Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): Difference between revisions

I have been sitting on this for around two years. It has taken me a really long time to figure out how to express this.

As you may know I worked for the Wikimedia Foundation from 2018 to 2019. This was following a lifetime of service to the Wikimedia movement. I started contributing my time in 2004 and over time participated in greater and more consequential capacities. I am proud of the work I have done, from making workflows more efficient with bots, to organizing large and successful conferences, to my work on building an open citation graph on Wikidata.

What I am not proud of is working at the Wikimedia Foundation.

I worked very hard throughout my career and ultimately found full time work at one of the world’s most illustrious nonprofits. What I got for my lifetime of work was the experience of working with bullies.

The Wikimedia Foundation is run by bullies.

There are two members of executive management that come to mind. Both have made me the object of repeated ridicule over a period of several years in my volunteer and professional capacities. One has interacted with me a single digit number of times and only did so to make fun of some verbal gaffe I made or otherwise mock something I have said or done. Another liked to make jokes about me as well, often right in my face. I had an experience of interviewing with this executive, only for them to make fun of me to my face in subsequent encounters.

Both of these people still work at the Wikimedia Foundation. I am not referring to them directly because I don’t want them to sue me and I don’t want my post to be oversighted, but they still hold positions of power, and they are still responsible for managing staff.

There are a lot of things I could tell you about the foundation, good or bad. I could tell you about the brilliance of the staff, the genuine collaborations between professionals and volunteers that take place, and the sincere dedication of everyone I have met working there.

I could also tell you about the lack of leadership at the highest levels, and the interdepartmental war for resources that resulted. But I was merely demoralized by this chaos; it wasn’t my own personal experience. I could tell you about how women, and women of color in particular, are chewed up and spit out by the management. But that’s not my story to tell. I could complain that their growth strategy is complete nonsense and destined to fail, but that’s, just, like, my opinion.

But this is my story to tell: I am an adult with autism. Over the years, especially when I was younger, it is inevitable that I would say and do things that are kind of funny. And I have been made fun of my entire life for it. I can forgive myself for saying awkward things, and I can forgive people for what they did as children. What I cannot forgive is a fully grown adult, in a position of significant authority, bullying another adult in their workplace. It is unforgivable.

After a chaotic 18 or so months of working at Wikimedia, I turned in my badge. The experience left me with posttraumatic stress disorder, seriously adrift on a moral and emotional level, and occasionally prone to psychotic episodes. Over time I have been able to forgive the dysfunction that defined my work experience, but I could not let go of the fact that there are bullies who work for the Wikimedia Foundation and still work there.

As Wikipedians we are a neurodiverse community and come from many different backgrounds. We need management that is not just charismatic, not just good at giving speeches, but empathetic and compassionate, who genuinely understands our experiences.

