Wikipedia Help NA‑class

This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles NA This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Please lock this redirect (cf Wikipedia:Wikimedia) 16@r (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now currently unlocked, if it matters. Biosthmors (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Many should probably be pointed here (WP:WMF) instead. Biosthmors (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We should probaly update many of the links. 64.40.54.75 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request here currently stalled for some reason, but hopefully it proceeds soon! Biosthmors (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O well. Guess it was a bad idea. Biosthmors (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to WP:BOLDly reorganize this page. Everybody is free to revert per WP:BRD if they think my additions are unhelpful. 64.40.54.75 (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the links! I did edit out the perceived marketing-speak. Is there a long-term development goal timeline? I'd love to see real time collaborative editing eventually (like google docs). Hell, why not even have it open so that people can see the stroke marks as they happen. That would make it more interactive. =) Biosthmors (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, that's a goal, per mw:Wikimedia Engineering/2013-14 Goals#VisualEditor and mw:VisualEditor/Realtime collaboration and mw:Future/Real-time collaboration and mw:Engineering/Product Strategy Offsite (#7). Afaik, the complexity is partially in how the "diffs" get handled - we can't save a diff for every single keystroke... They're definitely wanting to deal with it though, and have been brainstorming for years. –Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Is there a long-term development goal timeline?" The most long-term plan I know of is the 5 year plan from 2010 at strategy:Task force/Strategy/Plan overview, but there may be others I am unaware of. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Will add. Biosthmors (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "some examples of ideas a Board can provide" better phrased in another way? I don't know the history behind those drafts. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Let me start over. The 5 year plan at strategy:Task force/Strategy/Plan overview was a beginning overview kinda thing. It morphed and split in to many other projects as details were added. It's not really used any more and in fact strategy: has been closed for a year or more. But the big goals (like increasing the number of editors, improving the infrastructure, etc.) are still in place. That's kinda where the WP:VisualEditor, WP:WMFLabs and other things came from. Hope that makes more sense. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page for informing the community what the WMF does/provides? I often see people asking for the WMF to intervene in debates, decide article issues, and other things that are not within the remit of the Foundation. I figured this page was to clarify the WMF's role in the projects and what they do/provide for the various communities. Could I get clarification on this please? Thanks. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading through the post at VPM again, I'm guessing you're looking for more of a directory of WMF folks that handle community relations. Is that it? 64.40.54.108 (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose is to explain to English Wikipedia editors what the WMF is, what it does, and how "the community" interacts with the WMF. For example, if someone wants to improve the existing software, or if somebody happens to have an idea on how to develop software that would likely need WMF approval, it gives them avenues and ideas about how to make progress. Hint hint. Hint hint hint hint hint hint. =) Maybe you could help out by sharing some of your knowledge? Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slightly tangential, but if you haven't already read it, I'd recommend going slowly through this archived discussion, and then my denselypacked comment at Wikipedia talk:User Advocacy (plus the 2 threads there). –Quiddity (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wonderful. I'll get to those. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But to completely answer you, I think both of those things would be helpful. I would only add that in its ideal state, this page should also give English Wikipedia editors a sense of which WMF projects are likely to affect the English Wikipedia (or not) and to what degree. Biosthmors (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also said that as well. Biosthmors (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I understand much better now. Regarding "I think newcomers have a very hard time wrapping their mind around where the community ends and the WMF begins." there are a lot of people in the same situation. I don't know when or where it happened, but many people believe the Foundation and the community are seperate. The truth is they are the same thing. The Foundation grew from people that made up the community at the time and, if I'm not mistaken, the majority of the Foundation is made of regular editors like you and me. These people volunteered to take on management type roles and over see things. Of course some specialists have been brought in over time, but the Board and most of the employees started as voluteer editors editing articles just like everybody else. Also, the community "controls" the Foundation as it were. We elect the members of the Board, we give them advice and provide our input through surveys and polls, etc. So we, as the community, set the direction of the projects. If we don't like the way things are going, we elect new members, give different advice, etc. But I understand where you're coming from. A large percentage of the community believes the Foundation and the community are seperate. Many also believe they are at odds with each other and that is why the Foundation has been hiring more people to help with that situation. For example, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-19/News and notes#In brief (New hires section) and mailarchive:wikimedia-l/2013-June/126678.html for the latest editors that are now WMF contractors. 