Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 78

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Upcoming numerological apocalypse

This seems like the default to ask this question, though I hope some of the people I'm trying to reach actually check this page:

Long-term IP editors, you are my favorite class of editor. How are you taking the news of the upcoming temporary accounts for unregistered editors|temporary accounts for unregistered editors roll-out? I hope you all will still feel whole after this comes to pass, and you are IP editors no longer. Remsense诉 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I very strongly support that (the temporary accounts), but then I'm not an IP editor. It seems wonderful for privacy, which if I only edited as an IP I would be concerned about. Cremastra (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I edit as an IP from time to time and I think an increased layer of privacy is only great. Especially since those seeking to find use for such public-facing IP information are generally doing so for bad faith purposes. (The administrative purposes of site maintenance is done with non-public user IP logs.)
I'd suggest for future consideration, for editor recruitment and retention studies, making available additional features for anonymous editors, inspired by that used in other social media. Some message boards allow limited customization of signatures for anonymous posters, for example, such as flair colors and flag icons; one can hypothesize (and test quantitatively) that giving anonymous editors some extra means to express individuality might encourage eventual creation and retention of accounts. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyone seeking to find your IP information may be acting in bad faith, but most investigations concern the minority of IPs which are used to vandalise Wikipedia. Tracking them down so they can be educated or blocked is very much a good-faith activity in the interests of Wikipedia and its readers. As for customisation, the problem is identifying when two visits are by the same person. In many schools and businesses and some homes, multiple editors share a connection or even a device. Wikipedia can only customise appropriately for each person if they log in. We really don't want one editor displaying another's signature because the server can't tell them apart. Certes (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be missing something. Identical IPs have identical temporary masks, so abuse can still be tracked by casual editors. The point is that the IP address itself, with all the security concerns attached, is only visible to those with elevated privileges. As for my suggestion of signatured customization, I only made suggestions of what is termed in other forums "flair" or "flags" -- i.e. supplements -- not changing the actual displayed IP mask/username. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There are some relevant comments in a VPM archive. Details of IP masking are still hazy but it may rely on cookies, allowing a vandal to get a new identity by clearing them or browsing privately (e.g. Chrome's incognito mode). It will also be difficult to work out whether two IPs are in a similar range, or to check neighbouring IPs for vandalism. (Hopping within an IPv6/64 is so trivial it often happens accidentally.) Certes (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have much of an opinion on it yet, to be honest. It'll certainly be nice if it gives me the ability to receive pings, and it may possibly give me a stable talk page across IP addresses on this range - even a separate talk page from that of other users on the range - which would be neat. But if there turn out to be a lot of downsides for English Wikipedia as a whole, the final result may be the entire loss of IP editing here, masked or not, which I would regret. It'll be interesting to see what happens when it's actually turned on. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a leap into the dark. We have no idea whether we will still be able to fight unregistered vandals effectively or will have to reject the millions of useful IP contributions. I fear that we may soon no longer have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but I hope to be proven wrong. Certes (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, WP:IPMASKING. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know how long the temporary accounts last and if they last more than 4 days can a temp account become autoconfirmed? I didn't see anything about this in the linked pages but it is a lot to go through. The closest I could find is a comment that there is awareness of the impact on anti-vandal efforts but that is quite vague. RudolfRed (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

One document states that temporary accounts will last a year, but I see nothing about them becoming autoconfirmed and think it very unlikely that it will happen. Certes (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding notice about image copyright

The footer of our pages says:

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site...

I think it would be sensible to change it to something like (additions emboldened for clarity):

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. Images may be subject to copyright or require attribution if reused; see individual image pages for details. By using this site...

My reasoning is that images may be open-licensed or fair-use, and in neither case do we display any notice of this to readers on the page.

Is this in our gift, or is it a WMF issue? Where should a request be raised? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The text comes from MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright, which is already locally customized. While some of the local customizations make sense, I have no idea why e.g. Special:Diff/546973720 wasn't also done in mw:Extension:WikimediaMessages. To me this seems like another one that should probably be done there first rather than only being done locally. Anomie⚔ 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I have asked there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Anomie: I mentioned you in that discussion, but my attempt to "ping" you failed (the interface is not one I'm familiar with). Please take a look. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

April 8, 1974

Why no mention on home page of 50th anniversary of Henry Aaron hitting 715th home run to break Babe Ruth’s MLB record? Fairly significant; maybe more than formation of Progress Party in Norway? Pliny37 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pliny37: You can start a discussion at Talk:April_8. There was a previous suggestion to add it, but that was a few years ago. RudolfRed (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Pliny37 apparently wanted it on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 8 so it would be on Main Page April 8. If there isn't even agreement about putting it on April 8 (it was added after the post) then forget about selected anniversaries. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation draft annual plan available for review

Hi everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation’s draft annual plan for the 2024-2025 fiscal year is now available. This plan is shaped by many factors. These include external technological, regulatory, and social trends in the world about how people look for information and rely on the Wikimedia projects. Our planning was also built around small group discussions on wiki, via mailing lists and over 130 conversations with individuals in person and in scheduled calls. These discussions consistently highlighted the need to remain focused on upgrading our technical infrastructure and supporting volunteer needs for tool maintenance and metrics.

Our answer to these trends and needs is in this draft annual plan. You will see that it prioritises maintenance and upgrades for our technical infrastructure, such as MediaWiki core, data centre operations, and site reliability engineering services. There are also key results around a number of issues discussed here over the past year, such as ways to help volunteers connect to others who share their interests, building newcomer edit workflows that reduce the burden on experienced editors, building a new community wishlist that better connects movement ideas to Foundation activities, and improving tools for editors with extended rights.

You can read a summary of the plan in yesterday’s letter from Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander, with a slightly-longer version on the annual plan landing page. The summary also offers details about what we’ve achieved so far in this current year. You can also read about our financial model, revenue strategy, and budget breakdown.