I feel terrible and exposed writing this. I may be opening myself up to retaliation. But I have been sitting on this for so long, and it has tortured me so much. And I can’t live with myself not knowing that this perspective is invisible. You are not going to hear it from the slick Communications team, and you’re not going to hear it from people who think speaking up will make them unemployable. But at this point, I don’t think I have anything to lose. And if others speak up because of me I hope it will be worth it. Harej (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harej, damn. I'm no WMF employee, but why do I not feel surprised? To answer my own question, it's probably due to how the WMF tends to steamroll over community wishes (Branding project insanity, WP:FRAMBAN, trying to kick out Jimbo, failing to adequately deal with WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and the captions fiasco on Commons which is a story for another day and not sufficiently covered by that link) I've quoted you in full on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Getting bullied is devastating. WMF executive management bullying people is just lunacy. And the worst part is, the people who do it are typically too damn stupid to realize what they're doing. They're not compensating or "secretly insecure" as you often hear. They're just too damn stupid. They simply lack the brain capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'd say that it's due to that, or if they have the same underlying problem (I'd be more inclined to think the latter). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Harej, I'm so sorry that happened to you, and thank you for standing up and saying it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping up and writing this. Legoktm (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being honest about your experiences, Harej. It's really disappointing to hear this. As you'll well know, autistic people are a major part of our community, well in excess of their proportion in the general population. Any company which truly appreciated that it is built on and run by our volunteer labour would bend over backwards to be accommodating towards autistic and neurodivergent people. No doubt these management figures have also mocked neurotypicals and made them feel like shit too. And a disorganised workplace is a hotbed for mental health problems. Not a proud moment for the WMF. — Bilorv (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done on speaking out, Harej. As above, neither saddened nor surprised. (I note that this page has been archived in at least two major online archives—multiple times!—so oversighting would be a bit of a horse/stable door scenario.) ——Serial 17:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for sharing your experience James. We have worked together a bit and I'm really saddened by this. I wish WMF would have been a better place. Ladsgroup^overleg 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am very sorry you feel like that, and feel ashamed that there could be such people there. You are worth a lot, they are blind if they were simply unable to recognize that, going up to bullying... I don't have words to describe it. It's really saddening that you suffered such experience. Platonides (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good gravy, Harej, I was so pleased when you finally had a career path open up after all your work. We should point out that you are not the only person in our group of wikibuddies who has had real life difficulties as a result of their good faith efforts on behalf of this encyclopedia. Please accept my best wishes in your future endeavors, and know that there are many places where ordinary civility and US EEO/ADA laws have made for a much less toxic environment than what you have experienced so far. It gets better-- stay in touch! Oliveleaf4 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harej, I'm so sorry to hear that. As the parent of child who was bullied because of their autism-spectrum-disorder, our collective failure to protect the neurodiverse members of our communities strikes me as particularly egregious and intolerable. We can and must do better. Thank you for speaking up. Vexations (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for your bad experience and I hope that telling your story helps somehow. Large organizations like the WMF can sometimes be unintentionally cruel and that's why it's so important for everyone to work hard to be extra friendly and inclusive. Flounder ceo (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add some clarifying remarks: I am not referring to the managers I reported directly to; they are incredible people. And I do believe most staff at the foundation are working in good faith and are trying to do right by the people they work with, professionally and in the community. I am gravely concerned that there is a culture among, specifically, the executives (i.e. direct reports to the CEO) that is toxic, and I have been on the receiving end of this in subtle ways that scarred me. While I worked there and especially since I left many of them have been replaced with new ones, and I have no opinion on them because I haven't worked with them. I've noticed a lot of people have brought their own grievances with the Wikimedia Foundation into this, and I completely understand that, just that I think my position is a bit more nuanced than the "community vs. foundation" dynamic I often see. And I also want to note that merely the experience of being able to write what I did, and the outpouring of support, has been immensely meaningful to me. Thank you. Harej (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for speaking out about your experience, James. You've done a huge amount for the project, and I was saddened to read this. It takes a neurodiverse community to build this project and keep it running, and large parts of our movement could probably use more (or any) information and/or training regarding the neurodiversity of our valued contributors. Hopefully this thread helps to spur that on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Like others above, I'm saddened but not surprised by this. Thank you for speaking out. One thing leapt immediately to mind when you wrote "We need management that is not just charismatic, not just good at giving speeches, but empathetic and compassionate, who genuinely understands our experiences" - people who are charismatic (or what passes for charismatic in some environments) and good at giving speeches are very rarely also empathetic and compassionate. Our articles superficial charm and psychopathy in the work-place may be of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting, Robert D. Hare coined the term "Snakes in Suits" as a synonym for workplace psychopaths.

