Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2020-03

< Wikimedia Forum‎ | Archives

WMF's summary of our feedback on recommendations posted

We may have until March 6, 2020 to respond to this: Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/Summary of Movement Conversations 2020. George Ho (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

How can any Wikipedia verify get its social handles verified

On behalf of the Urdu Wikipedia Community, I'm here asking about our recently launched social media handles. How can we get these handles verified? No Wikimedia affiliates are working in India and Pakistan as of now. Any idea? Pls help. --AaqibAnjum (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Users' physical security, real concern or just WMF media advertising?

The WMF seems to have assumed some users concerns about the safety and health of Iranian users as a joke. For the sake of public awareness, the families of a number of those killed in November's events in Iran intend to sue the Foundation for providing a safe space for the organized dissemination of misleading information, as well as using Wikipedia to defame dissidents (living or dead).

On the other hand, some of the older users of Persian Wikipedia (8 to now) are filing a completely different complaint so that the ruling band of Persian Wikipedia will not be able to stop any dissident and independent users. In fact, "physical removal" is a common word among sysops in the gang. I know that threatening the law is forbidden, and I reiterate that it is forbidden for us to die, be tortured, and be displaced anymore! @Base, Trijnstel, Matiia, Jyothis, and Green Giant: Your irresponsible and negligent comments do not last forever without compromising the lives, health and freedom of users. Now the true dimensions and the number and depth of the presence of the Islamic regime's interests in Persian Wikipedia are better known. The strategy of the Foundation has considered the security, safety and health of the users the most important principle, and so I intend to make it clear that any user who compromises events by simply neglecting and compromising the physical and mental health of my compatriots in Iran will be strongly pursued. I'm willing to leave the continents behind for this matter, if some fail to remove me physically. I had to change my username for my own safety, but no matter who the callers are, they promise to repeat it. I have disclosed my phone number to less than 5 people, how is it in the hands of unknown threatening people?

It is time for the foundation to test its will to protect its users and ideals.Unknownfauser (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(This was probably meant for the Wikimedia Forum.)
I'm sorry to hear your phone number ended up in the wrong hands. Sadly, the possible sources one would need to check are innumerable: leaks of phone numbers from apps happen all the time, although we get to know only of the bigger ones like Google and Twitter. As a first line of defense, libre Android developers suggest to use a free software contact book like opencontacts to start with. However, this only helps if all your friends and contacts do the same.
There is a lot more we could do to improve our users' (cyber)security, frankly. On the simple side of the spectrum, WMF could help get a Farsi translation of https://ssd.eff.org/ and other similar resources by friendly and competent groups like FSF, La Quadrature du Net and Freedom of the Press, then make sure it's distributed to all users. On the hardest side, we could try to distribute freedom-certified hardware to the most active and at-risk users. A middle way might involve in-person training with technical help to assess and fix one's devices. Nemo 07:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not a personal matter (probably for the thousandth time or something) and no one including me and Mardetanha have played a part in it, as it is unpleasant for us all.
There seems to be an incomprehensible interest in reducing the importance of serious questions about the safety and health of Iranian Wikimedia users. The main issue is not the disclosure of my phone number among inaccurate people, as is the issue of endless calls from Tehran landline numbers. I accept, with my own responsibility, the consequences of trying to prevent the Iranian regime's complete control of Fawiki, but others have never made such a commitment.
It is clear to me that we will soon see casualties among Persian-speaking users, on that day no one can speak of the inevitability of these events. Those who now decide in the security of the Western world, for those at risk, based on the short-sighted "I think no problem, all governments are the same ..." decision, will no longer be able to shirk responsibility for their decisions. These outright ignored warnings can remain a reminder for now. I have tried in every way I knew, to bring the foundation's officials and decision makers to the real situation. From now on, I will no longer attempt to persuade the WMF. As I said, our time of sacrifice is over, this will prove both internally and otherwise.Unknownfauser (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I am going to assume that you are referring to the confirmation comments I made for Mardetanha. As I mentioned in the comment, I totally understand the situation that exists in the country. What I have been trying to do is to separate the the country level problems with what the individual volunteer is bringing to the table. The confirmation process was for reviewing to see if the person is still fit to do the job. In my experience, Mardetanha has been proactive is protecting him self and his access to the tools. If we have evidence to prove that he breached the community's trust, we would be happy to review and correct our stands. I hold no ego or prejudice in the matter and would be happy to help in any way I can. Just for clarity, Stewards group is not directly part of foundation itself. We all are volunteers just like you who spends time supporting our awesome band of heroes who generate the free knowledge base for the world to use. This used to be foundation appointed volunteers back in the days and that is no longer the case. I would humbly request to spare the allegation on WMF in that topic. From my previous experience, WMF do care. --Jyothis (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jyothis: thanks for the reply. I will be closely following how the foundation cares about this serious matter. All I want to say is that if any harm is done to my Wikimedian friends and colleagues, it will have serious liability and legal consequences for those who have been negligent, as well as for the entire Wikimedia Foundation. so far many warnings have been issued by Iranian users. a number of dependents and guardians of the Iranian regime's interests are on the Persian Wikipedia (Arash.pt, Behzad39, Fatemi and more), who are close friends of Mardetanha. Even once, I tried to prevent propaganda by one of these people, Fatemi, about the death of Qasem Suleimani. Mardetanha warned me about this and called that guy "the most healthy"! I do not deny Mardetanha's useful activities in previous years, but his current role in working to eliminate opposition users of the Iranian government can never be ignored. Unknownfauser (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been blocked for ever by Mardetanha and Arash.pt:) Please read it before the comment is destroyed and cleared by Mardetanha. At least those who, contrary to the foundation, care about the safety and health of users.[1] Unknownfauser (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Internet access of the foundation's data centre in Singapore