The annual plan talk page is open for questions and feedback now through the end of May, after which we’ll summarise all of the responses across talk pages and community calls and publish a final version of the plan that considers this feedback. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts! KStineRowe (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

How do you make your username a color or font?

I see everyone doing it and I want to try. Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Amoxicillin on a Boat I suspect you are referring to user "signatures" in discussions posts. If so, see Wikipedia:Signatures for all about that. — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I think I got it ~~~ Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I think I got it now Xeno User : Amoxicillin on a Boat 18:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoxicillin on a Boat (talk • contribs)

Talk page subscriptions

Is there (or can there be) a bot to remove archived or stale talk page subscription from Special:TopicSubscriptions, or maybe there's a way to condense the page manually? I have not been able to find any documentation on this issue. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@FlightTime, you have to manually click the red "Unsubscribe" item for each entry that you want to remove.
@Trizek (WMF), you might want to include this in the documentation at mw:Help:DiscussionTools#Topic subscriptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Should this be reported to the Administrator's Noticeboard?

User behavior should be discussed at WP:ANI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dalton Tan (talk · contribs) has described misinformation several times in railway-related articles, and it has escalated even if it is warned. Even if I have been warned many times, I don't seem to understand it, so should I report it to the Administrators' noticeboard? --H.K.pauw (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User behavior issues should be posted to WP:ANI. I'd suggest copying this over. It may help to provide WP:DIFFs of misbehavior in your comment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You would need to give a couple of examples of edits that you believe are a problem and explain why they are a problem in a way that people without inside knowledge can understand. Be brief. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 information
According to Talk page, it is the next page that is making the misrepresentation.
Dalton Tan has listed misinformation in these articles and has been warned four times, but it continues to escalate. --H.K.pauw (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Please do. Their persistence and lack of communication are clearly disruptive – I think a block might be in order. Be sure to provide diffs! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What redirects here tool?

Is there a function that I can add to the Tools menu that will generate a list of redirects to the current page? I.e. similar to "What links here" but for redirects. I'd like to be able to check for valid anchor points. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, if you add User:GhostInTheMachine/SortWhatLinksHere to your .js, it will sort redirects first in the "what links here" results. (I find it works if I click "what links here" and then click "500") Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
If that user script isn't exactly what you are looking for, there's also WP:US/L and WP:US/R. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. Praemonitus (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
@Praemonitus, why not use Special:WhatLinksHere and then un-tick the boxes for transclusion and regular links? That will leave you with a list of redirects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a Level 2 template

How do I request that a Level 2 caution template be added to the Twinkle notices? This is a long-standing complaint of mine about this particular message, which is copy-pasting a draft by someone else into article space. When I request the history merge to provide attribution, it tells me that I can copy a template onto the talk page of the editor who did the copy. However, the message that it puts on the user talk page of the user who did the copying is mealy-mouthed. I think that something a little stronger is in order. This is an action which, whether intentional or not, creates work for an administrator in order to provide attribution to the editor who really wrote and submitted the draft. It doesn't really say that copy-pasting is discouraged. So how do I request that a message having to do with inappropriate copying within Wikipedia be added to the Warn templates? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I don't see why an admin is needed to correct anything. According to WP:CWW, the template {{Copied}} can be added to the article's talk page and anyone can do that. For the other part of your question, you can post your suggestion to Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle RudolfRed (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
User:RudolfRed - That's interesting. Are you saying that history merge is not needed in those situations? AFC and NPP reviewers are instructed to request history merge in such situations. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I am not familiar with AFC/NPP so I don't know why it would be different, but WP:CWW says that either a link or list of authors is sufficient attribution, per the CC license and Wikipedia terms of use. RudolfRed (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Then what is history merge for? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Purely regarding copyright considerations, providing a list of authors is sufficient, and avoids the problem of using a link where the source page for the copied content must continue to exist to preserve attribution. In particular, when there is just one author of the source content, that is an easier approach (as alluded to in Wikipedia:History merging § When not to request a histmerge). A history merge preserves the history of individual edits even if the source page is deleted. This goes beyond what is needed to satisfy Wikipedia's licensing requirements, but can be helpful for editors, keeps all the attribution on the article history page, and doesn't require manually extracting a list of authors for the purpose of attribution. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The replies above are technically correct but they miss the point. Copy/pasting someone else's draft to an article is pathetic. Volunteers who create content should be acknowledged in the article history and posting a template on talk as an alternative is just bullshit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq wrote:

Copy/pasting someone else's draft to an article is pathetic. Volunteers who create content should be acknowledged in the article history and posting a template on talk as an alternative is just bullshit.

Exactly, although I think that "pathetic" is not a strong enough rebuke for plagiarizing someone else's draft. That is why I wanted a stronger warning, because I think that usually the editor who copies someone else's draft to an article knows what they are doing, or at least ought to know. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, people who use copy/paste instead of WP:MOVE really don't know what they're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the fundamental question here, though, is whether a strongly worded message is more effective than a gentler one. I doubt that it is.
By the way, about ten years ago, an editor changed the {{Uw-c&pmove}} template to say that page history is legally required. If we've been posting this message for a decade, then it's hardly surprising that some editors believe that it's actually required. @Isaacl, what you say aligns with my understanding. Perhaps you'd like to clarify the text of that message? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a suggestion at this moment, as it's hard to get nuance across in a concise warning message. Page history is the built-in MediaWiki mechanism for maintaining attribution for a given article. There isn't a built-in mechanism for providing attribution for content copied from one page to another, but of course a cut-and-paste move is unnecessary with the page move function now available. So within the context of that specific warning template, the best course is to use MediaWiki's built-in functions to maintain attribution with the page history. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it's the best, but I don't believe that it's actually legally required. (It is required for non-legal purposes, such as Wikipedia:Who Wrote That? and edit counts.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I've already agreed. isaacl (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
My point was to explain the benefits of history merges, even if there are other ways of satisfying attribution requirements. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sleeper Account Question