64.40.54.22 (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then those were typically great Wikipedians who then don't have as much time to volunteer... right? So then who decides what the community priorities are? And where money should be spent? And when to hire? =) Just rambling. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have something of a concern about the reception section. I'm a bit uncomfortable mentioning specific users on this page. Might I suggest that we instead mention the issue rather than a particular user. We could link to Wikitravel#Community fork in 2012, Internet Brands#Wikitravel and Wikimedia and perhaps Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-09-10/Special report. These give context to the issue so the reader can understand the situation as opposed to just mentioning a name. Just a thought. I'd like to hear other people's opinion. Thanks. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit too nebulous. Let me reprhase. We could say "the WMF has helped users that faced legal problems that occured because of their editing of Wikimedia projects" and link to the above mentioned articles. Sorry for not being more specific. 64.40.54.104 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I notice these comments before? Sorry. Ping me if I don't get around to addressing your points. Also please be bold in fixing it as well. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section could of course be expanded, please feel free to do so. I can't do everything myself on Wikipedia. =) This is the place anyone can edit. Please be wp:bold. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a Category:Volunteer accounts of people who work or have worked for WMF. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit kind of privacy violation? People will know more than these people may have a higher degree of conflict of interests. Chongkian (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosthmors: I'm looking at significantly restructing this page. As in rewriting, changing sections and much more. I'd like to discuss it here first. I know you'd like some WMF contact info and general information, but what other information are you looking to convey to the volunteers here. If you could provide me with a bulleted list of things you want, that would help greatly. Thanks. 64.40.54.157 (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What leaves you dissatisfied? I was thinking it was shaping up quite nicely. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 08:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosthmors: it is shaping up nicely. It's just that it seems more special interest than general interest. It reads more like it's tailored to an audience of 10 rather than an audience of 10,000. For example, how many people want to know that I said WMF emplotees work too many hours? My guess would be 2 or 3 at most. Typically, pages like this describe things that editors would want to know that can't be included in our article on the Foundation. For example, they would want to know when voting occurs for Board members and other similar things. Perhaps later I'll make some changes so you can see what I mean. 64.40.54.76 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that. I removed what you said. Do you want to link anything specific about when the next board elections are? I did just find wmf:Resolutions and I will add that. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something with this "the kids" nickname. What is this based on? Also, I'm glad that you've altered it, but what was the thinking behind labeling the WMF the "Evil Empire"? The Interior (Talk) 18:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I didn't understand either one of those either. A name such as "the kids" or "the evil empire" would need a valid reference for its existence. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 106#"Evil Empire" as Wikipedia slang for "Wikimedia Foundation". Both suggestions came from there. I'm not 100% thrilled with WP:HQ as a shortcut, but I don't mind it. WP:The kids, however, was just silly. No harm in leaving the redirect if that makes someone happy, but it doesn't belong here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that: references to slang terms such as could almost be considered slanderous. That, and newer users would not benefit from those being shortcuts, given that the likelihood of a new user typing "WP:THEKIDS" or "WP:EVILEEMPIRE" or versions with spaces is very unlikely. By the way, I created the shortcut WP:HQ given that it could actually be searched by a new user looking up information for the "headquarters for Wikipedia." With that being said, if any of the aforementioned redirects in this comment were nominated for redirects for discussion (with the exception of WP:HQ), I would most likely vote for them to be deleted, provided that there is not a history of edits that relate to the redirects that could validate them still existing (edit histories, the redirects used to be articles, etc.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slanderous? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the thing: this page is not really clear if it is supposed to be a serious page in the Wikipedia space or a page for humor; trying to mix both of the concepts together can confuse readers on what is supposed to be serious, and what is sarcasm. Steel1943 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what ^[sarcasm] is for? ;-) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of information would probably be helpful here. It's hard to tell where stuff like this comes from. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 jobs listed at wmf:Work with us (not all of these are vacancies - for example, our Executive Director is kindly sticking around until the role is well filled) and our current staff count is 192. (See wmf:Frequently asked questions#If I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, where does my money go?) If you consider adding sources, people will be easily able to determine where such details originate. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Wondering if the numbers of staff is confusion between the types of employees at WMF? The 192 count includes all staff and contractors listed at wmf:Staff and contractors and is auto-generated. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I think that clarifies things. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a minor edit. Can we get a source? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but seriously? Everyone knows the proposal came from Sue, there's a huge box telling you that on top of most FDC pages; and it take 2 min to find the statement on the WMF website. Anyway, dealt with now. --Nemo 09:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that. I wasn't aware. New Wikipedians who might stumble upon the page won't know either, so I appreciate you taking the time. I originally reverted because it seemed like a dig at Gardner. (In retrospect, "Hogwash" as a section title is too strong so I'm replacing it with "Hmmm...", FWIW.) Thanks again Nemo. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on your official Vimeo channel vimeo.com/wmfoundation there's the defunct link wikimediafoundation.og instead of _.org. Could be helpful to fix that :) --.js (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you. :-) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Diego# Comic-Con Panel ideas discussion. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see a proposal at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors, I would like to ask you about something of interest to WMF relating to site "Janevistan" (see about case[1]). It has not been resolved yet by Jimbo (see Talk Page), but as I can see we have here fundamental violations and disrespect of the Wiki Terms of Use, including the rule of civility. "Janevistan" is a text full of violations, such as, racial offences, brutal insults and mockery about Macedonia and Macedonians, plus harassment, death threat(s), and violations of basic procedures, and all other blatant stuff, and this site was actually protected by local administrators ! Please see history of the page Janevistan [2] i.e. Template (delete|racial offences, insults and mockery about Macedonia, Macedonians and the state of the Republic of Macedonia, harassment, massive abuse and massive trolling, defamations, disruptive and superflous edits and disrespect of the Terms of Use [3]), and than see the active protection of that site by the sh.wiki admins. (Plus, Janevistan appears as a regular page [4].) Is there anyone who can remove that offensive site? Sincerely yours,178.222.77.248 (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A protected redirect, Wikipedia:Wikimedia, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation]]
{{Redirect category shell}} 
[[Category:Protected redirects]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R to project page}}
{{R from shortcut}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, xaosflux!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The See Also section links to the Wikimedia Foundation blog using the [[wmfblog: namespace, which links to blog.wikimedia.org, but that page notes that the blog moved to wikimediafoundation.org. A year later, how do we go about updating that? —KGF0 ( T | C ) 00:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a teahouse and help desk volunteer. We're starting to see complaints of Wikitia taking drafts, some still in the process of being edited, and posting them on their site without proper attribution. Wikitia seems to be just churning things out such as this [[5]]. Is there a way to contact them and ask that they provide proper attribution to the articles? Conversely, is there a way to alert new Wikipedia editors that by submitting their copy, the creative commons rights they are assigning suggest their content will likely turn up on Wikitia. It could help our response load. Perhaps enhance the warning that appears with new draft pages? "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. This includes submitted content appearing on mirror sites unrelated to Wikipedia." TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to edit CoolBoiy (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "A timeline of recent events surrounding the Wikimedia projects" hyperlink is broken, as it does not seem to redirect to a working page. Big Joenner (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GorillaWarfare. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I replaced the link with the archived url. M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know FormalDude, and sorry about that! The live version is back up, I'll leave it to you as to whether you want to restore it or leave the archived version. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Restored the original URL. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]