of accepting actual aliases such as
- "which is about how the English Wikipedia chooses to organize its CS1 templates" is perhaps one way to say that the VE has no functionality to accept the synonyms, which I discovered in a few disparate conversations following that thread. I still have a tab open to remind me to put a note about phab on this, it's really not ideal have VE editors shackled with the inability to properly record author names. CMD (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- You missed that none of them tested it or checked it on other wikipedia versions, and that no support came along after I had tested it and posted my results? No surprise here... Fram (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- No comments came along after that either, so we don't really know. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's a big gap between "The discussion stopped" and "There was significant opposition in this discussion".
- In terms of EditCheck, I found most of the discussion to be off-topic, but I can honestly only find one editor (you) who opposed it in that discussion. I assume your failure to provide links to any other statement of opposition means you also honestly can't find a single comment in that discussion from anyone who agreed with you – just an absence of further comments, and an unprovable assumption on your part that its due to everyone agreeing with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't stop you from making any assumptions or presentings things in the most WMF-favorable light. Seems like VE all over again, only then you had the excuse of being paid by the WMF. Fram (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I presented the discussion in the most WMF-favorable light. The discussion started off pretty enthusiastic, but it was mostly enthusiastic about something other than EditCheck itself. It then turned into a long digression into something completely unrelated.
- (My own contributions to that discussion were technical in nature: It doesn't require the visual editor as the default; code may already exist for an unrelated change that someone wants; stats may already exist for something close to the numbers someone else wants.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't stop you from making any assumptions or presentings things in the most WMF-favorable light. Seems like VE all over again, only then you had the excuse of being paid by the WMF. Fram (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- No comments came along after that either, so we don't really know. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) Fram, this is precisely because I reread the conversation that I wrote my previous message. We have the right to disagree, but it should remain civil and not convey accusations of bad faith. The way you try to depict me as a dishonest person is not acceptable at all.
- I let other participants have a look at the previous discussion we linked, also take a look at the data we provided, and make their own opinion. We aren't the two people who will decide of a deployment here: I'm just the messenger, and you are not the person who has the final word on behalf of everyone. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tough luck. You posted a dishonest reply last time we had this discussion. If it had been a genuine error in that previous discussion, you should have just said so. Instead, you not only let your error stand, but then come here and claim that there was no significant opposition to Edit Check in that previous discussion, ignoring the one person who tested it and posted results. And like I said in that discussion, the data the WMF provides is not to be trusted at all, as seen from other deployments. Which I already stated and you again ignore completely. But, like I said, the WMF (and previous WMF employees like Whatamidoing) are very good at civil bullshit, while I am not so good at the civil part but rather good at cutting through the bullshit. Fram (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since there are non-native English speakers in this discussion, I'd like to clarify that "dishonest", in English, means that the person deliberately told the opposite of the truth. For example, it is dishonest to say "I love Windows ME", when you actually hate it.
- However:
- Having incorrect or outdated information is not "dishonest".
- Caring about a particular benefit more than a different problem is not "dishonest".
- Disagreeing with you, or with a hypothetical average reasonable person, is not "dishonest".
- There's a reason that English has an idiom about an "honest mistake": It's because it's possible to be factually wrong without being dishonest. For example, if you say "Oh, User:Example said something yesterday", but upon further inspection, it was a different user, or a different day. Or even if you say "The previous discussion shows significant opposition to EditCheck", but upon further inspection, nobody except you publicly opposed it. Such a sentence is only dishonest if the speaker believes, at the time of speaking, that the statement is factually wrong. Unless the speaker believes themselves to be speaking falsehoods, it's not actually dishonest; it's only a mistake or an error.
- Additionally, I think it would be a good idea to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack?. I suggest paying specific attention to these two points:
- "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" – Claiming, or even implying, that WMF staff have a tendency to be dishonest is probably a violation of this point in the policy.
- "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." – Claiming that anyone is "dishonest", especially when the difference between your view and theirs is a matter of opinion, is very likely a violation of this policy. It doesn't officially matter if the manner in which you say this is "you are dishonest" or "your replies are dishonest"; it's still insulting and disparaging another editor.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, one can post all distruths one wants as long as one does it civilly. Reminds me of the discussions we had about VE when it was disastrously deployed but all you did as a liaison was defend the WMF no matter what. And I didn't say their replies were dishonest because they are a WMF employee, just that it is typical behaviour for many of them apparently. Perhaps reread the breakdown of the Gather discussions I gave below, or reread the countless discussions about Flow, VE, descriptions, ... There are some good apples among them, but not too many. Fram (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you'll find my view of visual editor circa July
20232013 right here in the barnstar I gave you. I wouldn't describe it as "defend the WMF no matter what", but perhaps you will look at it and refresh your memory of the time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)- 2013, not 2023. July was early days in VE testing, when I still thought you were helpful. A few months later I had become wiser. Fram (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you need a reminder, here is just one of many examples from that terrible period: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2013 13#Diligent testing by Fram, my comment of 08:03 12 December.
- I believe you'll find my view of visual editor circa July
- Like I said, one can post all distruths one wants as long as one does it civilly. Reminds me of the discussions we had about VE when it was disastrously deployed but all you did as a liaison was defend the WMF no matter what. And I didn't say their replies were dishonest because they are a WMF employee, just that it is typical behaviour for many of them apparently. Perhaps reread the breakdown of the Gather discussions I gave below, or reread the countless discussions about Flow, VE, descriptions, ... There are some good apples among them, but not too many. Fram (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tough luck. You posted a dishonest reply last time we had this discussion. If it had been a genuine error in that previous discussion, you should have just said so. Instead, you not only let your error stand, but then come here and claim that there was no significant opposition to Edit Check in that previous discussion, ignoring the one person who tested it and posted results. And like I said in that discussion, the data the WMF provides is not to be trusted at all, as seen from other deployments. Which I already stated and you again ignore completely. But, like I said, the WMF (and previous WMF employees like Whatamidoing) are very good at civil bullshit, while I am not so good at the civil part but rather good at cutting through the bullshit. Fram (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- For what its worth, I do think a RfC can be made once the proposed details of the deployment is firmed up:
- Do we make VE as the default for new editors?
- Do we enable EditCheck as it is?