A new case request was made in the past 24 hours at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard with regard to a contentious perennial issue within a contentious topic. I checked on the history of the filing account. What I saw is that the filing account has made 16 edits, between 21 April 2024 and 23 April 2024. That would be a new account, jumping into a contentious topic, which is a little concerning as it is. But the account was created in December 2015. It has been a sleeper for more than eight years. I know that there is a guideline to Assume Good Faith, but should I assume good faith, or is there something that I should do or someone that I should notify? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of people make accounts just for watchlisting or setting a skin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Then the person got into a quarrel over an issue that has not been resolved in a decade, and asked for moderated discussion, and I declined the request, and gave a contentious topic notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I sometimes do wish there was a better way to report and request investigations into editors who show WP:DUCK signs of being a possible abusive sockpuppet but where we have no idea who to compare them to; WP:SPI, unfortunately, doesn't accept that AFAIK and it's tricky to raise the issue otherwise while avoiding WP:BITE / WP:ASPERSION concerns. But I'm certain every experienced editor has encountered that situation before, so it would be nice to have a formalized way to say "hey, can someone look into this?" I think we do have a few more tools that can be used to investigate things like that now and produce initial leads for a SPI, such as the edit-similarity detector, but there's no real way that I can tell to request that they be used until / unless you already have a second name. Frustrating. And this is compounded by the fact that, inevitably, the people who look most closely at suspicious possible-sockpuppets are usually those in disputes with them (people simply notice odd behavior by people they're in disputes with). So what we need is something like a formal way to say "hey it might just be my biases talking but does anyone agree that this account is sus?" and to ask other editors to help do at least a basic glance-over for publicly-available evidence leading to a possible SPI, plus possibly asking checkusers to use their tools if they agree it's already a sufficiently blatant WP:DUCK despite the other account not being clear. --Aquillion (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this question is important and I'm interested in the answers, but sadly I can't provide one. One idea is to consult a sock specialist (probably a checkuser, though they wouldn't be using that privilege to answer) but that raises its own problems. One is that you'd effectively have to say publicly "I think User:Example smells like a sock", which isn't ideal from an AGF/NPA viewpoint. The other is that the knowledge is distributed. I could recognise a few sockmasters' work on sight, but the particular sock you're interested in today is highly likely to be someone I've not seen before. Certes (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
In addition to what ScottishFinnishRadish said, a lot of people make accounts and just never get around to editing. Sometimes they just wanted to get in early to reserve the username, other times they might be paranoid about their IP address showing. One thing to definitely check in these cases is CentralAuth and global activity. I'll also just say that sometimes, just sometimes, checkusers see everything. But you can always just poke one if you're being deafened by alarm bells. -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. This doesn't really answer my questions. I think that my questions had two parts. First, is there any particular guideline as to when I should be suspicious of a sleeper account that wakes from a long winter's nap? Second, is there any way that I can request a Checkuser to look at a suspicious awakening sleeper account, when I don't have a clue who the sockpuppeteer might be? If there is no answer, there is no answer. I am asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the more important question to ask is, "Are they being disruptive?" If they are being disruptive, then we need to deal with that in some way that makes the disruption stop, regardless of whether they're socking or not. If they're not being disruptive, then I wouldn't get too excited over it.
One thing I might suggest is to check their global contributions. It might be that they're actively editing on other projects and just happened to drop in on enwiki 8 years ago and got an account auto-created that way. RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem with this way of thinking (which I've often encountered when pushing for stronger measures against sockpuppetry) is that a defining characteristic of "smells like a sock" editors, at least to me, is WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV / WP:BATTLEGROUND editing - some of the editors who are most likely to aggressively evade blocks are ones who feel like they have a "mission" here, crusading ones who approach Wikipedia like a battleground. And those are some of the hardest things to prove and to make a case for on WP:ANI or WP:AE; usually it requires an extensive track record and takes a lot of time. Being "the person who constantly brings people who are editing from the same viewpoint to ANI / AE" is also not usually a good look - even if they're all actually the same person, if you can't prove that then you risk looking like you're trying to abuse ANI / AE to selectively remove people with that view from Wikipedia. They're also situations where people are most likely to want to give them WP:ROPE, which means that a sockpuppet who slips back in is often going to be able to edit for a long time, despite fixing none of the problems that got them blocked to begin with, simply because it takes so long to get someone with a newly-clean record blocked for even fairly serious and clear-cut WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV issues, especially if they know enough to avoid crossing the few red lines that can lead to faster action. Basically, getting WP:TEND / WP:CIVILPOV / WP:BATTLEGROUND editors blocked is usually time-consuming and exhausting, so naturally editors who suspect sockpuppetry are going to want to start with that - suggesting "oh well if they're disruptive why don't you just get them blocked for that, and if not, what's the problem?" is totally unhelpful when some types of disruption can take months to deal with and massive amounts of effort to build a proper case for. --Aquillion (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Windows 11 update (maybe)

I having trouble with my caplock, if I turn it on I have to restart my laptop to get it to turn off, also I now have a screen indicator showing caplock on/off, this has to be in a recent windows update, I did a search for the issue and they want me to uninstall my keyboard driver then re-install it, no way am I doing that, this really sucks. Is there a way to search recent updates, then uninstall the one with the issue? IDK.. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an HP laptop? If so, this thread might help (either the regedit or task manager approach). Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not really a Wikipedia issue, but installing a keyboard driver without having a keyboard driver installed could be an interesting challenge. Certes (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
@Schazjmd and Certes: Thank you all, yes it's a HP and well I'm sure it has a keyboard driver, but I'm not good enough to even try. Thanx again. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
The task manager approach worked. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Whew, glad it helped. Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Will the Met Office logo ever have its copyright expire?