On an issue in my local community, it was mentioned that Singapore's data center (eqsin) use CloudFlare's network to carry access traffic. Through route tracking, it was found that a few hops from China Telecom or China Mobile to Singapore's data center would enter CloudFlare's network. I would like to ask the technical staff: Did the foundation bought CloudFlare's Internet transfer service for the Singapore's data center? --Cwek (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cwek: Hi, thanks for the question. I saw the zhwiki thread you mentioned, and wanted to address some concerns raised there as well. While I can't speak to specific transit providers we use at this time, here's what I can tell you:
Like every network, we use a number of IP network (transit) providers to reach other networks. These providers vary per destination network, and by region/geography, and may be different over time. But none of our IP network providers are able to inspect content or user data, as traffic is encrypted end-to-end between users and Wikimedia using TLS. Additionally, we do not employ any third-party CDN services from any provider.
I hope that helps. CDanis (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, some information about this is public: https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1170425781178310656 Nemo 13:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@CDanis (WMF):Thanks for answering. I roughly understand what is going on. --Cwek (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

2020-03 concern about fr.wikipedia.org/

https://twitter.com/photos_floues/status/1240248106362470405 « fr: donne des signes d'épuisement inquiétants et j'ai peur d'une prise de contrôle complète par une bande organisée de fascistes, façon Wikipédia croate. » that Google translate into

« fr: gives worrying signs of exhaustion and I'm afraid of a complete takeover by an organized gang of fascists, Croatian Wikipedia style. »

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki versions

On MediaWiki#Versions what I see (1.35, 1.34, 1.31, 1.35, 1.35) is not what I edited (1.35, 1.34, 1.33, 1.31, 1.35). and as I'm doing that since 2006 when m: was still the centre of the WikiMedia- and MediaWiki-verse, it is kind of annoying. This duplication of mw: content involving at least two templates is just ancient m: history from the times before mw: inherited the help + other content, but as long as it exists here it should be correct "as of" roughly biannual maintenance. TL;DR: i18n bug. –84.46.53.85 12:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It is metawiki content, and probably would be better discussed at Meta:Babel. Probably even better if it was data at mw: and remove the living version data here, and just keep it simple locally. I don't see value in a living data page here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

To the attention of the users

The following discussion is closed: Facts from both sides are there. Stewards are the process for appealing this decision, or taking it through a RFC.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm protesting against arbitrariness of the stewards HakanIst and Mardetanha in Tatar Wikipedia. What's grounds for these stewards have unblocked the user, that was blocked earlier by administrator accordingly to all the rules? On what basis we are now imposed to collaboration with the destructive user and a demagogue Frhdkazan, who does not speak our language and has not written a single readable article for 10 years of participation? His first step today was the statement, that henceforth our community is under external management of the Stewards. Any comments? Why do Stewards ignore community opinion? In this outrageous campaign actively involved Ssr from the ruwiki. And, as I know the Stewards prefer not to interfere in such collisions.