Who does that make you think of? wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not my place, but that last link has nothing to do with what this discussion's supposed to be about. Golollop (bounce) 16:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know that link is off topic, and, I hope this sidebar about psychopathy in the workplace is off topic too. If it isn't we need to know. wbm1058 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're babbling and what you're saying isn't helpful. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi harej, it was sad to read about your experience. The courage you have shown here in expressing how you felt is inspirational and I am glad that taking this step was personally meaningful to you in any case. I hope that others who feel the same way about their current or former workplaces will also express themselves effectively and provide an opportunity for positive changes to occur. Thank you for sharing this and I wish you all the best. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Harej, it's really a shame to hear that. I've worked at some places like that too, and it really does leave its mark on you. I hope the WMF will take this on board and worry about the conduct of its own employees and executives. We should do better than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• That one of the nicest and most dedicated people in the site's history got treated so poorly is a damning indictment. I went through a similar situation as a kid and it's sad to see that that behavior is still considered acceptable that high up. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Harej I'm so sorry to hear this. I can relate a little, although what I experienced wasn't nearly as bad as what you've described here. Towards the end of my time at the WMF, I felt quite unwelcome due to the actions of some people there. I tried to find a different position from the one I was in, that would distance me from those people, but was told that that was not an option that was open to me. So, my options were to put up with it, or leave. I wish I didn't feel like I needed to leave in order to preserve my mental health, but I did. In the end, it wasn't the antagonistic relationship between the paid staff and volunteers that made me leave, it was internal antagonistic relationships. It's a shame, working at a company with global impact that isn't totally driven by profit, short term thinking, and next quarter's share prices could easily be the best job in the world... but, in the end, somehow it ends up not being that different from short term profit-focussed companies anyway, and it really isn't the best job in the world at all. I hope you can begin to recover from this trauma. All the best. --Deskana (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also relate. In my case I stuck around and tried to push back against increasing attempts at marginalization and workplace bullying. It got to the point where I officially complained to HR (and in retrospect I should have used stronger wording), they eventually claimed "no evidence" but everything I asked for happened anyway, then a month or so later allowed massive retaliation. It seems to me that the management at WMF has grown pretty dysfunctional, fostering a culture where their own image and career progression is a major goal in a way that I'd associate more with cut-throat for-profit companies than with a non-profit. Anomie⚔ 13:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case someone wanted to know. It tracks category sizes over time. {{CatTrack}} and toolforge:apersonbot/cat-track for more. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, thank you! SQL^{Query me!} 04:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! EpicPupper (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create a cool signature with out having to keep copying and pasting stuff on pages? On another wiki called Inkipedia, which is a independent wiki outside of fandom, the users are allowed to create their own signature pages with something like: User:CoolGuy27/sig and then type {{User:CoolGuy27/sig}} on talk pages. Thank you in advance.

--Yaxops (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can set your custom sig in the preferences and then type four tildes (~~~~) every time you need to sign. You should type four tildes to sign anyway (will render default sig). Please find the Teahouse for basic questions about editing Wikipedia. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sorry I didn't use teahouse. Yaxops (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and please, no worries. I didn't mean to criticise; was rather going for "for future reference"; new editors can hardly be faulted for not finding the exact venue for their purpose in a complex and disorganised project like this, before they've had an opportunity to have the first conversation. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does this look?: Yaxops Banter 17:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC) and also I know you were not criticizing, I'm over apologetic.[reply]