- Aside, if we retain the current arrangement, i.e. letting new/anon editors selecting their preferred editor, can we change the buttons to be more balanced in colours and sizing? These do affect one's preference in choosing which button to click. – robertsky (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- robertsky, that's two RFCs, and – respectfully – conflating the two questions was a primary contributor to how far off the rails this conversation got last time.The UX alterations are probably best brought up at meta or mw for the skins devs to consider. Folly Mox (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gather was dropped after 3 months (without any "broken WMF promises" nor any time for them to have given such promises or to have acrimoniously debated), and Wikidata SDs seem to be deployed and working completely fine. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Gather was deployed in March 2015 and immediately got severe backlash at the announcement: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Extension:Gather launching on beta. No good answers followed. So three weeks later we get Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Moderation of Collections?, where we get (laughable) promises of what the WMF will do to solve some of the most basic problems of this tool they rolled out on enwiki but hadn't really thought about at all it seems. Instead, they created a new Flow page on enwiki for this tool (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gather/User Feedback) despite Flow being removed from enwiki long before this. So in January 2016 (hey, that's already 10 months, not 3), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 130#Disabling Gather? was started. On 22 Januuary 2016, an answer was promised by the WMF "next week" (section "A WMF reply next week"): "by next week, the Gather team will have a major update to share about the feature". Things escalated, so another WMF person came along 6 days later to promise "we will be putting together this analysis starting now with the intention of sharing publicly next week with a decision the week after." (section "A Response from the WMF"). So instead of some great announcement after 1 week, we are now 6 days further and will get big news 2 weeks later... So, more than 2 weeks later, 12 February, we get "the analysis has taken longer than I anticipated. I'll post the results as soon as I can." So, on the 19th, they posted a "proposal" to which others replied "that proposal is an insult to the community." and "his smacks of yet more stalling tactics and an attempt to save face". Only when the RfC was closed with truly overwhelming supprt to disable it did they finally relent.
- Do you really need a similar runthrough of Wikidata short descriptions, which are (or should be) disabled everywhere on enwiki and replaced by local descriptions instead? Or will you admit that perhaps you didn't remember details correctly? Fram (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah man I don't remember anything well, I wasn't there. I'm just reading random things I can find to see what you're talking about, such as the MediaWiki page that states development was suspended by July 2015, but as you've pointed out, that is different from disabling, and thank you for helping me to find. Thanks for your links on Gather.
By no fault of its own, Shortdesc helper made me conflate WD descriptions and SDs. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah man I don't remember anything well, I wasn't there. I'm just reading random things I can find to see what you're talking about, such as the MediaWiki page that states development was suspended by July 2015, but as you've pointed out, that is different from disabling, and thank you for helping me to find. Thanks for your links on Gather.
- I never suggested deploying it on the source editor. Having not fully read the above discussion yet, it currently seems unreasonable that it's not deployed in the visual editor on enwiki and dewiki (while preserving the current "level of defaultness" of the visual editor itself instead of increasing the defaultness). Aaron Liu (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu, I never implied you suggested it, I was just one step ahead telling you that it is not available on source editor. :) We can deploy Edit check without changing the "level of defaultness" of the visual editor itself, but the impact might not be the same. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you didn't see "significant oppo sition" there, then perhaps reread it? The tool you deployed elsewhere had no measurable positive impact (when tested on Simple or French Wikipedia). As for past reasons why enwiki didn't want VE deployed, let's give you one: because when VE was deployed here, it was extremely buggy (as in, making most articles worse when used, not better), but the WMF refused to undo their installation here (despite previous assurances) and used enwiki as a testing ground, wasting tons of editor hours and creating lots of frustration and distrust towards the WMF. This was only strengthened by later issues (Flow, Gather, Wikidata short descriptions) which all followed the same pattern, although in those cases we eventually, after lots of acrimonious debates and broken WMF promises, succeeded in getting them shut down). As shown in the linked discussion, here again we have two instances of WMF deployments supported by test results where in the first instance reality showed that these were probably fabricated or completely misunderstood, as in reality the results were disastrous; and in the second instance, Edit Check, reality showed that the tool wasn't an improvement over the current situation, but even when spelled out this was "misread" by the WMF. Please stop it. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) Probably Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive_213#Deploying_Edit Check on this wiki. Having reread that thread, it combines all WMF rollout issues into one it seems, from starting with false requirements over a testing environment which isn't up-to-date at all to completely misreading everything that is said into something supposedly positive, ignoring the stuff that contradicts their "this must be pushed no matter what" view. But all in a very civil way, there's that I suppose... Fram (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- What an utterly weird objective for that tool "Newcomers and Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing to publish changes they are proud of and that experienced volunteers consider useful." Very neocolonial. Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. I provided some detailed feedback about this, based on my experience of African editors and topics – see Dark Continent. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Different parts of the world have different responses to UX changes. A change that is encouraging in a high-resource setting (or an individualistic culture, or various other things) may be discouraging in others. It is therefore important to test different regions separately. The Editing team, with the strong encouragement of several affiliates, decided to test sub-Saharan Africa first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can't help it if you don't see how insulting and patronizing it is to write "Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing". Fram (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- The experienced contributors from sub-Saharan Africa who helped write that goal did not feel it was insulting or patronizing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I can't help it if you don't see how insulting and patronizing it is to write "Junior Contributors from Sub-Saharan Africa will feel safe and confident enough while editing". Fram (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Different parts of the world have different responses to UX changes. A change that is encouraging in a high-resource setting (or an individualistic culture, or various other things) may be discouraging in others. It is therefore important to test different regions separately. The Editing team, with the strong encouragement of several affiliates, decided to test sub-Saharan Africa first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. I provided some detailed feedback about this, based on my experience of African editors and topics – see Dark Continent. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If I'm thinking of the right tool, there was a discussion (at one one of the village pumps I think) that saw significant opposition to deployment here, although I can't immediately find it. I seem to remember the opposition was a combination of errors and it being bundled with VE? I think Fram and WhatamIdoing were vocal in that discussion so may remember where it was (or alternatively what I'm mixing it up with). Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ooh, I didn't know we and dewiki didn't get deployment. Is there a reason? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- We can deploy it. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Redone my check at Simple wiki, looking at the most recent edits which automatically triggered this tool[7]. 39 instances were automatically indicated as "declined", the other 11 contain 3 edits which don't add a reference anyway[8][9][10] and 6 edits which actually add a reference[11][12][13][14][15][16] (though 3 of these 6 are fandom, youtube and enwiki). And then there is this and this, which technically add a source as well I suppose... Still, 3 probably good ones, 3 probably good faith bad ones, 3 false positives, and 2 vandal ref additions. Amazingly, this is almost the exact same result as during the previous discussion[17]. Fram (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think just creating one good source addition is enough cause for deployment (without making VE the default editor), especially since it doesn't appear to be causing additional harm. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it doesn't create more good source additions than we had before the tool, then there is no reason to deploy something which adds a popup which people usually don't use anyway. Without the popup, there also were new editors adding sources, it's not as if we came from zero. No benefit + additional "noise" for new editors => additional harm. Fram (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Editors who got a popup did not originally give a source when attempting to publish. That is more good source additions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu, have you had a read at the data we gathered around Edit check? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that has to do with my reply. Fram was disputing that the source additions were good and useful, and I was replying to him that some of them were good, hence edit check should be deployed (plus I'm fairly sure there's another check in the works to check reference URLs against the local RSP) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- What you observed (Editors who got a popup did not originally give a source when attempting to publish) is shown in the data we shared.