The Met Office logo is currently protected by Crown copyright in the United Kingdom, but may not be copyrightable in the United States because it does not meet original standards. The version currently uploaded locally on English Wikipedia is the 2009 version. There may be differences in color matching between this version and the 1987 version. Therefore, the copyright protection period of logos uploaded in different periods will also be recalculated. -Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here, you might want to try asking at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@Fumikas Sagisavas, On English Wikipedia, there is also Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Abuse of autoblocking

If a user who is blocked takes advantage of autoblocking being enabled for their block to stop other, innocent users from editing by attempting to edit from random IP addresses, what will the administration do about it? By modifying the block to disable autoblocking, this allows the blocked user to evade the block, so will they send a request to a steward on Meta to lock the account to prevent further collateral damage because the account can no longer be logged into if all else fails? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Has this ever been a problem before? Or are you just telling people how to stuff beans up their noses? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
If a user is being deliberately disruptive in this way, their account could be locked. — xaosflux Talk 22:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey: Template Picker Project

We want editors to find and use templates easily. As such, we have selected two wishes which we are implementing together:

  • Wish #1: Quickly add infobox – an easier way for newer editors to find and insert common templates such as infoboxes.

These wishes ranked 5th and 11th in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023 respectively.

Please read more about the template picker improvements project, and leave any early feedback on the talkpage.

On behalf of Community Tech, –– STei (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Need help with creating a consensus

About 2 months ago, I made an RFC at Talk:Somalia#Somalia showed as controlling Somaliland. After a slow RFC after which the opinion remained split, nothing happened. Owing to a recent edit war regarding the image, I am posting this here for further input so this issue can be put to bed.

This has been posted on different projects as of yet but it's still equally split. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You can post a close request at WP:CR. It could close as no consensus though. Which happens sometimes. The default in that case is to make no changes and leave as is. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

WP 1.0 never returns

Starting yesterday, queries to the WP 1.0 server go into a loop that never responds. At least for me. Praemonitus (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Consider moving this to WP:VPT to alert technical folks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I have done so. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Community Wishlist: Upcoming changes to survey, and work on template selection requests

Hello everyone,

We have two updates about the Community Wishlist Survey:

Update one concerns upcoming changes to the survey. In the new survey, we are experimenting with grouping similar wishes into a problem space known as Focus Area and modifying the way the community votes to complement this approach. We also have mockups of the new wish intake form. Get the full details.

The other update announces the selection of 4 related wishes around template use for fulfillment (e.g. adding infoboxes and bookmarking templates).

Please make time to read the announcements in detail, and join the discussions.

On behalf of Community Tech –– STei (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

KOSA act blackout?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is clear the bill would not apply to Wikipedia. Cremastra (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The "Kids Online Safety Act" (KOSA) is a bill introduced in the US Senate by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R‑TN) in February 2022 and reintroduced in May 2023; the bill establishes guidelines meant to protect minors on covered platforms. Per Section 3.b of the proposed act, a "covered platform" (defined as "a commercial software application or electronic service that connects to the internet and that is used, or is reasonably likely to be used, by a minor.") has the duty to block a minor's access to content that is deemed harmful to them.

This puts **every** Wikimedia project in danger of being censored by the U.S. government, because not only does it count as a “covered platform” (it is used by students under 16 for study and references), but it may either force the Wikimedia Foundation to ask users to provide personal information about themselves (particularly their age) when creating a new account, or remove encyclopaedic articles under the guise of “ensuring minor safety”. If passed, the KOSA act will put information on Wikimedia projects under scrutiny by the US government, and virtually eliminate the neutrality that has been part of them for years.

Not only does the act create an excuse for information censorship (about things that the US government doesn’t favour), but also the risk of a data leak. If someone has access to the age of every single Wikimedia user, then there’d be a very real possibility that they would be leaked to the public, including those of younger editors.

Therefore, an anti-KOSA blackout should be done to stop the act from being passed (like the last time we did with SOPA and PIPA; all three bills are somewhat related to censorship).

The responsibility of protecting a minor’s information online should be done by, and taught to, the minor’s parent, and not by the government.

tynjee 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, obviously I oppose censorship, but is the legislation actually in any danger of being passed? Crazy ideas are proposed in parliaments across the world, and although U.S. politics is weirder than most, is there a reasonable chance of that legislature passing such a bill? I mean, is this an actual worry? Cremastra (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cremastra i guess it is a worry; this act was introduced way back in 2022 and has 68 cosponsors at the time of writing (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1409/cosponsors). sure kid safety on the internet is obviously a concern, but i don't see the point in putting an "age" option when creating a new wikipedia account tynjee 14:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, God, no, we don't want an age option, that would privacy invasion and just silly. To be clear, I think this bill has potential for abuse/censorship, although it means well, I'm just assessing whether we really need to be worried here or not. Cremastra (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The definition in the bill of a "covered platform" excludes "an organization not organized to carry on business for its own profit or that of its members" (section 2(3)(B)(ii)). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
How should we parse that quote? If it's "a commercial (software application or electronic service)" then non-profits should be exempt. If it's "a (commercial software application) or electronic service" then we might not, as we clearly offer an electronic service. Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor an American. Certes (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
That comment seems to relate to the OP's quote rather than to mine. The quote I provided is pretty clear that non-profits are not covered by the bill. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you read things in context it's clear enough. The part you quote is part of the general definition in 2(3)(A), while Phil Bridger's quote is part of a list of specific exclusions from 2(3)(A). Anomie⚔ 14:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
So just to make this crystal clear: are non-profits excluded? Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
According to one of the sponsors, Blumenthal, non-profits are excluded from KOSA. [1]

Does the Kids Online Safety Act cover platforms run by non-profit organizations?
No, websites run by non-profits organizations – which often host important and valuable educational and support services – are not covered by the scope of the legislation.

