Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

• Discussions of proposals which do not require significant foundation attention or involvement belong at Village pump (proposals)
• Discussions of bugs and routine technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
• Consider developing new ideas at the Village pump (idea lab).
• This page is not a place to appeal decisions about article content, which the WMF does not control (except in very rare cases); see Dispute resolution for that.
• Issues that do not require project-wide attention should often be handled through Wikipedia:Contact us instead of here.
• This board is not the place to report emergencies; go to Wikipedia:Emergency for that.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

Just a ping here for this message: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 73#Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. JPBeland-WMF (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vector 2022 has an RFC

There is an RfC on whether Vector legacy should be restored as the default skin on the English Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin?. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia losing ground?

I remember when Wikipedia content began appearing within the first five results of a Google search (a proud moment indeed). Soon after, our content consistently appeared as the first result after any paid ads. This has been the default condition for so long now that I have become accustomed to it, even expectant. Today, I was disconcertingly surprised to see content from "Disney Wiki | powered by Wikia" delivered ahead of Wikipedia content when searching "Michael Clarke Duncan", a subject covered in Wikipedia. If this is the begining of a trend, it is rather ominous in my opinion and I earnestly hope it is a short lived trend that we can help correct. I am keen to see what others say about this, and what others think is the meaning or cause. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Monopolies are rarely a good thing. If there is any particular reason why monopoly-Wikipedia appearing at the top of monopoly-Google should be an exception to this, I can't think of one. Maybe the Wikia article is better? Haven't looked. Don't particularly care. Write good encyclopaedic content, attract readers looking for good encyclopaedic content, and let the readers decide for themselves what they want to read... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean regardless, Jimbo's probably happy about it :) (note: I don't know how involved Jimbo is involved with Fandom/Wikia nowadays, but he did co-found it). ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 11:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is losing ground. Especially in niche topics (which we keep out the door) we are starting to see plain better websites than Wikipedia. These websites have more information that people are looking for (read cannot be answered by wikipedia), are 'reliable enough' and many of them are updated faster. And the rest goest to TikTok. This has been happening for a while, but i'm glad more people are starting to notice. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Our goal is to write the best encyclopedia we can. Google's goal is to sell advertising. Sometimes those goals align, sometimes they don't. Worry about doing what we do and let Google worry about what they do. The alternative is we start down the slippery slope of search engine optimization, which would be a serious mistake. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What Roy said. Wikipedia's main job is to write high quality, well-researched encyclopedia articles. If no one read those articles, that would still be our goal. Which is not to say that people shouldn't read them. But we write to write, and let everything else figure itself out. --Jayron32 16:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with what Roy said; with the caveat that I don't believe it comes down to "either or", I perceive a middle ground of other options that we could do, ought do, and ostensibly, should already have done. From such a premise, the problem I associate with letting things resolve themselves, is: it feels like "kicking the can further down the road", procrastinating well into tomorrow things that would have more prudently been resolved yesterday. Having said these, I yield. Best regards and be well. --John Cline (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Michael Clarke Duncan is still the top result for me, but Disney Wiki populates the Knowledge Panel, which is surprising. I don't know if I've seen that for anything other than niche topics. I guess there are three considerations here: is Wikipedia doing something differently or otherwise becoming less popular; are other sites doing something to appear higher up in the results; and has the Google algorithm changed in a way that affects Wikipedia. I suspect it's mostly the latter. Unfortunately, one of the big problems with the giant tech companies is they closely guard those processes, making it hard to tell what/if/when something changes (in another tab, I'm writing about how hard it is to study YouTube in part because in addition to the challenge of studying video content at scale, they don't disclose basic statistics about the site and make it really hard to create a sample of videos unfiltered by the recommendation/prioritization algorithms). IIRC Wikipedia's prominence in the rankings dropped somewhat when, first, Google started incorporating more of our content into e.g. the knowledge panel, and second, when companies like Google and Amazon started using our content more via virtual assistants? Not sure, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think this has it right. I think part of the hope of Wikimedia LLC was to make providing data easy enough to Google that this wouldn't happen. FWIW, when I searched on Bing, we were the source of the infobox and we were the #1 result on Duck Duck Go (no infobox presented). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael Clarke Duncan is still the top result for me as well. So that one may not be the best example of Wikipedia's Impending SEO Death™. Perhaps a false alarm? On the topic of SEO, I will say that I don't like how Google downranks our medical articles, and I also don't like Google's recent trend towards upweighting listicles. I find myself adding the word "reddit" to search terms to get away from listicles and blogs and to see what regular people think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Our goal is to write good encyclopedia articles? Well, we could broaden it to say that's our means to the end, the end goal being to inform the world, which doesn't happen if the world doesn't read our product. So, maybe a slight unease is appropriate even though it's far from being necessarily the brink of a slippery slope down to the pit of doom of Wikipedia. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Update from Wikimedia Foundation about fundraising banners