- We already deployed checks to verify if a link added is not listed in rejection lists and make it more actionable by newcomers. Some users at other wikis expressed a need to have a list of accepted links (the ones that match RSP), but other said that it could prevent new good sources from being added. Thoughts?
- Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that the programmed heuristic for when the popup appears? I don't get what this has to do with any stats.Only URLs in the spamlist are blocked. Edit check should strongly warn against adding sources found generally unreliable by consensus summarized at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure to understand, sorry. Stats are about users adding a citation when asked compared from where not asked. It is not connected to RSP.
- I take note that you are in favor of expanding reliability information when the user adds a link. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that the programmed heuristic for when the popup appears? I don't get what this has to do with any stats.Only URLs in the spamlist are blocked. Edit check should strongly warn against adding sources found generally unreliable by consensus summarized at RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what that has to do with my reply. Fram was disputing that the source additions were good and useful, and I was replying to him that some of them were good, hence edit check should be deployed (plus I'm fairly sure there's another check in the works to check reference URLs against the local RSP) Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu, have you had a read at the data we gathered around Edit check? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Editors who got a popup did not originally give a source when attempting to publish. That is more good source additions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it doesn't create more good source additions than we had before the tool, then there is no reason to deploy something which adds a popup which people usually don't use anyway. Without the popup, there also were new editors adding sources, it's not as if we came from zero. No benefit + additional "noise" for new editors => additional harm. Fram (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I wonder what you think of the lower revert rate from WMF's study. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, of the 11 supposed additions, 5 need reverting (as far as the source goes) and 3 didn't add a source. I don't trust WMF numbers at all, but 5/8 needing a revert is hardly an overwhelming success. Even assuming that the 3 good ones wouldn't have added a source otherwise, one then has to make the same conclusion for the others, and the 5 bad ones wouldn't have been included otherwise either. So where is the net benefit and the no harm? Fram (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm new to all this, could you elaborate on why?I don't trust WMF numbers at all
The 5 bad ones would have included no source at all if Edit Check wasn't there. I don't see how adding a blatantly terrible source is worse than adding text without a source at all. Both are checked the exact same way: eye-scanning.the 5 bad ones wouldn't have been included otherwise either
So there you go, net benefit and no harm. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)- No. I explained it already in the previous discussion. You have made false claims about Gather and so on, but can't be bothered to reply when I take the time to give a detailed answer; but now you are apparently "new to all this" suddenly and want me to again take some time to enlighten you. No. And an unsourced statement is obvious to see, a statement sourced to a bad source is much less obvious. Fram (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu, I think this is a "reasonable people can disagree" thing. Some RecentChanges patrollers just revert any new unsourced claim, so if it's unsourced, it's quick to get out of the queue. Faster reverting means success to them, whereas encouraging people to add sources is like whispering a reminder to someone during a game of Mother, May I?: It removes an easy 'win' for the reverter.
- OTOH, having a source attached to bad information has other advantages. It's easy to determine whether it's a copyvio if you have the source, and if you're looking at an article you know something about (e.g., your own watchlist rather than the flood in Special:RecentChanges), then having the source often means that you can evaluate it that much faster ("This is a superficially plausible claim, but I wouldn't trust that website if it said the Sun usually rises in the East").
- For content that shouldn't be reverted, then IMO encouraging a source is always a good thing. For content that should be reverted, there are tradeoffs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I miss things, especially on a workday. Sorry about that.
I think the mobile short-descriptions thing is believable, as users . This is a case of the methodology being technically correct but misleading, which I don't see for the edit check study, unless you're willing to provide an argument.
IMO, only slightly. Often, only users of experience patrol pages when reading them. (The unacquainted are also sometimes able to realize something's probably wrong with a swath of unsourced text, hence they make up part of the aforementioned "slightly".) And blatantly bad sources jump out to those experienced from the references section. Sources in the middle ground can often link to good sources, though there is a debate on how good it is to have both additionally middle-ground and bad sources vs. no sources at all. Personally, I think it's better. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)an unsourced statement is obvious to see, a statement sourced to a bad source is much less obvious.
- Now that a number of people have spoken out on the subject (a few not against it, one other strictly against), what's the next step? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- To make a specific proposal then the next step would be a formal Request for Comment. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is not something I can lead at the moment, but I can assist anyone who would like to start the process. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- To make a specific proposal then the next step would be a formal Request for Comment. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Now that a number of people have spoken out on the subject (a few not against it, one other strictly against), what's the next step? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- No. I explained it already in the previous discussion. You have made false claims about Gather and so on, but can't be bothered to reply when I take the time to give a detailed answer; but now you are apparently "new to all this" suddenly and want me to again take some time to enlighten you. No. And an unsourced statement is obvious to see, a statement sourced to a bad source is much less obvious. Fram (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Like I said, of the 11 supposed additions, 5 need reverting (as far as the source goes) and 3 didn't add a source. I don't trust WMF numbers at all, but 5/8 needing a revert is hardly an overwhelming success. Even assuming that the 3 good ones wouldn't have added a source otherwise, one then has to make the same conclusion for the others, and the 5 bad ones wouldn't have been included otherwise either. So where is the net benefit and the no harm? Fram (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Workshopping the RfC question
editGiven that there are several editors here interested in the feature turning on, I would like to propose the following question and a brief/neutral backgrounder to be asked for the RfC:
Should mw:Edit check be turned on?