I suppose that this is a sheer Wiki-discrimination of our Tatar community. We are not younger brothers of RuWiki or Bashkir Wiki (and any other), whose admins are involved, and have every reasons to limit our activity. We demand equal treatment to our community. --Derslek (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Derslek, could I ask what you mean by "threats and sendings to the civil court in Wikipedia". Are you referring to editors threatening other editors with legal action? Vermont (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record: Derslek's statement above about my first Tatar Wikipedia edit of today is incorrect in a number of ways.

  1. My edit's log shows it to be this one, which is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems@ttWP, where I   Oppose "Speedy deletion of the noticeboard & all copyvios, proven using https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ .
  2. My subsequent edit was indeed at the tt:Wikipedia:Village pump (news) - a community announcement that I am unblocked, as Derslek didn't comply with repeated requests made to him by neutral parties (here & here) to explain reasons for his blocking actions on my username.

For more neutral coverage of the matter, feel free to see Wikipedia Signpost note, which was published before this user reblocked my username again. --Frhdkazan (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • So, let's translate this heading: ТатВики Викимедиа хәрәкәте стюартлары карамагында-->ТатВики в подчинении стюардов движения Викимедиа-->TatWiki is [now] under subjection of stewards of the Wikimedia movement. What's wrong? --Derslek (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment by Mehman97

Dear all, I will try to explain to you thoroughly the whole process that is associated with this case.

A few weeks ago, HakanIST asked me to take the role of a mediator on the issue of blocking the active participant in Wikimedia projects and Wikimedian of the Year (2018) – Farhad. I tried to understand why the administrator and bureaucrat of the Tatar Wikipedia User:Derslek blocked Frhdkazan, for this, I also sent an official letter to the administrator himself and asked him questions, you can familiarize yourself with them here. As I, from his answers, as well as reviewing all the entries, came to the conclusion that the administrator blocked the Frhdkazan because of this letter in the Phabricator (Phab:T230910). Frhdkazan has been writing and warning the community for some time about the problem of copyvio, which he also accuses the administrator Derslek, who himself is engaged in copyvio, instead of the administrator becoming interested in the matter and peacefully resolving the issue through discussion, he took and blocked the Frhdkazan. This actually contradicts Wikipedia values.

I tried to solve the problem peacefully and asked the administrator (Derslek) to unblock Frhdkazan and solve all the problems through dialogue, but unfortunately I didn't receive any response or action. After which I turned to the stewards and they took decisive action - they unblocked Frhdkazan, but Derslek again blocked Frhdkazan.

Now the situation is this:

  1. The bureaucrat and administrator of the Tatar Wikipedia (Derslek) doesn't want to resolve the problem peacefully and usurps his rights. I don’t know why other administrators do not interfere with the situation.
  2. For this day, Frhdkazan was unblocked twice (the first time Mardetanha, the second time HakanIST). But both times Derslek canceled their action and Frhdkazan was again blocked.
  3. I want to tell Derslek that Phab. didn’t accept his request not because Frhdkazan wrote there, but because the developers no longer integrate the patrol function into Wikipedia.
  4. Admin is clearly abusing his rights, therefore, I think it is necessary to remove from him the rights of the administrator, as well as the bureaucrat (since the bureaucrat may activate the rights of the administrator).
  5. I want to note that Frhdkazan has more than 70 thousand edits in the Tatar Wikipedia.