Masem (t) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like Wikipedia and sites like it were explicitly considered and written around. In other words, this has virtually no effect on us. Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The foundation pays lawyers. Have they said anything anywhere about this bill and how it may or may not affect this project? ElKevbo (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I said the same thing at meta. I looked at the foundation website and blog and the answer is seemingly “no”. Dronebogus (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I recall that there were at least some statements made on the matter. This CNBC article from 2022 says: The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, GLAAD and Wikimedia Foundation were among the more than 90 groups that wrote to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Ranking Member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., opposing the Kids Online Safety Act.
When I started typing this comment, I would have bet $5 that we'd written about KOSA in the Signpost at some point in the last couple years (and an additional $2 that I was the one who'd written about it), but a search gives me absolutely nothing. It may be that it's hard to distinguish between the Kids Online Safety Act (US) from the Online Safety Act (UK) and the Digital Services Act (EU), even by epicly bigbrained policy wonks and/or journalists. jp×g🗯️ 23:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Not that anyone was holding their breath on this, but I did find a page of notes from August '23 where I was going to try to mention KOSA in a special report, although I seem to never have actually done so. jp×g🗯️ 05:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it that time of the year where we discuss a blackout? It was disruptive advocacy in 2012, and it would be disruptive advocacy now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
It was based, actually. jp×g🗯️ 23:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The SOPA blackout was definitely supported by the community because it 100% threatened the fundamental ability of Wikipedia to operate. (see [2]) This bill, as it appears to be in its language, immediately exempts non-profit organizations and websites they maintain from it, so there is no existential threat to WP. So it would be disruptive advocacy to push for any type of project-level notice. Of course, it still would be best to have WMF Legal to review and make sure we're clear on this. Masem (t) 03:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The UK Online Safety Act 2023 provoked similar recent debate, leading to direct statements from WMF and non-compliance. I would expect more activity than this from WMF if they thought US legislation would have similar impact, and substantially more activity before it becomes an en.wiki issue (the WMF having a broader set of interests than en.wiki). CMD (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the drafters of the bill were quite possibly looking at the arguable failure of OSA ‘23 when writing it, and specifically wanted to avoid accidentally kneecapping one of the biggest educational websites on the planet. Dronebogus (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The KOSA blackout would be an effective protest. Other sites, including Miraheze might start blackout if the vote on legislation is started. Ahri.boy (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If you want to protest, find another way to do so. Wikipedia is not the right venue for protests. No blackout please. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know about KOSA act, but I think that, if protest is considered convenient, things such as a black banner in the upper part of Wikimedia pages is a much more appropriate way to protest, in place of causing inconvenience to users. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Protest is supposed to be disruptive. Cremastra (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
It should be disruptive for who you are protesting against... it shouldn't be disruptive for Wikipedia users who have nothing to do with it (especially, users from countries other than the United States, who have no relationship with KOSA act or even the election of the politicians that proposed it). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no need for anyone to disrupt anything, because it was ascertained within an hour of this thread being opened that the bill does not apply to Wikipedia, a non-profit. Why on Earth is this thread still open? Can nobody read plain English? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Besides the quote from the sponsor, we can always read the bill text.
Aaron Liu (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Should English Wikipedia enable the Suggested Links newcomer task? regarding the technical implementation of the "add a link" newcomer task. Thank you. Folly Mox (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about Internet Archive

