This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).
Policy
Continuation of ANI Discussion About MFD Relisting
There have been some issues raised at a discussion at WP:ANI about relisting of MFD discussions, and the discussion there seems to be winding down because maybe WP:ANI action is not required. I posted my questions a few hours ago to the MFD talk page, but I now see that it is not an active talk page, so I will mark these questions, which were not answered yet, as moved to VPP.
The original issue was that an MFD had been open for a week, and an editor relisted it, and another editor reverted the relisting, and the original editor objected, at WP:ANI. The conclusion appeared to be that the last time there was a discussion of whether MFD discussions may sometimes be relisted as in 2016, and an RFC concluded that relisting is still an option for MFD. There aren't very many MFDs at any given time, so that all of the MFD discussions are available on a single board, MFD. At least one editor objects to the relisting of MFD discussions because it rearranges the paperwork. At least one editor thinks that relisting of MFD discussions is sometimes useful because it rearranges the paperwork.
So I will ask here:
Should deletion discussions at MFD sometimes be relisted? There has been an RFC which said that MFD discussions may sometimes be relisted, so if there is a view that consensus has changed, is a new RFC warranted?
The answer to all of your questions is that MfD should not be treated any differently than any other XfD. Creating bespoke rules makes everything more confusing and there is no good reason for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
+1. Allow relisting. MFD closers shouldn't need to learn different rules about relisting than the other XFD venues. If a discussion has low participation or could benefit from more discussion, and hasn't already been relisted, then relisting is a standard and helpful tool in the toolbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
When all the discussions fit comfortably on a single page, relists are just needless paper-pushing, which is why they're not the norm at MfD, DRV, or MRV. MfD is different from the other XfDs because it doesn't use daily log pages. I disagree with the 2016 RfC (which I wasn't aware of until a few days ago) and would say as much if someone decides to start a new RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
While I take Voorts' point about consistency across processes, we do already use different layouts/structures for them, and subject nominations to a different set of deletion reasons. I guess I'm just not sure what the function of relisting is when there are only three nominations across the entire process. For reference, here's what MfD looked like on today's date in 2016, when that RfC took place, and here it is today. 62 nominations vs. 3 nominations. Now, 3 is low even by today's standard, but we haven't been anywhere near 62 in a long time, because drafts now have an automatic expiration date that they did not back then. To be clear, I don't think relisting hurts anything, either, but I just don't understand. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that maybe this relist wasn't particularly necessary, but I don't think that it hurt anything. I think reverting it was even less necessary. People shouldn't be getting verklempt over a single relist. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I asked four questions. I will summarize what I think is being said:
1. Should MFD discussions sometimes be relisted? This is the main question. The 2016 RFC said that MFD discussions are no different from other deletion discussions and may be relisted. There are reasonable arguments that consensus has changed and a new RFC may be in order.
2. Can non-administrators relist MFD discussions? I think that the answer is that this depends on whether MFDs may sometimes be relisted. Otherwise, we do occasionally see non-administrative closes at MFD, and a relist is a closing action.
3. Should a comment be provided when relisting an MFD discussion? First, this depends on whether MFDs may sometimes be relisted. Second, in my opinion, if MFD discussions should sometimes be relisted, a comment should be provided. I agree that comment-free relistings at MFD are not helpful.
4. Should non-administrators be permitted to revert the relisting of MFD discussions? This was the original topic of the ANI report, but has not been addressed. I think that the answer is an unambiguous no, but I haven't researched whether there are non-admin reverts of relistings at AFD, TFD, or CFD.
It probably doesn't matter that MFD is like AFD in one respect in which they differ from TFD and CFD. Each AFD and MFD discussion is its own page in project space, while the daily logs are the unit pages in TFD and CFD.
Should we have a new RFC on question 1? If not, do we need to address questions 2, 3, and 4?
As a non-contributor to MfD who has read this thread, my answers to your questions are:
MfD discussions may be relisted but most often probably shouldn't be, because it achieves little. There may be exceptions to the general rule where a relisting is beneficial so it would be counterproductive to prohibit these.
Yes. Everybody may relist a discussion, but in most cases nobody should, per the answer to question 1. For the exceptions to the general rule it makes no difference whether the person relisting is or is not an admin.
It depends. If it's unclear why a discussion is being relisted it should be accompanied by a comment, if it is clear then a comment is neither required nor prohibited.
No. If someone is relisting inappropriately this is a user conduct issue that should be dealt with as a user conduct issue. I can think of only three reasons why a discussion might be inappropriately relisted and in neither situation does reverting the relisting help:
If discussion didn't need relisting because consensus was already clear, then just close the discussion according to that consensus. There is no minimum time between relisting and closing a discussion.
If consensus was not clear but discussion was ongoing, then the relisting might have been disruptive to that discussion but unrelisting will be at least equally disruptive. One disruptive event is better than two so just leave it be.
If consensus was not clear but discussion was not ongoing, just leave it be. Either the relisting will attract more input (in which case everybody wins) or it won't (in which case nobody loses).
In all cases though, if a relisting breaks any incoming links, create some sort of pointer or redirect so that people following them can find where the discussion now is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Thryduulf: MfD notices target a discussion subpage (as opposed to dates and anchors at RfD) similar to AfD. Thus—when a transclusion of an MfD subpage moves within the list on the main MfD page, no incoming links are broken and nothing needs to be altered in that regard. —Godsy(TALKCONT)09:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with this, also as someone who rarely participates in MFD but is a regular at other XFD venues. My one amendment is that relisting comments should perhaps be more strongly encouraged at MFD than at similar venues. They should not be required but if the norm is to generally not relist, a brief explanation will be especially helpful. In one sense, this is the same approach that should be taken with all relistings—when the reason to relist is non-obvious, an explanation should be provided. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Broadly agree with Extraordinary Writ, Rhododendrites, and Thryduulf. At such a small venue the main effect of relisting isn't to encourage further participation. MfD discussions are rarely poorly attended, and rearranging the order of discussions is not a fruitful way of pursuing that end anyway since old discussions aren't forgotten about. Relisting mainly functions to discourage closure for another week. That is generally most helpful where new information has arisen later in the discussion period that is likely to change participants' minds. I think in that instance a comment will always be useful. J947 ‡ edits00:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Granted, it is often not the case in practice, but a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days (WP:RELIST). —Godsy(TALKCONT)09:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
MFD is qualitatively different from every other deletion venue (unless you count DRV) in that it doesn't have daily subpages, so moving discussions around doesn't place them on a better-attended page. That's the sole benefit of relisting. With that gone, it's all downside. —Cryptic00:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I am going to defend relisting at MfD for several reasons:
Generality - After 7 days, relisting serves the purpose of bringing less-attended discussions, where consensus has yet to be achieved, back to prominence at the top of the page. Many times well-attended or complicated discussions tend to languish at the bottom of the list, despite having achieved a full or rough consensus. Separating these two major archetypes of discussions makes the ones that need attention more likely to get it, especially from contributors more familiar with other deletion venues. Relisting discussions also gives them a non-mandatory (relisted discussions may be closed at any time if a clear consensus develops as I quote from guidance to another comment above) additional 7-day time-buffer of sorts to allow a consensus to naturally develop without the discussion appearing in need of expedited closure in the old business section. Set time periods allow for a deeper, fuller consensus to develop (as opposed to a constant under-the-wire environment where, for example, a sudden change in direction prevails in a tight case where it otherwise would not have).
Parity with other venues - Driving more participation and expanding ease-of-access for the maximum possible userbase is a boon in general. Relisting is an expected feature of deletion venues; the average user may assume that the old business section consists of discussions ready for closure and wanting of one. This misconception is avoided if a discussion is at the top of the list. Of special note, users also should not be treated poorly or chided if they attempt to relist something in good faith because of such reasonable expectations.
Timelessness of venue - Whether or not MfD is experiencing a slump or boom, having a functioning relisting system makes the venue future-proof. The architecture of relisting (being slightly different from other venues and less automated) may otherwise decay and be unready when warranted. Take {{mfd relist}} and User talk:Legobot/2025#Miscellany for Deletion relisting which show an example of such deterioration. Right now, relists must be done manually.
Non-adminstrator relists and comment-free relists - Non-administrators who are (WP:NACD) experienced[,] ... uninvolved[,] ... [and] registered (WP:NADC) may close (or relist) ... discussions (WP:NACD). Relisting is a determination of non-consensus (i.e. that consensus has yet to be achieved). Non-administrators regularly relist discussions at other venues; it should be no different at MfD. It is less explicitly officially documented, but comment-free relists are standard (and perhaps preferred) practice when it comes to relisting. This should also not be any different at MfD than any other venue. The relisting comment field exists for the following reason:
In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result (WP:RELIST).
More often than not, on the first (especially the first) or second relist, it is clear that the discussion is being relisted because consensus is (likely) split in different directions (i.e. yet to be achieved due to lack of agreement) and 'no consensus' closure is not yet appropriate. If there is a special circumstance, or something to note, then a relisting comment would certainly be appropriate.
That just about encapsulates my thoughts on the matter (though I may have forgotten some sentiments and will post again later if that proves to be the case).—Godsy(TALKCONT)08:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Mackensen made an argument regarding relisting comments being generally non-optimal in the discussion that this one stemmed from, which I elude to but do not explain in depth. —Godsy(TALKCONT)09:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Generality - After 7 days, relisting serves the purpose of bringing less-attended discussions, where consensus has yet to be achieved, back to prominence at the top of the page
Undesirable, if there is no point in the relisting except to move it back to the top. The pointlessness of the relisting is evident in the lack of relisting comment on why it is being relisted. Moving an MfD discussion back to the top does not get it fresh eyes, but tricks the few regulars, who already saw it, already commented or already ignored it, in to thinking that there is a new nomination.
Godsy has many many good contributions at MfD, but sometimes exercises poor judgement. When challenged, he goes on an on, as previously, and refuses to concede a single point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Given that relisting is presently allowed at MfD per the RfC that has been cited, only a new RfC can overturn the old consensus, not discussion at VPP. I see no reason to discuss further rather than just open an RfC, assuming that nobody is going to change their mind at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
“Allowed” is a weak defence. Relisting is normal at MfD, but pointless comment-free relisting is not. Only Godsy does it. I object to him doing pointless comment-free relisting. It does no good, and it does some harm. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If it's true that only one (1) person does this (e.g., over the course of several months or a whole year), is what that person does really the community's practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisting at MfD is normal and fine. But is it normal and fine to sporadically do comment-free pointless relisting, be told that your pointless comment-free relistings are a negative, to insist that it’s “allowed” by some guideline, and to insist on continuing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Your view that comment-free relistings are inappropriate (especially in general) is a minority viewpoint (if not a vast minority viewpoint). It is overwhelmingly accepted that relists, on the first (or even second), have an inherent purpose that need not be spoken (or rather written) through a comment. I have expounded upon this at-length above. You are seemingly the only contributor that has a (at least major) problem with them, as evidenced here (aimed at others besides me). You have been a contributor at MfD for a long time and have done a lot of good work there. However, your viewpoint in this case does not overrule several well-documented discussion closes and guidelines etc. (again above) established through community consensus. Your view should not be conflated as more than that or be implied to be the view of the community. As far as sporadicity, I have periods of more or less activity, as do many contributors (appropriateness of relisting, however,—bar new community consensus—remains the same). —Godsy(TALKCONT)01:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
My particular view relevant is that most of your (singular you) comment-free relists at MfD are completely worthless, and of negative impact to people who pay attention to the size of the backlog.
I’ve asked you to stop.
You don’t reply to the substance, but respond verbosely off topic, ad nauseam, to use your word choice.
I acknowledge this point. It is a relatively low level issue. My previous challenge was rebuffed, which is why I felt the revert was justified. And here we are, still with the question unanswered, “why do this relist?”. And I believe that “Because rules allow it” is not a reasonable answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I have started an RfC below. If you have already set forth your views in full in this discussion, I suggest distilling them into a concise !vote and referring editors to your comments above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:RELIST, which applies to all XfDs, states: "When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result." Otherwise, a relisting comment is not required. I do not believe there is sufficient reason to treat MfD differently from other XfDs. We shouldn't create arbitrary exceptions to guidelines, particularly procedural ones. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Someone is repeatedly removing my !vote from here. Please stop it.
Of course. The question is the wrong question. A better question is: What should be done when an editor repeatedly exercises bad judgement in relisting? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
This is a wiki. Many things are “allowed”, technically, even if not a good idea. Good judgement is required. People without good judgement should be less bold. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I moved your "!vote" below and responded to it there, where you also responded. This is the "yes" section in response to the survey, not a place for you to continue to make inappropriate comments about other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes. Comment-free relists are standard (and perhaps preferred) practice when it comes to relisting. This should not be any different at MfD than any other venue; bringing a discussion to the top of the list is a valuable action which has a net-positive affect on the deletion backlog by being an attention-drawing boon for the vast majority of contributors. The relisting comment field exists for the following reason:
In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result (WP:RELIST).
More often than not, on the first (especially the first) or second relist, it is clear that the discussion is being relisted because consensus is (likely) split in different directions or the discussion is under-attended (i.e. consensus has yet to be achieved due to lack of agreement or participation) and 'no consensus' closure is not yet appropriate. Otherwise, a constant under-the-wire environment with no semi-firm time limits is fostered (which serves as an adversary to achieving natural, full consensus). If there is a special circumstance, or something to note, then a relisting comment is certainly appropriate. —Godsy(TALKCONT)02:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes. The question is whether they are permitted, and they should be permitted. Questions about when various types of relistings should encouraged or discouraged can be addressed later, after the current question is answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes. Whether they should be encouraged, discouraged or neither are separate questions but there is absolutely no reason to prohibit them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes. Allow relisting. MFD closers shouldn't need to learn different rules about relisting than the other XFD venues. If a discussion has low participation or could benefit from more discussion, and hasn't already been relisted, then relisting is a standard and helpful tool in the toolbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisting is an unusual action at MfD. Like at DRV, discussions rarely suffer for attention. As such a comment explaining why a particular discussion does in fact warrant further participation is normally helpful. Prescribing a comment serves to discourage thoughtless and otherwise unhelpful relists. I know I have done such relists at MfD, erroneously thinking its situation the same as at any other venue. It is ineffective to inform every editor to fall under this common misapprehension individually. I do not find the argument that the same relisting considerations should apply to all deletion venues convincing. Encouraging unfruitful relists is counterproductive. J947 ‡ edits03:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) Well I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. I mean you do plenty of relists yourself; you don't need me to explain which relists are good or bad. (Although, for the sake of others, I'll summarise my position. It's a judgment call of how productive the relister expects the relist to be. Relists shift attention from new discussions to old discussions. Extensions of a discussion by a week or two are usually significantly less productive than the first week, but some discussions are complicated or important enough to warrant a RfC-like amount of time (that is, where there is no consensus or no clear consensus).) J947 ‡ edits04:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To clarify, an explanation should be required, not merely a comment. Comments like "final relist" and "keep or delete?" -- which pretend to be binding but are not -- are rarely useful. J947 ‡ edits03:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No. Per my comments above I don't think relisting an MfD is useful at all in the mine run of cases, so I suppose I'd support requiring the relister to explain their reasoning. But whether or not there's a comment is orthogonal to the more important question of when to relist in the first place, and I don't really understand why this RfC is framed around the former rather than the latter. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There is no point resisting the incredibly strong human urges for superficial order, symmetry, and conformity, as any such act of resistance is instinctively treated as an act of aggression. In any system that has awoken to a semblance of non-conformity or non-sameness, or to a however vacuously construed internal gap, any person who advocates for that gap not to be bridged is viewed as an enemy. Any individual insisting that the gap has always been there and exists for a reason is labeled a perpetrator of mental violence. Arguing that the structure is not inconsistent, but rather applying legitimate different treatment to different things, is considered even worse, because it implies the existence of multiple gaps and thereby doubles the perceived mental violence. Because a mass society cannot tolerate the cognitive friction of specialized, highly tuned mechanisms, these elite-orientated structures inevitably face a destructive regression to the mean once exposed to the uninitiated public. Since it is impossible to protect fragile internal functions from this homogenizing force, the system must survive by fabricating a flawless public veneer of absolute consistency and "fairness".—Alalch E.19:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
When the system stops being rational after all its finely-tuned "inconsistent” internal mechanisms are dismantled in succcessive confirmity campaigns, the iron law of oligarchy comes into full effect. —Alalch E.19:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I am generally opposed to relisting (at all venues), but I do not believe we should have special rules here. Relisting should be avoided if possible, and "relisting without comment" reflects poorly on the relister, but let us fix that elsewhere, not by making additional rules for one specific venue. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I hold that “comment-free” relisting is a problem. It has a number of problems. I acknowledge that it is widespread at other XfDs. It is not common at MfD. The only repeatedly comment-free relister at MfD is Godsy. I have explained the entirely of the problem to him, but he completely doesn’t get it. So, what to do? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No. This is precisely about one specific behaviour of one specific editor, since about ten years ago. They and you are responding with widespread generalities, and widespread generalising is evasion of the issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No. This is a policy dispute, that has been going on for about ten years, that is largely between two users, and is compounded by the interaction between two users. I mediate article content disputes, and I instruct the editors to Comment on content, not contributors and Discuss edits, not editors. Those two instructions are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Often an article content dispute is compounded either by conduct or by conduct allegations. Often resolving the content dispute by focusing on content will alleviate the conduct. One of the two editors, User:SmokeyJoe, objects to content-free relistings, and has been reverting them for about ten years. The other editor, User:Godsy, reported the reverting at WP:ANI. User:voorts is trying to resolve the policy dispute by clarifying the policy by an RFC, and is asking about exactly what SmokeyJoe was objecting to. At this point, objecting to the resolution of the policy dispute is bizarre. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The main dispute is over an editor's judgement, in a relatively small matter. Incidentally, I find I agree with that user's opinions on all other matters.
I do not want your mediation.
User:Voorts, who has recently been aggressively involved in these discussions, has unilaterally launched an RfC framed around the wrong question.
You say that the question is the wrong question. You were complaining about content-free relistings at MFD, so the RFC is about content-free relistings at MFD. What is the right question?
If you think that the question should be about Godsy's judgment in relisting MFDs, why don't you start a discussion about what you see as the real issue? (Perhaps because you know that you are in the minority?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
User:Robert McClenon, there are threads in multi places, and many questions that are not important, so some good questions like this one can be hard to find.
The first question, is whether this edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps was a good edit. In my opinion, it was not. The discussion was ready to close, and it belonged in the backlog. I thought my edit summary was not impolite. This is a question of judgment when relisting.
The more general question that follows that I ask is: What is the point of relisting without comment (or reason), as in when it leaves others mystified as to why it was relisted.
I hesitate, because I am not sure whether this is a general issue for relisting everywhere, or is particularly relevant for mfd.
Of course. The question is the wrong question. A better question is: What should be done when an editor repeatedly exercises bad judgement in relisting? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
We don’t need exhaustive rules and exceptions. When someone is told their contributions are negative, they should consider the feedback, not insist that there’s not a rule elsewhere disallowing what they like to do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I am not sure having separate yes and no sections is the right format for this type of RFC. But probably too late to change that. Ah well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think you're right. @Voorts, I'm not sure why you chose this format, but the having separate support and oppose sections should really only be used when the quality of the arguments is unimportant, and when the options really are binary. In this case, my !vote is mu: I think it should be allowed but should not be common and should normally be explained by some other reason than just "eh, I just wanted more people to comment". There is no place in your format for my response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
When someone is working on a backlog and they encounter something that's difficult to close, the following options are safe and easy and won't result in a long whiny complaint: (a) Ignoring that discussion and (b) Relisting that discussion.
Closing that discussion is more difficult and requires an investment of thought and work, and randomly, it gets quite needless amounts of stress from aggrieved editors. So over the years we've got into the habit of ignoring or relisting the difficult ones more and more frequently. I can absolutely see why.
But we're stretched too thin. We don't have the volunteer numbers now to process all these discussions. A relist used to be unusual, a second relist used to be remarkable. Now we're unsurprised to see three relists.
We've also got another problem which is the discussions that get no participation. Again, the people working on the backlog tend to relist. But that isn't always the right thing. Some discussions get no participation because we have too few volunteers and too many XFDs, in which case relisting might help. Others get no participation because nobody cares.
I think that where a discussion has had a reasonable amount of participation it should be closed rather than relisted. (If it looks difficult and you're one of those conflict-averse people, just write "No consensus".)
I think that where a discussion hasn't had much participation it should get relisted once. If it gets near-zero participation a second time, then we ought to close it without result.
Yes. Relists are useful whenever there has been little to no participation, or when a discussion is at the cusp of consensus but is clearly not there yet. Some people here raised valid concerns of XfD closers abusing the relist function for entries they simply find too hard to decide, but catch-all deleting the relist function is a bad idea. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing|talk w/ me!11:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
RfC: NPOL & sub-national leaders of major political parties
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should sub-national leaders of major political parties (e.g., the chair of a U.S. Democratic or Republican state party) be covered by WP:NPOL? 20:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
No The purpose of NPOL is to ensure that we have complete coverage of national and sub-national elected officials legislators, judges, and executive officials. State or province-wide party leadership should continue to be judged by GNG/NBASIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Just a note, NPOL does not mention "elected", only "legislative bodies". A recent example is Darline Graham who was not elected but is serving in the US legislature. I think the point of NPOL is those who represent and can make laws impacting their constituents at the state or national level, regardless of party affiliation (i.e. their decisions impact the represented group, not just the party). S0091 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No. These are often not public-facing and public-elected so they do not have the automatic visibility of national and subnational leaders. They can continue to be covered by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No severely lacks a global view of various political systems. many which are not democratic much less a two-party systems and gets us into the quagmire of what is a "leader" and a "major party". S0091 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No. I agree with voorts, David Eppstein, S0091, and Yesterday. These individuals are often obscure even within their own state. There is no presumption of notability and they should be held to GNG. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No NPOL is too broad as it is. Covering people who do not make law nor governmental decision is exccessive. If they are truly notable, they will meet WP:GNG. If their position is notable, the position can have its own article with list of position holders. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No per voorts, David Eppstein, S0091, and Yesterday. Many party leaders will meet GNG and there is no reason to presume notability for holding this party office (especially for someone who is temporary). --Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No. I haven't seen an articulation of what problem is being solved here. Are we lacking meaningful content because there are many state party leaders who have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Davidwbaker (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No I'd add that an implicit point of NPOL (which applies equally to members of the judiciary) is that it accords notability because of the universal (jurisdictional) power vested in persons within specific offices; something clearly absent in the role of a political party chair. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No NPOL is fine the way it is and I agree that most people covered under this guideline would be incredibly obscure. Lynch4413:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
'Official website' in infobox for deceased individuals
I first noticed this in relation to the Charlie Kirk biography, but it seems likely that the same issue must arise elsewhere. The documentation for template:Infobox person states "Official website only", and Wikipedia:External links states the following:
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
Given that Kirk is deceased, he clearly is no longer in control of the website linked (www.charliekirk.com ), and the website now contains significant content on topics that have arisen since his death. I raised this at Talk:Charlie Kirk, and there has been some rather inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links, but nothing concrete arrived at, and accordingly I'd like to know how the broader community thinks such situations should be dealt with. In my opinion, we seem to need some form of clarification of general policy on this matter, since it appears that such 'official' links in infoboxes for the deceased aren't unusual. If this is actually the case, and this is seen as acceptable, I think we should at least be giving some guidance as to when such treatment is conmsidered appropriate and then making it clear to readers on what basis the website is provided. As of now, practice appears to be running in contradiction to a policy that seems unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Individuals' estates can control their intellectual property/brand after death. I don't see the issue with linking to an official website of a deceased person. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I've been involved in the discussion at the Kirk talk page. I agree with voorts that we should normally assume that these websites continue to be controlled by the deceased's estate, and that they can remain "official" for our purposes under most circumstances. I would carve out an exception for the (probably rare) instances where we have reliable sourcing that the website has been taken over after the death, by some party that is no longer friendly to the deceased, and might be taking the website in directions that would be contrary to the deceased's wishes. I wouldn't mind clarifying that exception in the policy, but I do regard it as something that would be unusual. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I don't think that 'continue to be controlled by the deceased's estate' is really a thing, legally. A deceased persons estate is the property they owned. It isn't a legal entity. Such property will be passed on to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
And normally the estate is established by the person's will, so it will be assigned to trusted surviving relatives. I do realize that there can be (rare) exceptions where, over time, ownership of the estate passes from one to another and eventually becomes at odds with the deceased person. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
How about we stay on topic? If 'estates' are relevant to this discussion at all, it is only if and when it can be shown that they are actually in control of the website in question. And even then, if that is the case for a specific website, shouldn't we be clarifying who is running the website? This is the issue I'm trying to get resolved in this discussion, and it really isn't helped by people invoking hypothetical 'estates', 'trusts' etc. We have a policy saying one thing. We appear to have articles applying something else. Why is it so difficult to discuss the issue directly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I am staying on topic. It is my view that we should allow external links to the official websites of deceased persons where those websites are run by their estates or some other relevant organization (e.g., if a musician's website is run by their label before and after death). An estate is usually "controlled by the subject" because it's created in line with their will. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that is where I would land as well. For well known public figures, it can be assumed official websites and the like will be run by the estate of that person unless shown otherwise. As the estate is setup by the person and acts as an extention of their will, im not even sure its really in conflict with the guideline. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I'm not going to respond further to unsourced commentary about hypothetical estates, and even more hypothetical commentary about the terms under which they might be administered. I started this discussion in the hope that a mismatch between policy and practice could be resolved, and as far as I'm concerned, debating about imagined legal entities has never been seen as an appropriate way to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't feel strongly about this, but my thoughts center on the article being a biography about a person. Once that person dies, that individual ceases to control the content on the website. The estate may control the site, but the article is not about the estate. New content on the site won't be controlled by the subject of the article, and may even run counter to the intentions of the subject. I'd recommend removing the link from the infobox. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A quick look at the infobox websites from the bio's you linked suggests that many are strictly commercial enterprises, serving almost entirely as sales outlets. Is that the intended purpose of such links? I'd always assumed that the purpose of an 'official link' in a biography was to help readers find out more about the what subject has to say themselves, rather than as a link to a sales platform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm guessing that most official websites of notable persons are (1)not actually maintained by that person and (2)designed to encourage readers to hand over money, such as by buying an album or a book, hiring someone for their services, or making a political contribution. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that's generally true once you get beyond the very-small-business level. However, being directly maintained by a notable individual is far more work than being controlled by that individual. If you hire the person who does the maintaining, then you're still in control, even if all you do is occasionally glance over a few proposals or send a text message saying "I want you to put something like ____ on the site during my big speech next Saturday". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would think a great many official websites for living individuals serve a commercial interest. It's a stretch to say that ladygaga.com or beyonce.comgive the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. The same policy provision also applies to brands and e-commerce sites like Amazon.com, where the official site has an explicitly commercial purpose. An official website seems to be a piece of basic information that is included by convention, regardless of the encyclopedic value of the site's content (barring certain restrictions, of course). —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Is anyone willing to actually discuss the substantive issue here: that we have an unambiguous mismatch between a policy, which states that an 'official website' must be controlled by the article subject, and practice, which seems to completely disregard this requirement? Or is the consensus that we should ignore this, and hope it goes away? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I say we amend the guideline to include trusts or their estates. They were created by the person while alive for the express purpose of representing their interests after death. PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I assume we are going to need evidence that such 'trusts and estates' exist, and have been created for such purposes? Because so far, I've seen no evidence of any such trust or estate being in control of any of the 'official websites' for the articles discussed so far, never mind any evidence that they are representing any specific interests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Ronald Reagan links to "official sites" in the External links section and the first is the Reagan Foundation. Richard Nixon also has an "official sites" subsection in the External links and links separately to an official White House biography, the Nixon Library and Museum, and the Nixon Foundation. Jahaza (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Good. Meanwhile, for none of the examples so far discussed in this thread (Kirk, Bowie, Lennon, Jackson etc) has anyone provided evidence of a 'trust' or 'estate' operating under the terms proposed ('representing their interests after death'). Do you think it reasonable that including an 'official website' link in an infobox for a deceased individual should require such evidence or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd hope he did. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that he made provisions for any sort of 'trust' or whatever regarding his website, though with regard to Kirk, I suspect, looking at www.charliekirk.com/about-charlie-kirk, the website may well actually belong to Turning Point USA. This isn't just about Kirk though, and I don't think it is particularly helpful to get into specifics. The policy/practice mismatch is a general issue, and not a single-article one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
OK, I think it's clear that there won't be consensus for saying that we can only have links to websites when the person is still alive, so the question of a solution seems to me to come down to having some additional language to clarify when the website of a deceased person might not be allowed. If you were to propose some specific language for that purpose, I think other editors would be able to engage with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
First of all, you brought up the purported purpose of official links, and in a manner that suggested this is relevant to interpreting their appropriateness in articles, so it is natural that people would respond. We're trying to get a handle on the scope of the issue, in service of understanding whether the policy is at odds with actual practice and, if so, what direction a solution would take. Provisionally, I agree with you that the practice appears to run afoul of the plain reading of one part of the guidance—controlled by the subject, which is defined per the piped links as an organization or corporation or a living or recently deceased person. Understanding how and why such links are actually used is helpful in determining whether there is an actual problem and identifying potential solutions. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If such foundations have been set up, it is clearly something we should take into account for a particular article. We'd need evidence first though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Not a general process, no. I'd assume that beyond looking for sources (i.e., the website being linked from WP:RS, and if in doubt maybe checking who the domain is registered too, though that can be problematic), we'd tend to assume that if the website linked isn't the subject's, they'd complain. Not 100% foolproof, but at least we know who the owner is supposed to be. In the situation we are discussing (i.e. deceased subjects), we can't just assume that some hypothetical foundation or whatever is in control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Why not? Thats what we do now with most official websites. Assume the subject is in control. Also do you not think these trusts or foundations are like a real thing? You keep using terms like hypothetical, scare quotes, and saying its property and not a legal entity that make me not sure you fully understand what they are or how they operate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I say 'hypothetical' because people keep suggesting that a trust or foundation exists in relation to a specific deceased individual's website, without providing any evidence. As a general principle, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not vague claims about things that might possibly exist. And in any case, regardless of whether such a trust/foundation exists, it isn't the article subject, and policy as it stands says that the website must be controlled by the subject. Not by anyone or anything else. 'The subject'. Whom we can definitively say is not 'in control', being dead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I assume the vast majority of official websites are added unceremoniously. They are usually obvious and not the sort of thing one gives a lot of thought to needing to verify. In the (presumably rare) case that the official website is questioned, it is either removed or discussed. I think there should be some reason to question the ownership, or some other concern about the website itself, other than the person having died. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The reason to 'question the ownership' (or more relevant, 'control', since that is what policy specifies) for an infobox link for a dead person seems self evident. They can't be controlling it, which is a requirement for its inclusion, under policy. If you think this policy needs changing, fine. Make a proposal to change it. But please stop pretending the requirement doesn't exist. It does, and it is unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My inclination is probably not in the infobox for deceased individuals (or individual officeholders who no longer hold that position and defunct corporations). I agree with Myceteae that these links are no longer controlled by the subject, and become disconnected with the subject. I have no problem with these links being in the "External Link" section, but I think they should be removed from the infobox. --Enos733 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I agree with this. Once the person is deceased, they no longer have control/a say in how they want their "official website" to look, function, etc. Sure, they could possibly leave a note to their loved ones, friends, marketing team or whoever, instructing them to manage their website a particular way after their death, but there's no guarantee that the group will actually follow through with the dead person's requests. So I would support removing the "Website" parameter off the infoboxes of deceased individuals' biographies. Some1 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the issue concerns using "official" to describe the link and that no one has seriously suggested removing the link. A website controlled by others cannot be official. Should editors monitor a website every month to determine whether its message still corresponds to those that the subject would have? Just provide the link and let readers work out if a legal entity set up by the subject is still running the site in accordance with the subject's wishes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The infobox link isn't actually labelled 'official': it's the placement that is really the issue, since it's presence there implies some sort of official status that other websites don't have. And it appears that this implication is being exploited for commercial reasons: e.g. the Hendrix biography mentioned above has a link, despite Hendrix dying in 1970, long before websites were a thing. And as much as the Sony Corporation would no doubt like to represent themselves as trustees of Jimmy's legacy, I can't think of any good reason why we should be offering them free links for their products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I See that Janis Joplin appears also to have had the foresight to provide for a website on her demise, which occurred the same year as Jimmy. Were they perhaps informed of future technology by a time traveller? Or do the Sony Corporation and whoever it is that runs janisjoplin.com (your guess is as good as mine) own Ouija boards, and allow 'control' from the beyond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Obviously, a dead person's website isn't controlled by that person. So obviously, the considerations that led Wikipedians to say "Official website only" don't apply in the same way. Duh.
Separately, and this is probably just me: I loathe the use of "individuals" to mean "people". It's like saying "utilize" instead of "use": just needless syllables. Wikipedia's badly-written enough without calling a spade an earth-inverting horticultural implement.—SMarshallT/C09:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
So how should Wikipedia be dealing with this situation? What should we do to rectify a badly-written policy that doesn't match what people are claiming is normal practice? Or is it the practice that is the problem, rather than the policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Personally, I think we should update the documentation for Template:Infobox person to say "leave blank if the person is dead or long-term missing".—SMarshallT/C12:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yup, I'm coming around to much the same conclusion myself. I intentionally held off making any specific suggestions initially, in the hope that some sort of consensus might arise, but it seems there are really only two camps on this: those who take the policy at face value, and accordingly only consider an infobox appropriate for those who at least have the potential to control a website on the basis of not being dead, and those who would rather that mortality didn't come into it, and are happy for commercial enterprises, and/or trusts and foundations that may or may not exist, should be permitted to pretend that they are the living embodiment of the deceased. And no, I'm not going to apologise for sarcasm here, given the way people have trotted out arguments based solely on hypotheticals, while ignoring evidence that such links are being exploited for purposes other than that intended. Maybe we need an RfC on this, though as I see it, the status quo isn't really an option, given its unresolved and contradictory state. If anyone can offer actual suggestions for a policy change (or clarification, if they wish to see it that way) that permits infobox links for deceased individuals under appropriate circumstances, we can consider that, but first we'd need a suggestion regarding what is 'appropriate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Are you suggesting that Wikipedia:External links should be ignored? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (which most definitely is policy) seems to suggest otherwise: e.g. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Hard to reconcile that with e.g. the links in the Joplin or Hendrix infoboxes. Jimmy Hendrix isn't the Sony Corporation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not what I said at all. You keep mis-stating what others are saying and why they are saying it and then saying its going against policy. WP:EL is not policy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't see any compelling reason we shouldn't link these websites. It seems useful to the reader to see what their estate, or family, or etc, present, for the same reason it did as when they were alive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As Dionysodorus and I agreed at Talk:Charlie Kirk, the guideline does not require removal. It says editors "should" add links to an official website, but it does not say that only official links are permitted, nor does it say that formerly-official links should/must be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm thinking a lot of this comes down to how we link to the website, as opposed to whether or not to link to it. I just looked at all the documentation for Template:Infobox person. (It has laughably many parameters, including things like whether to include inches in how tall someone is.) So, when we put such a url in the template, it gets displayed as "Website", not "official website", so readers are not exactly being told that the deceased person is still controlling the website, although we can certainly question whether that's implied. When I scroll way, way down, and find the instructions, however, it says: "Official website only. Unofficial websites should be placed under External links in the body of the article." It doesn't define "official" and "unofficial", and readers don't see those instructions. I'm asking myself if the official website of a living person becomes an unofficial website following that person's death, and it does not make sense to me to say that it does. For it to make that change, from official to unofficial, I would want to see reliable sourcing that tells me that the nature of the website has changed, as opposed to having Wikipedia make an automatic presumption of change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Right after posting that, I realized that I should also look again at WP:ELOFFICIAL, where official and unofficial actually are defined. And I'm thinking that a significant part of the problem here is the choice of words there, that says: "is controlled by the subject", and how that bumps up against the nonsensical situation of a dead person "controlling" anything. That guideline section deals with other things besides persons (fan sites and such), where it makes sense to frame things in terms of the verb "control", but we get into a problem here. The guideline section already talks about situations where an "official" website has been hijacked. Perhaps some clarifying language needs to be added there, that addresses websites that continue to be faithful to what a person would have wanted, after that person has died and no longer controls the website. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the guideline says the website must be "official" and meet the other two criteria. The discussion of fansites is instructive. Not that a website run by the family/trust/estate/whatever is equivalent to a fansite, but the guidance is explicit in repeating the control criterion when addressing another situation where one might argue that a website has something close to "official" or authorized status. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Nope. The guideline doesn't say that an infobox is only allowed to have official links. Some infoboxes' /doc pages say that, but the guideline itself doesn't. The guideline itself only says that links in infoboxes have to be "appropriate": "include appropriate external links in an External links section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well the part of the guideline that has caused all this discussion says: The official website should be included in infoboxes such as {{Infobox company}}, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. If it's being over-interpreted then that is what needs to be clarified. It also does explicitly define criteria to be considered "official", which are relevant if it's an exception to links that should normally be avoided, whether it appears in the infobox or § External links or both. These criteria would seem to be critical to the determination of appropriate and within an infobox, if applicable in the section you quoted. And the widespread practice and apparent interpretation, which is the other thing that's under discussion here, appears to be that we only put "official" websites in infoboxes and not other links like IMDb that are fine for § External links, and so again, if it's been misinterpreted, it's good that we are clarifying. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, the guideline indicates that there are circumstances under which an official link should be included, but does not say anything about removing the link later. It would be silly, for example, to remove the name of a website from Category:Defunct online companies, and essentially impossible when the website and the company have the same name. We might make it non-clickable, or we might replace it with an archived copy (if there's a decent one available), but the guideline doesn't say that it needs to be removed.
I'm more interested in the widespread practice, which is to keep websites for individuals so long as they still work (e.g., not usurped by WP:JUDI). We can change the words of the guideline, if someone really needs to be explicitly told "If someone dies, or if an organization closes, then it's still okay to keep the same website in the infobox, if it points to something relevant." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I, too, am more interested in the widespread practice. I think we're on the same page there. Editors have an intuitive sense of what constitutes "official". Our guideline defines this in a way that probably works for the vast majority of living subjects but falls apart for deceased subjects and possibly other situations. The stated definition/criteria issue goes beyond the infobox. As a general matter, I don't think we should have guidelines that don't reflect widespread practice. But it's not clear what set of explicit criteria would be workable and actually helpful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem that I see here is that someone is asserting that a website that does not meet the ELOFFICIAL definition must be removed. Note the gap between the guideline indicating that it's not ELOFFICIAL any longer and the conclusion drawn (by at least one editor) that no-longer-official websites cannot be linked.
I think there are three ways that we could address this.
We could update the Template:Infobox person/doc to say that their "official" isn't limited to the definition in WP:ELOFFICIAL, and editors should use their best judgment to decide what constitutes the official website for a person (deceased or otherwise) for whom no ELOFFICIAL website exists.
Expand WP:ELOFFICIAL to say something like "Wikipedia does not have, and has never had, a rule saying that only official websites may be linked to in an article, including in infoboxes." Consider, e.g., {{Infobox company}}, which has an external link to a stock ticker, not to mention {{chembox}}, which is basically a mass of external links.
Expand WP:ELOFFICIAL significantly to say how to determine which website(s) are the ELOFFICIAL websites for deceased people, defunct companies, etc.
All your options imply that, if we adjust the guideline, we ought to be doing so in such a way as to make it clearer that infoboxes can or should include links to websites that belong to the subject but have been modified after the subject's death. But I think it's fairly clear from the discussion that quite a few editors here are not comfortable with this practice, and might prefer for the guideline to be adapted in the opposite direction, in such a way as to discourage the continued inclusion of such links in infoboxes, or at least in such a way as to encourage caution about doing so. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Taking together every diverse opinion given in this discussion, I think our best option is to expand ELOFFICIAL, rather than to revise the infobox documentation, and I think that doing so, in some way, is going to be necessary. The question is what to put there, and how to frame it. I think the focus should be on websites of persons who are deceased or who in some other way no longer "control" the website, and I think we should allow for some case-by-case decision-making. I don't think we should be too rigid in what we lay out, because editors really do seem to disagree on a lot. Perhaps make clear how "control" becomes complicated in such situations, and give editors some leeway in deciding what is best on a given page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree. I think we should allow for some flexibility here. We should workshop some "Goldie Locks" general guidance that's not too rigid but also doesn't leave things so wide open as to generate more disputes than it resolves. Recognizing that not everyone agrees, we may need an RFC that proposes two or three alternatives: one that is more restrictive than the current practice, one or two "Goldie Locks" versions that allow for websites of the deceased with modest guardrails, and maybe some other approach. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Avoiding an RFC is desirable. If we can get to an agreement about whether the deciding factor is degree of change since the person's death vs. a site that is continuously updated "in their interest", that would be great. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Would that prevent or resolve disputes? Or would we have someone saying "My political opponent has been dead for n days, and they've already made too many changes – look, there's information about the funeral on it now!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I also wonder: Would this question have been asked about a company that closed a few months ago, but whose old website was still working and showing the same information? Do editors argue over whether the rules "require" the removal of websites for recently deceased celebrities, or musicians, or authors? I don't remember seeing significant disputes about this in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
These are all good questions. Maybe we should just eliminate the definition of "official website" entirely. Maybe more instruction is unhelpful here but I don't think we should maintain a guideline that doesn't match actual practice. Does the current guideline prevent or resolve disputes, or do people just not consult it because editors have an intuition about what constitutes an "official website" that ends up being uncontroversial 99% of the time? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There's a saying in academia that arguments between faculty members are so heated because the stakes are so low, and I'm inclined to think that the same can be said about the number of times this discussion has zigzagged back and forth. I'm against removing the definition of "official website", because having some sort of reasonable definition makes it harder for POV pushers to demand that we link to some site that we should not. I think this actually comes down to whether we should revise the definition to address some of the concerns that have been raised here, or just leave things as they are and move on. And I don't care which one of those we do.
I agree with WAID that we really don't see arguments about this stuff very often, which suggests to me that the current system is not seriously broken. On the other hand, I see merit in the arguments that have been made, that "control" can be a problem that would benefit from clarification. As I see it, the concern about an editor arguing about a political opponent's website is something that has to be argued case-by-case, but clarifying "control" would make those disputes easier to handle, not more difficult. As for including defunct companies and organizations along with deceased people in a clarification, it doesn't strike me as an urgent problem, but I think it would be fine to do that, and would not be particularly difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I agree that the stakes are fairly low here and I agree it's not urgent. I think some sort of update that more accurately matches actual practice would still be good. It's possible the such a change will lead to a critical reexamination of links in a number of articles initially. That would not necessarily be a bad thing. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have suggested at Talk:Charlie Kirk#'Official website' and YouTube channel that perhaps it might be appropriate to link to the archived version of the website, as it was at the time of Kirk's death. If it seems like a good idea, one possibility might be to change the guideline in such a way as to suggest that, in cases where a dead subject's website changes significantly after a person's death, it might in general be appropriate to link to the archived version rather than the current version. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I disagree with equating family or estate with fans at a fan site. For our purposes, fan sites resemble user-generated content. Any random person purporting to be a fan can change what it says at such sites. It normally will not be like that for the website of a dead person, where (if) the estate is closely watching that it remains faithful to that person's wishes.
As for using archive links, that's a worthwhile idea. But we should also consider when archives are out-of-date, while the current website is still controlled by people close to the deceased person's wishes, as well as when archives are difficult to load. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I can think of a whole platoon of special cases and what-ifs with that. It might well need some editorial judgment to decide the exact version we should link to. I'm saying that what works in Charlie Kirk's case won't necessarily generalize very well. In Charlie Kirk's case we have the exact date and time of his death, which helps. But people also die or vanish in less well documented circumstances.—SMarshallT/C21:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Tryptofish: I suppose we could write something like "In cases where the subject of the article is deceased, it may be appropriate to continue to include a live link to the subject's website if this has been maintained largely as it was at the time of the subject's death, but if the website has been substantially changed following the subject's death it may be appropriate to use an archived link to the website as it was when the subject died." That would cover the difficulties to which you refer, leaving appropriate room for editorial discretion. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I'm thinking along those lines. Maybe it needs some wordsmithing, but I think brainstorming along those lines might address Andy's concerns, and be able to get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think we are in the position to determine whether a website was "substantially changed." We have a hard enough time dealing with our own policies. As I stated upthread, I think the bigger concern is continuing to link to the website in the infobox. - Enos733 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
“But if reliable sources report that the website has been substantially changed following the subject's death […]”
I think for post-mortem removal of official links, the burden of proof has to be on the side of removal. Inclusion should be the status quo.
It is not notable to report that “XX’s website continues to be representative of XX”, and RS should not be expected to divert resources to report that kind of trivia.
But it is notable to report that “XX’s website does not continue to be representative of XX”, and when RS report that, we should remove the official link. Mikewem (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not suggesting that we should require reliable sources to determine whether the website has changed substantially or not: that would be absurd, since (as you say) this is not the kind of thing that reliable sources would discuss. Rather, I am suggesting that editors should exercise their judgement as to whether the website has changed substantially or not, and use the archived link if it has: in most cases this is likely to be obvious and uncontroversial, and if it is controversial in a given case it can be resolved through the normal consensus or dispute resolution processes.
It would be odd if we required reliable sources for such a purpose as this. We require reliable sources for content, but in general we make our own judgements about what content, sources and links are appropriate or inappropriate to include, precisely because reliable sources in their nature do not usually specify this for us. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, no, I don't think they should. In my view, the link in Janis Joplin's infobox should be removed (or, at least, should not be presented as an "official website", even if the website presents itself as such), since there is no sense in which it can be controlled by the singer herself, as WP:ELOFFICIAL requires. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If someone has been dead for a very long time but had a web presence during their lifetime, following this approach, then it is probably reasonable to go ahead and remove these links, too. I suppose an exception would be if it has clearly been left largely untouched, functioning almost like an archive even if not, strictly speaking, an archived page. For example, I don't know what Aaliyah.com looked like in 2001. I suspect she had an official website before her death. This has a fairly modern look and feel, so a reasonable default assumption is that it has substantially changed, though I'm not sure I could prove it another editor disputed removing the site from her infobox. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Looks like the fansite was at AaliyahOnline.com, which is no longer live, not Aaliyah.com. Anyway, I don't mean to dwell on this specific example, just trying to think through how the current guidance and any potential change to it is supposed to apply to such cases. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I feel we should perhaps talk about the case of people who don't control their website because of mental or legal capacity in a separate discussion. It's relatively easy to think about for children or people who're in a coma or who've disappeared, but we don't want Wikipedians trying to diagnose people's mental health on the basis of news reports.—SMarshallT/C21:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think, again, that would depend on whether or not whoever was running the website was acting in her interests. Part of my point above was that "control" means different things when we are talking about individual people, and the guideline wording may not currently get that right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In response to both replies above, I don't want to derail this focused conversation but I find these issues highly relevant and I don't think the determination is necessarily simple. In the case of Spears, she was quite explicitly and legally not in control of "official" communications. This requires no armchair "diagnosis" by Wikipedians. On the other hand, legally, this was considered to be "in her interest". The particulars surrounding Spears, as with Kirk or any other individual, may or may not generalize. As for children and people in comas, it's not obvious to me that these are easy, either. I don't want to get too in the weeds on other test cases but we should be considering the full scope of the guideline whether we decide to maintain the current wording or amend it to address deaths. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Under the rule as currently written, the link should generally go. The phrase "controlled by" is a link to WP:BLP. BLP has some rules for dead people but it cannot be stretched to indefinitely alive, like an estate or license holder may be. (There are probably some estates, or estate like orgs, that because of what they get up to may be independently notable but the article is not about the estate.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(As an aside, the purpose of an estate is not to act in the interests of the dead person, it is to act in the interests of the beneficiaries, who are living.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think you mean the executor or trustee in certain situations with certain kinds of estates, depending on how they were setup. But more basically, a notable person might set one up to monetize, control, and protect their posthumous identity and intellectual property.
I guess the important question at the end of the day is if it has value to the readers, less so what a template or guideline say since neither really cover this situation directly.
I agree that the important question at the end of the day is if it has value to the readers. Both template documentation and guideline wording can be changed to recommend that editors follow the community's ordinary practice, which appears to be keeping the links so long as they're still working/relevant/not usurped by a spammer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I meant estates or post death trusts. The estate or trust is legally alienated from the person who sets it up to benefit the interests of the beneficiaries. So, the control is placed with the trustee or estate manager or executor to benefit the interests of the beneficiaries. The trustee, etc. assesses fees and costs against the trust to fund their control and administration (they generally pay themselves and other professional services out of the trust which may be a fixed percent plus outside fees). The dead person is, well dead. The benefit of monetizing the dead's intellectual property, promoting what the image of the dead is, is in the main to fund the interests of their beneficiaries. (And especially with a dead person with fans, you see claims the trust/estate is ruining the legacy by their alleged greed).
As to your second and third point, I was conceding that under the rule as currently written which refers to BLP, the OP has a point. If anyone wants to rewrite the rule, they need to propose it, and deal with the inevitable discussion of whether the promotion should be sanctioned in rule, and how to identify the correct link and do the benefits outweigh the risks. (Given we don't even require an infobox, at all, it seems hard to make the argument its value is overwhelming, but whether it is enough will be up to the rule adopters/consensus makers.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that the policy should be rewritten to allow for official websites of people who are dead, and also people who don't control their own official website (mentioned by Myceteae above, I completely agree that this is relevant to the discussion). As pointed out, in practice editors do include official websites in these cases, and policy and guidance should reflect that. It's more difficult to define exactly what does and doesn't constitute an "official website" in these cases, so I think it's probably best to provide examples (e.g. run directly by the person's estate or a trust created by them or their family; existing official websites that continue to be run by the same entity, such as publishers, record labels, etc.), and allow discussions to determine this by consensus on a case-by-case basis. --YodinT19:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I wonder what would be lost if this phrase were deleted from every lead sentence. I would bet a nickel that more movies / tv series / videogames display their titles in caps than otherwise; it don't mean nothin. —Antonissimo (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Relevant guideline here is MOS:STYLIZED. I am quite sympathetic to your complaint here. I would try to see if the third paragraph of MOS:STYLIZED applies to the subjects of the articles you're seeing this on: When a stylization appears only in a logo rather than within text (in either primary or independent reliable sources), it generally does not need to be mentioned at the top of the article. That could be your grounds to remove the phrase. Mz7 (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it's a reasonable thing to make note of, in cases where the all caps (or other styling) is reasonably common in prose. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
+1 Having a default way of handling this helps resolve disputes, one of the core purposes of having a documented guideline. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Redaction of username from all edits and logs when blocking
Hi everyone! I've mentioned this idea before, and I recently noticed that an open discussion was held regarding the bureaucrat role on this page. It inspired me to start this discussion and see what others think. Like the bureaucrat discussion, this one is intended to be open-ended; it does not come with any specific proposal attached.
A little background: currently, oversighters can suppress the username of an account from all edits and logs when applying an indefinite block, which also removes the account from the list of users. This option also extends to stewards, who can do the same thing on a global level.
I originally suggested extending a similar option to administrators (and likewise expanding it for stewards globally) a few years ago after noticing that stewards would sometimes globally suppress accounts whose usernames, while extremely disruptive and clearly inappropriate to leave publicly visible, (in my opinion) did not rise to the level that warranted suppression. I reached out to them about this — not to complain or start a riot or anything like that, but as a precursor to present this idea as a possible solution.
Now, let me say this: I totally get it. I completely understand why global suppression would become an attractive option in situations where a username clearly should be redacted but does not actually require suppression. It would be ridiculous to expect a steward to manually redact the username on every project, one at a time, simply because there is no equivalent option available when globally blocking an account. I don't have the examples with me at the moment, but I included a handful of them when I first reached out about this, and I think most people would agree that there would be no argument for keeping those usernames publicly visible, but they did not warrant suppression.
That brings me to my idea: what are your thoughts on extending a version of the suppression option to administrators when applying an indefinite block to an account? It would do the exact same thing but would use revision deletion rather than suppression to redact the username from edits and log entries. My initial thought is that it would not hide the account from the list of users like the suppression option does, but like I said: this is an open-ended discussion, and I'm interested in hearing other ideas and perspectives.
Likewise, a similar option could be extended to stewards when applying global blocks. Rather than relying on global suppression, they could apply global revision deletion to redact usernames from edits and logs across all Wikimedia projects while still allowing local admins to review and manage any issues according to their own policies and processes.
I know that many admins have different levels of involvement in dealing with LTA disruption and abuse, but I often encounter situations where an LTA creates numerous accounts with blatantly abusive usernames that need redaction. Having the ability to redact those usernames from edits and logs at the time of an indefinite block would be extremely useful as well as much more efficient. It can be tedious and sometimes very time-consuming to manually remove the username from every edit and log entry, especially when one or two more abusive accounts created by the same LTA appear in the account creation log and start causing disruption while you're still cleaning up after the first mess!
Overall, I think this option would be very useful for administrators and would allow them to respond much more efficiently to blatant username violations and blatant LTA username abuse. Just like with all other administrator actions, its use would be publicly logged and easily reviewed and scrutinized, and the potential for abuse of it would be very low. An administrator who wanted to misuse revision deletion could already do so using the existing tools they already have access to; this option would simply streamline a process and take the tediousness (as well as the possibility of accidentally leaving the username public in some areas and missing a few places) out of the equation.
That's my idea, and I'd like to open the floor for discussion.
Sounds like a good idea to me. Would it extend to edit summaries? I've found that sometimes it is time consuming also having to revision-delete the edit summaries from other edits where the LTA has been reverted and the edit-summary reads "Reverted edits by BadName001 to revision XYZ". Black Kite (talk)11:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Black Kite - The suppression option available to oversighters does not remove the username from any edit summaries that contain the account's username. Under the hood, the suppression option triggers a script that pulls the user's contributions and all logs that are associated with the account, and suppresses the username from them. Because edit summaries only contain an internal link to the account's user or user talk page when referenced, it doesn't show up in simple searches like user contributions or logs associated with the account do. You'll still need to find and redact the username from any edit summaries in edit histories or other places. However, I don't see this as a reason to oppose the idea. Even if the option doesn't remove the username from edit summaries, it removes it from pretty much everything else - and is a good start compared to not having it as an option at all.;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Allowing admins to automatically revdel usernames would also mitigate the issue of global suppression not working when the target has already been locally blocked (phab:T25310). Johannnes89 (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) Xaosflux - The primary purpose of this discussion is to get input and thoughts regarding the idea to take the option that's available for oversighters to suppress the username from all edits and logs when applying an indefinite block, and extend it so that administrators also have this option available - but where revision deletion is used to redact the username from all edits and logs instead of suppression. I would also add that the option extended to administrators would not hide the username from the list of users, but again - that's also open to input and thoughts. I didn't have any specific thoughts in mind regarding any amendments, additions or expansion of the current criteria for redaction (at last not at the moment).;-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If this leads to a workflow where User:Admin blocks User:User on wheels on wheels on wheels , then hides the log of who they blocked - I'm not sure that is a great idea for transparency. — xaosfluxTalk12:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Xaosflux - The idea is not intended to create any new workflows or processes; it simply adds an option for administrators to revision delete the username from edits and logs when blocking the account. Referring to your example: an administrator can currently (and could still) redact the user they blocked from the log manually; adding this option wouldn't change that fact. This idea just creates an option to redact an abusive username more quickly and efficiently in cases where the username should not be public in any edits or logs, but where suppression isn't warranted either... if that makes sense. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, if you just want a tool to automate what is already permitted under policy, we don't really need a policy discussion - just a feature request. — xaosfluxTalk13:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Maybe idea lab?:) Tooling creation is usually one of two ways: (a) scripts-->gadgets; anyone can write this sort of tool; (b) wikimedia features - these have a longer lead time and need software developers to champion. — xaosfluxTalk13:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oshwah, I left a broader comment on this at the idea lab, but since the policy bit was brought up here, I do want to state that I do not think there’s any current basis in policy for an admin to do what you’re suggesting short of suppression, and I don’t think policy should be amended to permit it. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oversighters already have the ability to do what Oshwah is talking about. It’s rarely done, because most of the time you flag down a steward for a lock-suppress, but there are rare cases where it’s useful for an OS’er to do it pending a steward (example: User:Well known and publicly identified user is a pedophile.) I don’t really see much of a point extending the revdel version of this to admins, honestly. The whole point of suppression is that it’s so bad an admin should not be able to see it, and I can’t think of any examples of usernames that would warrant revdel from all public logs but not suppression. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Better handling of community ban/block appeals
There are seven appeals of sitewide ban/block in Administrators' noticeboard last month (Bes2224, Tiipu, MoonknightPP34, ElectricShock53, Zubarkokar, Bmona12, NomanPK44). Three of them are (once) automatically archived by bot before being closed by admin (as is one current topic ban appeal: Rathfelder). If user is formally appealing their sanction, they may want a definite answer. So proposed:
Any appeals of bans and blocks in AN should not be automatically archived until decided (i.e. formally closed) by an admin. This can be accomplished by something like {{pin}}, or by the second proposal here.
I don't think a separate noticeboard is a good idea. Routine use of a template like {{pin}} or {{DNAU}} would be better. I agree it is undesirable for these to be auto-archived without a clear outcome. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Allow admins to provisionally suspend community sanctions
Administrators are allowed to provisionally suspend a block or community ban (either partial or sitewide, including 3X ban), if all of these conditions meet:
There is an appeal on Administrators' noticeboard regarding such block or ban which is open for at least 24 hours;
No user is explicitly opposing lifting the sanction (merely raising a concern does not count);
If the user is blocked as CheckUser/Oversight/ArbCom action, one of member of CheckUser/Oversight/ArbCom is consulted.
Sanctions are suspended unconditionally (i.e. users with suspend community ban are not by policy banned from any topics, unless they have a different existing sanction in parallel), but can be reimposed per the below sections. They should refrain from edit topics that are controversial or they have a record of disruption though.
Once the open appeal is closed by an administrator, its result will replace the provisional suspension; if appeal is archived without formal closure, the suspension persists indefinitely (unless being revoked per the section below).
Any admin can revoke a suspension and therefore reinstate the sanction, if they believe the suspension is inappropriate or if they believe user is edit non-constructively. If a sanction is reinstated, it can not be resuspended unless (1) the admin revoking the suspension agrees or (2) the sanction is eligible to be suspended in another ban appeal.
Note this proposal only authorises admins to suspend community sanctions; no admin is obliged to do so.
The purpose of this proposal is allow banned user to edit before closure of a formal appeal, thus allow banned users to prove they can constructively contribute to Wikipedia. GZWDer (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Unnecessary bureaucracy. If an admin thinks an appeal of a community ban should pass, then they should just close the appeal. Meters (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
So what? I see no reason a valid block or community ban should be overturned based on only 24 hours of discussion and four comments. Sure, there are cases where a new block should be overturned immediately (an obviously mistaken block or an out-of-policy block, for example), but that's not what we are discussing. Meters (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The ban is not considered overturned - I say it is provisionally suspended (which does not mean we already have a consensus); the appeal will leave open and once it is closed (note in section above I propose all appeals must be closed formally) ban will either continue or lifted. GZWDer (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose in general, but I can speak to 3X as I wrote it: the entire point of the policy is that admins should not be unblocking repeat sock masters without seeking community consensus. There had also been a trend at AN during that era of getting repeat socks banned, so it was meant to cut down on that. Anyway, allowing an admin to unblock based on no comment would go against the entire point of any ban (3X or otherwise): the community has decided that their conduct should not permit them to be members of the community, so a positive consensus to readmit, rather than a shrug, is needed to unblock or unban. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If somebody has worn out their welcome enough to be community banned, there is no urgency to let them edit again. A discussion could carry on for a week or two, and that would be soon enough. JehochmanTalk20:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This proposal has a number of potential failure modes I'm concerned about. For instance, suppose someone appeals their ban, but for whatever reason no one comments on the appeal within 24 hours; this would make it permissible to suspend the ban without the appeal receiving any substantive consideration. Or suppose someone's appeal proceeds unopposed for the first 24 hours, and an admin suspends the sanction, but then someone opposes the proposal later. If the opposer isn't an admin themselves, they have no mechanism of revoking the suspension, leaving the banned/blocked user free to edit out of process. Or, as another possibility, suppose an appeal receives support that's contingent upon the imposition of a not-previously-applied topic ban. Should a block-suspending admin unilaterally impose this topic ban, based on the consensus of a discussion that's definitionally not yet closed?I'll grant that many of these issues should be avoidable with careful and conservative use of any block-suspension feature, and I trust our admin corps to use it as such. But they're only human, and the consequences of wrongly suspending sanctions could cause a lot of headaches and wasted time. Why rush these appeals through? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
RfC on removing "Gender" from "Categorizing by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability"
Discussion re RfC on removing "Gender" from "Categorizing by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability"
The WP:EGRS strongly discourages certain types of categories based on an intersection of some other characteristics with characteristics based on "ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability". However, we have countless categories divided by gender, and at CfD discussions, especially about gender, this guideline proves to be problematic or outdated, and seems to indicate that the rule against categorization by gender is not supported or applied widely enough to be in a guideline. In some cases it even leads to sexist different treatment of men and women. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026_May 28#Category:American male rock singers or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 21#Category:Men by role. The times when we removed the category for American male novelists and kept the one for American wome novelists are hopefully far behind us now (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists) Removing it doesn't mean that it suddenly would be always allowed, it would just be treated like any other categorisation, on its own merits but without a prejudice that it probably is wrong. Fram (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Categories. Are the benefits really worth all the strife? I do sometimes wonder.Clearly, sex is more of a defining characteristic for an athlete than it is for, say, a chemist. There's a lot of nuance and I think categorizing people by sex and gender is such a minefield that we ought to have some guidance; this is no task for a newbie. I agree that our current guidance is misleading and needs improvement.—SMarshallT/C11:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
While it may be more defining for an athlete, it was (and in too many cases an countries) is defining in nearly every occupation you can imagine, as evidenced by the many studies and books about e.g. "women in ...". For chemistry, just see the long list of books. Fram (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Categories (other than hidden maintenance categories) are one of Wikipedia's most useless, unused features, and should be retired. Levivich (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I use them occasionally as a reader; though I agree they’re significantly less useful here than on Commons, where they’re the only search feature that remotely gets you what you’re looking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Generally support exporting our categories to Wikidata and ditching it in favor of a more flexible Wikidata-based search. But on the specific question, regarding sexist different treatment of men and women and The times when we removed the category for American male novelists and kept the one for American wome novelists are hopefully far behind us now - are they behind us? As EGRS puts it, the whole reason we create some separate categories is because of special encyclopedic interest, because historically there have been fewer e.g. female heads of government, so we have a non-diffusing category to accommodate people who are interested in that smaller subset while a category for the overwhelming majority of cases isn't that helpful. This is not an issue I've paid attention to in some years, but I only remember a small amount of men's rights outrage about this sort of thing. Is the point of the "American novelists" example that it has expanded to categories that aren't actually so lopsided? —Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The categories are less lopsided than they used to be, but the category guideline hasn't followed, and some editors are more strictly following the guidelines than necessary probably. For example, the Category:American male rock singers discussion I linked to. Before this cat was created, we had "American rock singers" and "American women rock singers", with all the women in the gender-specific category, and all men in the "general" one. The only reason given to get rid of the men subcat (without nominating the women subcat) was EGRS. For me, it's not about men's rights (if anything, the result of EGRS is more often sexism against women), but the outdated nature of it (see also the transgender discussion I linked). Removing G from EGRS doesn't mean that we no longer can get rid of gendered categories when such removal would be beneficial, but it won't be the default position and people will have to make a cogent argument instead of just "fails EGRS" or similar. For example, the nom of Category:Montenegrin women medical doctors will still be as valid after G has been removed from EGRS, it's not some attempt to keep all possible gendered categories no matter what. Fram (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would not necessarily recommend *removing* gender from EGRS, but I would definitely recommend a complete overhaul of the policy. To copy my comment from the talk page:
The guidance here for not having gendered categories unless it is a defining topic seems very poorly followed, and somewhat unclear. For example, there's currently a discussion about the category Category:American male rock singers (which was recently created), versus Category:American rock singers (which only consists of men), versus Category:American women rock singers. The issue is particularly bad because while "American women rock singers" is non-diffusing, almost none of the articles are, leading it to appear as if Wikipedia only considers men to be rock singers.
I'd suggest that we need clearer guidance here about:
Should gendered subcategories be diffusing?
My strong assumption is that they should be non-diffusing, and it's also mentioned in WP:ALLINCLUDED, but it seems like it might also need to be mentioned here as well. In addition, we don't seem to be doing a good job of actually assigning both categories to all articles. For example, the first article in Category:American women rock singers, Sharon Aguilar, is not in Category:American rock singers or any other of its subcategories.
In what circumstances should we have multiple gender categories?
There are a handful of examples listed, but it mostly covers the extreme cases (sportsperson categories, heads of government), and does not give helpful guidance for these much more common cases. After all, almost every category could have some amount of historical bias - for example there has been some history of bias against female rock singers, but perhaps not enough to make it a separate category?
As a general rule, should we use "male" or "female" or "men" or "women"?
There's a wide variety of usage, and it makes navigation difficult. The predominant case seems to be "male" and "women", but this seems to imply that the "male" category includes boys, while the "women" category does not include girls. In addition, some people might take "male" to include non-binary people who were assigned male at birth, while "women" fairly clearly does not include non-binary people who were assigned female at birth.
How do we cover non-binary people?
While this wasn't a large category at the time this guideline was written, there are now quite a few people who identify as non-binary. For example, see Category:American non-binary actors. I don't expect that we need lengthy guidance here, but it's worth mentioning the category at all, rather than only having a binary default.
In conclusion, the current guidance often results in being discriminatory toward women (often treating them as a poor second class of male-by-default "chemists" versus the explicit "female chemist"), it is unclear for many cases, and it doesn't properly account for non-binary people who are an increasingly relevant topic. I don't think we should remove the guidance entirely, since that just makes it so that people need to guess on the correct handling and we'll have a mess of inconsistent categories. Instead, we need to rewrite the guidance to handle these cases properly.
Gbear605 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with Gbear605. What need is clear guidance, not the no guidance proposed here.
In addition to the non-binary people mentioned above need to account for transgender people.
I presume that those who transitioned before they became notable should only be categorised according to the gender they transitioned to? If so is stated anywhere?
What about people who transitioned after they ceased the activity for which they are categorised? e.g. should Caitlyn Jenner be categorised as a male decathlete, a female decathlete, or only as a decathlete?
What about those who transitioned during their period of activity? e.g. should Elliot Page be categorised as a male actor, a female actor, both or neither?
If we have categories for only one gender, how do we categorise people who transition to that gender? e.g. if we have categories "Chemists" and "Female chemists" how should we categorise chemists who are trans men? Does it make a difference if they were notable before their transition?
Note that while most transgender people regard themselves as always having been the gender they transitioned to (e.g. most trans woman regard themselves as always having been female) this is not universally true - some regard themselves has previously being e.g. male and now being e.g. female.
It is probably also worth discussing whether the usual size considerations should apply to gendered subcategories, and if not what alternative guideline should there be? e.g. if we have articles about 600 men who were Foo but only 3 articles about women who were Foo, should we still create two gendered subcategories? Does it matter if there is a possibility of more articles about women who were Foo being written (e.g it might be that there were only ever 603 people who were Foo, and no new people will become Foo)? Does it matter if the gender balance is inverted (i.e. there were 600 women who were Foo and only 3 men)?