I hope I was able to explain the whole situation around this case. Kindly, --Mehman 97 19:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Hello. The conflict between Derslek and Frhdkazan began after Farhad has shown cases of mass copying of texts to Tatar Wikipedia from other sites. Not all links available at the moment, but some examples show that copy-paste sometimes exceeded 85-90%. The story with the Fabricator was thus just a reason, not a cause. I would also like to comment on this statement: "Frhdkazan, who does not speak our language and has not written a single readable article for 10 years of participation." I can’t be an expert in Turkic languages, but I have repeatedly seen how Farhad spoke in the Tatar language with Tatars, with Bashkirs (these languages are very close) (during wiki events in Russia), as well as with participants from Turkey (during Wikimania). I strongly doubt that the person who "does not speak" Tatar/Turkic languages could do such things.
  • I believe that even if we do not pay attention to the Derslek's war with the Wikimedia Stewards (which is plain insane!), his sysop and bureaucrat rights should be removed even for his copyright-related violations. I also propose establishing a moratorium on the election of new bureaucrats in the Tatar Wikipedia, since I have reason to believe that Derslek received his current bureaucratship in an insufficiently transparent manner.
  • Today Derslek wrote on my talk page at TTWP that he considers me to be an “interested person” in the Tatar-Bashkir conflict on the basis that I am the administrator of the Bashkir Wikipedia. He ignored the fact that I am also an administrator in a completely different edition (Lezgi WP) and I also was an administrator in the Buryat Wikipedia, and in general, I try to help to develop all Wikipedia editions in the languages of Russia. I am an ethnically Russian person, I've never lived in either Tatarstan or Bashkortostan, and I can't stand on any side in their local conflicts. I participated in Wiki events in both Bashkortostan and Tatarstan, and even more often in the latter region. Why am I doing this? Ssr wrote that Derslek is permanently blocked at the Russian Wikipedia. In the project, which he considers to be his personal property, in the Tatar Wikipedia, he labels the participants based on their nationality or, as in the case of me, the technical administration in a Wikimedia project that he does not like. He immediately offers to "shut up and back off." — Soul Train (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
For what it worth, I have removed his flags (with prior discussion with fellow stewards), he has never been elected as a bureaucrat and misused his admin status to block a level headed user for 7 month and engaging in wheel waring. Mardetanha talk 05:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello! So I want to hear the opinion of real mediators, like Billinghurst, Krassotkin an others. So far only the voices of true Russian chauvinists (Soul Train and Ssr) have been heard, who have no any moral rights to have part in the affairs of non-Russian Wikipedies of Russia. And I don’t understand the role of the group of Azerbaijani users (Mardetanha, Mehman and HakanIST) whose hands are used by the chauvinists to do their dirty work. Derslek (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Every Wikimedia user has all "moral rights" to help their fellow Wikimedians whenever, wherever, you should know that long ago as a Wikimedia project bureaucrat (and you was many times told in case you missed). --Ssr (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
      • 'whenever, wherever', and regardless of the will of 'being's helped'? What help to us can be done by ambassador of the project, where official lie (first of all WWII) is the WP:RS? --Derslek (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
        • There is no justification for copyright violations, and persistent violations are uncompatible with admin functions. --Ssr (talk)
        • You wrote that you are "not active" now, so time to have a rest, get some positive experience and return to activities as normal rule-obeying Wikimedia editor. --Ssr (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
        • "the will of 'being's helped'" is the WMF needing any civilized help from anybody for building Wikimedia open-editing projects. There is definitely a will for it, it's in 5 pillars and ToS. "Civilized help" means rule-obeying and very friendly. --Ssr (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
        • There is definitely cultural conflict here, but that is not what I am particularly concerned with. You, as an administrator of a project, uploaded copyright violations. That's entirely unacceptable, and regardless of anything else, that alone should result in the removal of your userrights if not an indefinite block. Vermont (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm an enwiki admin and an uninvolved observer. I know enwiki rules do not apply elsewhere, but I do know that we're all ultimately governed by the rule of common sense. Derslek should not have blocked a user for criticizing him off-wiki, doing so was straightforwardly impartial and abusive. Then going further and warring with multiple Stewards who tried to step in and do the right thing was an abuse of his blocking privileges. This is such blatant admin abuse that there is no way that it could never result in anything other than a desysop. Even ignoring the alleged copyright violations. Derslek went full "rogue admin" and is lucky to not have been blocked. Swarm (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
    • //Derslek should not have blocked a user for criticizing him off-wiki, doing so was straightforwardly impartial and abusive.//