@Yaxops: by convention, your signature placement should always go at the end of your comment. As far as feedback, the Yellow color is very hard to read against a light background, but otherwise it is fine. See more tips on signatures here: WP:SIGNATURE. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. I reused that signature from another wiki which is has a black back round so I'll change it. Thank you. Yaxops Banter 17:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Xaosflux hows this one:Yaxops Banter 17:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yaxops: seems fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t bother anymore doing any good faith editing. Leave the laughable errors where they lie, I say. As a person with specialist knowledge, if I see an obvious error, I correct it. I don’t if the statement is more spin or opinion as I’m not visiting the page to engage in arguments, just to check names, dates and similar facts or to use the long-lat link to view a precise location on Google Maps. However, whatever I change is immediately changed back by someone who knows nothing about the topic, citing “lack of sources”. This includes when I have read the cited sources and simply note they don’t actually say what the previous writer claims. Rather than follow the existing cited link to see if I am correct, a Wiki-nerd would rather restore the error. I hated typing up (yes, on a typewriter) the footnotes and bibliography for my undergraduate essays but this is all you really want to read, isn’t it? You are not interested in the actual essay, only the citations. Apparently, to correct laughable errors in one’s area of expertise, one has to also spend the time first becoming a Wiki nerd, specializing solely in Wikipedia. I spent decades slowly developing specialist knowledge but learning computer programs and similar online procedures as I enter my seventh decade is a waste of my time as software and social media change every few months and I then have to start over. In the end it seems that on Wikipedia, the generalist trumps the specialist, the young edit the old, and your pages are dominated by those who know nothing except how to properly edit Wikipedia. Enjoy your hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this edit from your IP and this subsequent edit when you say "This includes when I have read the cited sources and simply note they don’t actually say what the previous writer claims. Rather than follow the existing cited link to see if I am correct, a Wiki-nerd would rather restore the error.", that's not what actually happened. You identified that the quote wasn't in the linked source, and someone found an archived copy of the source from before the quote was removed and updated the reference to refer to that copy. Anomie⚔ 11:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have edited from other IP addresses or an account but I examined all edits at Special:Contributions/159.2.35.250. None of them have been reverted. The only partial revert was the correct addition of an archive url with the quote in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after I “yelled” at you. Also, the anachronistic use of “Blue Max” pre-WWI continues so I correct it when I see it. Sometimes it’s reversed, sometimes not. Most recently, placing von Clausewitz at the Battle of Göhrde was removed, despite the contents of Wiki page on the Russo-German Legion. In short, enjoy your hobby, which is not publishing encyclopedic knowledge but publishing Wikipedia as an end in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk • contribs)

Please don't assume that only young people edit Wikipedia. I am well into my seventh decade and I know that there are many people of about my age and older who do so. The issue is that we need references to support what is said here, because the same open model that allows subject-matter experts to edit also allows people who are here to push a particular viewpoint or to market something to edit. We have no way of telling who is who without reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This lacks common sense. Do two minutes of research before changing it back, even just within Wikipedia. If someone says Carl von Clausewitz was a commander at the Battle of Göhrde (as Chief of Staff of the Russo-German Legion), assume he was in fact just that. What’s the risk? Why would I lie? It’s not like I’m going in and adding Israel to a list of countries committing ethnic cleansing, ethno-chauvinism, and breaches of international law. That would be controversial even if true, and should be watched for closely. Your approach just preserves the status quo, even if it is laughably wrong. For example, look at the page for “Seven Days to the River Rhine”. Some yahoo has listed several Western European Communist Party leaders as “Commanders & Leaders” of the Warsaw Pact forces. They weren’t. There is no source cited. This is just someone’s political spin. The Red Army did not take George Marchais into its confidence. He had no role in formulating this Plan. But if I change this, you’ll just change it back so why bother. I could go upstairs, pull the book off the shelf, and cite Donald Stoker, “Clausewitz: His Life and Work”, Oxford University Press, chapter 8, pages 185-187, but how do you know that’s not also a lie? What strikes me is the complete lack of subject-matter knowledge of the Wiki person determining that the content must not change. You have built a system destined to deliver uninformed and static content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk • contribs)

If you have specialist knowledge, then you'll know where to search for a reliable source that supports what you're saying. You can't just ask for other editors to trust that what you're saying is true without any reliable source to back it up. Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia. —El Millo (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Why would I lie?" Why would anyone lie? Why do vandals exist? Maybe no ill intent exists but you 'learned' something based on an unreliable source yourself? That's why we need sources. If you say X, we want to be able to verify that X is indeed the case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you don’t verify content, only changes. Go look at the example I just gave (“Seven Days to the River Rhine”). This joke will now stand until the end of time under your careful watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk • contribs)

How hard is it to provide an actual reliable source for your claims? Have you tried to find any? —El Millo (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To prove a negative? Can you prove you are not a CIA agent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an actual question, or are you just here because you cannot understand that encyclopaediae require published sources and the onus is on you to provide said published sources? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you talking about Carl von Clausewitz being a commander at the Battle of Göhrde, and how we should just assume he was in fact just that if you say so? —El Millo (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a source above — Donald Stocker’s book — but also asked, how do you know I didn’t make that up? If I’m a lying vandal, why would I draw the line at fake sources? Doing lying vandals have a moral code that stops them from falsifying sources?