Looks like the redlink uses <ahref="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Edittttor?action=edit&redlink=1">, which isn't properly detected by the markblocked gadget. If I switch from Parsoid to the legacy parser, the link becomes <ahref="/w/index.php?title=User:Edittttor&action=edit&redlink=1"> instead, which is detected properly. So either Parsoid needs to be changed to emit /w/index.php links for redlinks, or the gadget needs to be updated to remove URL parameters from /wiki/ links. --rchard2scout (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think this is a bug in the markblocked gadget. Since User:Edittttor is a red link, MediaWiki adds ?action=edit&redlink=1 to the URL. The gadget's regex doesn't stop at ?, so it ends up trying to parse Edittttor?action=edit&redlink=1 as the username, which fails, and the link gets skipped. The talk page link isn't a red link, so it doesn't get the extra query string and works fine. Changing const articleRegex = new RegExp( mw.config.get( 'wgArticlePath' ).replace( '$1', '' ) + '([^#]+)' ); to const articleRegex = new RegExp( mw.config.get( 'wgArticlePath' ).replace( '$1', '' ) + '([^#?]+)' ); should fix this. – DreamRimmer■11:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@RoySmith It's not. Parsoid is enabled in the Template: namespace, which is why your first link doesn't work, but not in the Wikipedia: namespace, which is why your second link does (see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Parsoid#Timeline). You can check at the bottom of the page: if it used Parsoid, it will say something like "This page was last edited on 29 July 2026, at 14:31. Page was rendered with Parsoid." --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Parsoid is being rolled out over a period of weeks or maybe months to namespaces on the English Wikipedia. It is causing a bit of confusion and difficulty in troubleshooting. In addition, some back-end processes like categorization are being handled by either the new parser or the legacy parser, causing some pages to work fine when viewed but still show up in a category that is not listed on the page, or similar weirdness. See this technical page for some information(?) about testing that the developers are doing to see if pages look different in Parsoid and the legacy parser. It appears that they are using this output to schedule the rollout to other namespaces, although it is unclear how. Diligent editors at VPT and other places have noticed and reported bugs in Parsoid, some of which have been fixed since it started being the default parser for some pages about a month ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Ugh. I knew it was being rolled out incrementally, but I wasn't paying attention to the details and assumed that meant wiki-by-wiki, not namespace-by-namespace. I guess there will be some pain for a while until this all stabilizes. Thanks for the explanation. RoySmith(talk)20:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Cool, thanks. I've been watching the parsoid project for a long time. It's good that it's gotten to this point. I'm sure there will continue to be pain as new problems emerge, but that's the price we have to pay for progress. RoySmith(talk)22:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Could we please get an Article button at the bottom of talk pages?
The following happens all the time: My watchlist shows an edit to a talk page. I open the talk page, scroll down to read the new comment. Hmmm... I need to check the article. I scroll up, click on the Article button, open it in a new tab and read what is written there. Aha... Back to the talk page, that now, again, shows the top of the page. Scroll down once more to find the comment.
If we would have an Article button at the bottom of the talk page, that would save me from scrolling up and then scrolling down again for each time I switch between a talk page and the article. I do that a lot, so I would be very grateful for such a button. Lova Falk (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Do you have the floating bar at the top of your screen when you're scrolled down on a page? If so, when you're on a talk page, do you see this icon in the row of icons at the top right? Because that's the article button you're looking for. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, floating bar, but no row of icons, only a "Toggle reader view" icon. Maybe because I use the Timeless skin? Timeless works the best for me by far. Lova Falk (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ah, that might be it, I'm on Vector 2022, which does have the buttons. It's probably possible to add a button somewhere with some userscript, maybe ask the folks over at WP:US/R? --rchard2scout (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
So when I went to Wikipedia:Barnstars to copy a barnstar template and then paste it to someone's talk page, this is what pastes: subst:The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar1=message ~~~~2=alt. What should paste is {{subst:The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|1=message ~~~~|2=alt}}. As you can see, '{' and '|' does not paste. This is very annoying. I pasted the text onto the google search bar, copied it from there, and then pasted it here to get the 2nd text, what should be pasted. Is there a reason why it doesn't paste when copying directly from a page? I have never had this issue before and have given out many barnstars; last time before today was July 5, 2026. Since then I have given my macbook to be factory reset so I am unsure whether it's a problem with just my laptop, or Wikipedia itself. Can anyone help? jolielover♥talk11:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jolielover: Your edit is tagged "New topic", indicating "Enable quick topic adding" is enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing. The Visual mode of that tool interacts with the browser in a way which works for me on a Windows PC but maybe it gives problems on your Macbook. If "Visual" is underlined above the top right of the edit box when you make a new section then try clicking "Source" before pasting template code. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for letting me know, however, I've clicked 'add topic' before and it worked out fine, as you can see from the July 5 edit which is also tagged 'new topic'. Has this changed since then? It was easy and convenient before. And yes, I am in the 'source' section. jolielover♥talk11:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jolielover: I don't have a Macbook for testing but you have to somehow get plain text instead of rich text (text with links when Wikipedia:Barnstars displays code). Pasting to a place with no rich text option and copying from there apparently works but is a little cumbersome. Does it work if you insert with Cmd+Shift+V as Nardog suggested, or Cmd+Option+Shift+V? Or is there an "Edit > Paste and Match Style" option? Or two options for how to paste if you right click and one of them works? Or maybe two options for how to copy if you right click before you originally copy the text? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It is Parsoid-related, but it's to do with the page you're copying from rather than the page you're pasting into. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars?useparsoid=0 lets you grab a copy that works fine. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yep!!! This works, can copy and paste it fine. Is there a way to disable parsoid permanently, don't want to go ahead and put that bit of text all the time when I can't copy somegthing. (Sorry, not all too familiar with technical stuff) jolielover♥talk14:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If you want to, you currently can at the bottom of the editing section of Special:Preferences, set "Use the new Parsoid wikitext parser" to "Never". That's going to go away as an option soon as the old parser is entirely removed, though.
Hm. It's something about how the HTML that you copied is being cleaned up for pasting -- when you copy from the read mode of an article your clipboard actually includes a full HTML version of what you selected, and we try to turn that into plain text for the source mode paste. For some reason the wikitext characters are being stripped out. I'll look into it. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay, the patch fixing that has landed. It'll go out on the normal release schedule, so next week this will work without it mattering what your Parsoid setting is. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
List gap highlighter script stopped working
A while back I added a light gap highlighter script to my common.css (it's the last section there), however without my changing anything it has stopped working, I think in the past circa week. Can someone (advise me how to) fix it. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The selectors div>ul+dl and div>dl+ul are no longer matching. It seems Parsoid is wrapping things in <section>...</section>, so the <ul> and <dl> are no longer direct children of a <div>. The things that still work are the ones with selectors ul:not(.portalbox)+ul and dl+dl, since those aren't restricting to a specific parent element. Anomie⚔13:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
What do the “wbentity” and other such hypertechnical page changes on the mobile app actually mean?
Sheer curiosity question here: on the Wikipedia app version of my page watchlist, I occasionally see changes to pages that look hyper technical, which usually say stuff like “wbentity” and “wbreferences,” followed by a bunch of numbers (I’m probably not even saying the right terms that are often used). Then, when I click on them, the app says that there is actually no change being made to the page. Furthermore, these changes do not appear on the desktop version of Wikipedia. Just curious, what are they? LincolnMagnus (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
They are changes to the Wikidata items associated with these pages. On the desktop version (or mobile website), you can view them by clicking into the "Active filters" menu on the watchlist and selecting "Wikidata edits" (or follow this link: ). I didn't know that the mobile app displays them incorrectly, someone should complain about it on Phabricator. (By the way, is that the iOS or Android app?) Matma Rextalk23:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Back in March, a user named Saftgurka went around plopping boilerplate text of the {{Update after|2026|08|01|category|reason=Gunnar Aldén > Pernilla Josefsson-Lazo}} variety onto the names of the ambassadors in the infoboxes on Swedish embassies. This had absolutely no effect on anything at the time, but now that it's after 2026-08-01, the word "category" in that template is now causing it to transclude a redlinked nonsense Category:Category onto the pages, which they weren't in prior to 08-01 as that would have shown up at WantedCategories. I've had to edit at least 20 pages in the past few days alone to make the redlinked category go away by removing the word "category" from an update-after template on a Swedish embassy, and it's becoming tiresome.
So since that's a category that obviously won't and rightly shouldn't ever exist at all, could somebody who knows more about template coding than I do modify that template to make sure it can't autogenerate or transclude that silliness? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Bearcat, looking at the template documentation, the 4th parameter is for a custom category, so these usages are incorrect. Therefore the appropriate fix is probably just to edit them all. I don't know why this has only recently started to cause an error; it looks like it should always have caused an error. —Qwerfjkltalk10:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
{{Update after|2026|08|01|category|...}} only adds Category:category after 2026-08-01. Link tables for the affected articles are updated with a delay so it varies when they actually appear in the category. The search hastemplate:"Update after" insource:/\|category\|/ doesn't find more Swedish ambassadors with 2026-08-01 but currently two with 2026-09-01, and two unrelated articles where it may have been other editors who made the mistake. Four articles are easy to fix but I suspect this error will continue to happen periodically when editors copy code from Template:Update after#Usage. I have modified the documentation to make it more clear that the text should be changed in calls. Category:category name might start being populated now instead but the risk seems smaller. Somebody could code the template to detect this error and omit the category or add an error category instead. We could also create the category as hidden with an explanation of the issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have seen the redlinked Category:Category at WantedCategories before, but not recently, not on Swedish embassies and not necessarily in big batches of a couple dozen pages all at once like this, and I also can't assert with any confidence that it's been attributable exclusively to this template alone.
Regardless, I'm not asking that the template be completely prevented from being able to transclude any categories at all — but the template should absolutely be coded to recognize that if it's specifically being called upon to generate a category namedCategory:Category, then that results from a user-paste error rather than a category that should actually be generated and transferred onto pages. This is indeed a plausible enough user error that it should be blocked at the source rather than dealt with in "grin and bear it" fashion every time it recurs, so the template should really be smart enough to recognize it as a coding error rather than a category that's actually expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Enabling syntax highlighting by default for newcomers
Autocompletion, a new feature in CodeMirror 6
Hi all! In April we deployed CodeMirror 6, an upgraded version of the extension that powers syntax highlighting, the feature that helps make wikitext easier to read in the source editor by turning wikilinks blue, templates purple, references green, and other color codings. The new version includes additional features like autocompletion and identification of linting errors. Syntax highlighting can be toggled on or off at any point by clicking the highlighter button () in the 2010 editing toolbar, and individual features can be enabled/disabled in CodeMirror’s preferences.
However, syntax highlighting is not enabled by default, so many newer editors never discover it and do not benefit from these features. A 2021 village pump discussion I initiated as a volunteer found consensus to turn on syntax highlighting by default for all new editors, but the implementation stalled for technical reasons. Given the recent upgrade, we are ready to move forward again. Our plan is to enable syntax highlighting for new editors (leaving existing editors’ preferences unchanged) starting August 20. How does this sound to you all? MusikAnimal (WMF) (who led the upgrade) and I are available to answer questions!
I wholeheartedly support this. I’ve been around for just about two years, and I only recently learned about and activated syntax highlighting. Ever since, it’s been an indispensable tool for me, and I have wondered why it isn’t automatically enabled. The thing it’s most useful for to me is to provide contrast in the Source Editor so I can more easily see where I am by looking at the pattern of colors, rather than assisting that much in identifying different types of source code at a glance, but that’s because I’m a pretty quick reader and am reasonably adept with wikitext so I can mostly already do that. However, I feel like if I had had this enabled from the start, it would have helped me memorize the different kinds of source code better and I would’ve learned wikitext much quicker and more painlessly than I did. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨) (any/all) In solidarity.01:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WantedCategories explosion
Bit of a situation at Special:WantedCategories that I need some assistance with, of a type very unlike anything I've ever reported here before.
Normally, each run of the report turns up about 150-200 redlinked categories, but the latest one features over 1,100 — and the overspill, so far, has been attributable entirely to nonexistent categories being added to {{non-free book cover}} — e.g. Category:Yon Ill Wind resulting from the licensing template on File:PiersAnthony YonIllWind.jpg being coded as {{Non-free book cover|image has rationale=yes|category=Piers Anthony book cover images|Yon Ill Wind}}.
The presence of these categories, further, is deeply interfering with the process of even trying to find the categories that aren't attributable to this in the list — I can't tell whether a category is one of these or not without checking every one of those 1,100+ categories one by one, which I'm not interested in dedicating my entire day to doing.
So could somebody who knows more about template coding than I do edit {{non-free book cover}} to slap an #ifexist condition on its category-generation function to make the redlinks go away, so that I don't have to manually gnome my way through over a thousand redlinked categories? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Okay, thanks for that. I reverted and the redlinks went away from the pages, although the categories themselves haven't emptied out right away at the "stuff in redlink even though redlink not still on pages" level — I know that part takes a while, so I'll let it ride and see what happens, but at least it got the redlinks off the pages themselves. Thanks for the catch. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I already have that, but it wouldn't have helped — it would still have entailed hitting a thousand categories one-by-one to null one page out of each category as a thousand individual edits, which is exactly the thing I was trying to avoid having to do. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Perceived explosion of em-dashes
For the last three months I've been witnessing more and more em-dashes in articles, like this one. My intuition tells me it's due to an expanded use of AI to edit and compose articles. I would also not rule out the possibility of hired companies overwhelming the website with automated edits. Is there are way to see if the frequency of em-dashes has increased or not over the years? CongruenceRelation (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Recent AI models don't use em dashes significantly more than human writers, and ChatGPT actually uses them less, according to a study by The Economist. the wub"?!"08:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Americans seem particularly fond of them. British people hardly use them at all, preferring a spaced en-dash to an unspaced em-dash. DuncanHill (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(neither here nor there, but this article is really good, what the hell; I guess I’m just so used to misinformed stuff that it’s refreshing to see stuff that actually acknowledges, say, model changes) Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Why have section edit previews changed recently? Reference sections used to be headed with a line saying "Preview of references" but this is no longer there. Sections with a note ({{efn}}) where the "notelist" template is not included in the actual section now report a "Cite error" when there is no error, the issue is just that the edit covers one section only, and similarly there is a "Cite error" reported when a section uses a named reference but the name is defined elsewhere in the article. The error message now says "The named reference X was invoked but never defined" whereas it used to say something like "not defined at all or not in this section".
I asked this question here on 22 July, but discussions all picked up on a different issue concerning sectioning and section numbers, and my query was never addressed. This item was then archived on 29 July so I am asking the question again. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a bug. User:Izno answered your question at the end of the section that you created, which was indeed derailed by another bug: The named reference missing in section issue is a known bug associated with the transition to Parsoid. phab:T431137. It was also discussed on VPT on July 3. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you. That's helpful. I had not seen the discussion on 3 July. Does this mean that the issue is being looked at, or do we just have to live with it? BobKilcoyne (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Using subst-only templates inside other subst-only templates
I have a few userspace templates, such as User:guninvalid/w, that I use as a personal template shortcut, but I have to add the signature myself when adding it. Is there a gold way to add something like Template:Sign to it so it can automatically populate? guninvalid (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In general, might {{subst:Delay subst}} work? That's not its intended use case, and I haven't tested it, but it might just work? You might need to reintroduce it each time you edit your template, though.
"The content you're looking for seems to have disappeared"
{{Reqphoto}} seems to be broken. When you click on the Openverse link within the template, you get an error message saying "The content you're looking for seems to have disappeared". Anyone know how to fix this? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?)04:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok, so two possible things: Either you nudged the zoom up on your mobile device in desktop mode, or the algorithm that decides what's important and what's not changed so things got bigger or smaller. I really should make a help page for people who use desktop view in mobile.
Either way, we can't help you here. One is your device settings and one is the browser doing things the browser does. Izno (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Either way it doesn't matter. That's just for the Vector 2022 skin, which I rarely use. I opened it one a different browser logged out to see what the page looked like to the average passing viewer. What does it look like on your end? 8rz (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Reasonably normal, no overly-emphasized items. But I use Firefox on mobile. I suppose there's a third option where you have some sort of extension that changes appearances of things. Izno (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My guess, based on my surface knowledge of databases and string searching, is that such a query would be prohibitively expensive on the databases. Izno (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Cirrus search completes surprisingly quickly but would be greatly assisted by adding one or more whole uncommon words in separate intitle: terms with no //, e.g. intitle:/ing of the finish$/ intitle:finish. Certes (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Unable to use math templates in citation titles
Since very recently I am unable to use {{math}} and {{mvar}} templates in the titles of {{cite journal}} etc without getting some sort of stripmarker error. Formatting mathematical formulas in titles using instead <math> works, but with this alternative formulas in linked titles stay black instead of turning blue with the rest of the title. Using plain html for formulas is just wrong (bad mathematical typesetting). The only workaround I have found is to format the entire citation manually. I've left more details at Help talk:Citation Style 1 §Stripmarkers in titles with template mathematics; advice there would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My reply tool (both visual and source mode) broken on all Chromium-based browsers
Screenrecording of DiscussionTool bug in Wikipedia that removes ability to write or send reply.Wikipedia's DiscussionTools Reply working fine in Firefox
Hey, I am having a bug on my system with the DiscussionTools Reply feature on article talk pages.
Some of the symptoms:
If I click "Reply" under a comment, the reply box opens normally.
When I try to type into the box, however, the reply box renders as a non-editable/disabled field and clicking into it produces no cursor, and it does not accept text input. I also tried manually copying and pasting a sentence into the box (also selecting text elsewhere on the page and pasting it in), but the paste option does not appear either.
And so, obviously, the "Reply" button stays greyed out.
There is also another bug that happens occasionally: some existing discussion text/comments on the same Talk page intermittently appear hidden or missing and sometimes half of the words are missing.
I actually tried multiple browsers to see if this was particular to my browser. I tried Brave, Chrome, and Vivaldi, then tried each browser's Incognito mode, but it still did not work. The only place where this bug does not appear is Firefox (or any Gecko-based browser).
Is there some help I can get? I don't wanna rely on Firefox as its slow and buggy in other places.
I'm wondering, if that’s somehow related to phab:T434403 (DiscussionTools are VE-based as far as I know). But I‘ve used the reply tool all day using Chrome (on Linux) and didn’t experience any issues with DiscussionTools. Johannnes89 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
and it still works if I don't log in. I think maybe it's somehow related to my account That's very likely, if it doesn't happen when you don't log in. Try checking your browser's error console for a start. You might also try Help:Safe mode. Anomie⚔12:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Done. Now I see the issue. User:Anomie/hide-images.js and User:Anomie/hide-images.css&ctype[equal]text/css were the culprits. I started using this to remove images from pages. I removed both, and now everything is working normally. Also, thanks, PrimeHunter. Morris (talk with this worm) 13:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
except that won't actually work due to all the pipes in there. There are various ways you might hack around that (e.g. how Template:Row numbers does), but those have other complications or negative effects (e.g. Template:Row numbers' hack may confuse bots and scripts attempting to process the wikitext). Anomie⚔12:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Are you trying to create a procedure for modifying the tables that someone else can run on-wiki? If not, then personally I'd suggest doing the changes off-wiki, using your regexp replacement tool of your choice. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I appreciate that's your preference. Are you looking for others to perform the same task? There are public websites that do regexp replacement so that a procedure that anyone can do can be created. For a strict on-wiki solution, I suggest handing over the text to process directly to Lua, so there won't be any need to deal with passing patterns into a Lua module. A Lua module can retrieve the wikitext contents of a page and then process it. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That's why I suggested just using the regexp tool of your choice. In the end, it's a choice of what you want to struggle with: wikitext processing, Lua, or copying from your computer system or another website. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
What you are basically trying to do is parse wikitext, and this is known to be a bad idea. Don't do that. Put whatever color you want in the page and move on. Izno (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I am aware of the archive.org workaround but that site inevitably only archives a minority of revisions. My attention was drawn, however, because what now gets loaded when you request an old revision is different from what it used to be. If I look at a revision from 2023, say, then it now gives the current number of active editions (i.e. as of now), whereas previously it gave the contemporaneous one (i.e. as of 2023). This is why I've consulted old revisions of this page - because I've needed that figure. I'm curious as to why the behaviour has changed. Translat99 (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The behaviour has not changed, all the old revisions store is the source code. They don't independently store templates, files, wider formatting, etc. from that period. CMD (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Translat99: For example, your linked version from 24 March 2026 has the wikitext:
As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}, Wikipedia articles have been created in {{NUMBEROF|languages|Wikipedia}} editions, with {{NUMBEROF|active|Wikipedia}} currently active, {{NUMBEROF|closed|Wikipedia}} closed and 11 moved to [[Wikimedia Incubator]].
All those {{...}} are evaluated with their current values when you view the page. Wikipedia does not provide a way to display how they evaluated 24 March 2026. {{NUMBEROF}} uses commons:Data:Wikipedia statistics/meta.tab. I think it counts the number of "wikipedia" rows with a given status so I suppose you could look at the page history and make your own count for different dates but I don't promise it will always show the same as List of Wikipedias displayed on the date. Such things can be complicated to work out manually and our software simply doesn't have a way to do it automatically. It's one of the oldest feature requests phab:T2851 but it's complicated, and there are legal issues if it displayed transcluded text which has since been deleted for legal reasons like copyright violations. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Forgot lc and uc were magic words so succeeded them with a pipe instead of a colon. Needed it for a quick fix. Thanks. 8rz (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
By default i use Light theme, but right now after switching between both theme and examining your screenshots, i am still not sure which specific column or row or box needed specific dark mode compatibility. Kindly point that out, maybe i am missing that specific box. Thank you.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The ones colored differently in light mode to be also distinguishable in dark mode. Colheaders titled:
Is there a reason that the 25th anniversary logo is still up? I believe it is time for it to come down; we are closer to Wikipedia's 26th birthday than the 25th one. CC Izno and Chlod who deployed the change back in January. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)20:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Chill, this is the year afterall. we didn't implemented back in 2025 thinking anniversary is closer, our motive is afterall celebrating 2026, be it till December. Happy Hippy anniversary.––KEmel49(📝,📋) 20:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have left it up because I have not gotten a signal from Chlod particularly that it is "safe" to pull it down. I also don't know what the consensus was that was discussed for after the first month. Izno (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The last discussion about the logo was on February, which decided that it'd be taken down at the end of the year. That would mean sometime around December 23, which is the last allowable deploy date before the end-of-year holiday freeze. If there's support for it, we can take it down earlier than that. Chlod(sayhi!) 01:55, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Tech News: 2026-33
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
A new ChartWizard is now available on Wikimedia Commons for users interested in creating charts from their own data. The wizard makes the Chart extension more beginner-friendly by allowing editors to create charts, such as bar and pie charts, without needing to use JSON. Users can still switch to the JSON editor if they prefer. Feedback on the new tool is welcome on the wish talk page.
View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where the Wikipedia iOS app’s Picture of the Day widget displayed the same image every day instead of updating daily, has now been fixed.
Updates for technical contributors
Math formula SVG images will soon be generated in the browser instead of on the server. MathML continues to be generated on the server and renders in the browser without JavaScript. Wikibooks will see this change on 12 August, Wikisource on 19 August and Wikipedia from 20-27 August. You can try this by selecting "Client side MathJax rendering (for browsers with limited MathML support)" in your preferences. This change is part of deprecating RESTBase and deprecating Mathoid.
Category pages will soon support sorting entries by the time they are added to a category. This will make it easier to find recently or long-standing categorized pages. It will also improve workflows for maintenance categories such as deletion backlogs and other time-based review tasks. You can use cldsort=timestamp URL argument in category view to sort the entries.
Gadgets and user scripts on Wikimedia wikis may now use ES2018 features and ES2019 features in JavaScript code. Previously, the platform only allowed up to ES2017. MediaWiki validates the source code to protect functionality from syntax errors and to ensure scripts are valid in all supported browsers.
@Dafootballguy: I cannot edit your common.js and those are my only suggestions. I haven't tested it but it should at least fix two errors. I suspect you got lang="javascript"> by partially copying wikitext which was used to display JavaScript:
@Dafootballguy: Remove the whole line saying lang="javascript">. You said you made a custom filter. I don't know which keywords you want in your filter but only set them once. There are indeed 4 total const blockedKeywords = [...]; in , 2 of them inside 2 separate but very similar function() {...} . I suggest you remove everything from , and copy your wanted keywords to . PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Special:Block interface questions
Special:Block used to be configured so that if you put your own username into the target bar, it would produce a warning with huge red letters saying basically "You are about to block yourself!!! If you just want to see the message shown to blocked users, visit [MediaWiki page whose name I don't remember anymore]". But I just went to Special:Block/Nyttend and found no such warning.
Special:Block still has warnings about IP blocking, despite their replacement with temporary accounts. Is this information still relevant for people who have enabled the feature to see IP addresses behind temporary accounts? I don't want to obey the associated policies, so I've intentionally not enabled that feature. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
– The Village pump showed an automatic warning that said "This page is currently too big. Please temporarily speed up the page archiving rate or split large discussions to separate subpages." FaviFake (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?
Proposal to require independent sourcing for all political endorsements
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
I propose removing the provision in Wikipedia:Political endorsements that allows local consensus to overrule our general policy that facts be sourced to independent reliable sources for organizational endorsements. Specifically, I propose striking the following sentence from the guideline: Local consensus can determine whether a specific list requires independent sources or sources connected to the organization itself, such as its website or official social media accounts.
Support per WP:VNOT and WP:DUE, as other editors have pointed out. A social media post or other statement endorsing a candidate is a primary source for the endorsement. It might be verifiable, but that doesn't make it due for inclusion. Inclusion of endorsements should require secondary sources. It should also require independent sources, because, e.g., a list of endorsements published by a campaign might be secondary and verifiable, but it doesn't establish WP:DUE. We should only include endorsements when reliable, secondary, independent sources (like history books and newspaper articles) establish that inclusion of the endorsement is due. Levivich (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is not meant to be a put-down: from what I know, WP:VNOT necessitates consensus but not necessarily "sources need to be this type", and WP:DUE does not necessitate source secondariness or independence. DUE only needs sources to be "reliable", and WP:RSPRIMARY separates secondariness and reliability by saying "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" and even saying primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Needless to say, these issues of VNOT and DUE are quite annoying. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)(edited 02:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC))reply
I don't read the current guidance as suggesting an exception to DUE or VNOT. And it doesn't allow for citing a source from the campaign, only sources from the endorsing organization itself. DUE is contextual and can be assessed in a number of ways. For example, only including organizations with blue links to articles would be a reasonable bar to set in national and other high profile races. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
...and WP:BESTSOURCES if we're going to nitpick over various parts of WP:NPOV (emphasis added): In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV issues.
Wikipedia policies aren't laws. They're not well-written. Just because the words "independent" or "secondary" don't appear in the specific section WP:DUE doesn't mean that one can make a determination about what content should be included in an article from non-independent or primary sources. But in case there was any doubt about this, there's the WP:BESTSOURCES section of NPOV.
You can certainly make an argument that that is the case. It is certainly not what is written in the policies and guidelines. I think we should go by what is written in the policies and guidelines, not what words editors wish were in the policies and guidelines.
That section of WP:BESTSOURCES does not have the 20-year consensus you claim below - it was added relatively recently (a few years ago, if I'm remembering right). It's certainly a good thing, but it's a goal to aspire to, not the end-all of every discussion and certainly not a license to excise every non-secondary non-independent source from discussion altogether.
WP:BESTSOURCES, despite your allusion to the other WP:UPPERCASE in WP:NPOV, is the only place in the NPOV policy where the word "independent" is contained. WP:AGEMATTERS has nothing to do with independent sources, so it's curious why it's being cited here.
However, both WP:REPUTABLE and WP:BESTSOURCES say that articles should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources". That is certainly not the same thing as saying that any use of a non-independent source to supplement particular information is not permissible or should be completely banned. I completely agree with the WP:BESTSOURCES statement that articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources. I do not agree that non-independent sources should be banned, which is probably why that is supported by none of the policies and guidelines you've cited. Katzrockso (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That's a lot to cover: what I quoted from our PAGs is in fact written in our PAGs. I claim no 20-year consensus below. (There's no plausible way to understand the words "20-year veteran" as referring to the age of consensus rather than the age of an account.) Nobody is trying to excise or ban every non-secondary non-independent source. NPOV isn't the only policy that talks about having independent sources, another example is WP:RS. WP:AGEMATTERS was being cited here because the prior sentence said most recent. Based on ... is certainly not the same thing as saying that any use of a non-independent source to supplement particular information is not permissible or should be completely banned, so it's a good thing that nobody is arguing that any use of a non-independent source to supplement particular information is not permissible or should be completely banned. I do not agree that non-independent sources should be banned either, and so I'm glad that's not required by any PAGs.
And yet I believe endorsements are the type of content that should be cited to the reliable, independent, secondary sources that our PAGs say articles should be based on.
I don't know why you wrote that long series of fabrications, misinterpretations, strawman arguments, and putting words in my mouth I never said, requiring me to write this long correction, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that to me again. Levivich (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Policy does not support looking to the "we must look to the highest-quality, most-reliable, most recent, secondary, independent, published sources" to establish what is WP:DUE, not only because these are often contradictory and exclusive. We don't look to sources that don't exist, but evaluate those that actually exist and see which ones are the best to base our articles on (which is different than the inclusionary criteria for particular elements of content). Moreover, the policy that determines whether or not we include things remains WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, which once again do not mention the independence of sources. I once again think that editors should read the words that in a policy, not the words that they wish were in a policy.
For example, WP:AGEMATTERS explicitly points out that the "most recent" source is certainly not always the most reliable source, so we should not simply look for the "most recent" source, but the WP:BESTSOURCE when evaluated holistically. There are numerous reasons why we might prefer an older source to a newer one. "Most recent" is certainly not a good summarization of WP:AGEMATTERS.
Adding in auxiliary information like endorsements is certainly not the same as writing the bulk of our articles. Indeed, WP:SELFSOURCE states the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. I don't find any conflict whatsoever between WP:RS, WP:NPOV (specifically WP:REPUTABLE and WP:BESTSOURCES) and using a non-independent source to verify an endorsement, because using a source is not the same as basing an article on a source.
The argument presented here is effectively one that non-independent sources should be banned - you present no distinctive argument that wouldn't apply to every single use of a non-independent source. Indeed, there is no particularity to the argument here specific to the context in question - political endorsements. That suggests, or rather proves, that the issue is not specific to political endorsements, but with the use of non-independent sources altogether. Whether or not you take your argument to its logical conclusion is no import to me, you can call it fabrications, misinterpretations, strawman arguments, and putting words in my mouth I never said or whatever you like.
If we are talking about fabrications, misinterpretations, strawman arguments, and putting words in my mouth I never said, we can start with this:
what I quoted from our PAGs is in fact written in our PAGs
I never stated or suggested that the quotes you provided were in any way made up. What I suggested was the the accompanying commentary misrepresents existing PAG, which is a charge I still contend is true. Katzrockso (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
You said It is certainly not what is written in the policies and guidelines, but what I'm saying is in our PAGs, is in our PAGs. I'll show you in a moment. But first my Bernie impression: I am once again asking that you not put words in my mouth. Nobody is calling for banning all non-independent sources. Just because someone thinks non-independent sources shouldn't be used to source political endorsements doesn't mean they think non-independent sources shouldn't be used for anything. You can call that the argument's "logical conclusion," but it's actually a strawman argument: you're arguing against something (a total ban) that nobody is arguing in favor of.
Now, the first sentence of WP:BALANCE, key words bolded:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
If no independent RS is writing about an endorsement, if the only people writing about an endorsement are the endorser and endorsee (both non-independent), then that is, indisputably, a low proportion of coverage in RS, it's like 1 or 2 sources out of all sources when only non-independent sources are writing about it and no independent sources are writing about it. Because of this low proportion of RS covering the endorsement, it's a "minor aspect" to which we should not give "undue weight."
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "See also" to an article about those specific views.
If an endorsement is only published by the endorser and/or endorsee (who are non-independent), and no other RS are writing about it (so no independent RS), then it's a "tiny minority" (1 or 2 sources out of all sources) and so that view should not be included at all.
In sum: if the only place an endorsement is published is in non-independent sources, such as a social media post by an endorser, or a campaign website, then that means the endorsement is a tiny proportion of RS, a tiny minority of RS, and therefore the endorsement should not be included, per WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, even though those sections don't have the word "independent" in them. Levivich (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Mildly oppose Just to give some background information to others here, I'd have to imagine that this discussion is coming from the 'discussion' that we had here? I would like to point out that the provision regarding organization endorsements explicitly says that there isn't a consensus regarding sourcing, so I don't exactly agree that local consensus is overruling the rule. I very much do prefer independent sourcing when available, but there are definitely places where it just won't be. If an endorsement isn't mentioned in an independent article, I don't think it inherently means that they aren't notable, especially in elections like state legislatures that do get far less media coverage than national or statewide ones. These types of endorsements are also helpful in things like nonpartisan elections and help readers get a better idea of the candidates that were or did run. I would go along with the rule if the carve-out does get removed, but I do think that it could remove some important information for a lot of elections that just don't get as much media attention as they deserve.ABlitzz (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that's helpful. I was about to ask for links to articles that were viewed as including problematic examples and/or to prior discussions about this. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose on principle. I'm not fond of the way some people increasingly like to claim that every individual fact (that they dislike) in an article has to pass WP:N-level sourcing to be included, rather than using editorial judgement and consensus to determine what is relevant to the topic. As Myceteae noted below, the opening statement of this RFC itself is already erroneously biased in that direction. Anomie⚔14:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
What is important to a topic is ultimately determined by reliable and independent sources. Once we as editors start determining that based on primary sources, it's just original research. Cortador (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
You're welcome. It's nice when someone appreciates what the policies actually say rather than fictions like "OR requires multiple independent sources, not just reliable ones". Anomie⚔19:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Anomie, did you seriously just call our core content policies WP:V and WP:OR "bogus"? That's wild from a 20-year veteran. WP:BESTSOURCES literally says: In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So arguing that endorsements shouldn't be included unless they're in reliable, independent, secondary published sources is ... very much in line with very old and very widely accepted core Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure how you can characterize that as "bogus." Levivich (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"Bogus"? "Falsehoods"? Suggesting I'm a troll? In response to people saying "we should have independent sources"? What's with this ridiculously-unwarranted hostility? What the heck has gotten into you today? Levivich (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
You can have an article that is WP:Based upon reliable independent sources without every single line in the article being cited to an independent source. It would, in fact, be quite "wild" to suggest that only reliable, independent, secondary sources are permitted by policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
What is the material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published in question here? Katzrockso (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose per AnomieX. This is just an extension of the primary sourcing paranoia - WP:DUE says precisely nothing about the independence of a source or whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary. Editors often attribute to particular policies meaning that is contained nowhere within them, and unfortunately DUE is in the club. From the original RfC, the point that I find most pertinent is that newspaper endorsements are organizational endorsements that could be of relevance to our articles, but tend to receive less coverage than other types of endorsements. When mandating secondary, independent sourcing, editors must consider whether these secondary, independent sources will tend to produce a bias in their coverage that will tend to affect our coverage. In this case, I don't think this bar has been met.As for WP:VNOT, this is of tangential relevance to this guideline, as it is silent on the independence of sources or whether they are PTS. Indeed, it simply says that consensus can decide that a verifiable fact does not improve an article. This applies to everything, including content sourced to independent, reliable, secondary sources.Katzrockso (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd be curious if anyone could find even one newspaper endorsement that should be in an article that is not mentioned by any independent source. In practice, the bit we're debating here has nothing to do with newspaper endorsements and everything to do with, say, a barely notable advocacy group that issues two hundred endorsements that nobody reports on but make it into two hundred separate Wikipedia lists. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
When you define "should be in the article" as "has independent sourcing" and then find that every example that should be in the article has independent sourcing, it's hardly surprising. Katzrockso (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how that responds to what I said. To rephrase: what's an example of a newspaper endorsement that was not covered by an independent source? (because there are an awful lot of the other kind, where we cite social media posts of local advocacy groups to add them en masse). —Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Any newspaper from a small region covering an endorsement from another newspaper from that region is, from a certain POV, not an independent source (given that they're business rivals and whatnot). So I'm going to guess... the vast majority of newspaper endorsements can't be covered by an independent RS? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure I've ever seen the "it's not independent if the subject is a competitor/rival of the source" argument, but certainly haven't seen consensus for that. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 22:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:IIS states that an independent source lacks conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).Katzrockso (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This is now a tangent. If someone would like to make the case that e.g. we can't use CNN or NBC to report on FOX because they're not independent, or that relationship is somehow radically different at a different geographic scale, that's probably a discussion for another place. I'm happy to be pinged there, but cannot imagine any real consensus for it beyond a "yeah, I sorta guess you could say there's technically a COI, but no that's not a reason to decide they lose their independence". I could be wrong, but again we're getting away from the point here. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Nobody's arguing that strawman; I hope I'm not putting words in Katzrockso's mouth, but I like to think we've been pretty clear than independence is not the be all and end all when it comes to newspapers reporting on each other. (Though the potential COI is something I do take into consideration when I'm sourcing and writing articles; I hope you're not asking me not to?)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸23:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The mistake here is thinking that non-independent sources are some "bad" category of sources that we need to completely eschew. They certainly need to be used more carefully, but they aren't supposed to be some verboten evil that needs to be excised from every article, despite the increasing tendency to characterize anything that isn't an SIRS as such.
I don't see how by the definition of independent sources used by Wikipedia, they are independent. If you'd like to propose a change to the WP:IIS essay or WP:ORGIND guideline, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed. For what it's worth, WP:ORGIND also specifies that competitors are not independent;
Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.
I would say that this is probably where I'm at as well. I can see the concerns that people have and are bringing up, but I think that, for the most part, the guidelines are fine as they are currently. ABlitzz (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Lists of endorsements seem to be a blatant violation of WP:SOAP which is policy and states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox...or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. The proposal raises the bar and so is a move in the right direction. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose (Just to be up front, my opposition stems from my opposition to the rigid applications of criteria #2 generally, eventhough I agree with the principles behind it) Endorsements are, by definition exercises of expression of bias, of advocacy of a subjective opinion. Lists are means to comprehensively present relevant factual information in an organized manner for ease of consumption. Lists of endorsements therefore would by definition conflict with various basic WP principles, but their continual existence are tolerated/accepted/even desired by some of us because they comprehensively enumerate relevant factual information in a succinct, organized manner, allowing reader to draw insights and informed assessment. If we accept that premise, then rejecting an undisputed entry that meets criteria 1 & 3 by rigidly enforcing the independent aspect of criteria 2 without any consideration of weighing of other facts (such as the reliability aspect of criteria 2, local context, scale of the contest, substantive relevance or significance of a particular entry to the particular context) is to me quite illogical. 1) Given endorsement is an expression of bias, an unindependent source, such as the endorser themselves, actually is the ultimate reliable source. 2) Existence of independent source is generally an strong indicator of notability but only an reasonably good indicator of relevance. Some inconsequential endorsement get attention because they are unique or interesting or even entertaining, while some clearly consequential endorsement get no little media play because they were expected or boring but nonetheless impactful. For example, endorsements of politicians by celebraties like actors or singers often get covered in the news for their entertainment value, because they are interesting and unusual, but they rarely have meaningful impact on electoral outcome. An endorsement from a former office holder that retired long ago may general little press interest while having huge impact (especially in internal contests like primaries or nomination fights where older voters, and long time party activists are have greater presence.) Ultimately, the purpose of this policy is to ensure entries included in such lists are realiable, notable, relevant and consequential. Exisitence of independent sources would be decent indicators for those things but not conclusive proof, and the absence of independent sources certainly does not conclusively disprove any of those things. If the notability of the endorser, the factual reliability of the endorsement, and its relevance to the the subject election are not in dispute, exclusion would arguably amount to censorship. JacobW2 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
An endorsement from a former office holder that retired long ago may general little press interest while having huge impact (especially in internal contests like primaries or nomination fights where older voters, and long time party activists are have greater presence.) This isn't really germane to this proposal since the current exclusion currently only affects organizational endorsements, not individuals. For what it's worth, I don't think be opposed to a very narrow exception for current (and former) officeholders who represent(/ed) part of the constituency being contested. If anything, the fact that a former elected's endorsement is excluded unless covered by independent media but an endorsement by an organization, however irrelevant, can be included cited to only their website highlights how odd the status quo is. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notability has to do with whether an article should exist for a topic, it has nothing to do with whether content should be included in an article. Katzrockso (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose - What to do about noteworthy endorsements by media outlets that are covered by the outlet's competitors is an excellent point. (Plus, there's the issue of organizations and independent sources potentially disagreeing that I brought up below.) WP:DUE would apply regardless and seems orthogonal to this issue. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Still hoping for even one (and preferably more) example of noteworthy endorsements by media outlets that are covered by the outlet's competitors, but this is the last time I'll mention it. It's a big flood gate to leave open for a hypothetical. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, largest circulating weekly:) but regardless we have an article about it and I, too, cannot find independent coverage. Thanks for digging up an example. I'm more inclined to support an exception for certain kinds of companies/organizations (like notable media outlets), but still not quite convinced it's in our best interest to include every endorsement by every organization or company, regardless of what they are or how much they're written about. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Who said we have to include every endorsement by every organization or company, with or without independent sources? Anomie⚔01:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I completely agree that we shouldn't be including every endorsement by every organization or company. The status quo of guideline doesn't require this, and if that is what happens in practice, I would support any effort to trim non-notable and non-noteworthy organizations. Katzrockso (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As the person who has added a lot of the endorsements to the Michigan Senate race's article, which is the article that kind of seems to have started all of this, I'm just wanting to give some of my own thoughts here. There have definitely been a lot of endorsements listed in articles that I haven't added simply because the endorsers don't have a Wikipedia page. If they have a Wikipedia page, I'll usually add them because that's a symbol, in my mind, that they're notable enough to be added. If they have no Wikipedia page, then I'll typically avoid adding them to articles unless there's another reason that would make sense (i.e. a local or House election where a candidate is endorsed by a notable person in the city/district but the endorser doesn't have a Wikipedia page). Personally, my opinion is that if there is a source that follows the guidelines and the endorser is notable enough due to having a page here or some other reason, then there's no reason not to add in the endorsement ABlitzz (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I can understand the point you're making there, but wouldn't editors be interfering with the neutrality of the page if we're able to just decide who is relevant and who isn't? As long as the endorser has a good source and page, I really don't see a reason why they shouldn't be included. Under your example, it could also show the start of Joe Celebrity getting more involved in the political scene and becoming prominent in both movies and politics. ABlitzz (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
By this interpretation, most articles about news orgs would fail notability guidelines since almost other source would be considered a competitor and therefore not independent. This seems to be something to address within that guideline (stipulate that media outlets that are competitors of each other are independent) rather than this one. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Notable news organizations tend to get at least some coverage in journals, books, and other newspapers not operating in the same market; for an example, the Weekend Times, a Malawian tabloid that operated for only about 6 years, is primarily based upon such sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸18:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In practice, though, I would also like to note that the community treats newspapers and academic journals very differently than commercial organizations in general. (You can argue that a newspaper as an actual isn't technically a corporation, but that's splitting hairs in most cases). WP:NJOURNAL and WP:NNEWS are essays, but they do emphasize impact/influence as a pathway to notability that we'd never allow under a typical application of NCORP. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸18:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that we treat articles about publishers differently from articles about other businesses, but I think it's practical of us. Sometimes we need that information as editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose The inclusion/exclusion of a particular endorsement that lacks independent sourcing can always be debated on the article's talk page, just like with any other disputed content. Some1 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'm just not seeing any evidence of an actual problem here that needs solving. At 2026 United States Senate election in Michigan §Endorsements, there are far fewer organizations listed than individuals. As others have noted, celebrity and other "big name" endorsements are prone to garnering at least some media coverage even when their encyclopedic value is questionable. PACs and political organizations, whose endorsements may be less newsworthy, may be a more meaningful reflection of a candidate's ideology and support base. Looking at other articles that were shared at Talk:2026 United States Senate election in Michigan#Organizational endorsements, most have much shorter endorsement lists. Weighting these lists towards celebrities and other individuals is of no value to these articles. The current guidance is in no way an exception to WP:DUE or any other broadly applicable policy or guideline. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose - current system functions quite well, and WP:DUE doesn't appear to be violated because of it - I don't see a reason to prevent endorsements being sourced to verifiable primary sources. Jishara (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support I agree that generally primary sources may be used for a wide variety of information. But this provision is so poorly written, it should go. The first glaring mistake was its mention of largely discredited local consensus, when it could of just used "editors may", but even worse it then suggests that verifiability is all you need for content additions, and that is plainly untrue, see WP:VNOT. No editors at any article can vote to ignore the other content policies, and no guideline can either. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, I would also oppose a rule that said only secondary sources count. That's not what DUE requires, in every case, we may use primary sources. I think the rule should still go because of its poor wording. Go back to the drawing board, get ride of "local consensus" and make clear the all content policies not just V matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This would create a more stringent sourcing requirement than that of most other content where the concern here isn't the veracity of the endorsements, but whether they are DUE. Jessintime (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Cortador, a simple example of when a primary-only viewpoint is needed is when someone is accused of a crime, and they deny it. We rarely have secondary source material for that (that would mean a source that analyzes, evaluates, interprets, etc. their denial, rather than merely repeating the fact that the accused person denied the accusation), and it is the near-universal practice of the community to mention the existence of such denials, even if they have to be sourced to the subject's social media (which is both primary and non-independent). We can't meet the goals of either the BLP policy or the NPOV policy by removing the accused's POV about his innocence from a Wikipedia article just because there isn't a high-quality secondary source. We need a source that is strong enough to support the claim in the article (the usual claim being "He denied the accusations"), but a fairly weak source is strong enough for that.
News articles include responses from accused people all the time. I don't know where you get the idea that this "rarely" happens. Cortador (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Cortador, most news articles are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A typical newspaper article is a:
No, they absolutely are not. You are confusing how e.g. academics use that term with how it is used on Wikipedia, and so is that essay. Cortador (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The policy WP:PRIMARY itself says "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles...". It specifically calls out breaking news: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support As if RS do not care, why should we (see wp:undue). Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC
Oppose - this is a case where one size doesn't fit all. While with US presidential elections and nominations there are always numerous published sources listing endorsements this is often not the case for smaller contests, particularly with the decline of the media. The recent 2026 New Democratic Party leadership election for example was not closely covered by the media until the last few weeks so even though there were prominent endorsements by current and former politicians these were often only reported on the candidate websites and press releases and did not receive "independent" coverage until very late, if at all. This gave an unbalanced and misreprestarive impressio of the relative support candidates had. Major political parties such as the NDP have strict campaign rules and a leadership candidate who falsely claimed endorsements would have been fined or expelled - but even so we had editors insisting these endorsements could not be listed, even though under the circumstances they were reliable (due to the consequences for candidates for making false claims), due to global wikipedia rules. Some sort of flexibility is required and if there are other reasons why a self-reported endorsement can be considered reliable, then that should be sufficient. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose: many of the others gave good reasoning. Especially for the smaller cases, not every endorsement is going to be covered by a secondary one. I also believe that wikipedia should in general consider being more open to primary sources though that would probably warrant a separate discussion. Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD explicitly states "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source", so there should be no good reason to support removing this section. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Media coverage varies wildly depending local market and perceived importance of the position. One size fits all fails when most English-language local print media in Canada is owned by a small number of conglomerates that have eliminated local coverage outside major markets. American markets may get horserace coverage; we're lucky to get any mention of equines. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Our job is not to ignore valid information when no "reliable, independent sources" are available. One could argue that Canadian English-language media has almost no reliable, independent sources left outside a few major urban markets. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Endorsement cruft takes up a huge amount of space on election articles, to the point that 5 of the top 50 longest articles are about state-level elections. Requiring third-party coverage would be a great way to cut down on this. I would even propose going one step further and applying the MOS:CULTURALREFS standard of secondary/tertiary sources that discuss the endorsement in depth, not just a brief mention. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)21:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
and because Ballotpedia is an independent source that reports all endorsements for all US elections (both state and national), I don't see any effect of this rule on most of these election-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That, and, Texas and California are really big and have a lot of districts. I'm not surprised that their election articles are prone to being very long. These articles vary somewhat in the number of endorsements listed per candidate and in the promotion of individual vs. organizational endorsements but it doesn't appear to me that organizational endorsements are driving this problem—to the extent it is a problem that need solving. Maybe some other approach is needed to trim these articles or maybe the size of these articles is acceptable and unavoidable given the nature of the subjects. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We both responded to your similar sentiments about Ballotpedia below. The only examples of 'problematic' articles provided have been US elections articles. (For the record, I don't find the endorsements sections of these articles especially problematic.) I offered an alternative explanation for why California and Texas elections articles are prone to being so large. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Not all media in every country is created equally. Certain places are going to cover endorsements more than others, and I think that is in of itself biased, as it will result in certain regions having better coverage than others.-- Earl Andrew - talk02:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the notion that listing endorsements is strictly promotional, or that it has no encyclopedic value. It's supposed to tell readers something about the candidate's support base, affiliations, and affinities, and is often relevant to campaign finance. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Systemic bias is an issue on Wikipedia, but there's not typically consensus to lower standards to the level of "include it because it exists, regardless of whether anyone has judged it worthy of note". —Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that we wouldn't want to lower standards, but my concern about this problem is:
we're talking about requiring higher standards, not the ordinary ones, and
the point is to deal with lists of endorsements in US, and this proposal will have no effect on lists of endorsements in the US.
A proposal that would address the identified problem would sound something like this:
If there is a reasonably comprehensive list of endorsements at Ballotpedia (or a similar site), then link to that webpage in the Wikipedia:External links. When a comprehensive external list is available, articles should contain only a high-level summary of endorsements in the article, e.g., "The candidate has been endorsed by anti-tax advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies[1]" (when reliable sources directly support such summaries) or information about endorsements that produced significant media attention, e.g., "The Abrasive Activists club announced an unsolicited endorsement and donation, causing the candidate to disclaim the endorsement, return the money, and announce support for raising taxes[1]" or "The candidate was endorsed by the prime minister, and the election result was widely seen as a test of the PM's political influence[1]".
Support. If the endorsement isn't reported on by independent RS, then it's not passing the bar for BALASP (and if the candidacy/election itself has so little sourcing that an endorsement announcement from 1-2 non-independent sources actually is proportionally weighty coverage-wise, then either the subject itself is not notable or there's a pressing case for IAR). By policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. Endorsements are inherently promotional, self-serving, and (when sourced from the endorser as an individual person) are SPS with claims about third parties. They should be contextualized, or at the very least noticed, by independent RS.I also don't see how a political campaign shouldn't be held to the same standards as Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees ... equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
One way that political endorsements differ from these other listings to avoid, as I said elsewhere is that they may tell readers something about the candidate's support base, affiliations, and affinities, and is often relevant to campaign finance. There is some superficial similarity between political endorsements and business business alliances or (corporate) sponsors but there are meaningful differences. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As was pointed out in the "BEFORE" at WP:RSN, the framing that the current guidance allows local consensus to overrule our general policy that facts be sourced to independent reliable sources is not quite accurate. A "dependent" primary source is often reliable for a statement made by the source itself, such as an explicit endorsement on an official website or social media account. WP:SELCRIT provides some general guidance but more or less allows for local consensus at the level of individual list articles. All that said, I can imagine these lists getting out of hand. WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROMO, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and other general principles apply to endorsement list articles. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yup… while a selfpub source can reliably verify an endorsement, WP:VNOT and WP:DUE apply. We need independent reliable sources to demonstrate that the endorsement matters enough for us to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
What happens if an independent source claims Organization A endorsed Candidate B, but Organization A says it isn't an endorsement (and it's not a clear-cut case of either side being wrong)? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I would think that endorsement lists generally include uncontroversial, uncomplicated entries. Beyond that, this has to be a case by case determination and is not something a general guideline can address. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ballotpedia is a great source for US elections, perhaps, not so much for the rest of the world. This looks like a case of making rules suitable for the US based on US conditions and assuming they should apply worldwide. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There is an ongoing debate in Canadian politics articles where some editors argue that self-published social media posts or campaign websites are sufficient for inclusion in endorsement lists, regardless of independent coverage. On local talk pages, this frequently leads to attempts to establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for inclusion of these into a "list of endorsements" which closely resembles the tables used in AP2 articles (see 2026 Ontario Liberal Party leadership election#Endorsements for the most recent example of this debate coming up). Requiring independent secondary coverage, even for organizations and at "local" talk pages ensures that Wikipedia endorsement lists reflect encyclopedic WP:WEIGHT. ―"GraveDragon-X"(hihi)18:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ordinary discussions about how to best apply/comply with our policies and guidelines are not LOCALCONSENSUS violations. I suggest reading WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, especially the bit that says:
YDesired outcome: A small number of editors arrive at an agreement about how to best apply sitewide policies and guidelines to a given Wikipedia article.
If it is not clear enough that this "Desired outcome" (emphasis in the original) is not a LOCALCONSENSUS, then let me know, and I'll see about clarifying that, possibly by adding a sentence that says "Doing this is not a 'local consensus' and does not violate this policy." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would opine that some editors are arguing to be allowed to decide that Nrelevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply to particular articles, on account of "poor" or "slow" secondary coverage. ―"GraveDragon-X"(hihi)21:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There's no policy or guideline that requires secondary coverage for a small detail, such as whether a candidate was endorsed by an organization. Arguing that primary and/or non-independent sources should be allowed within the confines of the relevant sitewide policies is the opposite of arguing that relevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply. The WP:PRIMARY policy says "Primary sources that have been reputably publishedmay be used in Wikipedia". Why are you arguing against the long-standing sitewide policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If anything, I am arguing that a simple tweet or candidate website is insufficient sourcing for inclusion of endorsements of individuals on Wikipedia per WP:ENDORSE/WP:DUE. If they have not been covered by independent, secondary sources, why would Wikipedia, if Wikipedia's purpose is to be a reflection of what is written in reliable, secondary sources? ―"GraveDragon-X"(hihi)00:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia that fairly represents all the sources, which sometimes requires including facts that are not written in secondary (=analytical, evaluative, interpretative, etc.) sources.
Note that WP:ENDORSE doesn't even mention WP:SECONDARY sources, much less require them. ENDORSE says editors working on an article can choose to use sources connected to the organization itself, such as its website or official social media accounts for endorsements by organizations.
The arguments in Canadian politics articles centre around individuals, not organizations, which are specifically covered by WP:ENDORSE. I am aware that this specific RfC is in regards to organizations only. ―"GraveDragon-X"(hihi)01:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The text on WP:ENDORSE literally says This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post by the endorser, endorsee, or an affiliated individual or organization, for example. If my semantics are poor, I apologize, but editors are arguing that a simple tweet or a link to www.JaneDoe2026.ca/my-endorsements should be enough for inclusion of individuals. ―"GraveDragon-X"(hihi)01:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That's under "2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliableindependent sources" in ===Endorsements by individuals===
The difference between WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources is not mere semantics. It is the difference between a source that analyzes an endorsement ("The ____ endorsement of my esteemed opponent has proved an embarrassment to his campaign; I should be appalled to think that such a deplorable organization approved of my platform") and one that has no vested/financial interest in the outcome (e.g., a news outlet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In fairness, which definition of primary source one uses and how it categorizes news articles is a semantic issue. A mess that's been acknowledged earlier in this discussion. Of course, our house definition is what ultimately matters in assessing the application of P&G. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
True; there's a quite traditional definition that says anything published within a few years of any event is automatically a primary source, which would mean that "must have a secondary source" would mean "cannot be included until the election has been over for several years". But that definition is mostly people writing about pre-modern history, and 'our house definition' does not require that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And you have resources like this and usage in different disciplines and contexts. Most descriptions I've seen, including ours, will say that newspapers (and by extension, online news articles) can be primary or secondary depending on various factors but the factors differ as do the determinations based on a particular factor. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
anything published within a few years of any event is certainly the definition I was taught, and it's the one I use for anything pre-2016 or so. (This is a viewpoint which does not make you popular at AFD) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸02:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Because it would mean we can't write about anything that happened recently, which I think is a viewpoint that would garner very little support in a community wide discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Only because there is further confusion that reliable = secondary (or tertiary). Even though our P&G don't say that, it's no surprise that this is a source of conflict and confusion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You're right that our guidelines and practices should take a global view. A relatively small number of articles have been provided as examples in this and the other linked discussions to illustrate what exactly the problem is, and all of these have been US elections articles. If we were to adopt the proposed rule and follow the guidance that Ballotpedia is generally reliable, the likely outcome would be that US election articles remain largely unchanged—or expanded, as Ballotpedia likely catalogues endorsements that aren't in some of our articles—while endorsement lists for other countries' elections are trimmed unless there is a similar source that can be used to catalogue endorsements for every either country. Or if we wanted to limit/down-weight Ballotpedia endorsement lists, we'd have to impose an even higher bar that at least two independent sources are required for organizational endorsements. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Out of curiosity, I looked at Ballotpedia's Abdul El-Sayed page. I count 58 "organizations" under his endorsements in the 2026 senate race. Our article on the senate race lists just 37 in the primary (8 labor unions, 25 organizations, 1 political party, 2 newspapers). —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or{{subst:csp|sock username|sockmaster username}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Should any of the following be added to WP:ITNBLURB:
If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, ITN should generally not report or indicate this characterization.
If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair and Wikipedia has an article surrounding this, consensus at ITN can develop to report or indicate this characterization.
If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, consensus at ITN can develop to report or indicate this characterization.
If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, ITN should generally report or indicate this characterization.
Remove elections from ITN/R as the current formulation too often results in insignificant elections in microstates being posted while elections which are actually important such as the Mayor of NYC, the Scottish government or the Indian state legislative assemblies are denied. The nominal RfC question is badly formed because ITN/R doesn't determine the format of blurbs. The fact that such postings are often contentious is a further reason to have open discussion without any ITN/R constraints which lead some to suppose that elections should be posted in a mechanical, monotonous way. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the RFC question (the first person after 24 days of workshopping...). I have reworked it to hopefully resolve the concern. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Your constant prejudice against the politics of small nations is duly noted. Again. However, the course of action you are calling for does not form part of any of the proposals currently under discussion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
ITN/R is explicit prejudice − an arbitrary list of supposedly important topics regardless of the actual coverage and facts. My position is that we should judge topics on their merits, not by preconceived prejudice. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I can agree that ITN should be more open to posting sub-national elections; the most recent NYC election was inarguably one of the biggest political news stories in the world last year. But instead of posting it, ITN - as per usual - shot itself in the foot by caring more about strict adherence to its incoherent set of unwritten rules than doing anything resembling what it's supposed to do. But I don't think this would be solved by removing national elections from ITN/R. ITN/R blurbs and RD postings are the only semi-functional parts of ITN precisely because they bypass these debates over what is "significant." We just need to stop making the mistake of acting like anything that's not ITN/R is automatically not blurbworthy at all. That, and nuke ITNSIGNIF, and maybe also replace our whole ITN/C community with different editors who'll be able to form a consensus to fix the broken mess that is ITN, because with every passing year I lose faith that the bunch we have now will ever be able to agree to do that. Vanilla Wizard 💙21:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose instruction creep that doesn't appear to be well-justified by prior discussions. This more or less aligns with options 3/4, but I'm not seeing a reason why we need a separate instruction about this that wouldn't simply be subject to regular workshopping of the ITN hook to reflect RS coverage. Even when blatantly unfair, election results tend to be significant (if nothing else, confirming the intended continuity of the ruling regime), protests resulting from rigged elections can also be quite significant, and judging fairness is itself a gradient, not a binary. That having been said, I think that Andrew D's concerns above could perhaps be resolved by adding a clause that ITN should also run blurbs for elections for cities and dependencies with a population in excess of [2 million? 5 million? 10 million?] signed, Rosguilltalk20:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose instruction creep. I don't see any evidence that the status quo (option 3) is not working. How a blurb should be worded depends on the circumstances of the individual election and every other option is too rigid to account for this. I don't see any benefit in explicitly stating that consensus may be for or against mentioning how free and fair an election is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose either of the options numbered 1, support any of the others, with a preference for option 3 - I think it's misleading to have a policy against mentioning the unfairness of an election if that unfairness is widely reported in reliable independent sources. I'm less concerned with the exact phrasing of the rule, but I do see the concern about instruction creep. With option 4, although I am in favour of its sentiments, there is the risk that the requirement to include such a reference might lead to such stories not being posted at all, because the nature of the reference cannot be agreed. Options 2 and 3 are both close to my understanding of the status quo, and clarify it. I do not think that we should specifically be avoiding posting elections simply because they are unfair - but I do have a preference for mentioning the unfairness. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Remove ITN, first choice. Remove elections from ITN/R, second choice. Follow the sources, third choice. If the sources say it's a "sham" election, say that so-and-so won a "sham election." If they say it's a "rigged" election, ITN should say so-and-so won a "rigged election." If they say it's an "election with widely-reported irregularities," then we should say so-and-so won an "election with widely-reported irregularities." Levivich (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It wouldn't really, since all those controversial / sham elections would be nominated under the normal ITN process... Khuft (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Generally oppose, free is not a binary, fair is not a binary. Reporting purported election results without going over the same arguments repeatedly seems the purpose of the ITN/R entry, mandating freeness and fairness assessments will not aid with that goal. CMD (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose cover all in the same way and don't judge. The reader is not stupid and sees bias. Let's not give them more opportunity to see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If RS say one thing is an election, and another thing is a sham election, and we call both things an "election," we're misleading the reader. If RS say one thing is "X", and another thing is "called 'X' but not actually X," and we call both things "X", we're lying to the reader. On the main page. Dropping "sham" or "rigged" before "election" would be a lie of omission.
"Free" and "fair" aren't just adjectives describing some kinds of elections, they're prerequisites for something to even be an "election." We shouldn't use the word "elect" when the reality is "appoint" (or "self-appoint"), even if government propaganda uses the word "elect." Levivich (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Can editors opposing any changes mention whether they think the status quo is along the lines of "ITN participants can propose and gain consensus for blurbs that report or indicate an election not being free or fair" or whether it is "Any blurb that mentions an election not being free and fair is procedurally invalid and will be altered by ITN admins to omit it", and whether that extends to the subtle games with wording Masem mentioned below), even if ITN participants supported such a blurb. Anyhow, Support 3>4, oppose 1 and 2; whether an election was a sham is the second-most important thing after the result, on equal significance with the election happening. Support 5 - the fact that a military dictator decided they needed a fancy new title is not inherently significant. 1brianm7 (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Can editors opposing any changes mention whether they think the status quo is along the lines of "ITN participants can propose and gain consensus for blurbs that report or indicate an election not being free or fair" or whether it is "Any blurb that mentions an election not being free and fair is procedurally invalid and will be altered by ITN admins to omit it" this is a false dichotomy. Editors can reach a consensus to mention that, but if they haven't then it won't be included in the blurb. If admins are altering blurbs against consensus that's a problem that none of the changes proposed here can solve. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm kinda at a loss here. Admins are doing that (see the discussion I linked in my reply to you above). When asked why, they said that's how it has always been done and to start a discussion at WT:ITN if you want it changed. I did, there was no consensus, so I started this RfC. What should I have done?1brianm7 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
A significant contingent of editors respond to proposals to mention or indicate sham-ness by saying that there is an unwritten rule to never do so. I can't think of a way to prevent that simpler than a written rule saying that it is allowed. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose change, keep status quo / keep elections in ITN/R – "X is declared the winner of" is just a wordier way of saying "X wins". As mentioned before, the arguments on whether an election is "free or fair" is arbitrary and ITN editors will never agree. If protests are significant enough where they would normally merit a blurb, it would make sense to merge the two blurbs together. If reliable sources are reporting on a specific aspect of an election, such as voter turnout in the 2021 NewCaledonia referendum or the recent HongKong election (in which the pro-China camp, pro-democracy camp, and international media all focused primarily on turnout), then it would also be appropriate to include that in the blurb when also reflected by the targeted article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥14:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Support this initiative in general; agnostic re exact wordings. I never really agreed with the "consensus" that we should use standardised wording when posting election results (sham or not). Our guidance should be what reputable sources say, and if they tend towards questioning the freedom and fairness of certain elections, we should be free to editorialise accordingly. (And: Keep all elections at ITN/R - not sure why that is even being questioned here as irrelevant to this proposal - the Russian "election" will be nominated anyway when it happens, whether as ITN or as ITN/R) Khuft (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
we should be free to editorialise accordingly No! Absolutely not! The personal opinions of ITN editors should not determine how we describe election results. The last thing we need is editors only using the term "sham elections" for regimes they personally disagree with. Warudo (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Follow the sources/target article language above all else. I guess this is an anything except 1 with a preference for 4 !vote? But it really does just depend on what the sources say. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, ITN even less so. It should just be a chain of repetition: ITN should follow what the article says, the article should follow what the sources say, simple as. This should be the only thing that determines whether the language of the blurb can or should suggest that an election is contested, not what us at ITN have to say about it.
As CMD pointed out, it is not possible for us to cleanly and objectively separate "real" elections from "sham" elections because most countries on Earth don't fit neatly into a binary between true democracies and true dictatorships; it's a spectrum and most of the world is somewhere in the middle, and where exactly a country falls on that spectrum will vary from election to election as countries either backslide or democratize over time. This is why it needs to be determined on a case by case basis, based on what the sources say and how much weight article writers assign to those sources, how an election should be described. If the article can say the election was described by international observers as neither free nor fair, then ITN can. If the article can't say it, ITN can't say it. Easy as that, no need to complicate things or debate it at ITN/C. If this is contested, contest it at the article talk page, not ITN/C. The less leeway ITN gives itself, the better. Not just with regard to election blurbs, but all blurb discussions, because this mindset that ITN is somehow separate from the articles it features & gets to act as its own decisionmaking body with minimal objective instructions is really the root of every one of ITN's problems. Oppose removing elections from ITN/R, agree with Khuft that it's not really clear why that's even being discussed.