Swarm, it's total lie! Frhdkazan was blocked for destructive behavior (desruptiv editing) according to [2]. As it said in the Rule: "organization of a campaign that lasted for years, in the absence of a constructive contribution of the participant". So from formal side his blocking was absolutely correct. Frhdkazan really don't know Tatar even to correctly compose a sentence. I don't blame him in language incompetency, because it is the consequence of chauvinistic Soviet and Russian politics. In soviet times (and just now, unfortunetaly), the Tatar mother tongue was not compulsory school subject, unlike foreign languages. In our times the number of literate native speakers among youths tends to zero. And Frhdkazan don't know Tatar enough to participate in writing and editing of articles. For this reason all his contribution is to do intrigues and any aimless activity. - Derslek (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

  Comment It would seem that the facts are out, and now it is devolving into a "He said, she said" conversation. The community is unable to forensically evaluate the conversation, and this is a general forum for general discussions, not a complaints management forum for the actions of the stewards.

If it needs to continue then it should be converted into a Request for comment. Please add a link to any such discussion below if that occurs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ~riley (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Message to readers from Wikimedia Foundation

Given the unfolding global events, the Wikimedia Foundations feels it is important to reassure readers across the globe.

We'll be displaying a short message at the top of the projects reaffirming our commitment to keep Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects online, open and free for all. Readers often turn to Wikipedia for neutral information in times of stress. This is a critical moment for students who can't go to school, people who have to stay home with their families, and anyone who needs a trusted source of unbiased information.

We also want to take a moment to acknowledge the invaluable work of all the medical contributors on Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping a close watch and keeping misinformation at bay. Coronavirus topics have received tens of thousands of edits by thousands of editors since the start of the pandemic. The article has been read more than 30 million times, in English alone.

The message will be displayed just once to readers, and you can preview the banner. The draft is in English but we want this message to be multilingual. If you have a moment, please help translate this banner into your language. Thank you all, for your work and efforts.

Stay safe, and wash your hands! Seddon (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where community consensus was established for this, with the required advance notifications to local communities? Banners must go through the proposal process and gain consensus in advance. --Yair rand (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand: As operators of the website, and given the extraordinary stress that a significant percentage of the world is currently feeling, and given that many of them are turning to Wikipedia for information, and given that many contributors are spending extra time dealing with the increased attention and activity that results from millions of people being isolated at home, we believe it necessary and important to reaffirm our commitment to being here for people in a time of need and to acknowledge contributors in their role in making it all happen. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seddon (WMF): Okay, yes, their intention is to brazenly violate consensus and abuse their userrights. We'll deal with it, I'm sure it will all work out. (Also, you know, the normal way to express appreciation to contributors around here is usually something like a barnstar, not a hostile takeover of a community resource during a global pandemic, but I guess it's the thought that counts. :) ) --Yair rand (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Yair rand:: The banner is set to only show once to a user. A new feature was recently specifically developed that will allow the banner to be show once andfter that delivery is done it will not compete for space with any other running campaign. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
That's great, but I don't see the relevance. --Yair rand (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I have many issues with the message (like "people who are staying home with their families", hmm there are many people who stay home alone because they have no family), but my main grievance is that the WMF should not make a statement that Wikipedia is to be trusted or that it is unbiased, or that it has "medical contributors", or that the priority of editors is the readers' trust. Wikipedia is not to be trusted and every seasoned Wikipedia editor knows that, because we see the gargabe that is there. Readers are lucky if they get good quality content but it's not guaranteed and never will be. -kyykaarme (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kyykaarme: - I've trimmed the opening paragraph text based on feedback from yourself and User:GreenMeansGo. Let me have a think about the rest of your feedback. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the edits, it's better now. If I read the whole message with my uncynical hat on, it's not bad. I still have an issue with "anyone who needs a trusted source of unbiased information" because it implies that they will find it on Wikipedia. That's the goal, but it's not a promise we can make, especially in smaller projects that don't have high sourcing standards such as en:WP:MEDRS. (I did educate myself on viruses by reading enwiki articles and I appreciate the efforts of all those editors. My homewiki will probably never come even close to that quality because there just aren't enough knowledgeable editors for the amount of work that is required.) -kyykaarme (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kyykaarme: - We've modified the banner further. 1) To make it clear that volunteers are doing the work 2) to make clear it's a task that is ongoing to achieve that goal. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Seddon (WMF): I don't mean to be overly critical, but it's just not...I...don't know that I would be married to the current wording. I would suggest something more condensed and less wordy:

With the uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, we want to reassure our readers across the globe. Wikipedia will be online and available for everyone everywhere in need of a trusted source of unbiased information. Knowledge must and will remain open for all, now more than ever.