Background: Edit Check is Wikimedia Foundation's product to encourage new editors to add citations to their edits, by prompting them with pop-ups before publishing. The pop-ups will work under the following default conditions (points 2 - 4 can be configured further):
- If editing is done through Visual Editor.
- ≥40 consecutive characters added.
- All accounts with < 100 edits
- All sections*
For point 4, I also propose to modify the configuration to exclude this feature from the following sections:
- lead section, as we don't not require leads to have citations
- Notes section, usually handled by {{efn}} in content body, etc.
- References section, no citation required
- External links section, no citation required
- See also section, no citation required
- Further reading section, no citation required (thanks, Chipmunkdavis)
- And any other sections (that I have missed out, and in the future) that do not require citations.
For future changes of the configuration setting, this can be done on wiki through modifying MediaWiki:Editcheck-config.json file after discussing in an appropriate venue. This also means that other than the initial activation, we do not require further changes in the backend (and if we would want to rollback before deactivating in a server update, we can set the max edit count to 1 as a temporary measure).
Prior discussions about this feature can be found at and Village pump (idea_lab) and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_213#Deploying_Edit_Check_on_this_wiki.
@Trizek (WMF): do correct the above if there's anything that I have stated incorrectly. Also, with regards to the configuration settings, can mw:Community_Configuration be utilised as well? – robertsky (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky, all is correct. Also, at the moment, Edit check has not been integrated to Community Configuration but, as you mention, the
json
file attached to Edit check allows your community to decide on de/activation. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC) - Further reading section. Idly thinking, is the 100 edits namespace configurable? Further, just to check, "≥40 consecutive characters added." means "≥40 consecutive characters added without a ref tag" or similar? CMD (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis
- The 100 edits is not namespace configurable. From the codes, it is checked against
wgUserEditCount
JavaScript variable. There is no JavaScript variable(s) for breakdown of edit counts by namespace at the moment, going by this documentation. - I suppose so as well.
- The 100 edits is not namespace configurable. From the codes, it is checked against
- – robertsky (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1. Correct. We can have “only activate this check in this namespace” though.
- 2. Correct as well. Any type of reference tag or any template that uses
<ref>
at some point is detected. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)- @Robertsky, some minor details, as we apparently both looked at the example rather than the actual default:
- The default is ≥50 consecutive characters added, which can be configured to 40,
maximumEditcount
is [number edits or fewer]. If set at 100, it is ≤100 edits, rather than <100 edits. (It is really a detail.)
- Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Robertsky, some minor details, as we apparently both looked at the example rather than the actual default:
- @Chipmunkdavis
- Take a look at the possibilitiess under Heading names in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references. Whether or not to exclude some heading names will often depend on where they occur in the article. Donald Albury 16:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Don’t put up Ip addresses for those who are not signed in.
editYou see, if someone edits Wikipedia and they are not signed in, their IP address is exposed. That means one could track where they live and dox them further. So yeah, don’t put the Ip adrees. But what if the person does an edit that ruins the page, or something bad? you see Wikipedia will have the ip address, and all what they have to do is report the anonymous person, Who will have a name, like not logged in or something, then Wikipedia will block it. Have a good day. Bye bye! Datawikiperson (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Datawikiperson Please see Trust and Safety Product/Temporary Accounts - a project to implement more-or-less what you've described is planned and currently in the process of rolling out! Sam Walton (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, you can't get an exact location from an ip. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes you can. It might not come down to "third desk on the right", but IPs sometimes identify a single building. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- IP addresses will give the location of the ISP node, or if the router has a location recorded with the ISP it will show that, most private routers do not show their location and will just show the ISP node. Try it yourself on a website like https://www.iplocation.net/. But you're right, sometimes it can that's true. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's certainly true less often than it was in 1990s. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- The disaster of "IP masking" is that it will give all the different IP addresses used by the editor over the past 90 days, and of course you can keep sampling so you can effectively build up a profile of the editor's movements in perpetuity. This highly personal information is made available to autoconfirmed editors, so virtually everyone. This is dynamite, and the GDPR has specific safeguards so that the editor can see what she is getting herself into before she commits herself. The Foundation knows nobody would ever accept these terms so lies by omission - it simply says "a temporary account will be opened for you" without warning that the editor's control over her personal information will be cut off. They run a talkpage over at Mediawiki, but even when they are pinged they ignore the awkward questions. LD asked a question of Niharika Kohli at 13:22 on 15 November and is still waiting for an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.132.250 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that the requirements should very much not be available that easily (although the actual terms are 6 months and 300 edits). I wouldn't be opposed to making it available only to CheckUsers or administrators, as they actually have some level of community vetting (or to make a new specific permission for that purpose). Another possible thing that could be done would be to log the IP checks to ensure transparency. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- The disaster of "IP masking" is that it will give all the different IP addresses used by the editor over the past 90 days, and of course you can keep sampling so you can effectively build up a profile of the editor's movements in perpetuity. This highly personal information is made available to autoconfirmed editors, so virtually everyone. This is dynamite, and the GDPR has specific safeguards so that the editor can see what she is getting herself into before she commits herself. The Foundation knows nobody would ever accept these terms so lies by omission - it simply says "a temporary account will be opened for you" without warning that the editor's control over her personal information will be cut off. They run a talkpage over at Mediawiki, but even when they are pinged they ignore the awkward questions. LD asked a question of Niharika Kohli at 13:22 on 15 November and is still waiting for an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.132.250 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's certainly true less often than it was in 1990s. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- IP addresses will give the location of the ISP node, or if the router has a location recorded with the ISP it will show that, most private routers do not show their location and will just show the ISP node. Try it yourself on a website like https://www.iplocation.net/. But you're right, sometimes it can that's true. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes you can. It might not come down to "third desk on the right", but IPs sometimes identify a single building. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- See the Guardian article by Victoria Turk, In our house, 'smart' devices aren't welcome (9 November). 92.25.132.250 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Independent Politicians
editWhere possible add a section where general info is for sn independent politicians indicate what political position they are ie center, left, right etc 2001:BB6:514B:A300:D35B:58F7:1327:A55 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know what that means Dronebogus (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- {{Infobox officeholder}} already has a parameter for "Other political affiliations", which might be what you are looking for. Otherwise, yes, a section in the article text can be written if there are enough sources to position the person on the political spectrum, but there shouldn't be a strict guideline mandating it to be present, especially since these affiliations can be controversial or contested. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- There are also many politicians whose views do not neatly fit into a simple left-centre-right box, especially as right-of-centre UK politics is roughly equivalent to the left wing of mainstream US politics. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Nolan chart would be slightly better, but as you say, would have to be adjusted for different countries. Donald Albury 02:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are also many politicians whose views do not neatly fit into a simple left-centre-right box, especially as right-of-centre UK politics is roughly equivalent to the left wing of mainstream US politics. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Dead pixels, an expansion to WP:CITEWATCH, a new noticeboard?
