Wikimedia Forum
| ← Discussion pages | Wikimedia Forums | Archives → |
 The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.) You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.
|
Auto-signing[edit]
Wikimedia has started auto-signing when I add text to a talk page. I don't want this behaviour, how do I stop it? Rich Farmbrough. 21:15 16 October 2023 (GMT).
- Note: It is possible this only occurs when creating a new section, which is a little smarter, but still. Rich Farmbrough. 21:21 16 October 2023 (GMT).
- @Rich Farmbrough: Yes, I believe the new DiscussionTools feature will auto-sign when someone starts a new section using the "Add topic" tab, or uses the new "[reply]" links that appear after everyone's comments. This results in one-fewer-thing for us all to have to remember, and for newcomers to have to learn (often via the {{unsigned}} templates, which lead to walls of documentation on some wikis) which can be alienating, frustrating, and demotivating for those newcomers. It is not possible to stop this behaviour if you use those features, and not easy to make it opt-out [see a related essay I started years ago]. The way around auto-signing is to edit the whole page or whole section in raw wikitext. You can read more about the various related features at mw:Talk pages project.
- Sidenote: Your signature appears to be using a custom timestamp, which actually breaks the "[reply]" feature for everyone else. It possibly also breaks some archival-bots, as they tend to rely upon standard timestamps. I.e. See this thread, where my comment will have a "[reply]" link but yours do not. I suggest using the default timestamp for consistency, and to avoid confusion (for everyone who has learned what UTC means but doesn't know GMT [I grew up in the UK, I know!]), and to avoid these technical issues for everyone (I.e. some people are likely to be confused about why it is harder to reply to you than to everyone else).
- I hope those details are helpful. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Always useful. But of course I have a cordial aversion poorly planned features, and to those which deny users the ability to do things their way. Rich Farmbrough. 12:02 23 October 2023 (GMT).
Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package[edit]
Dear all,
Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.
Best,
Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee
01:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Interwiki-Link-Checker[edit]
I am a user on WikiKids, a Dutch children's encyclopedia, and we still have to manually add interwiki links to link articles together, for example from Dutch to French. Back in the days, when Wikidata didn't exist, you had the Interwiki-Link-Checker. It was a tool to find Interwiki Links between different languages written in the same way. WikiKids has recently started a closer cooperation with Vikidia, and we are looking for such an interwiki link tool. Our question is if anyone knows if such a tool still exists somewhere or if someone would be willing to rebuild such a tool. We hope someone can help us further along the way. Any tips are welcome! We would be happy to hear from anyone! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here is the page where we elaborate the idea. Perhaps there's a better place to get in touch with people with skills for this project? (Or someone who remembers an old tool like this one) wikitech:? Or somewhere esle? Astirmays (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Sysop vandal on ja.wikipedia.org[edit]
Adimistolator on ja.wikipedia.org has suppressed speech by prohibiting the use of talk pages at its own discretion. He has sent a follow-up request to the community, but he also refused to convey the email I sent to provide my rebuttal and defense. How should I consult? Miraburu (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Test cases for modules[edit]
Question about writing test cases: Is there any sort of standard infrastructure or idiom to force mw.title to pretend we’re in the main namespace? (In Perl I‘d just localize the mw global then patch things up, but Lua is not Perl...)
I’m running into the problem of not being able to test a module (that I didn’t write) because the module does certain things only when it’s the main namespace, and I’m precisely trying to test those cases, but test cases are in the Module namespace, not the main namespace, so those things never get done.
