Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Archives, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63

Where would I look for an experienced Mediawiki admin?[edit]

Hey there! Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I don't know where else I should look. We are looking for an experienced Mediawiki admin for a custom Mediawiki setup. Thanks a lot! IonutBizau (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

mediawikiwiki:Discord is available, as is mediawikiwiki:IRC, if you need some help. If you need a dedicated admin, I think you might need to approach a wiki farm for hosting or something... --Izno (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@IonutBizau:, if you are still looking for someone to help, I am available to do so. Please feel free to reply or to let me know. thanks!!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030 community discussions: Halfway to the conclusions[edit]

Icons of 13 strategic recommendations

As I wrote in my last message here, the strategic recommendations for how we can achieve the Wikimedia 2030 vision are available for your final review. There are three weeks left to share your feedback, questions, concerns, and other comments.

These 13 recommendations are the result of more than a year of dedicated work by working groups comprised of volunteers and staff members from all around the world. These recommendations include the core content plus the Principles and the Glossary, which lend important context to this work and highlight the ways that the recommendations are conceptually interlinked. The Narrative of Change offers a summary introduction to the recommendations material. On Meta-Wiki, you can find even more detailed documentation.

Community input has played, and will continue to play, an important role in the shaping of these recommendations. They reflect this and cite community input throughout in footnotes.

In this final community review stage, we're hoping to better understand how you think the recommendations would impact our movement – what benefits and opportunities do you foresee for your community, and why? What challenges or barriers could they pose for you?

After this three-week period, the Core Team will publish a summary report of input from across affiliates, online communities, and other stakeholders for public review before the recommendations are finalized. You can view our updated timeline here as well as an updated FAQ section that addresses topics like the goal of this current period, the various components of the draft recommendations, and what's next in more detail.

Thank you again for taking the time to join us in community conversations, and I look forward to receiving your input. Happy reading!

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment[edit]

Leigh Rayment's peerage pages (and MP pages, and various other pages) are widely used as a source in related parts of Wikipedia, see Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages template. I learn from this discussion that Mr Rayment died a year ago, and that his website is scheduled to go the same way later this month. We probably need to do something... Chuntuk (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia 2030 community discussions: Last week begins[edit]

Wikimedia 2018-20 Recommendation 03.svg

We are entering the last lap of the discussions on the Wikimedia 2030 strategic recommendations. Until next Friday, February 21, you can share your feedback, questions, concerns, and other comments.

In my last 2 messages on this village pump, I described how the recommendations were created, the role of your input, and the next steps. This time, let me describe just one selected recommendation, one that sounds to be particularly close to the activities on wiki: 'Improve User Experience'.

It states that anyone, irrespectively from their gender, culture, technological background, or physical and mental abilities, should enjoy a fluid, effective, and positive experience during both the consultation and contribution to knowledge. This recommendation is, among others, about the design improvements, user interface, but also training and support programsdedicated resources for newcomers, and, what I personally find especially interesting, mechanisms that allow finding peers with specific interests, roles, and objectives along with communication channels to interact and collaborate.

Please comment on the recommendations' talk pages. What do you think about this and other recommendations? Should some points be improved, removed, or added?

If something is not clear, please ping me. I will write back as soon as I can.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a clumsy visual representation of the connections between the recommendations (data taken from the sections called Connection to other recommendations). I didn't take into account the cases when a recommendation is connected to all the others. Anyway, I leave making the conclusions to you. In addition, I'm sharing a cloud with the most frequently used words in the recommendations. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt but a link to a specific page that contains information rather than market-speak would be helpful. I can't tell what it's all about. There are glorious sentiments such as "So that everyone – those already within our movement and anyone who wishes to join – can play an effective role in capturing, sharing, and enabling access to free knowledge." However, having everyone join would give very bad results—Wikipedia already has too many people dedicated to pushing their favorite topic such as anti-science nonsense, nationalistic POV pushing, and righting-great-wrongs advocacy. I don't see anything showing an understanding of what actually happens when articles are edited. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: that page does contain information :) I think it's just challenging to write complex and abstract thoughts in an accessible style, especially when you have an international team where most of its members prefer to communicate using well-defined, specific terms. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: - given that one of the most raised issues with the consultations has been an inability to comprehend the recommendations due to the level of complexity, coupled with a very abstract level of recommendation (plus the other wikis have translation on top of that), it's not a unique problem. Quite a few of us had asked that the consultation be extended/tolled until they'd been rewritten, but that seems to have been ignored. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
And the bits that are understandable or concrete are too often wrong or misguided. I don't really get how, after two years of writing, rewriting, consultations, group meetings in Tunis, ... we still get things[1] like "Even if Wikipedia remains relevant as a text-based repository, we have the opportunity to serve knowledge consumers better if we widen our scope and diversify by offering different types of free knowledge. These could include a recombination of audiovisual and textual content, dimensional and geospatial content, augmented reality in context, computer-generated avatars, procedures for the user to test their knowledge acquisition, simulation scenarios, or so-called serious games as new project formats compatible with peer curation workflows" (emphasis mine). Since when are "computer generated avatars" a type of knowledge?Reading this recommendation, the conclusion seems to be "by 2030, text-based Wikipedia will probably no longer be relevant, but who cares, we will have computer-generated avatars and 'dimensional content' (sic)". Fram (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess, compare, Computer generated imagery, with Social constructionism (or, "Socratic method" in text, with computer generated Socratic method [2].) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)