editBit of a long one... more of an essay at this point really, but IMO, it might be worth it to prevent editor burnout and bring in new users, so here goes: You know how once one spots a dead pixel, they can't seem to ignore it? Then one starts wondering whether the monitor vendor has either: gotten sloppy with their work... or if they just got unlucky given the volume of monitors that get put out by the vendor. Then the dread of calling the warranty department...
Just like the analogy above, the news and research outputted by reliable sources is generally problem free. But because of the volume of information, occasionally errors will get in. Sometimes even unscrupulous outlets gets in. But unless one is motivated or knowledgeable enough, few will go through the effort of comparing what the reference says to its references (reference-in-reference). This is the dead pixel problem I'm talking about, and just like a dead pixel, annoys the crap of the person who sees it, for better or worse. Then comes the process of "fixing" it: currently, original research issues, and reference-in-reference issues are handled in science by PubPeer, whose extension is used by a paltry number of users. Response times by authors take days, maybe years even with relentless journalism. At any rate, most people who feel compelled to edit Wikipedia due to accuracy problems have probably never heard of PubPeer. And as for issues with regular journalists, I suppose one could turn to opinions by third parties like NewsGuard? And meanwhile, they can usually get away with publishing contradictory health news without being called out for it.
All made more worrying given that impact Wikipedia has on the real-world non-Wikipedians, like judges and scientists. Recent political developments, as well as LLM usage (see WP:CNET), mean that once reliable sources could suddenly hallucinate or contradict other sources on a whim. Maybe the errors made daily won't be indicative of LLM usage... but they could. In any case, we don't currently track these issues, so whose to say what patterns unreliable sources follow?
Mistake or no mistake, when the inaccuracy is inevitably spotted (probably by us, I wonder why...), an attempt will probably be made to re-balance the article or add footnotes following WP:Inaccuracy. This works great... if you are the only editor of a given article. For everyone else, because not everyone will necessarily see a dead pixel as a big deal, the actions may seem disproportionate and/or violate certain consensus policies, and the talk page will go on and on, maybe then to WP:DRN driving away casual but knowledgeable editors, all of which will be seen by hardly anyone, let alone the original author of the source. One could then go to WP:RSN, but that noticeboard is really only equipped to handle the most problematic and fringe sources, not really the daily errors that get published by sources day to day. We burn out, and the world, by and large, hardly notices the dispute.
To solve this, I propose some sort of objective-ish tracking in WP:CITEWATCH of reference-in-reference accuracy (in line with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOR) as well as other issues like typos, linking issues, cotogenesis, copyright violations, notable omissions, and most importantly, corrections (sure sign of a RS), and the time elapsed from error spotting to correction for refs, all heuristics that, when aggregated, could be indicative of a sloppy copyeditors or cursory peer review. Editors could put in a template with the relevant issue, hidden by default until patrolled. If there is a dispute, a new reference-in-reference noticeboard, split into categories (typos, copyright violations, etc.)
Bonus benefits - we might finally:
- Know which MDPI journals have decent peer review, allowing them to build a reputation?
- Create an easy place to show that the consensus on WP:ALJAZEERA is justified?
- Create an incentive to keep more accountable (especially on health related topics)? As well as obscure sources on obscure topics that may only be read by the Wikipedian.
- Reduce biting and attrition by creating an easy place for sub-WP:RSN issues to be reported, counted and easily exportable to PubPeer or elsewhere?
- Problematically high counts could then easily be reported to WP:RSN without the need for extensive, hard-to-read discussion.
Other references
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Retraction Watch: Basis for "notable omissions": |
Unfinished ideas, subject to change
|
---|
Older pre-internet sources might be less affected by ref-in-ref errors, since the reader could be reasonably expected to check the sources, necessity. WVhere ref-in-ref notices go to the reader: Probably inside ref tags, after the chosen citation template? This proposal could involve multiple changes to various guideline pages. WP:Inaccuracy will probably be changed the most by this proposal. Patrolling - Mostly in anticipation of misunderstanding of policy, and WP:NOR. Noiceboard name - RRN, reference-in-reference noticeboard? To avoid flooding the noticeboard, require discussion on talk page first? Split noticeboard into categories? Categories - Categories will be separated into errors that will be reported to readers when patrolled, and those that will just be tracked by an expanded SOURCEWATCH table, for later discussion on RSN.
Perverse incentives? Less citing of sources overall? Counterpoints: Existing incentives to cite to increase impact or whatever. Could be solved with another category:
|
Rolling this out might take an extended period of time, and will probably involve the WMF as well as new templates, modules, instructions, etc. Thoughts on this, as well as how improvements could be broken up or rolled out? ⸺(Random)staplers 03:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to have a lot of thought, but frankly I have no idea what this proposal is actually proposing. Ca talk to me! 07:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is the proposal about placing discussions of reliability about the cited source inside the citations themselves? Ca talk to me! 07:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I must be tired I think, but I do not think I understood anything at all about the idea, whether it is the how or the why. The entire way the reliability of sources is approached is that no matter how trusted they are, no publication ever gets a blank check on any subject, and to me it does not seem like there is an issue of under-reporting perceived inaccuracies or bias either, so I am not sure I see the point. Choucas Bleutalkcontribs 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Template for Tetragrammaton
editIn article concerning Judaism, there ae multiple references to the Tetragrammaton, both in Hebrew and romanized. It would be convenient to have a template that generated יהוה (YHVH, YHWH), possibly with an option for the older Canaanite script. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is the English language Wikipedia and so there's already a template for the English version of this: {{LORD}}, which displays as LORD, as per the KJV. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- That template generates the English translation of the substitution אֲדֹנָי (Adonai transl. my Lord[s]), not the actual Tetragrammaton. There are multiple places in wiki where the actual Tetragrammaton is given, and it would be convenient if there were a template to save typing. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Requested move ECR notices
editWP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:GS/AA, and WP:GS/KURD all state that:
[…] non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.