Thank you in advance for any pointers. —Al12si (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Forum, a multilingual forum[edit]
Auf der Hauptseite steht, es wäre ein mehrsprachiges Forum (unja um die Hauptseite zu verstehen muss man natürlich englisch können oder zufällig bis runterscrollen um die eigene Sprache zu finden) ... und dann finde ich hier die Regeln ausschließlich auf englisch. Ich konnte auch keine Möglichkeit finden das in einer anderen Sprache anzuzeigen. So das exisitert ist es wohl gut versteckt. ... Ggf. sollte man den Text auf der Meta-Hauptseite ändern. ...Sicherlich Post 00:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Disclaimers Wikipedia / Wikimedia Foundation General Terms of Use[edit]
Hello for the legally minded. On the lower side of Wikipedia pages is a small reference "Disclaimers" with a link to a disclaimer in the language of the site you're visiting, 153 languages available. In the Dutch language version can be read under 'Liability' (Aansprakelijkheid) that users are not to be held responsible for the correctness of text published, it even can't be guaranteed that authors did use caution (carefulness?) when formulating articles. (freely translated)
This seems to be contradicting with the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use writing: "You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on the Projects. (...) For your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid taking any actions that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws."
Can someone please explain how both rulesets relate to each other? Thanks
Keep up VanArtevelde (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde when in doubt the English version takes precedence. Is the problem you are seeing soley a "translation" problem in the Dutch version - or do you also see issue with the English version? — xaosflux Talk 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reaction, @Xaosflux The Dutch language disclaimer differs in content pretty much from the english language one. There is no general note that in doubt the English version is 'leading' globally. The english version states "None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages."
- Best whishes, VanArtevelde (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde translations of those messages are made by volunteers such as yourself, if you go to the root page there should be a "translate this page" link at the very top. Feel free to make appropriate improvements to the translation. — xaosflux Talk 10:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that translations of those should simply be that, a change in language only -- these are not like articles on our content projects where each language version may be different in substance. — xaosflux Talk 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Xaosflux for your swift reply - in that case on a global scale some work lays ahead... Can you please shortly explain what the reason is that the English language version is leading? Is that because it has been written under patronage (auspices) of the Wikimedia Foundation?
- Practically it would be a pleasure to offer support in writing a translation of the current english text, but that ofcourse is not simply an individual editors project and in need of coordination / guidance, probably by a WMF functionary? Also because it will be very difficult for a single editor to make such big changes in the text of the Dutch language version. What do you think? VanArtevelde (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde yes that is correct, the English language is leading because the pages you are referencing (especially the Terms of Use page) have certain legal standings and are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a United States of America non-profit organization. The language of the legal jurisdiction that it is in is English. Like most wiki pages, most editors are welcome to contribute so it is not up to a "single editor" - many hands make for light work. If you see something wrong, feel free to work on whatever part of it you want. Translations are usually broken down to one paragraph at a time for ease of access to translators. This page is run by volunteers, we are unable to direct the work of foundation staffers. — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again @Xaosflux for this useful information. There still are some unclearities. One of them: the English version disclaimer doesn't seem to have been written under patronage of the Wikimedia Foundation, like the General Terms are. The disclaimer isn't being published on the official Wikimedia Foundation webpage and there isn't a statement like: these rules are leading worldwide. And a practical point, that it will be very difficult for a single editor to change the text. VanArtevelde (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde hi there, I think this discussion may have strayed to talk about several different pages. Are the pages you are asking about right now:
- Both of those pages are maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation.
- You also mentioned pages on "Wikipedia", and about translations. Are you asking about a page not here on the meta-wiki, but on the English Wikipedia? Please provide exact links for the page or pages you have a question about and we should be able to point to who maintains the page, and how to go about getting it improved. — xaosflux Talk 16:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again for 'diving' into this, @Xaosflux, appreciate that very much.
- yes, that is what I'm talking about
- isn't existing and should be imho - see my comment for Jrogers
- The disclaimers are being published on the wikipedia project pages, f.i.:
- -- VanArtevelde (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde thanks for the response! OK, so those are not "translations" at all. Those are community-managed pages on those local projects. The best place to discussion improvements to those pages in on their associated talk pages. It is unlikely the office staff will force a change on those unless they are explicitly making a false claim about something the foundation itself would or wouldn't do, and even more unlikely that a global community driven policy (which we would discussion here on the meta-wiki) will emerge requiring local communities to word those pages in specific ways. Those projects do also contain links to the Terms of Use which should be consistent.