Here’s a crazy idea. Before you delete something that common sense says looks at least plausible, open another tab on your browser and Google “von Clausewitz battle of Göhrde“. There you will immediately see (no scrolling, no digging) three pages pages confirming he was in fact a commander at Göhrde.

If so, don’t go to the trouble of editing the page. Just leave it alone because it seems to be right. You do know what Google is, don’t you? The first search page on Google turns up this:

“This Week's Discovery: Eleonore Prochaska, the legendary woman who fought against Napoleon dressed as a man, did serve under Clausewitz. She was wounded and died in the Battle of Göhrde, the same battle Clausewitz, as chief of staff for Wallmoden Corps, planned and led troops. After Göhrde, Clausewitz was promoted to a full colonel.”

OR

“Clausewitz spent the rest of 1813 and the campaign of 1814 serving with the Russo-German Legion, the unit he was originally appointed to raise in 1812. In 1813 this legion was part of Wallmoden's corps, itself part of Bernadotte's Army of the North. Wallmoden had a mixed force, mainly made up of levies or recent volunteers, with a small core of regular troops. It was used on the campaign around Hamburg. During this period Clausewitz commanded at the Action of the Göhrde (16 September 1813), a minor Allied victory in which a French force under General Marc-Nicolas-Louis Pécheux was forced to retreat into Hamburg.”

OR

“As a Russian officer he superin tended the formation of the Landwehr of East Prussia, and in the campaign of 1813 served as chief of staff to Count Wallmoden. He conducted the fight at Göhrde, and after the armistice, with Gneisenau's permission, published an account of the campaign (Der Feldzug von 1813 bis zum Waffenstillstand, Leipzig, 1813).”

The point is, deleting something is a conscious decision to suppress new information, preserving an omission. Over time, you are advancing ignorance, not knowledge. Make a little effort or do nothing at all is what I’m saying. If you don’t know, do nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can only evaluate the situation if you say which page you are talking about. I examined all edits to Battle of the Göhrde since 2014 and Clausewitz hasn't been removed or mentioned. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it’s there now. Let’s see if it stays. :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.35.250 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

We hope this message finds you well and safe. The COVID 19 situation continues to affect many of us across the globe and our thoughts are with everyone affected. We are also aware that there are several processes currently in progress that demand volunteer time and we do not want to add more work to anyone's plate.

We do want to draw your attention to our new Regional Committees for Grants though as they are an opportunity for you to have an active say in the future of our Movement!

📣 So today, we invite you to join our new Regional Committees for Grants! 📣

We encourage Wikimedians and Free Knowledge advocates to be part of the new Regional Committees that the WMF Community Resources team is setting up as part of the grants strategy relaunch [2]. You will be a key strategic thought partner to help understand the complexities of any region, provide knowledge and expertise to applicants, to support successful movement activities, and make funding decisions for grant applications in the region.

👉Find out more on meta [3].

Regional Committees will be established for the following regions:

• Middle East and Africa
• SAARC [4] region (Includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
• East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific (ESEAP) region
• Latin America (LATAM) and The Caribbean
• United States and Canada
• Northern and Western Europe
• Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)

👉All details about the Committees and how to apply can be found on meta [5]. Applications have to be submitted by June 4, 2021!

If you have any questions or comments, please use the meta discussion page [6].

Please do share this announcement widely with your Network.