Oppose. It's not for us to judge elections in such a way; we can note that observers view an election as unfair. Instructions creep, too. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To be fair to the nom, the options provided are about how/if we should follow the sources, not leaving it up to us to judge elections ourselves. Noting that observers view an election as unfair is roughly options 2-4, but opposing all of them and forming no consensus here would leave us stuck with the current situation where the editors feel they are allowed to judge elections themselves. ITN doesn't have an instruction creep problem, but I wish it did. It has a "there are no instructions" problem. Vanilla Wizard 💙21:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Exactly that we have no instructions. I'd note that about half of the oppose votes are doing so because there is no need to spell out the status quo (one) and another half are doing so because there is no need to spell out the status quo (roughly two or three). 1brianm7 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose / keep status quo Pretty much agree with Nice4What. Readers can always click on the blurb's wikilink to the election page to learn more about the election, including its controversies. If "reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair", then that would usually be covered in the article's lead. Some1 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
From news style: To "bury the lead" is to begin the article with background information or details of secondary importance to the readers, forcing them to read more deeply into an article than they should have to in order to discover the essential points. - perhaps we should just adopt the format "John Smithis set to continue as president of example.", we wouldn't be deceiving the reader anymore (if they don't click on the link, which most won't) 1brianm7 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose any changes. Any articles we post where they are described as shams should say as much in the articles in question. We don't need to editorialize in the blurbs or in what we post. All election blurbs say anyway are "[person] was elected as [title] of [country]", and that is all that needs being said in most cases. The article is the ideal place for expansion upon the circumstances around the election. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that's the whole issue that is being flagged here... "X was elected" implies a democratic process was adhered to, which isn't the case in sham elections. It is editorialising, but in the opposite direction (if that makes any sense) because it doesn't follow what reputable sources would be saying. Khuft (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"X was elected" implies a democratic process was adhered to I don't think that's true. It implies that an election was held and that that X was declared the winner of that election, but it doesn't imply anything about the nature of the election - after all whether a process is "democratic" or not is neither a binary nor objective, whether the defined process (whatever its nature) was followed is frequently not knowable until days or weeks (at least) afterwards and sometimes contentious. For example whether the 2020 United States presidential election was "democratic" and whether the defined process was followed depends on who you ask - e.g. those who believe Donald Trump's claims, those who believe the Electoral college is not democratic, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose change This proposal seems to rely on a biased view that free and fair elections is the control stage and any departure from it needs to be indicated. In the same way we don't characterise elections as 'free and fair', there's no point to do so if they're 'non-free and unfair'. In any case, the reader can view the article for further details. Democracy is a view, not a universal rule. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Discussion (ITN elections)
An issue that I've raised is that the determination of what is or isn't a sham election, or what is or isn't a free-and-fair election, is not an objective meausure. There are election watchdog groups that will review an election and sometime after the election will assess the free-and-fairness but not in time for ITN's purposes; and even if these groups deem an election to be a sham, their statements should be included with attribution as other similar groups (like SPLC for hate groups), to keep it out of wikivoice. Which leaves us with journalism commentators making that assessment at the time of the election, which we should avoid resting too much weight on even if it seems clear they are correct. ITN's blurbs need to stay factual as they are all in wikivoice - we don't have room for attribution or sourcing like article space has, so trying to force in a claim that an election was a sham or not free-and-fair just doesn't work. We can play subtle games with the wording, de-emphaizing "win" and more "selected" or "named" in the cases of such elections like in Russia, though we should also be consist with that across known free-and-fair elections too. Masem (t) 13:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It is also worth noting that there are times when different observers have different opinions about how free and fair a given election is (although usually only in degree). Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The alternative just as problematic - we present an election as-if it were a true election ("Russia elects" or "Putin wins"). "wins" and "elects" have specific implications and invoke particular meaning for a reader, so it is simply not neutrally reporting the facts if in fact we are reporting on a sham election. Instead, we would be misinforming our readers. Katzrockso (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
+1 - If there is clearly a dispute over whether an "election" was really an election at all, and there is due weight to note this in an article lead, then presenting the event as an election in Wikivoice with no qualifiers is very much an NPOV vio. NPOV is about giving due weight to relevant perspectives, failing to do this is not neutral. The only sensible solution is to assess the sources and the article content to determine whether there is due weight to present an election as contested. Writing "Vladimir Putin wins the Russian presidential election" with no asterisks as though it were a totally normal and legitimate election is just as much of a WP:WEIGHT vio as "Joe Biden is declared the winner of the United States presidential election amid allegations of fraud"; both unduly promote a WP:FRINGE perspective. Vanilla Wizard 💙23:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem is whether an election is a sham or not , regardless of how many journalists are commenting on it within the days of that election, is subjective and cannot be said in wikivoice. It falls under NPOV that the claims should be attributed and given context which is fine in the article body, but in the short sentence we have at ITN, we have no room for attribution and context. (This is true for all ITN blurbs, they have to be presented in wikivoice so must be demonstrated fact and not subjective assessments). WEIGHT obviously applies in article space as to put the sham aspect up high in the lede, but obviously outside wikivoice, eg: "Putin wins the Russian president election in what many observers consider as a sham election." but that's language that can't work at ITN. Masem (t) 01:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That's why there are wording formats we can say that do not imply that the election was a fair one without going there, like "X is elected as president in the 2026 Y election." That applies if the election was fair or not, but we should be using that same format for all elections so that we're clearly not putting our finger down on the marker. Masem (t) 01:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Proposing a 24-hour blackout in response to WMF actions
Closing as WP:SNOW given that this is clearly not going to win the overwhelming support necessary for such a measure, much less within the next seven days. It is clear from respondents that while there is substantial dissatisfaction in the community regarding the WMF's recent decisions and statements, even among those who have pledged support to the WWU, there is a general belief that a 24-hour blackout in the next week without having first heard from WWU is neither practical nor strategically sound. Alternate proposals being considered in other threads include:
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.
I am making a proposal that, in response to the WMF's recent actions (see also here), English Wikipedia enact a 24-hour blackout. This would be similar to the blackout enacted by Arabic Wikipedia in 2023, or to the 2012 blackout done in the Protests against SOPA and PIPA. I want it to be for 24 hours so that it can be a clear and attention-grabbing warning that does not cause any long-term disruption (for now). I propose that it take place on 11 August 2026, one week from today. Please respond to this RfC indicating whether you support or oppose this proposal. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support– per WMF's recent actions in using donor funds for union busting and firing employees. It would definitely help raise awareness on the issue. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs)02:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wait– per other editors, we should wait until we get support from WWU to do this, or see if they decide to take another course of action, in order to remain in solidarity as one group. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs)02:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose A strike is more practical than a blackout because a strike gets the same, if not more, media attention without disrupting the readership. The reason the previous blackout worked was because the whole internet was striking around the same time, which we won't happen the second time around. What the WMF cares about is their image; if they aren't the "savior of the internet", they can't get as much in donations. If we do a blackout, we will get flash-in-the-pan coverage that will be gone in 72 hours. If we strike, we can get long-term media coverage, dragging the WMF through the mud if they don't meet our demands. Striking is less disruptive on the readers while being the most effective way to punch the WMF where it hurts: their donations. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There are 250,730 active editors according to Special:Statistics; the vast majority of editors don't know about this WMF/WWU conflict and will continue editing as usual, so I doubt a strike is going to raise much awareness or directly impact donations. Some1 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The point isn't "how much disruption can we cause"; it is "how long can we get the media to cover this". I imagine with a blackout, we will get heavy coverage during the event and the immediate time after it. People will see the coverage, but they will easily forget it and move on to the next thing. With a strike, we can drag it out if we need to. People won't forget about our plea after the initial burst of coverage if it keeps being talked about. The longer the strike is covered, the more people will have their "perfect" image of Wikipedia shattered, thus making more people less likely to donate. I doubt the WMF doesn't already understand this, and they would be more responsive to us potentially dragging them through the mud than a quick protest that will be done in a day and forgotten in a week. The media loves a story, especially one they can talk about during periods where there is less news, and if we give them one, they will bring the people who donate to our movement. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We only have so much social capital. If we spend it on a blackout, the strike will get less coverage. If our support drops early in the strike because it isn't "newsworthy" because the blackout happened, we lose a lot of negotiating power. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am mixed on your reply:
A strike can still be newsworthy beside a blackout if we write about it in our blackout message.
From my limited experience, more time means less interest no matter what, so the strike will turn un-newsworthy even without a blackout.
However, I agree with your sentiment on negotiating power. We are doing this for the WWU, and an editor-initiated blackout can risk their position. However, I also want to put out there the idea of a WWU-initiated blackout. (All this is partly why I have not yet !voted.)
Tentatively oppose and support a strike as per Mikeycdiamond. But I'll defer to the WWU, and am willing to change my position. Something should be done, I'm just unsure which is the best option. In solidarityIam-py-test (talk, she/her) 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Much like how boycotts without a request from the involved union are discouraged because they risk undermining the union's strategy, we should not be doing a blackout, editing strike, or other collective action without a request from the WWU. Per Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity: We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Wiki Workers United and affirm our willingness to engage in collective action if called upon by WWU, up to and including staging an editorial strike. ... note that no collective action has yet been called for by Wiki Workers United, and thus none is actively being planned. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare(she/her•talk) 02:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it's important not to do anything that might worsen their situation, but I also think community organized efforts can coexist with taking actions (or not taking any) that the WWU calls for. Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I disagree. This is fundamentally about the unionizing WMF employees, and we should follow their lead. The community-organized effort was the solidarity petition letting the WWU group know there are more than a thousand of us who have their backs. To have the editing community suddenly go rogue with a blackout/strike without any request or even go-ahead from the WWU would be the opposite of solidarity. Directing our collective frustration (which I certainly share) in a haphazard and disorganized direction would only undermine the powerful message that the editing community is standing behind the WWU and ready to back them up. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare(she/her•talk) 03:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If it'll leave them worse off, I'll totally strike my vote. I just don't like assuming that "we all have your back and will support you if you want us to do something like strike" and independently taking the stance that we should have a blackout inherently have to be contradictory positions. I could be naive, though. Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict× 2) Premature RFC. If the goal is to support WWU then the very first question to ask should be whether the WWU think this action will support their cause? The second question should be whether they think now is the best time for that action. Only if the answer to both questions is "yes" is it worth thinking about the practicalities (time (when will it have the greatest impact?), duration, technical prerequistes, etc.) and only once they are sorted should an RFC be held. Has anybody even asked WWU yet? I know there was comment at Wikimania that some actions editors could theoretically take could actually hurt the union's cause, I don't recall if a blackout was one of those actions but it's important to know the answer before organising anything. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wait, grudgingly. - I'm open to a blackout if WWU requests it. Going off and cowboy blacking out the site ourselves weakens WWU's negotiating position. I will note that the situation is causing permanent damage and distrust to accumulate between the WMF and the editing community, and I hope WMF will speedily reconsider to avoid exacerbating the damage Tazerdadog (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I worry this might be a catch-22? Like in the they can't have plausible deniability way and that the WMF might try to go after the WWU legally in some way if they endorse this since they clearly have no problems hiring a unionbusting firm. I think it makes sense as a community to do a sort of collective protest against hiring an anti-union law firm (if a consensus forms that this wasn't okay and we want the world to know about it). Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. WWU will probably win the NLRB vote. I don't think it's smart to escalate when the desired outcome will likely be achieved without escalating. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose I've seen enough back and forth on this issue to know that it will cause some bad blood between editors. People who don't know what is going on, don't care, or just forget out of habit are likely to get some heat for crossing the picket line, regardless of what organizers say. People barely need an excuse to find anonymous targets to pick on as it is. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There isn't a picket line to cross if the site itself is down. I think you might have misread what is being proposed? Obviously a message would need to be written so people don't just think it's a technical issue. Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ah, thought blackout was the same as what happened during the Reddit API controversy where they made a bunch of sub-reddits private in an moderator strike. Not really sure how we could go about a blackout here without imposing some sort of a "strike." The Protests against SOPA and PIPA example made me think they wanted to "temporarily close or interrupt their content and redirect users to a message." Not sure how we could go about that without either high level admin involvement, or volunteers collectively playing along. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 09:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Does anyone like the idea of taking a step that's less than a full 24hr blackout, like a banner and/or themed main page day? Levivich (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That might be easier to get consensus for if we're worried it'll be too much of a bang and interfere with what the WWU might eventually want to do. I like the idea of a banner if we aren't doing a blackout and again, only if it won't worsen the WWU's position. I'd like to think raising awareness would be a good thing. I also think potential donors have a right to know where their money might be going. Clovermoss🍀(talk)05:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We're organising a meta:Event:WikiProject Organized Labour Month Online Campaign, a cross-language effort to improve our coverage of unions, with a focus on the union matters relevant to WWU. The goal is to get it on Mainpages (GAs etc). The big question is how we advertise. Before, I wanted a watchlist notice, and was a bit hesitant to suggest a Central banner (to all logged-in users), and make that banner take a side (instead of just linking to discussions). Or we can simply directly do a site notice (to all readers) now, without mentioning the edit campagin, now that we've passed from implausible deniability to proof that execs have been misleading us. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose unilateral anything; our actions, if any, must align with WWU's strategies. If they request a blackout, then I'm in favour, also because it would be an effective way to get more attention for the cause. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I don't see how this is our fight. For SOPA there was a colorable argument that the law was a direct threat to the operation of the 'pedia, and I was happy that it appeared to work, but I've regretted it because now there's a temptation to engage in similar action whenever there's a political issue that enough editors are on one side of. This is dangerous for at least the perception of our neutrality. You can be as sympathetic to the union as you want and as vocal as you want about it, but don't try to draw the en.wiki community as such onto one side or another. --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support educating not disrupting readers... we should raise awareness about what is going on, for example inviting them to join the September edit-a-thon, but we should not immediately escalate. This is important, because the build-up potential for escalation needs growing consensus, and we get there by exhausting every other resort, including asking nicely. Till now, editors have asked nicely, but we have not involved readers, beyond what they might find in the press. So this build up gets us there. We can also think of donor centric language like "Donors can support Wikimedia's mission by contacting donate@wikimedia.org and ask that it not be used for hiring expensive union-busting law firms" ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 08:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reason I always oppose blackouts – it's an inherently non-neutral action, and we profess to be neutral. As TheDJ said above me, it's also internal drama and so should not be foisted upon passing readers. — Czello(music)09:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support some form of [in]action; neutral as to the exact form. The recent response to unions is one symptom of a wider malaise, and I would prefer a broader message: the WMF must return to its original purpose of supporting readers and editors rather than lining its own pockets. Certes (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think shutting down English Wikipedia for all readers and editors based on the support of a small percentage of the community contrasts poorly with the request to voluntarily recognize a union based on it having the support of a majority of eligible employees. It sends the message that a minority of the community can impose its will on the entire community, which may serve to confirm worries about the degree of union support. I think another approach may be more suitable. isaacl (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Are the 251,000-minus-200 editors all against the blackout? Extremely unlikely (as a side note, there are currently 251,364 active editors so you don't need the -200). Is it that hard to connect the 200-vs-1 sample to the wider 250,000-editor population We have no knowledge how how representative the sample is. It is fair to presume that the significant majority of editors who have the strongest opinions about the matter have contributed to the petition and that there are editors who are aware of and do not support the petition that have chosen not to explicitly oppose it for various reasons (the vast majority of those who have not voted will be unaware it exists, many of them, perhaps most, will be completely unaware of the whole saga). Together this makes it almost certain that if all 251,364 editors were forced to explicitly support or oppose, the support ratio would be less than 200:1, however it is unknowable what the actual figure would be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The point is that we don't know whether it is or is not beyond the point of recovery. If you ask 200 self-selected supporters of a political party whether that party's policies are good you will get very nearly 100% saying yes, however this tells you nothing about what the wider population thinks about that party's policies. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Absolutely not. Blackout is the last resort nuclear option against an existential threat. Shutting down the entire site about an internal matter is the quintessential definition of disruption to make a WP:POINT. The editors who want to support WWU would be wiser to actually listen to what would help them instead of getting carried away with obvious non-starters like this. If and when WWU invites editors supporting them to take action by for example striking, these editors are free to answer the call for action; in the mean time, a blackout is ridiculously out of proportion and accomplishes nothing. And that is even without mentioning how problematic the idea that an external actor should have any say into calling on the community for a blackout at all, but I suspect WWU themselves are wiser than that, at least. Choucas🐦⬛11:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Do not hijack the main page to make a partisan political statement. If you want to fight this battle on meta or on project pages, fine, but keep it out of mainspace. RoySmith(talk)12:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"WMF is spending donor money for a union-busting law firm" is enough reason why readers should be aware of this. Additionally, is it not partisan already to support freedom that you name yourself The Free Encyclopedia? That sounds as partisan as fighting for authoritarianism. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reasons I did in 2012. We are not a collective or bargaining group and we should not seek to bind others. Individuals, of course, are free to do as they like.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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.
Don't run any donation banners until the union-busting is completely ended
I don't think it makes sense to allow the WMF to run donation banners, when they then spend a significant part of that money to employ a notorious (and expensive) union-busting law firm (see e.g. here and here and many other places if you don't know what I'm referring to). While discussion about other possible actions can of course continue, I think showing clear disapproval of spending donor money in this way is easy, warranted, doesn't disrupt the readers, and might affect the WMF leadership where it hurts the most. Fram (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support, and maybe the community could run its own banners to let readers know why the donation banners are being put on pause. Some1 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
PS: I always thought the donation banners were a WMF thing? But if, as per this proposal, we have the power to not run them, then that implies that when they are run that's with our consent. So when users come to the Teahouse etc. to plead us to stop constantly begging for money, and we say "it's not us, guv, it's them WMF", that's not strictly true, then, is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I thought we had the technical ability to not show them if we wanted to (via an interface admin?), but if I'm mistaken, then this is not such a simple proposal as I thought. Fram (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the community has the technical ability to not display the fundraising banners, however my understanding that the banners are a WP:CONEXEMPT matter - they don't require the consent of the en.wp community to run banners. They do engage at Wikipedia:Fundraising/Fundraising Hub about the design of banners, but that's a voluntary thing. So it's wrong to say that we "allow" them to run donation banners and we cannot disallow them or prevent them. The most we can do is express our disapproval. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We can perfectly disallow or prevent them. Banners don't seem to be included in CONEXEMPT, and even if they were, who cares? It's not as if the WMF leadership cares about Wikipedia either. Technically, they can still run them, we just don't display them. Fram (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would appreciate greater clarification about whether this is something we as a community could even do. Whether or not such banners are subject to community consensus seems like a pretty vital thing to understand before voting on it, and honestly probably should have been nailed down before proposing it. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure enwiki interface admins do have the technical ability to do everything proposed here - running arbitrary CSS and JavaScript on (almost) all pages on the website is much more powerful than you think it is. I don't think it's possible to answer the question of whether we have a social right to do this; I'm quite sure individual enwiki-ans could concoct an interpretation in which it is and WMF staff could concoct an interpretation in which it isn't pretty much regardless of what the rules actually say so the question can only be answered by seeing what happens if we do. * Pppery *(alt)in solidarity15:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The way I would put it is that it would create a constitutional crisis. Like in many governmental constitutional crises, it's not that the community clearly can do this or clearly cannot, but that there been a stable state of affairs of both the community and the WMF quietly asserting supremacy in this regard, which has never been tested because both sides have avoided a full-on confrontation. Also like in governmental constitutional crises, the question of who has the better arguments becomes largely academic, secondary to the practical question of who can enforce their claim. In this case, in practical terms, the WMF has technical supremacy (including the ability to disestablish intadmin access entirely), but the community has a (near-)monopoly on the labor required to keep the site running, which would make it very hard for the WMF to enforce that technical supremacy more than briefly, lest they become dictators of a wiki no one wants to edit. If the WMF think they can politically get away with invoking CONEXEMPT in that context they probably will, and if they don't they probably won't, and that's true regardless of who has the better policy-based claim of sovereignty over banners. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The WMF shutting us down on their end would definitely meet my high standard of when it's appropriate to start considering the collective shutting things down on our end. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In the case of fundraising banner, WMF could WP:BLACKLOCKMediaWiki:Common.css which would prevent anyone from editing it. They probably have some way of stopping JS methods as well, like disabling JS across the site (not sure what else such a move would break). They could black-lock the main page. If we used a template to put a notice on every page, they could blacklock the template. If we had a bot edit every article page to place a notice manually, they could have a bot undo that. Arguably they could blacklock all of article space, but that would be causing an editor strike that would be more widespread than any volunteer strike (literally preventing all edits to article space).
I'm sure that, as with WP:FRAM, the wheel war would stop after a few steps and everyone would go to the negotiating table. However, despite the technical impediments to actually, technically, removing all fundraising banners, the threat of trying to do it in WP:FR2022RFC was enough to get the WMF to change their fundraising banners, although that probably had more to do with WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196#Media coverage of this RfC than fear of a wheel war. Which is the whole point: the media will, once again, cover it, if it looks like the community is going to ban the fundraising banners, and the negative media attention matters to the WMF likely more than what rebellious volunteers could technically accomplish. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Technical anecdota presented without comment:
There are several ways iadmins can do this without editing MediaWiki:Common.js
As currently coded there is no way for anyone regardless of what rights they hold to stop local admins/iadmins from editing a page, other than by desysopping them -- superprotect was removed from the code in 2015.
Of course, this doesn't actually mean anything because they can change the codebase as is done routinely in the wikitech:Deployments process, and doing so would be technically trivial.
Several volunteers can do that (change the code) too.
Note "WP:BLACKLOCK" (i.e. "Office protection") is not a separate level of protection, it's just normal full-protection plus telling admins "don't touch this". If admins are willing to buck that, and other admins/'crats aren't willing to sanction those admins, then it's irrelevant.Rather than "black-lock", they'd have to bring back WP:SUPERPROTECT to actually enforce it. From a technical standpoint they could trivially do that; superprotect had no special code behind it, it was just configuration almost identical to templateeditor. Then it'd be a bit of an arms race between intadmins finding different ways to mess with the banners and WMF reverting and super-protecting. Anomie⚔00:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Even if they could bring back superprotect, it would likely lead to a lot of negative press coverage, which could harm their donations. If the WMF is openly declaring that it cares about neither employees nor admins, who would give them money? Somepinkdude (talk|contribs), in solidarity20:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Levivich it depends what you are wheel warring over - as long as you're not touching article content, WP:NEWLLM has nothing to say. Similarly, WP:LLMTALK comes into play only if you're writing comments or nomination statements. WP:G15 applies to pages created by LLMs in any namespace, and so would include banners (WP:AIIMAGES may also be relevant there). However, WP:EDITWAR and WP:WHEELWAR apply regardless of whether the warring party is a human, bot or AI agent. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support. We should not run donation banners if donations are being used against the community. I also support Rosguill's idea if that proves to be the more popular option. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Drop Littler Mendelson and invest in community as a fundraising demand, where we do continue fundraising banners, but with a clear call to action to donors. Exact wording can be wordshopped but let's find a sweet spot of being critical without completely stopping everything, which will have harder time reaching consensus. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 12:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
One possible route to implementing this would be to put up banners that go to a page that briefly explains the current crisis, then presents both a link to continue to making a donation and a link to a petition/email form/etc. supporting WWU and calling for an end to unionbusting practices. I don't really have an estimate of how successful this would be in terms of numbers and ultimate impact, but it seems like a viable route to setting up a stream of "As a donor..." messages to the WMF. signed, Rosguilltalk15:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the full text gets a bit more in the weeds than what I expect the random curious would-be donor would be interested in; but it's definitely worth including as a linked summary, and reusing some of its most central points. signed, Rosguilltalk16:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support– if I had donated money to Wikipedia, I would feel betrayed. Previous campaigns mentioned that donations were down this month after the dissolution of CommTech and I'd hate for people to think we're "in need" when that need is paying an unethical organization. I know people are worried about the Wikimedia Foundation using this an excuse to lay off people, but if they decide to prioritize that, that's on them and I'll have much to say about that course of action. I know some people have been trying to encourage people who write about cancelling their donations on social media into maybe making it temporary or giving to an affiliate instead. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Noting that I have a slight preference for Rosguill's proposal, as otherwise people might not notice why we don't have banners and might simply think the WMF has decided to annoy them less often. Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose Ultimately it's the WMF consulting us on what ads to run on the playground they own and they don't have to so why go there?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support The community wants a union, and WMF seems to be out of touch with the community by hiring a union-busting law firm. Maybe by blocking the donation banners, WMF leadership will finally decide to listen to the community and its workers instead of dismissing the concerns of the community and only pretending to listen. Abzeronow (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Question: Given the premise of this proposal is an indefinite implementation "until the union-busting is completely ended", what event, signal, metric, or message is being proposed to mark that end? The hiring of Littler Mendelson sends a pretty clear message about intent, but there are also folks here who believe disbanding Community Tech was definitely union-busting. So who decides what "completely ended" means? Is it just stopping the relationship with Littler Mendelson? Is it that plus a pledge not to do any union-busting? Does it require formal recognition? Whatever it is, say that. "I know it when I see it" doesn't make for good proposals IMO. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think parting ways with Littler-Mendelson, formally recognizing the WWU, and making a demonstrable effort to rehire the engineers whose firing precipitated the uproar (to my understanding, they've already half-done that last one) are reasonable demands to make. signed, Rosguilltalk16:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) I would suggest the objective trigger criteria of the WMF committing to:
End any business relationship with Littler Mendelson
Not engage with Jones Day in any union-related matters
Not replace Littler with any other union-avoidance firm
There's a lot more I'd like to see happen here, including an independent investigation into which WMF personnel are responsible for the decision to mislead the community about union-busting, but having clear, narrowly-tailored goals is critical if we're going to provoke a constitutional crisis, so I would suggest focusing just on the "donation money going to union-busting firms" problem. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea. Directly denying donation streams is easier for the WMF to spin as rogue community malcontents disrupting things, provides less of a reason for them to change, and risks creating a justification for further union-targeting layoffs like the ones that started this crisis. Changing things so that we give potential donors the choice, letting them either agree or disagree with our concerns, donate or not donate, contact donate@wikimedia.org to complain or not contact donate@wikimedia.org to complain, sends a much clearer message, one that can't be dismissed as just a rogue element, and one that importantly will come not just from immediate lost revenue, but from many people writing in threatening to revoke donations if the WMF doesn't disavow its union-busting, which is a lot harder to not engage with. (If there is not consensus for Rosguill's proposal, this should be read as a neutral on Fram's original proposal.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This would also be my preferred approach. "We've taken down your donation banners" is one thing, but "we've given visitors a choice, and 4 out of 5 have chosen to pledge solidarity rather than donate" would be much more powerful. (That is, if we get majority going that way... 1 out of 5 could be a bit of an own goal.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If you frame it as 1 out of 5 compared to a potential 4 out of 5, then sure. If you frame it as "20% of the visitors are pissed at you", then that's certainly an own goal... for the WMF. (I also like Rosguill's idea or something similar.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸17:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea. Tamzin's rationale is spot-on. We may also run campaigns, such as a potential WP:MEETUP/In solidarity. My idea hinges on showing that those in solidarity against the union-busting can prove the most useful contributions and article improvements to Wikipedia. Already, detractors have spun a narrative that editor strikes would be bad, so what if we do the polar opposite of that? 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing|talk w/ me!16:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support perhaps a complete halt to donation requests for a couple of days and then Rosguill's idea, or the latter from the start if that's too harsh. I'm sort of out of the loop, does anyone know where the maintenance of the tools listed at m:Community Tech/Maintenance will be coming from, if at all? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My not particularly informed assumption would be that actually interfering with WMF donation banners would quickly lead to an office action that could prevent us from putting up our own banners later. But maybe there's reason to think that wouldn't be the case? --Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)18:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea per above, first choice. Support pulling the banners (Fram's OP) as a second choice. I like Rosguill's idea because it lets us let readers know that the community doesn't support the WMF leadership's union busting, gives readers a choice, and reduces the chances of another wheel war with the office, which would be a distraction. Levivich (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
To clarify, I agree that whether or not to have a union is a choice for WMF employees to make, not volunteers or WMF leadership. But when WMF leadership acts contrary to Wikipedia values (like transparency and free knowledge) by trying to prevent unionization while repeatedly lying to the public and its own community about it, I don't think the volunteer community, as a unit, should look the other way and remain silent in order to stay "neutral." I don't think holding WMF leadership accountable to our values is "micromanaging." It is our obligation as a community to ensure the people we entrust with the money are following our values. Complaining loudly is the least we can do. Levivich (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Still support both ideas in principle but I'm ok with waiting. Pulling the banners altogether is def up there in the escalation ladder. I don't think adding a banner (Rosguill's idea) would trigger a constitutional crisis, at least not if the kind that are being workshopped below. But since the NLRB vote is happening in a month, I'm fine with not running any banners now and letting the employees vote in peace, as it were, without increasing attention and without any pro- or anti- pressure from volunteers or management or anyone else. Levivich (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think adding a banner (Rosguill's idea) would trigger a constitutional crisis. I think it would. Rosguill's proposal is basically to add an "are you sure you want to donate to such an evil organization?" page between the banner and the donation page, right? That is, in my opinion, a huge escalation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The way I understood it (and judging by the workshopping below, many other too) is that we would add our own sitenotice alongside the centralnotice, which would link to page(s) with relevant information. Not hijacking the fundraising banner's link. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)08:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea, and weak support the other idea. I don't think readers will make the connection between donation banners going away and the WWU stuff; either they just won't notice at all, or they'll think it's some kind of browser cookie thing or that the fundraiser is over or something. Shit, I don't even know what triggers when banners go away or reappear. I also think that should a wheel war event happen, readers would more easily notice a new banner suddenly going away than a familiar banner suddenly (maybe?) appearing again. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea of posting our own banner. The dysfunctionality of the WMF that is revealing itself in this situation is a sufficiently strong threat to Wikipedia that alerting the community via is fully justified. I think that the banner should include a link to the September Labour editathon. Boud (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. In many cases where we debate and come up with a consensus of a hundred or two hundred editors, the results only affect those who participate in Wikipedia's internal processes, as opposed to those who "just edit", as a commenter phrased it in a section above. We need a very high standard to do something like a blackout, a donation banner ban, or a political statement visible to all editors, or (even more so) to all readers. I can't see that standard being reached here -- as Thryduulf says in the earlier thread, there are hundreds of thousands of active editors who just don't care about this. Our real power is in our labour, which is appropriate, given that this is about unionization. If those who agree with the proponents of this section were to withhold their edits on a given day, would that lead to a significant dip in edits? If it did, that would be a much more powerful signal than a blackout or a watchlist notice. Those who hold particular political or ethical views are free to do with their labour what they will, but I oppose action that implies the silent mass of editors agree with a given political stance, regardless of whether I agree with the stance myself. (The SOPA blackout was different; that was an existential threat that had no significant political dimension.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I disagree with the idea that managing fundraising banners inappropriately speaks for the "silent mass of editors" and that doing nothing doesn't. Currently, default WMF donation banners already co-opt all of us by leveraging our volunteer work to solicit money under the guise of "supporting Wikipedia." That usage of us is okay, if the money is all going to supporting Wikipedia and our work. But, these actions have revealed it is not. They showed that some of it is instead going towards supporting the WMF's political actions against unions, through paying for the high retainers for aggressive union-busting law firms.You said our true power lies in our labor. Doing nothing allows the WMF to exploit both our labor and the goodwill it generates in the community, for purposes which don't benefit us and damage the reputation of both editors and Wikipedia. If we don't do anything to pause or balance the banners, it means continuing to allow the WMF to abuse the labor and image of the silent editor for their fundraising towards contentious legal tactics unrelated to content creation. The silent editors you mentioned never consented to this. Thus, if we keep things the same, I think that's what will actually co-opt the silent majority. I also don't agree SOPA had "no significant political dimension." It was explicitly intended to oppose a particular law and encourage Americans to contact their representatives in congress, which is quite political. By contrast, setting parameters for fundraising banners is an issue of ethical stewardship and donor transparency, if managed appropriately.This is why I think Rosguill’s proposal is the ideal compromise. It completely resolves concerns about forcing a unilateral stance on the site. By keeping fundraising active while neutrally presenting both perspectives, we aren't imposing an opinion on readers or silent editors. We are simply upholding NPOV and providing donors with the full context required for informed consent. And we are preventing the WMF from continuing to co-opt the work of the silent editor to fundraise for their dubious legal crusades. Preventing the volunteer workforce from being co-opted in this manner should be a priority for all of us. - In solidarity,MolecularPilot(talk)23:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it would be, banners are a big deal and that's a great way to get the attention of people who don't participate in projectspace discussions as much to see what they think. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's proposal 1st choice, and also support Fram's proposal 2nd choice. I believe continuing to run the current one-sided donation banners, which use our work to direct support to the WMF's current political actions against unions, isn't right. The WMF's action to spend lots of donor money on such a law firm to pursue such political causes, is abusing both their existing donors and funds, and our website and work which as of today is used unreservedly to increase those funds through banners and power the WMF's political actions. Therefore, I support both stopping the banners (Fram) or adding both sides (Rosguill). The reason I support Rosguill's as first preference is because I believe it's more fair to the WMF and more neutral as it doesn't completely cut off funding banners for those who are still interested, but ensures that donors have the full context which is deserved and both sides are fairly and neutrally presented. - In solidarity,MolecularPilot(talk)23:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
SupportRosguill's proposal, which most effectively communicates the community's position to our readers, who deserve to be informed when their donations to support the community are instead being misappropriated for union busting (without disclosure). I recommend providing links in the banner to adjacent organizations readers can donate to instead of the WMF, such as Wikimedia movement affiliates and the Internet Archive. (As a second choice, I also support Fram's original proposal.) —Newslingertalk00:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wait for further developments, in light of the progress made as a result of negative community feedback. This can be revisited if the union busting continues or if the upcoming union election is disrupted in any way. —Newslingertalk12:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not really convinced by this. The WMF holds significant cash reserves and assets, currently at $297 million (and that is excluding the WMF endowment). A temporary pause or additional information on fundraising banners is unlikely to cause any significant economic impact (and impact "our face") in any way. It is more about refusing to endorse their current political actions, and make sure donors are fully informed. In my opinion, money raised through misleading donors into "supporting Wikipedia", which one would infer goes to servers and workers, not massive retainers for law firms so anti-union political actions can be taken, isn't worth it or ethical. I would prefer those who really want to donate do so with informed consent. - In solidarity,MolecularPilot(talk)00:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Could you please care to explain how it is economic warfare to not run a donation banner? Also, it's hardly cutting off your nose to spite your face when the proposed change would not make Wikipedia worse, as the WMF barely spends money on wikis anyways. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing|talk w/ me!13:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well obviously they spend a decent bit of money on wikis, I meant relatively its bound to not be as much as they would for legal fees and hiring firms *cough* littler mendelson *cough* and money for management, etc. Sorry if I came across as a bit ignorant in my last comment, I wasn't trying to make a case that the WMF is frugal when it comes to spending on wikis In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing|talk w/ me!20:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Strongest possible oppose to Rosguill's idea as a hotheaded and knee-jerk reaction with potentially massive long-term financial consequences. Things like that would have impact on Wikipedia's reputation with the general public that would take years to fix. Public goodwill is hard to build and should not be squandered. I am pro-union, but don't bite the hand that feeds you. I am neutral on not running banners at all. Renata•300:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Public goodwill is hard to build and should not be squandered, yeah, and I personally blame the executives and board for not doing anything to prevent such squandering. Refusing to inform people would make a lot of the backlash worse, I think. A lot of donors finding out about this through other means have mentioned feeling betrayed. Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"don't bite the hand that feeds you" – sorry, is WMF meant to be the one 'feeding' us in this scenario? We, the community, create the content, administer the site, and many of us also donate money on top of that. If anything, I would have said we're the hand that feeds here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"Hotheaded" and "knee jerk" seems to be a more apt description of the rhetoric in your comment than it is of most of the discussion here. signed, Rosguilltalk19:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea first, Fram's original idea second. Rosguill's idea is more effective at informing readers/editors and, by extension, discouraging donations. Fram's idea only does the latter. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Like others, I am also OK with waiting. Part of my motivation was that WWU was unlikely to call a strike, and whatever the case is on that now, WWU kind of weakened that motivation with an FAQ update. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose taking any official position whatsoever, as a community, on the WMF labor dispute. It's not our fight, and it compromises our neutrality. --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Donation banners have never been neutral. Calls to action such as "please donate $2.75 right now—or consider a monthly gift to help all year long" only represent the WMF's point of view, and certainly do not follow WP:NPOV or many of our other policies (which obviously do not apply to donation banners, but I am only mentioning because you invoked neutrality in your comment). Rosguill's proposal would present the community's point of view alongside the WMF's point of view, which would make this year's fundraising messaging more neutral than any other donation banners in Wikipedia's history. —Newslingertalk04:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My view is that the community should not have a point of view on this. Members of the community, of course, are free to. But the community per se should not. It's not within the scope of what the community does. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A comment that starts "My view is ..." doesn't seem to me to make unwarranted assumptions about whether the speaker's views are the same as the community's. It's a legitimate point of debate here as to whether the proposed action represents something that should be outside the community's usual actions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am not claiming to speak for the community. I am not making a claim as to what the community's view is, but about the things the community is entitled to have a view on. I do not think this is in the range of things that it is legitimate for the community to have a view on at all. Again, this is the community an sich; obviously it's legitimate for people in the community to hold a view on it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The community is not entitled to have a view on the values of the community? On whether the WMF upholds those values? Why not? Levivich (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Because it compromises our neutrality. If the community as such takes a position, for example, that unions are good or union-busting is bad, then who can trust, say, that our article on organized labor is neutral? --Trovatore (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
...but it's OK for the WMF to say that unions are bad? The people who take and spend donor money -- they don't have to be neutral, just the volunteer community? The volunteer community shouldn't break its values, but when the WMF breaks those same values, the community is not entitled to oppose it? That doesn't make sense. Especially considering one of our values is self-governance, which includes governing the WMF (we elect the Trustees who appoint everyone else). If we turn a blind eye when the WMF breaks our values, then we are breaking our values as well. If we stay quiet when the WMF lies, it's the same as the community lying. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The WMF is in a completely different position than we are. No, they don't have to be neutral. They aren't writing articles that users expect to be written from a neutral point of view. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I personally don't see how a banner like this would be any different from "Wiki Loves Pride" campaign banners (encouraging people to edit LGBT+ content). Just because something is "political" doesn't mean we can't respect NPOV. And a banner is inherently not article content. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think there is a material difference between "edit content about this topic" and "read our opinion about a non-content matter". That's not to say that either type of banner should or should not be run, just that they are not the same and the reason why one is or isn't appropriate doesn't automatically apply to the other. A banner encouraging people to improve content about organised labour (that doesn't mention the dispute) would be the same as a Wiki Loves Pride or similar banner imo, one that mentions the dispute in a non-neutral manner would not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think you said it better than I could. That said, the verb "loves" does appear to take a side, which is why I do have something of an issue with it. But it is not quite as obvious a problem as the current proposal is. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, that was the comparison I was trying to make. People have perceived the message as advocating for LGBT+ rights, a political stance. Almost anything can be "political" (a lot of my perspective on this was shaped growing up as a Jehovah's Witness, where the act of voting itself is "political"). User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. is also an interesting perspective in that direction. In this case, one could say we're "biased" towards factual information regarding how the unionization process works in the US and against people who spend a lot of money to misrepresent it. Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I feel like you're cutting the distinction pretty fine here. I would agree that it's OK for us to take a position in favor of factual information, even as a community. I do not think it's OK for us to take a position, as a community, in favor of (or against) organized labor. I'm afraid these proposed actions would be perceived, not entirely inaccurately, as more the second than the first. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hmmm, well we're free to disagree. I do understand to some extent what you're concerned about, but I don't think a banner would quite literally say "go support the WWU". I'd hope it to be informational in nature (this is what the WMF is doing, this is how they've misrepresented the unionization process, this is who the money is going to, and we've come to a consensus that this isn't a responsible use of donor funds?). I think at this point we may just have genuine differences of opinion, though. If you want to debate more, my talk page is always open. Don't want you to feel like I'm pressuring you. I just find that talking through every aspect of things can sometimes lead to one changing their mind. Clovermoss🍀(talk)22:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is not our fight, and joining it, given the political nature of unions, would compromise our neutrality. It would also likely be a violation of WP:P1 and WP:P2; joining a labour dispute would be using Wikipedia as a soapbox and engaging in advocacy.In addition, WP:CONEXEMPT applies here; running banner ads clearly falls under acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees. For us to decide to overrule CONEXEMPT would require an overwhelmingly strong consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. As editors, workplace issues of the WMF are none of our business, since we are not WMF employees, not unionized and unpaid. But as editors, we do have a vested interest in the WMF being funded so that they can in turn fund the operation of Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
For me personally, this is no longer about the union, but about the contradiction between the movement's values and the actions of the WMF executives. Involuntary union recognition would do nothing to alleviate my disgust at what has happened. —Kusma (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
oppose - I don’t think rushing through with such drastic measures would be a good idea right now. With such uncertain times regarding the future of wikipedia (with Ai leading to less readers and less new editors) we need to preserve the trust/goodwill/whatever we still have. This action will have unforeseen effects that outlast current WMF leadership and the union controversy. And as was said previously the WMF has so much money that if truly want to continue this path they just can and then this action will have as much effect as a declaration by the community will have without causing problems in the future when we won’t need them. Short-term this would unfortunately not make any impact. Squawk7700 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We could combine these approaches so that it's harder to unhide them by modifying skins' HTML or stylesheets. WMF could always enable sitewide safe mode, though, which disables all scripts and stylesheets which aren't included in skins. sapphaline (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Thryduulf: Fundraising campaigns have an overview of about five examples or so because sometimes we are testing hundreds of variants in a campaign, so it would be complicated to share every individual message, but this helps give an idea of the range of messages we are sharing at any given time across campaigns. So it doesn't seem like this information is kept on-wiki anywhere, either. It's too complicated to share every individual message, supposedly. Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Clovermoss I can certainly appreciate that we don't need inline images of every minor variation in wording, and maybe not images of them all either as long as we have a representative sample of each basic design and maybe a copy of the text too, but complexity is not a reason I'd use justify this view. Further discussion of this is probably offtopic for this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Possibly, maybe we could move it to Talk:Fundraising. I think it makes sense to have both, personally. An overview and then a link where one can read a list of every minor variation for transparency's sake. Given long term conflicts about how fundraising is done, I think it would restore some trust in the process. I'm not entirely confident that my definition of "minor variation" matches the WMF's, although I'm sure there's some overlap between the two. Clovermoss🍀(talk)17:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hyper-technically, each possible variation is by definition "kept on-wiki" somewhere as the CentralNotice extension requires each banner to be loaded from a page on Meta-Wiki. Someone with way too much time and energy on their hands and a load of technical knowhow could skulldig through m:Special:CentralNoticeBanners and find them. * Pppery *(alt)in solidarity19:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don’t have a strong opinion on unionization at the WMF - However, if this proposal means I won’t receive endless solicitations for donations, then I support it. Of course, it also means that I would encourage the WMF to oppose unionization for as long as possible. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Strongest possible oppose to Rosguill's plan we do not need to be airing out intrawiki drama to the public which has little understanding of the project and will be susceptible to narratives from the WMF or even from malicious actors on-wiki hijacking the narrative. Neutral, leaning oppose to Fram's proposal; while I'm weary of the possible precedent this may set, at least this confines the issue largely into the movement. Furthermore, I agree that any proposal here needs mass-community support from the greater editorbase, not amongst the most active in wiki-politics. — Knightoftheswords12:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't people be more susceptible to the WMF's narrative if we don't do anything to refute it? They already point people to an FAQ that contains blatant lies. I don't think we should assume this proposal wouldn't be supported by the rest of the community. From what I've seen online from people who edit little or mostly just read, they're furious. We can't choose what the WMF does with their donations, but we can decide to do the ethical thing and warn people about it. Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The furious have a tendency to speak out more than the indifferent, though. No one walks down the street angrily demonstrating for the position, "WE DON'T CARE"! And the furious rarely need help to speak for themselves. Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that they wouldn't want us to speak up, since almost everyone I'm aware of who has learned about this and donated has been mad about it. Generally speaking, you'd see more "so what?" if this was some internal drama no one really cares about. But it's more than that. Clovermoss🍀(talk)15:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is entirely true, of course. The loudest noise tends to come from either ends of the spectrum, not from the middle.
Support Rosguill's idea — Banners are already speaking for the silent majority by asking for donations on behalf of their behalf. If we accept such banners being run, that endorses the claim that the money is being used on behalf of the community. If we accept such banners being run when the money is used to give fat paychecks to union-busting lawyers then we are endorsing that. I do not see how that could be construed as neutral. On the contrary, the neutral option here is to refuse to allow banners saying that money used for union-busting is being used on behalf of the community. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ19:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Not worth the disruption and political capital cost since WWU will probably win the NLRB vote. If WMF launches some kind of delaying litigation after WWU wins the NLRB vote, which can happen sometimes and would be clear union-busting, then revisit then. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosguill's idea – Rosguill's idea certainly has merits, and I am utterly unconvinced by the opposition. To address a few points in brief:
NPOV, and by extension 5P2, applies only to encyclopedic content, so does not matter here.
WMF actions are absolutely of interest to Wikipedians, especially when they have the potential for long-lasting reputational harm. This became our fight the second a team maintaining vital community tools was uncerimoniously laid off.
With regards to 5P1, the proposed banner doesn't have to be a hotheaded and knee-jerk reaction. We are meant to be good at writing neutrally, so let's let the reader decide after seeing the facts. All that matters is that this situation is known, which I would argue is not advocacy, just informing.
That said, I agree with Novem above that we should wait to see the outcome of the NLRB vote when taking more drastic action, i.e. the initial proposal. If delaying litigation is pursued afterwords, fire away. UpTheOctave!•8va?21:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Considering that it could take awhile for that to happen and the WMF is going to keep spending a lot of money in the meantime, I don't like waiting. When I talked to someone who had experience in this area, they estimated that the WMF had already spent at least $100,000 in this direction, because that would've been what's normal for a case like this. See this email. I've also heard about "optional" captive audience meetings, one of which included 200+ employees, that sort of thing requires donor money to happen. Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC), edited 21:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I still think that an action as drastic as this from us would be better placed as close to a last resort. It might take a while, but what happens if we do this, and then the NLRB vote comes back green and the WMF accept it? That makes us look like the unreasonable ones here, which is playing right into an anti-union narrative. UpTheOctave!•8va?21:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think it makes the WMF look reasonable, it would just show that all the money they spent trying to prevent that outcome didn't work. It wouldn't remove the moral harm of their actions or make them justifiable. Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I didn't say it would make the WMF look reasonable, just that it would make us look unreasonable. I certainly don't think there's any sort of moral equivalence here. UpTheOctave!•8va?21:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hmm, well I disagree that it would make us look unreasonable, especially if we counter the misperceptions the WMF is encouraging about what all this means (m:Wiki Workers United/Claims and responses gives a very detailed overview for people who might be inclined to believe that it's just about a proper, democratic vote). Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I was mostly meaning that a complete removal might come across as a bit drastic. As above, I've thought a bit more and now think that Rosguill's idea would be fine as long as the banner is as neutrally worded as possible. Thanks, UpTheOctave!•8va?22:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
To be honest, UpTheOctave!, the WMF staff has repeatedly misled us regarding their approach to the dispute, so I don't think there's much of a need to posture. We don't really get many brownie points for sitting pretty. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠ 21:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Can't speak for anyone else, but if the NLRB vote comes back green and the WMF accepts it, that won't make me any less angry about the WMF lying to the public, wasting donor money, and trying to stop unionization. Same outcome if the vote comes back red. I don't care if the employees do or do not want a union, I care that they get to make a free choice, and I care about WMF leadership upholding Wikipedia values like transparency and accountability. I care that my volunteer work doesn't help raise donations that are then spent on doing evil in the world, like union busting, and blatant lying. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hmm, yeah, I agree with that. I've amended my comments a bit after some more thought: I think Rosguill's idea has merits in the here and now, but I still remain a "wait and see" on a complete removal. UpTheOctave!•8va?22:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
NPOV per se does not apply to this case, that's true. But it points to why we should not take political stances as a community. If we do, it undermines the readers' trust that we can actually be neutral in presenting encyclopedic content. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
For me the core of the issue is that inaction is also non-neutral. We, the community, are on-notice that our work is being used to solicit donations that are in turn forwarded toward an effort that many donors would view as unethical and that we were reassured by the WMF was not happening. Not doing anything is taking the stance that we are okay with that, or at least not-not-okay with that. Which is a stance people are entitled to, if that is how they feel; but it's no more or less neutral a stance than Fram or Rosguill's ideas. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
When we submit any edit, we explicitly give up control over how it is used. On the larger point, my view is that acts are different in kind from omissions. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We give up control over who uses our content (provided they follow the CC BY-SA license terms), but that explicitly does not mean we must endorse the way it is used, and we all retain the right to criticize any entity that uses our work. As to misdeeds of omission versus misdeeds of commission, that's a matter of personal philosophy; personally I am a consequentialist and I do not see a difference between omission and commission in a case where a person is fully aware that inaction will lead to harm, and where the action that would mitigate that harm doesn't itself cause greater harm. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 23:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Rosquill's idea (weak oppose on the original proposal).Wait per Femke below. I think the WMF already deserves significant pressure and backlash for being ran by people who do nothing but lie to us about this topic. That is not just a matter of solidarity but also directly connected to editor interests, and regardless of what happens during and after the vote. As for neutrality, apart from what has been said policy-wise, I don't think it's bad to sometimes show how the sausage is made (not talking about article contents of course). Wikipedia isn't made by nobody nowhere at no point in time. I am a bit wary of the original proposal because of the high potential for a wheel war with the WMF – not because I oppose wheel warring with the WMF, but because I think it would be near the last step of escalation, not the first. As has been discussed, the WMF has plenty of opportunities to do more union-busting during and after the vote, so we need to keep our options open in terms of public impact and in terms of not losing technical abilities too early on. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)21:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
While I hope this can happen without any wheel war with the WMF, I don't think that would actually be a near-final escalation. There have been multiple such wheel wars in Wikipedia history, most recently during WP:FRAMGATE. All of them had serious impacts on community–WMF relations, but we survived them all. The real nearing-the-end-of-the-road escalations, in my view, would be actually preventing donations, a full-scale editorial strike, a lengthy blackout, or most radically a fork of the wiki—none of which would be appropriate at this time. A technical power struggle between admins and the WMF, while messy, would not do nearly as much damage as any of those. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
To be clear, with the wheel warring part I specifically meant Fram's original proposal to actually remove the fundraising banners, i. e. "actually preventing donations". Unless you by that mean something even more radical, like removing all donation links from enwiki? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)22:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Either Fram's idea or Rosguill's could plausibly lead to the WMF invoking WP:CONEXEMPT and trying to override the community, which would presumably lead to what you're calling a wheel war and I described above as a constitutional crisis. Whether that actually would happen is harder to predict. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 22:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
To be honest, I don't see how we could accept a CONEXEMPT argument unless the donation banners are altered so as to not pretend like they are donations to the EnWiki cause. Invoking CONEXEMPT in order to lie to readers about what EnWiki thinks, for the purpose of making money that is going to union-busting law firms, is an intolerable state of affairs. A community that is okay with having their collective voice co-opted for a purpose like that is one that I personally could not in good conscience partake in. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ07:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support with a slight preference for Fram' s implementation over Rosguil's. I feel that either version of this is equally a constitutional crisis, and if we're going to do that (which we absolutely should, to be clear) we should go with the much simpler option that also doesn't provide a donation link at all. Loki (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Actually, Asilvering below has convinced me that we should instead hold on for now. I'm fine with triggering a constitutional crisis but I'd rather save it for when it's actually necessary. Loki (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Per RoySmith. Besides, if the union does come about (which is increasingly likely), the WMF will probably need additional funding anyways. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!22:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Fram's original proposal: No banner ads until the WMF recognizes the WWU. Weak support Rosguil's idea – it sounds complicated to me. Joe vom Titan (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support I think it's not great that the organization is running these banners. I think these are only a good idea if it ever is close to shutting down, which probably won't happen. Auoaiajoi (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now: we just have had two major concession from the WMF: they have agreed to the scope of the bargaining unit and they have accepted a fast timeline. I'm a bit worried about escalating in such a circumstance, when the escalation can have two negative consequences: it can make the union seem more extreme or adversarial, even if it's us doing this. Their focus areas (not even demands) are super mild, and I can imagine too much pressure is not going to be the best once they start negotiating in hopefully a month or so and (b) less money to go around often means an upper hand for management in negotiations. There are more concessions we need to get; Tamzin has a few clear ones, I further want leadership to at the very least apologise for misleading the community, but perhaps we can get these concessions without further escalation, as our pressure so far is working. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Concessions are great and all, but the Littler Mendelson issue has made this bigger than whether or not the union forms. The rationale behind my !vote is unaffected by these concessions. Just this morning the BoT stonewalled the community by posting a statement that didn't even mention Littler Mendelson as their response to calls for resignation that were, in large part, triggered by the community finding out about Littler Mendelson. AFAIK the only information we have been given about it is Bernadette saying (paraphrasing PR-speak here) "We have specifically chosen the union-busting law firm because we want their expertise, but we're doing it because we care about our workers" while failing to make any attempt to explain what benefit there was to hiring labor law experts that self-describe as being the people to hire when you need help with "union avoidance" matters instead of ones that don't self-describe as such. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ18:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Or even a direct answer to the questions that have been asked and ignored would be a tangible concession. Any answer whatsoever, including "we can't answer that," would be more than what we have gotten. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WMF has not, as far as we know, accepted to voluntarily recognise WWU UK in the "few weeks" since 17 July. We're now nearly 3 weeks later. There's mediation by ACAS, but mediators cannot force an agreement. Nor has WMF leadership made any apologies. Rosguill's proposal would help more people become aware of the details, and add more WP:RS information about this specific crisis and the broader context, to everyone's long-term benefit, so that a broader, better informed consensus can emerge. Boud (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WMF has not, as far as we know, accepted to voluntarily recognise WWU UK in the "few weeks" since 17 July. We're now nearly 3 weeks later. There's mediation by ACAS, but mediators cannot force an agreemen WMF has indeed not chosen to voluntarily recognise the UK union, and I can't think of a situation where voluntarily recognising the UK union but not the US one (or vice versa) would be consistent with the reasons they have given for not going the voluntary recognition route.
ACAS indeed cannot force agreement, but if agreement cannot be reached within 20 working days (this period can be extended, but only by mutual agreement) then the union can apply for statutory recognition. My understanding is that negotiations are ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The other organisation is Safeguard, the employer of record. I believe they are the ones negotiating regarding union recognition, although the WMF has input I don't know how significant or controlling that is. Assuming the union is recognised, it will be Safeguard and WWU-UK who are the formal parties to the subsequent negotiations about the substantive employer-employee matters. WWU have asked that the WMF also have a seat at the table, to avoid Safeguard just playing telephone with the WMF as it's the WMF who are the decision makers for (almost?) all relevant matters, but obviously this will not happen without both the WMF and Safeguard agreeing. I don't know what, if any, response either Safeguard or the WMF have given to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support original proposal, or at minimum something like Rosguill's. We should be aware that the WMF will use all possible measures to undermine and overrule anything we do that actually affects them, so we need to be firm in our response. Layzner (Talk) 19:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Weak support Rosguill's idea, the recent concessions are great, but this goes beyond the labour dispute tbh. There appears to be a widespread lack of confidence in the CEO and the Foundation's governance as a whole, and leaving that unresolved (i.e. potentially with just a "saving face" statement) could prove very damaging for the movement. Idk if there are further concessions that'd regain that trust, or whether the CEO just needs to resign so someone else can be parachuted in to change tack (very naive ik), but the status quo is untenable, and I doubt it'd change without us applying pressure. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Femke beat me to most of what I wanted to say, but I'll add some more. The union got some amazing news yesterday - the vote for US staff to unionize will happen basically immediately, and all (or basically all, not 100% sure here) of the employees they wanted to unionize are indeed eligible to do so. This is huge. The WMF could have drawn this process out much longer, and tried much harder to cut workers out of the union. (Once you figure unionization can't be stopped, the next union-busting step is to make it as weak as possible, by insisting certain groups can't be part of the union.) They didn't do either of those things. That's a real victory for those employees. But this is just one of the first steps they have to take on the road to getting recognized and negotiating their first contract. We should hold on to these ideas for when they need some stronger support. We only get to play the "trigger a constitutional crisis" card once. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed that this is now less than a "constitutional crisis", but strengthening democratic resilience against the democratic backsliding of WMF leadership of the past five years (if not longer) justifies Rogsuill's proposal (reminder: "democracy" here means broadly construed, not just voting). A proposed factor of bounceback resilience (bouncing back after democracy is already significantly damaged) inspired by real-world country cases includes "unified opposition coalescing with civil society", which in our context, seems roughly equivalent to getting broader, on-wiki coordinated Wikipedia attention to the issue instead of limiting actions to just the few Wikipedians active in trying to interact with WMF leadership. Rosguill's proposal (which includes calling for donations to continue) sounds like strengthening democratic resilience, not raising the stakes to a constitutional crisis. Boud (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Democratic resilience is well stated. I would suggest we continue to workshop and strategize in the meantime. Should we implement Rosguill's proposal, we need to figure out exact wording and can use this time to wordsmith several proposals, so we are prepared for different scenarios. I am also focusing my energy in August on preparing Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/2026 Online Campaign and I invite you to join. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 10:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Based on asilvering's and Femke's above comments, I'll also oppose for now. Let's wait and see how this turns out. Given that a vote is going to happen shortly, pulling any fundraising banners now could just hurt WWU's cause. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose per #New union FAQ: no disruption, and repeating what I wrote above: To have the editing community suddenly go rogue with a blackout/strike without any request or even go-ahead from the WWU would be the opposite of solidarity. Directing our collective frustration (which I certainly share) in a haphazard and disorganized direction would only undermine the powerful message that the editing community is standing behind the WWU and ready to back them up. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare(she/her•talk) 00:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose at this time. The pressure that's been applied so far has resulted in significant concessions, but taking drastic actions that the union has not asked for is likely to put us in a worse position. Assuming that the WWU-US election is successful, we've got a negotiation process that's likely to be long and difficult ahead of us to prepare for. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose per WWU FAQ and above comments by asilvering and GorillaWarfare. I was already sceptical about the original proposal, but if WWU is explicitly asking us not to disrupt Wikimedia's functioning, then I think we should follow their lead. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Strong support - we shouldn't be forced into a position where editors are contributing, even passively, to union busting by assisting in raising funds for that purpose. Otherwise, the only alternative for wikipedia editors who oppose union busting is to boycott editing in the mainspace until this is resolved. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Grudgingly chillSupport Rosguill's idea - I want to both respect the wishes of WWU from a strategic position, and give time for developments such as those at jimbotalk and the union elections to go through. I would like to raise 2 additional points though. First, hiring Littler Mendelson is an unacceptable use of donor funds. This is true regardless of the current status of WWU, and something that I'd usually argue we should warn our donors about regardless of WWU's wishes. The reason I am willing to chill is due to productive movement recently on that front. However, should the WMF double down on union busting law firms, please automatically convert this to a support !vote for banners. Secondly, I'd like to take the community's temperature on a "trigger mechanism" we could give to WWU. Basically we have a consensus discussion that says "if WWU calls for it, we will put up banners" so we can shorten the prosess from a 30 day RFC to a quick check/confirmation/update on wording and push them. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Following Jimbo's update at Jimbotalk, I am no longer convinced that things are moving in a positive direction, and am accordingly moving to support Rosguill's idea despite WWU asking us to wait so that our donors can have an informed decision. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
While I am in favour of a wait to see if the situation resolves after all the processes (e.g. the vote, etc) complete, after reviewing the details so far I do think the WMF communication on the topic so far have been subpar and less than adequate. I hope Foundation management takes steps towards being more proactive in identifying what actions (e.g. hiring Littler Mendelson) might be... potentially controversial with the community and make plans to adress those concerns ahead of time with consultation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Discussion - WMF Capitulation
The pressure created by this thread, along with several others on Meta, has resulted in a capitulation from the WMF, see . In summary, the WMF will stipulate (according to my research this means to formally make an agreement with the other party, submitted to the Court) that ballots will be mailed out to eligible U.S. workers on August 11 and will be counted on Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 2:00pm PDT at the San Francisco Regional NLRB Office.
On one hand, this means that our thread has worked. Therefore, we should preserve our one-use "trump card" of messing with banners and causing a constitutional crisis for later. This is beneficial because it may be needed during the high-stakes negotiations which occur after the election. The political capital needed in order to pull this off is also immense, so if we do it now, it might be harder to form a consensus in future.
However, on the other hand, having an election sooner is mutually beneficial to both parties. For the WMF, it means less time spent in uncertainty about if they'll be a union. A fast-track election also means that those unsure about the union will be pushed towards the No side, as they don't have time to be convinced or look into it all. Therefore, this may just be a standard legal strategy that was going to be used anyway. I'm a bit suspicious the WMF may have just decided to frame it as "giving in" in order to make us think we are being appeased, when this isn't true. I will try to research more into if this "stipulation" is actually a standard strategy.
There's also the issue that Littler (the notorious law firm) is still representing the WMF in this expedited election. So, the underlying problem of misusing donor funds and damaging our reputation isn't resolved. The banners are still using our good-will and work in order to direct to fundraising for actions which don't align with the movement's values.
The scientific evidence shows that having the election without artificial delay (it's likely incorrect to say fast-track) does not push people towards no, at least not as much as having months of anti-union rhetoric and tension would do. For instance, see Logan (2013) who says: One of the most common, and most effective, techniques used by employers and their union avoidance experts is deliberate delay during the official NLRB process, which is designed to give the employer more time to conduct an anti-union campaign and to take the heat out of a union organising campaign. The biggest remaining risk is now coming across as too adversarial, which might push some people away who have already signed union cards. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah but at this point that's not the issue, is it? There is still the fact that we are running banners asking our readers to donate to the our (banners mainly invoke the name of Wikipedia) cause, when we know those donations are being turned into juicy paychecks for Littler Mendelson, without any real explanation for why that is being done other than that the WMF want to pay for expertise in union-busting or that the WMF are spending donor money without knowing what they're spending it on (I've elaborated on that other comments).
I would hope that we can all agree it would be nothing short of cognitive dissonance to have banners running asking for donations to our cause while simultaneously saying we are opposed to the thing those donations are being spent on, so we should ask ourselves: is this a part of our cause? –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ07:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the cognitive dissonance is the point. Given the long-term conflict in priorities and tension between the board/WMF, I think it makes sense to give a sense of buyer beware. I think the best idea would simply be a banner stating what has happened (we can include information that this pressure has led to a sped-up election, the law firm involved, and all the other things that have caused to be an overall concern for the community). The message doesn't even need to say "don't donate". But putting the information out there lets people make an informed choice and feel less betrayed when they find out later. If we wait for the next constitutional crisis, then we're delaying what might be an even worse explosion, in that sense. These have been issues for years and raising public awareness of that can only be a good thing, in my opinion. A lot of the time the WMF doesn't seem to care about us until the optics are bad. I don't think that having informational banners inherently makes this a constitutional crisis, either. I think that opposition makes sense in the context of a blackout, but not this. There's banners for all sorts of things all the time. Clovermoss🍀(talk)10:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that's pretty much all I'm asking for. I'm not asking for banners to be removed, or even for us to encourage readers to not donate. It's just that if we know for a fact that donations might be spent in a way that we cannot in good conscience say is for the benefit of the movement, we have a moral responsibility to our readers to clearly state that. That can be accomplished with a disclaimer that donations are going to the WMF, are not guaranteed to be used in way that helps English Wikipedia, and may even go towards a cause that English Wikipedia is outright opposed to. –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ13:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The message seems really muddled here. “We ask you to give the WMF your money, even though the WMF will be misusing that money.” You can say that isn’t contradictory, but I imagine readers would receive it that way.
Also creates an unintended message arguably — if I saw a banner like this with no context I would assume that whoever made the banner was externally pressured to include the “don’t stop donating” bit, when to my knowledge there isn’t any such pressure. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, if the proposal passes, normal fundraising banners will exist, so I don't think we need to have a call to action either way. Don't say please donate and don't say don't donate. Simply inform. I think it also makes sense to add something like "For more information about claims made by the Wikimedia Foundation, see this page". We might also want to briefly mention that the solidarity petition exists (while not making a call to action there either because the goal is awareness) and what led to that? I'm not as good at the phrasing part, but that's the spirit of what I think should be included. Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't like the phrase "union-avoidance law firm", as while that might be what they are most-known for it isn't a neutral description and we've already described that issue in the preceding paragraph. I'd suggest something like "spending movement funds in this way reflects...".
I agree with Clovermoss that a banner shouldn't say to either donate or not donate. The goal is to provide information to let readers make up their own minds not to influence that decision one way or another.
I don't think we should link to the petition here as this banner is directed towards readers while the petition is for editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Is this banner aimed at readers or donors broadly? Do we intend this message to run on top of existing fundraising banners? If so, it can be 1-2 lines and super factual as others indicated. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 13:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Intended to readers, some of whom donate, because that's the same audience as the fundraising campaigns. The fundraising campaigns can be a few paragraphs in themselves, so I'm not sure we nessecarily have to limit ourselves. If there's a way to do it technically, I think ours should exist above any fundraising banners that pop up and not below. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In regards to "union avoidance", isn't that how they advertise themselves? I think the word they actually use is "union prevention" in marketing, but "avoidance" actually sounds like a nicer euphemism. Correct me if there's more nuance to that.
As for the petition, people might try to sign it, you're right. My intent in bringing up the petition was to give some idea of the impact/scale of the community caring about this issue at large and why there's this banner that's different from what one normally sees. Maybe we could provide a brief overview of the statistics could get that across? Hopefully we could do that in a way that wouldn't alienate people who didn't want to sign with a little bit of "Not everyone but" type phrasing? Just to make sure it doesn't sound like it's a completely universal thing? Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In regards to "union avoidance", isn't that how they advertise themselves? not on their homepage. There are a few statements that could be read as dogwhistles to that effect, but that's not enough for a statement in Wikivoice. The closest I've found to them saying words to this effect in public-facing material are two documents from 2007L
A "Time sensitive newsletter" that states on page 2 The clear benefit of this recommendation is to help defend against unfair labor practice charges under the NLRA and the downside is that it introduces employees to the NLRA which runs counter to a union avoidance program. and it's not immediately clear to me how public this document is.
A document I'd describe as a blog post lobbying against the then-proposed Employee Free Choice Act (which wasn't passed) that concludes with Littler Mendelson is prepared to assist you in regard to all the above union prevention tools and the Firm is working to help prevent the passage of the EFCA.
There are plenty of other people using these descriptions of them, and it's clear they don't have a problem with them, but it doesn't appear that they publicly use the terms as self-description - at least that I've found, I've not done a deep dive but I would expect to have found anything very prominent aimed at a general audience. I don't know whether my searches would have uncovered things like adverts in the trade press. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course, but I think we need evidence of presence to describe them as a "union avoidance law firm". Their website etc does make it clear that their work is not solely related to issues with unions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
They have openly said so in the past, although I think they have stopped describing themselves that way on their website. That's not to say they aren't open about providing employers with union prevention services. One being Littler LaborDrive, about which they say With union activity surging, public sentiment shifting, and an aggressive NLRB advancing its agenda, employers face unprecedented organizing pressure and legal exposure. LaborDrive transforms how employers anticipate, assess, and act on labor risk—delivering the clarity and control needed to stay ahead. and then show a picture of a "Landscape Dashboard" where you can literally see it tracking "wins and "losses", with the clarification Win (No Union) – Loss (Union)). –Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ14:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If this is to be aimed at readers then the role of the WMF ought to be made clearer, a common misconception is that it owns and runs Wikipedia. Maybe something like Wikipedia is made possible by three groups: readers who donate and provide financial support, a community of volunteer editors who write its content and run its internal processes, and staff at the Wikimedia Foundation who engage in software development and maintain its digital infrastructure. Personally I like the second banner a lot more Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've added §BannerALT3 below.What are the goals of the banner? The main proposed goals seem to be: (1) encourage people to email WMF about their opposition to union-busting, since the number of voices counts for WMF leaders; (2) inform people about the specific topic: (2a) positive: WWU + (2b) negative: WMF+Littler; (3) inform people about the broad topic: labour rights; (4) inform people about the even broader vision: how do we organise with high levels of participation + deliberation + transparency, given the complexity of the system?Two problems with (1)+(2b), directly telling people about WMF's hypocrisy and money-wasting in its retainment of Littler, and hoping that a massive number of readers send emails to a generic WMF email address are that the result will be secret and that many readers will not see much point of writing private emails, in contrast to social-media campaigns that go viral. On the other hand, (2a) will indirectly inform those sufficiently interested about Littler, while primarily being positive and giving public evidence of support for WWU, and (3) and (4) are what readers do want to know about. Moreover, we can blend in one of WMF's "strategic" concerns about needing to continually recruit editors, by encouraging sufficiently interested readers to become editors. I think that (4) is too much to put in the banner, so I've proposed §BannerALT3 below, aiming to do (2a) + (3).For those feeling angry against Littler Mendelson, the best response against the goals of Littler's misinformation strategies is better encyclopedic information. WMF is not going to ask for a refund from Littler.The initial version of ALT3 doesn't include explicit links to the donations page. I think that by omitting that, we are subtly hinting that although we want donations, we consider the moral and editing support and readers informing themselves to be even more important right at the moment. But still, we could add a donations link if that's the rough consensus. Boud (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear: §BannerALT3 still needs some editing. For example, we should bold the goal that we feel is most important (and not overbold). My feeling is that if bolding the link to sign the meta WWU petition - TAs should be fine - leads to another 1000 signatures (typical front-page DYKs get a few thousand views), then that would be a public signal both of support for WWU and indirectly to WMF to inform it that the readership, not just editors, supports WWU.I'm neutral about the specific wording such as "inform yourself...", feel free to edit directly, per rough consensus. Personally I would include a concrete "action" (signing support), though "inform yourself" is useful too. Boud (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I like the direction we are going with, increasingly focused on Neutral language which is more likely to gain consensus as a Wiki community and also a testament to our confidence on relying our encyclopedic articles that anyone can edit. I think a call to action is important; but what that is…will change in the upcoming weeks. There might be a new petition, a specific demand… and we might want it to be visible, or we may want the Foundation to feel it (financial or reputational). We don’t need to figure all the details now, as long as we have a feel for the direction. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 16:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I doubt anything will change within the next few weeks specifically other than the election. I don't like the idea of postponing this simply because the WMF gave in a little after very vocal outrage going on for days. This isn't really that drastic of an action to take in response to what has happened (calling the CEO to resign is actually more intense than that) and we can always escalate further down the line if we need to. But donations have already been directed in this direction and I think people deserve to know. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
organising as unions feels like awkward phrasing. Rosguill mentioned on their talk page that we could have a longer message linked from whatever banner we have giving deeper context and I think that's a good idea. I also want the community fact-check regarding certain claims to be here because the WMF is definitely going to respond with their misleading FAQ to anyone who reaches out to them, like the PR statements when people were cancelling donations as a result of the CommTech dissolution. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I personally think that Banner 2 is the best option. It is short and to-the-point. It says what the issue is and isn't so long that somebody may not bother to read at a glance. I also think it's important to tell readers to share feedback and not tell them to continue their financial donations. I also think that a link to meta:Wiki Workers United/Claims and responses should be included in a banner because it highlights the anti-union claims made by the WMF and the debunks to many of those claims. While the WMF did agree to allow the election, they are still employing Littler Mendelson, so I think it would be morally wrong to advise readers to continue donating. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We already have calls for donations, which are not just moral advocacy, but money-based advocacy relating to the existence of Wikipedia. Advocacy for supporting the existence of Wikipedia is justified. Boud (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As I said… I strongly oppose all advocacy banners. If you want to include banners asking for donations as “advocacy”, the solution isn’t to have “counter-advocacy” banners - the solution is to have NO banners at all. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Your contributions are a vital part of keeping Wikipedia free. Wikipedia is made possible by three groups: donors who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, and Wikimedia staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.