Of those discussions:
- WikiProjects, RfCs, and noticeboards aren't visible to readers, so non-extended-confirmed editors are less likely to encounter them.
- AfDs are on their own page, so they can simply be given extended-confirmed protection.
- RMs are the exception – they're advertised on the relevant articles, and they're held on article talk pages. These talk pages are only protected sparingly (in response to significant disruption), since there are legitimate reasons for non-extended-confirmed editors to be editing them.
Currently, the only way for non-extended confirmed editors to know that they're not permitted to participate in these RMs is to:
- Spontaneously scroll to the top of the talk page.
- Read the entire GS notice, and understand that requested moves are an exception to the exception to the extended-confirmed restriction.
- Click on the "extended-confirmed editors" link, learn what the term means, and understand that they are not extended-confirmed.
I think this is a highly implausible sequence. If we want non-extended-confirmed editors to stop participating in these move requests, we should put a template in the RM section that instructs non-extended-confirmed editors, in plain language, not to participate in them. The {{if extended confirmed}} template could be used to directly let editors know whether they are extended-confirmed (and possibly tailor other parts of the message as well). jlwoodwa (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I mean sure, but WP:Nobody reads the directions. So it might reduce the numbers a little, but the unfortunate truth is that much of the time we are just going to end up explaining this on user talk pages to unhappy people. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then I wonder if we should only be displaying the {{requested move notice}} to extended-confirmed editors, on those articles where the ECR forbids non-extended-confirmed editors from participating in RMs. On the other hand, extended-confirmed editors might be reading Wikipedia while logged out, who would log in and participate if they see the notice. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea, and yes I could still see where some would object because an EC editor might encounter an article while logged out, seems enough of an edge case to where hiding might be worth it anyway. The other concern is that even people who only ever read should be alerted that something might happen to the page that has come up in discussions about the utility of AfD notices for example, but in considering the tradeoffs hiding from non-EC may well be the least bad option here, though it's certainly no panacea. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Since move discussions normally result in working redirects, I don't think that there's a need for non-editors to be warned that the page's title might be spelled differently in a week or two. The argument with AFD is that the article might cease to exist, so the non-editor might want to save an offline copy in case it disappears altogether. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point, and further strengthens the case for hiding, can be combined with the originally proposed notice in hopes of reducing numbers a little further still. For the remainder maybe some type of user talk page notice that explains what happened and why as gently as can be managed while still stressing the seriousness of GS restrictions. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since move discussions normally result in working redirects, I don't think that there's a need for non-editors to be warned that the page's title might be spelled differently in a week or two. The argument with AFD is that the article might cease to exist, so the non-editor might want to save an offline copy in case it disappears altogether. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea, and yes I could still see where some would object because an EC editor might encounter an article while logged out, seems enough of an edge case to where hiding might be worth it anyway. The other concern is that even people who only ever read should be alerted that something might happen to the page that has come up in discussions about the utility of AfD notices for example, but in considering the tradeoffs hiding from non-EC may well be the least bad option here, though it's certainly no panacea. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Then I wonder if we should only be displaying the {{requested move notice}} to extended-confirmed editors, on those articles where the ECR forbids non-extended-confirmed editors from participating in RMs. On the other hand, extended-confirmed editors might be reading Wikipedia while logged out, who would log in and participate if they see the notice. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
New main page section: Wikipedia tips
editI think a page informing the readers of Wikipedia features would be helpful, since the public largely do not know much about Wikipedia's backend even though billions visit this site. Topics featured can be looking a page history, talk page discussions, WP:Who Wrote That?, etc. I imagine it woule be placed under the Today's featured picture, since we want to showcase quality work first. I've made a demo here: User:Ca/sadbox. Ca talk to me! 13:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. And it's fine if we recycle them fairly rapidly, since these are things can be easily reused – in fact, I suggest cycling this weekly instead of daily. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 15:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could do something like {{Wikipedia ads}} and simply post a new random tip upon a purge. Ca talk to me! 16:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Main Page is deliberately aimed at readers, not editors. Its purpose is to direct readers to interesting encyclopaedic content, not show them how to edit pages. The Main Page is also very full already, so adding anything would require removing something else. I think it's highly unlikely that this idea would achieve consensus at T:MP. However I'm sure there's a place for something like this in Wikipedia: space. Modest Genius talk 12:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, the whole point of Wikipedia is that readers are potential editors. Helping readers take that step would definitely help us keep a steady, or even growing, user base. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean by
The Main Page is also very full
. There isn't a size limit to Internet pages? In any case, I want the content of the tips to be reader-focused, not editor-focused. Things like creating an account to change website display, identifying who-wrote-what, etc. Ca talk to me! 13:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- There has been a Tip of the Day project since 2004. You can use the {{totd}} template to display the day's tip, as follows. Perhaps there should be a link to this in the Other areas of Wikipedia section of the main page? Or it might go in the top banner, where the portals used to be, as that looks quite empty now. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is perfect! It seems like people already done the work for me. However, there is some need to retheme the banner so that it fits in with the rest of the main page. Ca talk to me! 23:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the OP's plan is a terrific idea. The vast majority of readers never even think about actually editing a page (despite the ubiquitous edit links). Having a big, NOTICEABLE "tip of the day" seems a great way of changing this.
- An example of a good place for this would be just above "In the News", to the right of "Welcome to Wikipedia", about two inches wide and one inch high. Obviously just one possibility out of many.
- But just having another small link to some variation of Help:How to edit seems futile and unnecessary.