- In my local capacity on the English Wikipedia I did make an edit to w:en:Wikipedia:General disclaimer, linking to the foundation:Policy:General disclaimer page for reference. — xaosflux Talk 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Xaosflux as @Jrogers (WMF) pointed out, underneath, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts and the Dutch language version might be misleading at that point. The English version writes about the same. As I'm aware now, the disclaimers have not been written by local legal professionals. Imho the communities need support from local chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation to come to (a set of) reliable disclaimers created or checked by jurists so that they will work in their home countries. Thanks for the conversation, got interesting insights. Keep up! -VanArtevelde (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde keep in mind that the only "home country" for all of the production projects is the United States. For example: The German Wikipedia isn't a Wikipedia about or for Germany, it is a Wikipedia written in German; the English Wikipedia isn't a Wikipedia about or for England, it is a Wikipedia written in English, etc. — xaosflux Talk 00:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Xaosflux as @Jrogers (WMF) pointed out, underneath, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts and the Dutch language version might be misleading at that point. The English version writes about the same. As I'm aware now, the disclaimers have not been written by local legal professionals. Imho the communities need support from local chapters or the Wikimedia Foundation to come to (a set of) reliable disclaimers created or checked by jurists so that they will work in their home countries. Thanks for the conversation, got interesting insights. Keep up! -VanArtevelde (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again for 'diving' into this, @Xaosflux, appreciate that very much.
- Thanks again @Xaosflux for this useful information. There still are some unclearities. One of them: the English version disclaimer doesn't seem to have been written under patronage of the Wikimedia Foundation, like the General Terms are. The disclaimer isn't being published on the official Wikimedia Foundation webpage and there isn't a statement like: these rules are leading worldwide. And a practical point, that it will be very difficult for a single editor to change the text. VanArtevelde (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde yes that is correct, the English language is leading because the pages you are referencing (especially the Terms of Use page) have certain legal standings and are from the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a United States of America non-profit organization. The language of the legal jurisdiction that it is in is English. Like most wiki pages, most editors are welcome to contribute so it is not up to a "single editor" - many hands make for light work. If you see something wrong, feel free to work on whatever part of it you want. Translations are usually broken down to one paragraph at a time for ease of access to translators. This page is run by volunteers, we are unable to direct the work of foundation staffers. — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that translations of those should simply be that, a change in language only -- these are not like articles on our content projects where each language version may be different in substance. — xaosflux Talk 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @VanArtevelde translations of those messages are made by volunteers such as yourself, if you go to the root page there should be a "translate this page" link at the very top. Feel free to make appropriate improvements to the translation. — xaosflux Talk 10:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am not a lawyer. But if I understand correctly, Disclaimer and Terms of use are two types of different legal statements. So some of the words may be different. Thanks. SCP-2000 16:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @SCP-2000 for your reaction. Right, it's about two different sets of rulings. It is not clear right away who in a legal sense is the "sender" of the content of the disclaimers - is that the global group of editors of Wikipedia, the language group, the Wikimedia Foundation, or each separate editor? Best whishes. VanArtevelde (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi all. I'm one of the lawyers at the Foundation. This conversation was pointed out to me by a colleague and I thought I should offer a comment. My recommendation would be to change the Dutch language note, as it is probably misleading in many jurisdictions (I am not a Netherlands lawyer, so I cannot say whether it is specifically misleading in the Netherlands but it very well might be). The problem is not the conflict with the Terms of Use itself, but rather the background law. Namely, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts. In other words, the fact that there's language saying that individual authors aren't responsible might legally do nothing and actually make people feel that they can be reckless when they're not actually safe to do so. As a simple to think about example, if you say "I will not be held responsible for punching you" and then you punch someone, most countries in the world will let the person who got punched sue you for compensation. Defamation, in most countries in the world, is considered an intentional tort and people can sue over it even if you try to disclaim responsibility. The Foundation also can't take that over in most countries: that is, there are cases where both a user and the Foundation might be liable at the same time, but the Foundation can't prevent a user from being liable in these situations. That's why we put the warning language in the Terms of Use. It's not that the Terms of Use are making users liable, but rather that we're trying to warn users to be careful because they might be liable in many countries no matter what we or they do. We do try to protect users by preventing them from being identified in the first place (for example, see our last transparency report in which we only granted 1 out of 30 user info requests). But if a user actually did defame someone with their particular edits and the subject is committed, there are ways they can legally force the Foundation to disclose that data and then sue a user no matter what the disclaimers or the Terms of Use say. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- OP: On a related note, keep in mind that the translation of a message is meant to only be a "translation", it is not about something that is only applicable in the Netherlands or other Dutch speaking jurisdictions (any more then the English versions would only apply to England). — xaosflux Talk 16:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- How is a reader or a user to know that the disclaimer they're reading in their own language is not the real disclaimer? What even is the real disclaimer? Why do individual projects have their own disclaimer pages, shouldn't it be hosted in the Foundation wiki? Namely, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts. This is what it says in the enwiki disclaimer: None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. Doesn't the part before "or for your use" contradict the intentional torts thing? kyykaarme (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jrogers (WMF) for taking time to comment, appreciated! The General Terms (and Code of Conduct) are a clear guidance. They're being published on the Foundation part of the Wikimedia website and approved by the Board of Trustees. They can't be modified by users. All translations have a clear note that the english version is leading, like the official version has. This is not the case with the disclaimers, they're being published on the project pages and are being written by normal users. Some language versions are only semi-protected. It's about f.i. these pages: Dutch | https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Algemeen_voorbehoud
- German | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Impressum
- French | https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Avertissements_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9raux
- English | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer.
- Would it be possible to create one leading global disclaimer according to the same principles: published on the foundation.wikimedia.org page, approved by the Board of Trustees, with a clear note that this specific version is leading globally? The small "Disclaimers" link underneath each Wikipedia page is leading to the central Wikimedia Foundation Disclaimers page for Wikipedia, with translations. Best whishes, -VanArtevelde (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi all. I'm one of the lawyers at the Foundation. This conversation was pointed out to me by a colleague and I thought I should offer a comment. My recommendation would be to change the Dutch language note, as it is probably misleading in many jurisdictions (I am not a Netherlands lawyer, so I cannot say whether it is specifically misleading in the Netherlands but it very well might be). The problem is not the conflict with the Terms of Use itself, but rather the background law. Namely, in most places in the world, you cannot disclaim intentional torts. In other words, the fact that there's language saying that individual authors aren't responsible might legally do nothing and actually make people feel that they can be reckless when they're not actually safe to do so. As a simple to think about example, if you say "I will not be held responsible for punching you" and then you punch someone, most countries in the world will let the person who got punched sue you for compensation. Defamation, in most countries in the world, is considered an intentional tort and people can sue over it even if you try to disclaim responsibility. The Foundation also can't take that over in most countries: that is, there are cases where both a user and the Foundation might be liable at the same time, but the Foundation can't prevent a user from being liable in these situations. That's why we put the warning language in the Terms of Use. It's not that the Terms of Use are making users liable, but rather that we're trying to warn users to be careful because they might be liable in many countries no matter what we or they do. We do try to protect users by preventing them from being identified in the first place (for example, see our last transparency report in which we only granted 1 out of 30 user info requests). But if a user actually did defame someone with their particular edits and the subject is committed, there are ways they can legally force the Foundation to disclose that data and then sue a user no matter what the disclaimers or the Terms of Use say. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @SCP-2000 for your reaction. Right, it's about two different sets of rulings. It is not clear right away who in a legal sense is the "sender" of the content of the disclaimers - is that the global group of editors of Wikipedia, the language group, the Wikimedia Foundation, or each separate editor? Best whishes. VanArtevelde (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)