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Update from Wikimedia Foundation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at meta:Talk:Community Wishlist Survey § Why I'm so fatigued with the wishlist

 You are invited to join the discussion at meta:Talk:Community Wishlist Survey § Why I'm so fatigued with the wishlist. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Hi All,

I would like to bring this scholarly article to your urgent attention: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939) Even though it's title is somewhat suspicious it describes a very specific problem on English Wikipedia which is tragic and unacceptable.There is already a discussion about it here but I believe it requires attention and action from WMF.

Best wishes, Adam Harangozó (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Summary of the issue please?

Probably doesn't belong on this particular noticeboard, btw. This noticeboard is for discussing things that the WMF is involved in. The WMF isn't some high court that can overrule enwiki content disputes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's about much more than just a "content dispute", and it involves what would today be treated as possible COC violations by a group of editors over several years. Disclosure: I'm one of the editors who were interviewed for this essay. François Robere (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It reads like a laundry list of past grievances, and it appears most of the links to Wikipedia are malformed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's more than that. The essay is two-pronged: one prong is a factual review of several en.Wiki articles on the Holocaust in Poland, which demonstrates a consistent bias towards nationalist Polish narratives; the other is an analysis of the processes and social dynamics that lead to this bias, and why the en.Wiki community and the WMF have failed to address it over the span of years. Most importantly: it highlights some of the community's most glaring blind spots, which leave it vulnerable to certain forms of manipulation and disruptive behavior.

I assume that glitch will be fixed soon enough. In the meanwhile, the links work if you just copy-paste them. François Robere (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Francois Robere, since you participated very extensively in the Icewhiz case, posting comments supporting him, and since you subsequently made numerous efforts to have him rehabilitated and to relitigate the case, even after you became well aware of his extensive harassment of Wikipedians, and since you also apparently provided commentary to the authors of this article, perhaps your opinion here is not particularly useful? Volunteer Marek 03:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus and Levivich also provided commentary to the authors of this article, is their opinion not particularly useful? You are covered extensively in the article, is your opinion not particularly useful? For consistencies sake you should take a step back and let uninvolved editors take it from here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia being biased towards nationalist narratives is nothing new. I don't see how this is a WMF issue. CMD (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

m:Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

en.wiki is not remotely near that. CMD (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

hr.wiki had fundamental issues. This is not that. Curbon7 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

We should put out fires even if they're smaller than the biggest fire we've put out. Levivich (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Crying wolf is not a proof of a fire. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So, like they did with the Croatian Disinformation Assessment, let's have the WMF spend some money on an investigator to see if there's a wolf. Levivich (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

They already did spend time and presumably money investigating this (Trust and Safety globally banned Icewhiz for crying said wolf, after all, I assume they have some salaried investigators on the team?). But maybe an independent, neutral investigation by disinterested parties (which is not the way we can describe the essay discussed here) would be good to put this to bed once and for all. I for one would be happy to cooperate with such an effort; I mean, I did get interviewed for this essay already (although sadly for naught, as far as I can tell nothing I tried to clarify or explain has made in into it, hence the clear one-sidedness of the resulting work). Well, in either case, I am sure WMF is aware of this issue, through this venue and likely others. Time will tell if they decide there is anything here to investigate or just a rehash of aspertions by a harasser they've already site banned. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to believe we have an issue with POV in articles regarding Poland, we do in a lot of areas. But the interweaving of certain individuals as almost heroically standing against the tide cuts its credible to shreds. Without excusing the behaviour of others, those editors where banned because of their behaviour. Behaviour that went far outside what should be expected. By not handling that issues, or that other editors had or have their own POV issues, the arguments it makes are undermined. Or to put it in a simpler way, my original comment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"Those editors"? Who? They certainly don't portray icewhiz as heroic (see the quote HEB posted), and I'm not aware of anyone else who was banned. I don't see them portraying any banned editors as heroic. Levivich (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that's a very balanced and neutral portayal of Icewhiz's history: "The 2019 Arbitration Committee case ended dismally for defenders of historical accuracy." :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not the only quote, or the only banned editor. I'm not going into names, much like the article should'nt have. Any discussion of it will become bogged down in internecine back and forth, look no further than this discussion. If it had stuck to a scholarly review of the articles and their problems it could have been of great use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Exactly. Most of them were brought to ArbCom already in the past and acted upon (or deemed inactionable). There are some content issues that may be worth discussing on the talk pages for some articles, but regarding "the processes and social dynamics that lead to this bias", this "analysis" is very problematic as it rehashes claims made by a site-banned editor (Icewhiz), claims already reviewed and discarded by said ArbCom proceedings, and ones that were intended to win a content dispute through destroying the reputation of certain editors (hence, the harassment/site-ban conclusion). Disclosure: I'm also one of the editors who were interviewed for and are discussed in this essay. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The authors also conclude that "Icewhiz himself may have strengthened the hand of the distortionists." Its a balanced piece even if you don't like what it has to say about you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The piece is anything but "balanced". Seriously, that is the last thing this piece is. Volunteer Marek 03:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And you are in a position to judge that objectively because... ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. The article's authors complain about how "Icewhiz was unfairly banned". Oh really? Faking quotations, lying about sources, turning BLPs into attack pages, using racist language, making false accusations against other users... "unfairly banned"... riiiggghhht. Then the article is, well, pretty much forced, to admit that Icewhiz has been socking like a madmen ever since his ban (that's the "may have strengthened the hand" part. Love that "may" they threw in there. Can't even come out and say it without being mealy mouthed). But they whitewash that too. They only mention his socking. They kind of have to since they use statements of his obvious socks as "evidence" (sic) and because they wish to give some space to our own Levivich here to make an appearance (Levivich complains about people who complain about Icewhiz socking). But what's the part they leave out? Oh yeah! The death threats. The doxing. The posting of detailed personal information of Wikipedia users children. The rape threats against those children. The harassment at work. And all that stuff that really matters. No no no all this poor guy did was just a lil' ol' socking. Such a victim!