As volunteer editors, we know how important donations are to keeping Wikipedia running. We also believe donors deserve to reflect on how their contributions are being used.
Wikimedia employees are organizing unions in the United States and the United Kingdom. In response to union organizing in the United States, the Wikimedia Foundation retained Littler Mendelson, a law firm well known for advising employers on union avoidance.
We believe donors should ask whether spending movement funds on a union-avoidance law firm reflects the values they expect Wikimedia to uphold.
The Foundation has already heard concerns from volunteer editors. Now, it should hear from donors too.
We ask you to continue supporting Wikipedia, while also contacting the Wikimedia Foundation at donate@wikimedia.org to express your concerns about the use of donor funds to retain Littler Mendelson and about union-busting at Wikimedia.
Supporting Wikipedia and questioning how Wikimedia spends your contribution are not contradictory. Both are ways of caring about the future of the movement.
Banner alternative 2
Wikimedia Foundation needs to hear from you.
Wikipedia is made possible by three groups: readers like yourself who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, and Wikimedia staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.
In response, the Wikimedia Foundation retained Littler Mendelson, a law firm that describes union-prevention as one of its services.
The Foundation has heard from its staff and volunteer editors. Now, it should hear from you, its readers and donors too. Share your feedback [info@wikimedia.org mailto:info@wikimedia.org.
Banner alternative 3
Wikipedia is made possible by three overlapping groups: readers like yourself who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.
Wikipedia is made possible by four overlapping groups: readers like yourself who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, Wikimedia movement affiliates, and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.
In my above vote, I said I wasn't quite sure we were helping the union by escalating when they just managed to get a major concession. We're moving to a period where they need to convince coworkers that a union is the right thing and will be a stabilising counterforce within the foundation. And then negotiations start, where we might make their lives more difficult if we escalate too much in support.
It seems that was right: the union is now making this explicit. In the FAQ about how communities can support them, they say (among other things) "As we move through this election, we do not call for actions that would disrupt the normal functioning of Wikimedia projects or undermine the work of volunteers, staff, or the movement we all care deeply about. The US branch of Wiki Workers United is currently focusing all their efforts on organizing and preparing for the upcoming NLRB election.
At this time, we ask the Wikimedia community to support that path."
Let's help them. And let's take a path that still exerts pressure, but not by escalating. Let's build content about unions. And put these new articles and new GAs on the front page, and FAs on the front page, and get union news into ITN for good measure. September 7, anyone? Show we have the momentum to bring about a strong campaign, which can escalate if necessary, but not in a period where this escalation makes the life of the union more difficult. Join the September Organized Labour campaign. Can we fill the mainpage?
I just want to confirm that this is what they mean when they say no disruption, because the banner idea seems like it's fairly consistent with what they encourage community members to do:
Here are ways you can support: Learn more about why Foundation workers chose to organize and why workers in both the United States and the United Kingdom are seeking voluntary recognition. Choose dialogue. We believe respectful, informed conversation is the best way to build understanding across our movement. Share the social media posts of our [union needed] campaign on the Fedi, and/or Bsky. Speak up in support of workers’ right to organize and help ensure discussions remain respectful, informed, and grounded in accurate information. Share information about WWU with others in the Wikimedia community. Learn more about why Foundation workers chose to organize and why workers in both the United States and the United Kingdom are seeking voluntary recognition.
Wouldn't a banner do these things? Informing people doesn't feel disruptive? I'll check in with people I trust to make sure I'm not misunderstanding here, but yesterday a union organizer seemed to be reassuring me and suggested I trust my instincts when I brought up the concerns I've seen a few people raise here about this possibly harming the WWU. Clovermoss🍀(talk)20:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Whereas I oppose any action here, I at least can understand when people say they want to WMF employees to freely decide whether they want to unionize or not. I see a cause here, even if I disagree. Having a banner promoting the union - I am sorry this seems like the worst sort of political activism to me. I strongly oppose any activism on Wikipedia with the possible exception of attacks on the principles of free knowledge - which we clearly do not have here. Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Banner 1 and banner 2 surely disrupt. Banner 3 has risk of disrupting, despite is more tame text, given that we don't normally do these kinds of banners and people might rightly figure out something fishy is going on. That is a form of escalation, especially if more press gets a hold of this. When that banner is placed instead of a banner that fundraises effectively, it causes loss of income, which is also disruptive. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've checked in with the people I know and I've reluctantly shifted my position on this. I'm just glad I can do it without doubting this wasn't something that was lost in translation. I still wish we could go along with it because I see it as a good way to raise awareness (and doing that through any method has the same risks) but I also don't want to harm people in the name of helping them. I also really really care about donor transparency, but I can make my voice heard in other contexts. Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
§BannerALT3b is as much likely to cause an increase in the number of editors, which is a "strategic" goal, rather than a drop in donations; Wikipedian readers expect transparency, and are more likely to appreciate transparency rather than stopping donations. But if WMF non-management employees think that they may be harmed by ALT3b, then the possible increase in editorship is probably not worth it. Boud (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Whether union busting is or is not a good thing is a matter of opinion. Just because I and most other contributors here believe it to be a bad thing does not mean that opinion is objective or necessarily correct. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Except, the recent evidence is that the Union has said, the WMF is in good faith and supporting a speedy election. This even with Littler, so someone saying they are using Littler not for union busting but for their knowledge of the NLRB and the labor codes union process, is backed by some evidence. She is management, she and anyone else in that position is going be management and their duty will always be to the corporation, nothing else, no matter their opinions, she has to take management's side, without management's side existing, there can be no union of workers, no negotiations, and no corporation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
According to the union, the WMF announced the election date after the WMF had publicly said it wanted a speedy election and to bargain in good faith. And according to the union, that's what the WMF did, the WMF was true to its public word, yes, after Littler appeared. So, there is no evidence that Littler was there in this case for union busting, unless, you are saying the union is misrepresenting or does not know what it is talking about with respect to the WMF's good faith in bargaining in conformance with its public statements.
Even if we imagine (and we have to imagine because you don't know) the WMF somehow changed in a few days because of you or others, with the usual "resign!" calls, that would be evidence of listening. But there is no such evidence of such a change, the WMF began with a public commitment to good faith and speedy elections and it followed through, per the union. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No. I credit the union, that it meant what it said. The union officially said that the WMF made public good faith representation's and kept them. I don't and can't credit, gossip on the web, made by people who can't know, at least not without getting an admission from the WMF of what it was thinking regarding pressure on it, and how its think changed. There are many pressures on the WMF corporation, particularly those arising in law. (And I remind you, that would be listening.) Nor is your opinion of it what matters, at all. Your argument on opinion is illogical (see, appeal to the public) and wrong, you don't speak for anyone but you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If you credit the union when it saidWe welcome management’s cooperation as an example of the Foundation putting into practice their public commitment to a speedy election process and to bargaining in good faith, then surely you also credit the union when it saidthe Wikimedia Foundation has taken the low road, that the WMF refused to live up to their values and be the high-road employer that they purport to be, that the WMF sent out to employees and the public statements couched in classic union-busting rhetoric ... undoubtedly provided by outrageously expensive union-avoidance law firms (one such example is at m:WWUEMAIL, and we now know the WMF hired Littler Mendelson), and that the WMF was delaying the process and stalling the vote in order to give time to the union busters to launch a potentially coercive anti-union campaign against Foundation employees, because otherwise you'd just be cherry picking statements and surely you wouldn't do that. Levivich (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Whatever, the value of those earlier statements, they must be viewed through the later statement, where the WMF showed its good faith in practice, according to the union. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, according to the union, after taking the low road and engaging in union-busting, and with the Wikimedia community standing beside all Wikimedia workers and asking difficult questions, the WMF signed a stipulated agreement that the union welcome[s] as an example -- one example -- of bargaining in good faith. After taking the union-busting low road, the WMF has finally bargained in good faith, and we're all grateful for that. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You left out "public commitment", the WMF's practices of good faith were true to its word in the union's election formation. And this with Littler, which is why this discussion, here, between me and someone else, began. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Digression over potentially sanctioning someone for disagreeing with the majority. Let's not go there.
I don't expect ideological conformity, but this is taking sides of someone who hired a union busting firm because the workers wanted more rights. It's incompatible with the community values. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Saying that "union-busting is a good thing" is like saying "Wikipedia vandalism is a good thing" or "harassment is a good thing". IMO it's not a matter of ideology; it's a matter of supporting something that actively harms the community and contradicts the values that make Wikipedia work in the first place. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think that opposing labor unions is the same as supporting harm to Wikipedia articles or to individuals. I'm curious why he said that, but maybe his lived experience is that labor unions are harmful. Maybe he does have an ideological ("of or relating to a collection of sociopolitical claims, ideas, and goals") opposition to labor unions. The libertarian Cato Institute seems to have an ideological opposition to at least the US form of unions, so it is possible to be a matter of ideology. Some people actually have a religious opposition to labor unions, including Seventh-day Adventist Church and Mennonites.
If anyone would like to contribute to improving Wikipedia's history of the labor movement, then in addition to creating a basic article on Labor unions and religion, these are some of the missing articles on religious opposition to labor unions as it has manifested in US courts:
I think that a person could oppose both labor unions and union busting. You may have noticed that I wrote "I don't think that opposing labor unions is the same as supporting harm". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think we'd need to be clamping down on all soapboxing for that, the disruption caused here was others pushing back, yet when someone makes a soapboxy comment that happens to align with most people here it isn't met with the same (and arguably Nyttend's comment was a reaction to that prior soapboxiness) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:SOAP only applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. The disruption was partly because there was no backing to the argument. I think this comment encapsulates it well. Plus, Nyttend's comment was a !vote to the original thread, so it can't be a reaction to prior soapboxing.
While I disagree with Nyttend's comment, it is not the only one on this page that expresses an opinion about union busting that is not accompanied by a "rational, policy-cased argument". The only difference is that the other such comments are opposed to union-busting. If sanctions are to result from expressing a POV without supporting evidence/explanation then that must be the standard we hold everybody to, regardless of which POV is being expressed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Disruptive comments about Nyttend's comments are not the responsibility of Nyttend, so any templated warnings should be given to those leaving the disruptive comments. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
While I very strongly disagree with what Nyttend is saying I would not support any action against them for saying it. It’s their opinion, and we should not be calling for sanctions based on just this alone. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 13:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Agree with the others saying that someone being against unions isn't inherently sanctionable, even if there's lots of very good reasons such an opinion is controversial. Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for creating the article. I'll see if I have time this weekend to look up some sources to add stuff to the article. Also, as the son of an union man, and brief member of the IBEW myself 20 years ago, I'd say unions are a good thing, and I wholeheartedly support WWU. In solidarity, Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem we have is that when people state their opinion on matters such as union organizing and many other matters, it invites counter opinion, and it is not WP:PURPOSE related, see also, WP:NOT, from the start. They are political matters, see Trump's controversial attack on law firms for their clients and litigation positions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have not said whether I am pro or anti union (and don't intend to; I don't think I've ever stated a political opinion on-wiki) but I am strongly against taking any action against an editor such as Nyttend because of their political views, regardless of in which direction. That's also why I don't support the banners. I would oppose banners that were supportive of union-busting as well. An alarmingly (to me) small minority of commenters above consider this a political opinion; I hope those who support the union and the banner suggestions consider how they would feel about this if the consensus were for anti-union banners. I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that those who want a demonstration of some kind withhold their labour - a strike day, if you like. That's something that does not imply the whole community supports their position. A big drop in editing volume on a strike day would be a strong signal -- and if those with these views do not constitute enough of our community to make a noticeable difference to editing volume via a strike, I don't think they should be considering banners either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My proposal wasn't "in their name", it's about the treatment the WMF leadership and the board have given the community and e.g. the decision to spend donor money on that company. While the wishes of the union are an aspect to take into consideration, it's not a "we do what they want" situation, it's a "we do this becayse we think it is unacceptable" proposal. Fram (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As of a few years ago it was an acceptable (if minority) opinion that WMF was significantly wasting their donation money. To avoid euphemisms, keep in mind that like any charity (or, institution in general), the vast majority of the budget is salaries. I am curious if this is now a fringe opinion? This is an actual question not a joke. Or, could someone who holds both views please explain how you could agree with the classic essay but also think WMF absolutely must not downsize (I.e. layoffs)? ~2026-44189-35 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's any more fringe today than it was before; in fact, such an opinion may be more acceptable today given the WMF's money spent on Littler Mendelson, which is known to be expensive. Obviously I'm somewhat new to Wikipedian culture and so I don't necessarily know everything, but I believe this is the case. Even Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, maintains that the WMF is, in his words, mismanaging funds. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing|talk w/ me!18:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sure, I agree with all that you've just said. My confusion is why it seems like everyone is nevertheless indignant that WMF must not downsize. As the editors & donors, shouldn't we want them to have layoffs? Collect less donations, spend less money, have fewer employees? The WMF of a few years ago was just as functional but spent way less money, etc, thus goes the argument, why can't we why shouldn't we return to that? I think holding the WMF accountable in terms of trying to withhold / disrupt their donations is a good thing, but, not in the direction of "please have more employees with higher salaries" rather the opposite, "please spend less money" (largely on salaries, since that's what they spent the vast majority of their money on). ~2026-44206-58 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Suggestion for an alternative
Should consensus be reached to modify or push back against the banners in some way—whether now or in the future—may I suggest directing donors toward the Internet Archive instead? A general notice that they support Wikipedia's efforts and can use support would go a long way. Hell, throw in a sensationalist "under attack" if you must. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support, IA is heavily used to write articles, protecting it is in the encyclopedia's interest. Btw we should've done a watchlist notice for this since it probably needs a very broad consensus Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Conditional support — I would rather we didn't touch the banners at all, but if we were to do so, that would be my preferred replacement. However, while I am a big fan of the Internet Archive and want them to get more support, I worry that such a move could land us in legal trouble on way or the other. I have nothing but contempt for the modern copyright system and proudly sail the high seas, but when it comes to Wikipedia I think we cannot afford any risk, and the IA is one hair away from litigation at all times. I do my part IRL and suggest donating to them instead every time donating to Wikimedia comes up in a conversation, but I would only be in favor of doing so "officially" if it was safe to do without exposing ourselves to repercussions. Choucas🐦⬛11:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose While the Internet Archive is worthy of donations, I don't think pushing people who're looking to donate here at them would be a useful move. Particularly when it seems likely that the "modify or push back" would be more along the lines of the proposals above, that provide information about the current situation without directly encouraging non-donation. Anomie⚔11:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Some navigational templates have links to redirects. The expected behavior is that the link to the current article is unlinked and bolded. Currently, the link is only bolded when it exactly matches the title of the article, breaking expectations for links that are redirects. TPI81AF (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The target names can be very long relative to the redirected name. Where am I intended to submit feature requests? From your tone, I infer that it is not the WikiProject Templates talk page. TPI81AF (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
So is it preferable that the navigational template should include [ Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method ] or [ Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method|Personal Trainer: Math ] rather than [ Personal Trainer: Math ]? A much shorter link would seem to be ideal in navboxes where space is limited. If the article page is moved and it is linked to in several navigational templates, editors often forget to update all or any of the redirected links to piped links so this proposed change would also save some effort globally. TPI81AF (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In navigational templates, that links to redirects to the current article should be rendered bold as direct links are. Currently, if the link is not a direct link it appears the same as all the others. (There is an edge case mentioned in WP:BRINT where redirects are intentionally left unbold that could be handled by checking for section links) TPI81AF (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Now that you have actually named an article, instead of leaving us completely in the dark, I'm guessing that you refer to Template:Touch! Generations. For the specific article concerned, the template contains
the first link of which is an unpiped redirect, and the second is a direct link, not piped and not redirected. It would be acceptable (and indeed desirable for the first one, per WP:BRINT) to alter these to
|group4=2009
|list4=
*''[[Walk with me! Do you know your walking routine?|Personal Trainer: Walking]]''*''[[Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method|Personal Trainer: Math]]''
I don't see what the problem is about space - if the right margin is reached, navboxes will wrap the text just like any other part of the page. I also don't see what the problem is about pages being moved - if a page is moved, a redirect is left behind and the link still works, even if it doesn't get bolded. --Redrose64🌹 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the link isn't bold until some editor notices that the page was moved and has manually intervened to get it to bold again. Ideally the system could automatically handle this case by bolding the appropriate redirected links. TPI81AF (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I suppose that would be nice. Unfortunately that's not anything we can do anything about; that would be something that the WMF has to take care of on the backend. I recommend submitted a phabricator request to get this change made. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Interesting. Would you mind if I moved this entire discussion to WP:VPR? It's a better forum for this sort of discussion (as it's not related to this project) and it wouldn't require rehashing the entire discussion again. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just to restart the threading and give a very quick summary of the above: TPI81AF is wondering if we can make all circular redirects bold on the page so that navboxes don't need to be updated as frequently following any page moves. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think this would be a good change. We might provide some guidance on when redirects are more appropriate than piped links. In general, we encourage appropriate, contextual use of redirects that are WP:NOTBROKEN and navboxes are an exception to this practice due to technical limitations. For an {{R with possibilities}} or an {{R to section}}, for example, it makes sense to use the redirect. I often see redirects used in templates and navboxes when I'm reviewing 'What Links Here' for links to redirects from article space. Editors naturally want to use redirects in these templates the same way they do elsewhere in article space, or don't even realize the link is a redirect, and if we can facilitate that, we should. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There seems to be some confusion over the actual issue. It also didn't help that at phab:T433904 the request was unclear, which brought about the early closure as "invalid". The comment by AKlapper(WMF)(talk·contribs) was This needs fixing on the local wiki by editing its local content. which suggests to me that they believed that the issue was simply one of incorrect wikimarkup in the template. Reading the opening paragraph here again, together with subsequent posts by TPI81AF, the desire is that redirects to pages be treated exactly the same as direct links (for instance, if I add a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) here, it's shown black and bold, whereas a link via a redirect such as WP:VPR is shown in blue). That is not something that can be altered on-wiki, but requires a MediaWiki software change, for which Phabricator is the proper venue. --Redrose64🌹 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Since we're here, and TPI81AF has been sent to several different venues and has been told that the request needs clarification, perhaps someone could suggest wording for a proper phab request. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for raising this issue, and thanks to all the other editors who have helped clarify the question and direct it to the right place. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This could probably be addressed via WP:AWB or even a bot: just find redirects and pipe them.
To be candid, I think this is a pretty unimportant problem because it appears only rarely, has an easy fix that any editor can do, and is only seen on the desktop site. It probably affects very few people in practice. Here's a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation in case anyone's curious:
Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method has 300 page views per month, so applying the usual numbers, that's 120 on the desktop site. There's about a 50% chance of a reader clicking on any link in the first article they read (which takes us down to 60), and there are about 60 links in the article (half in the navbox), so we're talking about slightly inconveniencing or confusing one reader a month – at most, because (a) click distribution is biased away from the end of the articles, which is where the navboxes are located and (b) since nearly half the people arriving at this page were already on a Wikipedia page, the chance of them clicking on any link at all is lower than the usual 50% (but I don't know exactly how much). At any rate, we're talking a handful of readers per year, out of more than a 100 billion page views per year. It's probably be more useful to put the WP:ELOFFICIAL website in the infobox than to worry about this, as that would likely interest a lot (>10x) more readers.
Your words are enlightening, to me and hopefully to editor TPI81AF, others above who seek a software solution, and the overworked devs, who have higher priorities to deal with. Here's another reason to smile knowingly: as a certified Wikignome one of my favorite WP duties is finding and bypassing redirects in navbars. It's one reason I became a page mover. When I close a move request, either moved or not moved, I check the article for navbars and bypass the redirects. And not just the one redirect left behind by the page I just renamed, I find and bypass any and all other redirects in the navbars that need bypassing. I've been doing this since I first registered and really do enjoy that part of the job! And I'm not the only one. There will always be low-priority things to do on WP for us gnomes to fix. They puts the "edit" in "editor"!>) P.I.Ellsworth,ed.–welcome!–23:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The "suggested links" tool, which prompts newbies to add links in articles, is more trouble than it's worth. Every few weeks, at least, I see an article edited as suggested with the addition of links that are just plain wrong. One that sticks out in my memory was the linking of the phrase operation of law in a sentence about the day-to-day operation of law schools. Today it was on List of Blue Bloods characters, where, in reference to a character having worked in the Brooklyn South Division it suggested linking Brooklyn South, which sounds like it makes sense if you don't know that Brooklyn South is just the name of an unrelated TV series, and not relevant to the article where the link was added. On other occasions, I have seen a slow motion project-wide edit war between suggested links and editors dealing with WP:OVERLINKING (which suggested links often amount to). There are more than enough tasks needing work that a low priority busywork tool with a high enough error rate to make me go "not this again" should be eliminated. BD2412T15:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
MMiller (WMF) is the most likely person to be able to change this, at least among my limited "people I remember working at the foundation and work in this area" mental checklist. KStoller-WMF has also participated in some related discussions. I will say this isn't the first time I've seen this feature suggested as harmful to the new user experience. It definitely prompts a lot of new editors to try and use it, but I think it kind've defeats the point of more active participation if they'll get reverted for it. It's demoralizing to get told not to do something you were told to do by the software itself. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it kind've defeats the point of more active participation if they'll get reverted for it. We’ve found that being reverted is one of the most demotivating experiences a newcomer can have. This is actually part of what motivated us to create Add-a-Link, as we wanted to give newcomers an easier, more structured task where they would be less likely to get reverted and could build up their confidence.
Given their inexperience, newcomers are still going to make mistakes and get reverted sometimes. But compared to the baseline of newcomers making unstructured edits, we’ve found the tool to be a success. In the A/B experiment we ran, we found:
The group of newcomers for whom the feature was enabled was 33.7% more likely to successfully make an edit that was not reverted ("constructive activation"), 3.7% more likely to stay active ("constructive retention"), and 19.6% less likely to have their edits reverted ("revert rate"). This is similar to our prior findings for the feature in other languages.
I just worry that the percentages aren't accurate, given the manual and slow nature of a lot of the reverts. And I do think that the impact of being reverted is heightened when it's a consequence of the software literally telling you to do something vs an independent decision where you might feel like "oh, it probably makes sense that I messed up". Clovermoss🍀(talk)23:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Any "manual and slow nature of" reverts ought to apply equally to other good-faith edits, though, so even if that's a problem, it's a problem equally distributed across the two groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that's nessecarily the case, although I think statistics shouldn't just be for a short time frame and should try to account for reverts that might not be as easily tagged, but I'm not sure how technically possible it is. I think this type of edit would be more likely to be "hidden" by filters, less likely to be immediately reverted because someone doesn't have that specific article on their watchlist, etc. I guess what I'm saying is it's the exact sort of small change that might have a skewed ratio on paper in a favourable looking direction. Clovermoss🍀(talk)02:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
From the notes: "These figures reflect the revert rates for all article edits made by users in each group on English Wikipedia rather than only edits made through the “Add-a-link” structured task. Edits made via “Add-a-link” specifically have a lower revert rate than the overall rates presented here."
The only difference between the two groups is that one randomly selected group had the feature enabled – not that they all used it, but that the software feature was there. It's about "Users assigned to the treatment group", not "Users who made this type of edit". This is the same kind of trial run when researchers want to know whether telling someone to floss their teeth improves dental health: you're comparing the ones in the treatment group, including the ones who didn't floss their teeth, against the ones in the control group, including the ones who decided to floss their teeth without being told. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And I'm saying that having the feature enabled by itself matters, because being prompted to do something affects people's behaviour and how they perceive what comes after. I'm not saying we need to get rid of the feature entirely, I'm just pointing out the flaws of "metrics are good" reasoning. Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
When users add multiple links, when one is bad the others can be good or neutral. Partially reverting the bad ones may not show up as a reversion. CMD (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that the tool leads to a lot of overlinking (and the wrong links as pointed out by BD2412 are really bad). There would need to be quite big advantages for the tool to counter these downsides. Does anyone or @WhatamIdoing know if we have any research about that? —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm sure there is some research. However, the research we need would answer a question like "Is the main problem this particular tool, or is the main problem that newbies make mistakes?"
Anecdotally, the most frequent bad newbie link pattern that I see is linking common English vocabulary, and links to disambiguation pages. signed, Rosguilltalk15:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This tool shouldn't be suggesting any dab pages. Of course, the editors can manually change a link to something else. Do you have diffs of a few? Maybe we could find a pattern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There have been 558 such edits in the last 24 hours. 297 of them were from accounts that haven't even made 10 edits yet (and so not autoconfirmed). Only one (1) of those edits has been reverted so far. This does not look like evidence of a serious problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've found a lot of errors, but I don't revert unless every link they add is incorrect. Instead, I manually remove the bad links. (For example, removing a wikilink to the wrong person or to the wrong target for that context.) The problem that I've seen is the tool suggesting bad links and new editors not having the experience to recognize them. When a new editor adds an inappropriate link, I fix it, but then also feel obligated to go through their other edits to correct similar problems on articles I'm not watching. Schazjmd(talk)18:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Would it be easier for you if we only let the tool suggest one (or even two) links at a time? It's currently set to a maximum of three suggestions per edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If they could only make one link per edit, it would be a quick revert. I just wish the tool made smarter recommendations. Recent examples of bad ones: Schazjmd(talk)18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Schazjmd: I see a very clear problematic pattern here of the tool wanting to link lowercase phrases (e.g. "fashionable friends", "a taxi driver", "why her") with capitalized names of works (Fashionable Friends, A Taxi Driver, Why Her). I can't imagine why on Earth anyone, machine or not, would think that such a title would reflect the generalizable lowercase phrase. Barring non-matching capitalization from the tool would prevent the bulk of these, though ironically not the two cases that mentioned, which do have matching capitalization. BD2412T19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There is a case for withdrawing the tool entirely, but the absolute minimum change needed is a capitalisation filter: stop suggesting A Taxi Driver whenever someone writes about a taxi driver. Such links will almost never be an improvement. Searching a text dump for [[Any Phrase|any phrase]] and selectively unlinking would be a massive exercise with many false positives. It'll be far quicker if we can get access to the list of such links which have been suggested and reverse the systematic damage one phrase at a time. Certes (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
... Of course, the first letter of the title is exempt. "Hot money" and "hot money" can both link to Hot money, but only "Hot Money" should link to Hot Money. On the other hand, it may be better to avoid suggesting cases where two articles (not redirects to the same article) differ only in capitalisation. Perhaps the system already does. Certes (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In the category of "low priority busywork": If you see this tool exclusively as a method of adding desirable links, and you assume that its users would do something more significant if it didn't exist, then I can understand describing this as "low priority busywork".
However, I suggest that you consider:
that the tool's real value might be in teaching newcomers how to make links and that we want to Wikipedia:Build the web between articles,
that many newcomers probably can't do complex tasks, so the realistic choice is better "low priority busywork" and nothing, rather than between "low priority busywork" and "high-priority contributions", and
that if someone is consistently sloppy about making links, it might be better to find that out now, while they're doing "low priority busywork", and let them earn a block for incompetence instead of waiting until their sloppiness extends into areas that are more subtle or complicated to fix.
If we're getting too many poor suggestions, then I think that it might make sense to look at making a few changes to Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits#link recommendation. We're already limiting access to the tool (no more than 15 articles per day; never for anyone with more than 150 edits). Should we change the "Weight of underlinked articles" (currently set to 50%) to make it pick articles that are more severely underlinked? Should the "Minimum required link score" go up, to increase the required confidence in link suggestions? We've got some levers here that don't involve just a binary on/off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Your last point is an interesting one. At the German Wikipedia, users are limited to one link per task (rather than three) and seven tasks per day (rather than 15); the task is turned off after the user has made five edits (rather than 150); and the "Minimum required link score" is 0.7 (rather than 0.6). Maybe some of those changes would be worth making here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that the approach taken by the German-language Wikipedia won't work for us, especially with cutting off the task before many people have had a chance to try it (especially if they start with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, which can make more than 20 edits). But I think we should try making a small change in that direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree. I'll be honest, there's been a few times I've ignored edits with this tool that probably should have been reverted because it felt like too much effort and didn't seem like that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I figured that if someone else cared enough, they would revert later, and sometimes they do, even if it takes months. I don't think reversion rates are entirely accurate if people are manually fixing these as they come across them much later. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, one link per task seems sensible. Making it easier for patrollers will presumably result in more problematic links being reverted. That, in turn, should make the revert statistics more reliable—that is, more reflective of the true "bad link" rate. In theory, the current revert rate is artificially low because the effort required to review multiple links tends towards keeping more bad links and because manual correction (reversion) of just one out of three links may not be consistently logged as a revert. I don't know enough about these levers to have a strong opinion but a modest increase to the link score also seems reasonable. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for raising this point about the difficulty of reverting Add-a-Link suggestions when there are multiple suggestions in an edit, @Extraordinary Writ/@WhatamIdoing/@Kusma/@Clovermoss/@Myceteae. Limiting to one link per task will resolve that, although it may also lead to a few more instances where only one item in a list gets linked.
One other approach to this issue we briefly considered (and could explore again if there is interest) is to make each added link a separate edit, just publishing them in rapid succession after clicking "publish" when a user adds multiple links in one article. This would make reverting easier, but it could also clog watchlists by producing more overall edits. I'm curious to hear from folks — would this be more desirable? Sdkb‑WMFtalk23:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe that the tendency towards poor suggestions arises out of the nature of Wikipedia as a very large general purpose encyclopedia. As with the recent Blue Bloods example, there are just way too many titles that sound like some general topic but are in fact titles of specific works, which could be films or songs or albums or books. Similarly, the "operation of law" instance is misuse of a term of art within a specific profession. If links were limited to topics that were definitively the topic, like titles properly categorized as place names or names of people, presuming that we didn't get mistakes in the identity of ambiguously named places and people, that would be much better. At the same time however, place names tend to be some of the most overlinked in articles. BD2412T19:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It looks like this problem was identified for Vietnamese at phab:T278864#6961431 but I don't see a more general Phab ticket. From the comments above, it sounds like our plan so far is:
to write a Phab ticket asking for lowercase text to not be matched to proper nouns, and
to edit the configuration to suggest just one link at a time.
@WhatamIdoing: I would say at the least to only link where there is already exactly matching capitalization, but I am wondering if we can just exclude all subjects categorized as titles of media from the tool altogether. There are plenty of other things to be linked without these in the list. That, and limiting to one link at a time and perhaps fewer instances per day, would address the immediate concerns. BD2412T21:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Matching the capitalization should be a one-way street, because a link to the article Chocolate cake should be suggested when it's capitalized at the beginning of the sentence ("Chocolate cake is good") as well as when it's not capitalized in the middle of the sentence ("This chocolate cake is good"). What we don't want is a sentence like "Prison and Chocolate Cake was first published in 1954" to be linked to Chocolate cake, because Prison and Chocolate Cake is the title of a book. Our article on cakes made of chocolate should be suggested for any sentence-case string (chocolate cake, Chocolate cake) but not for the title-case string (Chocolate Cake); if our article is in title case, it should only be linked if the article text is also title case (e.g., the article Alice and Bob can be suggested for any mention of Alice and Bob, but not for Alice and bob. Unfortunately, we'll lose Alice And Bob matches). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Exactly matching capitalization may be ideal. At a minimum, not suggesting title case links for sentence case phrases would be a substantial improvement. Discrimination in link target/primary topic based on capitalization is a fundamental approach on English Wikipedia. It's also not something I expect newcomers to be attuned to since many publish works use title case for, as the name suggests, titles. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think we should try raising the "Minimum required link score" a bit, maybe to 0.7. Special:NewcomerTasksInfo indicates that there are over 1.1 million possible tasks in the pool right now, so I don't think there'd be any harm in being a little more selective (although finding the right threshold might take a little experimenting). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@WhatamIdoing Thanks for chiming in and offering to support Community Configuration changes. I agree adjusting some config settings seems like a good place to start.
We are aware of two main issues with the model currently, both of which I see reflected in the concerns raised above:
The model looks at individual words, rather than phrases, which is resulting in many of the partial name links over proper nouns (sometimes improperly capitalized), including in the Brooklyn South diff. To address this, in T405185 we are introducing named entity recognition, which should resolve this. I discussed this task again just now with the product manager of the Machine Learning team (which works on the model), and they've committed to moving that work forward.
The model is trained on the first sentence of every article, which we believe may be leading to some of the overlinking tendencies because first sentences contain contextual links to more generic topics. In T415623 the Machine Learning team will explore retraining the model to instead use the first sentence after the lead section, which I’m hopeful will help address the overlinking issue. To help reduce overlinking suggestions, admins can also increase the "Weight of underlinked articles" score via the Suggested Edits Community Configuration form to prioritize articles that are more severely underlinked.
@KStoller-WMF: Does that mean that the requested fixes are not possible? One of the above examples is of an article with a sentence ending with saying that someone "was a taxi driver", which the tool advised to be linked to the media, A Taxi Driver. If these kinds of edits were not being pursuant to the suggestions of the tool, I would think a vandal was trolling us through intentionally bad links. I don't see how the partial name check would have prevented this one, as it is a complete phrase. What we should be doing is forcing sentence case capitalization matching, and excluding media titles from being linked at all. BD2412T23:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@BD2412 The requested improvements are possible, although they’re not trivial, which is why they weren’t prioritized immediately.
The capitalization matching specifically is something we’ve been thinking about beyond just named entity recognition. The bottom half of the description of T405185 captures work on training the model to make use of the signals case sensitivity provides, which is essentially what you’re describing: in your “taxi driver” example, the mismatch between the lowercase phrase in the article and the capitalized title “A Taxi Driver” is exactly the kind of signal that work aims to have the model learn from. There’s also T409138, a related but separate task that looks at instances where the model suggests a link to the wrong proper noun (e.g. if there were two films both titled A Taxi Driver).
We’re prioritizing named entity recognition first because we believe it will have the greatest impact. However, we’re committed to continuing to improve the quality of Add a Link suggestions. Once that work is complete, we’ll evaluate the remaining issues and continue exploring additional improvements where they’re needed.
At the same time, no machine learning model will ever be perfect. That’s why we the onboarding instructions for newcomers make it clear that suggestions may be incorrect and encourage them to use their own judgment. Our expectation, however, is that these improvements will make the suggestions significantly more accurate than they are today.
And sorry that you've found these newcomer edits frustrating. I'm hopeful that, together with the Community Configuration changes discussed in this thread and continued improvements to the link suggestion model, we can strike a better balance by preserving approachable, less intimidating ways for new editors to get started while reducing the burden on experienced editors and patrollers. - KStoller-WMF (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My inclination would be to suspend use of the model until the proposed improvements are implemented. I am not in principle against link suggestions as a learning tool. I am very much against link suggestions that have an excessive probability of being erroneous. While we do want to encourage more editors, ultimately our encyclopedia is for the readers, and readers should not face the confusion of following links to the wrong place. BD2412T02:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi! I'm Sucheta, from the Machine Learning team. We're starting work on the first improvement that Kirsten mentioned (Named Entity Recognition) this month, and have outlined a plan in the Phabricator ticket. We need to do a bit more technical digging to construct a time estimate for delivery, but we'll keep the Phabricator ticket updated once we have that. Please feel free to subscribe and add any questions to the ticket. SSalgaonkar-WMF (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi all (and thanks for pinging us, Clovermoss)! Add-a-Link is a feature we created as the Growth team, so Kirsten and I can speak to these concerns.Add-a-Link's onboarding instructions, telling editors to judge each suggestion as it may be wrongAdd-a-Link is a type of structured task. We’ve built these to break down the editing process into a series of steps that newcomers can accomplish easily, particularly on mobile, to help them get used to editing. We gave all newcomers access to Add-a-Link last September after this discussion. We’re trying to help improve underlinked articles by suggesting potential links, but editors are still instructed to use their own judgement to evaluate whether or not they are appropriate to add (see screenshot). As with other forms of assisted editing, editors are ultimately responsible for the edits they make, and like with other editing, some will edit less carefully than others; in this case they can be warned with {{Uw-addalink}}.I know it can seem like a lot of these edits are getting reverted, but unfortunately newcomers in general are reverted frequently. As I mentioned to Clovermoss above, our data shows that Add-a-Link improves on the baseline and results in fewer reverts than newcomers editing without structure.All that said, we do recognize that having the suggestions reflect the encyclopedia’s best practices for linking is important for teaching newcomers about them. I hope resolving the two issues with the model that Kirsten mentioned above will improve this significantly. In the meantime, the Community Configuration controls I hope will allow you all to mitigate them sufficiently that it won’t be necessary to disable Add-a-Link overall. Bringing in newcomers with easier structured tasks so that they can build up their confidence before diving into more complex tasks is vital for onboarding the next generation of editors, and we want to handle it in a way that results in as few reverts/as little extra work for other editors as possible.Cheers, Sdkb‑WMFtalk23:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Advising newcomers to add incorrect/irrelevant links as part of a training exercise is not going to go well for anyone. BD2412T23:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We sometimes face the choice between using Wikipedia as a training ground and keeping the encyclopedia as correct as we can. I tend to prefer the latter but others may disagree. Most other ventures have a dedicated testing area where newcomers can make mistakes harmlessly, and it is unfortunate that we have to let ours loose on the live system immediately. Certes (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I just want to add one quick perspective on this -- the way we've seen success with teaching and onboarding people to Wikipedia is through them doing real wiki work, as opposed to training-work. That makes it possible for them to quickly feel the excitement of changing the encyclopedia and seeing their impact. My thinking on this was shaped by the concept of "legitimate peripheral participation" in which people new to a community get involved by doing real work around the edges (like adding links!)
Doing real work certainly helps motivation. I created an account after fixing a few typos as an IP editor and enjoying the contrast with other reference sites whose errors I would have helplessly ignored. I think the tool has potential to do more good than harm if we can tame some of the less appropriate suggestions. I'm happy to see capitalisation being taken into account. Another possible improvement is not to suggest a name which has alternatives, e.g. don't offer a link to Joe Schmoe if we also have an article on Joe Schmoe (singer) because it might mean him instead. Perhaps that already happens – with an opaque evaluation algorithm, it's hard to tell.
Is there a log anywhere of which articles have been suggested as link targets? If so, that could be a starting point for undoing the remaining damage. Certes (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Certes, individual edits where Add-a-Link was activated are tagged (here's the feed), but there's no master list of which articles have been suggested because the model can suggest any article.
The Joe Schmoe situation you're describing is an example of a homonym; T409138 is the task where we're tackling that problem. Systemically identifying which articles have a homonym is unfortunately non-trivial from a technical perspective; we'd welcome engagement/ideas about how we could do so! Sdkb‑WMFtalk21:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This does make sense. Making live edits is also the way that errors are discovered and can be corrected in a way that supports learning and better contributions over time. Except, of course, when the correction is discouraging, so there is a balance here. If an editor links to the wrong 'Joe Schmoe' or mistakenly links a phrase like 'a taxi driver' in a training environment, who will catch the mistake? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support tweaking Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits to one link an edit. Perhaps in the same way as checking multiple links takes up reviewer time, it may contribute to new users not bothering to check the links. phab:T405185 which is about an issue which directly leads to bad links has been open since September, phab:T415623 and phab:T415622 which relate to less directly bad issue of overlinking have been open since January. All are still set to "Needs Triage", so we should take our own action as we can. Switching to one link an edit would give more relevant reversion statistics too. CMD (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Do we have a list of known mislinked articles? I just fixed the remainder of A Taxi Driver (10) and Why Her (1) but there will be other targets that can be unlinked systematically. I didn't find any Fashionable Friends or other articles mentioned above. Certes (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Certes, while you're doing cleanup, if you find that any particular article is constantly being mislinked in the other direction (that is, suggested links tasks on the article, not to, the article, are overwhelmingly bunk for some reason), could you report it at WT:GTF (in case that helps fix whatever the issue is), but also add {{no newcomer task}} to that article so it doesn't keep happening? Thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Will do, but I've rarely found more than one set of three outgoing links added to the same article. I can't do much more without a list of targets that the tool has suggested, but I don't think we have or can easily get that. Certes (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Certes, inspired by your comment, I've logged T434255, which would create a mechanism that would allow you or other editors to exclude pages like A Taxi Driver from being suggested as links at any article. Feel free to take a look and make adjustments! Cheers, Sdkb‑WMFtalk21:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Settings changed: Given the comments above, I've changed the settings for this task so that it only suggests one link each time, and correspondingly bumped up the number of tasks that can be completed per day. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just noticing this discussion, switching to just one link per article was one of the most important changes we made on German Wikipedia to increase acceptance of this newcomer task. I don't have any data but in our perception the tool is usually able to identify one useful suggestion while the second and third link suggestion are significantly worse. @Sdkb-WMF perhaps that's something the Growth team wants to investigate? Increasing the minimum required link score to 0.7 also seemed to have a positive effect (and still leads to more than enough article suggestions on dewiki).
Even after making these changes we decided to significantly limit the number of edits because we want newcomers to progress to more useful tasks more quickly (e.g. adding references), given that users are automatically promoted to dewiki's autoreviewed user group once they reach 50-150 article namespace edits. I've heard from other wikis also setting limits stricter than 150 edits, e.g. to avoid users getting eligible to vote in local admin elections entirely by completing "add link" tasks. Johannnes89 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the input, @Johannnes89, that's really helpful. We actually haven't changed the link scores at all, and we have so many articles with barely any links, so increasing that probably won't cut off the task at all. As far as the number of edits goes, I think en-wiki is perhaps uniquely placed to tolerate high numbers per editor, since we have WP:XC, which doesn't apply until 500 edits. I've actually heard feedback from several mentees that they miss the add-a-link task when they "age out" of it, so I wouldn't want to drop it, myself. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Exterminate, BD2412 had it correct right off the bat: "The 'suggested links' tool, which prompts newbies to add links in articles, is more trouble than it's worth. Every few weeks, at least, I see an article edited as suggested with the addition of links that are just plain wrong." Sending newbies into the world of clutter and tools has enough content without this. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No, just no: The suggested links feature is the least of the problems with Newcomer Tasks. At least fixing overlinking is easy, compared to dealing with the AI slop that is introduced via every other task (copyedit, expand, reference, update). Why is this the one that is getting traction to be removed? Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's a problem specific to newcomer tasks – at least those come with onboarding pop-ups like this teaching newcomers about our rules. Whenever I see newcomers clearly ignoring task instructions, they are usually also doing regular edits which are just as unhelpful. Johannnes89 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem is the gamification that encourages this stuff. I am currently around 150 tabs deep in cleanup related to this and have probably done many more hundreds total. I have actively done an audit showing a dismal rate of good edits. Nothing seems to matter and so the workload continues to balloon and the articles continue to deteriorate.
By contrast, I am actively relieved when I encounter an edit history full of link adding, because the damage done is small by comparison. And yet for some reason it is THE ONE thing that gets immediate action. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah exactly, the links are the by far least problematic 'newcomer task' and doesn't do any real damage. It's the other tasks that need to be removed, not this one. ‑‑gurkubondinn15:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep the tool: let's try this with the new settings. Most of the added links are good, we need the extra retention, and it's easy to revert, especially now with the new settings. With the further development of the tool as promised we might get rid of further errors in the task. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm for keeping the tool. Tune up, if you can figure out a tune up. We have no tasks, where users won't make mistakes (all experience levels). Editing requires some boldness and more editing requires some confidence gained in editing: we want/need editors. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A few weeks ago, I made a proposal regarding the WikiForms tool. The previous discussion mainly focused on tool development, security, and revisions.
I am glad to share that the tool is now fully production-ready and all suggested improvements have been incorporated.
I would like to propose officially recognizing this tool by establishing a dedicated documentation page at Wikipedia:WikiForms. This page will outline the guidelines and usage for the tool, offering a native, privacy-friendly alternative to external services like Google Forms for surveys or data collection within the community.
The tool still appears far from production ready. Nevermind the top of the page saying "banner_message", or the silent failures when publishing a blank form, or the fact that after publishing a form you're still given the ability to edit the form and add questions but clicking the publish button a second time doesn't do anything. My biggest concern is that it still describes itself as being able to "Create powerful data collection forms or secure AI-proctored quizzes" and offers an option for an "Anti-cheat AI proctoring protection subsystem built-in natively" despite you saying in the previous discussion that you were completely removing all AI components. I also fail to see what need this fills for the Wikipedia community that isn't already met by meta:LimeSurvey or meta:SecurePoll. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)22:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"Quazer Beast" was one of Wikipedia's earlier bits of vandalism, deleted in 2006. I have no issue with the original intent of the Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast page, a jokey "preservation" of an early bit of vandalism, but the page has since effectively been hijacked by another, since-banned user who drifted it massively off-topic and diluted the original use of the page.
Said user was Dronebogus(talk·contribs), who started editing the page in November 2021 and made literally hundreds more edits between then and March 2024. Their edits consisted of adding links to other animal-related hoaxes such as Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Salvadorian Magpie, and even this paywalled link to a skepticism newsletter which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's clear Dronebogus was using this as a WP:NOTHERE violation, creating a Wikipedia game. GREEKMYTHOLOGY123(talk·contribs) has also participated a few times, adding in more random links to hoax articles.
Dronebogus also made a WP:NOTHERE violation at Wikipedia:True facts about Wikipe-tan, which was deleted in May for being nonsense. I should also note that the page had only about 10 edits between 2013 and the time Dronebogus effectively hijacked it in 2021, suggesting there was little reason for its original purpose to be overridden like this. I don't think Greek Mythology is acting in bad faith, but they are still following in Dronebogus' footsteps and steering the page further from what it used to be.
Given the page has drifted massively off-topic largely by a user who is now banned, my proposal is this: would it be acceptable to revert the page to this edit from 2019, the last before Dronebogus touched it? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • (What did I screw up now?)17:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I wanted to get a solidarity statement in there, but ran out of characters (guideline says 50 to 70 characters for CentralNotice banner). Open to hear from more creative folks. There is space to say "Support WWU", but that might be too much inside baseball.
I will be generous and acknowledge that any labor-related edit-a-thon is clearly indirect if not direct support for WP:WWUS but I believe it is the right thing and will support whatever brief statement that people find descriptive. The end result will be improved encyclopedic articles that enrich the discussions. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 18:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure that's a good concession for success of the drive.
Did you see the post I was responding too? This question did not come out of no where. Just above, there was a claim that the drive is at least "clearly" an indirect support for some other cause. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I did. I just wanted to reassure you that despite the motivation of showing solidarity with WWU, the campaign is open to all. Of course, we'll respect NPOV etc. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As I put below: the aim is V/NPOV/NOR content, which may turn out to (overall) show that unionisation is generally a bad thing. Encouraging participation in this editathon could contribute to WWU US losing the election. Boud (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The election will be over in the first days of the drive. So, your argument makes little sense. Any influence on the election would be in August, presumably when the banner is suppose to run. Moreover, the goal of WWU wining or losing the election can play no part in editing decisions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fair point about the timeline, which makes it even less likely that the editathon will bias WMF US employees in their vote, since the newly added content may be unstable until sufficiently many diverse editors have got involved in editing. To people familiar with Wikipedia, unstable articles full of {{refimprove}} and other tags are a hint to read the talk page and check the sources yourself rather than consider the content as consensus-based. Agreed that the goal of WWU win[n]ing or losing the election can play no part in editing decisions; that's uncontroversial as a matter of principle. But some concern has been raised here that in practice, either editing or the effects of the edits might be influenced by, or have an influence on, the NLRB ballot. My point is that if there is an influence by editors despite editors' best intentions, there's no prior reason to be certain which way, if any, that could influence the vote. Some WMF US employees are Wikipedia editors (identified or anonymous), and 1/3 did not sign union cards either the first or second time; they may have some good WP:RS that present arguments against unions, and might add those during August, motivated by the CentralNotice. Getting a mix of editors with a variety of biases tends to produce high-quality articles. Boud (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The promotion of bias in the election is in the running of an August banner for a project "edit-a-thon [that] is clearly indirect if not direct support for WWUS" (they are working to win an election in August). So, change to the bias of the editathon, would be what's required. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not at this time - While asking editors to help improve articles in a specific topic area is standard practice, we can not ignore the fact that there is currently an ongoing discussion between the WMF and its employees over forming a union. Running an editing campaign “in solidarity” of Organized Labor while this discussion is going on is inappropriate. It would be like running an editing campaign “in solidarity” with a specific political party during a national election. Wait until the WMF employee union issue is resolved… then do a campaign on this topic area. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not buying that… When the organizers of the campaign are calling for “solidarity” it becomes more than that. It becomes advocacy.
September has lots of causes… it’s Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Suicide Prevention Month, World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month (just to name a few)… we can focus on those topics instead. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It's a fair worry, even though I'm not sure when the issue would be resolved (after the vote? after the first negotiations are done?). Just for reference, there is precedent of editing campaigns with a political backdrop to it, in the Ukraine Diplomacy Month, which is, at least to me, clearly in solidarity with the victims of war. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Reliable sources that show in what situations (when, where, why, who, how) unionisation has led to lower salaries or worse conditions are fully on-topic for this editathon. Without already knowing what sources are going to be used and what they say, we cannot predict whether the result of the editathon will be to show, overall, that unionisation is good or bad. I've added a section to encourage adding, especially, scholarly sources that are suspected to be biased pro- or anti-union.This editathon might just as well convince lots of WMF workers that unionisation is, per the evidence, a bad thing, as convince them that it's a good thing. The WMF US workers' votes may be influenced by the encyclopedic evidence, either pro- or anti-unionisation. Boud (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC))reply
Support. Many of our articles about organized labor would benefit from this edit-a-thon. The scope of WikiProject Organized Labour includes both pro-union and anti-union aspects of the topic area, as well as general information about trade unions. The word "solidarity" could be removed from the event page if it is considered a concern, but the existence of other themed months for September (e.g. Childhood Cancer Awareness Month) is not a good reason to forego this event. Feel free to start a separate edit-a-thon about childhood cancer, if you are interested in doing so for that topic. —Newslingertalk21:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support a central notice for the campaign, and the having of the campaign. The short suggested text here seems fine to me too. Not sure about using the "trout" logo though, and possibly we should be a little more subtle about the WWU advocacy on the event page. Anomie⚔23:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Obligatory oppose against the message of support for WWU. Sending a CentralNotice is fine. Regarding the icon, I think I like the trout best. Like Newslinger said, there's pro-union (labor) and anti-(labor) articles out there - it's a contentious topic. The image of the red* raised fist looks like a revolution took place, and the third image is the WWU logo, which is a non-starter for this endeavor. †I am reminded of a paper glossed in The Atlantic which included an exploration of the rise of the color red during the Russian Revolution. - Embyarby (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It's an inside joke. The fact you had to ask the question means that it likely isn't as effective as I thought it would. Also, people seem keen on not displaying WWU solidarity too blatantly, so I'm very happy to just go for the multi-colored people icon, as a single image. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support. More NPOVed, RSed, DUE-weight, crowdsource-edited encyclopedic knowledge on this specific subset of human rights will benefit Wikipedia readers and Wikipedia's reputation as a source of encyclopedic reviews of knowledge, and will likely also help encourage inter-language wiki cross-coordination. Boud (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support, while I agree any actual advocacy should be muted, I don't see how anyone could take issue with the current state of the page, it's no different to other edit-a-thons really. The only point of contention I can see is that the most prominent suggested articles are centred around the WMF dispute, rather than the most vital articles about organised labour. I think it should have the latter as the most prominent, with a later subsection on articles related to the WMF dispute.
I also think there should be a pointer to another page (or a section near the end) giving a neutral summary of the recent events and linking to the ongoing discussions. At the moment the discussions are dominated by enwiki editors while others are left out of the loop, the page is about to be MassMessage'd to other wikis and they won't know what's going on based on the current state of the page. Otherwise it's a big support, lots of articles will be improved, which is the reason we're all here anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Support Central Notice without any advocacy for WWU. We should try for improved, NPOV, RSed articles on labour issues. I think getting more people involved on articles relating to this would be beneficial, and we should not directly tie it to WWU's efforts (which I support). Improving the encyclopedia should be what we want for the Central Notice. Abzeronow (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Would anyone be opposed to a bot that notifies you when someone translates an article you made?
I think that would be fantastic! In general I also wished that “first edit author” did not have exclusive API benefits but that anyone could subscribe to watch for such translation alerts even if they did not create a specific article ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 18:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would caution that just because a new article was created in another language Wikipedia about the same topic doesn't meant that it was translated. Currently, to see associated Wikidata changes for a page you are watching, you can enable Preferences→ Watchlist→ Advanced options→ Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist. This will let you see when someone adds a new language version to the corresponding Wikidata item. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In my experience, past the initial creation of properties, there aren't many updates at all, which makes sense for most topics, as their properties are stable. The most frequent changes are adding links to new articles in different language Wikipedias. isaacl (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I developed a quick proof of concept that if this gets consensus could have ready to go, still would need to work out whether it's opt in or out and the mechanism for others subscribing. Balance3641 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Since this has been raised both here and in the original BOTREQ post, is there some way this would distinguish between translations vs. new articles created from scratch on another wiki? —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That information isn't recorded on Wikidata, as far as I know. It's after all not a property of the thing itself, but of a specific article version in a language Wikipedia. I think if we start storing items about the written articles themselves, they're going to get confused with the items about the underlying things. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I didn't think so but wanted clarification/confirmation. It's not clear how this proposal would even work, then, as this proposal is predicated on translations being a distinct characteristic that is consistently and uniquely coded or documented. Turning on/creating new alerts for all Wikidata changes or just for new language versions of a page would seem to be a viable approach that would capture these but would also produce a great many alerts that are not actually translations from the en-wiki article. Those might still be of interest to the creator and any other editor interested in a particular article. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A properly attributed translation should link to the enwiki article in an edit summary (which I believe the content translation tools do automatically), so it may be possible to look for new Wikidata entries and then check the article history. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Based on the discussion linked in the original post, the original poster doesn't seem too concerned about trying to limit notifications to just translations. Personally, I'm happy with the existing Wikidata changes mechanism that I mentioned earlier. But if any new bot-based notification is opt-in, and someone wants to maintain the bot, more power to them. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
What if the mechanism is that 100% tagged translations are alerted with opt-out and there is opt-in for pages created on different language wikis? Balance3641 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
No, I dont think the distinction is important, any article created by you that later has content about it in another language is bound to share atleast some content with a good enwiki article, as they both cover the same topic. Also some authors only partially translate an article, and dont do the whole thing.
I would find some sort of notification of this (this being perhaps a newly added interwiki link on wikidata) useful. If it notifies of a translation, that is nice to see. However, if it is a separate creation, or even a translation with additions, it may contain additional sources or ideas that could be worth looking through to improve articles here. CMD (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I just rerolled random words until there was one I was happy with, am planning to do some more stuff with it so it didn't make sense to call it something like SomeoneTranslatedAnArticleYouWroteBotBalance3641🍃(talk · contribs)15:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As mentioned, personally I don't support enabling it by default to notify all users. This duplicates notifications for those who are already watching associated Wikidata changes, and increases the messaging on English Wikipedia to approximate the rate of article creation across all other language Wikipedias. Specifically regarding the message, I don't like "your page" as it runs counter to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Idea lab
Sanger's grand reforms: a post-mortem?
Catharsis. After a long drawn-out discussion, Larry Sanger's community ban, and the closure of WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, it seems as if a chapter has come to an end. And, in the broad strokes, I would agree: most of the theses were, as proposed, far from net improvements, and more often than not actively detrimental if implemented as such.
However, I do believe there are still some nuggets of truth in some of these ideals. Not changes we should adopt right off the bat, of course, but springboards to broader community discussion, observations that we can collaboratively refine into concrete proposals. Two in particular come to mind: reforming indefinite blocking, and ANI discussions. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 09:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
More broadly, i think some version of a wikiproject intellectual diversity could have been worth it had larry sanger been willing to cooperate. (I am under no illusions who such a project would be for, but additional voices do improve wikipedia in the long term, even voices i disagree with) User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:46, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the “wikiproject intellectual diversity” (WPID) banner is slightly different than the countering systemic bias banner. The latter is more all encompassing of fighting systemic underrepresentation of women, the global south, minorities. Its strange bedfellows with WPID members.
wpid probably targets conservative voices who feel shirked by wikipedia. I do think that deserves its own community (if they can agree to behave and not canvas, which wpid under larry sanger probably would not have), and hypothetically we could harness them to help improve articles. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)18:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it's a really good point, relating to undisciplining, siloing, and the overemphasis on Western academic divisions. It probably comes from the same place my feeling on the matter comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-41211-85 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that the fundamental problem is that intellectual diversity is a very loaded term due to its extensive use in a variety of contexts by people who feel that American conservativism, in particular, is not prominent enough in a particular space. And the problem with that is that while there are certainly some perspectives and viewpoints that are not well-represented among editors, American conservatism is not one of them. If you glance at the talk page for almost any WP:AP2 article you'll find it well-represented (after all, the fact that both the major strands of mainstream American politics are well-represented and at odds with each other on AP2 pages is the entire reason we have AP2 as a WP:CTOP.) More generally, the adherents of any nationalist or religious ideology are always going to feel they are under-represented on Wikipedia (note how Sanger also attempted appeal to Indian nationalists, who, again, already have a heavy presence, which is obvious just by looking at the relevant talk pages), because in their own country they're usually at or near a majority. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a broader view; even though these views are comparatively well-represented, the people holding those views feel oppressed because to log onto Wikipedia is to go from being comfortably within the majority and mainstream of their own country, to being a minority in an international community. And this is compounded by the fact that many of the movements for such views have taken a perspective that is bluntly unencyclopedic (ie. rejecting expertise, academia, the entire mainstream news, and so on.) The reason why eg. our article on the 2020 election presents its outcome as not in doubt, or why our article on Fascism describes it as a right-wing movement, isn't because either article lacks for people who drop in and try to argue that they should be changed; it's because they've staked out a position those topics that is genuinely unencyclopedic, in that it's unsupported by any high-quality sources. That's not the result of a lack of intellectual diversity. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To add to this: to the extent Sanger has any kind of point about the political lean of Wikipedia, it's not because we have a POV but exactly because we follow WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Political opinions, unlike what Sanger seems to think, are not pure fact-free endeavors. Sometimes, in fact often, a commonly held political opinion will clearly contradict reliable sources, and in that case we go with the reliable sources and not try to make the facts fit some kind of view-from-nowhere like Sanger seems to want.
In cases where the conservative point of view is the one supported by the sources, our articles reflect the conservative point of view. Go look at our article on rent control for an example. The reason our articles on, say, race or gender are not particularly friendly to the conservative point of view is mostly because the sources aren't either. Loki (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that is a weird example. The entire purpose of rent control is to make housing affordable, not address the criticism that it reduces housing quantity and quality. The limited studies mentioned in Rent control#On low income renters have one against and two for the claim that rent control makes housing stably affordable. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Housing quantity itself makes housing more affordable, so rent control reducing housing quantity ultimately makes housing less affordable for anyone who doesn't directly benefit from it. At least, under the mainstream economic reasoning we're talking about here. Loki (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That's not quite right. It depends on circumstances.
The price ceiling meaning it's impossible to make it less affordable (unless said ceiling is higher than the price without said ceiling) aside, the law of supply and demand you're talking about only applies if supply exceeds demand. Meanwhile, the US has for a long time had a housing shortage for decades, New York's City has had a housing shortage since the end of White flight, and California since the '70s; there's 6 US states with localities enacting rent control and that's 2 of them. A lot of that quantity from lack of rent control you're talking about might come from the law of supply: it's the fact that the price is high that's drawing more to enter this market and supply more quantities. Since this is economics there's a ton of other factors that I omit and do not know but IIRC this is the picture in broad strokes. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't be against it, although this taskforce should also, as part of its responsibilities, ascertain whether there is such bias to begin with. Compared to geographic bias or gender bias, ideological bias can be much tougher to quantify, especially when the expert consensus and the general public can be at odds. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:01, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think there is likely all types of bias. For and against anything you can name. I think it makes sense given that most Wikipedians are younger and more liberal/left-leaning that there may be blind spots. Andre🚐21:03, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
While its true that there is likely bias, you (generic) need to show that there is actually bias in some identifiable form for or against a given thing, and that this is systematic (i.e not just a single biased article) before it can be countered. A project to counter systematic bias against music by blonde musicians would at best be pointless unless you can show that there is a systematic bias against such music, at worst it could make things worse if it turns out that there is actually a bias for such music. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it would be a job for the taskforce, as Enby says, to through a neutral, non-canvassy process, solicit internal info about the extent and directions of various biases. For example Sanger mentioned Hindu topics. Not an area of my expertise. But, going to my wheelhouse, preliminary thoughts would be that we could easily find structural bias in hot-ticket American politics articles. We all hate Trump (I sure do) and Wikipedia should not pull any punches, but fairly following NPOV and sourcing policies should strengthen, not weaken coverage about politics and help educate readers, while defusing the critics. For example there was recently a consensus that we need to overhaul the Steele dossier article due to an overreliance on primary sources. I have been working on the article but there is still tons more to do there, and I really think TNT is disrespectful to past contributors and PRESERVE so I have been working to trim, rewrite, and incrementally improve it without reducing it to a stub even though it still has a lot of problems, some of which relate to how NPOV should work in current events articles. Another example would be the recent RSN discussion about CBS News under the Bari Weiss era. I know several of my Jewish family members that would call Bari Weiss a Nazi. The point of mentioning that is to say that she is a divisive figure and that there are lots of factions within different voting blocs (see also, the discussion about whether DSA is a party). But the invective and vitriol for and against her should not color the neutral, factual measurement of whether the source is now unreliable. Andre🚐21:35, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed, there is at least a fewphilosophicalviews that bias is inherent to everything but im not a philosopher and am not licensed to know how valid/invalid views are
agree that what is and isnt objective bias is besides the point, having more editors coming from different avenues of life is usually better, and allowing them to organize within wiki principles to find and correct blindspots seems a good thing. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)21:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It is clear though that Neutral Point of View has drifted a long way from what Langer Sanger envisaged when he wrote the policy. We should revisit it. Maybe a Multiple Points of View Policy would be better. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Its drift, which happened fairly shortly after LS left, was honestly for the better; look up what the Citizendium article on homeopathy was before it was pointed out and the CZ community overrode Sanger. Sesquilinear (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think if folks want to debate if WP:NPOV needs to be changed, they may do so on that talk page. They need to be here first to have a voice, which was the point on LS’s wpid though i suspect that npov is unlikely to change as a useful and very good policyUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)12:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Hawkeye7 I think that multiple points of view were among the ideas that LS championed. I think there was even talk of allowing competing articles (with different viewpoints, which seems to mean that you are picking from a different set of RS), and letting readers vote the articles up or down.
What about disabling TAs and requiring an account to edit? Iirc, that was somewhere in there too. Asking someone to register before they can edit doesn't go against the spirit of "anyone can edit", because it's a quick process, which doesn't require an email or any kind of confirmation, that anyone is able to do. TurboSuperA+[talk]16:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
It's definitely on the feasible side, and some Wikipedia editions already do it, but the cost/benefit has to be considered, as there are many good edits from TAs and requiring an account can put an engagement barrier in front of editing. Most prospective editors won't take the time to do it if they want to, say, just fix a typo.I don't think this one is necessarily a non-starter either, but it's very situational and depends on whether the larger priority is anti-vandalism or editor retention. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Either way, I think we're pretty clearly in agreement that this is not a helpful direction for the English Wikipedia as our priorities are much more aligned with editor retention than with restricting a little bit of vandalism. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:53, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
If it's one of the "perennial no" proposals then I can drop it. Just re: editor retention; why would an editor who can edit as a TA ever create an account? Conversely, if an editor creates an account, they might be more likely to stick around and edit more. If someone only fixes typos as a TA on articles they read, are they an editor or an engaged reader? Food for thought. TurboSuperA+[talk]17:59, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@TurboSuperA+, past surveys of experienced editors show that about half of us (including me) started editing as IPs/TAs. If there were really no reason to create an account, none of us would have. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for some of the reasons why being a registered editor is better than editing as a TA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sure, whatever Larry proposed may appear to be unfinished business. However, the ideas here are either time-sinks or doomed to failure, IMO. I don't need to explain further, do I? Meanwhile, the following draft may need some improvements, especially from those wanting to raise awareness or even rejecting its existence: Draft:Intellectual diversity(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). —George Ho (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Indefinite blocks
The impetus for reforming indefinite blocks doesn't just come frome Sanger's theses, but also from this study on millions of blocks published in The Conversation. The gist of it is: as our admin corps has been dwindling, blocks have trended towards being more harsh, and simultaneously less clear. This creates a hostile environment for newcomers: not all of them will be willing to navigate our unblock interface – even with more accessible tools – or ask admins for explanations about their blocks.
So, what? Should we do away with indefinite blocks entirely? Most likely not. Some users, like long-term abusers, certainly require it, and keeping track of the latest sockpuppet's block expiry would be unfeasible. Shared or role accounts will remain blocked, even though each person behind them may be invited to create a separate account. However, there is certainly a case for most run-of-the-mill blocks to expire naturally. This philosophy mirrors that of WP:TRYUNPROT: the best way to check if page protection is still necessary is really just to lift it and see what happens. In the same vein, a user returning after six months or a year can usually be afforded a second chance.
To be fair, this isn't as far from accepted practice as it might seem. The standard offer is already a thing in many situations, and showing that one understands why they were blocked usually goes a long way towards being unblocked.
The psychological effect of selecting a block duration also comes into play. Is a block for "regular" vandalism worth a full year? Two? Five? And yet, these blocks can also all be appealed ahead of schedule if the blocked user shows adequate understanding. In this sense, they are less harsh than an indefinite block, despite the latter being psychologically easier to set as we aren't facing a definite scale, but focus more on the possibility of appeal. This paradox means that we can often set blocks that are much harsher on the user than what would be proportionate, despite not seeing it as such.