As I have talked about both in Wikimedia Forum and in the Internet Archive's one, Archive's Wayback Machine, being a very important resource for Wikipedia (it's where many article references come from, and where all references will always be forwarded if the original source some day disappears), can't be taken for granted, because almost all its content is hosted only in an area with great natural risks. It strikes me (negatively) that no one has replied to my post on Archive's forums. Perhaps people are more concerned with day-to-day issues, and dismiss this as long-term paranoia, but I think this is currently the most important issue regarding human knowledge's future. If Archive is eventually lost, Wikipedia and its sister projects, will be even more important than they are now, as the memory of the start of 21st century (and of other previous times), but it would be really sad to lose so much content as Archive has. If there's anyone here that shares my concern, he/she could, if has an Archive account (or wants to create one), and wanted to do it, talk about it in the thread that I opened at Archive's forum. I think that this is a very important issue, for everyone, as persons, but especially as wikipedians/wikimedians. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is as big of a problem as you think it is. According to the presentation by Jonah Edwards all of their data is in in the Bay Area in at least 4 different data centers (San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, etc) and data is replicated across multiple data centers. In your post you mentioned the 3-2-1 backup rule, but that rule of thumb doesn't require the data to be replicated to different states or countries. Aside from an event like that from The Day After Tomorrow it is extremely unlikely that anything could cause the data to be lost in all these locations simultaneously. The only real risk is that a power outage can (and has) taken the archive offline. On that risk, I am perhaps less concerned than others as I don't believe an archive needs to have strict availability requirements - libraries and other physical archives close for the night without any problems. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@Mokadoshi, thanks for your reply. Power outages aren't a big problem, I wasn't thinking about that (the archive ceases to be online for a time, but the important thing is that no data is lost).
you mentioned the 3-2-1 backup rule: as far as I know (unless I'm missing something), they don't store 3 copies of (perhaps an important) part of their data, so 3-2-1 can't be met then. They have 4 datacenters, but not all data is stored in all of them.
it is extremely unlikely that anything could cause the data to be lost in all these locations simultaneously: I hope so. I do know that 3-2-1 rule doesn't require different states or countries, but I fear that all copies are in an area that can (and will) be hit by a huge earthquake. Perhaps I am overestimating the consequences of such an earthquake, and none will ever cause huge damages both in Oakland and San Francisco at the same time, for example. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Why do people like… live in California? Seems like a death trap. Dronebogus (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I think a problem with the issue of power failures affecting archived materials/information is bigger than the interruptions of electricity generated by humans. A certain natural phenomenon that occurred last weekend; solar storms that allowed aurora borealis to be seen in areas of the world that would normally remain unaffected. I'd be concerned about a so—called "Carrington Event" wiping out electronic archives. Apparently humanity will have enough notice to react in good time. I cannot pretend to understand this fully but, I am reliably informed that as long as electrical devices are switched off before the event then remain switched off for the duration, all should be well. Does anyone else know or recognise what I'm writing about? Does anyone know who will be performing such duties? Asking for a friend . . . DieselEstate (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Turning off a device isn't enough. A strong electromagnetic field can induce a current in a powered-down device - crucially, in parts of the device that aren't designed with that in mind. The good news is that EMI is something that electronic devices already have to deal with, and this is why shielding is used (some data centres advertise their use of a faraday cage). The bad news is that this shielding may not be adequate in a severe event, and I doubt there has been any robust testing. The best defence we have is to keep lots of copies. An internet archive backup site located under a large rock in Australia would be nice. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Carrington Event took place in 1859. Electric and telecommunication (telegraph) infraestructure at that time was very primitive, even if compared to that of the early 20th Century (let alone the 21st Century). The Wikipedia article on it says:
A geomagnetic storm of this magnitude occurring today has the potential to cause widespread electrical disruptions, blackouts, and damage due to extended outages of the electrical power grid.
I don't think this is likely to cause permanent damage to storage devices. The events this month caused some problems, but I think that even a far stronger solar storm wouldn't cause anything close to an apocalyptic event with today's technology. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with your concern but not because of natural disaster risk. The bigger risk at the moment is litigation over the former National Emergency Library service. The outcome remains uncertain - it could be a manageable out-of-court settlement with the four companies driving the current lawsuit, or it could be the start of a wave of lawsuits by other copyright owners (and there are a lot of them). There is a possibility that this will pose an existential threat to the Internet Archive, either by bankrupting it, or by forcing judgements that narrow the scope of fair use so as to render their "free access" mission impossible to deliver legally.
Personally I think the IA have acted recklessly, not just over the NEL, but in taking a cavalier attitude towards ingestion and distribution of non-free content. They have allowed members of the public to upload material with very little oversight. They host copies of material which is not significantly at risk of being lost (legal deposit libraries are doing fine). Some of their preservation activity is good and valuable (maintaining copies of niche works that are genuinely at risk), but they are playing with fire by redistributing copies of everything. This all serves to distract from, and endanger, what should be their primary mission: archiving websites. This is the area where nobody else (including the deposit libraries) is stepping up. The Wayback Machine is the unique copy of historical websites. We are used to web sources disappearing; we are unprepared for the Wayback Machine to disappear.
Since Wikipedia relies so heavily on IA-archived copies of website sources, we should have a strong interest in addressing this single point of failure. I have some ideas, but unfortunately the WMF seems to be strongly averse to hosting non-free content[3]. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree, though I think that the Internet Archive's primary purpose is to archive everything that's getting outdated and rare; the wayback machine is only one part of this.
Personally, I also feel like archive.today is a superior service for everyone not using cloudflare as their DNS. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
archive.today is weird and opaque. It’s a very effective paywall-buster, but I don’t have a lot of confidence in its long-term survival. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Internet Archive Canada has mirrors. I don't know to what extent and capacity as of today, but I know they are working to expand it.
Also, regarding the lawsuit: "What the Hachette v. Internet Archive Decision Means for Our Library" which states: "The Internet Archive may still digitize books for preservation purposes, and may still provide access to our digital collections [such as] “short portions” of books as is consistent with fair use — for example, Wikipedia references as shown in the image above." So there is no "uncertainty" for Wikipedia purposes, we are clear to continue linking "short portions" of books in citations - almost exactly how Google Books works. The lawsuit only concerned the use of Controlled Digital Lending ie. the lending of complete copies (not "short passages") which is an entirely different animal and not so important for Wikipedia purposes. -- GreenC 18:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, (which is also what Baranards said), but there is a possibility that they go bankrupt as a result of dying on this hill. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Baranards said this particular lawsuit is "uncertain". But a reading of "What the Hachette v. Internet Archive Decision Means for Our Library" is helpful. This is where things are today.
In my opinion, as a legal public library, it is the Archive's mandate to lend holdings to patrons. If the courts allow corporations to sue libraries out of existence for doing what libraries do, that is a dystopian vision, because they won't stop at Internet Archive. It's possible we as a society will allow this to happen. My concern is not only for libraries, but all open access knowledge. The solution is to become aware of the war on libraries, the fight against open knowledge, and support politicians and entities who are in this fight. It is happening all over the world in many countries. -- GreenC 19:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, the National Emergency Library wasn't what libraries do, but unfortunately there is a slight possibility that the Internet Archive will continue its current course that die on its hill that unlimited borrowing should be legal as it has costly and fight themselves out of existence. I'd say it's more the Internet Archive's fault. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
IA and many libraries around the world believe the NEL and CDL is what libraries do. Explained here. I hope you will consider supporting public libraries vs the controlling financial interests of a few powerful publishing corporations. -- GreenC 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
What other libraries offer unlimited borrowing? Also, could you point me to a page number? It is definitely true that authors' profits can be seriously harmed when you can just go to the Internet Archive all the time no matter what instead of buying an ebook, not just corporations.
Also, who should win in the lawsuit seems irrelevant to the current discussion about survival of the concerned modules. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
IA's Open Library does not do "unlimited borrowing". They require that you make an account and explicitly check out each book. Until you return it, nobody else can check it out. This is precisely what a dead-tree library does.
I can verify that they enforce the single-checkout function. I had a WP:FAC where I had to check something in one of my sources and found that I couldn't check the book out because somebody else had it. It turns out, the somebody else was one of my reviewers! We went back and forth a couple of times with each person checking it back in so the other could borrow it. RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Except for a period of time in 2020 where anyone could borrow a book as long as they pass a verification against sockpuppets and don't borrow more than 10 books at once. It was called the "National Emergency Library". Aaron Liu (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted here that Green C has been paid by the Internet Archive; he correctly reveals this connection on his user page, but we should see it as relevant to his discussion whenever the IA is the topic.
As a publisher, a Wikipedia editor, and a copyright-holding author of work for which the IA offers an unlicensed electronic edition of their own creation, I've long been concerned about our reliance on IA and the way in which it has been used. While they provide a wonderful resource when they work with material in the public domain, we commonly do things like provide archive links to web pages that are still live, which flies in the face of WP:COPYVIOEL. Years back, they bought used bookseller Better World Books and their ongoing efforts to integrate with Wikipedia are linked to that (To pull something I said in a discussion about IA here in 2020 To quote the Library Journal on the purchase, IA founder and digital librarian Brewster Kahle told LJ’s Lisa Peet that the acquisition—and its pipeline of titles for digitization—would also facilitate broader ongoing efforts at IA to link internet content with relevant, reliable source material. “What we’re trying to do is weave books into the Internet itself, starting with Wikipedia,” Kahle said. [...] "We now have over 120,000 Wikipedia citations pointing to over 40,000 books, but we want to get to millions of links going to millions of books. The way we’re going to get there is by working really closely with Better World Books.” That's pretty blatant.) They put links to their bookstore on the book pages of books that their bookstore has in stock, making these sales pages.