Best wishes,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the Community Resources Team[reply]

Cross-posted from WP:VPWMF. –xeno^talk 13:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across an academic paper with this paragraph in the abstract:

In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, holo- gram or computer described as ‘sentient’ is usually treated in the same way as a human being. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (sapience) but sentient characters also typically dis- play desire, will, consciousness, ethic, personality, insight and humour. Sentience is used in this con- text to describe an essential human property that unites all of these other qualities. The words ‘sapi- ence’, ‘self-awareness’ and ‘consciousness’ are used in similar ways and sometimes – and confusingly – interchangeably in science fiction.

I wrote this paragraph for article sentience a long time ago, when I was newbie. This is how it appeared in 2010:

In science fiction, an alien, android, robot, hologram, or computer who is described as sentient is usually treated as a fully human character, with similar rights, qualities, and capabilities as any other character. Foremost among these properties is human level intelligence (see above), but sentient characters also typically display desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight, and many other human qualities. Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it. The words "sapience", "self-awareness", and "consciousness" are used in similar ways in science fiction.

Here was my first version, from 2007:

The issue of sentience also frequently arises in science fiction stories about aliens, robots and computers with artificial intelligence. A character who is described as sentient is assumed to have many human qualities, such as will, desire, consciousness, ethics, personality, intelligence, insight, and so on (although it may be conspicuously lacking one or two). Sentience is being used in this context to describe an essential human property that brings all these other qualities with it.

So, question one: what do we think about people plagiarizing Wikipedia, without attribution?

Here's the thing, though. This paragraph was straight up WP:ORIG. (I said I was newbie.) I suppose I should have deleted it myself at some point, as original research, but I thought for sure I would eventually find a source that made this point. I never did.

Eventually, after ten years or so, the entire section of the article was deleted, because it lacked sources. I had a bit of chuckle and a sigh -- somebody finally noticed.

That brings me to question two: what do we think about people plagiarizing original research from Wikipedia? (Now it's getting complicated.)

So I got to thinking -- I could restore the paragraph, because'now I have a source -- I mean the source is me, still, but I've been plagiarized outside of Wikipedia, so now maybe Wikipedia can plagiarize them back? I know, I know -- I'm just asking.

Finally, question three: what do we think about citing a source that is plagiarized original research from Wikipedia?--- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid-fire responses: a) That would be worthy of a complaint if you are so inclined. That Wikipedia content is free content does not mean that there aren't some obligations - and attribution is one of the few obligations. b) Sigh. c) I'd be very dubious; if they take content from other websites without saying this, one wonders what other non-dependable source they might have used and how that OR influenced the conclusion of the paper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. It seems to be in the text as well as the abstract. Both authors of the 2016 paper seem to be active academics. Might be interesting to alert the editorial board of SFRA Review. PamD 08:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I googled the authors and found this: In this article that was published in a July 2016 issue of The New York Review of Science Fiction, on the PDF page 3/6 there is text that seems to be almost a word-for-word copy of the second lead paragraph in Robot-assisted surgery. In December 2015 the WP article read, In the case of robotically-assisted minimally-invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments; either a direct telemanipulator or through computer control. From the article (middle of the left column): In the case of robotically assisted, minimally invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments—either a direct tele-manipulator or through computer control. I cut it for space, but it's the whole second paragraph of the WP article's lead. I didn't check if there are more hits from Wikipedia in that article. -kyykaarme (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And this with followup. PamD 13:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... already mentioned in article Early Human Development (@Nemo bis: for info). PamD 13:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Simplify your signature