GMGtalk 22:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: - Feedback is important! I've trimmed the opening paragraph to your suggested text. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seddon (WMF): Ah crap. I didn't read the rest. I'm being busy and silly. For goodness sake, drop We find ourselves in remarkable circumstances this month. The outbreak started in China in December. That's not the message you want to send. GMGtalk 22:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:I've quickly changed it to this year for now which is fair since the first death didn't occur till Jan 10 and the Wuhan shut down didn't occur till the latter half of Jan. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seddon (WMF): Where is the source you're editing? I can't purge away the old banner to see the changes in the link you provided. GMGtalk 23:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I'm editting the banners here. The cache can take up to 10 minutes to take effect. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seddon (WMF): Are you on IRC? This may be easier that way. GMGtalk 23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  Done Seddon (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Seddon, what is the take-home message? Am I missing some context? Thanks.--Mathieu ottawa (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seddon (WMF):. Sorry, forgot to ping you the first time.--Mathieu ottawa (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Why should the Executive Director put what is essentially a content-free blog message on every page at Wikipedia? Why should a banner be signed as coming from a particular person—is Twitter down? Regarding what the banner currently says, a good way to raise panic and doubt about Wikipedia's future is to reassure readers that there is no problem. What reader would think Wikipedia would be taken down by a virus? What reader who does think such a thing would be comforted by a marketing banner? If such a banner is wanted, please work out some actual content (other than don't panic), then polish the wording. BTW, it currently says "we have to one another" which is missing something. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Reassure users that projects will stay online? Who ever doubted that? Sounds like unnecessary terrorism. Please stop. Nemo 10:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey @Nemo bis:. We've change that language based on yours and others feedback. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Nemo. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T199055
I've also got this warning. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Found this ticket. RhinosF1 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson, RhinosF1, 1997kB, and Pppery: Hey all, this a debugging feature that reports on the test outcome of the MediaWiki Content Security Policy to ensure no offsite scripts are being run. At the moment wmflabs is not a whitelisted domain but users will not see this warning. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Seddon, I spoke to the Technical team and found the phab task. I added a tracking badge to this discussion ealier. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Instead of simply using the word "reassure", please consider affirming words. Consider the impact, not in the sense of a complaint, but tell us to do our best with this issue, not simply hand out a word which otherwise has little meaning..? Tell us to take care and maybe even direct us to guidance, something like that? ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 15:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@RTG: Based on feedback the opening now reads:

With the uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, we want to reassure our readers across the globe that our volunteers are working to bring you a trusted source of unbiased information. Throughout these challenging times, knowledge must and will remain open for all.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the new wording. Seddon (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Seddon:Yes I do prefer it actually, Seddon. I suppose the other one had a sort of panicky feel to the last sentence, we will go down last type of thing, whereas now it is a bit more, we are still standing don't worry, thanks, and safe journey to you all, o/ ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 22:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Or well, you didn't change the last sentence, but I still prefer it. ~^\\\.rT'{~ g 22:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way, I very much hope no message will run on non-Wikipedia projects which says "I want to acknowledge the invaluable work of all the contributors on Wikipedia". It's quite offensive if the WMF ED doesn't acknowledge the invaluable work of all Wikimedia projects' contributors. If that's meant to be a {{SITENAME}}, the language will need to be adapted. Overall this message seems a net negative which adds to misinformation (by implying there was some risk that projects would not continue), bad feelings (by offending contributors), systematic bias rather than diversity (by being focused on some countries where "social distancing" has been decided) and misconceptions (about Wikipedia being the only free knowledge project, and free knowledge being limited to "articles" and "neutral information"). I strongly recommend to radically reconsider this banner idea. We'll probably end up regretting it just as much as the 9/11 wiki; let's not always repeat the same mistakes please. Nemo 18:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with Nemo_bis that this banner is not the most brilliant idea. It still uses the old placeholder name "coronavirus" for COVID-19 to name the pandemic, which is basically a non-name, a misnomer, and very much outdated since the proper name was coined by WHO and announced last 11 February, already more than a month ago. Using "coronavirus" instead COVID-19 is also prone to be abused for disinformation and fake news, basically spreading confusion and misinformation while praising Wikipedia for being "a trusted source of unbiased information". As a volunteer, I also do not feel very comfortable with WMF staff first praising "Wikipedia" contributors, then speaking on their name telling "We will keep working around the clock to bring you reliable and neutral information.". The whole thing looks like self praising, it doesn't seem to pass a good message, and I really hope you would reconsider, and hopefully suspend that banner. We've already enough with what is going on. --- Darwin Ahoy! 19:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The impression limits are not working. In a couple hours yesterday while on a device logged out, without trying to do anything special, I saw the banner about five times. I see that the text has not been changed radically. Given it's very USA-centric and English Wikipedia-centric, I'll note that many of the concerns above will be reduced if the banner is only shown on the English Wikipedia for USA users. Nemo 19:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't understand what message this banner should convey. When I saw it first some days ago, I clicked it away as a nuisance after reading it, since it had zero content except "Wikipedia will still be online and give you information". How very nice, was there ever any reason to doubt it? To me it looks like the counterpart to the usual scary fundraising messages "donate now or Wikipedia WILL shut down". An invitation (for non-registered users) to take this opportunity to start contributing (cf. CentralNotice/Request/Stay at home with Wikipedia) maybe would have been more useful. --MF-W 21:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there some significant part of this banner that I've missed? It's a bit hard to look at the history because it's in parts but the parts I've looked at [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and some of the above discussion/concerns seem confusion. I mean some are obvious, e.g. the concerns of the mention of "Wikipedia" for other projects, disagreements over whether the banner has useful info or whether it creates more panic, disagreements over the process followed. Other parts, even having read the history I'm confused about. E.g. concerns over it being US centric. I mean there was the "this month" part, that was clearly a major error and it is unfortunate it lasted over 2 days [10]. But other than that, I'm not seeing anything particularly US centric. E.g. school closures have happened in a number of countries and actually began in countries before the US. Likewise the requirement to stay home with families, China especially Wuhan really pioneered that albeit it's starting to be less required there. (Actually I don't know if there is any country where it isn't suggested people who suspect they have the disease should stay home even if it's a step not practical for a large percentage of people in the world and many don't know about it. Maybe North Korea?) Of course there are vastly different levels in how strongly it's being recommended and for who.) So what am I missing? Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The reference to social distancing is not suitable for a global audience because the phenomenon is not universal. While enormous, lockdowns and similar measures currently affect 20 % of the world population. The message seems to be playing by the domestic audiences closest to the WMF, it has no discernible meaning or goal for a global audience. It's always safer and wiser to restrict the CentralNotice to the main target you actually intend to reach and have thought about the most, rather than overshoot. We have discussed this many times about the CentralNotice guidelines, it becomes quite tiring when WMF is not able to follow standard communication protocols. Nemo 07:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The entire country of India is shutting down for three weeks so that's a large portion of readers. The only certainty about COVID-19 is how rapidly the situation is changing. Liz (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and does the population of India need or appreciates being told by someone in USA how they should take care of themselves? I suspect not. Nemo 13:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 
Katherine's message, only displayed when not logged in

This message struck my eye this morning before logging in. I was, and am, shocked. Since then, I was looking for an explanation why this kind of self-praise happened and what the contributors were thinking about it. Now I found this discussion here, I am even more shocked to see that there was a lot of criticism from the start, and even here, the full text of this repellent bragging was and is deliberately hidden from those, who are talked about and "talked for". --SI 10:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose as one of many major contributors to the English language Wikipedia article that this links to, this message is problematic for a number of reasons. I have seen it numerous times, at least once per day, I believe both when logged in and not logged in. the main reason I oppose at this stage is because this does not to my knowledge have preexisting community consensus and approval. —Almaty (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    • please note that the advertisement led to my resignation from Wikipedia English. You should not have put us in that position. If you want to do a similar advertisement In the future, please link to the WHO FAQ rather than the covid 19 pages. I emailed legal (even though it probably isn’t a legal issue) my reasoning as to why. —Almaty (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • We are informed on User talk:Katherine (WMF) of the conclusion of the campaign. It would be useful to know the impression statistics for the banner, especially given it was malfunctioning for days. Nemo 09:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2020-03&oldid=24955979"