- I would strongly recommend having a two-week trial of the OP's suggestion, and then check the metrics to see whether to continue or not. ——— ypn^2 21:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Considering that I think most other of the WMF projects have something on their main page about contributing, there is a distinct lack of it on en.wiki. This could be a page spanning box with the usual links of how to get started along with the top of the day floating right in that box. Whether that box leads or ends the page is of debate but it would make sense to have something for that. Masem (t) 00:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Concur. I'm averse to directly using the WP Tip of the Day (as suggested above), since that's directly to people who are *already* editors, albeit novice ones. What we really want is for people to hit the "edit" button for the first time. I suggest cycling through a few messages, along the lines of:
- See a typo in one of our articles? Fix it! Learn how to edit Wikipedia.
- This is your encyclopedia, too. Learn how to edit Wikipedia.
- Want to lend a hand? Join an international volunteer effort, whether for a day or for a decade – learn how to edit Wikipedia.
- Obviously these will need some finetuning, since I'd really rather not have something as cringy as "for a day or for a decade" on the Main Page, but I think the idea is there. These one-liners should be prominently displayed at the top. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the messaging needs to be toward not-yet-editors, but perhaps they can be more specific? e.g.:
- Did you know that you can italicize words by surrounding them with two appostrophe's? For example,
The ''Titanic'' hit an iceberg and sank in 1912.
appears asThe Titanic hit an iceberg and sank in 1912.
- See something that needs a source? Just add
{{citation needed}}
after the questionable sentence, or better yet, add a source yourself using<ref>www.website.com/page</ref>
! - ypn^2 00:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure we want to be showing people how to make bare URL references. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Rather see editors include material sourced to a bare url than to add without any source or even just give up with trying to add something because the ref system is hard to learn. We have bots that can do basic url to ref formats so that is less a concern. Masem (t) 00:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure we want to be showing people how to make bare URL references. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 00:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Potentially moving the deletion venue for MediaWiki: pages
editThe nature of MediaWiki: pages is always such that there will almost never be deletions. And when there are, it is because some message is no longer used. Because of the very technical nature of MediaWiki: pages, I don't think WP:MFD is a suitable venue, since not all users at WP:MFD will have the technical expertise to determine something like whether a MediaWiki message is used or not, etc.
We have WP:TFD primarily for templates and modules. I want to see maybe we can workshop a proposal for determining if, when, and how MediaWiki pages are deleted. I do wonder if maybe due to the nature of MediaWiki: namespace that maybe it should be exempt from most of the speedy criteria and only deleted after a discussion at WP:VPT, where editors can discuss the MediaWiki software, etc.
See Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/MediaWiki: which shows very few MFD discussions. Awesome Aasim 03:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- No matter where the discussions are hosted, it will still be true that "not all users...will have the technical expertise to determine something", or anything, about the page. This is a case where the hosting location is much less important than the efforts to advertise the discussion in suitable places. Fortunately, since there are very few discussions about deleting those pages – 49 since MFD's creation, and only one this entire calendar year that wasn't started by you – it won't require be a significant burden to make sure that those few get advertised. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm... That is also true. The closest thing I can think about for technical discussion of pages, etc. would be WP:TFD. We could probably rename that process "Technical pages for discussion" and then it would include MediaWiki: pages as well (as well as maybe user scripts). WP:VPT and WP:TFD seem to have the highest number of technical editors discussing functionality, etc., so maybe we should lean there. Awesome Aasim 16:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually started workshopping what a "Technical pages for discussion" process might look like. Awesome Aasim 18:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm... That is also true. The closest thing I can think about for technical discussion of pages, etc. would be WP:TFD. We could probably rename that process "Technical pages for discussion" and then it would include MediaWiki: pages as well (as well as maybe user scripts). WP:VPT and WP:TFD seem to have the highest number of technical editors discussing functionality, etc., so maybe we should lean there. Awesome Aasim 16:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- See also the two proposals Awesome Aasim has made regarding speedy deletion of MediaWiki pages: November 2024, March 2024 and an earlier one by a different editor Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 78#Add criteria for MediaWiki namespaces.
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed/de, initiated by Awesome Aasim in February 2021, came to the consensus that an RFC should be held to determine whether the community desired the deletion of those pages. A discussion was held at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 183#Foreign-language interface messages. There was a unanimous consensus to keep either most or all. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages should auto-generate
editHello all,
Per MOS:BOLD, the first appearance of an article's titular subject should be bolded, as should any alternate names for the article. When I first started editing Wikipedia, I was surprised that those were just manual boldfaces with HTML tags. I was wondering whether it would be better to apply it with something like this: " {{article main name|Apples}}, also known as {{article alternate title|Oranges|oranges}}, are a fruit. " which would display as "Apples, also known as oranges". The two templates would auto-populate the title and short description into a disambiguation page if there were multiple instances of the same name. Further, a hatnote would be auto-created (if there were multiple instances of similarly-named pages, the hatnote would lead to the disambiguation page, and if there was only one, it would lead to the other article).
I think that this would vastly improve the simplicity of maintainging disambiguation pages and hatnotes. However, it could increase barriers to entry for new users, but that could be mitigated with editnotices, template documentation, etc. It may also be difficult to implement, but I foresee bots being able to implement the work.
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Apples, also known as oranges"? I'm not sure I understand your use case for making such pages so inaccessible and code-ridden for newcomers. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu - Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I think most of the learning curve could be eliminated if, when someone tries to edit a disambiguation page, an editnotice of some sort appears and recommends that they go edit the source page.
- JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- On the technical side, disambiguation pages already have edit notices, so that part would be feasible.On the more practical side, disambiguation pages are often more complex than just listing articles with the same title. For instance, a concept might be listed in a disambiguation page even if it doesn't have an article, but is prominently mentioned at an existing page (the kind of thing that would warrant a {{R to section}} or {{R to related topic}}). Spelling variants (especially for languages written in the Arabic script where romanizations can often vary) are also grouped together in a similar page, while more subtle issues come up with partial title matches. I can also foresee the issue of organizing the disambiguation page itself, especially with things like proper names that are often (but not always) moved to a separate page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby - Ahh, good points, thanks.
- JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- On the technical side, disambiguation pages already have edit notices, so that part would be feasible.On the more practical side, disambiguation pages are often more complex than just listing articles with the same title. For instance, a concept might be listed in a disambiguation page even if it doesn't have an article, but is prominently mentioned at an existing page (the kind of thing that would warrant a {{R to section}} or {{R to related topic}}). Spelling variants (especially for languages written in the Arabic script where romanizations can often vary) are also grouped together in a similar page, while more subtle issues come up with partial title matches. I can also foresee the issue of organizing the disambiguation page itself, especially with things like proper names that are often (but not always) moved to a separate page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- @JuxtaposedJacob, for the list of entries on a dab page, would Template:Annotated link be a step in the direction of what you want?
- Apple – Fruit that grows on a tree
- Apple Inc. – American multinational technology company
- Apple pie – Dessert pie made with apples
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish consensus was on my side more, sigh. "This template should not be used for annotating links on disambiguation pages." However, thank you for pointing me to that link, that is helpful.
- JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that was 2018. WP:Consensus can change. Maybe it's time that it did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the three reasons given for not using them, while the first one (style issue) can be easily fixed with a new template parameter, the other two are still very much problematic. Short descriptions are not necessarily written with disambiguation pages in mind (or even consistent from one disambiguated term to the next), and different use cases of short descriptions might conflict with each other's needs. And, well, transcluding data on disambiguation pages from other pages (which is actually close to the current proposal) still brings the issue of traceability of the edits. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that was 2018. WP:Consensus can change. Maybe it's time that it did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Adding a timeline of level 3 vital people
editI suggested this on the other page, but there was no reply, perhaps their chats are inactive. You can find the draft I made of the timeline here: User:Wikieditor662/Vital sandbox.
Note: I believe that the names for the time periods are not perfect (biased towards west) and there are other areas to improve before publishing but I think it's best to see whether it should be included before going further.
What do you guys think? Is this something worth adding? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662 Definitely looks cool and is well-designed. Perhaps you can clarify what exactly we're trying to accomplish with this (e.g., where would you like to have this displayed)? Is the purpose to identify potential changes to the Vital list, or to find vital articles to improve, or just to graphically illustrate the "more exciting" and "less exciting" periods of human history? Or something else? ——— ypn^2 21:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ypn^2 I'm very glad you like the design! It's meant to give a visual representation of the people on there, and to show when these people existed and how they could have interacted with each other. Now that you bring it up, this could also be a useful way for editors to see where there can be some improvements.
- As for the location, the timeline could be its own page, and perhaps we could copy and paste a part of it (such as the overview) under the "people" section of vitality articles level 3.
- Also, if this turns out to be a good idea, we could also create more specific timelines like this to help visualize other areas, for example level 4 / 5 philosophers, and perhaps put a part of that timeline under the History of philosophy page.
- Thanks again and feel free to let me know what you think! Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- When it is so broad, I wonder whether the inclusion criteria would be considered original research. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand this concern, and I think it's important to keep in mind that the vital articles' levels are structured to help define the priority levels for articles. Changes for who's included onto here require deep discussions and reliable reasons as to why they should be included or excluded. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662: One tiny point of criticism on the design front: in the overview and ancient history sections, the blue names on dark brown are really hard to read due to very low contrast. AddWittyNameHere 04:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've tried for a while and couldn't figure out how to change the blue text to a different color. If you know how, please let me know. I did, however, make the border of the text more black, so it should be a little easier to see now, although it may not be perfect. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Wikieditor662: One tiny point of criticism on the design front: in the overview and ancient history sections, the blue names on dark brown are really hard to read due to very low contrast. AddWittyNameHere 04:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand this concern, and I think it's important to keep in mind that the vital articles' levels are structured to help define the priority levels for articles. Changes for who's included onto here require deep discussions and reliable reasons as to why they should be included or excluded. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- When it is so broad, I wonder whether the inclusion criteria would be considered original research. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 01:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Still not clear what you really want to do with it, but it definitely does not belong in the mainspace (as a separate article or as part of other articles), if that was your intention. "level 3 vitality figures" is pure inner Wikipedia talk, not a reliably sourced definition. If you want to use it in other namespaces, then indeed the colours need changing: blue on purple on grey is not readable at all. The names displayed are also weird. "Miguel" for Cervantes? "Joan" for Joan of Arc? Fram (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Fram on this point, "vital articles" are only a (more or less effective) classification of which articles are a priority for the encyclopedia, it doesn't correspond to anything in use by sources. Even with
deep discussions and reliable reasons
, having it as a criterion would be original research. Same for any other "homemade" ranking of important people. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)- @Fram@Chaotic Enby Are you guys opposed to having this timeline completely, or just parts of it? And also, it's not based on how important people are, but the level of prioritization, which is the reason the vitality levels exist in the first place. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to having it in mainspace, as "prioritization in what we should write about" is not in itself encyclopedic information. However, it could be interesting to have it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles, if you want to go for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. By the way, does this problem also exist with the currently existing article List of classical music composers by era? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to having it in mainspace, as "prioritization in what we should write about" is not in itself encyclopedic information. However, it could be interesting to have it as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles, if you want to go for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Fram@Chaotic Enby Are you guys opposed to having this timeline completely, or just parts of it? And also, it's not based on how important people are, but the level of prioritization, which is the reason the vitality levels exist in the first place. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Photo gathering drive for town, village, and city halls
editLike how Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons has the National Register of Historic Places drives for pictures. There should be effort put into getting the town halls, village halls, and city halls pictures. Every town, every village, every borough, every city, and county has a Wikipedia page and I think they should all have a picture posted of the administrative building. Wikideas1 (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- One consideration is that shorter articles have limited space for images, and a photo of the building housing administrative offices of a politically defined place may not be the best representation of that place. It is fine to upload such pictures to Commons, but their use may not be justified in every article about a place. Donald Albury 15:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Essay on Funding sections
editThere is a systemic problem: sections on "Funding" for non-profit organizations. They are often disinformation. For example, if an organization is partly funded by the USAID, the organization will be framed as proxy of the US Federal Government. Of, if an organization is funded by the Koch Brothers, it will be framed in a suitably FUD way. This framing is often done through emphasis on certain donors, word choices and so on. Sometimes it's explicit other times subtle. I can show many examples, but prefer not to make it into a single case. The problem is systemic, since the beginning of Wikipedia.
What we need is an essay about Funding sections. Best practices, things to avoid. A link to WP:FUNDING. And some effort to go through these articles and apply the best practices described. -- GreenC 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)