 – {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not propose a change of policies. I propose that you simplify your signature.
(Background: Earlier today, User:Jorm explained to me on Wikipedia talk:Signatures how confusing our signature system is for newbies. Are the people with red/green/orange signatures moderators? Or what does the colour coding mean? Why does the response to a post signed 苦思馬 start with {{re|Kusma}}? Confusion about any of these points can cost us potential editors. According to Jorm, it is a widespread problem).
Please do not ask anyone else personally to change their signature, as they might be quite attached to it. Just simplify your signature if you can. Do it for the newbies. Thank you. —Kusma (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How and why is that a major need? Pink Saffron (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the rant by Jorm in Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Focus on: non-Latin script. TL;DR: Jorm, the former WMF designer responsible for (among other things) the design of Flow, relates that user studies showed that over half of new users encountering talk pages ran away in terror, many upon merely seeing the diversity of signatures used in talk pages then more when they looked at the wikitext and became horribly confused. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Studies' which, unfortunately, nobody else can read. But I'm sure we can just trust Jorm (that Jorm) that coloured signatures are the "most confusing thing to any new user". – Joe (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a lot of truth in the hyperbole there. I don't know (and have no ability to find out) which of the many possible stumbling points throws a potential Wikipedian off on their newbie journey. While Flow was unsuitable as a replacement for current discussion pages in Wikipedia because it didn't allow full wikitext, lowering the bar of entry for discussion pages should be an area where we can work together with WMF staff and others who have spent more time thinking about this. —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I recommend this be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)—there's no clearly stated "proposal" present. The point of the proposals forum is to present a... proposal that people can express support or opposition for. Aza24 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Kusma was looking for a highly watched forum to send a message to editors. So that leaves: the policy/proposal village pumps, AN, a central notice/watchlist banner (following consensus). VPM/VPI have nowhere near as many watchers. And I suppose you never know which direction a discussion goes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could write an article for The Signpost.... — xaosflux ^Talk 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a good idea. Although, if there's an article then including data, such as the study mentioned above, would probably be good to include. Perhaps Whatamidoing (WMF) may know if there's any relevant research, possibly from the Wikipedia:Talk pages project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting visibility isn't a valid reason to ignore a page's usage guidelines. We're in a catch-22 here, where other village pump pages won't get watchers until we require editors to use them as appropriate. I've moved this to VPM. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that helps. It is a proposal that you can support by simplifying your signature or just ignore, so I thought "proposals" was best. Just for a highly watched page, I'd go for the inofficial village pump :) —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No thanks, I'm happy with my signature. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If we look at the welcome messages that we give people, and the number of people who we have to teach about the importance of ending any talk page post with ~~~~, it is pretty obvious that the most bizarre and impenetrable barrier we have to newbies on the desktop environment is the need to find the tilda key and use it to generate a signature. I don't recall any occasion I have used the tilda other than signing my username on Wikipedia. Learning about the tilda key may actually be a bigger, if less upsetting comprehension gulf for new editors than having to deal with edit conflicts. Yet the devs won't change things for newbies to default all newbies to autosign on talkpages. Presumably they like that barrier against non techies editing. Colourful signatures by contrast are entirely optional, you get a simple blue one by default. ϢereSpielChequers 19:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the editing tools to have a "signature" button, I certainly find pressing ~ quicker then navigating with my mouse to click on it, but @WereSpielChequers: perhaps the new user guidance could more clearly show that as an option? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I tack on two related proposals here?
  1. Make the default signature include a link to the user's contributions;
  2. Enable a function for administrators (or maybe 'crats or intadmins) to reset a specified user's signature to the default. (The only way we can currently prevent disruption from a user's unsuitable signature is to fully block them from editing, and we don't get consensus for that because it's way heavy-handed)