Formalizing this, by figuring out which "regular" blocks (e.g. vandalism-only accounts) can be time-limited by default, is the next natural step, especially if we assume that a big part of the bottleneck (understanding the reasons for the block) may be solved with more precise communication. Of course, we can't cover every specific situation, but having an indicative reference chart for block durations can go a long way. In fact, Italian Wikipedia already does this! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 09:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Personally I think blocking for a year is almost always going to be better than indef for first-time blockees that aren't overtly malicious. This would work especially well if we could get a "probation" recent changes feed that showed all edits from recently-unblocked accounts. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)20:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Copyright issues, serious source-text integrity issues, and good-faith POV pushing are the sorts of blocks that often need to be indefinite (not infinite!), especially if the original errors are made in good faith, and especially so if they're hard to catch. Otherwise, the editor risks coming back, not fully understanding the issue, engraining more bad habits, then blocked forever and all unblocks denied because they fucked their previous second chance up.
The data on "what are the most common indef block reasons" def. seems like something quarryable; I think I tend to trend a bit laxer than the rest of the community when it comes to indef bans for other forms of disruption (I think I've only ever actually supported... oh, man, I think one block/CBAN?) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸22:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, copyright issues should remain indefinite. Tbh I think that sort of POV pushing can often be put down to immaturity, which I hope a time limit might be good for, but who knows Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Making it clearer that indefinite does not mean infinite (both for blockees and those evaluating unblock requests).
Making guidance about how to write successful appeals more prominent in block messages and easier to find generally.
Becoming better at offering advice and explanations before someone is blocked.
More often assuming good faith of those who don't get things right first time.
In many cases people should be blocked until they understand why they were blocked. Sometimes that takes only a day or so, sometimes it never happens, but we should be more willing to unblock when it's clear regardless of how long they have been blocked (WP:NOTPUNITIVE and all that). Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
a lot of bureaucracy for no good reason for this reason I think block durations should remain subject to admin discretion, but I'd like to see a culture shift to tune that discretion towards editor retention. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)23:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, that's what I touched on with the psychological effect of the matter. If you have the option to indef, then an indef doesn't necessarily seem disproportionate for, say, a vandalism-only account. But if your only options are time-limited blocks, will any admin really say it is worth 10 or 20 years? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 07:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't impose a lot of blocks (I tend to be slower to block than some admins), but 8 out of the 11 I have imposed in the last 6 months have been on TAs, and for a TA any block of 90 days or more is equivalent to permanent. The blocks on TAs included one of 24 hours for edit warring; the rest were indefinite for vandalism-only accounts, spam/advertising-only accounts, and a blocked user seeking proxy edits (2 different TAs). For the three named accounts I blocked, one was a soft block for a username violation, one indefinite for a spam/advertising-only account, and a 31-hour block for disruptive editing. Although 8 of the 11 blocks were indefinite, I have trouble seeing how those blocks would be too harsh and harmful to recruitment of new editors. Donald Albury14:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The problem is that, besides soft blocks, permanent blocks prevent editors from coming back to the project years later, having most probably changed. Should a user have to appeal a block from an old TA they don't even have access to, or a spam block from a company they don't even work at anymore, just to not be counted as a sockpuppet? These weren't great editors now, but we're blocking ourselves from having them as better editors down the line, without much of a reason. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
"prevent editors from coming back to the project years later" - nothing prevents them from coming back years later. CU data is only retained for 3 months, and if there's no disruptive activity on the new account, no one's going to block them for disruptive activity on the old one. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and rules shouldn't be enforced for the sake of enforcement. sapphaline (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Maybe not prevent, but at least dissuade. If your only path towards contributing requires breaking the rules and hoping they don't get enforced, you're much less likely to actually want to contribute (I know I wouldn't, for starters), and there's a problem with the rules to begin with. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:31, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Most one-off violators don't know anything about the rules, and sockpuppetry in 2020s' Internet is much less frowned upon than sockpuppetry in 1990s' (or even 2000s') Internet. LTAs, spambot operators, globally banned users, etc. are a whole other can of worms, though, and what I described obviously doesn't apply to them, because going this far into disruptive editing generally means that you're not compatible with the project's values and simply cannot edit constructively, even if you want to. sapphaline (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't agree that sockpuppetry is less frowned upon now. With Wikipedia's current consensus-based decision-making traditions, the number of supporters for a viewpoint is used as a rough proxy for strength of support, for better or worse. Thus pretending to be multiple people or getting people otherwise uninvolved with Wikipedia to show up and support your viewpoint undermines Wikipedia's decision-making. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It's not clear to me that how other sites deal with undisclosed alternate accounts is a significant factor when a blocked user considers making a clean start. In any case, sites based on ongoing collaboration generally benefit from contributors having a persistent, known label to identify them. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If your only path towards contributing requires breaking the rules and hoping they don't get enforced, you're much less likely to actually want to contribute...I'm not sure how true this is, although the reality of evasion related behavior is obviously complicated and opaque. I've said all this before, but in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area where a) people are strongly motivated to contribute based on personal beliefs (about the world and Wikipedia) and b) the likelihood of receiving an indefinite ban or block is elevated, choosing the rule-breaking path (over the standard offer path) is popular. It has many advantages. The rule-breaking accounts that employ evasion contribute a lot of content, they are often focused, dedicated, experienced, hard-working, and the community more often than not retains their content after the accounts are identified and blocked. So, from their perspective, as people subject to indefinite bans or blocks (that they often view as unjustified barriers to addressing what they see as content issues), rule-breaking via evasion is a rational choice with a better payoff combined with reduced risk (people who employ disposable accounts are unsanctionable in practice). For me, this is one of the arguments against the current harsh strategies for handling 'disruptive' editing. The application and effects are asymmetric. They split the community into sanctionable and unsanctionable classes which breaks the enforcement system. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Kowal2701, I don't think so. Maybe it would be a solution of sorts if there were no human editors in the loop for BANREVERT decisions, if it was automatic and implemented by machines that don't care about the content being removed or the impact on articles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The lifecycle of tokens in the PIA topic area and elsewhere added by accounts employing deception via sockpuppetry is something that interests me, but unfortunately, I don't have enough time to look at it properly. Nevertheless, it is interesting to look at aspects of how the community deals with content created by ban/block evading actors. See User:Sean.hoyland/authorshiptesting#10 for example. Back in April I was testing some (WP:G5 related) code that looks at authorship stats for articles created by socks (with additions from other accounts, socks and non-socks). I took a snapshot for a particular sock, and I've just taken another one to see what has changed. As you can see, most of the content has survived. I'm guessing that this is not unusual, sock created tokens have a decent chance of surviving, despite the existence of WP:BANREVERT. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
yeah, sometimes doing LLM cleanup I come across socks who still have live creations (where they're the only signif. contributor) let alone edits. What'd be brilliant is if editors in a topic area banded together to cleanup after socks (regardless of ideological leaning), that'd increase collegiality and largely resolve it. But I doubt that's possible in PIA atm, and it doesn't help that socks are mostly on one 'side'. Regardless, expecting SPI admins to do the cleanup is wrong, that ought to change, their time is better spent analysing reports etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think for something like BANREVERT to work at scale, maybe there needs to be more willingness to go backwards, to degrade content, to reduce quality, to reduce completeness, to take a longer-term view that building articles is a long march, that some temporary setbacks to articles to enforce evasion related policy may be worth it in the long run. The community seems to treat existing content with perhaps more respect that it deserves given that it's all a work in progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I can't really follow this. Those who know how to organize it have something to look forward to and want to do their small part of forming a very secure system that looks at what's been getting attacked and guards it and not how we got there. They will decide that their one tiny little part is enough and when it is their tiny little part, they can do a very strong and powerful job of it. Once they've done their tiny little part, if the rest of us can't self organize how to work within that limitation of power, there's nothing more they can do for them. I skimmed this section. I took in bits and pieces of it. I only just arrived here and this section looked appealing to me due to the title. The plan might look something like the sand bubbler crab pattern in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlPkoG50zeQ. More details can be found in my new user page. There was also a show called "The Middle" where the middle kid Sue was left behind, forgotten, invisible. Now that I'm struggling to get very much attention, I will use the fact that I used to be a good unicyclist who went to Darren Bedford's unicycling club. People pay attention to that and can see other things by first showing them how it is like that. I could maybe unicycle in bits and pieces now. Now that I'm older, I no longer have so much child like God of everything potential but do a really good job of making a lot of computations then really heavily reducing the end result then exploring more options in what it's been reduced to unlike young people and it feels normal now. I know longer like the big plan with the standardized testing system of Darren Bedford's unicycling club. Also, look how many times my old username appears in the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1220#h-Blackbombchu_is_WP:NOTHERE-20260416004900. ¬¬¬¬ Douglas Conquistador (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC) — Confirmed sockpuppet of Blackbombchu. reply
If we have rules which we deliberately do not enforce because doing so would harm Wikipedia, we should modify those rules. If it's acceptable for an indef-blocked editor to return with a false moustache after n months then let's say so or, better still, block them for n months (instead of indefinitely) so they can edit openly with their known account. I'm sure we've lost a lot of good editors who made an out-of-character mistake. I'm thinking of one former colleague with a six-figure edit count who directed a single insult at a loudly litigious opponent and was instantly and permanently blocked, but I'm sure there are many other cases. Certes (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Copying my comment from the closed discussion below: I think this could be an opportunity to reform how bans are conducted on long term editors. For example, we could establish a "tenure" system where after an editor has demonstrated they are able to contribute to the encyclopedia (say, 1,000 edits and two years of consistent edits). For such accounts, instead of blocks with indefinite timelines, we could default to ones that end in a defined manner, like 3 months for a "first offense," followed by a one year "probation" where limits can be placed on an account. Punishment could escalate if infractions occur during the probation, or within a certain time/number of edits from the initial infraction. After a certain number of years, an account can return to "Good standing" automatically. All could be done without needing the offending editor to ask for permission. Indefinite blocks on the first offense could be reserved for vandals with few edits. The main issue for older editors is as they edit, they have positive/negative interactions. Over several years, it is increasingly likely that an editor will end up in a dispute. These stack up, and more established editors are more likely to have a few salty enemies watching ANI. One bad day ends with an editor being blocked after possibly decades of service. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't like this. It thresholds all disruption of different severity into "offense" and treats long-term editors very differently from newbies. How long a block is show be determined on how preventative it would be, not whether the "blockable" has some 1000 edits and two years. I also vaguely remember "Probation" being something enwiki has tried before. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I also vaguely remember "Probation" being something enwiki has tried before. "Article probation" evolved (via intermediate steps) into what is now WP:Contentious topics (CT). In terms of editors, things like "civility probation" were tried but broadly they didn't work (there is a lot of nuance missing in that though), other attempts evolved into things like topic bans, revert restrictions, partial blocks, etc. We also have suspended (topic) bans, usually as an unblock condition, where a single admin can (re)impose a (topic) ban/block if some condition is met/not met. Escalating blocks are already a thing as part of various editor restrictions/CT restrictions, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Long-term editors should be treated differently from newbies. Newbies deserve some grace as they attempt to learn the system, long-term editors have demonstrated that they are capable of contributing. A long term editor should be able to point to their track record as evidence. Our current system is lazy, and banishes people far to quickly. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If anything, the whole point of WP:BITE is that we shouldn't treat newbies as harshly as they're still learning the ropes. Giving long-term editors more leeway but not newbies goes against this.Also, I'm doubtful of the narrative of ANI leading to pile-ons from everyone who got in a dispute with an editor. It is true that ANI discussions often tend to raise a pattern of behavior going back years, but, from experience, this is usually a pattern of sanctionable behavior, not individual disagreements or grudges. I haven't seen any case of an editor getting blocked just because their enemies were watching ANI, without any sanctionable behavior on their end.If anything, being a long-term editor also means you'll have allies watching ANI and ready to defend you! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Comment: Newbies are already covered by BITE, as noted, although I think we're pretty quick to BITE and need to chill with them too. I'm saying that over a certain number of edits and time spent as an editor, the track record should be heavily considered. @Chaotic Enby, there is certainly a lot of editors who have allies defending them on ANI, however look at the bans of long term editors and from what I've seen, people will bring up slights from long before the main issue being discussed. Say every 1,000 edits a hypothetical editor isn't their best self and gets in a dispute where they are in the wrong on a talk page somewhere. Each one of these disputes can leave a bad impression with multiple editors in the discussion, so when something comes to ANI, there could be several people jumping in voting not on the issue at hand, but on the track record of edits that stood out to them over the years. If they mostly focus on building an encyclopedia and don't build many relationships many other individual editors, they are unlikely to have strong allies. WP:TIAC, but we should formalize safety nets for long time editors who are not part of one. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There is a massive difference between being in the wrong in an argument (which happened to me many more times than I can remember) and actually showing behavior that isn't conducive to encyclopedia-building. The vast, vast majority of Wikipedia editors aren't trying to get anyone they disagreed with once banned.I'll note that many of the points made at WP:TIAC, like Closed decision-making structures – like invite-only IRC channels and mailing lists – are used, are just not true anymore, and these structures are viewed as inappropriate canvassing nowadays (WP:DISCORD, for example, has strong rules against any kind of off-wiki decision-making). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia policies are designed in a way that makes it really easy to make a small local majority, and silence minority opinions. Specifically WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TENDENTIOUS can be used to effectively tell an editor with a minority opinion to shut up. Pile-ons, baiting, and WP:SMEAR are a outgrowths of the status quo. Just threatening in a discussion to bring it to ANI can be enough to make someone leave, even if they did nothing wrong, as it isn't worth the trouble/risk. As for WP:TIAC, I don't think rules involving canvassing are really going to stop people, and even if they do for higher levels like admin discussions, the various Wikiprojects all have cliques that can coordinate to keep articles their way. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Off the top of my head I can't think of any subset of indef blocked editors who I think we are too harsh on. Except maybe edit warrers, who are probably best dealt with by restricting their ability to edit the article they are edit warring on. Oh and inappropriate names I think would be better addressed with a compulsory name change so the next time they log in they are forced to choose a new name (yes this needs a software change). However I'm happy to see this tested, if someone designs a proper AB test for say vandals or spammers and we monitor a thousand vandals blocked indef v a thousand blocked for 12 months to see how many come back and cause trouble and how many turn over a new leaf. It shouldn't take many years to see which route is better for us. If we do this I'd also like to see a study on blocking after 3 warnings rather than 4. My hypothesis is that if we start blocking vandals indef after the third warning if the first three warnings were given by three different accounts, we will find ourselves dealing with vandals more efficiently without losing any vandals who take the warning and reform. ϢereSpielChequers23:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Regarding the last point, while the hypothesis certainly deserves testing, a foreseeable issue is that blocking after a strict number of warnings (whether 3 or 4) doesn't make a difference between deliberate vandals, editors failing to learn and repeating the same issues, and editors learning the ropes and making several unrelated mistakes. I don't think these three groups should be dealt with in the same way at all.I do, however, really like the "three different accounts" provision, or at least making sure that the blocking admin isn't the only person who issued warnings to always have a second pair of eyes on any decision. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 02:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Streamlining ANI
It is no secret that ANI cases can often end up as a free-for-all, or devolve in long threaded discussions between the parties, without meaningful administrative discussion, and that providing some structure to the threads could help. Here, I don't have a specific answer (which is, after all, the purpose of the idea lab), but a lightweight hybrid between the current free-form discussions and the more structured ArbCom case filings could be interesting to consider. Something along the line of:
List of parties
Statement by [filing party]
Statement by [accused party]
Case discussion
(Optional) Discussion on [proposed sanction]
In which the parties would be invited to provide clarification inside the case discussion when asked by uninvolved users, but to refrain from back-and-forth discussions with each other.
This also ties into the suggestions of an ANI wizard to help format filings, as well as the fact that the unfolding of ANI discussions can often be quite confusing for unfamiliar users. The latter point not only puts them at a structural disadvantage compared to a more explicit, easier to navigate case structure, it can also lead to a chilling effect. As these effects are notoriously hard to measure, data is sadly lacking, but I believe they should nonetheless be taken into consideration.
Meanwhile, I don't think that putting structure on cases would complicate filings. New users shouldn't be blamed for not getting everything right, of course! And that is even without considering the wizard, which I might just code if we land on a consensus on this matter (even if it is the status quo). Plus, a "raw" filing can quite easily be structured by whichever admin processes the case first, allowing everyone down the line to save some reading time.
Given how often an ANI case winds up bringing in additional editors than the original filing, and how often different aspects that are uncovered might entail different remedies (especially with early comment on remedy not knowing about later posted comments), I oppose this structure. I do think it would be helpful if the original poster included userlinks/articlelinks. But the given structure suggests the relationships and scope are known at the instant of filing an unchanging or that the original comments know about later-added/changed details to them. Neither of those are valid assumptions in ANI. The nature of ongoing evidence, discussion, remedy-proposal, and remedy-!vote is the nature of ANI, and while it could be made less messy, it's nowhere near the staid, phases/rules-of-order ArbCom. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Once more, I'm not saying this is a rigid structure, but broad strokes on how the conversation can be organized. Sections can be added if more remedies are suggested, if more parties are brought into the case, but this is more of an attempt to structure the discussion. Probably, the proposed remedies won't be known from the start, and different editors might open sections to discuss different remedies.My point is that encouraging editors to set them up clearly is superior to confused discussions where users might !vote "support" or "oppose" without even making clear what they're voting for. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I can certainly see the benefit to requiring sections to be opened with a clear statement of the dispute and of who is accusing who of what, and a clear section for the accused parties to respond so it's immediately clear whether they have or have not done so and if they have what that response is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I did not "oppose" the idea. In fact, I said I support some of its goals and even perhaps specific aspects. But I did not agree with this way of organizing it, regardless of the specifics, and instead mentioned certain specifics that could be implemented regardless of if/whether the whole thing is structured. And I helped distinguish how I see the natures of two different WP: pages that various editors might generally be considering as analogous, which could help workshop a method here that does not necessary match what happens there. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
ANI would also benefit from non-admin "clerk/advocates" who engage with parties and facilitate the process. I often see ANI cases end in sanctions that have more to do with combative doubling-down of parties during the ANI discussion than by the actual original issue. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)20:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
You're not wrong, but this would be difficult. Something like this, WP:AMA, was tried a long time ago, and in practice people who self-selected into the role seemed to view it as an opportunity to play Perry Mason. I think, in part because of the "face" issue you mention below, inexperienced users are often unwilling to take advice even from friendly third-parties, because their position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of community practices and they don't want to concede it. Choess (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Another thought that touches on both ANI and block policy (and might deserve a full discussion thread of it's own): an observation that I and others have made in the past is that Wikipedia's culture and processes do not function well when applied to people from shame cultures, where the concept of face is very important. People from these cultures often respond to scrutiny of their behavior in ways that Anglo-Dutch-German people view as dishonest, and are likely to quit the project entirely rather than face the shame of ANI or an unblock request. More thought is needed on how we might modify our processes or at least how we might provide better guidance for people from shame cultures navigating Wiki culture, and how we might provide better guidance for our Anglo-Dutch-German editors for interacting in a way that leads to more constructive outcomes in these cases. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)23:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Good point indeed. Maybe putting the emphasis more on "coming forward to discuss/solve the issue" can be the way? Encouraging editors to not necessarily propose sanctions as remedies, but alternatives like, say, moderated discussions, voluntary mentoring, etc. In general, a remedy on which parties voluntarily agree is superior to one that has to be forced on them by the community. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 08:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
LWG I'm not sure I follow this argument, as my understanding is that we as Wikipedia actually operate more on a shame basis than on a guilt basis: our means of social control are based on enforced ostracism, performative humility and calling people to account before the community, rather than individual moral responsibility or guilt resolved through punishment. signed, Rosguilltalk14:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose; arbcom cases are virtually impossible to make any sense of because of this structure and the 100 unrelated piecemeal "cases" by various people on 5 separate pages, compared to, you know, a discussion Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I dunno, I have a bad habit of lurking AE and ANI, and in my opinion the former functions much better than the latter.
I think a structure where the involved parties can only comment in their own sections while everyone else can do a normal discussion would be worth trying. InfernoHues (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I wonder if the reason AE functions better than ANI isn't the structure, but who is allowed to directly participate in the consensus building process at each function. ANI allows for anyone to participate (excluding other circumstances), while AE restricts it to administrators. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions)20:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)reply
To date, the community has chosen to keep the responsibility for handling behavioural disputes, with the exception of when it has delegated authority to the arbitration committee for situations it hasn't been able to manage. Although it's possible consensus has shifted, my personal guess is that there's still a consensus to try to deal with behavioural issues first through community discussion, rather than delegating to admins. We can see what people think. isaacl (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think this is relatively true, but I'm unsure of how strong consensus is here considering the consensus around letting community CTOPs be actioned at AE. Though it could be a CTOP vs standard behavioral issue. But mainly I don't think comparing AE to ANI is too fair of a comparison, at least without considering that the productivity of AE is due to consensus being admin-only. The most direct comparison between the proposed idea is looking at RfC closure reviews using {{RfC closure review}}, and comparing productivity (though this isn't a perfect comparison). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions)09:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I feel there are significant voices who think that the community and the arbitration committee should be wary of designating too many contentious topic areas, in part due to concerns about retaining such decisions within the general community. I have, however, long discussed that English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions do not scale upwards well, beyond a fairly small number of people. I've been more concerned about content-dispute resolution, which I think could forestall behavioural problems if made more effective, but it's possible the community might move towards this same conclusion first for behavioural dispute resolution. isaacl (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I broadly agreed with DMacks and Gnomingstuff. I think the idea of streamlining ANI is attractive but I struggle to see how it would work in practice. The nature and purpose of ANI doesn't lend itself to the structures of ArbCom—which is not to say there can be no improvements. I think perhaps some of ANI's greatest strengths are also its greatest weaknesses. When it works, allowing just about anybody to surface evidence, opinions, additional parties, and extended issues clarifies the problem and produces appropriate remedies that often are not evident at the time of the initial filing. I confess don't have extensive ANI experience, and much less with ArbCom, but it strikes me that ArbCom's structure is in part facilitated by the messiness of ANI. Complex ANI discussions give rise to more focused ArbCom questions and identified parties. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry for not making it clear, but the suggestion was that this structure would be dynamic, i.e. people could later be added as parties, suggest new remedies, etc. Something like the ANI wizard would provide the core structure, but it would evolve down the line as more evidence surfaces. I'll try to make a more intuitive and accessible demonstration of what I have in mind. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Is an "ANI wizard" really that good of an idea? It seems to me it would encourage people to file more ANI reports over lesser matters, which doesn't seem productive. ANI being intimidating probably prevents some disputes from escalating unnecessarily. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page)(contributions)15:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, ANI being more intimidating doesn't necessarily filter for more important issues, but rather for other unwanted criteria, such as: Is the person familiar enough with the workings of the noticeboard? Do they have enough social capital? Are they on good terms with ANI regulars?And, unsurprisingly, this can very easily create a self-selected two-tiered system. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I think it's intimidating enough and the goal should not be to increase that. More structure could help or hinder. I don't have a clear concept of how an "ANI wizard" would operate but if it allows for relatively low-barrier reporting and then adds structure then perhaps it could be helpful. I have participated in an ANI that had some elements of this. It was a bit of a mess and not something I would hold up as an example but the ad-hoc "clerking" by admins who were previously uninvolved with the underlying issue was helpful in facilitating and structuring the discussion. I remain open to the concept but have trouble picturing it. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The biggest, most obvious, cruelest, and most unnecessary type of stupidity that happens at ANI is that the filee is required to maintain a stiff upper lip, not only with respect to the statements of the initial filer, but also with respect to the dozen or so random unrelated editors we permit to drop in during the proceedings and needle them about minor issues, or make expansive claims about some past incident, or just straightforwardly antagonize them.
There may be a benefit to people participating in threads, but there is not really a reason why people need to throw rotten fruit at the accused.
The most obvious solution to this — please, for the love of God, prior to the responses that this is dumb, please understand that I am not proposing this, but saying that it is a thing which would make it stop, there may be others which work better — is to authorize some sort of higher threshold for conduct in noticeboard bystander comments, such as exist for AE and ARBCOM, wherein there is a generally understood expectation that rolling by to make snide barbs will result in a very bad time for anybody who does it, and as a consequence people there do it far less. jp×g🗯️02:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
ANI is not a great forum, but I've yet to see a good idea on how to reform it. Making it overly bureaucratic isn't the way to go, new editors who may now little about how to edit aren't helped by struggling to find there way through understanding where there comments should go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think this is overly bureaucratic: the structure itself could easily be built with the ANI wizard, and having a clear "discussion" section is better than the jumble of threads we currently have. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
My thinking is a sort of hybrid of rigid and flexible. Start with a formal statement of the issue, a list of parties involved, and a space for an initial response by each of those parties, followed by a free-form discussion section that functions similarly to now. Adding another editor as a party would I think work best by someone saying "I think X should be added as a party here because..." and then if at least one uninvolved editor agrees, that uninvolved editor adds them to the list of involved parties and copies the statement explaining why they should be a party and creates a space for a single initial response by the new party. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
One of the advantages of ANI is that it is lightweight and adaptable to many different kinds of cases. As I noted on JimboTalk recently: ANI is really good for dealing with obvious trolls, and medium difficulty behavioral challenges. But it's a known issue that ANI struggles to deal with unblockables and complex matters. That's one reason ArbCom retains relevance. In the other direction, it is easy for discussions at ANI to become a pile-on/trainwreck/hot mess. So the question is: how can we preserve ANI's agility for lighter cases, but give structure to the beefier ones? I think the answer may be a sort of ANI+ or ArbCom Lite. I.e., once a discussion reaches a certain length, an administrator (and it has to be an admin, lest we have overzealous clerking) can graduate/escalate the matter to ANI+ (or AE perhaps?) where more formal structural rules kick in. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓08:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
A thought: the pile-on factor could be mitigated if admins were more decisive about sanctioning and closing discussions, which they would be more free to do if sanctions were seen as less permanent and more reversible. Which leads to another thought: what if we changed the name of "blocked" to something that better reflects their non-punitive nature like "restricted from mainspace" "restricted from talk pages" "restricted from user pages" etc? Or even introduced levels of blocking - a lot of problem users would be mitigated pretty well by being restricted to say, 1 mainspace and 1 talk space edit per day until their behavior improves. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)14:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Having a separate page might lead to the impression of a two-tiered justice system, but getting admins to enforce structured discussion once a certain threshold is reached (or even inviting editors to do it themselves when starting discussions they expect to become sprawling) could absolutely be worth it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
One idea I had to try to avoid discussions escalating rapidly is having a round-robin discussion phase. Each editor can make one comment per round, and a moderator decides when each round ends and when it is time to end the round-robin phase. I think this would allow time for more voices to heard in each round, and help prevent a few commenters from swamping discussion. However, it would be require active management by a moderator. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
A thought: I think ANI could be made a lot better for very little extra effort if there was a split between the place where the parties discuss the case and the place where everyone else does. We already do this at close reviews with an involved/uninvolved split, and every RFC is already split into a survey/discussion section, so a simple two-way split should be easy to accomplish. Loki (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't really like the idea of more structure than this at ANI, at least not as a regular thing. The point of splitting it is not really to avoid a back-and-forth between the parties, it's to avoid a pile-on and to make the most relevant information (what the parties are saying) clearer. Loki (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Who gets to decide how the work is done
Although this situation initially brought this to mind, it's not limited to just Sanger. The purpose of editing is to create and maintain an encyclopedia, and that work takes many forms. We're all volunteers here, and we collectively decide how that's done. We entrust some editors with additional rights, but even those rights never include any special privilege in deciding policy or guidance. Anyone who edits is part of the community, and should have a say in how the work is done. But what of people who don't do the work, should they have a say in how the work is done? As I said this goes beyond Sanger, it's applicable to anyone trying to decide how we as volunteers should do the work, when they don't take part in it. I have no issue with people from different groups helping with the work and bringing different perspectives, it's something I've encouraged even if I may disagree with their perspective. But it doesn't seem right that people who don't do the work get to try and tell the people who do the work how the work should be done. This doesn't mean ignoring external perspectives on the state on Wikipedia, but that internal processes should be something reserved for the volunteers creating or maintaining the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There's a tricky balance to maintain. If, for example, opinions were weighted by some metric measuring contributions, it would provide incentive for editors to become expansive in what is included in Wikipedia (which includes a significant category of paid editors), since more contributions means more influence to shift towards loosening standards of inclusion. A relatively low threshold for some contribution metric, without weighting, would help avoid this incentive, and would guard against new editors showing up and swamping a discussion to influence its outcome. It might not have much effect otherwise, though. Although personally I think it's a good idea for editors to gain experience with Wikipedia and gradually accumulate experience and respect, I also appreciate that there have been significant situations where long-time editors have fallen out of step with evolving community norms, and so generally the community has been reluctant to codify any specific deference mechanism. isaacl (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't suggest some kind of weighted metric or codified mechanism, more just an understanding that you need to take part in creation or maintenance of the encyclopedia to be part of discussions about how that should be done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think there are many editors who have this understanding... but also a significant number who feel empowered to weigh in on topics in which they have not previously participated. This can be good to bring cross-fertilization of ideas, or to provide a broader view. It can also be ineffective, such as when the same proposal is made for the N-th time. Also sometimes editors, in good faith, think they're going to participate and so are eager to make many new suggestions, but end up not participating. It's tricky to encourage new editors to join in, while also tempering expectations that just because they said "let's do X!", people volunteering to do X may not appear. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the biggest argument in favor of hearing from non-contributors is that Wikipedia is an institution, and the vast majority of the people who interact with it are non-contributors. If we assume that our output is of infinite utility and will always outweight the discontents of outsiders, we will probably caught by surprise when outsiders withdraw support or turn to alternatives that are useful enough; it has happened to other institutions.
That said, I think it's hard to make detailed proposals for reform without having made some attempt to engage in the current process. I get the impression that Larry's theses, like a lot of external criticism, were based largely on the second-hand narratives of the disaffected filtered through a lot of armchair philosophy and so wind up going in impractical directions. Frankly, I think the same problem occurs with some of our internal discussions: editors who have minimal experience with, or interest in, actually delivering knowledge to our readers deciding that their contribution to the encyclopedia will be middle-managing those who do. Or to put it in a kinder way, when I feel like I'm spending too much time yapping about "how things should be", I try to go back and work on something reader-facing for a while, to ground me. I think that's good advice for just about everyone. Choess (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the key thing to remember is that discussions about how things are done should always consider all of the following:
What readers want
What editors want
Why things are currently done the way they are
What can and cannot be done (in practical terms)
It's difficult if not impossible for any one person to know all of the above, particularly it's hard for someone who is an editor to know what readers who are not editors want and very difficult for someone who isn't an editor to know what editors want. It's sometimes tricky for those who are not programmers/template editors/similarly technical to know what changes are or are not practical, and sometimes nobody knows why things are currently done the way they are. It is also easy to fall into a trap of assuming that as someone who does know one of these things that this is common knowledge and/or that those who don't know that thing shouldn't have a seat at the table. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This is, in part, why I added "and that work takes many forms". Wikipedia is a varied community of people with differing abilities and ideas. And a community that should be open to new ideas from external sources. My point was that external sources shouldn't get to ultimately decide if those ideas are taken onboard, or how the work is done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Any all-volunteer project can't sustain too much meddling by outsiders (or insiders), because as onerous rules accumulate, people eventually just decide to find something more fun to do with their spare time. With that said, our consensus process as it is doesn't weigh every voice equally, even if we are institutionally equal, because the more respect and goodwill you command in the community, the more likely it is that others will be persuaded by your words and join in doing and advocating for similar actions. I don't know about other people, but one of the factors that affects how seriously I take someone is what percentage of their edits are to mainspace. -- LWGtalk(VOPOV)02:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Corresponding to the practice of mixing userboxes with non-userbox templates, the category header template {{Template category}} treats parameters |type=user and |type=userbox as synonyms (since Special:Diff/1039882654), outputting text The pages listed in this category are meant to be user templates, including userboxes.
This makes Category:Userboxes to be very confusing in itself. It is called "Userboxes", but almost none of the subcategories in its tree have the word "userboxes" in the name (this search shows 17 examples). Category:Userboxes contains userboxes, but also a random assortment of user namespace templates not related to the template {{Userbox}}.
I propose a plan for a big renaming of the subcategories of Category:Userboxes:
Through one giant CfD nomination, rename all template categories with |type=user or |type=userbox from "Foobar user templates" to "Foobar userboxes" or equivalent, depending on the naming scheme.
This will inevitably cause miscategorization for topical templates which aren't userboxes. We'll live with it for a bit until the new category structure is established.
One good example of a local naming scheme are subcategories of Language user templates, which are named "User templates ISO language code".
Update template {{Template category}} to support two separate values |type=userbox and |type=user. The wording will be something like:
|type=userboxes: The pages listed in this category are meant to be userboxes
|type=user: The pages listed in this category are meant to be user templates, including award templates, top icons, userboxes etc.
Replace |type=user with |type=userbox in the renamed categories.
Move miscategorized non-userbox templates from userbox-specific categories into the new category tree. At this step, the miscategorized templates can be found using WP:QUARRY requests and using WhatLinksHere, like Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Top icon.
A rough draft of the proposed structure of the category tree using award templates, barnstars, and userboxes as examples:
Do you have any suggestions regarding this plan? Do you think it is a good idea overall? What are the possible alternatives beside the status quo?
If there is a general consensus that this is a good idea, I plan to start a bigger discussion after workshopping it for a bit. The plan is to mark all the relevant categories into one giant CfD nomination using semi-automatic tools (wAwB, maybe with some help from WP:AWBREQ). If CfD regulars know a better way of doing such a nomination, please let me know. —andrybak (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If I understood your suggestion correctly, this would mix userboxes with all other kinds of User namespace templates, like top icon templates, block-related templates, award templates – all very disparate, unrelated to each other templates. Such a CfD nomination won't succeed.
Sorry, I missed the intervening edit before posting my reply above. I guess in these twenty years, the weird naming scheme of the subcategories of Category:Userboxes weren't scrutinized enough. The increasing amount of kinds of user templates somehow didn't affect this naming scheme.
SupportCategory:Userboxes and its sub categories should only be for userboxes, and not for other templates. In the past I removed many that were not userboxes, but I was not able to remove the ones that were protected. I asked for them to be moved to another category and my request by an administrator was denied. Catfurball (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
A page for emotional support for experienced editors
I firmly believe that Wikipedia needs a concrete space where experienced editors who feel quitting, taking a Wiki Break, or just really upset need a space where they can talk to other editors to guide them through tough times when editing Wikipedia. CostalCal (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I smiled at that because there was an article today on BBC about attachment theory. I guess you want "detachment theory". I am no expert on those things, but let us make sure both parties in the counseling do not end up leaving. But it would be interesting to do a survey of "why are you frustrated" reasons among users before you start. The sad part is something I read somewhere long ago: Wikipedia is a fight club, but do not say that to newcomers. Sigh. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Good luck. But please give the counseling users some type of procedure to follow rather than random advice. I know nothing about Grief counseling except that it exists. It may help you figure out what to do, because you are ineffect dealing with Wiki-grief. I will say no more. Have a good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This does seem aligned with Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention, as has been suggested. I'm not on Wikipedia:Discord, but I can see the appeal of some place off-wiki that is closely associated with the project. I imagine various pros and cons to having all of these conversations on-wiki. I think there is something to this, just not sure what is should look like. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The editor retention wikiproject was not set up to provide emotional support to editors or to discuss specific situations, but as a place for editors to discuss ideas regarding editor retention. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I wasn't suggesting using the editor retention project for emotional support, though I see now that I was unclear. Rather, I was suggesting folks there might be interested in or might already have ideas about this. I think it also makes sense to discuss here, and is more visible. I'll place a notice of this discussion on that project's talk page. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
How about this, I feel as if this is the best concept.
A peer space for editors going through a hard stretch (burnout, a permission loss, conflict, or just feeling discouraged) to talk it through with others who've been there.
Post under a new section with your username, saying how you're feeling and roughly what happened.
Example: "I lost my NPP flag after months of warnings. I know I moved too fast, but it still really hurts, and I don't know if I want to keep going."
Volunteers who've opted into the project reply. At first acknowledging the feeling, then (if the person wants it) help build a realistic game plan together.
A reply example reply: "That sounds rough, losing something you worked hard for. A lot of us have been through a version of this. Want to talk through what getting back on track might look like, when you're ready?"
The main goal for this is to give editors a space with no admin escalation, no policy citations unless asked for. This isn't a noticeboard.
A key challenge I see is finding enough people to provide support in a productive manner, without taking sides. Perhaps you can run a trial for a period of time and evaluate how helpful it was. Personally, I don't think any restrictions are needed on who can seek support. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
On a related note, I think new editors can be encouraged to talk to their assigned mentor about any challenges they are facing regarding participation. I do think expectations need to be set (both with a support venue and with mentorship): personal emotional issues that go beyond interactions on Wikipedia aren't within the scope of Wikipedia editors to handle. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think hosting it off-Wiki would be better, so that people can post anonymously if they don't want to be linked to their account (without any fear of socking accusations). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That sounds rough, losing something you worked hard for. A lot of us have been through a version of this. Want to talk through what getting back on track might look like, when you're ready?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would find this incredibly obnoxious. If I wanted to get canned therapy-style responses then I'd just pay an actual trained therapist. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@CostalCal: I'm sorry you're having a tough time, and thank you for bringing this up. We really can't afford to lose good editors who make some mistakes and get burned. As noted, the editor retention wikiproject isn't a place for support, but mentors are there to help editors one-on-one, and I think in theory, everyone who's created an account in the past few years is assigned a mentor, even if they never need one. What you're describing is a bit beyond the kinds of help that mentors usually provide, so I think we'd need to hear from some active mentors and I'm going to mention this discussion at the new mentorship noticeboard.I also think that having these discussions on-wiki is maybe not the best idea, as editor support of this nature could go into territory that you don't want preserved indefinitely in revision histories. Maybe after an initial post requesting support, this could be followed up off-wiki, though everyone has our own preferences regarding email, Discord, or other communication channel. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 23:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think we need to be cautious about private communication channels. As I alluded to, I think there is a risk of a volunteer being given information that they'd rather not be privy to, or for which they aren't willing to provide support. isaacl (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It would be "use at your own discretion", of course, and a disclaimer would probably be a good idea - something describing that the intended purpose is to discuss matters related to Wikipedia and expecting people to more or less follow TP guidelines here, just with anonymity to keep their concerns separate from their account - not a free for all/substitute for therapy. I wouldn't recommend Gmail - I think Discord is probably the best option for limited fully anonymous support. No records or tracking. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I would not suggest that anyone do this kind of thing on-wiki. @ChompyTheGogoat, Discord does have records - anyone can join and search back through all the posts in public channels. There's no simple way to delete a direct message thread, either. But I do agree that it's much better than having that kind of discussion fully in public.
I would encourage editors to make offwiki wikifriends wherever they can - via in-person meetups, chat programs, email, whatever. People with strong social bonds are more likely to stick around. But I'd also advise anyone feeling burnt out to go rant about it to someone who isn't a Wikipedian. It's a different kind of therapeutic. Also, they're quite likely to tell you that whatever you're mad about is a dumb thing to be mad about, in the grand scheme of things, which can be a necessary reality check. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
My mistake - I must have confused it with something that has vanishing messages.
I agree that it's important to have off-wiki friends to talk to as well, but I think there may be times that people want to talk about specifics that are too difficult to explain to anyone who isn't an editor. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@ClaudineChionh, @ChompyTheGogoat, and @Isaacl I hear your suggestions. I agree that posting anonymously on an off-wiki is a serious possibility. I want this to be how your behavior/thoughts affects your Wikipedia life, not a fix my entire life platform. User:ClaudineChionh, thank you for putting this on the Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard talk page. @User:Isaacl brings up a good point when saying that brining this to Discord or Gmail may hurt privacy and may hurt engagement with user. This project will probably need some time and attention to sort out. I proposed this less than 30 hours ago. CostalCal (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think we're asking for trouble with this. What we want is to encourage editors to detach their personal emotions from Wikipedia, providing this kind of support only does the exact opposite; it encourages people who have let onwiki business affect their real mental state to stay in the ecosystem instead of disconnecting.
The main thing that stressed editors need to hear is that if you're at a point where business on Wikipedia is causing you real mental distress, you are far too invested in Wikipedia, and you need to log off, touch some grass, pet a cat, hug somebody, go for a run; whatever. Leave for however long you need to leave until you can return with a level head. There is literally not a single thing on Wikipedia worth getting yourself in real-life stress over. Athanelar (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think that it's okay if experienced editors want to take a WikiBreak. I don't think they should feel obligated to talk it out first. Sometimes people want to step away, for a short time or a long time, and that's okay. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I have now looked at what people have said and see 3 different barriers to this attempt:
1. Grief counseling can not be done in public. It must be private. But no mechanism for that has been suggested.
2. Finding enough counselors will be a challenge. And who said they know how to counsel?
3. Informing all experienced users that the project exists and convincing them to open up and use it may be difficult.
This isn't intended to replace real therapy. Community support is important for mental health too - I think it should be peer to peer interaction, not something with self designated "counselors". I'd see this as an intermediate step, when people are just frustrated and need to get things off their chest. Knowing when to walk away is important too, but they're different solutions depending on the situation. Sometimes venting and feeling heard is all it takes for someone to move on from something. Getting outside input might help people recognize when a break IS called for too - I agree that "stay at all costs" wouldn't be a healthy mindset to base it on. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree. Yesterday, all my dreams... is the only editor in this thread to interpret this, or to refer to this as, "counseling" and specifically "grief counseling". There are plenty of valid concerns expressed and limitations identified throughout this thread, but I don't think it's helpful to put the entire idea under the "grief counseling" umbrella. Also, support or guidance might include recommendations to step away or limit participation, even if temporarily. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Yesterday, all my dreams..., @ChompyTheGogoat, and @SomeoneDreaming Wiki-break suggestions are mostly effective. I also agree, that telling people to stay without a doubt is sometimes not the best advice. Honestly, with how this has been going, I am starting to doubt if my plan will succeed. It looks to be too logistically challenging, and the off-wiki/on-wiki privacy concerns are valid. However, I am a firm believer in a change to Wikipedia's culture. We can't just expect everyone to know what they are doing 100% of the time. CostalCal (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that it is logistically challenging. May be you want to write an essay that helps people calm down. As for "changing Wiki culture" the word challenging would be too mild. But please do consider the essay route. Have a good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
But please let us accept that a single essay will not help everyone. So you must use 3 or 4 questions upfront that allows them to click and get 3 or 4 essays. So you have a brief top level page that leads to different types of advice. Good luck. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I want to add that if Grief counseling were to be private, that means that the counselors actions could not easily be reviewed. Editors depend on each other to hold each other accountable and if it were private, you could have somebody offering very bad advice go undetected for some time. - Otherwise (Antibacklog Aktion!) (talk?) 21:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, that kind of one on one interaction is best left to real therapists. I definitely think this would need to be more of a group environment (if it happens at all) so you can potentially get input from multiple people. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Back-to-top button
I like browsing through talk pages and noticeboards, and this means that I often have to scroll for a long time to get to the top. I think a back to top button would help everybody. This may need to be implemented as a change to the MediaWiki software and APIs, because a link will be too hard to add, or it will at least take a very long time to update pages and articles on the English Wikipedia, let alone all languages. Fence127 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
For reference regarding currently available methods: on desktop, you can use the home button on your keyboard. The default browser on Android devices unfortunately doesn't have the tap-on-status-bar shortcut offered by iOS to scroll to the top, so you'd have to install an extension that implements this functionality (or use another browser; reportedly the Samsung web browser provides a method to scroll to the top). isaacl (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I am not asking for help; I am asking for this to be a feature on Wikipedia itself as it would help lots of editors and readers, not just for me. Fence127 (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
You're welcome. I provided this info for all editors and readers, as it will help them on all web sites, not just Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Personally, I think universal methods that apply to all web sites are more useful and satisfy both accessibliity and convenience. isaacl (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't have this issue on most websites, because they don't hide my notifications and other important links at the top when I'm miles down a discussion page. Most that do involve that much scrolling have set up a sidebar or some such workaround. We already have "Return to reply"; it shouldn't be that difficult to implement a comparable "Back to top" option. Even on desktop it can be mildly annoying since my user menu won't appear if I'm 1mm shy of the very top of the page. (I'd prefer a floating menu TBH, but presumably that would take more work.) ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
FWIW I have no less than three browsers on my phone, and none of them have that function. It's just not native to the environment because we don't need it. A lot of extensions don't work on mobile either, so you're asking people to track down a custom one built specifically for Android phones to solve a problem we don't have on most websites. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Hell, I've got a floating Add Topic on upscroll already on discussion pages (replaced by the Return to reply once a comment is started). Just drop Back To Top next to that. Solved. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I believe that its unlikely to ever be added to core MediaWiki. In my opinion, it has potential to be an optional gadget at best. I did try making a userscript here though and it is a pretty nice feature to have. FlammablePizza (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Why not make it an optional setting? Trying to fix everything with user end scripts is both annoying and problematic (I've already installed two that failed - this makes at least three created for the same purpose). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Make sure you forcibly reload the page after installing a user script (ctrl+f5). There are quite a few userscripts, but its because many people prefer different styles or functionality. The default script is the most unintrusive and adds it to section headers, but doesn't work on all pages. Qwerjkl's adds both skip to top and bottom buttons. I made mine to match the built-in theme closer (both light and dark modes) than some other scripts and also be unintrusive. FlammablePizza (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That's not a thing on mobile. I have to manually clear my cache - which makes script workarounds extra annoying - which I did, and they still don't work. Even in desktop mode. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Much testing later: I got Back to top working (after modifying the script). It only shows on expanded section headers, and NOT on any discussion pages that I tried, including ones like here and Teahouse as well as Talk pages. That's where I really need it, so it's effectively useless.
I got FP's Scroll to top working - in desktop mode only, and my default browser on my phone refused to recognize it. Once again, useless where I need it most.
Finally, Skip to top and bottom more or less works in both mobile and desktop on all pages using my default browser on my phone. The float action is a bit funky, and there's a duplicate pair in desktop mode on Teahouse, which appears to have it installed manually (which created confusion while I was testing). I appreciate having both options, since I frequently have to scroll down as well to toggle in and out of desktop mode for the sake of functionality (this could stand to be easier too). It took me three scripts and three browsers across two devices to find a reasonably workable solution for something that could be as easy as a single preference checkbox. This is how a lot of things on Wikipedia are, and it gets extremely frustrating just trying to force the website to be reasonably functional. Don't even get me started on how difficult editing is from mobile in the first place. At least now I can stop accidentally reloading the page and being autoscrolled back down when I'm attempting to scroll to the top just to access my menu. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I can, but mostly use my phone these days for reasons. And it appears these buttons vanish as soon as I submit a comment on either device, making it only semi-functional. SighChompyTheGogoat (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Maybe, but not until sub-referencing has been established here for a while such that there is clear evidence that it works in practice on the English Wikipedia for various types of articles (including large lists that make extensive use of the same publication). Only when editors can clearly see whether it is actually a significant improvement over the alternatives will any discussion about deprecating any type of referencing style have a chance of being productive, especially as there was a lot of scepticism at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Support or oppose deprecation that subreferencing is an improvement over {{rp}}. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I support this in principle (and in general think we should make citations more consistent) but IMO it is best to hold off on determining this until subreferences have been enabled and we’ve had a few months to battle-test them. Mir Novov(contribs | talk)12:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with Thryduulf and Mir Novov. I'm looking forward to sub-referencing, and plan to convert several articles that I created to that style when it's rolled out, but we need to put it through its paces and demonstrate that it's both workable in practice and is an improvement on sfn/rp before proposing widespread conversion. Schazjmd(talk)13:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It isn't in use on the English Wikipedia yet. Editors don't know how it works in practice with the articles they read and write on this wiki in combination with all the policies, style guidelines, templates, conventions, etc. that we use on this wiki. There is no experience of how much effort it takes to convert from either sfn or rp to subreferencing. I don't understand why you're in such a rush here? Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not in a rush. I figured I'd get the conversation started since it should be coming over here soon. I'm also not sure how any of this could possibly conflict with any PAGs. It looks like a very straightforward system. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
However likely it may or may not seem, until I've seen it actually stress tested I'm not going to say that can't possibly conflict with anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Good point. I don't think we can't deprecate these but it would be a big change. It's reasonable to have some discussion now though I agree with the sentiment many have expressed that we can't fully anticipate the impact until these go live. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thinking about it probably wouldn't hurt, but actually pushing for deprecation needs to wait until editors here have some experience with the new mechanism, as others above have already stated. Personally, I suspect that {{rp}} would be easy to bot-convert the majority of uses (assuming we could get consensus to actually do it), but {{sfn}} would likely need human attention and people discussing trade-offs between conversion using inline refs versus LDR. {{r}} possibly also needs some consideration; it seems to be a kitchen-sink that tries to do everything, so someone would need to re-plumb the {{rp}}-like parts of it.When the time comes to have the deprecation discussions, I suspect we might get better results by tackling {{rp}} and {{sfn}} separately instead of trying to discuss both in the same discussion. In particular, I'd expect a combined discussion to get bogged down with people arguing to keep {{sfn}} (e.g. people who really like having a "bibliography" section ordered alphabetically by author, while sub-refs would order it by first use) while ignoring {{rp}}. Anomie⚔15:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
How does this make {{sfn}} "obsolete" when it doesn't produce an alphabetical list of sources? I could understand if you just think an alphabetical bibliography is redundant and unnecessary, so prefer other referencing styles, but that's a personal preference; it doesn't make {{sfn}} obsolete, it just makes it not to your taste. My main problem with sub-referencing compared to {{sfn}} is not actually the lack of bibliography. It's that subrefs are less concise in the source code than {{sfn}} citations and that, like "main references", subrefs still use entirely arbitrary labels instead of consistently using last names and years like {{sfn}}. As with typical <ref>...</ref> references, that often results in duplication of references as well as making it easier to provide incomplete references (missing authors, missing dates) without any warnings, error tracking, or pushback. Compare: <ref name="ARBITRARYLABEL" details="p. 23." /> to {{sfn|Johnson|Smith|2005|p=23}}. The subref doesn't seem any easier to use, is less concise, may require finding the arbitrary label a previous editor decided to give your source, and doesn't handle the for you. My point isn't that sub-referencing is bad actually. My point is only that it's not a straight upgrade to {{sfn}}, which handles some things better and other things (like, eg, references that don't use {{cite}} templates) worse. If you like sub-referencing, great, but by itself it won't make {{sfn}} obsolete. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I use sfn only because I have to and rp absolutely sucks. It would've been great if this feature existed when I started editing. I'm less concerned about wiki text. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It's not just wikitext though. Tracking down where short refs came from when the labels are arbitrary is more difficult. A lot of <ref>...</ref> references have labels like ":0", ":1", ":2". For a subref with such a label, it would be impossible to track down where it came from if content is copied from one article into another without copying in the mainref. You can try a search for the text itself, but sometimes the copied text comes from an old revision (so does not appear in search results). WikiBlame can help, but only if the edit summary provides attribution. {{sfn}} has similar problems, but at least with {{sfn}} there's a chance you can find the source again even without finding the original article the content was copied from. While Wikipedia requires copied content to be attributed, in practice this isn't always done. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, those proposals would still produce extremely vague labels eg. "olympics" or "web_reference_1". Some participants on its Talk page supported author+year based labels; hopefully that that approach is what ends up being applied (where feasible, obviously). Even if the new automated system turns out to be excellent, a lot of articles already exist with weird and vague ref labels so I'm still concerned about the arbitrary labels. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Scyrme the main approach will be content-based reference names. Volunteers will be able to use TemplateData to define for each citation templates which parameters should be used to generate a reference name (including a fallback chain of alternative parameters if the preferred parameter(s) aren't used in that specific citation).
But we also need a fallback in case the reference doesn't use a template (or the template doesn't define how the ref name should be created). In that case we would like to use the second-level domain (if the citation includes a URL) to generate a ref name. If there's neither a template nor a URL we still need another fallback option – in that case we would like to change the default from ":0" to something like "reference-1" to make it more human-readable. We'll also offer options for local wikis to define their own fallback, in case local wikis want to come up with something else or stick with ":0".
TLDR: Most references using a citation template should get a meaningful ref name in the future when re-using them in VisualEditor (e.g. "author+year"), but we'll still see some fallback names for basic references. Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Don't forget that "second-level domain" will lead to name collisions as soon as more than one URL on a site is used in a page. As for :0 versus reference-1, I suppose the latter would be slightly less confusing for humans reading the wikitext, but would still be entirely useless for anyone (or any bot) trying to deal with references in more than the most basic manner. Anomie⚔12:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reminder, we are aware of that issue (which might even arise in some edge cases when using template-based reference names). We still need to decide whether to assign a number to those "second-level domain" ref names right away or just when there's another re-use of a reference with the same domain in VE (and if choosing the second scenario whether to add a number to the previous ref name as well or start with "xyz-2" for the newly re-used ref without assigning "-1" to the previous name). Happy to get any input on that! Johannes Richter (WMDE) (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It may not produce an alphabetical bibliography, but it's also not as incredibly fragile as {{sfn}} which fails in any number of hard-to-debug ways on a regular basis due to things like two sources with the same last name in the same year, nested citation templates that require explicit whitelisting, etc. If you look in the WP:VPT archives, 8 out of the last 10 have someone seeking help with a Harv/Sfn no-target error. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Outnumbered by the editors who don't and continue to call references things like "ReferenceA2" (What does the "A2" even mean? There is no "A1"), or "PSSOM" (A partial acronym of the title; useless out of context), or "moved" (not an author, not a keyword from the title, just vague topical word association). These are real examples. Maybe more editors will care if the rollout of subrefs results in the equivalent of sfn no-target errors because of content being copied around. Or maybe I've misunderstood something and subrefs are immune to this problem somehow, idk. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 20:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
While I also wish they'd have gone with the extends syntax, I doubt they'll change course now when they haven't already. What exactly do you prefer about {{rp}}, that would be solved by the extends syntax? Anomie⚔14:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It doesn't really present much of an advantage: <refname="label"details="p. 42."/> vs. <refname="label"/>{{rp|p=42}}, it's not much of a difference and the latter seems much easier to type. I feel like at least once I'd forget to add that period in the details attribute (yeah I'm still not over the semantics of content inside an attribute...). Stylistically, I also prefer seeing the page number as a superscript. (If the concern is that "[1]:42" is so obtuse that we're better off deleting the template, why not deprecate the colon style instead and change it to "[1] p. 42" or AMA style?)Extends would've offered irreplaceable value of reusing <refname="h2g2"extends="label">p. 42</ref> like normal references:<refname="h2g2"/>. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
{{rp}} doesn't work well with visual editor. This change is meant to make it easier to subreference for everyone. I think we need to move away from the idea that everything needs to be built for power users who edit in wikitext, unless we want editorship to continue declining. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Could you elaborate on "doesn't work well"? I see no problem with it for me (except that it adds the full template name, which I don't think is a problem). I started out editing mainspace with visual editor for everything but tables, (and now I edit with the wikieditor for everything but tables), and I don't remember any difficulty with RP either. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Personally, If the concern is that "[1]:42" is so obtuse that we're better off deleting the template is indeed the main problem I have with {{rp}}. Now that I look into AMA style, I at least see why some people may like {{rp}}: [1]:42 is not terribly different from AMA's 1(p42). But I think the subref style still makes more sense for hypertext. Anomie⚔17:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Agreed. Editors (particularly new ones) using virtual editor shouldn't need to use multiple templates for a single reference. It's clunky both for editors and readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Besides my proposal to replace the colon with "p. ", rp actually already supports AMA style, too:[1](p42) I guess the encyclopedia would still be well (and dandy, even) if we replaced rp with hovered footnotes. A small problem I have with the current implementation is that you need to go down the references section to see the parent of the subreference and then click the correct link to go back up, but that is a very fixable implementation detail. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm looking forward to seeing subreferencing being used on enwiki, but this is a conversation to have once it's been in use for awhile and editors have had experience of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree, and I add that the most important part of 'experience' isn't necessarily the bit where some edge case only appears in one in a million articles, and therefore seven times here; the mist important part is people having seen this "weird" (aka "new") thing a few times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The true "one universal standard that covers everyone's use cases" hasn't even been mentioned in this discussion yet: {{r}}. (Actually, it has been mentioned once.) Ah, blessed {{r}}, when they finally figured out how to do all the citations. Somehow it can even already do sub-references. Although, the current way to do that looks extremely confusing. Anyway, I just hope all the citation styles have fun. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
R is the worst template. Trying to use that in visual editor is like pulling teeth. Also, the thing about R is that you can do like 6 different cite styles with R - it doesn't exactly solve the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I find all of the citation templates cumbersome to use. Sometimes I just free text the citation side of <ref>...</ref> tags. I usually muddle through trying to do it the right way and I find the experience quite aggravating. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yeah, this is why I don't think adding sub-referencing will solve the problem, because each of us as individuals have our own preferences that may not work with another's. That is the principle of citevar. I really dislike plaintext citations and like CS1 but other editors like plaintext and hate CS1. Hell, we couldn't even come to consensus on suggesting templates rather than text alone.
Even though I mostly use sfn and will continue to use sfns, am still glad about sub referencing, as it may free me personally from {{rp}}, which I have always hated using but still had cause to use in certain situations, so hey. And I am sure on the other hand people will use sub referencing as they see it as better than sfns (while continuing to use rp). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Talk Pages
Hi all,
I have an idea ( I know nothing about code so it might not work).
I was thinking should we not have the latest comments at the top of article talkpages as then the latest would be the most prominent?
I think that would get confusing due to how nested discussions are formatted. This comment needs to go below yours so that people know who I'm replying to. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not a fan of that within discussions. It gets messy (and as you noted, breaks easily). I'd be open to it as a sorting option for top level threads (which I think could handle metadata better via NTT). If implemented I would suggest also adding an option to either sort by Topic Started or Latest Comment, as well as being able to toggle between Z>A or A>Z. There'd be far too much pushback against just changing it automatically. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think individual topics should remain as is and the wiki text remains as is (for purpose of mass archiving/editing) but an option to visually sort the view of topics from chronological/reverse chronological by topic creation and or “newest comment” would satisfy different people’s needs. For example on a long talk page where I read everything I’d love to quickly find the 4-newest comments either within one topic or across multiple topics. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 11:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Only works in desktop mode. Also tends to bog down my browser. Definitely useful overall, but this sort option would be a lighter/more convenient solution, especially on mobile. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
In desktop mode. I have it installed, it doesn't work in mobile mode, and bogs down in desktop. Like I said. Desktop is bulky and doesn't behave well on a small screen, but I have to swap back and forth sometimes because mobile doesn't have as much functionality - particularly when a discussion thread is umpteen levels of nesting deep and it tries to feed me comments in columns that are a single character wide, because everything here is built for desktop and often not well adapted to mobile. The app somehow manages to be even worse. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd just forgotten to uninstall it. Gone now. This might be the first time I've ever encountered a mobile website that's more functional than a single purpose app. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I pre-date Wikipedia as well. Amazingly, technology has progressed somewhat in the interim, and most websites tend to update functionality occasionally in order to improve the user experience. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Current events coverage
Every time an event pops up in the news, editors rush to create an article. Most AfDs end up as no consensus because many editors insist that such events are notable. In my opinion, most such articles are not encyclopedic and Wikipedia should not be a place to create articles in the rush of current events that will more likely than not not be covered in any history books. For most of these articles, if you look at the article 6 months or a year later, it'll still be sourced to primary news sources from around the time the event occurred and routine updates from government officials making statements or releasing reports, and if you look for secondary sources, you won't find any. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a perennial proposal, should we really have waited six months to cover things like 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision? Editors shouldn't rush to create articles about breaking news events, but equally they should not rush to nominate them for deletion either. My preference would be that any AfD whose rationale is or significantly includes things like NOTNEWS or recency would be speedily closed if initiated less then 5 days after the event (the speedy close would be completely without prejudice to a nomination once the event is 5 days or more old, the first AfD would simply be treated as if it never happened). Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Some things will obviously continue to be notable, like that plane crash. Other things, like most of the crimes that get articles created about them, will not. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm going to give into the urge for once, and provide a copy of NOTNEWS for anyone who hasn't read it in, oh, say, ever:
In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Routine coverage for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.
I suspect that the main difficulty is editors having differing opinions of what constitutes a "significant" current event. For example, I remember someone arguing that 2025 conclave should not have been created until after it was over (or was it until the first scholarly papers had been published?), whereas other editors might draw the line much lower, at approximately two different newspapers covering the same crime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Arguing that we shouldn't have an article on the conclave is incredibly silly. If you use a modicum of common sense, it's obvious that a papal election meets NEVENT. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the underlying principle that people struggle with (or forget entirely) is that there should be a reasonable expectation of continuing coverage and discussion beyond the immediate future. Will people still care about this in six months? A year? Five? Ten? It's often impossible to predict with certainty, but that should be the thought process before deciding whether an article is justified. The more sure of it you are, the more likely it is that the article passes NOTNEWS. Major elections with near-infinite international coverage? Beyond any doubt. Small town petty crimes? Not so much. Between those extremes is lots of grey area, but checking similar past events to see whether they've stood the test of time can often be helpful. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I understand the concern, but I do not think it can be resolved simply through rules and regulations. The creation of such articles is part of the organic way in which Wikipedia has developed. It began as an encyclopaedia, but it has also become a unique and invaluable record of (very) recent history. Rather than resisting that reality, I think we should accept it and think about what to do with the mass of older current-event articles that may not be very notable. Lova Falk (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not proposing additional rules, just to keep that general concept in mind when debating over whether an article is justified, or if we should hold off to see how it develops. How much coverage it gets immediately isn't the point. And no, I don't think there's much additional value in just immediately restating what regular news sources are saying. That's the whole point of NOTNEWS. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I understand that you are not proposing new rules, but arguing that the existing principle behind NOTNEWS should carry more weight when articles are created or discussed. My point was mainly that we should embrace the reality of how Wikipedia has developed. Lova Falk (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That's not "the whole point of NOTNEWS". The first point of NOTNEWS is that Wikipedia editors should "restate what sources are saying" and not go interview eyewitnesses themselves to create an original news report.
I realize that for people who've grown up with Wikipedia that this is basically unthinkable, but in 2002, editors thought it was worth noting that Wikipedia is not "A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. However, creating background encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea" because it was "thinkable".
Later, that general comment developed into an item in WP:IINFO saying (e.g., in 2006) "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news", got longer (e.g., in 2008), eventually split into its own section, and in 2009, swiped the shortcut NOTNEWS from Wikipedia:News articles (which in turn had swiped it from NEVENT). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"No original reporting" is basically just restating WP:NOR. Nothing new there. The second section provides most of the substance, including most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It was new then, because NOR wasn't created until 2003.
I wonder how many editors have looked at the statement most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion with an actual paper copy of a newspaper in hand. I like to use Kansas as an example, because it's in the geographic middle of the US. The Wichita Eagle is the biggest daily newspaper in that state, and they very conveniently have a news reader that lets you see which things are on which pages. Here's the contents of the first few pages of last Friday's paper:
Page 1:
Red Cross blood supply crisis (USA Today Network)
A state agency will open an office in a small town
Latest strikes in the Iran war (NYT News Service)
Meet the candidates for county judge elections
Page 2:
Town irritated by county fire-prevention rules
(continuations of articles that started on the front page)
Page 3:
Regional update on the Cyclopspora outbreak
RFK Jr. said something about the outbreak (USA Today Network)
Groundbreaking ceremony for a local hotel
Page 4:
Rumor that a local restaurant might close (false; only the building will be sold)
Consumer spending up in Q2 (Reuters)
Trump using Todd Blanche's nomination as a way to force support for an unrelated tax cut (NYT News Service)
Routine "FYI" about open container laws
Page 5:
Iran objects to US using military bases near them (Reuters)
Local man arrested for crime
(continuation of article that started on the front page)
Page 6:
City gives developer a tax cut in return for building apartments
Local restaurant will reopen next week
Zoox robotaxis approved (Reuters)
Page 7:
Caller threatened mass shooting
Teenager with BB gun chased someone
Fatal motorcycle crash
Rape reported
Dulles Airport to be redesigned (NYT News Service)
I count 22 news articles. I count zero subjects that qualify for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. American Red Cross doesn't even mention their recently declared crisis in the blood supply. We've got articles about the Iran war, but not a separate article about the individual events mentioned here. The election for the county judges probably doesn't merit a whole article; certainly "we interviewed the candidates" doesn't. The "explosive diarrhea" outbreak gets two articles in Friday's paper, but it only gets one section in Cyclosporiasis#2026 United States summer outbreak. There are eight articles (35%) about local businesses or local crimes, and none of them will even get half a sentence in Wikipedia.
In other words: Yes, I agree that most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. But the thing you need to remember is that nobody's trying to put "most newsworthy events" in Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It's often impossible to predict with certainty Not really, and that's part of the problem here. It is sometimes obvious that an event won't make it past a news cycle, but editors insist we keep an article and wait. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oh, I'm sure some are obvious, but plenty aren't. In those cases I think it's better to wait at least a little while to see how it plays out rather than creating it and then taking it to AfD later (if anyone remembers to). It's not the end of the world for us to not have an article immediately, since events with questionable notability aren't going to be as major (and news coverage exists for that reason). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Doing that while the event is fresh in people's minds has proven to be ineffective.
Besides, the work doesn't have to be done by one person. For example, your account is about seven months old, and you've made 89 non-deleted mainspace edits. So let's say 200 a year is possible for you. If you told me an interest area, I could probably generate a list of 100 or 200 articles about events that you could review. If you looked at just a few each week, it wouldn't take much more time than you're already doing. Just run down a basic mental checklist with each one and see what you think. For example, I'd ask this:
Subjectively speaking, is there any chance of this getting deleted at AFD? If the answer is "People will yell at me if I send this to AFD", then you're done, so move on.
Does a good WP:BEFORE check show sources not presently in the article? Be sure to check local media directly, if the event had a local or regional focus; this is especially important for events in non-English-speaking countries. If the answer is "yes", then add them.
If the available sources (not just the cited ones) seem weak, then consider whether WP:NEVENT or other guidelines might be met. If the answer is "yes", then you're done, so move on. If "maybe not", then tag with {{notability}}. If "definitely not", then send it to AFD.
Personally, I'd do some copyediting while I was there, but not everyone finds copyediting as quick and easy as I usually do, and it doesn't affect whether the subject is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't rush to make event articles but no matter what the policy says if no one is going to vote delete it does not matter. Notability ultimately is what you can get people to agree on at AfD, nothing more. The case that I assume spawned this request had literally 0 delete votes. As someone with experience editing about it, I also disagree with the assertion that it is easy to predict what will and won't receive sustained coverage; in this case the article that is being asserted as non-notable especially, while I'd rather us not have an article currently, it is very similar to the Death of Kendrick Johnson, which received years and years of coverage and has scholarly coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Its going to be hard to stop people creating articles on events when they happen, but we can require better demonstration somwhere between 3 and 6 months after the event happened that the event has demonstrated long-term notability, either via GNG or NEVENT. And the problem is that at AFD, many of these attempts get slammed by editors that reply "lots of news sources in the article, its notable", not addressing the issue that most of those are primary or that they are a burst of coverage rather than enduring. We need to make sure AFD admins are not swayed by those arguments when others are pointing out the GNG/NEVENT issues. Masem (t) 18:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"We need to make sure AFD admins are not swayed by those arguments when others are pointing out the GNG/NEVENT issues" - they're not even swayed by blatant GNG failures now. If there are enough votes for something, that is how it will be closed, even if it is not a vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Maybe that indicates that there's a range of interpretations of the GNG, with the result that stricter people perceive admins as not following the GNG, when the admins are following (a laxer interpretation of) the GNG.
Maybe that indicates that there's something wrong with the GNG. (The written rules are supposed to follow the community's practice; when practice diverges from the written rule, the written rule needs to change.)