The availability of a digital copy of referenced materials is certainly a convenience when it can be done in a legal and ethical way. However, it is not a requirement for a reference; the existence of a physical copy is sufficient. As such, we shouldn't be too worried about the risks of the Archive's disappearance either from ecological or legal drivers. If it's heavily integrated into Wikipedia, that is in good part due to the efforts of IA and their paid agents. In general, we should be more carefully considering the extent to which we use IA and allow IA to use us.
(In the interest of transparency, I have not gone to check all of which publishers are currently involved in the lawsuit, but it presumably includes publishers who have paid me to write material for them in the past. However, none of this pay was related to my Wikipedia editing.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree that our rules accept a citation which contains enough information to locate a physical copy of the book in a traditional library as sufficient. But it's an understatement to pass off a URL to an on-line copy as merely "a convenience".
I am privileged to have access to one of the greatest public libraries in the world. For the portion of their collection which circulates, they'll even deliver materials to my local branch (at no cost to me!) where I can pick them up, a 5 minute walk from my front door. Much of the collection does not circulate, so I need to (first world problem) schlep downtown to view it at a research library, where somebody will retrieve it from storage and deliver it to me at a desk. Again, at no cost to me. It is easy to become jaded when you grow up with this.
Alas, much of the world can't imagine access to a collection of this size and depth. Digitizing materials make them available to a vastly greater audience. There reaches a point where "convenience" transitions into "making possible", and we're already past that point. Today, we can deliver the world's knowledge to anybody in the remotest village anywhere that has Internet connectivity. which is pretty close to everywhere, and getting closer. It is the great equalizer.
At some point, libraries will no longer be able to justify the cost of storing their collections of books on paper, and they'll get thrown out. It is inevitable. If those materials haven't been preserved in digital form, they'll be lost forever. We'll save a few to put in museums so we can show our grandchildren how information was stored in the ancient days. IA may not be how digital libraries will look in the future, but they're a step in the right direction. And it is certainly true that today's copyright laws were designed in an era where "accessing information" and "having possession of a physical object" were one and the same, which is no longer true. As with so many things, when technology moves quickly, the law struggles to keep up. RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not at all worried about the IA’s book archive (because alternatives exist) and I agree that Wikipedia does not depend greatly on it. Citations to offline sources are fine. It would be great (for readers) if all sources were freely accessible online, but I don’t think either Wikipedia or the Internet Archive should be activist organisations that invite legal trouble by flouting or pushing the boundaries of copyright law.
Rather, it’s specifically the Wayback Machine I’m worried about. There’s nothing comparable, no offline fallback option like there is for books, and if it gets shut down that information is lost forever. I am worried that copyright activism puts this unique resource at risk, and I say that as someone who thinks there is a lot of mileage in copyright reform.
I would like to see a Wikimedia-hosted Limited Access Source Archive designed specifically for our needs, along the following lines:
  • Automatic archiving of cited URLs across all language Wikipedias.
  • Entirely independent of the Internet Archive.
  • Focus on web archiving only; leave books, video, audio, and software out.
  • No crawling / spidering / indexing the whole web. Just archive the links that are used in Wikipedia articles.
  • Legally defensive "fair use friendly" features:
    • No public access by default
    • No access at all to archived content until 30 days have passed, to discourage being used as a hot news paywall-buster
    • Access granted to editors on similar terms to The Wikipedia Library (6 months / 500 edits / good standing)
However, I think the WMF has deep rooted opinions/principles on non-free content (see the link I posted above) and this would be a significant departure. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that this (not relying on external resources for archival of web citations) is a really great idea. For the scope of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, it would fully solve the exposed problem. Of course, thinking more broadly, a solution that preserved all Archive's content would be better. For that to be possible, perhaps a review and purge of unnecessary content (especially, really big unnecessary content; I bet there is, and a lot of it) should be carried on at Archive itself, but this exceeds Wikimedia's scope. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we should impose that much of a burden on WMF. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I/we don't have power to impose anything on WMF. It's only an idea, and I think it is a very good one. It could be feasible if WMF has enough financial resources and wants to do it. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
To better clarify it, when I say perhaps a review and purge of unnecessary content should be carried on at Archive itself, there I'm not talking about any WMF involvement, I say that Archive itself perhaps should address this issue if it's blocking them from having enough backups (but of course this isn't a Wikimedia issue at all). MGeog2022 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I suspect (he says, waving his Not A Lawyer flag vigorously) that any "fair use" defense of such a scheme would be strengthened by simply not displaying the archive link for pages that are still live and substantially unchanged, addressing the fourth factor in fair use evaluation (the effect upon the work's value.) This would show Wikipedia is not attempting to compete with a commercial display of the copyrighted material. Frankly, it is something that we should already be doing -- designing the templates so that the archive listing is displayed only if the page is no longer available or reliable as a source. Instead, web references are being turned into advertisements for the IA by a bot sponsored by the IA. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Production scripts in the Wikimedia ecosystem can't even differentiate between live web pages and custom 404s (to say nothing of whether a live page reflects the same content it had at time of citation), so that would be a whole entire project unto itself. And what if the site is live but region locked? Or won't load on my browser even though the archived copy does? Or won't load unless the domain is whitelisted on the client's ad blocker? Folly Mox (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
We can, at the very least, use the same user-marked method that we use for whether to display the archive link first -- if someone marks url-status as dead. We cannot be responsible for every possible impediment to reading the source; we should take a path of minimizing both legal risk and damage. Verifiabiility does not call for every reference being readable at a single click on every browser in every condition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Internet Archive Canada has mirrors. I don't know to what extent and capacity as of today, but I know they are working to expand it. If a full (or almost full) copy is really under construction in a distant location, it's really good news. Greater transparency about it on their part would be appreciated, though (there is almost no updated information about it since it was first proposed in 2016; the only articles that I could find about it only talk about the opening of their Canada headquarters, but make no mention about if they actually host any content). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that natural disaster is indeed by far the greater risk. Any attempt to destroy Internet Archive judicially would be such a barbarity that it would probably be stopped and a more logic agreement would be reached. Even if Internet Archive as such disappeared, I think some wealthy people would finance the creation of a new foundation to preserve its contents, given the catastrophe that its disappearance would be.
With all copies in an earthquake-prone area, I think this is by far the biggest risk. Unlike judicial procedures (or even hurricanes), the time to react to save it is absolutely 0. That's the really terrible thing about earthquakes. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
One might hope that there are enough philanthropic tech billionaires for one of them to step in and save the archive, but would we definitely trust them to run it? We take the integrity of the IA for granted. I'm not sure I'd automatically extend that trust if it were reincarnated as archive.x.com. Even if we had nothing to fear from from judges and earthquakes, a second independent archiving service would be a great reassurance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about a single billionaire running the Archive, but some wealthy people (not necessarily billionaires) or foundations donating large sums of money, and ordinary people donating the remainder (that is, basically the same way that WMF and the current Archive work). Of course, the scenario you mention wouldn't be desirable at all.
a second independent archiving service would be a great reassurance: I couldn't agree more on it. Or even the same archiving service, but with better backups and financial/legal reliability (for example, there is only one WMF, but I haven't the same fears about it than I have about Archive: it has standard backup practices, no main datacenters in big earthquake areas, it takes no legal risks, and has very solid finances). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the concerns but disagree fully with the proposed stance: if we're going to treat these archival services like infrastructure in this imperfect situation, and we are, we should treat them like infrastructure, and not scatter our resources around. It wouldn't constitute redundancy, it would constitute weakness and two dead archives to cry over instead of one with enough flexibility and support to adapt to material and societal adversities. Remsense诉 12:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that 2 dead archives is something highly unlikely (unless both are placed in San Francisco or a similar place, of course :-D). But I understand that a single organization is much more efficient, as long as it offers the necessary guarantees, such as proper backup policies (at suitable locations carefully selected), and perhaps something like Wikimedia Endowment, to secure its financial future. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
If you're building an archive, you need to be thinking deep about the threats and how to mitigate them. For sure, the physical threat of earthquakes argues for geographic diversity. But it's also good to have corporate diversity; two sites run by different corporate entities are not going to be taken down if one entity goes out of business, or gets bought out. See, for example MySQL or Freenode.
For that matter, infrastructure diversity is valuable. Having one copy hosted on linux and another copy hosted on Windows eliminates a lot of OS-targeted attack surface. RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure your first paragraph maps onto IA's status as a non-profit which on some level intends to be public infrastructure. Remsense诉 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
My issue is that I no longer have full faith in the IA to deliver on that public infrastructure mission without getting distracted by legally risky activism. Looking at their blog post from last year on the Hachette matter:

Libraries are going to have to fight to be able to buy, preserve, and lend digital books outside of the confines of temporary licensed access. We deeply appreciate your support as we continue this fight!

This suggests to me that they intend to keep pushing boundaries. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment most of the way. I am conflicted, but can't help but come to the conclusion that you have to dance with the one who brought you, both because they're right to some degree (the activism is important if risky, it will only get worse without someone with clout in court about it) and there's simply no other game in town. Putting a thumb on the scale isn't free, it's exactly that they're worth something to society (even many of the otherwise apathetic or antagonistic power players out there—it's nice to have a copy of the internet for them too) that gives them a chance. Maybe. Remsense诉 14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I meant "corporate" in the broader sense of "whatever person or group of people controls the entity". Even non-profits have changes of control and the new administration may not be as good stewards as the old ones. Or they may suffer from fiscal mismanagement and just plain run out of money. Or, as discussed above, they may be sued into oblivion. RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The Internet Archive seems to have two rather different functions: to preserve the Internet and to let people read books online. Both are helpful to Wikipedia but neither is crucial. Sources do not have to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Surely the former is? If the IA got knocked out, a huge chunk of claims made on Wikipedia would no longer be verifiable. Remsense诉 14:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed; Bridger's comment is silly to say the least. Yes, it's true that sources don't have to be available online, but they do have to be available somewhere. I'm as surprised as anyone that archive.today is still kicking, but the IA remains the only platform that can make a somewhat credible case for at least having the potential to stick around longterm. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
and to let people read books access rare material Aaron Liu (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
If you think they limit themselves to "rare material", you have misestimated what they're offering. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, they've extended into a great library, but their primary purpose is to prevent loss of information. Just look at their folk song collection. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Weird Wikipedia Search Result

Inappropriate, rude nastiness appearing in blurb of search result for "The Spike" essay by George Orwell. Can anyone help get it deleted? It is only returned +/- 1 in 5 times of search. Seemingly linked to orwell.ru website although I am not suggesting they are responsible. DieselEstate (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @DieselEstate: can you confirm if this is the Wikipedia search function or Google? I can't reproduce this on Wikipedia. We have no control over the Google blurb or the knowledge panel here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_78&oldid=1225970421"