I'm not going to write out full proposals right now, I just think these are both good ideas for obvious reasons. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth mentioning (and Kusma already linked the page as a whole) that there's already a guideline against long signatures, including signatures with long markup, at WP:SIGLEN. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a trade-off with the benefits of signatures as a meatball:FrontLawn. Complicated signatures may confuse newbies, but they also show newbies that we are real people with tastes and quirks---they add some life to an otherwise bland sea of black, white, and blue. Even signatures (partially) in other languages can encourage some newbies (even while they may confuse others). They show non-native English speakers that their contributions are still welcome here, and highlight editors who can help them in their native language without the newbie needing to find all the right Babel categories. I don't think the OP needs to be seen as an either-or situation, just be mindful of the trade-offs, especially if you find yourself working with newbies a lot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• My particular pet peeve is signatures that don't include the username in a recognizable way. When I'm reading a thread, It's confusing when you can't tell who's who because the usernames and visible signatures don't match. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I just have to ask how telling every user to simplify their signature, without any nuance on whether their signature is either already simple or its complexity serves a purpose, can possibly be less intrusive or problematic than asking a few particularly troublesome ones to change theirs individually. It's kind of like a "polite notice" - you can't dictate something as being non-pushy. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A message to everyone is easier to ignore than an individual one, so I hoped it would offend fewer people. It's more of a tree hugging hippie idea than a well crafted political campaign, and it is probably a few years too late. If I wanted to campaign, I'd probably try to get the new discussion/reply features moved from opt-in beta to default for new users, which would mitigate a few of the problems, hopefully without introducing too many others. —Kusma (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have typed quite a lot over the past few weeks over this, and I think this new section might need context..
• We had Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#User:DeNoel's sig which went on many different tangents and ups, downs and roundabouts. Then this led to Wikipedia talk:Signatures which is an ongoing, sprawling, occasionally bad tempered talkpage conference with many different tangents, which has led to User:Rhododendrites/signature rfc drafting this draft RFC. I suspect this could be, as the newspaper industry has it, a story which "runs and runs" doktorb _words^deeds 18:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: I think the link you want is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#User:DeNoel's sig. (Feel free to delete this post after editing yours - I was wary of doing so myself). PamD 21:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pam :) doktorb _words^deeds 23:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some truth to it being confusing. For people using screen reader tech, some signatures would be a nightmare. For people with colour-blindnesses or other visual disabilities, some may be unreadable. But points made above about people with another language or about not being a sea of boring text are also important. Anecdotally, when I started it wasn't difficult to understand what was happening with the signatures. Yeah, it can be hard to follow a conversation if the reply and the signature are using different names, but that's why we use indenting. In the case of non-Latin character names, maybe people genuinely should just learn out that sometimes names get Romanized. We should of course allow non-English characters, and the ability to express individuality. But readability and accessibility should also be considered - it sounds like this part is a nightmare to discuss, so I perhaps won't give my thoughts on that for now. To me, signatures were easy, BUT changes to the talk page link were... confusing. The talk page/user page situation was already hard to swallow, so people renaming or messing around with that one absolutely did not help me to understand. I would love if people left that one the hell alone - sorry to people who changed theirs, I deeply understand the desire, but I really really found it difficult to understand initially. (Note: when interpreting my anecdotes, I already had some experience with signatures used in a similar way with similar - although less - variability.) --Xurizuri (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Core Contest will be running again from June 1, in case anyone wants to flex their writing muscles :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Can I download a dump that contains only texts, with only the first section of the article, like in here [7]?

If no, will it be problematic to download thousands of articles (one article at a time)?

Thank you! רן כהן (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@רן כהן: You might want to take a look at the "mini" version of Kiwix dumps. EpicPupper (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need plaintext. How can I convert zim to txt? I saw I can maybe convert zim to txt using this [8] but the link to zimlib is broken (404) רן כהן (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

רן כהן, WP:DUMP — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry but I couldn't understand how can I do it. I didn't see any conversion option from zim to txt or an option to download only text in the wiki DUMP site. Thank you! רן כהן (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the instructions you get the full wikitext for all articles from *pages-articles-multistream.xml.bz2. You'd have to create a program yourself to extract only the first sections from that. There is also *abstract.xml.gz which is more compact and contains just page abstracts but it seems slightly broken. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can use the multistream. I need PLAINTEXT, even beyond images or tables. For instance, the string "I am a [boy]" is not plaintext, but the string "I am a boy" is.

And abstract.xml.gz is indeed slightly broken and I rather not use it. רן כהן (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

רן כהן, what do you need it for, anyway? We could perhaps make better suggestions if we knew what you need it for. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am developing a game that revolves around the articles. The game needs the articles to be in plain text.

Right now I turn the articles into plain text using gazillion REGEXes, but they not always work perfectly, so been wondering whether I could simply look on the wiki as plaintext to begin with. רן כהן (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]