Maybe that indicates that the GNG isn't what admins are supposed to be following. After all, we elect them at RFA on the basis of their ability to interpret consensus rather than on the basis of their views on the GNG.
In other words, there are lots of reasons why an admin might decide "X" when another editor might believe that a specific section of one guideline should result in "not-X". That doesn't mean the admins are wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think in general the preservationist attitude that we should keep an article if it might hypothetically be a better article in the future really needs to change.
We should be less shy about deletion; an article shouldn't exist if nobody's willing to make half an effort at writing a decent one. I've had multiple corporate articles that I nominated for AfD be voted as keep because there's some crumb of notability out there somewhere; even if the current article is a total mess riddled with routine coverage. At best somebody maybe pares it down to a stub, but otherwise we vote "keep" and move on and the article stays in bad condition.
Same goes for these event articles. If a year has passed and the article still looks like it was written 2 days after the event happened, get rid of it unless somebody's willing to actually commit to bring it to proper encyclopedic standard. Otherwise we end up with one big bystander effect; "we should keep this article because WP:SOMEONEELSE (not me though, of course, I'm busy editing things that actually interest me) might be able to make it into a decent article. Eventually." Athanelar (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'd like to see WP:TNT invoked more often. Notability alone does not an article make - I could find a reliable subject, add sources, and then fill the body with gibberish. We have WP:CSD for a reason, and similar logic should apply for creation and WP:XFD even when something doesn't meet those limited criteria. There needs to be a bare minimum standard for articles to have any encyclopedic value. A well formed stub is better than a bunch of WP:PROMOslop. If no one else cares to expand it correctly, is it really that notable? Along the same lines, if no one cares enough to go back and write a breaking news article after the event is over, it probably fails based on WP:RECENTISM. In most cases where it isn't immediately obvious that the subject will have persistent notability, there's no harm in a WP:DELAY to see how it plays out. I maintain that it's better to hold off than to create it based on a coin flip and rely on it getting deleted later if it flops. Lord knows we have enough cleanup to do as it is. Notability standards exist for a reason - while I don't believe in any hard limit on the scope of Wikipedia, we don't need to fill it with a bunch of low quality cruft either.
I wonder if it would be helpful to set up a project/noticeboard/something to try to establish a group of editors with a particular focus on this - not an introduction of new rules, but an attempt to apply existing standards consistently instead of relying on majority rule. Editors who are making those determinations on a regular basis on subjects they're uninvolved with can be more objective. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it'd be nice to have a kind of "article bounty" system looped into this via AfD. If you nominate an article for TNT deletion (with solid reasoning) then somebody has to claim the article and pledge to work on getting it in better condition. If nobody volunteers or if they don't improve it in a reasonable amount of time then it gets soft-deleted as if it were an uncontested deletion. Athanelar (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Quoting myself above; an article shouldn't exist if nobody's willing to make half an effort at writing a decent one. If an article's in TNTable state I don't think we should keep it just because the topic is notable if there's nobody actually willing to write the article to an acceptable standard. Athanelar (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
83 refs – more than twenty times the median Wikipedia article (which has a total of four)
a "readable prose size" of 2,495 words – more than seven times the median Wikipedia article (which has about 350 words)
It appears that most editors consider that an article that is above the 90th percentile on both these scores to already be "acceptable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm talking more about stuff like Academy 360, Sunderland which was closed as keep last year because the school apparently had significant coverage under its previous name. Did anybody go on to add any of that to the article? Of course not, so it's still a short blurb entirely sourced to the school's own website. Athanelar (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Why didn't you add the sources to the article? You were given some sources in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy 360, Sunderland. Aren't you part of the "anybody" who didn't "go on to add any of that to the article"?
I wish you had found a different way to describe this problem, because my impression from this comment is that you think you're better than the rest of us. We peons might have to do boring work like putting sources in articles, but you are so important that you shouldn't have to do anything more than tap your foot impatiently while your servants scuttle around to meet your demands. I doubt that's the impression you wanted to make, but it's the one I formed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Aren't you part of the "anybody" who didn't "go on to add any of that to the article"? Yes, I am, that's precisely the point I'm making. Nobody, myself included, wants to take the time to make an article about this random secondary school to an acceptable standard. So instead of just getting rid of it, it's going to languish in its current state for god knows how long. Nobody wants to delete it becsuse it's notable, but nobody wants to improve it either.
because my impression from this comment is that you think you're better than the rest of us. We peons might have to do boring work like putting sources in articles, but you are so important that you shouldn't have to do anything more than tap your foot... Ridiculous. My point is that, as I said explicitly, if nobody (which includes me; I am in fact 'body') wants to write the article, then maybe it's better that we have no article, and maybe we shouldn't maintain the culture of people being able to prevent deletion by gesturing toward the existence of sources without actually doing something to improve the article. If an article is in a demonstrably bad, unencyclopedic state (which that article is), then if somebody really wants to keep it they should hold the burden of doing the work to improve it, rather than stopping it from being deleted and leaving it in its poor state in perpetuity. I'm not arguing, and I never once said anything resembling, that somebody else should do this thing which I don't want to. I'm in fact arguing the opposite; people vote "keep" in these discussions in the belief that some other person at some other time will do the actual work to improve the article. Rather than hoping for that hypothetical person to come, again, to quote myself above, "an article shouldn't exist if nobody's willing to make half an effort at writing a decent one."Athanelar (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You're confirming my impression: You don't want to do the work, and you're here on this page complaining that nobody else has done work that you refuse to do yourself. If neither the subject nor the article are important enough for you to do any work at all, then I suggest that it's probably also not worth you complaining about it.
Editors aren't voting "keep" at AFD "in the belief that some other person at some other time will do the actual work to improve the article". They're voting "keep" because our rules say that the decision about whether to have an article should be based on whether sources are available and not on the basis of whether anybody has put those sources into the article yet.
I don't know what kinds of articles you tend to read, but for a lot of school/organization/business articles, many of our readers are really only looking for a single basic fact. In the case of a school, I expect that there are only three questions that really need to be answered: What kind of school? (This one takes students of any age.) Where are they located? (That's going to be a long drive.) What's their official website? (Right there on the page. NB that the official link to the subject's website gets clicked on more often than any other link in any article, by a very large margin.) Most readers don't need the article that's up "to an acceptable standard", and especially not one that's up to your standards. They need an article that meets their immediate need, and this one likely does that for most readers. A red link won't meet their needs. I suspect that the only entity on Earth (present company excepted) that really wants a polished Wikipedia article is the school's marketing department. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've previously thought that something like WP:WikiProject Current events should be repurposed/created where articles on recent events are listed as drafts for people to work on (basically an incubator), and they can be moved to mainspace when there's consensus they either meet WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG with secondary sourcing. But let's be honest, readers like the current events articles that are basically just a synthesis of primary sources, and readers first. Maybe someone could request a new project which'd be like Wikipedia but specifically for current events and breaking news, idk what we'd call it, Wikinews or something Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think Wikinews failed because it tried to be an open source media outlet. Newsrooms need structure. Maybe if it had been basic news analysis, like most of our current events articles, it would've survied. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think there were a lot of reasons why Wikinews failed, including muddled purpose (supposed to be creating news articles, which means things like 'interviewing people' and 'writing things that can't be verified by reading a news article at a different website', or just rehashing other news stories?) and the wrong structure (too slow, too rigid, too little support, too little training, too failure-prone). But above all, I think what doomed them was too much competition, leading to no demand from readers.
I think that most readers and many editors (especially the kind of editor who doesn't spend all day on pages like this one) want the articles we write about current events. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi! When I'm using mobile view and search a term with no page, it doesn't ask me if I want to create a page with that name but it does ask me that if I'm using Desktop. Is this a known feature mismatch that's being worked on? — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠ 17:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Can you show an example? I just clicked around and every page I tried in either mode had some kind of option to do so, albeit sometimes buried amongst other suggestions. I do not appreciate when I follow a redlink in mobile and it autoloads the editor, because that version takes over the entire screen and I have to back out of it to access other options. That appears to only happen with redlinks though, not search or a direct URL. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
When I search for "corticolimbic", for example I get the following message at the top of the results using desktop:
More than anything I just think it would help drive in new editors whose primarily (or only) way of accessing Wikipedia is via their mobile device and encourage them to create pages (or redirects). — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠ 08:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure we really want to encourage brand new editors to dive in with entire articles. In fact, we specifically discourage it on Teahouse, although it's not a rule. More often than not they just don't know enough to make one that's passable, regardless of how well intentioned they are. A redirect wouldn't hurt in most cases, but I don't think many people are going to be inclined to start editing for the first time just for that.
I'm sure that the merits of encouraging page creation where discussed at length when that message was added to the desktop experience so I'm not really feeling it necessary to rehash that debate, my main concern is like you pointed out, ChompyTheGogoat: the experience should be consistent on mobile and desktop. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠ 00:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
CAT:EXLLM seems to be perennially backlogged because the category fails to auto-update when an nomination under {{llmprod}} expires. I'd suggest sending a bot to purge all pages with PROD tags every six hours or so, same as WP:PRODSUM. Any other ideas? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the problem is that the general PROD categories are dated, whereas there aren't any specific LLMPROD dated categories, and LLMPRODs expire earlier than normal PRODS. I think we do need seperate LLMPROD dated cateogries. I guess a bot is also fine since it won't even require an account, see this button that will purge all LLMPROD pages (only works if there are less than 500 such pages though): Purge LLMPROD pages (click 'Make Request' after this)Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Let's ignore your comments about the WMF's Reserve (accounting), as it's both misleading and irrelevant. $300M as the economy teeters on the brink of a recession is how much actual experts recommend the WMF to have in their operating reserves.
Let's instead talk about getting more editors. I'm in favor of the goal. I've got some suggestions about the order in which we do things.
If we wanted to make a difference in this area, the research-backed approach might be an education campaign aimed at highly active editors. Specifically, we know that editor retention is improved when patrollers and other editors follow the rule to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, and whenever possible to build on an imperfect contribution (e.g., replacing their bad source with a good one, removing only part of an addition while keeping some visible fraction of it, adding a clearer explanation, etc.).
There's not much point in recruiting new editors if we're going to run them right back off again by reverting their attempts to contribute.
Therefore, I suggest that we first look at ways to improve retention of newcomers. After we think we can retain a decent fraction of the newbies, we can look into trying to get more newbies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The active editor graph suggest that it's stable over 10 years, while the new editor graphs is going down. Of course I agree that we need to be more friendly, but I don't think most of Wikipedia are so bad that it scares newbies off. Most newbie contributions are not reverted. Anyways I might be overly thinking about a Signpost article that suggests that the number of new users is decreasing (admitedly not by a lot annually), although that might not be a huge deal. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This is of course a big problem, but I think we might be trying to find the perfect solution. It might not make a huge difference, but it'll still (hopefully) make a positive difference. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WhatamIdoing, as always graphs need context. Please also show a graph of the number of articles. Let me put it this way, if the number of doctors in a country remains stable, but the population goes up five fold, quality of care will go which way? That is the issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Our editors-per-article ratio has been declining at the same time that our article quality has been improving. Doctors-per-capita is at best an imperfect analogy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I don't think the declining number of editors is a big deal. You'd expect to see numbers declining since the low-hanging fruit of article drafting has been harvested aggressively, and wide swathes of the encyclopedia's articles on topics that fundamentally aren't changing are in a pseudo-maintenance mode at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, I have a long list of articles I want to write, more than I will get to in the time I have left, I am regularly returning to articles I worked on in the past to add to them (I just enlarged a B-class article by 25% in the last 3 days), and most articles in Wikipedia are still far too short. Half-a-dozen new regular editors in the areas I work in would help. Donald Albury01:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, but... As I said below, it is not just "writing" but updating. Some articles have had no meaningful updates for 15 years. That requires knowledgeable editors. Alas I have no idea how to get them. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
How, indeed, to recruit new editors who are at least as interested in updating and expanding existing articles as they are in creating new articles? I see new editors that seem interested in working on existing articles in areas I work on, but most do not stay around for very long. So retention is also a problem. I have not been interested in mentoring, and was disappointed by the lack of response from student editors when I worked with the education program more than a decade ago. So I don't have an answer, either. Donald Albury13:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We are in agreement. I keep looking at the activities of editors, like this. He knew the subject, then just evaporated away. Some of his speculations persisted for long. Also this user. They come and go and because we have so many articles no one has time to check or update what they have done, and material gets outdated year after year. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This isn't a criticism of your suggestion, there's nothing wrong with it; that being said there's currently an elephant in the room that the WMF unionizing conflict is getting worse, and depending on how that goes it might affect what is done with donation banners. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
(A bit off-topic, I'm sorry.) I think much more is needed than a banner. When I joined, nineteen years ago, so many editors were encouraging: "Be bold! Make an edit!" I rarely read this any more. Lova Falk (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Of course, but I'm not sure we're breaking a promise. Wikipedia promises to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and as far as I can tell we aren't lying about that. If you meant that we semi-constantly revert their edits, I'm not sure what could be done other than to remind experienced editors to revert only when necessary. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I've previously written about English Wikipedia's structural issues that make it unattractive to many co-operative editors. They essentially make content-dispute resolution ineffective and provide incentive for poor behaviour. Any edit one makes, no matter how small, has a sword of Damocles hanging over it: another editor can vociferoously object, and one has to decide if it's worth getting into a discussion about it or not. Either way the outcome is often poor: one can just move on, with a constant irritant that aggressive behaviour typically wins out, or one can end up spending an unbounded amount of time trying to find common ground with an editor not interested in co-operating. Even if most interactions aren't like this, just a few can suck all the joy out of editing. For better or worse, though, the portion of the community that likes to discuss these matters generally places a higher priority on the ability for everyone to weigh in, which is enabled by the current decision-making traditions. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
By English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, in the absence of clear disruption, whether or not one is being co-operative or just engaging in vigourous discussion is decided upon by a consensus-based discussion. So every disagreement requires a weighing of options: is the worth the effort to build a consensus for one's point of view? Since discussion participants are self-selected amongst those who happen upon the discussion, the outcomes are frequently uncertain. It's a constant drag on enthusiasm that can wear editors out. isaacl (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
There are two issues here. One is that we need more editors, and a banner may be a good way to help with that. The other is that aggressive fundraising is not universally popular with readers or editors. Those two points are almost orthogonal, the overlap being that they might compete for the same screen space. The current reaction to union developments may be relevant here. Although I don't think it's being proposed, one way to deliver a message to the WMF would be to interfere with fundraising banners, leaving a free slot which could be used to recruit editors. Certes (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My unhelpful comment on the subject is that we generally need better editors, not more editors. Of course, since I don't know a way to get better editors that's hardly actionable. Except of course by getting more editors and hoping that the better ones remain. (Certainly, regular Wikipedia users are typically pretty good!) Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I would say we need "knowledgeable" editors. Please consider the talk page Talk:Reason maintenance. The last discussion was 15 years ago before I commented today. The last meaningful edit to the article was also 15 years ago by an editor who left long ago. Many articles are way out of date and not enough editors who understand the subject well enough to do anything. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge PROPSPLIT into AfD?
Okay, admittedly I am not a great ideas person, nor am I the most familiar with Wikipedia as a whole or what I consider as a hardcore editor or anything, so everything here is admittedly based on vibes. Please correct me if I'm wrong on anything.
But I was curious, with the merging of WP:PAM into WP:AfD not too long ago now, that got me thinking. Has anyone ever proposed merging WP:PROPSPLIT into AfD? To me, while splitting isn't really deletion like merging is in a sense (especially with the RfC to rename AfD failing), in a sense, PROPSPLIT was essentially the inverse of PAM. From what I've seen, PROPSPLIT also seems to suffer from the same issues of inactivity and invisibility that PAM did (which was part of the motivation with merging it into AfD). In fact, I'd probably argue that PROPSPLIT probably has it worse off since AfD at least ostensibly acted as an occasional, inadvertent alternative, and it seems to me like a lot of actual split discussions aren't displayed on PROPSPLIT, leading to most of them being inactive. Splits honestly don't seem as common as merges are, so it probably won't really dominate AfD anyhow, even to the same extent as merges do. But yeah, I'm not sure if it's a good idea. I just wanted to get the ball rolling; maybe others have better ideas than I. Please, feel free to be brutally honest! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It's been suggested a few times. Most recently the general consensus was to wait and see how well folding mergers into AfD works in practice and I think it's still a bit early to get a feel for that tbh. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
As I've mentioned during the Merger discussions, that wouldn't work since—when compared to Deletion arguments—Split discussions have very different arguments while Merger discussions have very similar arguments. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
AfD is not (or should not be) a forum to discuss what content decisions should be made about a merge. What's next, a binding decision at AfD as to how to organize the content in the article? Katzrockso (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not talking about the PM-AfD merger, as I both participated in that discussion and in post-RfC discussions about it. Please reread my comment - I am talking about content decisions being made at AfD - AfD is not the forum to decide if we should include/exclude content, how to title an article, whether to rescope the article to be about another topic, etc. Many of these do incidentally result from an AfD consensus, but people cannot and should not be bringing articles to AfD for that purpose. Bringing in mergers, while a mistake in my opinion, is much more consistent with the purpose of AfD than any run of the mill talk page discussion that people seem to increasingly want to bring to AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think the process for having merger discussions at AfD is working very well. I would not support any other additions to AfD (recognizing that there could be multiple outcomes of an AfD). --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Merging at AfD is already terrible, but at least in that case 1. merge was sometimes already an AfD result and 2. merging ultimately results in the loss of a page. Splitting is a decision on whether to make a new article - a decision that has never been made at AfD. Absolutely not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And the problem with inactivity in splits is that it requires writing a whole new article; this is not a problem that AfD can solve because writing a whole new article is a bit much of anyone to ask. I have a split suggestion that achieved consensus in 2024 that no one has bothered to do, not because it has lacked for comments, but because no one has stepped up to write the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The issues involved in a split proposal seem sufficiently different from deletion and merging that I don't think this makes sense to add to AFD, although I take your point that a split is the inverse of a merger. There are obvious notability considerations with respect to the new page(s) to be split off, and anyone arguing or a split must take these into account, but other than that the work and the issues at play are distinct. The fundamental challenge with splits is that it takes a lot of work both to make a determination and, especially, to carry it out. It's one thing to make a determination that a topic is in and of itself non-notable, or that there's not enough to say about it to warrant its own article. Seeing the potential for a split is perhaps not difficult but actually going through a very long article and identifying two or more distinct, notable topics and exactly which content should go where, and achieving some level of consensus for the content organization is a heavier lift. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We should split out proposed merges from AfD and merge them with proposed splits. That way the shortcut for both could be WP:SPLERGE. "This article needs splerging!" will become the rallying cry of the next generation. I am very smart — Hex•talk20:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
MeatPuppet Investigations
Wikipedia could honestly have a MeatPuppet Investigations for detecting meat puppets. It is a major issue, and it still isn’t handled with a MeatPuppet Investigations. plus, the shortcuts could be WP:MPI, WP:MEATReport, and WP:MEATFIND ~2026-43379-50 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi everyone! I'm moving this discussion here because I accidentally posted it on the village pump (policy) page.:-)
I've mentioned this idea before, and I recently noticed that an open discussion was held regarding the bureaucrat role on this page. It inspired me to start this discussion and see what others think. Like the bureaucrat discussion, this one is intended to be open-ended; it does not come with any specific proposal attached.
A little background: currently, oversighters can suppress the username of an account from all edits and logs when applying an indefinite block, which also removes the account from the list of users. This option also extends to stewards, who can do the same thing on a global level.
I originally suggested extending a similar option to administrators (and likewise expanding it for stewards globally) a few years ago after noticing that stewards would sometimes globally suppress accounts whose usernames, while extremely disruptive and clearly inappropriate to leave publicly visible, (in my opinion) did not rise to the level that warranted suppression. I reached out to them about this — not to complain or start a riot or anything like that, but as a precursor to present this idea as a possible solution.
Now, let me say this: I totally get it. I completely understand why global suppression would become an attractive option in situations where a username clearly should be redacted but does not actually require suppression. It would be ridiculous to expect a steward to manually redact the username on every project, one at a time, simply because there is no equivalent option available when globally blocking an account. I don't have the examples with me at the moment, but I included a handful of them when I first reached out about this, and I think most people would agree that there would be no argument for keeping those usernames publicly visible, but they did not warrant suppression.
That brings me to my idea: what are your thoughts on extending a version of the suppression option to administrators when applying an indefinite block to an account? It would do the exact same thing but would use revision deletion rather than suppression to redact the username from edits and log entries. My initial thought is that it would not hide the account from the list of users like the suppression option does, but like I said: this is an open-ended discussion, and I'm interested in hearing other ideas and perspectives.
Likewise, a similar option could be extended to stewards when applying global blocks. Rather than relying on global suppression, they could apply global revision deletion to redact usernames from edits and logs across all Wikimedia projects while still allowing local admins to review and manage any issues according to their own policies and processes.
I know that many admins have different levels of involvement in dealing with LTA disruption and abuse, but I often encounter situations where an LTA creates numerous accounts with blatantly abusive usernames that need redaction. Having the ability to redact those usernames from edits and logs at the time of an indefinite block would be extremely useful as well as much more efficient. It can be tedious and sometimes very time-consuming to manually remove the username from every edit and log entry, especially when one or two more abusive accounts created by the same LTA appear in the account creation log and start causing disruption while you're still cleaning up after the first mess!
Overall, I think this option would be very useful for administrators and would allow them to respond much more efficiently to blatant username violations and blatant LTA username abuse. Just like with all other administrator actions, its use would be publicly logged and easily reviewed and scrutinized, and the potential for abuse of it would be very low. An administrator who wanted to misuse revision deletion could already do so using the existing tools they already have access to; this option would simply streamline a process and take the tediousness (as well as the possibility of accidentally leaving the username public in some areas and missing a few places) out of the equation.
That's my idea, and I'd like to open the floor for discussion.
This seems like it would be a benefit. In practice, we already do this, it just requires a run of manual RD2/RD3 rev-deling after the block. signed, Rosguilltalk16:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I just want to say that the block log probably shouldn't be included by default. Additionally user talk pages usually disappear with suppression - I don't know if that's automatic - and probably shouldn't be included by default (I'm not saying they should necessarily remain). Another thing, accounts created by a bad username should probably be blocked before their account creation logs are redacted. I often take the view that removing usernames from conspicuous histories is sufficient (ie mostly just article histories). A little visibility can help with anti-vandalism efforts. I can't say that such a tool wouldn't be occasionally useful, with the type of adminning I usually do. I just wonder if there's enough demand for it as a standard option. After all, "potential for abuse" will also be "streamlined". And there will still be plenty of other places to clean up. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Do you have any experience of usernames that require this level of suppression? Sometimes I deal with promotional usernames, offensive usernames, attack usernames or fakers. Usually blocking is enough, and revision deletion is seldom needed, even less is log redaction rquired. If any edits are kept then the user and edit summary are legally required to be kept. But under what circumstances should a username need to be made completely invisible? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Some usernames require suppression, probably most commonly they are attacks on another user ("User:Example is a paedophile" sort of thing) but there are reasons, but revdel would not be suitable for those. I don't work WP:UAA but there is nothing there currently that would need hiding. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wish I had seen this before I wrote up my comments. I still struggle with a policy basis there; RD2 is the only acceptable non-OS to redact a log, and at a quick glance a decent percentage of those are RD3 that I don’t really think should be hidden. Not going to make a case of it, but I do see benefit to leaving some of those there in public to help with anti-abuse efforts. The RD2s that don’t rise to the level of OS seem reasonable enough, but imo, those really should be handled by a steward as a lock-hide and local RDing of logs doesn’t serve much purpose. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Not to be the Debbie downer, but I don’t really see the benefit here. block-suppress is infrequently used because lock-suppress is such a stronger tool and it’s usually easiest to flag a steward. There are cases where block-suppress is useful, but those are the most extreme cases where it can’t even wait for a steward and damage control needs to be done now.What I’m struggling with is I can’t think of any example where I would want the account creation log and block log hidden if it doesn’t meet the suppression criteria. I don’t think there’s currently a policy basis for it. The log redaction policy is Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters. I don’t think there’s something that would meet that for blocking an account that isn’t already covered under the oversight policy.I think most people would agree that there would be no argument for keeping those usernames publicly visible, but they did not warrant suppression.I guess I’m not most people . I can’t think of a single reason I would support hiding an LTA username that isn’t suppressable. OS criteria 4 gives us this ability locally for attack usernames, and the other OS criteria gives it to us for libel and PII. Globally stewards don’t have to lock-suppress, they can lock-hide as well (unless that’s changed recently.) So what is the target of usernames were revdeling here where all logs need to be redacted? I’m just not seeing the purpose here or where this helps. I can also think of several potentially negative things that could come out of this, so I’d want to have a very strong reason to support first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
TonyBallioni - Let's say that the option would redact the username from all edits and logs except for the block log, and it wouldn't hide the username from the list of users. Would that change your opinion on whether or not you'd think the option would be useful? ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In that case I likely wouldn’t view it as a negative, but I’m not sure what it accomplishes that’s positive still, to be honest. There’s already a mass revdel script that gives more precision level control over these type of cases. I’m just not seeing this as a tool that could be both policy compliant and useful at the same time. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Abstract Wikipedia goes somewhat live and already hosts unattributed enwiki copies...
The extremely expensive, buggy and ill-thought out "Abstract Wikipedia" has gone live after many, many years, and already it hosts an "article" which not only go against the very purpose of it (putting a complete English article in html is not the way to get automated Wikidata-based translation to 300+ languages), but also creates an unattributed enwiki copy. Not that I am able to get it to load completely, it only returns a few sentences and then nothing happens (which is better than the many errors other pages generate, usually either "Reached max retries. Try again later." or "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Error in evaluation" or simply "Page not found" when going from "history" to "read" or "page"...). Why this pre-alpha thing has been released to the world is not clear, why the WMF would think it conceptually is a good or feasible idea even less so. Fram (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Also see , it looks like it’s just going to be another Anglo-project, how tf are non-English speakers supposed to develop the wiki's policies when everything is only done in English. It’s a project that’s specifically not meant to be Anglo and is irrelevant to en.wiki. It should be put on ice until people can discuss via the functions or there’s some kind of multilingual support Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Abstract + wikifunctions is 2 sides of the same coin. And if wikifunctions has this many issues still, then abstract shouldn't have been launched as a "beta". The most basic things don't work yet: e.g. take a random page, click on "edit source" or "view history", then click on "page" or "read"... error, every single time. This is not some obscure thing, this is basic functionality for the whole site, and it doesn't work. Type a page you know exists in the search bar (e.g. Cape Verde), the first result in the dropdown is the Abstract Wikipedia page (see the AW at the end), click it, and again you get the "page not found".
This is probably a simple switch somewhere, but the total lack of care displayed by whoever decided that this was ready to go public is staggering.
As for the multi-language aspect, the core business of Abstract... Q143, Esperanto.
"Esperanto is the languages of internationality. An Esperanto is a languages." (sic!)
In French, this gives "espéranto langue international" plus an error (the title doesn't get translated..., international(e) should be female, the verb has disappeared, ...)
In Dutch, it becomes "taal internationaal". No error, but missing most of the poor original.
Q21, "England is a country in United Kingdom." (sic). In Spanish, this gives "Unable to render this fragment due to an unknown error. ", in Swedish "The rendering service is temporarily unavailable. Please, try again later. " in Italian "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Reached time limit in orchestrator", in Portuguese "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Error in evaluation", and in Thai "England is a country in United Kingdom." I'm sure it will work wonders in the small languages for which it is intended though!
Most Western companies, and the WMF is no exception, would work better with half the people on twice the salary. But we would have to have a different attitude to work for that to succeed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the link. The team bios seem somewhat telegraphic. Are any of them "hot shot" programmers? And they seem pretty happy. In the commercial world, best software is written by developers who are pushed to the limit. But not for me to dive into details of the team. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)reply
best software is written by developers who are pushed to the limit
Your word was "best", not most widespread. I heavily disagree that this is the Microsoft development process, and in any case, the market share of all Windows systems combined had been precipitously declining for years now because of how bad it is. The attempt by the WMF to do the development process you propose is Knowledge Engine (search engine) and the surrounding turnover. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)reply
As a former programmer who's experienced severe, life-impeding burnout from overwork twice in her career, I can't disagree more strongly with the notion that "the best software is written by developers who are pushed to the limit". — Hex•talk11:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)reply
best software is written by developers who are pushed to the limit. Assuming the limit here is a tight deadline, I would argue that software death marches do not result in great software. Tight deadlines result in insufficient time to write quality code. Quality is sacrificed to (try to) meet the deadline. Not to mention the impact on team morale and work-life balance caused by pressure and overtime. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)reply
I checked my browser console when viewing the OP's link and there were over 65 requests to the API! As of last week, the WMF (I'm presuming a different team which didn't talk to this one) has decided to limit unregistered users to 1000 requests per hour. Total, across all projects. That includes search suggestions, DiscussionTools previews, VisuaEditor, etc. So about 30 page views for you, and then every project breaks unless you have an account! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)reply
What I don't understand is how we are meant to make an "abstract Wikipedia" that is automatically translated to every language when the very design of the site is so centered around English. In abstract:Help:How to create an article I see a reference to a function called "Article-less instantiating fragment" which creates sentences like "Paris is a city". However, in some languages (e.g. Greek) such a sentence needs an article so the result will be ungrammatical unless a different function is used. Thankfully it seems like someone noticed this issue because the actual page for Paris, abstract:Q90, uses a different function called "defining role sentence" which doesn't have the same problem. But if basic stuff like this is wrong in the documentation, I don't have much faith in the project. In fact, pages like abstract:Q667 (south) still use this "article-less instantiating fragment" function. Warudo (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Actually, I found abstract:Abstract Wikipedia:Useful functions for article composition which apparently says that "article-less instantiating fragment" is a good fit for sentences like "Nairobi is a city". It absolutely isn't. Again, it's article-less in English and several other languages but not all of them. While I'm not a linguist myself, it really feels like this system was designed without consulting experts. Warudo (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)reply
It seems to me to be referring to the fact that it doesn't require an article in English. It may or may not require an article in any other language you care to mention, so this seems to be a very anglocentric point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply
No, that's definitely not it! Article-less and article-ful have different semantic meanings (the term article here seems to confuse a lot of people who do not understand the project, which I suppose means it needs a rename). All of these examples would use "article-less" (despite the fact that two of them have indefinite ones):
Golf is a sport
El golf es un deporte
The United States is a country
യുണൈറ്റഡ് സ്റ്റേറ്റ്സ് ഒരു രാജ്യമാണ്
And all of these examples would use "article-ful":
A bird is a dinosaur
Un ave es un dinosaurio
These are saying two fundamentally different things irrespective of language. Wikifunctions is already equiped to handle this distinction. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't see any great difference between "Golf is a sport" and "A bird is a dinosaur" apart from the presence/absence of an article in English. Please explain. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Then the name of the function should refer to proper and non-proper nouns, rather than articles. The point was that the name of the function is based on English language thinking. TietoTeekkari (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)reply
"Article-less and article-ful have different semantic meanings". But then why are these semantic meanings not mentioned in the documentation of f:Z26039? Instead the function's documentation says Makes a sentence of the form "X is a Y" e.g "Nairobi is a city.", i.e. it takes an entity (X) and its class (Y) and states that it is an entity of that class. What are the semantic differences with f:Z26095? In case you think this is a small problem, it really isn't. Look at the Japanese translation of this documentation (a language that does not use articles). The translator had to use an English example to explain what the function does because in their language the concept does not really exist. Indeed, as far as the users are concerned, these functions are in fact defined in terms of whether the sentences they generate require an article in English. The semantic difference behind that is hidden to them. Warudo (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Also, by the way Abstract:Q30 currently says "United States is a country. United States is a republic. Washington, D.C. is the capital of United States." So, I guess the article-less function was not the correct one to use in this case. Warudo (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply
I've already said this above, but the "article" being referred to here is a indefinite one (a/an) at the front. definite articles (the) have no semantic meaning and therefore are to be added on a language-by-language basis. Feeglgeef (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Definite article = "the", Indefinite article = "a/an". Also that's not true. The definite article has semantic meaning. It means that we are referring to a specific member of a group and not to the concept in general. In this case, "United States" means any states that are united, which would also include e.g. the Mexican United States. The United States on the other hand are a specific set of states that are united, in this case, the United States of America. Warudo (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
We already have the distinction between the concept of a federation and the example in North America seperated by Wikidata. Some languages (like Malayalam, as in the example) do not use an article in front of the United States. Eventually, the function will be able to handle automatically adding a definite article. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok, to be fair, you're right. The generated sentence is wrong but that can be attributed to an incomplete implementation of f:Z26039 rather than a logic error in abstract:Q30 itself.
Still, there are several questions that remain. First, why are the semantics of the two functions defined in terms of English grammar? You said, Article-less is about one thing, article-ful is about a collection. but as I've said above, that's not how it's described in the documentation. But more importantly, if that's the difference between them then why are two different functions for "article-less" and "article-ful instantiating fragment" given to the user in the first place? Why don't you expose a single "instantiating fragment" function that checks if its input has a subclass of (P279) statement in Wikidata? If yes, use an indefinite article, if not, don't use one.
Just FYI, editing your own comments after someone has already answered without indicating the changes is considered bad practice in the English Wikipedia. Not a big deal in this case as you were just fixing a mistake but keep it in mind in the future. Warudo (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
@Feeglgeef no, your statement is plain wrong. This is how 6 sentences above will be translated to Russian (browser machine translation, but it's a correct translation): As you can see, all 6 cases uses exactly the same grammar construction, because Slavic languages has no articles and they don't provide meanings, that is provided by articles in Germanic languages. We, native Russians, believe that this semantic meaning simply does not need to be conveyed. MBH (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply
You have to accommodate the languages that don't, though. The names of the function have been thankfully changed now to "subject is instance of" vs "class is subclass of". These are different things, even if they look the same in Russian. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2026 (UTC)reply
All of other points other people mentioned aside, many languages have exceptions for articles. For example, in German proper nouns don't get articles (noone says "Der Deutschland") but Turkey for example is "die Türkei" (a similar example "The Netherlands" which also takes article in English too). I tried it and abstract:Q3640 produces "Ankara ist die Hauptstadt von Türkei." while the article in German Wikipedia (de:Ankara says "...die Hauptstadt der Türkei.". Ignoring the wrong "von" in the produced text, it is missing the article for Turkey as well (I copied the functions for Q3640 from abstract:Q61, so my apologies if I copied the wrong functions). I don't know how AW works in depth so my apologies if I'm misunderstanding anything. Ladsgroupoverleg16:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The copy of enwiki is attributed now, and the project is not doomed because one user fails to abide by copyright law or to make a quality article.
As for the beta release, it's impossible to debug or improve without community content, so I'm not sure what you'd have the WMF do. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)reply
"one user fails to abide by copyright law or to make a quality article." Not a single user has made a "quality article", which is hardly possible with the current setup. And the actual intention of the project, automatic translation to small languages, is just not happening.
Random "article" translation to French: "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: No matching lexeme for item in language"
Random "article", translation to Italian: "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Number of arguments mismatch"
Random "article" translation to Spanish: "(en) Bahrain is a country in Middle East." Hey, I can understand Spanish!
Random "article" translation to Dutch: "Brussel is the hoofdstad of België." THE hoofdstad? Yep, clearly not a problem with the use of articles...
Random "article" translation to French: "Paris est une ville. Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Error in evaluation" Translating two sentences was a challenge of course.
Random "article", no translation: "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Could not acquire WASI runner within time limit" and "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: No matching lexeme for item in language" and "Unable to render this fragment due to an unknown error."
You state "As for the beta release, it's impossible to debug or improve without community content, so I'm not sure what you'd have the WMF do." which is absolute nonsense. You don't do a public release of such extreleky buggy software, and you don't call it a beta either. The errors found so far are not edge cases where mass testing is necessary, but things a developers + QA team should easily have found. WMF should, for a $6 million + project, have some people on board who understand what this project is intended for and can test it before it is released as a beta. The release of a severely immature project where even the most basic fundamentals are being questioned is irresponsible. Then again, the decade-long development seems to have been irresponsible as well. Fram (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Fram, you have more than enough examples now. Item 17 is disastrous and tells me that the entire system needs a rewrite following a redesign of the architecture. But that would be throwing good money after bad. I predict that there will be no remedy for this project anytime soon. Once the underlying software architecture has problems 1 million bandaids placed on it will be no cure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
None of these problems are architectural. All of these are the result of the work of a few (like less people than that participated in this topic) community contributors. Feeglgeef (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
So there is no Wikidata item for "is a" in French, but this thing will be able to handle translations to languages with very few editors somehow? And "it knows how to say the words in Dutch", er, no: "the" (or "is the") is English, not Dutch. Again, it can't even translate that most basic building block to a language with a large editing base. As for 19, I have no idea how "unknown error" and a failed time limit are the responsibility of Wikidata contributors, nor how a translation tool was ever tested by the developers if the most basic aspects are missing in French, Spanish, Dutch, ...
Someone at the WMF was aware that translation (and specifically translation to languages with very small user bases) was the intention of this tool, right? Because it sure doesn't look that way. I don't see how they can have tested this at an alpha-level to give it the green light to go to beta, if if can't even handle these basic things. Blaming it on Wikidata contributors is rather rude, the developers/testers should have added things like "is a" or "the" or ... in major languages (both the ones I just tested, but also completely different ones with other scripts and grammar) to Wikidata. I assume these people have some fluency in Wikifunctions and Wikidata editing, and in languages and translation? Seems a prerequisite for such a project... Fram (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Question: How many people who work on Google Translate are linguists? Please answer to yourself before you read further. Answer: zero. We have all learned long ago that fiddling with linguistic constructs will end in one place: the shelf that holds the Aspirin bottle. So please do not assume that as a requirement. Their problems are much deeper and architectural in nature. They should have never used Wikifunctions, given that they are crowd sourced. Alas the key issue is that we can all huff and puff for ever but we have no control on what WMF does. So maybe we should all take an Aspirin and move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Google Translate is not entirely human-made though, but is based on computer-learning (statistics, deep learning and brute force basically). Abstract is based on "humans will build it all", which, while admirable, then requires humans with very specific skills. And "we can all huff and puff for ever but we have no control on what WMF does" is false, we have forced them to shelve things like Flow and Gather. Fram (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
I know exactly how G-translate works. Thanks. My point was/is that the crowd sourced paradigm works for text input but not for software. The world is moving towards automatic software generation now, so crowd sourcing will be inherently inefficient and error prone. But I think I have said enough now. No more comments from me here. You are right in objecting to the project but time will tell how much power you have over WFM. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
How many people who work on Google Translate are linguists? Why are you using Google Translate as an example? Do you know how many mistakes Google translate makes when translating to and from languages other than English? For some reason English homographs throw it off completely. I've seen it do stuff like this where I asked it to translate a verb that means "to bear" and it came up with a word for the mammal. Even ignoring the fact that English is clearly used as an intermediate language here even though it isn't suited for this purpose (probably not by design but because of the way Google translate was trained), why on Earth is Google translate translating a verb as a noun in the first place? I think stuff like this shows how Frederick Jelinek's quote is outdated and is leading us astray at this point. Warudo (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
There is no implementation of the function in Dutch. The Abstract Wikipedia team has not added an implementation in Dutch because the community is responsible for creating the function in Dutch, and nobody has created the function in Dutch.
Essentially, how the current English implementation is to string together the first concept with "is the" with the second concept with "of" with the third concept. The function can get the Dutch terms for the concept, but it does not know how to string the words together because nobody who speaks Dutch has told it how. This is not something that the WMF can magically fix. Eventually, when the project is older than a week, somebody will implement it in that language, and in Malayalam, and Dagbani, and Massa, and Southern Altai, and Dusun. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Please see my last response to Fram. Anyway, time to cool off and move on before someone busts an artery here. You will be glad to know that I shall make no further comments here. Now, in what language shall I say goodbye? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)reply
"when the project is older than a week"? It's a decade old or thereabouts, Wikifunctions specifically was created in 2020 and launched in 2023. But sure, some Southern Altai Wikipedian will go to Wikidata to translate everything that is needed, then go to Wikifunctions to translate all necessary functions into the grammatically correct version of their language (assuming naively that the used function can be one-on-one transformed to one in their language for every use of it), just so they can then autocreate stilted article stubs instead of either writing them directly, which would require a lot less effort and give a lot more satisfaction, or using an online translation tool to translate an existing Wikipedia article to give them much easier results. Totally realistic. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)reply
When I go to this totally not-alpha project, to the page we are discussing, and click on "defining role sentence in English as string" (which should apparently go to abstract.wikipedia.org/view/en/Z28109), I am taken to the Abstract Wikipedia Main page. Please explain to me again how this has been sufficiently tested and was ready to be opened to the wider public? Fram (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)reply
"by putting several sentences into a single paragraph, the paragraph as a whole is being run, may cause time-outs, and will be cached. Instead, if, for now, you put one sentence into each fragment, caching and evaluation can be more spread out and should allow for more content. Eventually we want to fix that" Gee, why would you fix the bug where putting more than one sentence into a paragraph makes it even more likely you will get a timeout error? Fram (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Probably a few years of pointing out both the immediate and the fundamental issues. The work of developers, testers and product managers. Once the grant and endowment money stops flowing, and some quarterly or yearly goals can be checked on some paperwork, the drive to continue this will stop. At best/worst to keep whatever exists at the time running and let some volunteers play with it for a few more years before completely stopping it (see the soon to be closed down Wikinews). At least with Gather, Flow, ... we could point out that it was actively, directly negatively impacting enwiki (and other wikis): here it is only money and developer time disappearing down the drain. Fram (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth I would like to see them continue as the issues pointed out do not seem to be systematic (with the platform design) but an incredibly horrible implementation of it. I do agree that the state of the project seems at best alpha. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
The systemic issue is the belief that English grammar rules can be copied one-on-one to all other languages. We have e.g. functions for "use this the" and " use with a/an" and "use without either", which even within English is problematic (e.g. sometimes you need X is the capital of Y, and sometimes X is the capital of the Y, like with United Kingdom): but in other languages half the cases of a certain English function may use one construction, and the other half uses another construction, and this needs somehow to be built into the simply English function. I'm simplifying things here, but I hope yo get my drift.
Purely on a word level this whole construction works somewhat theoretically, but requires a massive amount of work which is exactly the problem for the small languages where this is supposedly built for. On a sentence/paragraph level though, I don't believe this will ever work (for simple cases for related languages, yes, but not in general). If this is pushed through regardless, we will probably end with new Scots and Greenlandic version catastrophes, but then on a larger scale. The setup and performace issues are just the icing on the cake. Fram (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
The ideal would be to store everything in context-free language, and then generate sentences in the target language by applying a set of rules. When I was a grad student in Linguistics lo these many years ago I wrote my dissertation on one aspect of Deep structure and surface structure. From my experience trying to figure out what some of the rules are in (my idiolect of) English for a limited subset of syntactical structure, it will take a very large and hard to maintain set of rules with extensive exceptions just for English. My mind boggles at the concept of doing that for all the currently spoken languages of the world. Donald Albury16:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Indeed. At the moment, they produce the article "New Jersey is an U.S. state." I presume the "an" comes from an "an before a-e-i-o-u" rule, which doesn't deal with the many exceptions to that rule. And this is a very simple example, in the main development language. Fram (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
The systemic issue is the belief that English grammar rules can be copied one-on-one to all other languages. You'd think that people would have learned from the failure of this approach when it was applied to Wikidata. Some editors wanted a property to express the relation "X is the mayor of Y". So they just made a property called "of". They then found out that the property was not only difficult to translate to certain languages but it also evolved into a monster that modeled many different, sometimes contradictory relations (which is kind of bad when the whole point of a database is to be machine readable) and it ultimately required a huge effort from the community to get rid of it.
Yet now, the abstract Wikipedia editors are doing the same things, defining their functions in terms of English grammar constructs and not the underlying logical relations those constructs represent. Warudo (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)reply
All of these rules assume that an English grammar rule is also 1 rule in another language. "Article-less instantiating fragment" will sometimes need to be translated with, and sometimes without an article (even if the remainder of the grammar is the same). If this can be done with one function, then there was hardly any need to have different functions with or without article in English surely? And this is a very simple and basic example. So how is this solved? Fram (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Article-less does not mean what you think it means here. The name is confusing and should probably be changed, but, for example "Golf is a sport" and "El golfo es un deporte" (both use article-less, despite the fact that the latter has an article) have the same meaning, but "A bird is a dinosaur" and "(The) bird is a dinosaur" have two very different meanings, even if, say, Bulgarian does not make the distinction. The distinction between article-less and article-ful is not actually articles. Feeglgeef (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)reply
So if you start from an article which doesn't make a distinction, and go to a language that does make a distinction, you're screwed? If in your example the base language would have been Bulgarian, and you went to English, sometimes the Bulgarian function should give "the" in English, and sometimes "a", which depends on context. And all of this is still between very comparable languages basically. If the base article is for some sentence / meaning "article-less" and the target language "article-full" (or vice versa), you have a problem, no matter how you call these functions. Fram (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)reply
I get the feeling that Feeglgeef is a little out of their depth here, but there's nobody with any decision-making authority at the WMF willing to rescue them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Based on your replies in this thread, it seems you are unwilling to assume good faith of either your conversational partners or the functionaries (pun intended) of the wiki in question. Why not just ignore it, if you feel it is consigned to failure? Arlo James Barnes19:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)reply
You actually don't "start from an article which doesn't make a distinction", because all Abstract Wikipedia articles are supposed to be abstract. All articles are required to make the same distinction and all distinctions necessary for every single language (even if some languages ignore them) because they are all written in abstract language. There is no English or Bulgarian base, nor translating here. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)reply
That, again, makes no sense. Because in English, "a bird" and "the bird" have two different meanings (but refer to the same Wikidata item), you need a different function than for "golf" (the sport), which has in English one meaning for that Wikidata item. But still you claim that the functions, the whole approach, are language-independent, as if these issues in English are the same across all languages for the same words. If Abstract Wikipeda were truly language-independent, you wouldn't need the article-less and article-full functions. And that's still only at the word level, and doesn't go into sentence- and paragraph structures and countless other quirks, irregularities, ... Anyway, it looks so dumb that after all this time, apparently there isn't a function yet to start sentences/articles with an article; we get things like "Bible is a religious text." for an article specifically about the Judeo-Christian Bible (not about the general word). And finding out how things actually work for Abstract articles is very opaque as well, I have no idea where the "suns" instead of "stars" comes from in "Stars are sources of light. Stars contain metals. Suns shine."
Oh well, the WMF team doesn't respond here, but they seem to read it, as some of the most stupid errors get fixed after they are reported here at least. Fram (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has articles about more than 20 million topics in more than 300 languages. But none of these languages alone allow access to the knowledge about these 20 million topics (...) Abstract Wikipedia does that without relying on AI. Each step of the way remains under human control, and is accessible and editable by the volunteers. I doubt volunteers will create articles about 20 million topics in "this thing" (and with 108 active editors, as there are now, it seems completely impossible to arrive at any place).
Looking at this article, it seems that a software-generated summary (yes, there is software other than AI) automatically combining some data from all language editions of Wikipedia, plus Wikidata and Commons, and using machine translation when needed (for machine translation, AI usage is usually not bad, and free and open source AI software also exists), would do a far better job.
In addition, if the point is to avoid AI, I don't understand why it says "Generated text" (who generated it?). Sorry if I am too critical (of course, I appretiate the efforts of the people who are working on the project), but I don't believe this adds anything new to the Wikimedia ecosystem: it looks as made for consumption by a machine, not by humans, so maybe it would be better if it was also mostly machine-generated.
The idea of joining the knowledge from all Wikipedia language editions (plus Wikidata and Commons, and, for some articles, also Wikisource, Wikivoyage, etc) is a very good one (and one I had thought about many times), but I think that a "global search" feature with integrated machine translation, and some way to access the combined data from multiple sources, would be the only way to achieve that. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I doubt volunteers will create articles about 20 million topics. Yes, exactly. There's no chance we ever surpass enwiki or other major language Wikipedias, as abstract articles take much more time to write than normal articles, and there's much less chance for onboarding new contributors.
In addition, if the point is to avoid AI, I don't understand why it says "Generated text" (who generated it?). Sorry if I am too critical (of course, I appretiate the efforts of the people who are working on the project), but I don't believe this adds anything new to the Wikimedia ecosystem: it looks as made for consumption by a machine, not by humans, so maybe it would be better if it was also mostly machine-generated. It was made for the consumption of humans who speak only small-to-mid sized languages.
Machine translation might be worth consideration for a future project, it's been used, for example, on Caesar DePaço to circumvent a court order, but writing content in an abstract (instead of concrete) language means we don't have to deal with information loss (see the whole "Google translate 100 times" thing).
If you click through the endless errors and finally try to see a translated article, you get monstrosities like "Ein Äpfel ist eine Frucht." or even worse " Bisexuelles lieben Fraus. Bisexuelles lieben Manns."
People from the WMF, could you please clarify: before releasing this as a supposedly beta product, which tests did you run? Which articles have you created, with which functions, and tested for which languages? Fram (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sannita (WMF): as someone who seems to be closely involved, but of course feel free to put this through to whoever is better placed to answer this. I also notice that most activity on Abstract seems to come from an editor who was indef blocked on enwiki for CIR / timewasting, and is now running some AI-generated tool to create non-working pages (like this 193K monstrosity-) and to change working pages (no matter how bad they were) into non-working ones (e.g changing this into this ("Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Error in evaluation"), across a lot of pages. While I think the project should be abandoned as a waste of time and money, it shouldn't be done by mass-vandalizing the work of the editors there. Fram (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2026 (UTC)reply
@Fram We did some limited tests in a controlled environment, but doing so can only help you so much in identifying potential problems. We are learning a lot by releasing the beta project (because this is still a beta), and we'll improve from there. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks, but no, this is not a beta, this is barely an alpha, the thing is unworkable for all but the simplest sentences, terribly slow, had the most basic errors when released. Using volunteers as cheap/sheep testers on a $6 million+ project which hasn't been thought through, hasn't been tested, and has in its utopic, unrealistic ideals been overtaken by reality anyway, is old school WMF which I hoped had been left behind after previous such failures.
After the omnipresent "Reached max retries. Try again later.", you get a plethora of errors. A 2-sentence "article" gives "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Reached time limit in orchestrator", basic English words give "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: No matching lexeme for item in language" (but this will work for languages with barely any editors somehow), other articles give "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Error in evaluation", "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Could not acquire WASI runner within time limit", "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Reached rate limit in orchestrator"
And the things that do "work" give results like "Australian continent is a continent in the Earth. Australian continent contains Australia." (German translation of that last line: "Australien contains Australien.") Or the extremely basic issue that when you translate an article, you would expect the title of the article to be the first thing that gets translated, even in alpha-stage. No such luck. This thing is supposed to be used to create articles and translate them into manu languages, but not a single decent example has been produced so far. A "beta" product which simply can not produce an acceptable end product just isn't tested to even the most basic standards and should never have been released. And a project where the actual requirements don't seem to have been thought through, and where the results (if the wanted end result was ever reached) would probably make the Greenlandic and Scots disasters look like minor blips, should have been stopped much, much earlier, before so much money and time was wasted. Fram (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2026 (UTC)reply
"両性愛者s 愛し 女性s.両性愛者s 愛し 男性s." If this is what it's producing for a language with over 100 million speakers, what's it doing for small languages? Sesquilinear (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That is hardly surprising. The function used here is English simple present collective sentence. Of course it does that. This, again shows how over their head some editors over on the Abstract Wikipedia are. When the whole point is to make a cross-language encyclopedia, you cannot directly call functions that only work for one language. Those should only be called internally. What makes this worse is that the language neutral function simple present collective sentence (creation date: 24 March) already existed when the bisexuality article (creation date: 4 April) was created. This means that the editor who made that article had a choice between "simple present collective sentence" and "English simple present collective sentence" and chose to use the latter in a multilingual project! For what it's worth, I fixed it. It now says "両性愛者は女性を愛する。両性愛者は男性を愛する。" which is at least grammatical. It took about 2 minutes. It would have taken 30 seconds if the abstract Wikipedia editor didn't overwrite the arguments of a function call when you change the function. Warudo (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC) (edited at 00:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC))reply
If someone had to come up with a clever way to disrupt Wikipedia by wasting editors' time, I cannot think of a better way than creating Abstract Wikipedia. It feels like a clever sabotage operation Ita140188 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
According to f:Z32530, no, there isn't one. That is a separate problem to the one I'm trying to solve at the moment. When I tested on Wikifunctions I got this:
I can't really fix that because I don't speak German and can't write the gloss for the Sense entity. While I have come across Senses that don't have a gloss in the Lexeme's language like d:L:L1082283#S2, I don't think it's a good idea to make those, so I'll leave this one as is. Warudo (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The wrong way
I just don't get how they are going along and spending money on something so ill-thought out and poorly executed. Let's ignore for now the basic questions of "is this feasible, which competencies or expertises do we need to think this through, what is the best approach", the slight issue that reality (LLMs) has somewhat changed the whole environment this needs to be thought about, and the basic recurring problem that a completely untested, very buggy environment has been released as a beta for everyone to play with without any guidance. But why are they (WMF and editors) now going further with this in the most inefficient way possible? Everyone creates whatever they like, 99% of what is being made is absolute rubbish that serves no purpose at all. People are creating one- or two-sentence stubs for all countries which all have the same issues.
A logical, productive way of dealing with this project (apart from the most logical one of pulling the plug) would be to start with one article, take e.g. the lead from enwiki (or dewiki or whatever), and build the necessary structure (Abstract + Functions + Wikidata) to create this and translate this in 5 wildly different languages. Step by step, sentence by sentence, until you have a basic set of functions for this kind of article, and have an idea if it will work.
Second steps might then be either testing the same for a related article (say, test 1 was a country, take another country and see if the functions are all transferable or if there are things you missed), or doing the same "build from scratch" for a different topic (say, a biography).
That way, you build a structure, a set of reusable and needed blocks you can refine later on, and at the same time learn a lot of "don't do this" pitfalls and issues. And after you have done this for the 5 or 10 most common types of articles, you actually have a tested, usable, beta environment (or you have realised it won't work at all, or it will work in theory but the work to get things right for a more obscure language isn't worth the hassle).
Instead, we get articles directly using the function "English plural", really useful for an abstract, language-independent project. Or more commonly "articles" consisting of random repetitive sentences like "Reproduction is a biological process. Reproduction is a type of process. A reproduction is a biological process. A reproduction is a creation. Animal reproduction is the part of of reproduction. Plant reproduction is the part of of reproduction. Human reproduction is the part of of reproduction."
Oh well, at least I learned that "An information is a knowledge." or "biseksualiteit ∈ {seksuele oriëntatie}" in Dutch or still "Bisexuelles lieben Fraus. Bisexuelles lieben Manns." in German . Note how here and on all other pages, the actual title doesn't get translated? This is not something the article creators can help, this is something which should have been included by the WMF as a basic element (assuming they realised what Abstract Wikipedia was intended for) but is missing.
Anyone minimally familiar with the history of Linguistics or Computer Science as disciplines should be aware that the core premise of the project was investigated and discarded decades ago (and anyone who has studied at least one language that isn't super closely related to their native language should be able to quickly come to similar conclusions). There is no universal deep structure across languages. Why was this ever greenlit? This is about as useful as funding new studies in Lysenkoismsigned, Rosguilltalk05:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
When I first looked at the project, I just thought...oh, here's another attempt to make an interlingua. They've all failed before because it fundamentally misunderstands how meaning works, but ok, sure, do whatever you want, maybe you'll succeed this time... Erynamrod (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
New dashboard
The WMF has launched a dashboard to follow the progress of Abstract Wikipedia . It has e.g. a list of articles which work in any language! Well, most of them have no actual text translated through functions, just Wikidata items without any sentence-building, so yes, these work, they just aren't articles... The ones that do try to have actual sentences and supposedly work are e.g. Brussels, full text "Brussels is the capital of Belgium." This gets translated as "Brussel is the hoofdstad of België." in Dutch, which isn't correct Dutch. "Bruxelles is the capitale of Belgique." in French is equally wrong, as is the German "Brüssel is the Hauptstadt of Belgien." It doesn't work at all in e.g. Romanian, Moldavian. Anyway, I guess the function "defining role sentence in English as string" should perhaps not be used in Abstract Wikipedia, and items which use it should not be said to be working in any language, as the naturally don't. Something like "list of cities in Belgium" gives a result in English, and keeps running endlessly when I try it in Dutch or French. So not really "working". It looks as if not a single actual article can be said to be working in all or even most languages, making the dashboard rather meaningless. Fram (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)reply
From reading the Abstract Wiki, it also seems like there is no way to utilize the past tense, which um… seems a bit critical in an encyclopedia. ExtantRotations (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)reply
On the plus side, they have introduced endless repetition, which makes for much better reading. At the moment, the article for New Year's Day reads in full: "New Year's Day is a public holiday. New Year's Day is part of the public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, public holidays in Australia, and public holidays in Australia." Fram (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)reply
Somehow, they have made this dashboard worse. It now has a section for "Articles ready to publish in English". What this means is "Wikidata Qnumbers we have created in Abstract but don't exist in enwiki", not that these pages are in any way either wanted in enwiki, nor that they are actually "articles" which are "ready". This includes things like "Evaluating the biological validity of European river typology systems with least disturbed benthic macroinvertebrate communities", ne of the thousands (millions) of scholarly articles with a Wikidata entry, but also Blake Lemoine, apparently a software engineer, where the complete "article" exists of three identical links to research.google, but the link gives a "page not found". Ih yes, this is so ready to be published to enwiki. Other "articles" we are apparently missing is "interaction", full text "An interaction is an effect.An interaction is an effect.An interaction is an effect." Oh look, a Picasso painting we are missing. Actually, no, we have it at Three Musicians (Picasso)
I don't even want to try to guess what the next section on the dashboard, "Quick wins in English", is supposed to be about. "Add a label to California"? "Pending fixes in English", explanation "All items where English is the blocker", e.g. "photon" needs a label.
Mind you, that's not even the most bizarre or optimistic thing on that dashboard. At the very bottom, there is a section for "Almost there — English is the only thing missing
Already usable in the most other languages. One English edit gives each near-universal coverage." Well, perhaps not. Giza is not one English edit away from anything, Giza (or any Abstract "article") shouldn't use the function "defining role sentence in English as string" because "in English" is not really what Abstract is about.
While for English these things won't be published here and we see the problems from miles away, for small languages (the intended target) this is another dramatic Scots Wikipedia scenario waiting to happen, but this time pushed directly by the WMF.
According to the latest newsletter about Abstract, all that is left is improving Abstract and integrating it into language Wikipedias (the horror), but as of now, "Abstract Wikipedia can compose articles from functions on Wikifunctions". Bizarrely, despite this claim, not one actual article has been composed, only a few collections of loose, short, often ungrammatical sentences, which in a few cases can even be translated in even worse sentences in very few languages. But oh well, what can one expect from a newsletter which claims "Abstract article pages now show the label of the Wikidata item alongside the QID in the page title. " when in reality, for a week or so now, what is actually shown next to the Wikidata label is the letters "ltr" in grey. When you click on them, you get the text "copied!", and you have literally copied the text "ltr". Brilliant! Even things that barely worked before have since become worse, the page "Paul Cézanne" now shows "<a href='https://abstract.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q17277950'>The Card Players</a>" instead of the links to Wikidata it had. Also errors like "Reached max retries. Try again later. Retry" have reappeared.
Let's be clear: "Franz Schubert is a composer in Austria. Franz Schubert is a pianist. Franz Schubert is a teacher." is not an article. "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Invalid key" is not an article. "Organism is a part of of population. Organism is a part of of group of living things." is not an article. "Roman Empire is an empire." is not an article. "2 is a small number." is not an article. "List of French artists is a Wikimedia list article." is not an article (why would anyone think that this is the kind of text wanted in any language wikipedia?) "August is a calendar month. August is part of the Swedish calendar, Swedish calendar, and Swedish calendar." is more than an article, it's a mantra. "A Citrus × limon is a useful plant." is the full article about the Lemon.
And the translations... "Organisme is an onderdeel van of populatie." is not a Dutch sentence. "2 is een ." is not a Dutch sentence. "Franz Schubert est un enseignant ou enseignante." is what you get when you start from English as the norm for all languages. "August is a calendar month. August is part of the schwedischer Kalender, schwedischer Kalender, and schwedischer Kalender." is supposedly a German article. "{citroen} ⊆ {nuttige plant}" is supposedly a Dutch article.
I clicked on random article, the first one I saw was Homer:
Homer is a poet. Homer is an author. Homer is a writer. Homer is a human whose existence is disputed. Homer is a conceptual character. Homer is the part of of Greek mythology.
What I don't get is, they don't have support for past tense yet. Whatever, they'll add it eventually, I hope. So, why are they making abstract articles that need it? Warudo (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Partially reminds me of caveman speak: If horse go walk, cart also go walk. You see, force from horse leg on ground push on rock, then normal force push horse leg in opposite direction, cause horse to move small amount, for each time horse leg push on rock. Rope tied to horse neck move with horse, and is connected to cart with wheels. Cart wheel spins if moved in same direction as wheel is facing, which glide across rock, but still exert normal force due to gravity. Therefore, if horse go walk, cart also go walk.
For what it's worth, the Homer abstract article was created by the editor who did this. As harsh as it may be to say, this is the level of quality we are used to seeing from this editor, both here and in the abstract Wikipedia. Warudo (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply
They were blocked for CIR/wasting community time and (how do I put this politely) I couldn't agree more with that description. Anyhow, most of the slop problems Fram is pointing to were caused by them, so I don't see how that justifies shutting down the whole project. Feeglgeef (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Not true though. Going over the issues in my above posts, the "ltr" instead of the Qnumber is obviously a WMF technical mistake (and a failure of whoever wrote the newsletter). The "articles" I randomly picked: Paul Cézanne "2", August, the Picasso painting, New Year's Day, Giza, ... all not edited by that blocked editor. And there are plenty of articles I could have picked, I don't think "Australian continent is a continent in the Earth.Australian continent is a component of Earth's surface.Australian continent contains Australia." or its Spanish translation "(en) Australian continent is a continent in the Earth.Australia is a componente of superficie terrestre." (note that the middle sentence simply disappeared, perhaps a blessing) is an indication that the issues are due to one bad editor and not to a terrible project. Bisexuality, in German, is first an error and then "Bisexuelles lieben Fraus. Bisexuelles lieben Manns." Not touched by the blocked editor. this is not created by the blocked editor. The "Italian" article "Holy Week is a liturgical season. Settimana Santa is part of the anno liturgico." is not edited by them. Obviously it would be best if you mass deleted the embarrassing creations by that editor (full article: "A current is a current.A current is an electricity."), but it wouldn't solve any of the fundamental issues. Fram (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
And it's not like this is the only editor who writes articles about dead people. "William Shakespeare is a playwright from Kingdom of England." Has not been touched by that this editor either. Warudo (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@Fram Thank you for the continued updates, which are rather amusing, if in a morbid way... Would you be interested in starting an RfC on Meta on putting an end to this madness? If anyone has any better ideas, I'd be happy to hear them. Toadspike[Talk]11:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I normally don't edit Meta, and I fear that many people who hang out around there are more inclined to let such projects continue no matter what. Fram (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth I agree with Toadspike and would like to see an RfC on meta. It might be true that this bias exists there, but Abstract is such a one-of-a-kind, unmitigated disaster that I believe it would not apply in this case. Choucas🐦⬛12:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Not the right process; you're thinking of m:Proposals for closing projects.For what it's worth I think there's something worthwhile to come out of this; to resolve the fundamental problem the articles look to be moving towards using functions that express specific meanings rather than grammar. I definitely agree that the WMF is hopelessly overstating its progress, as Fram has meticulously documented.I would support some kind of discussion to make WMF be accurate when assessing the level of progress on the project. An RfC might be able to do that but I'm not sure if purely WMF communication matters can be subject to an RfC. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I have some strong opinions about the content created by a couple contributors. This one was the original unattributed enwiki cop[y] Fram had originally mentioned. In addition to Csisc, there's also User:Immanuelle, who was blocked here for WP:CIR. Generally I think they share a need to do something now, though at this stage these contributions are unhelpful and frankly actively disruptive. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
What a poor thing if integrated into small language Wikipedias without any correction, especially for those Wikipedias without active sysops or rollbackers.--Jason2016426 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Something new
People keep commenting about stub articles filled with grammatical errors. This seems to have changed. This is - or would be - a large article, but little text actually shows. The rest is just errors. ~2026-40174-24 (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Coming from huwiki, I've been trying to understand the scope and progress of Abstract Wikipedia, and I want to say first that Frem's updates in this thread have been more informative than the project's own pages on Meta. Thank you for that.
That itself points to my concern. This is an enormous and complex undertaking with many moving parts. A project of this size depends on community buy-in, so it needs to communicate its scope, progress, and decision-making clearly and regularly. Right now I don't think it does. If you read meta:Abstract Wikipedia and its subpages, much of it appears out of date, and the current scope and state are not stated anywhere in a way an ordinary editor can quickly grasp. You could say they're rather abstract. Additionally the original project proposal did not lay out the alternative solutions considered for the individual problem statements, nor any cost-benefit analyses. From what I've been able to piece together there were more readily available approaches, that could have delivered usable results by now (not including the recent advancements of LLMs). Checking the pages and the Wikimedia Board minutes it is also unclear what changes of direction have been discussed or approved since the initial 2020 resolution, or under what criteria the project would be judged unfeasible to continue. This is important, cause this is a highly ambitious project that, without clear guardrails, could go on indefinitely.
In this thread serious concerns were raised, and it's shocking that so far no one from the project has responded to these. I can only add to those, I agree that the project cannot really be described as an "early beta": after reading through pages of Abstract Wikipedia documentation, I still have no idea how I, as an editor, could begin supporting the project and test Hungarian implementations.
Without a clear understanding of what is happening and why, community discussion is effectively blocked. So that this does not sink without a reply, I'd like to ask the project leads to respond:
Current state and scope: What is the precise, current scope and phase of the project? What is the progress on the tasks, which of these are done from the initial 30 months plan? What is still prototype or research?
Supporting a language: Is there a documented, step-by-step path for a language community to add or improve support for its language? Concretely, what could a non-English editor do today to help with testing?
Documentation: Given that the Meta pages appear outdated, is there another current, plain-language page stating scope, status, and roadmap? Could Meta be updated?
Regular review: Since the Board's approval (the resolution of 22 May 2020), what changes of direction have been discussed or approved, and by whom? Are there defined milestones or off-ramps, and what criteria would lead the Foundation to conclude the project is not feasible to continue? How does the Board assure itself that the project remains on track and worth its cost, and what would have to be true for it to decide otherwise?
Resources and partial wins: Approximately what has been spent on the project to date, and how is the continued resource commitment justified against other Foundation and community priorities? What concrete, independently useful results has the project delivered so far (with examples)?
And @NGunasena (WMF): if you could comment on, or connect us with someone who can say more about the Board's thinking and its insight into the project's actual progress (questions 4–5), I'd be grateful.
To be clear, I'm raising this in good faith, I want the project to succeed, and clear communication from the stakeholders is a precondition for the community to participate. Boro (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Not WMF, but for #2, you could look at which functions are commonly used on abstractwiki (e.g. f:Z28016) and learn to contribute to them. I am aware this is a tall ask and if you want to, I could help you. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the offer, but it's a taller ask than it looks. Hungarian is an agglutinative language that uses vowel harmony. The simple "defining" structure you linked (X is the Y) does exist in Hungarian, but the neutral, encyclopedic version doesn't use a definite article at all, while the variant that does carries extra contextual meaning. So it's unclear which needs to be used here: match the intention or the definition? The correct rendering needs helper functions to get the morphemes right, and research groups in MT and linguistics are still working on tools to do this reliably for all possible cases. I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't feel comfortable writing semi-correct functions to make this work. I've already seen students pick up incorrect uses from AI output, so getting this wrong at scale could affect the language itself.