"Unfairly banned". "Balanced". Uh huh. I would laugh if this wasn't so messed up. Volunteer Marek 07:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Did they reach out to you for an interview? Also I think you should stop pinging Chapmansh, its starting to look like harassment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

(oh yeah, I forgot all about the "create sock puppet accounts which impersonate real life people" part of Icewhiz's "unfair banning") Volunteer Marek 07:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The very sentence you cite shows the balance, or the lack of it, by qualifying one side, in editorial tone, as "distortionist", and other, as, by virtue of ommission of such qualifier, as not distortionist. It's a very white and black story. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Spade is spade. Sorry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And proof by assertion is a fallacy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

50+ pages, 300+ footnotes is more than "assertion". Levivich (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Assertion can be lenghty. To quote from our article on this topic: "The proposition can sometimes be repeated until any challenges or opposition cease, letting the proponent assert it as fact, and solely due to a lack of challengers (argumentum ad nauseam)." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, as Icewhiz told us once on twitter, the number of footnotes (or citations) doesn't matter if none of them actually show what they claim they show. Volunteer Marek 06:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back you wrote here that G. and K. essay is: - a balanced piece 🤦🏻‍♀️ - Let me confirm that - Do you really believe that it is a %100 balanced? Not even a little unbalanced? Just a little bit? Confirm that %100, yes or no, (if you doin’t mind) 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO that's not how balance works. Its a spectrum not a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I won't say much here, because I don't have time to do justice to such an important topic, but I find the use of the word "intentional" in the title of this piece questionable, to say the least. Various editors of Wikipedia have different intents from each other, but the title seems to say that Wikipedia intends this. Does it mean the WMF, the generality of editors or admins or what? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You are right in noting that the title implies that "Wikipedia intends this", which is questionable. Whether this is a deliberate distortion by Wikipedia, or a deliberate distortion by a group of like-minded editors that hijacked Wikipedia, depends largely on what kind of response the Wikipedia community will be able to make. One option is "attention and action from WMF", as suggested in the OP, some kind of independent review and disinformation assessment. Another option is: no response at all, either because this happens all the time or because nothing has happened. Are there other options available? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is an anti-Wikipedia attack article by Grabovsky. It uses wording like Another form of antisemitism in Wikipedia’s coverage of World War II in Poland..., Wikipedia’s insinuation that Jews played a key role in perpetuating this massacre..., and so on. Those are serious accusations. Is any truth here? I think mostly no. Yes, he is right to some degree. Sure, WP is not and RS, everyone knows that. Furthermore, yes, there are biases. One can reasonably argue about a "leftist bias", "progressive bias", "USA bias", etc. Actually, everyone with specific cultural background (Polish, Russian, American, whatever) introduces a bias, even by selecting certain subjects of their interest for editing. But no, the article by G. uses incorrect reasoning. It says: a contributor P. made an incorrect edit X. Yes, sure, people make lots of more or less incorrect/imperfect edits around here. But this is not a proof of intentional distortions, as Grabovsky incorrectly implies. Every version is wrong version. It can be improved only through collective editing.My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)