From the Meta page this seems to fall under "Task P2.9: Renderer for a language from another family". But I can't find any notes on whether that was evaluated, and with what results and to what extent, before moving forward with the project. As I understand it, the majority of its benefit is supposed to come precisely from supporting non-Indo-European languages, so checking more than one language family seems essential. Boro (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply
My understanding of Hungarian isn't the best, but from what I remember, isn't just a rearranging of the words? So it'd be literally "Budapest Hungary's capital" (Budapest Magyarország fővárosa). Feeglgeef (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Not quite, főváros is the base word, +a/+e is a suffix, that can change form based on the word: capital of → fővárosa (főváros), sibling of → testvére (testvér), older brother of → bátyja (báty), younger brother of → öccse (öcs), mother of → anyja (anya). Also all these sentences are valid, but subtly different in their meaning: (1) Budapest Magyarország fővárosa, (2) Magyarország fővárosa Budapest (3) Budapest Magyarországnak a fővárosa (with definitive article). Boro (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)reply
If it doesn't use a definite article, then the output should not have a definite article. I think how this is supposed to work is that each function outputs the construct with the intended meaning no matter what the grammar is. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not WMF staff, but as a volunteer I'm one of the most active users on abstractwiki and a functioneer on Wikifunctions.
Currently, on the Abstract Wikipedia wiki, which is in beta, users are able to create basic stub articles that render in English and often other languages. Wikifunctions is no longer in beta and is generally usable, P1.1 through P1.13 and P1.18 though P1.19 are things I'm able to do on the wiki right now. The plan listed for Abstract Wikipedia is very different from what it seems is actually being implemented, so I can't comment on progress there.
Somewhat. I do believe we need much better documentation, but f:Help:Contents has a few pages that are good starting points. I have helped and am willing to help others with the process of creating localized versions of functions.
I don't believe so, unfortunately.
I'm not sure, as again I'm not WMF staff.
On results, we've seen some use by smaller-language Wikipedias and small-and-mid-sized Wiktionaries of using Wikifunctions like templates. As mentioned before, Wikifunctions is also useful on its own and has a large catalogue of functions.
"users are able to create basic stub articles" for extremely low bars of "basic" and "stub" (and "create" for that matter, many editors don't seem capable of this, the learning curve is quite steep).
" that render in English and often other languages. " Very rarely, actually. But feel free to give us a few examples of what you consider basic Abstract stubs and which languages they render in. Take for example Australia, which probably comes the closest to an actual article. When I try to translate it to German (and after a very long wait), I get 5 errors, and a mixture of German sentences, English ones, and mixed ones like "The Einwohnerzahl of Australien was 27614411 in 2025." Same when I try it in French, 6 errors (4 different ones), mixed languages. But at least in English you get an article that reads as if some dumb robot compiled it, with the first five (obviously very short) sentences starting "Australia is", and ending with varied but hradly correct ones like "Melbourne is the most population urban area in Australia." Or let's look at the most recent one you created, Labrador Retriever. Full text: "A Labrador retriever is a dog." Capitalization is hard apparently. Dutch translation: "{labrador retriever} ⊆ {hond}". Another one you created, 6-7, doesn't even work in English ("Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Reached recursion limit in orchestrator") Mount Everest: "Mount Everest is a mountain of China–Nepal border.". Frenglish: "Everest is a montagne of frontière entre la Chine et le Népal." Swedish: "Mount Everest is a berg of ." Spanish: "Everest is a montaña of Frontera entre China y Nepal."
So no, both creating decent stubs and rendering them in other languages doesn't really work, even when one of the most experienced Abstract editors creates them. Fram (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
It's crazy that the resources of the WMF are going into this hopeless and pointless black hole instead of fixing actual problems that the community have been highlighting for years. It would be fun if it wasn't tragic Ita140188 (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes. It's time to pause development on Abstract (to avoid the embarrassment of cancellation) and redeploy the engineers to process community tech requests. That's not as good a result as retaining the staff with relevant experience, but it's a start. Certes (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
You're a one trick pony, Fram. We get it. Some of the articles on Abstract Wikipedia are not great. But if one billion useless articles were added to the English Wikipedia, I wouldn't call for it to be shut down. The fact that you can find articles that look bad doesn't mean the project needs to be shut down. As for your examples, they do not disprove (in fact, they prove) my intentionally conservative statement, users are able to create basic stub articles that render in English and often other languages (emphasis mine). Feeglgeef (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
If you would look at article after article on enwiki that looked like this, you would be right to call for it to be shut down though. And it's not a case of "I can find articles", I picked recent ones created (or in the case of Australia edited) by you specifically, as last time you complained that some examples came from an editor who is blocked on enwiki (but not on Abstract).
But I see that you consider these rather dreadful examples as "basic stubs" and the abysmal translations as evidence that they "often render in other languages" and provide no better examples, so I presume that this "one trick pony" (WP:NPA) somehow found representative examples and you won't point to some better Abstract articles instead. Fram (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Firstly, I'm sorry for the "one trick pony" comment. I had meant it as a comment on the lack of variation in your evidence, and should have framed it as such.
Here's a decent article, abstract:Q1186. It's a basic stub (the information would be useful) and renders correctly in both English and Bangla, thus meeting all of the criteria I gave. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Why does it give the population in 1961? It's less than half of the current population, so hardly good information to include here. Fram (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
That's especially weird considering that not only does Wikidata have a figure from 2017 but it is also marked with preferred rank. Warudo (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I've fixed it such that it will use preferred statements first. Unfortunately, despite the fact that I've requested it multiple times, there's no way to fully clear the cache, meaning the Kerala article is stuck with the old value. But it will work for new instances, like Illinois, which I just created. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Seeing the working examples led me to think that, at the reader level, this is something that ArticlePlaceholder was already capable of: surfacing Wikidata facts about a topic with no local article. For topics that do have an article, inline Wikidata item calls can keep those facts current on its own (though the editing experience could be smoother). All in all, I don't see why sentence generation is worth all this effort, when easier paths were open to achieve essentially the same benefit. Boro (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
There're certain things only articles can do, like document the history of how something happened. I don't really see any advantages of ArticlePlaceholder over just referencing Wikidata when you do need to switch wikis. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
You described yourself as one of the most active users on abstractwiki and a functioneer on Wikifunctions, so I do not find it unreasonable for Fram to look at your articles and point at the glaring and massive issues there. Maybe being able to find articles that look bad means little, but are we even able to find articles that look good though? Or is the bar so low that "good" by Abstract Wiki standards just means "not broken in a thousand obvious ways"? You have to admit that from an exterior point of view, things really look dire, and the fact that there is not even more than one outdated meta page in terms of documentation does not bode well in terms of perspective. And that is even without getting into the immense issue that the basic premise of the project is based on disproved linguistics, as has been pointed out elsewhere. Choucas🐦⬛16:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I do agree that things might look dire from an external point of view, but, as I've been trying to show, Abstract Wikipedia is a viable project. It just needs more time, and, ideally, better technical support. I do agree with those above that Dr. Vrandečić is overstating our progress. Feeglgeef (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Personally I think it's worthwhile to explore this avenue with the aim of making imperfect 'universal stubs' that serve as placeholders while small wikis are developing, but the design of abstract wiki is frankly amateurish, the team appear to be incredibly out of their depth. Why has wikifunctions been primarily based on English/Indo-European languages when there'll be practically no new wikis in languages closely related to English? Do we know if any professional linguists were consulted (the mastermind behind it sure as hell isn't one)? Why was this not done by experts? How on earth has $6 million been spent? On what? How has this gotten through so many checks and meetings? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm open to the possibility that there could be a way to write articles using a lingua franca that is amenable to translation to many different languages. But I have strong doubts about Abstract Wikipedia being viable as a crowdsourced project using Wikifunctions as the lingua franca. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The lack of documentation means people have to (re)invent the wheel when they want to write things and, at least some of them are not good at it. Consider abstract:Q246463 where the editor who made it wanted to use a pronoun instead of repeating the name of the article subject, so they passed it (Q6091500) to the function that generates the second sentence. There are two problems with this. One, it leads to the awkward phrase "of it" instead of "its". But more importantly, it doesn't work for languages other that English because grammatical gender is different between languages. What is the equivalent of "it" in French, which doesn't have neuter? Or worse, what would happen in a language where neuter exists, but the word for "shrine" is not neuter? Warudo (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
This is a problem as well. Wikifunctions (and, by extention, Abstract Wikipedia) has a very steep learning curve, so we have a few users who understand it deeply and everyone else, who barely understand it at all, which makes it very hard to find contributors, whereas the English Wikipedia has a remarkably flat learning curve and a very high ability to specialize. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
This is the part that makes me ambivalent about the WMF's involvement. I think it's worthwhile doing research in understanding ways to capture information based on commonalities in language. It's not clear to me, though, that crowdsourcing is an effective way to generate an encyclopedia of articles written in a lingua franca with a programming-like syntax. Without the crowdsourcing aspect, I don't think the project is a good fit for the strengths of the Wikimedia Foundation. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm reading through this again and that "Dutch translation" in particular scares me because of how wrong it is on multiple levels. First of all, is returning math notation really helpful? Wouldn't an error be better here so there's no illusion of support? But more importantly, no matter how smart the person who came up with this workaround felt, it is still wrong! "{labrador retriever} ⊆ {hond}" means that the singleton set {labrador retriever} is a subset of the singleton set {hond} which is obviously false. It should be "labrador retriever ⊆ hond" or, more explicitly, "{x|x ∈ labrador retriever} ⊆ {x|x ∈ hond}". If after all this time, people who work on this stuff cannot handle what are essentially instance of (P31) (∈) and subclass of (P279) (⊆) correctly how can we expect this project to ever succeed? Warudo (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Hello @Boro, and thank you for your good faith inquiry.
I agree with you that the project pages for Abstract Wikipedia could use an update. We will spend some time in the near future to do so, thank you for pointing that out. We have mostly focused our progress report through our weekly newsletter. We have been keeping the newsletter up for more than 250 editions now, and I am sure you would be able to find most of the answers to your questions in the updates. But I admit that sorting through so many newsletters to find the one answer you are looking for is not the best solution.
Here is the current status of the project, in a very short overview:
Wikifunctions launched almost three years ago (July 28, 2023). The project has a growing community, and there are now more than 4000 functions created. The speed of function creation is increasing.
Wikifunctions function calls can be embedded in almost all Wiktionaries, as well as Dagbani, Bengali, Igbo, Hausa and Malayalam Wikipedia. This allows editors to call a centralized store of functions to produce outputs, instead of having to create and maintain them locally in each wiki. An example is here, where the German declension table comes from Wikifunctions. If more Wikipedia language editions would like to have this functionality, please let us know. We are currently prioritizing article integrations and are planning to revisit embedded Wikifunctions at a later date, but let us know your feedback.
From Wikifunctions, we are able to access data from Wikidata. This includes most statements about items, and most lexicographic data. This allows the community to create functions using the rich lexicographic data in Wikidata, or using population numbers from Wikidata directly, etc.
Abstract Wikipedia is in early beta, and we made it available live to enable learning, testing, and iteration. We want to co-create this project with our communities, including on how NLG functions evolve. Here’s an example that was just working as I write this, a short article about the year 1234 in English and in German. We also want to see how the system performs with real traffic to make it more stable and responsive. We are listening to feedback and releasing improvements every week.
Now you might object that the Hungarian article about 1234 is better than our abstract article (for example, it doesn’t call 1234 a Gregorian year even though it’s a Julian one), and you’d be right. Our scope, however, isn't to replace existing articles, but to fill in gaps where they currently exist, particularly in language editions with a smaller community.
In a few months, this will be possible when language communities will be able to integrate Abstract Wikipedia articles into their Wikipedias. We hope by then such errors will be fixed, and more content will be possible. This will be the last major piece of the puzzle, and once in place, we will work closely with communities to discover missing capabilities, bottlenecks, and potential for improving the contributor interfaces. We will create feedback loops to ensure the product evolves to support community needs. We will assess how effective Abstract Wikipedia is at addressing multilingual content parity, and make further decisions on next steps from there.
We are fully aware that this is only addressing a small part of the questions here. Our suggestion is that we will summarize the constructive criticism and concerns to kick off a discussion page on Meta, and answer the questions there. This discussion here has surfaced great suggestions and criticisms which we want to address. We want to take this input seriously, but it will take some time, and we can then continue this conversation on Meta, where it is visible for all communities.
"making it much easier to start a local version of the article, instead of writing it from scratch or translating from another language. " That I doubt. It's not as if for these smaller languages, things will magically work if you have the right Abstract article and the right functions. Even completely ignoring the language structure issues (a pretty big issue in itself), people will need to navigate Abstract and Wikidata, add labels and lexemes, and who knows what else. Even a simple "article" like the rather useless 1234 linked here, gives 6 errors when translating to smaller languages like Nahuatl (and 2 errors for French), with the errors not really helping to knw what needs to be done.
Why you believe this can be integrated in any Wikipedia in a few months time is beyond me, sounds more like a KPI that needs to be met than an actual good plan. Publishing one or two symbolic "articles" from Abstract to some language and then celebrate this as a major milestone and a proof that it works, when in reality next to nothing has been achieved and questions about the fundamentals are completely ignored, does not give any confidence.
As for the Wikifunction, it looks to be wrong or at the very least oversimplified. A rather different table is given e.g. here or here or here.
Having basic information wrong - as in the 1234 example or several other examples listed here - is not filling in a gap on smaller projects it's spreading misinformation. I would not expect information from abstract to be 100% correct. Or even as correct as the average enwiki article or the average article on some other large project. But I would expect it to have basic information correct. And I would expect it to be reasonably intuitive for someone who spots an error to be able to correct it, which if I understand things correctly, would mean some kind of easy connection back to Wikidata. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)reply
How is that a easier way to populate articles for smaller languages compared to automatic translation from a bigger language and basic copyediting? It seems to me this would require a lot more work for a much worse result compared to the basic way that worked until now Ita140188 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply
They seem to have the wrong idea that when you have an abstract article and working functions, all you have to do is change the language and you have an article. Without even going into the grammar issues with many languages, it ignores the work needed in Wikidata to get everything you need for a certain language. Hence, in the 1234 example given, the 2 errors for France and the 6 for Nahuatl. It also ignores the complete instability of Abstract: if I go to 1234 (in English) now, instead of the text I saw yesterday I get "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Invalid orchestrator result". Finally, it ignores that probably you will find more people interested in actually writing articles in their language, than people navigating 3 or 4 environments (Abstract, Functions, Wikidata, and Wikipedia) to copy someone else's creations, certainly when they can (for many, not all languages) much more easily copy creations to their language through online translation tools.
The only use case where I see this making sense is from a push-concept, where people from Abstract "push" translations (in languages they don't understand) to all Wikipedia languages where a certain topic doesn't exist yet. This obviously is a disaster waiting to happen, and should be opposed by all possible means. Fram (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Even for the example at wikt:hr:Wort this is painfully useless at scale, since the construction and further editing of {{#function:Z29055|L2206|}} requires knowing that there is a Wikifunctions page called f:Z29055 and a Wikidata page called d:Lexeme:L2206. It is abhorrent that instead of doing something along the lines of mw:Multilingual Templates and Modules, millions of dollars from the Endowment (source here) are being spent on this website that’s extremely hard and annoying to use, and is impossible to edit without JavaScript. stjn15:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sannita (WMF): can you give us clarity if there are future funds being planned to be sunk/invested into this project? Like many people above, I'm sceptical this can ever work at scale, and feel that small communities deserve better. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply
To be fair, there's no good reason to call {{#function:Z29055|L2206|}} directly from mainspace. Functions that editors will use often should be wrapped in templates precisely so editors don't have to memorize the ZID. As for the LID, you can open Wikidata on another tab and look up the lexeme to get its ID. It doesn't sound that bad. Warudo (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I think if someone provides that as an example of the potential usefulness of Wikifunctions, I am going to judge it on its merits. And the merits here are entirely unconvincing (what you are describing in itself is extremely tedious), especially compared to investing in the less pie in the sky ideas that you can use the regular editing interface for (Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia in themselves are a good example of how badly the website would be run if WMF developers ever forgot that to truly serve knowledge to everyone, we need to be HTML-first). stjn18:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)reply
How can it be an easier way to create articles for smaller languages compared to automatic translation? And the automatic translation is already given in the Special:ConstentTranslation.--Jason2016426 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Jason2016426: There are three issues with the automatic translation approach:
For many languages, automatic translation is still not good enough or even simply unavailable. Point in case is the English Wikipedia's reluctance to accept automatically translated articles -- so, even for English, the quality is not deemed good enough.
Automatic translation basically forks the content of an article. Updates are not propagated but manually.
Automatic translations are by design a one-way street. No knowledge added to a translated article propagates back to the source article.
There are also advantages to automatic translation. The good thing is that the Abstract Wikipedia project does not require exclusivity. Readers and contributors both can still use the benefits of automatic translation wherever it fits their needs. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Point 1 is kind of a flawed argument. Articles created with machine translation are not great, but they are infinitely better than articles from Abstract Wikipedia. I don't see how this is going to change ever, given the continuous improvement of machine translation and the incredibly slow progress of Abstract Wiki. Ita140188 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The Abstract Wikipedia team has drafted a response, which was reviewed and improved by the community. We want to express our gratitude to the community members who have shown their care and spent their valuable time contributing to the answer. All remaining shortcomings are strictly ours. The answer can be found here: meta:Abstract Wikipedia/Response to English Wikipedia criticism. You are welcome to comment and to pose further questions and criticism on the talk page. -- DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Clearly not. I can't believe that there is nobody that can say anything useful here, so can only conclude that the non-reply is because they have been ordered not to communicate with us plebs. What do we know anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@Phil Bridger, as of this message in this thread you have made nine comments. With them, you have managed to: - Imply every WMF employee answering about Abstract Wikipedia would be engaging in bad faith because their salary depends upon not fixing issues; - Suggest that the WMF workforce is so lazy that the place would run better after firing half of them; - Belittle (twice) an editor who made the error of trying to address your concerns in good faith; - Dare any of the hundreds of WMF employees to come spar with you; - Suggest their limited answers are actually due to a marching order because they despise the community. I want Abstract Wikipedia, a flawed project based on an erroneous assumption and no community to carry it, to be abandoned shortly as much as anyone here, including you presumably. I also think communicating with the community should be a bigger part of the responsibilities of WMF employees. Nevertheless, I do not believe dealing with your constant, pointless, and toxic abuse is part of that. Either engage in good faith to find solutions, or control yourself. If what you need is a place to vent, find another one, because aside from lashing out and poisoning this already heated conversation further, you have accomplishing nothing. Choucas🐦⬛19:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I'm operating in good faith here. Everyone here wants what's best, and, even without AGF, we wouldn't have spent countless hours contributing to Wikimedia projects if we didn't. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you. However, I get the feeling that Feeglgeef is a little out of their depth here, but there's nobody with any decision-making authority at the WMF willing to rescue them wasn't particularly kind, nor did it have anything to do with the merit of my argument. I understand that this community has a poor relationship with the WMF (I don't particularly like them either!), but that doesn't mean that Abstract Wikipedia has zero potential in any form, and just because I believe in that potential doesn't make me a mindless WMF droid. Feeglgeef (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@Feeglgeef, @Phil Bridger Can both of y'all take it down a notch. Calling folks mindless WMF droids or insinuating that they are lazy or bad faith assumption because they have been ordered not to communicate with us plebs is definitely not okay. Sohom (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
True, but the people in charge of the project posting halftruths at best and then ignoring all follow-up questions isn't really okay either, and causes the irritation that shines through in some ill-tempered remarks here. Fram (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I have my own misgivings that roughly align with yours (I've tried contributing to Abstract Wikipedia and found it extremely hard to do so -- much harder than the cost of machine translation or even writing something from scratch in my native language). However, I don't think Sannita is talking in half-truths, I think WMF (as an org) does believe that they can create a system that can: "make it much easier to start a local version of the article, instead of writing it from scratch or translating from another language." and the approach they are taking is to first build out the whole pipeline first and only then measure whether operating Abstract Wikipedia causes production outages, whether or not editors find it easier to write articles in Abstract Wiki-lang (for the lack of a better term) and whether the effort of learning to write Abstract Wiki-lang is worth the trade-off of being able to write a few dozen linguistic rules (or whether that is even possible at scale). cc @Femke's call out of whether future funds will be invested, my understanding is that the team is still on grant runway and my understanding is that they do plan on measuring whether or not Abstract Wikipedia is viable this year (actually maybe @DVrandecic (WMF) or @ATsay-WMF would be better placed to answer that specific question?) Sohom (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Comments like "We did some limited tests in a controlled environment, but doing so can only help you so much in identifying potential problems. We are learning a lot by releasing the beta project (because this is still a beta), and we'll improve from there. " are half-truths at best, with words like "limited" or "beta" doing an awful lot of heavy work here.
"Abstract Wikipedia is in early beta, and we made it available live to enable learning, testing, and iteration. " is also a dubious statement. Like has been said, it was an untested alpha, where the WMF really dropped the ball quite dramatically, with the most logical conclusion that some KPI or deadline had to be met. Even the examples given for the use of Functions and Abstract were and are very dubious. At the moment, 1234 gives me "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Error in the function call API". In other major languages, for the same article, I get errors like "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Invalid executor response", "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: No matching lexeme for item in language", and "Wikifunctions returned a failed response: Argument value error". Fram (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
When AL2 was saying that we should not build publicly open tools that show the impact of WMF’s grant funding because of potential scrutiny and criticism of WMF by Wikimedia movement community members, she singled out and named a specific critical Wikimedia movement community member as an example. To me, the way AL2 portrayed the critical community member came across as very negative. It created the impression that the critical community member was a bad, hostile person with negative intentions towards WMF. My manager did not object to or question AL2 doing this to a community member. She appeared to be in agreement with how AL2 treated that person.Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Are you seriously responding to a comment from more than a month ago to just throw gasoline on the fire with something that is completely off-topic? I am aware people do not seem to think WP:FORUM applies the same way to WP:VPW, but this is simply ridiculous. What are you trying to accomplish here? Choucas🐦⬛20:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I thought this was part of the below thread, given that there is a lot going on right now on this large page and a lot of scolding of people to assume good faith toward the WMF (to which this is very much on topic) Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Two wrongs don't make a right? For what it's worth, while I cannot control (and have no desire to control) who says what in non-public spaces (both editors and Foundation staff), within public/onwiki/phabricator spaces you can be rest assured that if a foundation employee insinuated similar, I would escalate it and strongly demand a apology (and to my understanding Foundation staff are strongly cautioned against publicly castigating volunteers). Sohom (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No, they just ignore them completely, twist the facts, make incorrect or extremely dubious claims, and repeat this for years and years. But publicly castigating, no, not since WP:FRAM I think. We see the exact same pattern at the Image Carousel discussion, where they reply to the questions they think they can spin positively, and ignore the ones where this isn't possible. Fram (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
But nobody called anyone a "mindless WMF droid". The only use of anything like that term was by Feeglgeef saying that they were not a "mindless WMF droid". But I see that my words here will be twisted beyond recognition. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
How is this better than AI?
I know it's popular in wiki-land to hate on anything related to AI, and in particular LLMs, but I look at what Abstract does and I look at what the LLM-driven translation tools do, and I just don't see the point of what we're doing. Our goal is to be able to take an article written in one language and allow somebody who does not read that language to read the article in a language they do know. The LLM tools do that today. They're not perfect, but they're good enough for most purposes, and they'll only get better over time.
I don't mind investing WMF money in research projects. There is value in adding to our understanding of how information is stored and processed, and exploring better ways we can deliver that information to our readers. Abstract and Functions is about that, so I'm happy that we've explored what's possible. But given the progress LLMs have made over the past few years, and the current state of what Abstract appears to be able to deliver, I'm just not seeing how this has a chance of becoming a viable product. That's not to say the experiment was a failure. A failure would be "we haven't learned anything". But we have learned something, which is that "this approach to automatic translations doesn't appear to be the way to go". RoySmith(talk)13:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
AI translation has a tendency to be confidently incorrect, but AI is certainly more accurate than using buggy functions and blaming it on the community. ~2026-34629-56 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
It's a record of data and not AI. If WMF steers this in the right direction and invests the resources and work in the right places (which they are surprisingly failing to do for a project that they so champion) then the articles have the capacity to be much better than AI. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
How? Why would WMF be able to translate into obscure languages without the help of one or two linguists of those languages? Someone will have to translate all lexemes for these languages, add all labels for these languages, check the output of Abstract, and then give the green light. We need to be certain that they are native speakers or very fluent in the language, to avoid a Scots scenario. And all that to translate an Abstract article which will probably be worse (language, completeness, ...) than enwiki, dewiki, jawiki... and not adapted to the target language (see e.g. the example of 1234, which doesn't take into account any other year system). LLMs won't do all of these things either, but for a fair number of languages it will already produce a result which is as good as can be expected from Abstract, but without all the additional effort described. How will Abstract ever be better at those things? Fram (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Exactly, that's what they would need to do (the advantage is deterministic outputs). It's worrying that the infrastructure for what they need to do is in such an alpha-at-most state. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
"LLMs won't do all of these things either" is such an understatement by the way. They have no understanding of the things they translate at all, which is pretty bad for an encyclopedia because we use technical terms whose translation is not always straightforward. For example, in some languages a field is called a "body" (presumably the ones that borrowed the term from French). My native language, Greek, is one of them. Guess what Google translate does when I ask it to translate Field (mathematics) (). It switches between the correct term (σώμα) and the literal translation of "field" (πεδίο) between paragraphs. To no one's surprise, it sticks to the wrong word most of the time and it also uses the wrong word in the title. "Field" is far from unique in this. While checking this and other articles, I saw words like function, matrix, ideal, differentiation, infinitesimal, domain etc. get mistranslated too. That is in addition to all the other things it butchers along the way ("general quintic equations" -> "general quantum equations"?? in the field article) as well as grammatical mistakes even a complete novice wouldn't make ("Εάν η συνάρτηση είναι διαφορίσιμο(??) στο a" in derivative). It's not a google exclusive problem either. In my testing with DeepL it didn't do much better. Also, since I mentioned French earlier, here is a French example where Lie ring turns into "ring of lies" (I don't speak French so I verified this with Wiktonary): . Warudo (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
To be clear the point of my comment is that the only translation that is worth considering is one done by humans. I understand why people want to compare abstract Wikipedia to LLMs but I think that comparison misses the point. Even if abstract Wikipedia reaches a point where it is able to produce LLM level output, which I feel would be nothing short of a miracle, it would not be anywhere near good enough to consider using. Warudo (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Incorrect word choice is hardly limited to computers. People do it too. I used to work with a guy from Cuba who, while fluent in English, never quite mastered the difference between "in" and "on" (they're both "en" in Spanish). The phone would ring, he would answer it, and hand it to me: "Bob is in the phone for you". Oddly enough, "in the phone" actually makes more sense, but that's not the correct English idiom.
I read a lot of text related to checkuser actions in various languages. It didn't take long for me to figure out that "doll" was just Google Translate's way of saying "sockpuppet" in Spanish, and so on for other languages and other bits of wiki-jargon. In the end, it really isn't a big deal. It was obvious from the get-go that "doll" wasn't the right word but I quickly figured out what it meant and ultimately there was no real hit to my cross-wiki reading comprehension.
I expect the same is true of "field" for you. You recognized that πεδίο didn't make sense, but you figured it out and now that you know what it means, so what if it's not the correct word? Languages evolve. Hardly a day goes by on the internet without me being reminded that I'm no longer one of the cool kids because they're using words I've never heard of before and I have to resort to Urban Dictionary to figure out what they're talking about. Is it really fair that we hold the LLMs to a higher standard that we hold ourselves? RoySmith(talk)20:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Let's assume I didn't speak English and elwiki didn't have an article on fields. I'd read the translated enwiki article, see that the term is called "πεδίο" (this is the term that appears most, the other terms are probably translation errors) and move on. Except what if I then wanted to go look for more information outside Wikipedia? I'd then pick up my mathematics textbook, check the index and only find results about scalar fields and vector fields (which are called πεδία in Greek) but nothing about the algebraic structure. What I'm missing is that I'm looking in the wrong place. If only I knew what it was actually called. Then I want to learn what an ideal is. Google translate said it's called "ιδανικό" . Huh, there's nothing here? If only I'd known the word is "ιδεώδες". And on and on it goes. So, ultimately, you can't look things up on your own because you don't know what they are called so you're stuck asking the AI about them. You also can't really discuss these concepts with others because your idiolect is completely different from theirs. And before you call this hyperbole, I'll let you know that google translate also mistranslates "associative" in the field article. So even if you try to tell your interlocutor the definition of the thing you're talking about, you're still out of luck unless they speak English and guess what happened.
You also underestimate just how confusing things can get. In the translation of ideal (ring theory), the term "right ideal" (which is supposed to be δεξιό ιδεώδες) turns into something that basically means "correct ideal" (σωστό ιδανικό) and "proper ideal" (which is supposed to be γνήσιο ιδεώδες) into something that means "suitable ideal" (κατάλληλο ιδανικό). So someone who doesn't speak English and does not know why these error happened will try to figure out why a right ideal is correct and a left one isn't and what a proper ideal is suitable for. Warudo (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I feel your pain. My particular peeve is symbols. If I read in an article: and don't know what that symbol is, how do I even begin to look it up? Claude actually does a good job if I copy-paste the markup, I get back "The notation: F \ {0} means "the set F, with the element 0 removed." which at least gets me pointed in the right direction. But to get back to my original point, "they're good enough for most purposes". Failing to correctly translate some terms in advanced math articles doesn't negate that. RoySmith(talk)23:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
My favorite analogue phrase for "sockpuppet" is the one used in French, which is "faux-nez", e.g. "false nose". jp×g🗯️23:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If by "better" you mean produce better translations in theory, in essence this is pitting a rules-based translation system where the rules are explicitly programmed by humans versus a black box where a program adjusted its tuning parameters by itself that control how translation is done from input to output. One example is the world's strongest chess program, Stockfish, which originally had a human-crafted evaluation function, then introduced a trained neural network, and now has dropped the human-crafted evaluation function. However games have a very specific ultimate evaluation method – did the program win – which I suspect makes it easier for the network to evolve to a state where it wins more often. I think human language translation has more training challenges, and it's not as clear to me that a program self-training could in a theoretical perfect world do a well as an explicit set of rules.
From a practical standpoint, though, codifying rules to capture all nuances is very difficult. And even to the extent it's possible, it's not clear that there are enough people interested in working on it in a crowdsourced project. So while the black box may produce OK translations only some percent of the time, that might still offer a better cost-benefit ratio than getting Wikifunctions to meet the same level of quality. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)reply
If I understand it correctly, Abstract Wikipedia is fundamentally different to LLM-generated translations. (1) Abstract runs on fully transparent source texts and algorithms instead of LLM sources and algorithms that are to a great degree opaque (despite the label "open") and whose results are not reproducible. (2) The carbon footprint accelerating the climate emergency is, in principle, auditable in the case of Abstract (within the overall Wikimedia carbon footprint) but is mostly hidden by corporate secrecy in the case of the big LLMs for which 23% of Ireland's 2025 electricity is used by data centres. There are similar problems for excess water usage. Boud (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Funding sources
Given what I’ve wrote here above, I feel like the community is owed a more detailed explanation on the funding of Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia as of right now and overall. How much funds come from Wikimedia Endowment and/or Wikimedia Foundation? How much donor money was spent on making a JS-laden interface that’s incomprehensible to an average programmer, never mind a newcomer? Was that really deemed the best use of the funds by Wikimedia Endowment board, and if so, how (i.e., why was this project deemed more important compared to less frivolous ideas that would actually improve our software)? stjn20:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Since the draft response is linked at the very beginning of the RfC, I think it is fair to say it has been taken into consideration. Choucas🐦⬛11:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Sannita (WMF) and @DVrandecic (WMF): In addition to what Choucas mentioned, sweeping, handwaving statements like: Generated article quality: This is a concern that we share, but we have evidence that the results will get better with time, and with the expansion of the community. (with zero links to any kind of evidence) is well below the level of transparency and assurance I would expect in response to such detailed feedback and criticism about the problems of scaling this model. Please do better. Sohom (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WMF Banner ads
The WMF is currently running banners with the text:
17 June: Wikipedia still can't be sold We're sorry we've made several attempts to reach you, but it's Wednesday, 17 June, and we still need some help. If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take a minute to protect its future with a $2.75 donation today. Most readers don't donate; only 2% do. Wikipedia is run by a nonprofit, not by a billionaire. So if Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge, please give. Any contribution helps, whether it's $2.75 or $25.
In the past, we produced a consensus that banners that state or imply any of the following are not considered appropriate on the English Wikipedia:
Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations
Donated funds are used primarily to support Wikipedia and/or its volunteer editors
Readers should feel obliged to donate regardless of their means ("guilt tripping")
I don't believe that these current banners comply with this consensus. I'm hopeful the WMF can resolve this quickly; I will post to the talk pages of a few relevant employees, asking them to comment. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Could you expand on why you believe this is against community consensus? Compared to the ads of old, I think this passes muster but maybe I'm missing something. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
The most problematic text seems to be "protect its future", where "it" clearly means "Wikipedia". That could be read as suggesting firstly that a substantial part of any donation would go to Wikipedia, and secondly that Wikipedia is $2.75 short of being able to survive without it. However, the implication is indirect and less deceptive than previous banners. Certes (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@Certes: A substantial part does go towards Wikipedia, cc the Annual Plan breakup. Regarding the original question, I personally align with Femke and RoySmith in that I don't think the banner breaks consensus given the context of the guidelines (which were primarily made for a different category of much more egregious banners) Sohom (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Complaining about a banner is a different bar from "banner violates past consensus, needs to be resolved quickly" (which is the tone of this discussion). One is "lets have a dialog" another implies "do this now, or else". Sohom (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
@Black Kite Could you explain what part of this is deceptive? (When you answer, one thing to keep explicitly keep in mind that the funding situation has significantly changed since 2022 when this consensus was obtained, WMF does spend 77% of it's budget on volunteers, a majority of which goes to English Wikipedia, and unlike in 2022, donations are actually on a downward trend and WMF is actually now increasingly turning to long-term donors to continue funding itself -- while it still has a fair bit of money around, it is not infinite and the lack of any donations will indeed lead to insecure future at some point, especially in a climate where we are competing with billionare led ventures like Grokipedia). Sohom (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
"...take a minute to protect its future with a $2.75 donation today". Nothing is going to happen if you don't donate $2.75, and neither is it if no-one else does either. That was the reason the first clause was agreed the last time we had this discussion. Black Kite (talk)20:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Collectively if no-one else does either is a problem. I remember doing some back of the napkin math, at our current spend rate, I think we have roughly 1.5 to 2 years assuming everyone immediately stops donating. This is obviously not a dooms-day, we pack up tomorrow scenario, but it's not "if nobody donates we will be around for 10 more years" scenario either and the "nobody really has to worry about donating" scenario that you are laying out. Sohom (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Nothing is going to happen if you don't donate $2.75, and neither is it if no-one else does either. How exactly do you think WMF pays its employees and its bills for running its data centres? – SD0001 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, SD, you're just plain misinformed about where the money comes from. The way it works is the good wiki fairy comes along and waves her magic wand. That keeps the disks spinning and the bits flowing and enlightens repressive regimes around the world about freedom of information so we don't have to waste any effort defending our editors in court. It also makes hotel rooms and airline tickets drop from the sky so volunteers can get scholarships to wikimania. And as the wiki fairy walks along the beach, gold coins grow out of her footprints in the sand; these go to funding local affiliates to keep their education and outreach programs afloat.
All we need to do is join hands and think happy thoughts in a big group hug so the wiki fairy will come and save us. Until then, I'm willing to put up with a few banners. RoySmith(talk)17:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Do we have any detail on this 77% figure? It's one I've not seen before, and I am really struggling to see where $150 million is being spent on volunteers this year. It feels much, much less. Certes (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you. That's interesting. I'm particularly heartened to see that the Annual Plan actually mentions Wikipedia – an improvement on the last one I read. It's always difficult to categorise spending. "Investment in Technology" (48%) includes issues such as management of scraper bots, which is a very welcome function but not one directly aimed at volunteers. Presumably it also covers developments such as Abstract Wikipedia which fewer volunteers might prioritise. We certainly appreciate the work of the community tech team which this item has funded in previous years. Certes (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Presumably it also covers developments such as Abstract Wikipedia which fewer volunteers might prioritise., it does, I had written up a guide about the current annual plan to contextualize what is planned for next year. It's a bit out of date, but it should be relatively accurate and Abstract Wikipedia is a fairly small portion of the pie. A lot of WMF's current spending is on making it easier for intermediate editors learn to become competent editors, make readers stay around for longer and a chunk to help admins fight vandalism effectively (outside fighting scrapers itself and making sure we have high availability) Alongside that you have work being done to make Toolforge more user friendly and making existing APIs better so that folks can reuse content without taking down Wikipedia itself. Sohom (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Most readers don't donate; only 2% do was previously rejected as "guilt tripping"
I also consider Wikipedia still can't be sold to be suggesting that Wikipedia's independence is under threat, although it isn't as blatant as previous examples.
I think people would also be frustrated by the fact they're seeing something several times in the first place. I can't guarantee how other people would perceive it, but more than three times feels like a lot, especially if the answer has been "sorry, no, don't have the money to spare" the first time. If I recall correctly (please tell me if I'm incorrect!) the banners also have a "maybe" option if you want to be reminded, so I don't think it's simply a matter of people that might actually want to be reminded. When I worked at McDonald's, we had lots of people who would donate to the Ronald McDonald house the first day or two of fundraising and then got quickly annoyed later on as we kept going throughout the week ("I already donated"; "no, I just want my coffee"). Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply
No one is going to donate when prompted the first time, regardless of how much they have in the bank. The fundraising team gets it. Once someone has donated, I believe cookies are used to track it and they stop seeing the banners. – SD0001 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply
As I recall, it's been previously said that no association is made between donors and on-wiki user names or any session information for a given browser (linked via cookies or I suppose local browser storage). From a privacy perspective, personally I think this is sensible. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I support the banner ad program and the current language. It is a reasonable, unobtrusive, and voluntary option for meeting the organization's financial needs... ensuring that Wikipedia can persist long into the future as an independent source of information about the world. They tried letting the community run the ship on the fundraising a few years back and it imploded. Clearly this is not something that the "consensus" is equipped to handle. Ice Vest (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Is no one else irked by We're sorry we've made several attempts to reach you? That's the kind of nagging tone that turns me off any appeal from a charity or non-profit if I get it in a phone call/voicemail or in the post. It sure feels like "guilt-tripping" to me. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 23:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply
But are they truly sorry? Wouldn't someone who was genuinely apologetic about having contacted me refrain from doing so again? Certes (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
I want to give some context about the phrase "protect Wikipedia's future;" the intent is not to suggest that Wikipedia's existence is in immediate danger or that any individual donation determines whether Wikipedia survives. In an era of falloffs in referral traffic and readership decline, protecting Wikipedia's future means ensuring that Wikipedia remains accessible, visible, and sustainable in a changing world.
I also recognize that people may interpret fundraising language differently – which this conversation shows. We value your input and will think of other ways to convey this point, and we'll share them back with you. Feedback on different interpretations is something we look at closely and frequently incorporate into banner language. Every year we workshop fundraising language with communities. You can see Fundraising/2025 banners for community-WMF banner discussions about last year's campaign. Next week, we will be publishing our regular collaboration on fundraising banner content at the Fundraising Hub. We welcome feedback on particular messages there, where we can get more in depth around wording and the considerations behind it.
@TurboSuperA+ Please clarify what you mean here. If you mean our executives, I don't think it is a unknown fact that some of our C-level executives might be millionaires through non-Wikipedia ventures/their former jobs, what matters is that they don't "run" the website. The community "runs" the website and makes content decisions. This is in contrast with Grokipedia where it's trillionare founder makes content decisions and "runs" the website. If you are talking about WMF the corporate entity, XAI, the corporate overlords of Grokipedia have assets that dwarf Wikimedia Foundation's corporate income by multiple billions. In fact, I'd say that the WMF is much much smaller than almost every org that serves "big-tech" numbers of users daily such that the WMF corporate budget in it's entirety would be considered a drop in the bucket for most big tech companies operating at our scale. I don't think it is out of touch to point either of these out and pitch this as a strength. Sohom (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To be fair, the sentence says "run by a nonprofit", so it's clear what definition of "run" they're using. I agree with the rest, and in fact I'm skeptical whether any executive is a millionaire since the amount saved after you deduct everything from the $400k salaries is probably $100k and I'm on the "optimistic" side about their accumulation. (Jimbo probably does but even if we count him, he's the exception, and IIRC doesn't give that much input on WMF's operations. I could be wrong on this.) A lot would probably have a million by retirement but I don't think that counts because you need a million to retire. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The CEO of the WMF, Bernadette Meehan, is a millionaire.
I don't think it is a unknown fact that some of our C-level executives might be millionaires through non-Wikipedia ventures/their former jobs
Well, there you go.
The community "runs" the website
Did I imagine all the threads where editors complain about WMF decisions? Aren't we in one such thread now? WMF can make decisions that affect the website without consulting editors.
and makes content decisions
The content is not the website, the technical infrastructue, or the organisation. Is the community ever consulted on what kind of servers Wikipedia should run, where it should be hosted, who to hire to do it...? TurboSuperA+[talk]04:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I would imagine most people in the US who have held down a well-paying job for 10+ years are millionaires.And yes, lots of work is done by volunteers on the technical infrastructure. Phabricator and Gerrit are open forums where you can propose feature requests and implement them. – SD0001 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
These banners that are asking for donations and making false claims about the website going bankrupt is "misleading and unacceptable" and is being used as a scare tactic to force editors to donate. These banners represent nothing but corporate greed and lies.
The platform's fundraising strategy faces considerable public and internal critique:
Substantial Reserves: Financial statements reveal the Wikimedia Foundation holds hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and investments, meaning it is not in danger of shutting down.
Aggressive Language: Critics, and even some veteran Wikipedia editors, argue that the banners misleadingly imply the site is on the verge of going offline if readers do not donate immediately.
Organizational Growth: A large portion of the budget goes toward expanding the Foundation’s bureaucratic footprint and funding adjacent non-profit grants rather than just maintaining the core website.
Hello @~2026-35699-89: could you share what you see in those banners? They should not imply bankruptcy is near.
Just so you know, the Foundation has stopped its grant programme for knowledge equity. Having reserves is a good thing given how tumultuous the world is now I'd say. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply
This is exactly what i saw: 18 June: Wikipedia still can't be sold
We're sorry we've made several attempts to reach you, but it's Thursday, 18 June, and we still need some help. If Wikipedia is useful to you, please take a minute to protect its future with a $2.75 donation today. Most readers don't donate; only 2% do. Wikipedia is run by a nonprofit, not by a billionaire. So if Wikipedia has given you $2.75 worth of knowledge, please give. Any contribution helps, whether it's $2.75 or $25. ~2026-35699-89 (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Anyone who knows me will be well aware I won't hesitate to criticize the WMF when warranted, but I don't see anything there that states or implies imminent bankruptcy. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:02, 25 June 2026 (UTC)reply
2nd Warning to the Wikimedia Foundation
These banners that are asking for donations and making false claims about the website going bankrupt is "misleading and unacceptable" and is being used as a scare tactic to force editors to donate. These banners represent nothing but corporate greed and lies.
The platform's fundraising strategy faces considerable public and internal critique:
Substantial Reserves: Financial statements reveal the Wikimedia Foundation holds hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and investments, meaning it is not in danger of shutting down.
Aggressive Language: Critics, and even some veteran Wikipedia editors, argue that the banners misleadingly imply the site is on the verge of going offline if readers do not donate immediately.
Organizational Growth: A large portion of the budget goes toward expanding the Foundation’s bureaucratic footprint and funding adjacent non-profit grants rather than just maintaining the core website.
another example: 1 July: Wikipedia still can't be sold
You deserve an explanation, so please don't skip this 1-minute read. It's Wednesday, July 1st and you only had a small chance of seeing my message. This year, Wikipedia has had fewer visitors and fewer new supporters, so your visit today means a lot. I hope that Wikipedia's given you at least $2.75 of knowledge recently. If everyone who found Wikipedia useful gave $2.75, we'd hit our goal in a few hours.
After nearly 25 years, Wikipedia is still the internet we were promised-created by people, not by machines. It's not perfect, but it's not here to push a point of view. It's run by a nonprofit, not a giant technology company or a billionare. (Lies)
Less than 2% of our readers donate. The rare few who give do so because Wikipedia provides them with useful knowledge. If that sounds like you, please donate $2.75. Any contribution you make today helps.
This is unacceptable. These banners are highly misleading, financially manipulative, and damaging to Wikipedia's reputation among the community. Thank you. ~2026-37878-87 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The truth: Substantial Reserves: Financial statements reveal the Wikimedia Foundation holds hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and investments, meaning it is not in danger of shutting down. Aggressive Language: Critics, and even some veteran Wikipedia editors, argue that the banners misleadingly imply the site is on the verge of going offline if readers do not donate immediately.
The Lie: 1 July: Wikipedia still can't be sold You deserve an explanation, so please don't skip this 1-minute read. It's Wednesday, July 1st and you only had a small chance of seeing my message. This year, Wikipedia has had fewer visitors and fewer new supporters, so your visit today means a lot. I hope that Wikipedia's given you at least $2.75 of knowledge recently. If everyone who found Wikipedia useful gave $2.75, we'd hit our goal in a few hours.
After nearly 25 years, Wikipedia is still the internet we were promised-created by people, not by machines. It's not perfect, but it's not here to push a point of view. It's run by a nonprofit, not a giant technology company or a billionare.
Less than 2% of our readers donate. The rare few who give do so because Wikipedia provides them with useful knowledge. If that sounds like you, please donate $2.75. Any contribution you make today helps. <(Corporate greed and lies) ~2026-37878-87 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm still not seeing where the lie is – can you be more specific instead of pasting in a LLM summation? If we break down every claim in what you call "The Lie":
Wikipedia still can't be sold – Y true
It's Wednesday, July 1st – Y true
This year, Wikipedia has had fewer visitors and fewer new supporters – I know readership is down, and wouldn't be surprised if the correlates to supporters, so gonna say Y true
After nearly 25 years, Wikipedia is still the internet we were promised-created by people, not by machines. – Y true
It's not perfect, – Y true – but it's not here to push a point of view. – Y true, though some people may subjectively disagree with that last point
It's run by a nonprofit, not a giant technology company or a billionare. – Y all true, WMF is a non-profit.
Less than 2% of our readers donate. – Y true
Any contribution you make today helps – Y I'm sure it does.
Again, where is the lie? Read the banner. And then read it again. Don't use an LLM to draft your response. You keep seeing something in the banner that is quite simple not there. In solidarity, nilnz04:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yesterday, I was planning to boldly close this thread as the OP had been indeffed, but then I found that there was a new recent comment, so I left this sub-section to be. In the case these TAs are just trolling us, shouldn't this thread be closed/hatted? - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 18:43, 5 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Just a passing comment. I do not object to the banners, for I think they will generate revenue. But they did make me laugh and shake my head because of some item I saw on the news, decades ago, before I threw away my TV. They were interviewing the wife of televangelist Jim Bakker, who at the time was a guest of the US government and could not be interviewed. They asked her why they kept saying that unless people donated to them their program would fail soon. She said: because that would generate more donations than anything else. So I laughed today, and will have no further comments here. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I also believe "to protect its future" violates the consensus against "banners that state or imply [...] Wikipedia's existence or independence is under threat or dependent on donations", largely because the latter verbiage is not qualified with "imminently" or "directly" or suchlike. Skimming through the previous RfC I think this lack of qualification is deliberate, as similar language was also objected to last time.
Despite coming down against them, I wish to express that I appreciate that it must be difficult on the WMF's part to craft fundraising language that explains why one might give without expressing the idea that it will allow Wikipedia to continue existing. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Important info about board elections
For the many people who are not subscribed to the mailing list, important information was shared about board election "reform". From my perspective, it's incredibly concerning.
Seems like WMF is trying to strengthen the empirical evidence in favour of the Iron law of oligarchy conjecture: According to Michels, all organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, or political strategists for the organization. Far from being servants of the masses, Michels argues, this leadership class, rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. The conjecture has the word "law" in it, but that does not make it a sociological certainty.Or to put it more bluntly: the proposed set of criteria sounds like an oligarchical self-coup.There are already several excellent comments at m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2027/Proposed eligibility criteria objecting to the self-coup. Boud (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
AFAIK this is mainly from one/two board members, it doesn't seem to have been socialised much, and they seemed receptive/good-faith in the Meta channel on WP:DISCORD. Anxiety about it is understandable though given how often community concerns get relegated/ignored re this type of thing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I get the impression I also get chalked off and ignored as a 'WMF hater', which is frustrating and I'll probably leave the server. But this seemed to be a mistake based on one person's perspective (they mostly just edit plwiki), but at the very least they should have realised this'd poke the hornet's nest, "community-selected" members are meant to be in touch with the communities fgs, not up in ivory towers Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I have to be honest, at this point, I've given up on caring too much about the Board of Trustees, since I don't believe there's any real path to the community having a real voice anymore. The only two times the WMF appears to really care about what the community thinks about things is, in my view, when the community's view happens to correspond exactly with what the WMF board wants anyway and secondly, when the community is so mad that there's a real danger to day-to-day Wikipedia that might affect fundraising. Fretting about the WMF co-opting the movement are 2010 actions; it's already happened. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sadly you're right. I've lost count of how many WMF-owned committees now claim control of our encyclopedia. However, there may be hope. Although the BoT was laid as yet more astroturf, it has somehow acquired a majority of community members. Although they were all WMF-approved, with candidates likely to effect actual change being carefully weeded out, this worm may still be able to turn. Certes (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
We've never tried developing a consensus platform (a list of board resolutions) and voting for candidates that pledge to vote for the platform. Levivich (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sohom Datta'smessage on the mailing list summarises the entire crux of the issue. One dosen't need to be an experienced 20-year veteran to see where the WMF is headed with its criteria for Board membership. It's therefore not surprising they've kept their token 'open' discussion very much inside baseball. IMO someone should at least ping all the signatories of the petition begun byuser:Clovermoss and the participants of all the other discussions about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Unethical conduct by a WMF manager according to Wikifired
Undermining WMF's relationship with the Wikimedia movement community
Abuse of power
Undermining the workplace culture at WMF
Avoiding accountability
Incompetence
Potential financial waste
Moreover, Wikifired states that s/he reached out to many of my colleagues at WMF and learned of many other instances of potentially problematic conduct by WMF management and HR. It was very disappointing to learn how widespread this is, and how there's apparently no accountability for it. ... And also stories that started with something like 'you think that's bad, here's what happened when I dissented or tried raising concerns about WMF management'. Stories where, in response to employees raising concerns in good faith, what they often heard back was 'if you don't like it, then leave' or 'you need to practice curiosity'.
To put it bluntly, Wikifired is asserting that something is rotten in the state of WMF leadership. Corporate waffling and "we can't talk about this for legal/privacy reasons" are unlikely to be accepted by the community as an adequate response. We don't need to know the identity(ies) of AL2 or any other WMF managers who have violated Wikimedia norms; we need their unethical behaviour to cease. Boud (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
They're not anonymous, the about me section makes it clear that this was an actual verified former employee of the foundation. This story is new to me, but unfortunately the underlying subject matter isn't. I've heard multiple horror stories with similar substance. The internal leadership at the WMF needs to change and be much healthier than it is. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Side point on anonymity: I agree that Wikifired seems to intend to be not too difficult to identify, but the LinkedIn link is closed access, and it's up to Wikifired or someone else to state his/her name explicitly if desired. I'm assuming that "Wikifired" is an acceptable pseudonym until then. Boud (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I have a regular LinkedIn account and I could see it. I'm not saying go rake them over the coals, I just wanted to preemptively stop people from questioning whether they were actually a former employee. I'd hope the details are specific enough that people wouldn't but yeah. I'm fine with the pseudonym. Clovermoss🍀(talk)20:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it is important to not identify Wikifired, even if they say it is OK. Knowing Wikifired's identity, it would be trivial to figure out the identity of "AL2", which would not only violate Wikipedia policy but would be morally and ethically wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I've heard severance in exchange for these non-dispargement clauses are quite common, and it's partly why I made such a big deal out of it in the sprawling discussion about the dissolution of CommTech weeks ago. Who knows how much money has been spent keeping people quiet. And when part of the WWU's stated aims is preventing inconsistent firing, one also wonders how many former employees truly believed the WMF lived up to its values and wouldn't suddenly find themselves without a job and in a financially precarious situation for trying to do something about this working environment. Clovermoss🍀(talk)21:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I note there's no mention in that about the non-disparagement attached to the severance. Also, I've heard they recently silently changed it from "one month per year" to "up to one month per year", just before things like the Community Tech firing and the slashing of the states and countries they'll hire from. Anomie⚔18:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"The Wikimedia Foundation is a remote-first organization with staff members including contractors based in 40+ countries.
Please note that we are currently able to hire in the following:
US States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia*, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico*, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming (*US Territory or Federal District)
Countries: Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya*, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore*, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Thanks, Guy! Anybody got any guesses what these states have in common that the omitted states do not have? I can't discern a pattern. Montana doesn't have at-will employment but that's the only thing sticking out for me. The states listed include some of the states with the strictest employment laws, so it doesn't seem like that's the difference. Why would they hire in NC but not SC, for example? In Utah but not Mississippi? How odd. Levivich (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
the fact that only some EU countries are listed seems strange to me. Surely the rules are pretty similar between eu members. Bawolff (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Also strange: The WMF will hire you if you simply live in Ghana, but in Kenya you have to be a citizen or permanent resident. Why? And why no country in Central America, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If I'm not misremembering, I recall hearing that Singapore had a law change recently cracking down on non-permanent-residents working remotely. Kenya may have similar restrictions. Anomie⚔00:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, there was indeed a recent change of that sort in Singapore. I can't speak to how that has affected Wikimedia staffing as I'm uncertain what is and isn't covered by my NDA. brooke (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
It may be as simple as "WMF currently has things set up to withhold state taxes in these states, and they're refusing to add any more to that list". Anomie⚔00:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
When this was discussed before, it was explained with the fact that WMF needs to provide healthcare benefits across the state lines and that's not easy or cheap if the company has to do it separately in all 50 states. Don't know how valid this explanation is, just what I've heard from WMF-related people. stjn05:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Note that while I was working in Oregon, I received my WMF health insurance as a Blue Shield of California "out-of-state" plan. I don't know the details of how this works on the internal/HR end and whether there's anything particularly difficult to adding more states. brooke (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I have a problem with like 98% of things the WMF does, but this isn't really one of them. This is bog standard in situation where there's no requirement for severance (outside of a labor agreement, a contract, or a company policy). Now, there are exceptions when it comes to enforcement, in both federal and California law, (for example, abuse and harassment under federal law and illegal company actions in California). But non-disparagement clauses themselves are not unusual when the a company pays in severance agreements. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Just because it's normal for American companies doesn't make it right. Where I live, you cannot make severance conditional upon signing an NDA. If you qualify for it, you get it, and that's that. I think there's some serious human rights issues to this norm. Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
When NDA stifles criticism of the WMF afterwards, as I know is the case, it is not normal or acceptable, even if it is a standard practice elsewhere. We should be better than for-profit companies on this. It should be imperative for the WMF to disavow the parts of the NDA that currently prohibit employees to tell their stories like the one above or criticise various wasteful initiatives. stjn12:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Coffee is right in that non-disparagement clauses are "bog standard" for severance agreements, in the US but not only, also in other countries (but not everywhere), and not just in the for-profit sector, but also in the non-profit sector.
At the same time, I'm quite persuaded by Clover and stjn's point that just because something is standard doesn't mean it's right, or moral, or that the WMF should follow the crowd.
It is very possible for the WMF to not require non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements (while still receiving consideration that makes the severance agreement legally enforceable).
It is also very possible for us, the community, to force the WMF to stop using non-disparagement clauses. It's the thing I keep harping about that very few of us seem to care about: we control a majority of the Board! That means we can set WMF policy!
All it takes is one Board resolution to get rid of non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements:
Board Resolution No. 1: RESOLVED, that the Wikimedia Foundation shall not include non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements.
That's it, that's all it takes. If the Board passed that, the WMF would be required to comply.
There are currently 6 elected Trustees and 4 appointed Trustees (the max under the bylaws is 8-7). The elected Trustees, by design, are a majority of the Board.
If the Trustees we elected won't support that Resolution, then we should elect Trustees who will, and keep electing them until that Resolution is passed. It might take two three-year cycles to get the right Trustees on the Board.
We could repeat this process for everything we want to change.
The current Trustees and Officers know this, and that's why they're "vetting" candidates and now trying to limit candidate "qualifications."
If they take away the community's control of the Board before the community uses that control to push through reforms, well, then we will have lost control, forever.
I was reminded today that while WMF caps everyone else at 9 months of severance -- 1 month per year worked, so only a 9-year+ vet gets 9 months -- Katherine Maher got 18 months severance ($600k). 18 months isn't unusual for a CEO in the U.S., but it's just another example of how WMF acts the same as any other large international corporation, with executives treating themselves way better than everyone else. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Given this public record by several different people of misbehaviour and attempts to hide that misbehaviour by WMF management, this raises the credible hypothesis that the real reason for the removal, just two days before the Oct 2025 WMF Board election, of Bluerasberry as a candidate in the election was that WMF leadership refused to accept having a Board member who is opposed to misconduct: excerpt from Bluerasberry's June 2021 statement: "There is an unacceptably high rate of Wikimedia Foundation staff and consultant misconduct in the Wikimedia Movement. Where money is involved, there are paid Wikimedia Foundation representatives who violate the meta:Universal Code of Conduct and stifle free discussion about the regularity of this problem."Boud (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To me, the way AL2 portrayed the critical community member came across as very negative. It created the impression that the critical community member was a bad, hostile person with negative intentions towards WMF.
Likely what happened is that WMF was offering compensation for the amendment of the NDA to include such a clause and it's just being described strangely. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikimedia has a boilerplate separation agreement, into which they drop the specific amount of severance offered for individual cases. The agreement includes both a non-disparagement clause and a non-disclosure clause.
I can't speak about the actual details of the agreement, however, due to the agreement.
Note that Wikimedia considers severance to be "optional" in exchange for agreeing to the conditions of the separation agreement; in some countries severance is in fact a legal right and may have a minimum amount, which has lead to occasionally spicy times when someone is let go outside the US. brooke (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'll note that I also brought this up at Jimmy's talk page if anyone wishes to read that discussion. He hasn't said anything yet, but he's probably the most reachable board member when it comes to likelihood of responding to queries on-wiki. Clovermoss🍀(talk)08:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If there are similar stories from former (or even current) WMF employees, hopefully some news outlets will pick up on this. Some1 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Noteworthy quote from the article: And don’t even get me started on WMF leadership’s hilariously frequent use of “practice curiosity” in response to employees questioning the ethics of WMF leadership’s conduct.Some1 (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Recent questions about the Foundation and US unionization request
Hi All, I am posting this on behalf of The Wikimedia Foundation as the Chief People Officer. During Wikimania last week, we received several questions about Wikimedia Foundation staff unionization. Most questions focused on the recent request from the Communication Workers of America (CWA), affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), to voluntarily recognize it as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for eligible US-based staff. We sent a message to staff and posted a statement on the Foundation website to openly answer questions we have been receiving. You can read more in our statement and the FAQ that was posted here.
What a shameful decision to tie the process to the willingness of Trump-controlled NLRB. Everyone involved in denying the voluntary recognition should resign in disgrace or be driven out. I have absolutely zero faith that @BMeehan-WMF didn't just tell a bald-faced lie when she refused to address the question at Wikimania by saying that they're just too focused on the conference. We are ruled by lying politicians, and not even the ones that are particularly good at lying. A sad day for the Wikimedia movement. stjn16:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
CBasssherizen-WMF, be assured that the community of editors -- even those of us who have deep disagreements with some of the things that the WMF does -- will not tolerate abuse of individual WMF staff. I am so sorry that you had to read that. My personal view is that there are no individuals that we can point to and blame but rather that we are looking at an institutional priorities that have persisted through multiple changes of WMF leadership. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
People are referring to what executives said at wikimania during the fireside chat, that they wouldn't say anything until Monday because they were busy. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they made this decision to avoid backlash at the conference itself. Clovermoss🍀(talk)17:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Wow, calm down. To write such a big comment (and post a warning on my talk page) you should be aware of the context, but I see you're not, go read my comment again. Nemoralis (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
They were explicitly asked about voluntary recognition and said they didn't have anything to say until Monday because of Wikimania. I refuse to believe that this post was agreed upon in less than a day. I think Bernadette should've bravely said they won't agree to it and got some well-deserved boos. Instead, she didn't tell the truth. The exchange happens here.stjn17:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If there's gonna be sanctions over stjn's -- or Nemoralis -- words, then you better be ready to sanction me too. I agree with every word they both said. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!17:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't owe you, or anyone else, "evidence" that I agree with an opinion *someone else* expressed. If you want to pick a fight with someone, Guy, I'm not the one -- WP:AGF is not optional, and that's *twice* in this thread that you've gone off half-cocked at something while being wrong about who wrote it. Do it a third time, and you're not gonna like the consequences. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
[Redacted to avoid further drama] I repeat; WMF employees are not your personal punching bag. Argue with what is said. Don't insult the one who said it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think there's a difference between treating employees as a punching bag (clearly wrong) and suggesting that the chief executive might have mislead her audience (or [told] a bald-faced lie) when she was talking on a contentious issue.
I completely understand your position about defending WMF staff from unwarranted attacks — and I broadly agree. But criticising the chief exec of an organisation for public comments she made that, in hindsight, could appear not to have been in good faith is perfectly legitimate commentary and describing that as a lie is not unusual. I would suggest that you might want to back away from dying on this hill. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk). I support Wiki Workers United15:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
But it's OK for community members to be their own personal punching bags? I look forward to you keeping the same energy for this: When AL2 was saying that we should not build publicly open tools that show the impact of WMF’s grant funding because of potential scrutiny and criticism of WMF by Wikimedia movement community members, she singled out and named a specific critical Wikimedia movement community member as an example. To me, the way AL2 portrayed the critical community member came across as very negative. It created the impression that the critical community member was a bad, hostile person with negative intentions towards WMF. My manager did not object to or question AL2 doing this to a community member. She appeared to be in agreement with how AL2 treated that person.Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure whether you're talking to me or not, but I'm quoting a blog post from a former Wikimedia employee. I don't know what I could possibly be accusing you of. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
(Off-topic) Thank you for clarifying to Gnomingstuff what happened. (I will say that the confusion ended up being helpful to me as I didn't notice Guy Macon's changes until now.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This is an extremely disappointing statement. It says that Foundation leadership respects the right of staff to unionize, if they choose to do so. That decision rests with them. But that decision has been made - by a supermajority of US-based staff. The only thing standing between the US WWU and recognition is WMF executive leadership, who could recognize the union today if they cared to.
Editors less familiar with union organizing may be wondering what is wrong with holding a secret ballot on the question. After all, that certainly sounds perfectly fair and right, and, if a supermajority has signed union cards, surely a supermajority will vote yes to the union? Certainly, I would expect them to, if that ballot was held today. But the ballot is not today. It will be later - months later - even if the NLRB does not itself add more roadblocks to the process. And the WMF can spend the intervening months pressuring and propagandizing employees. You can already spot some examples of the standard anti-union playbook in their FAQ. I particularly like Our goal is to ensure that everyone can make their own decision in an informed and civil environment. This is an old standard ("informed" is code for "'educated' on the 'dangers' and 'risks' of joining a union", and I expect you can figure out what that in turn is code for), and it rings even more hollow than usual, given that a significant driver of WMF staff dissatisfaction is related to information issues: employees feel that a) they are insufficiently informed, b) they are instructed not to inform us of things they believe we should be informed of, and c) when they inform upper management of issues, they face retaliation.
You can see another example of how this rhetoric works in the section, "How has leadership historically responded to concerns raised directly to leaders by staff?" I'll quote it in full:
We have a record of listening carefully to the concerns raised by staff and have implemented several changes based on staff feedback to strengthen their experience. We have taken steps to improve communication and transparency, including more opportunities for staff to engage directly with leadership and more regular updates about the organization’s direction. We are committed to improving and are continuing to strengthen how we gather feedback and how we act on it. That said, we recognize that if the CWA becomes staffs’ exclusive representative for purposes of collective bargaining, we will have a legal responsibility to avoid dealing directly with staff on their pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment.
I have not added "citation needed" templates to various points in the first two sentences, but that hurt my Wikipedian soul a bit. For the rest: if they're committed to improving, what's wrong with doing so alongside the unionization efforts? And notice how the final sentence - which expresses a core purpose of a union - has been framed to suggest this is a bad thing? Dealing with staff directly on their conditions of employment means the employer can take a divide-and-conquer stance and keep employees in the dark about what other employees are receiving. It means a state of "every employee for themselves". It means employment can be terminated, as we saw with commtech, with little forewarning and and seriously poor planning. This is not good for the employees, it is not good for the volunteer communities they serve, and, frankly, it's not good for the WMF either. But now they have plenty of time to try to let this kind of misdirection marinate.
I don't have anything to add that asilvering hasn't already said. This is an incredibly disappointing statement and that FAQ at the bottom might as well have been pulled directly from a Union-Busting 101 handbook, it's all the same rhetoric I've seen 100 times before. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
As I said way back when the CommTech dissolution happened, they sound exactly like Amazon does here. I'm tremendously disappointed that Wikimedia Foundation executives are not acting within the spirit of the movement itself. Clovermoss🍀(talk)17:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
+1 to this, as I stated to Bernadette Meehan at the fireside chat, their actions are not matching their words, and actions are important. I'd have respected Bernadette more if she directly said she opposed unionization. I'd have been very disappointed in WMF, but I'd have given her credit for not using corporate doublespeak to obscure their anti-union views. Abzeronow (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Major own goal here by WMF management. Shameful indeed!
As a U.S. trained labor lawyer and past organizer with WWU, this statement, alongside the WMF’s public facing community post reek of union-busting disinformation. What’s critical for the community to know is that a supermajority of the workers already did vote by signing a card. This “extra step” is just a delay tactic that employers are advised to do when they don’t want a union. They are doing the same thing in the UK as well.
These WMF workers have already been extremely brave by expressly affirming their commitment to a union. Years of efforts to get this accomplished. This is not some rash decision by them. Moreover, the community supports their union too! It literally makes no sense as to why WMF thought this was the right decision here in this critical moment.
Finally, as a general reminder of the lack of good faith that was demonstrated by WMF here, there was a legal process for WMF, offered by the union, that intentionally avoided delay and going through the Trump administration. It is a very well-trodden path which includes a third-party arbitration process to verify the integrity of the signed members. Again, I believe this demonstrates a willful attempt to ignore the supermajority of their workers’ desires and, worse, causes a further erosion of trust and goodwill between WMF management and their staff going forward. Jbernick98 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
As stated, the decision to unionize belongs to staff.– Correct, and a supermajority of staff have already made the decision to unionize. It's simple, any unnecessary delays in recognizing this fact are nakedly anti-union. fifteenthousandtwohundredtwentyfour(talk) 21:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree with the essentially unanimous criticism here. I look forward to hearing next steps from the WWU and to doing whatever in my power I can to help oust the WMF’s existing leadership. signed, Rosguilltalk21:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The WMF and its CEO, BMeehan-WMF, (who served under Biden and Trump administrations), are well aware that Trump cut funding for the National Labor Relations Board, which causes several months of undue bureaucratic delay pending a supervised vote.
At best, the WMF believes that a majority of its US staff are lying when they sign union cards and wants additional verification. At worst, the WMF knows that a majority of its staff have signed union cards and hopes that, over the upcoming months, pro-union staff will vote against in a desperate bid to make this stressful situation go away. Communication Workers of America, the union representing US WWU staff, has a union-election success rate of 80%, above average for private-sector unions. They are serious about winning and have dealt with employers far worse than Wikimedia, so even with NLRB elections, there is good reason to be optimistic, but it is clear we cannot be complacent. Source
This is a common tactic in union-busting campaigns. According to labour sociologist Joshua Mayor, unionization efforts sometimes fail not because workers are against unions, but because they do not believe they can win. Source.
Between now and the yet-to-be-scheduled NLRB-supervised election, there is time for WMF to do the right thing and recognize the will of the majority of its staff voluntarily. WMF is supposed to be better than the average tech company, and largely is, but right now it is behaving worse than Microsoft when it comes to labour rights.
As a long time donor and editor, this an outrage. The work that these folks do is vital to the world. They deserve the opportunity to collectively bargain for a fairer workplace.
This is incredibly disappointing to see, especially when conditions that may seem "generous" in the US are below legal minimums in most of the Global North.
Good employers who value their employees have nothing to fear from unionisation. The way the Foundation is responding to a good-faith unionisation that is supported by a supermajority of US staff is not how a good employer behaves — and when the Foundation publishes this statement the day after Wikimania, it is hard to see how @BMeehan-WMF's comments at Wikimania could be anything other than misleading delaying tactics. (And the sophistry around UK unionisation efforts is not much better, given that the WMF is the "effective employer", even if it is handled through a "company of record".) Assuming good faith is all good and well, but it does come to a point where repeated assumption of good faith is merely naïveté.
This is profoundly disappointing and yet another example of the Foundation leadership being out of touch with the Movement. We should be able to expect better from the Wikimedia Foundation and its leadership. Frankly, it is not good enough. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk). I support Wiki Workers United14:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I fully agree with Asilvering. I hope that nobody mistakes my objection to personally attacking the WMF staffer who wrote the message with in any way agreeing with the message itself. In my opinion, this is the same old story that has been going on for decades: The WMF long ago gathered enough money to keep Wikipedia running on the interest without any further fundraising banners or accepting large donations from corporations as if there were no strings attached. They continue moneygrubbing for the purposes of -- well, we don't really know, do we? It's a huge secret where, exactly, the money is being spent other than the minimum disclosure required by law. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Today was a day to show trust in staff. Because trust is what we will need in the years ahead, which are likely going to be as chaotic as the last couple of years if not more so. The framing in this letter does not convince me the Foundation leadership is neutral in this matter. A small example: rather than acknowledging the WWU effort to build a global union (or network of bargaining units), the text focuses on the CWA, which cannot represent global staff, seemingly to diminish international support: It is important to note that the CWA is only seeking to represent a portion of US-based staff, and there is no global union option due to different labor laws across countries and jurisdictions. Also note how the text emphasises the 'portion of', which is technically correct as US labour law exclude managers, but downplays the role of the union in representing most workers. The FAQ emphases what leadership calls 'good working conditions'. The listing of benefits tries to convince staff that all is well and that unions might not be necessary. What the text fails to mention is that these are not contractual and can be changed unilaterally. In tumultuous times, we need staff that has the security of actual 'secondary labour conditions' as we call them in the Netherlands. The 'benefits' are especially questionable when the "generous" 15-day holiday allowance would be illegal in every single EU country. Today was a day to show trust in staff. Instead, we've started a rough road of persuasion and spin. Fortunately, as a movement, we are exceptionally well trained to recognise this. I'm confident staff will prevail. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
So where's the petition to have the Board pass a resolution requiring the WMF to voluntarily recognize unions that receive supermajority employee support? Levivich (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
How likely is it that this third (!) petition will accomplish anything? Hard to imagine that the Board of Trustees will (publicly or not) disagree with their CEO and "instruct the CEO to voluntarily recognize the union"... but who knows, I guess. Some1 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Petition fatigue is a real concern. This 3rd petition is newly directed at the BoT who till now did not feel obligated to "interfere" or state anything till now. Prior petitions were directed at editor community and the Foundation. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 10:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The Wikimedia Foundation’s statement and its frequently asked questions section is full of very carefully-worded language that is common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization. For example, the FAQ includes a long section about the benefits that Wikimedia Foundation already offers its staff, and the statement suggests that there is a “wide range of views on unionization” among employees.
This statement is very disappointing. You try to portray the union as some outside force separate from the foundation workers, when the union is made up of WMF workers, and already has the support of a supermajority of eligible workers. You are not a corporation. Your responsibility is to the community, not to shareholders. 1something (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Of course the foundation is a corporation. They are a 501(c)(3). Note that our article on the subject starts with A 501(c)(3) organization is a United States corporation. Their corporate structure and goals may be different from a for-profit publicly traded company, but they're still a corporation. As for "Your responsibility is to the community", that's not true either. The community and the foundation are both responsible to the project. Neither is subservient to the other. Both are equal partners working to advance a common cause. We really need to get away from the us-vs-them mentality. RoySmith(talk)12:02, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think the us vs them mentality is a reaction to an already adversial relationship. Consistently taking actions that anger the community is not a neutral stance and that's not the way to treat people you consider to be partners in your shared endeavour. Clovermoss🍀(talk)12:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:AGF applies. Lots of decisions get made every day. You're not going to agree with every one of them (I certainly don't). But I can say the same about Arbcom. People like me and you have the advantage that we're not legally obligated to uphold our fiduciary responsibility to manage a lot of money, or to comply with labor laws in multiple countries, or sign our names to corporate filings, so it's easy to take pot-shots at the people who do. If we screw up, the worst that can happen is we get trouted or banned. If WMF folks (at least at a high-enough level) screw up badly enough, they can go to jail. RoySmith(talk)13:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Fidicuary responsibility does not require people to take these actions. I'm not taking potshots at people, I'm telling them to do the bare minimum. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WMF has twice decided to take up the slowest option to delay having to deal with a union, they could have voluntarily recognized in the UK and in the US, and chose not to. WMF cannot claim to support labor rights and take actions that we'd expect Amazon to do. WMF is choosing this path, their relationship with a union does not have to be antagonistic but yet again as we've seen in the past few years, WMF acts like it's their way or the highway. Abzeronow (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
There is nothing about voluntary recognition option that could make anyone go to jail. See Labor unions in the United States#Labor unions in the 21st century. Presenting it as such is exactly why the disingenuous comments are being made by the executives. They refused to agree to a union because fundamentally they are anti-Union. Even if the CEO says that she was a union member for 13 years. stjn17:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That's a rather ... unique ... interpretation of the (true) statement "If we screw up, the worst that can happen is we get trouted or banned. If WMF folks (at least at a high-enough level) screw up badly enough, they can go to jail." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
As best I can tell, nobody at the WMF is claiming that there are legal impediments to, or risks from, voluntary recognition (as distinct from an NLRB vote, which they've said they would honor), so that's really a non sequitur. In any event, editors actually do face legal and extralegal risks that are quite real. —Emufarmers(T/C)19:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedians can go to jail for Wikipedia editing aswell. We have colleagues in the Middle East currently in this situation. I have also had legal proceeding launched against me for editing here... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
In addition to all the good arguments given above, I’m concerned and a bit disappointed by the way this has been communicated: just few days after Wikimania, where the world convened into Paris to discuss and share about the Wikimedia project*s* (and not only the English-speaking ones), and where some talks were had about WWU and its recognition, with a lot of attendees showing WWU badges and pins, showing that the international communities do care about this matter… and yet it seems that the only official notice has been given here… Let’s say that I’ll try to continue to assume good faith also about the messaging, but I also hope that the next developments would be shared with a large part of the Wikimedia communities! Sukkoria (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
+1. En-wp is not the only Wikimedia project; WMF should communicate this information on other projects where WWU has been discussed as well. — Jules*talk08:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Opting for a lengthy NLRB process is a choice to enable time for an in-house campaign against unionization. Employers can respect majority opinion of staff by opting for card-check unionization instead. In many international organizations with existing unions in more labor-friendly places than the US, this is exactly the behavior demanded by unions that represent other workers. And that is exactly what we should insist WMF do in this case.--Carwil (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WMF should recognize, but this is a calculated gamble for Wikipedia
Pardon the new section; I wasn't sure where to put this, and it's been weighing on me.
I'm going to make an argument because I haven't seen anyone make it.
Let me first say that, given a supermajority of eligible US workers have supported unionization, I hope they're successful and agree it should be recognized. I've had union jobs myself and have heard enough stories from then-current or former staff over the years to buy that there are issues with management that a union would help to resolve. But we should be angry, or sad, that it got to this point, because what I'm not persuaded of is that a WMF union is definitely good for Wikipedia.
There's no great data about the relationship between unionization and the quality of outputs. Some studies with decidedly mixed results and a ton of anecdata. My sense is that most of the time, stable unions don't have much of an effect on outputs and in some cases may help. Strikes, however, are obviously very bad for outputs, as are pronounced episodes of labor unrest/conflict (another argument for voluntary recognition IMO). Elsewhere, that might mean more defective tires or mislabeled cans that harm consumers and eventually harm profits, which harms the executives. Here, executives might lose a labor conflict in the end, too, but Wikipedia is the product in the balance and the stakeholders are readers and editors. It's for these reasons that I'm ambivalent about a union in an organization like this one, because the source of the union's power is less its ability to hurt executives or shareholders and more its ability to hurt a public good.
A union often means more rules for who can do what, with unclear implications for boundaries between staff and community as concerns our technical infrastructure. What work protections might a hypothetical future bargaining unit put in place that restricts what volunteers can have access to? Is it hard to imagine some future grievance about volunteers working on gadgets that were the focus of laid-off staff members? Is it hard to imagine a worker strike that renders a range of volunteer maintenance tasks effectively struck, too?
Having a union means adding yet another stakeholder to decision-making processes. The union's ambition is to have a say not just in wages, hours, and working conditions, but also in strategy/annual planning, and indeed I've heard supporters mark that as a major reason for their support. Putting aside that formal say in strategy feels like an unrealistic ask, why would we assume that a union run by some future unknown staff would be acting in the way we want (sufficient for a large portion of this community to pledge its own labor to an organization that has no reciprocal obligation)? For those of us whose Wikipedia priorities are independent of the WMF, is there nobody else who finds this scary?
To read these threads about the union (to the exclusion of many, many other past threads on this board) one might get the impression the community believes every WMF staff member is a Brooke Vibber or a Community Tech team member, with long connections to the community and in tune with our needs/interests. I broadly have a favorable view of WMF staff, who are mostly good, mission-driven people, and agree with a likely response to this: that there have been several times when staff members have spoken up when a bad idea was being implemented (Superprotect, Knowledge Engine, etc.). I also would concede that my work protections hypothetical above is unrealistic among current staff because they get the mission. But who's to say who future staff will be? "In tune with the editing community" is already not descriptive of most staff, well-intentioned though they may be. We have also heard from many staff that the enwiki community in particular is rather more like a thorn in their side (again, see most past threads in the archives of this board for examples). Why would we assume that, in a decision-making conflict, the community-minded staff would win the day over those who aren't, or that the union would always take the community's side? Why would we assume that the currently most vocal proponents among staff, who indeed are aligned with us, are representative of who will be running the union 10-20 years down the line? And what can be done to codify these obligations, if they're so baked into broad community support? (I don't know if that would be a smart thing, to be clear, as it feels like a desire to govern indirectly through on-wiki !votes, but if that's the promise people are banking on, how will it be enforced?)
If others have these worries, I haven't heard them expressed. It would make me feel better (and possibly others) to see that others are thinking about this, too, and that the outpouring of support for a big, blunt instrument isn't just a cascade in response to a recent instance of injustice. I feel like it would be helpful to articulate that it's fundamentally a calculated gamble -- that a union might in fact be a bad thing for Wikipedia in the long run, but that the median prediction for a WMF future with a union looks better than a median prediction for a WMF future in which management continues as-is. And that for those who aren't scared at all, it's less a belief that unions are always good for everybody and more that WMF management has, over the years, convinced so many people of its disconnect from this community that hundreds are desperate enough to cling onto any prospective entity that holds more power with the WMF than we've ever had. That feels more sad than exciting to me, regardless of the outcome, and if it's accurate it's worth sitting with that sadness and acknowledging the gamble. But here we are. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the thoughtful post. To my way of thinking, the main difference is this: If the employees at Goodyear stop working no tires get made. If the employees at America Red Cross stop working a lot of people won't get the help they need. If the employees at the Wikimedia foundation stop working, the effect on Wikipedia will be pretty much zero. There are a few exceptions -- core tasks that must be done. Examples include running backups on the servers, paying bills, having lawyers respond if someone sues, and even checking that the fire extinguishers at HQ follow the legally mandated service schedule. I would be very surprised if any strike didn't have exceptions for those few vital functions, and even if they didn't, the WMF would be perfectly justified to hire temporary replacement workers.
(@Guy) the effect on Wikipedia will be pretty much zero Two responses to this: first, if they matter so little to Wikipedia, what difference does it make to Wikipedia if they unionize? Solely operating in the domain of "nice to haves" rather than "need to haves" doesn't seem like it would foment such parallel collective action on-wiki. But second (and much more importantly), I'd just strongly disagree with that premise. To be clear, yes, they need us more than we need them -- not disagreeing with that. The product that brings in donations is primarily the product of volunteer labor. But staff maintain toolforge and cloud services, they review community-requested config changes and patches, they respond to outages and mitigate DDoSes, they respond to trust & safety threats of harm and child safety, they handle non-emergency T&S business like harassment, they handle DMCA takedowns and subpoenas on fixed deadlines, they have to follow a litigation calendar, they disburse grant funds to affiliates and event organizers who have their own non-unionized staff not to mention bills to pay, the stream of data dumps and database updates and analytics get outdated, we fall behind in security patches, there's all the boring hardware maintenance... and all that is putting aside addressing any issues with the fundraising pipeline, which I suspect would not be persuasive.:) —Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
This question pivots between the disruptiveness of a potential strike or not. Even in the cases of schools or hospitals, where a strike would be incredibly disruptive AND harmful to communities, they still happen, with responsible caution. For example, nurses will still show up for life-saving emergency shifts. In the case of schools, it is less dramatic, but still detrimental for youth education. A framework to bridge this gap is the bargaining for the common-good, which is alluded to in Wiki Worker's United listed priorities. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah(talk) 18:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the link. And yes, that's relevant to what I'm talking about. I'll be curious to see what kind of ~"emergency provisions" WWU would codify that ensure Wikipedia and its non-executive stakeholders aren't harmed during labor conflicts. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think that difference gets to the heart of the concern. Unions are responsible to their members, so they may strike over issues that aren't supported by the community. Ensuring the servers are running safely (if they remain operational) is an essential task for safety, but making Wikimedia sites accessible to the public is not. I agree that employees have the right to unionize and a union ensures employees get a seat at the table. But I also agree that it doesn't necessarily have a beneficial effect on an organization's suppliers – in the case of Wikimedia, for example, those who supply content. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I'm not particularly impressed by the argument of 'if we give people the right to negotiate as a group, they might side against us and that's bad'. Don't get me wrong - I've seen unions not work. I've probably seen them work a lot worse than 99% of people in the discussion. I can't talk about my experience with a particular union without getting horrible anxiety. Still think people should have the right not to get dicked around by their bosses. Even if it personally benefits me or makes my life more convinient. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸18:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Good point. This relate to the question above "if they matter so little to Wikipedia, what difference does it make to Wikipedia if they unionize?" I don't support unionization because it will be good for Wikipedia. I support it because supporting it is the right thing to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks. It feels useful (or at least clarifying) to have articulated that there are several motivating factors here. It has felt like the biggest factor was "it's in our interest" and I'm just not at all convinced. It's heartening to see "it's just the right thing to do, even if it's against our interests". Good vibes there. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Rhododendrites, I do strongly believe that it is in our interests that WMF employees are unionized, but I'm confused by how you've conflated the idea of "this is generally in our best interests" with "the union will agree with the community and act in line with what the community wants". I can believe that it's in my kid's best interest that their teachers are unionized without concluding something like "because my kid's teachers are unionized, they will give my kid an A+". In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The conflation isn't mine? "Generally in our best interests" is the gamble that may well pan out, but that (IMO) is worth acknowledging as a gamble. The union advocating for and/or acting in the interests of the community is a more specific claim that's part of the union's own pitch (e.g. "empowering our union to advocate for you") and something echoed by many supporters as part of the reason for their support. To me, the conflation appears in a lot of the discourse around the union, and in a way I'm trying to challenge the taken-for-grantedness of the latter to better consider the former. As for the analogy, I'll put aside the A+ bit at the end, which is an illegitimate favor that isn't in anyone's interest and doesn't correspond to anything here, and can't really be adapted into something that fits because there's no additional class of volunteer stakeholders who do most of the educating of kids. I wrote out a list of differences (the scope of people affected by labor action, the agency of affected people, the kinds of accountability, the driving motivations for unionization, the difference in the role of the members in the final output, the absence of any major volunteer group of stakeholders, etc.), but replaced them with this vague parenthetical because I don't really want to go on a tangent. At the end of my message above, I was trying to say that what I'm looking for is from the folks who aren't in the "unions are just good" camp -- those who find the prospect of a union a gamble that could turn out badly but is better than the alternative. If we're getting into analogies with very different kinds of unions, I'm guessing we're talking in the realm of broad support for unions in general? I respect that position -- I'm just trying to see how much of the support isn't that, I guess. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I mean, I am in the "unions are just good" camp, as opposed to the camp of "unions are good when they benefit me personally." I don't care about the community wishlist in the slightest, and focusing on it feels like a bit of a trap because it presents an easy way out of just prioritizing the wishlist and keeping work conditions otherwise exactly the same. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think it's odd (to say the least) to use someone who joined the WWU in part because of management disparaging the community to claim that WWU members will probably have that contempt. (The latter is not unreasonable as a reading of that plank, though I'll note that interact directly with movement communities almost certainly means, in large part, dealing with the stuff that gets put under Oversight) Sesquilinear (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I think mental health support being available for roles that deal with incredibly large online communities is actually a pretty reasonable ask, and doesn't necessarily say anything bad about us on the whole. Interacting with people on that scale can be exhausting and distressing, especially on online forums where dogpiling can happen. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm one of the people who had these worries but hadn't really expressed them. Truth is, I don't have a ton of sympathy for WMF workers wanting to unionize, particularly given my impression that most if not all of these workers are being paid over $100k per year. (I chuckled when I read that wikifired's two months' severance was $25k, meaning they were paid $150k/yr.)
Anyone making $100k+/year is in the top 10-20% in the US, top 5-10% in Europe, top 2% globally. WMF employees are, objectively, among the richest people in the world. Plus they get benefits -- fully paid health care, life insurance, retirement plan, etc. Plus they work from home. So a bunch of the richest people with full benefits working from home want to unionize so they can get a little bit richer? Not exactly what I think of as "oppressed workers."
And what are their gripes? Are their paychecks bouncing? Are they forced to work double shifts? Is there rampant sexual harassment? No, AFAIK, none of these things. Their gripes are that a department was restructured and some of them were offered reassignment to other high-paying, comfortable jobs. The other gripe is that their bosses are jerks. Ohh nooooes, how will they ever manage?
So I have little patience for any comparisons between the richest people in the world with comfortable work at home jobs, and actual oppressed workers, like people who work in mines or are forced to live in company towns. That's why I think the criticism of "cosplaying a labor movement" is, while uncharitable, not far off the mark.
Still, what's the alternative? Say no to unionization? Idk about anyone else, but I wouldn't be willing to tell other people I'm against their unionization, even if the unionized workers are among the richest, most comfortable workers in the world. Let anyone who wants to join a union, join a union. I certainly don't think the WMF should take any kind of anti-union stance, it'd be against the values of the mission and the project. And anyway, it's really their business: the business of the employees. Not for me to say "no," and I don't support the WMF saying "no" either.
So while I might roll my eyes at people claiming "solidarity" with some of the richest, most comfortable people in the world who are complaining about crappy bosses, I still support the WMF voluntarily recognizing a union that a supermajority of WMF employees want to join. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Gonna be the bitch here and point out that acting like The other gripe is that their bosses are jerks. and sexual harassment are completely unconnected is... well, it shows a naivety I am jealous of. The WWU listed one of their goals as better mental health support, which, despite years of sitcom -esuq Ohh nooooes, how will they ever manage? jokes to the contrary, is important I'm also not sure that 'well, they make a lot of money, so who cares about Occupational stress or workplace bullying, at least they aren't slaves or not being paid' is a winning argument, but, well, I'll let an editor who you respect have that conversation with you. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸19:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Levivich, they are not unionizing so they can get a little bit richer. Certainly, for many unionized workers, increasing pay or benefits is a significant priority. But the immediate issues the WWU is more concerned with are things like "I want to be able to voice concerns at work without being afraid I will be fired for doing so" and "I do not want my benefits to be changed without notice". These are pretty basic things that any worker should be able to expect, and it is shameful that WMF employees cannot presently do so. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"the rich" == people who are in the top 2% globally, top 5-20% in their country depending on country. "Comfortable" == working from home with benefits. And pay and benefits equity that makes sense to the staff is a plank on the WWU platform, and that's corpo-speak (just like the WMF) for "more money and better benefits for some if not all". So, yeah, the rich and comfortable are organizing so they can be a little bit richer and little bit more comfortable. Put more charitably, so that their slightly-less-rich and slightly-less-comfortable colleagues can also be equally rich and comfortable. That framing of course doesn't sound quite as noble as "labor rights," but that's what "pay and benefits equity that makes sense to the staff" means: more pay and benefits.
The way you phrased the first example is not really on point, but I'm not going to waste your time arguing semantics, I think we'd both agree that whistleblower protection is important, and the WMF should be not only complying with the minimums required by law but serving as a leading example in the world of how large organizations should work. But whistleblowing is more than just "voicing concerns at work," it's more than just griping about a bad boss. I haven't seen the union anywhere talk about a lack of whistleblower protection, or even an example of a WMF whistleblower who wasn't protected. (Not a disgruntled employee, but a whistleblower.)
The second example, I'm not familiar with... I didn't see that on the union's website or in the blog post, maybe I missed it... and there are laws against that sort of thing, at least with respect to important benefits like health insurance (fringe benefits, maybe not, but who cares about those). Can you point me to where WMF workers are complaining about benefits being changed without notice? Levivich (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Labour rights are human rights. We should support WMF workers' unionisation rights as a human right.Respecting others' human rights does not always bring personal benefit. There's no guarantee that in a decade or so (or even sooner), WWU will not have flaws as serious as (but complementary to) those of the WMF leadership. Institutional safeguards and structures that tend to reduce those flaws are needed in both WMF and WWU. Anyone talking constructively with WWU organisers right now might have a chance of convincing them to make the right institutional choices now that reduce the chance of WWU becoming evil by 2036. Boud (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Are WMF employees laid off when projects are shuttered? For example, Knowledge Engine or potentially Abstract Wikipedia. If so, it could be possible that if the community attempts to get a project closed, the WWU would be opposed in an effort to keep people's jobs (which is understandable, but could also be a waste resources). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!03:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I assume that part of the idea of having a union is to bring about a workplace that offers more than the two options of "do this questionable project and keep our jobs" vs. "shutter this questionable project and lose our jobs." Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign in Malaysia
Dear all,
I would like to take the opportunity to inform you all about the upcoming Wikimedia Foundation banner fundraising campaign in Malaysia.
We will run banners for non-logged in users in Malaysia on English Wikipedia itself. The banners will run from the 2nd to the 30th of September 2026.
A brief note on the timing. We are moving the fundraising campaign in our planning from June to September which means that logged out readers will see fundraising banners twice this year. Going forward the campaign will again only run once each year.
Prior to this, we are planning to run some tests, so you might see banners for 3-5 hours a couple of times before the campaign starts. This activity will ensure that our technical infrastructure works.
Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:
@JBrungs (WMF): Isn't that rather risky of a backlash in the current context? Malaysiahas manybigtrade unions. In fact, per the current lead, National Union of Plantation Workers is one of the largest [trade unions] in Asia. A month from now, if WMF has not yet voluntarily recognised WWU UK and WWU US, then readers in Malaysia risk getting angry that they're being asked to donate to a foundation that doesunion busting. The damage to WMF's reputation risks extending to the wider Wikimedia community itself, since much of the public doesn't see the difference between "Wikipedia" (the Wikimedia community) and "Wikipedia" (WMF that runs the infrastructure). You're playing with a tinderbox. WMF's union-busting will not remain secret. Ordinary Wikimedians do not want to discourage donations: we know that WMF needs to pay salaries and server costs. But we will not hide the evidence. Boud (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
As a sign of good faith by WMF, I would recommendyou might want to considerdelaying the banner campaign until WMF has recognised both WWU UK and WWU US. "We hate trade unions, please give us some money" is not a great way of convincing people to donate. (@JBrungs (WMF): It would also be a good sign of respect for the community to answer the questions at the discussion pointed to below by Chipmunkdavis.) Boud (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC) (edited Boud (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC))reply
In the spirit of WWU's social media post stating that it is not calling for donations to be delayed, I've weakened my recommendation to a "maybe consider". Even if WWU is not calling for a delay, the risk of backlash remains. I've seen plenty of social media (both decentralised and centralised) posts by people declaring that they would stop donating because of the union-busting. WWU cannot force those people to keep donating, nor convince English speakers in Malaysia that they should donate despite the union-busting (unless the banner includes a reference to WWU's social media statement that it is not calling for donations to stop, which would risk being interpreted like an out-of-the-blue statement "I am not a thief", which makes people wonder why it was stated at all). Boud (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Regardless of what my views on the WMF union situation is, I do think they should still run the fundraiser and get funds. Not getting funds is a ecological risk for our movement. Sohom (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Note that server costs are not a major expense item for the WMF. Internet hosting costs are less than $3.5 million p.a., while the Foundation has close to $500 million in assets (if you include the Endowment).
On the plus side, the banners look so much better these days than they used to. The emails however I still find borderline wrong, because they arguably include subtle suggestions that free access to Wikipedia might be under threat.
"My hope is that you'll think about how useful Wikipedia has been to you this past year, and how valuable it is to have access to a source of knowledge that doesn't charge you anything, doesn't sell you anything, and doesn't interrupt you with ads." (E-Mail 1)
"We owe it to them, in a world that is always changing, to keep Wikipedia free for everyone. Like it always was and always should be." (E-Mail 2)
"This might be my last chance to ask, so I want to make sure this email reaches everyone who might give. Right now, we're at a critical stage of our fundraiser in Brazil." (E-Mail 3)
"We need our community of donors to help us reach our goal, and time will soon run out in this fundraiser. ... We want to make sure we all have equal access to high-quality information – something that is really hard to find online these days. We still have a lot of work to do to make knowledge free for everyone, and you can help us achieve it. With your donations, The Wikimedia Foundation keeps Wikipedia operational ..." (E-Mail 4)
@Jayen466We need our community of donors to help us reach our goal, and time will soon run out in this fundraiser. (what is actually being said) and need our community of donors to help us reach our goal, and time will soon run out (what you tried to highlight in your framing) are two very different sentences espousing very different meanings. For what it's worth, we spend approx >200 million a year, most of which is spent on the movement, 500 million buys us a year and a few in change (unless you want to only keep the lights on, in which case 3.5 million is still woefully insufficient since it actually discounts the salary of the people maintaining the hardware/software). Sohom (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Of the $190 million in 2024/2025 operating expenses, $114 million were spent on salaries and benefits for just under 700 employees (averaging about $165,000 per head), and another $16 million on professional services. This may be money spent "on the movement", but indirectly so. Regardless, keeping Wikipedia operational can be done for far less. It's not what the money is needed for, or primarily spent on. To my mind the emails highlight that aspect a little too much. AndreasJN46614:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
To be fair, not answering is standard procedure. Try asking them to tell us how much just one Wikimania cost and what was bought with that money. Try to get any answer including "we have decided not to tell you that". You will get various responses from other volunteers who don't have the information and don't speak for the WMF, but the WMF itself will stonewall you. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Petition to the WMF board of trustees to voluntarily recognise the US staff union
Hi all
As some of you may have seen WMF announced the day after Wikimania they have chosen not to recognise the WMF staff unionisation efforts in the US and UK voluntarily. I'm sharing this as someone who has never worked for the Foundation, but if I did I would not like to be treated like this.
I hope you will consider signing this petition to ask the board to instruct the CEO to voluntarily recognise the US union and begin bargaining in good faith.
Where was it "discredited" that the WMF has the right to ask for a secret ballot vote? Please quote the exact part of applicable labor law that says that WMF management is required to submit to third-party arbitration. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That's an unnecessarily combative way to say "the WMF has the right to secret ballot and is not required to arbitrate." Anyway, who cares about rights and requirements? The WMF could, and should, choose to voluntarily recognize or arbitrate. (That's why the thing everyone is calling for is called "voluntary" recognition.) Levivich (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't believe that's what Stjn is saying. I believe they mean that they used discredited anti-union talking points in their response. For example, calling the vote a commitment to ensuring that every eligible staff member can make their own decision freely, privately, and democratically flies in the face of how staff did make a decision, freely, privately, and democratically, when ~70% of eligible staff signed a union card. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)01:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
OK, I can see that. I also asked the WMF to voluntarily recognize the union, but I expect WMF management to do what management does, which is to make anyone trying to start a union follow every step that they are legally required to do.
I predict that, once there is a union in place, a time will come when the union and management disagree on something. Will I see the same reaction when the union fails to voluntarily give management everything they want without a fight? When some manager who really doesn't like unions accuses the pro-union side of "using discredited anti-management talking points"? I suspect that the reaction would be quite different. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
They are not legally required to do a secret ballot election under Trump-controlled NLRB. They would only have to do it because the WMF rejected a good faith settlement with the union for reasons ranging from flimsy to downright improbable. stjn09:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"It is completely legal for the WMF to insist on a paper election conducted by the underfunded Trump-appointed NLRB. I find it ironic that half of the BoT trustees are unelected in the first place. For the remaining trustees, online voting was considered secure enough to oversee the foundation's $200 million annual budget, yet it is deemed too risky for the 200 US staff."
So when everyone is talking about "signing a union card" are they talking about doing that online?
If so, I would be very much interested in the security of the method the WMF uses to manage the budget over the internet and the security of the method the union uses to gather signatures over the internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
So who, outside of the union or WMF management, has confirmed the claim that a supermajority of eligible workes have "signed a union card" (falsely so called)? If, as I suspect, management is doing what management does and trying to stop some union from reducing their power, it seems reasonable to have a secret vote that neither side can cheat on. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The WWU page that links to the form says By law, your answers on it are confidential between you, the Wiki Workers United union, the CWA and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Your answers are not allowed to be shared with WMF management.ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!04:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
No one has confirmed it yet, because no one has had the chance to. Were the WMF to do the right thing here and go for voluntary recognition, the next step would be a process in which a neutral third-party arbitrator reviews the cards that have been signed and responds to any concerns the WMF may have about potentially invalid cards; in the very unlikely event that the arbitrator strikes enough cards to shrink the share to below 50%, voluntary recognition would not happen. Voluntary recognition does not mean the WMF forfeiting its right and responsibility to do due diligence before taking a legally binding action. It means agreeing to recognize the will of the majority assuming it actually is the will of the majority—the same thing the WMF is claiming it needs a drawn-out, government-run secret-ballot election to accomplish. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 10:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Again, I agree that management should go the voluntary recognition route. I have signed the petition asking them to do that. But they clearly don't have to. And, given their past performance in other areas, I fully expected them to do everything they can to maximize their own power and wealth. Nor do I have any expectation that any petition or discussion at the Village Pump will change the situation.
So here we have an actual, genuine, bona fide example of assuming bad faith. There's absolutely no reason to believe that WWU is "cheating" on the ballot. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Show me a diff where I or anyone else implied that anyone is cheating. Assuming good faith does not require letting the WMF count the ballots. Assuming good faith does not require letting the union count the ballots. Is meta:SecurePoll an AGF violation? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Here: So who, outside of the union or WMF management, has confirmed the claim that a supermajority of eligible workes have "signed a union card" [...] it seems reasonable to have a secret vote that neither side can cheat on.
Unless there is actual evidence suggesting that the union is falsely claiming that a supermajority of eligible workers signed the card, there is no reason to suggest it might be false, as you have above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
"It might be false" is an objective fact. It is also an objective fact that you are trusting the union and that they have a COI. It is fine to trust someone, but criticizing someone for simply stating the true fact that you are trusting them seems to me to be going way too far. Plenty of people who have COIs can be trusted to not let their COI affect their actions, but that doesn't imply that stating that they have a COI is assuming bad faith.
Please stop for a moment, do a bit of self-examination, and tell me honestly that you would be casting the same aspersions if it was the WMF that promised to do an honest count and to keep the names of those who signed the cards secret, and if I had simply pointed out that you are trusting the WMF. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Guy, I'm not sure why you're taking this tone with people in this discussion? It's coming off as very combative and I'm not sure that's your intent. Regarding your implied question about the union cards, yes, it's theoretically possible that WWU has cooked the books, but if they have, they're extraordinarily cooked: only 50% of employees need to vote yes in the secret ballot election for the union to be recognized, and only 30% of workers need to sign union cards to trigger that election in the first place. WWU claims that 70% of US employees have signed union cards - so about a third of them would have to be faked, coerced, or whatever else, for this to be an insufficient number to make it through the secret ballot process. I think the chances of that being the case are effectively zero. It's also possible to do some form of card check to verify the cards. The WMF hasn't gone for that option either. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Union cards aren't secret from everyone. In cases of voluntary recognition normally a mutually agreeable neutral third party counts and verifies the cards. MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am only "taking this tone" with the ... individual ... who keeps writing untrue things about me like "So here we have an actual, genuine, bona fide example of assuming bad faith". I have no problem with anyone who disagrees with me without making false accusations and insulting me.
Yes, the WMF could do several things to address any actual objection they might have with the union counting the votes. But they won't. They could even do both; recognize the union, start negotiations, and also start the process of having a normal secret ballot union election. We all know that is not going to happen either. The WMF wants to retain power and control and thus will make the union jump through every hoop instead of voluntarily giving the union what they want. I really doubt that everyone who is outraged by this will be similarly outraged when the day comes that the WMF asks the union to voluntarily give the WMF what they want and the union refuses. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or the other.
It's pretty easy to see the problem if we imagine it in the other direction - imagine some company asking staff to sign pledge cards not to join a union, and keeping track of who did or didn't in order to put pressure on those who didn't. Gross. It doesn't make it better for it to be the other way around in my own personal view.
I want a process where staff are safe to deliberate in the privacy of their own minds and make the decision based on all the available evidence that makes the most sense to them. So I don't think insisting on a proper vote is process for the sake of process and I say that with my own estimate that the staff will vote to support unionization. I think we'll be in a better place if it's really clear - a clean and clear choice with no chance of pressure.
In terms of time, energy, and money - I don't think it should take very long and again speaking only for myself I hope we get it done as quickly and efficiently as we can and I hope that everyone - staff, management, board, and community can come together to celebrate the outcome. I know I will."
From what I've heard from pro-union people, there were two members of the union managing/verifying the union cards, they were the only 2 people with access to the information and did not share who signed with anyone else. So the process absolutely was secret. Staff could not have effectively pressured other staff since they did not know who did and didn't sign. Obviously me saying I heard something second hand doesn't mean much, but I strongly suspect Jimmy is simply misinformed on how the process worked. Bawolff (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Petitions to show solidarity with WMF workers trying to unionise
Hi all
I haven't seen these petitions posted on this page, I hope people will consider signing them
Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity an English Wikipedia page to show support for the workers and discuss potential collective actions. If 150 more people sign it it will become the most supported proposal or petition ever on English Wikipedia.
The good news is that the WMF money scale is not growing with the speed of the early 2000s.
The bad news is that it looks fairly consistent with stable exponential growth. I just did this for the expenses, but the script can trivially be redone for the other two parameters.
Per a business-as-usual scenario, the expenses should hit 10 billion USD around 2050.
The model exponential is . That's a factor of e increase each 7 years.
For context, the model of the The Limits to Growth appears to be still considered more or less accurate, so either unavoidable economic collapse or democratically chosen degrowth should start by around 2040 to 2050 or so (and if I understand it correctly, this model only partly takes into account the climate emergency).
Where does the Wikimedia movement want to be in 2050?
It will be obsolete long before that. Certainly the current software, or anything resembling the current software, will be. It's already pretty creaky and the idea that it will survive another quarter century is absurd. The handwriting is on the wall that LLMs (and the technology behind them) are going to eat our lunch. The core mission of the movement is to make all the knowledge of mankind available to everybody, for free. If something comes along that can advance that mission better than we can, we should embrace it and work on finding ways to improve it, not put up roadblocks to its adoption. RoySmith(talk)13:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I won't try to predict the future of technology, and I won't be around in 2050 to see how such predictions work out, but I do expect that pursuers of enclosure or monetization of the commons will be a threat to the continued existance of Wikipedia as a free (libre and gratis) entity. I think that will be a greater threat to Wikipedia than any changes in technology. Donald Albury15:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I have been thinking of completely rewriting WP:CANCER, which is itself getting a bit creaky, but on think that will absolutely stay is my prediction of the future:
"Nothing can grow forever. Sooner or later, something is going to happen that causes the donations to decline instead of increase. It could be a scandal (real or perceived). It could be the WMF taking a political position that offends many donors. Or it could be a recession, leaving people with less money to give. It might even be a lawsuit that forces the WMF to pay out a judgement that is larger than the reserve. Whatever the reason is, it will happen. It would be naïve to think that the WMF, which up to this point has never seriously considered any sort of spending limits, will suddenly discover fiscal prudence when the revenues start to decline. It is far more likely that the WMF will not react to a drop in donations by decreasing spending, but instead will ramp up fund-raising efforts while burning through our reserves and our endowment."
This was posted earlier this year, after the FY25/26 English fundraising campaign:
I want to be honest with you all, this campaign presented some challenges as the December banner campaign started off well below our projections. While we anticipated lower traffic year–over-year and had accounted for this in our planning, the drop we saw surpassed our expectations. While we did manage to raise our set goal, this was partly because those that did give, on average gave more. We saw 14% decline in the number of donors who gave, 20% decline in the number of new donors and 7% less revenue year-over-year.
I whitelist Wikipedia in my ad blockers because I still naively believe it to be special. However, that would be easy to change for me and everyone else if banners became year-round. Certes (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I think your premise is certain (and indeed already happening, or close to it), but your conclusion is not, and we can already see that at work. There is a lot of effort being put into reader retention, the apps, etc, so that an AI-driven collapse in readership doesn't take the whole donation model down. The funding model for affiliates and grants is being re-evaluated. And so on. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has survived 25 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see it survive another 25. It is true that our revenue model is in danger, but this can be responded to with a combination of the endowment and cutting expenses. The knowledge itself and our model for updating it (rapid crowdsourcing) is still the best way to organize knowledge in human history -- AI is not nearly as accurate and depends on us for its training data. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Predictions of the end of Wikipedia remind me of 1950s sci-fi set in a late 20th century where we take our daily food tablets, zip around in flying cars and holiday on the moon. I think the world in 2050 will be very much like today's, and so will Wikipedia. Here, as in football, those who want to commercialise a global institution to line their own pockets can be stopped if enough people resist. Certes (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I remember the 1990s, when many people thought that WordPerfect, Lotus 123, Compuserve, and America Online would dominate computing forever. I doubt that we are any better at predicting the future than they were. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
WMF annual support+revenue + naive extrapolationWMF annual net assets + naive extrapolation Keeping in mind the warnings, I've kept using the word "naive" in the support+revenue and net assets figures. For simplicity, the exponential fit is from 2011-2012 to 2024-2025 in all three cases. Despite the naivety of the fits, it looks to me like both the revenue and expenses growth are reasonably (by eye) fit by an exponential in a stable way for these 13 years; that suggests a system with sufficient negative feedbacks to keep it stable, with no macro-financial signs of disruption. The two e-folding times differ: revenue: ; expenses: , i.e. expenses were lower than revenue in 2011, but are growing about 1.4% faster, so the naive extrapolation puts annual revenue something like 10% or so below annual expenses in 2050; equality would be around 2032. The net assets look poorly fit by an exponential based on the 2011 and 2024 values. Boud (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Neither of these graphs looks linear to me. Not sure why a linear estimation is being used. They both look like they're leveling off to me. Perhaps using a non-logarithmic scale would make this easier to see.
I assume that "support and revenue" means donations ("support") plus money from selling goods (t-shirts, ...) and services (API services to Google, ...). The exponential models (straight lines in the diagrams) are not for the whole 22-year history. They are naive fits (i.e. they're only fits by eye; numerically they use the two values at 2011-2012 and 2024-2025, which allow only one exponential that gives both values). In the case of the support+revenue (here) and the expenses (top of this section), these look, at least to me by eye, like reasonable models for those 14 (inclusive) years. A straight line in the diagram is an exponential, , where I've left off the normalisation. You're welcome to do linear plots, but if these continue to 2050, almost nothing would be visible except for a big jump near 2050. The net assets curve slowed during 2020-2024, which makes sense when expenses increase faster than revenue. Subtracting two exponentials does not (generally) give another exponential. Boud (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation of support. Yeah, that's probably donations, makes sense. For the graphs, they look like curves/hooks to me, so I would expect the trendline to look like ╭ instead of /. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Curves that show spending increasing exponentially while contributions look like the are heading toward leveling off would support my prediction, which is why I don't trust myself to eyeball them. I might just be seeing what I want to see. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Lawyers, Not Persuaders: Even what little we know about Littler is enough to describe what appears to be its philosophy: prevent any worker anywhere from collectively bargaining for anything.
ibid.: Funk explained to me that organizers and pro-labor leaders only tend to discover Littler Mendelson’s involvement once a petition is filed to the NLRB. “[Littler] doesn’t show up in any other disclosures,” he said. “We know that companies are spending a lot of money on it. But unfortunately, they’re hiding that from workers and the public.”
Anti-Union Law Firm Tells Clients to Go Ahead With Illegal Union-Busting Tactic: Not much is even known about what Littler attorneys earn. In an engagement agreement with the City of Peekskill, New York, the firm says its attorneys make as much as $1,760 an hour, though it discounted rates for the city down to $550 an hour for partners, known as “shareholders.”
If the WMF is so pro-union, hiring an anti-union law firm to pay their lawyers astronomical amounts of donor money to not squash the union is just absurd. However, I think at this point everyone can agree that what's happening is far simpler. It's the union busting, stupid. stjn14:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
While I've had my issues with how the WMF has allocated funds before, I don't think I've ever seen a use of donor money that I felt was actively detrimental to the project before now. I've never been one of those people to discourage donations to the foundation, but if this is what donor money is being used for, then I think donors have a right to know about it. This is downright disgraceful. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just going to post here what I posted on Jimbo's talk page, which is that a few days before this news broke, he told the community that There are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here […] The hostility you are expressing here is not fact based at all.
For me the worst part is that when he wrote that, when he called the WMF's leadership courageous for rejecting recognition, and also when the CEO said at Wikimania that no decision had been made, when the Chair of the Board said the Board supports what the WMF leadership is doing... when all those statements were made, all those people making those statements already knew that the WMF had hired Littler, which the rest of us didn't find out until the NLRB docket was published. (Because no way they hired the law firm and decided to reject recognition all in a matter of like 48hrs, and no way the Board and CEO weren't informed of, or didn't actually make or agree to, those decisions.) The Chair (on behalf of what is probably a unanimous but at least a majority Board), the CEO, and the co-founder all publicly lied when they said they supported workers' rights to unionize, they were simultaneously engaging in anti-union actions like hiring Littler and following their playbook. Infuriating. I can't think of another example of the WMF leadership stray so far from, even act directly against, the mission and our values. Infuriating and disheartening. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
For all that some contributors were previously (and understandably) getting exercised about "WMF employees [being anyone's] personal punching bag", it seems to have become clear that @BMeehan-WMF, @Slaporte (WMF) and @Jimbo Wales were actively misleading the Movement when they (variously) claimed that the Foundation would negotiate in good faith, that the Foundation would offer a fair, lawful and transparent process, that there would be good-faith bargaining or that there are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here […] The hostility you are expressing here is not fact based at all.
Whether those people were actively lying to us or merely uninformed is not really relevant here — in wither case it is unacceptable.
As I just updated to my signature on Meta, I am beyond disappointed and well into the territory of disgusted. I have lots of faith in some parts of the Foundation. I am very disappointed to say that it would appear the C-suite and the Board chair emeritus are no longer among them. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk). I support Wiki Workers United16:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"New union organizing rules, including the standard for responding to union demands for recognition" and "confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements" conveniently at the same webinar but I'm sure those two things are totally not connected. And an extensive library for anyone still looking for some summer reading. Levivich (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
From what I can see, the only possible interpretation of the facts is that the WMF CEO and Jimbo Wales were lying the whole time. We cannot and should not assume good faith against all evidence. Ita140188 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Regarding the personal punching bag, there is a huge difference between WMF top management, board members, etc. and WMF employees who may very well have been directly ordered to say the things that resulted in nasty personal attacks by volunteer editors on this page. That being said, there is no "it's OK to engage in personal attacks and assume bad faith if the victim is part of WMF management" exception in WP:NPA, WP:AGF, or WP:CIV. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Except when you actually catch them lying, especially repeatedly or in an organized way. Then it's not a personal attack anymore, it just becomes a fact. If someone actually lies, it's ok to say that they lied. Our policies don't prohibit that or require us to lie ourselves by pretending otherwise. We do this to editors and WMF management alike. Like every day someone or other is busted for lying about using AI. Same thing if someone says they haven't hired any union busting law firm, at a time when they hired Littler for months, then it's ok to call that lying because that's what it is. If someone says we aren't union busting, when they had already hired Littler for months and held captive audience meetings where they made the staff listen to anti-union talking points, that's lying too, it's ok to call that what it is. If someone says we have not made a decision yet because we're so focused on Wikimania, at a time when they'd already hired Littler, held captive audience meetings where they made the staff listen to anti-union talking points, and decided not to go the voluntary recognition or arbitration route and instead forced a NLRB vote, that's a lie, a fat bald faced public lie, and there's nothing wrong with calling it out, especially if it's a person in a leadership position who is being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of donor money to run the WMF, or is like a cofounder of Wikipedia, or Chair of its Board of so-called "Trustees," a label that, itself, is increasingly becoming a lie. Levivich (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am not engaging in personal attacks, I am just stating the facts. Jimbo Wales and Bernadette Meehan explicitly denied trying to obstruct unionization, while it is evident (anti-union meetings, hiring anti-union law firm, etc.) that was their intention from the beginning. As for on-wiki matters, we assume good faith until proven otherwise. Quoting WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contraryIta140188 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Can you quote similar "allowed if you are just stating the facts" language in WP:NPA, and WP:CIV?
"Jimbo Wales and Bernadette Meehan explicitly denied trying to obstruct unionization, while it is evident (anti-union meetings, hiring anti-union law firm, etc.) that was their intention from the beginning." is allowed. So is "the WMF CEO and Jimbo Wales were lying the whole time." Those were your words, and I never criticized or even commented on them.
"I have absolutely zero faith that BMeehan-WMF didn't just tell a bald-faced lie when she refused to address the question at Wikimania by saying that they're just too focused on the conference. We are ruled by lying politicians, and not even the ones that are particularly good at lying. A sad day for the Wikimedia movement." is not allowed per WP:NPA. Those were not your words, but they were the words that I referred to when I wrote "WMF employees are not your personal punching bag. Argue with what is said. Don't insult the one who said it." --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@Guy Macon: I agree, and I deliberately didn't tag you in my comment because it already felt more pointy than I wanted it to, for which I apologise. I think you and I might disagree on where the line is between "we still need to offer good faith towards this C-suite staffer / Board trustee" and "it feels very clear they are deliberately misleading us and we should call that out", but I don't disagree with you in principle: being a senior exec or a trustee does not give a free pass to cast WP:ASPERSIONS or make WP:NASTY attacks.
I'm sorry if my reference to your "punching bag" comment felt like it was attacking your position; that was very much not my intention.
I do think, however, that initial assumptions of good faith have been traduced at this point and that neither WP:CIVILITY nor ASPERSIONS continues to require us to avoid calling out the betrayal of good faith that has been exhibited by the 3 people I mentioned above. To quote from CIVILITY: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence; the evidence for the claims does appear to be clear now. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk). I support Wiki Workers United14:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I have no problem with your phrase "calling out the betrayal of good faith that has been exhibited by the 3 people I mentioned above" or anything similar. My punching bag comment was in response to another editor saying that "we are too focused on the conference to answer at this time" was "bald-faced lie" and following it with "We are ruled by lying politicians, and not even the ones that are particularly good at lying. A sad day for the Wikimedia movement." Those are personal attacks. I am puzzled as to why multiple editors are assuming that I was responding to something they said instead of the comment I replied to. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Knowing what we know now about the counsel WMF hired and the kinds of anti-union emails and meetings that were held in almost certain coordination with Littler Mendelson by CBasssherizen-WMF herself, that editor was clearly right:-) And the editor that was so strangely hurt by it they accused the wrong person of incivility might need to reassess continuing to defend the executives that practice such deception. stjn14:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I decline to play your continued game of "gotcha" over a mistake that was corrected and apologized for. Please drop the WP:STICK.
Your comments clearly violated WP:NPA. Don't do it again.
You latest WP:ASPERSION (that I "defend the executives that practice such deception") has zero basis in reality. You might want to read WP:CANCER before accusing me of defending the WMF. I am just asking you to argue with what is said without insulting the one who said it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Please explain the circumstances in which this statement, and similar statements such as "There are no 'union-avoidance law firms" involved here,' are not lies. They are certainly false. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Evidence please. Please post the diff where I said that "There are no 'union-avoidance law firms' involved here" wasn't a lie. I am getting very annoyed with being asked to defend made up words that I never wrote.
I would also very much like to see evidence that a claim to be too busy to answer a question that deserves a well-thought out answer while in the middle of running a Wikimania is "certainly false" or a "bald faced lie" Because that's what I actually commented on. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
or anything similar - well, lie and lying are similar to betrayal of good faith. WP:LYING is itself a violation of the civility policy, and the civility policy is not violating itself by using that word. Serious accusations require serious evidence, but we have met that bar here. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
And you see no difference between saying that someone is lying and saying "We are ruled by lying politicians, and not even the ones that are particularly good at lying. A sad day for the Wikimedia movement"? Please explain how the latter is not a violation of "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor" in WP:NPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok so if we agree that lying isn't a PA or uncivil in this case, are you saying it's politicians that's a PA/uncivil, or the accusation that they're not good at it, that's a PA/uncivil?
And, c'mon Guy, you're better than to take a single sentence out of context and wave it around like that. We obviously comment on contributor, and not on content, in project space, such as at noticeboards, and this is a noticeboard. Don't go about suggesting that every single comment on a contributor is a violation of NPA, you know better than that. You know it wouldn't be hard for me to find you commenting on contributors and not on content, so let's just drop that particular line. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Did some brief looking into this. Bernadette Meehan stated that The Foundation received recommendations to work with these specific lawyers from other values-based organizations (non profit/public benefit companies) and because of their familiarity with unionized staff who work in technology. These lawyers have in fact supported work with organizations that now have unions, and they are familiar with the process. As some have pointed out, it's unclear which specific organizations recommended them. It's also unclear whether "these specific lawyers" refers to Littler Mendelson as a whole, or the, uh, specific lawyers involved. (Also unclear to me -- others with more experience in this area can correct me if necessary -- whether WMF chose the specific lawyer or were assigned one. If they were assigned one then that may recontextualize the below paragraph somewhat.)
At any rate, the specific lawyer involved here is Kevin Burke. He does not seem to specialize in the technology sector; his specialty appears to be health care, based on his bio and the publicly accessible cases he is named in. The most noteworthy of these cases is St. Vincent Hospital, as its nurses went on strike in 2021 in an event notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Burke wasn't involved in the nurse cases, but he did represent the hospital when its security officers voted to unionize in summer 2019, a few months before the nurses' union started attempting to negotiate a new contract. The takeaway, then, is that the hospital worked with this guy at a point in time when they were antagonistic enough toward its unions to eventually make national news over it. I suppose you could call that "supported work with organizations that now have unions" (what does that even mean). Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"Other values-based organizations (non profit/public benefit companies)". Hmm. So just how many non-profit organizations out there that are unionized or labor union friendly? I'll admit that I did a quick Google search & found a list of unionized non-profits, but I don't recognize the names of any of those. I'll admit at this point that I suspect that most non-profits are hostile to unionization, for the usual reasons. -- llywrch (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
"supported work with organizations that now have unions" could cover a wide range of things, including being euphemistic for "fought unionization and lost". Anomie⚔22:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I’ve noticed that the WMF management puts out a lot of reasons why WWU doesn’t have to unionize. But ‘there’s no reason to’ is a long way off from ‘there’s a reason not to’. Does the WMF have any real excuse why WWU shouldn’t unionize, or do they just have a lot of ways to rephrase ‘there’s a lack of reasons why you should unionize’? Because if there’s no reason to, and there’s also no reason not to, the WMF wouldn’t care to argue against it. Yet they clearly do.
That means there is a reason for WWU not to unionize that they haven’t said yet. Can someone please state what that reason is? (Preferably someone from the WMF.) Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨) (any/all) In solidarity.00:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
You're unlikely to get a useful answer. The WMF has had problems with empire-building and office politics for a long time. It's very likely that the opposition is because it would limit the ways that executives and high-level management can exercise power for their own benefit, but admitting that would be a PR disaster. Anomie⚔13:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I know that that’s very likely the reason they’re opposing it; that’s precisely why I wanted an answer from the WMF itself (which will most likely not happen at this point). I want to hear how they’d say it in their own corporatespeak words. Unfortunately, you’re right; because that’d be a PR disaster, they’re probably not going to say anything. Cheers, 𝔰𝔥𝔞𝔡𝔢𝔰𝔱𝔞𝔯(𝔱𝔞𝔩𝔨) (any/all) In solidarity.00:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Full text of M:WWUEMAIL sent to US Foundation staff with anti-union talking points on 27 February. The below paragraph in particular is not neutral in any sense of the word.
Unions are not structured to represent non-union members or formally negotiate issues on behalf of non-union groups. This is important because of concerns raised about the Foundation’s relationship with the Wikimedia movement around how decisions are made. We care deeply about this and are working to address it through different avenues.
Does the Wikimedia Foundation seriously expect people to believe that it is somehow unique in having US- and non-US-based employees? Or that it's the first multinational company where workers have unionized? It's profoundly disappointing to see such plainly anti-union arguments privately expressed to employees at least as far back as February, with the CPO and other executives signing an email to all employees directly stating that we don’t believe that a union would effectively address the concerns being raised or meet the Foundation’s needs at this moment, as those same people make repeated assurances that they are not taking any anti-union actions and Jimmy claims "The Foundation is taking a totally neutral stance." And it's hard to take seriously the WMF's stated concern that staff are feeling pressured by other employees to support a union when executives — who have direct control over a person's continued employment — are sending out anti-union emails like this one. But hey, who needs a union when you have "Making Space sessions"... GorillaWarfare(she/her•talk) 20:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
So... do we know when the union busting actually began? It is blowing my mind to quite literally read this page out of Littler's playbook dated February. That tells me they'd already hired Littler before February. Meehan only became CEO at the end of January, so was this decision to union-bust made by the previous CEO Iskandar?
(Is this why we hired a CEO with no prior CEO experience? Because every candidate with prior CEO experience had the good sense to not step into this mess?)
I'd guessed that hiring Littler was a response to WWU going to the CWU, because Littler has like the most experience fighting CWU--not saying that's a good thing, just that it makes sense in an arms-race way: WWU got the big guns, so then WMF got the big guns. But now I'm wondering: who got involved first, CWU or Littler? Do we know? Levivich (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wiki Workers United remained independent (no professional union staff) until late June 2026. I believe we announced our existence to management in January 2026 (this current iteration... we had attempted twice before this attempt over the last ten years.) We formally affiliated with CWA after taking a vote on several other options including remaining independent.
We have a timeline of events that we may share with the public down the road.
I wasn't going to bring this up until you have a contract (and I advise that nobody associated with WWU reply to this comment until there is a contract -- some very clever union-busting lawyers are reading every word written here) but you might want to start thinking about this: What if the WWU decided to be financially transparent and publish exactly where any money comes from and exactly how it is spent? Not just the minimum required by law like the WMF provides, but real numbers so that those who pay dues know exactly what their money is buying? Like I said, don't answer now. Just start thinking about it and maybe retaining records so that info on what was spent in the early stages doesn't get lost. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Just stating the obvious here: The no 'union-avoidance law firms' involved here" comment was made somewhat late in the workday on July 28 -- around 2:30 PM San Francisco time. The filing confirming Littler's involvement was also dated July 28. So in order for that comment to have been true, the turnaround from involving the firm to filing would have had to be 3 hours or less. (and that's assuming the NLRB is on Pacific time) Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
When I see here so much interesting content about what's going on in English, I regret two things: the lack of interlanguage links between wikis and espacially community spaces... and my poor level of English . DarkVador79-UA (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
French Wikipedia Signpost-equivalent article on the WWU debacle
Article here, in French obviously. Interviews w/ Sadads, some employees, what seems to be new information not mentioned here, will bullet-point some. Apologies for Google Translating, I feel dirty about it too, anyway:
Demands for better employee representation have been reportedly going on since 2015 at least, according to one employee (who requested anonymity as did all employees mentioned here) the recent unionization efforts were catalyzed by "a cascade of departures and dismissals of colleagues with significant seniority whose voices were respected within the Foundation's staff"
According to one employee, an anti-union videoconference meeting was held March 3; after the invitation to said meeting went out, it was amended to add a "Your participation in this meeting is entirely optional" statement, to which the employee remarked: (again, Google Translated) "I really got the impression that someone from the legal department became aware of what could very easily have been considered an unfair labor practice."
The list of countries the WMF is and is not hiring from has changed recently and has created some de facto job loss: (Google Translation) "Employees who wanted to relocate to [excluded] countries were unable to do so, and some had to leave WMF. Even more incomprehensibly, according to [interviewed employee], one employee had her relocation to France refused, even though the country was not among those excluded; she left WMF. The job description created to replace her, however, included France in the list of recruiting countries."
The reassignment/re-hiring of the community tech team was the product of "external and internal pressure", unclear whether "external" means the community, the media, both, something else
regarding that last bullet point, the article got updated with the following clarification:
(google translate disclaimer again) Several employees we spoke to specifically named Selena Deckelmann as the one truly responsible for these decisions and the setbacks of recent months, which have significantly increased tensions, including within the communities. They also emphasized how much they appreciate the support of the online community. For Marcel, this is one of the first times the community has 'explicitly distinguished between employees and senior management,' he added, noting that the former sometimes bear the brunt of volunteers' frustration over decisions made by the latter.Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hi, I would clarify that what was shared was an unfinished draft. It will be published in about two hours, in the RAW issue (right now a red link) in which it belongs. The part you highlighted, @Gnomingstuff, is, I believe, an important addition (but not the only one). Best, — Jules*talk20:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the note -- I was confused about the date in the title, that explains it. Feel free to highlight anything else you feel is important, I focused mainly on things that I didn't remember being mentioned on enwiki throughout this. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Now it is published; your remarks are welcome. (Another interesting point, at least for me, is that several WWU members I talked to do not believe Community Tech being disbanded or Brooke Vibber being fired was intended by WMF leadership as union-busting actions. This does not mean that they think those actions were OK.) — Jules*talk22:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
To the best of my knowledge, the dissolution of Commtech was in the works for some time and the team was not specifically targeted due to the unionization effort or the union affiliations of some of its staff.
It was, however, exactly the sort of management action that gets folks already thinking about unionization to organize more effectively together. brooke (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2026 Issue 14
Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on July 18. Please help translate.
Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026: The beloved Wikimedian of The Year awards shine the light on exceptional individuals, and through them, on the whole Wikimedia community. Learn about all of this year's winners.
Public policy advocacy: Overview of Wikimania 2026 sessions about public policy advocacy. While not all sessions are recorded, you can watch some by clicking the session.
Users with extended rightspre-conference: 190 users with extended rights from all around the world gathered at a Wikimania pre-conference, to exchange experiences, learn from each other and connect.
Media coverage: The event was mentioned in many media outlets as part of wider coverage about the Wikimedia projects including in Le Monde, El Nacional and Radio France.
Improvement to Reading Lists: Community feedback around the placement of watchstar and watchlist buttons for the Reading Lists beta feature has been incorporated. 93% of participating users reported that it was useful. This feature allows saving articles for later reading – a wishlist item to bring the functionality to web.
Creating custom edit suggestions: With the TextMatch feature, volunteers can now create custom local suggestions within the VisualEditor for improving Wikipedia articles. You can find examples from other communities for inspiration. Share your feedback.
Dark mode for Content Translation:Content Translation now supports dark mode, fulfilling a Community Wishlist request. This brings the tool in line with the accessibility features available in the Vector 2022 and Minerva skins, helping reduce visual fatigue for users translating content.
Mobile page preview: Based on the conclusion of the experiment, mobile page previews feature will not be rolled out. The experiment showed flat retention and negative indicator metrics, suggesting that mobile web readers preferred navigating directly to linked articles rather than using page previews.
Scaling of Explore Feed to iOS: The Explore Feed Refresh initiative was tested with new and casual Wikipedia app readers. The refreshed feed helps readers discover new and relevant content. After a 10.5% increase in engagement with the feed, Home Feed redesign will be scaled to iOS by applying the learnings from the Android release.
Improving Account Creation process: After running several Account Creation Experiments to improve registration completion rates, a new version of the username field on Create Account has been rolled out. Read more.
Tech News: The latest highlights from Tech News week 30 and 31 include that now wikis can restrict editing in the “User” namespace to only the page owner and certain user groups. See also the 50 community submitted tasks that were resolved over the last two weeks.
New bot detection system for all wikis: After a successful trial, which showed evidence of both deterring bots and being easier to use, hCaptcha (our new bot detection system) has been rolled out to all wikis, for account creation, and for most newcomer edits.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. If you have feedback or suggestions about the bulletin, let us know at foundationbulletin@wikimedia.org. For questions about the Wikimedia Foundation's work, contact us!
It's neither. Articles written on Abstract Wikipedia are written by humans, using wikifunctions that are also written by humans. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Humans write many things. That doesn't change that Abstract Wikipedia articles are written by users directly and no artificial intelligence program is executed by the server software. isaacl (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Asterisks in sup tags
I have noticed, recently, that a number of wikipedia articles have asterisks that are in superscript tags, which is probably wrong because a normal asterisk already functions like a superscript character (compare * vs *). I don't really have time to fix all of them, so I mention it here in the hopes that other people will carry the effort forward if interested. (Also, some of the pages are probably right, because superscripted text with an asterisk in it would have a superscript asterisk — but most of the examples are standalone asterisks.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I went to look at WP:SPI not long ago, and saw a picture of a cat in a drawer, saying Sock drawer empty. I didn't know if this was good or bad. (I also don't know if the cat thinks that this is good or bad. She may have been in the habit of resting on the socks rather than on the wooden drawer. Then again, she might have thrown the socks out of the drawer because cats like to play with things.) It could have meant that the SPI clerks had a backlog drive and dispositioned all of the SPI's, or that a template had been broken by a reckless edit. Then I saw two SPI cases listed, very different from the usual 30 or 40. So my question is: Should we thank the hard-working SPI clerks for eliminating the backlog, and also for what appear to be some improvements in the structure and handling of sockpuppet reports, or did something improperly close all of the sockpuppet reports?
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
We legitimately have zero SPI cases currently! Thanks are definitely in order to all the SPI clerks, admins, and checkusers who have been working hard not only on the backlog but also on training new clerks and getting new contributors involved. As far as my memory goes, there have been only two other moments when we have reached "SPI 0": last time was in November 2022 and before that in January 2022. Well done, everyone! Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Research Project on Fact-checking Wikipedia Sources with LLMs
I’m working with a team from Columbia University and members from WikiProject AI Tools to research LLMs as a tool for verifying the accuracy of citations in Wikipedia articles. We are seeking Wikipedia editors who are willing to participate who are willing to participate in verifying some of these citations, which we will, with a symbolic stipend to compensate for your time.
Disclaimer. This study is funded by a Wikimedia Foundation rapid grant (the grant's page features a previous research goal of the project, before we changed course with the WikiProject AI Tools). The grant is only used to compensate participants; I and other researchers are strictly volunteers.
The Research Project. Our goal is to find out how reliable LLMs are on the task of verifying sources in Wikipedia articles. We built our own open source platform to support a methodical annotation process (see our Github), which follows the same broad framework from the AI Source Verification tool by Alaexis (see verficiation results). Our full results will be openly shared, with the aim of creating a benchmark dataset for future LLM fact-checking validation.
The Task. The task required from participants is to check a Wikipedia passage against its cited source (we will later compare these results to how LLMs perform on the task). You will now see a short passage extracted as-is from a real Wikipedia article, along with the raw citation text for that passage. Your task is to judge how well the citation supports the factual claims made in the quoted Wikipedia passage.
We recognize that this can be a demanding task, which is why we’re offering a symbolic stipend to those willing to make the time. The amount of the stipend is based on the amount of samples fact-checked.
Privacy & Security. If you choose to participate, we’re open to either crediting your efforts in our paper, or maintaining your full anonymity, whichever you prefer. We adhere to the Wikimedia Foundation’s privacy policy. Participants may be asked to provide basic demographics for research purposes, which will be discarded after research concludes by early 2027.
Participation. If you would like to participate, please sign up on the annotation platform linked on our Github page. Because we're following a strict research methodology and aiming to publish the results, the platform will ask participants to submit a brief evaluation test (5 samples) before you start annotating. This will be included in the stipend.
Feel free to reach out if you have any feedback or thoughts on this experiment. Happy to share the research proposal or answer any questions!
P.S. if this is kind of request is not valid to post here, please let me know if there's anywhere else that would make sense (or nowhere!), as I was indeed not fully sure. Abbad (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This sounds like an interesting projet, but as a technical issue, your Quick Start instructions would have the user install your code into their machine's system python. Surely you want people to be setting up a virtual env first? RoySmith(talk)17:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you, updated the Github to include the env setup, and also more clearly lay out the live platform (for typical users) versus how to reuse / setup the annotation platform (for developers). Abbad (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
OK, next step. I went to your live system to try it out. You're presenting text in a grey font on a lighter grey background. No, sorry, I'm not going to struggle to read grey-on-grey text. RoySmith(talk)01:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Is this related to the WikiAnnotate project (Signpost)? A big advantage of llms would be being able to process other sources nearby for situations where a text becomes separated from its source by later edits, but I suppose that's a bit down the line. CMD (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fixed and should work now, feel free to give it another try. The WikiAnnotate project seems interesting, but that's focused on article quality. We're specifically testing LLMs for source verification, like the community test made here by the WikiProject AI Tools Abbad (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Gave it another try, I would say 0/5 of the samples support the shown text. I don't think that's ideal either. CMD (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers § Disclaimers by WMF not exempt?. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
) in the 2010 editing toolbar, and individual features can be enabled/disabled in CodeMirror’s preferences.
Done. Now I see the issue. User:Anomie/hide-images.js and User:Anomie/hide-images.css&ctype[equal]text/css were the culprits. I started using this to remove images from pages. I removed both, and now everything is working normally. Also, thanks, PrimeHunter. Morris (talk with this worm) 13:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
A new ChartWizard is now available on Wikimedia Commons for users interested in creating charts from their own data. The wizard makes the Chart extension more beginner-friendly by allowing editors to create charts, such as bar and pie charts, without needing to use JSON. Users can still switch to the JSON editor if they prefer. Feedback on the new tool is welcome on the wish talk page.
View all 19 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where the Wikipedia iOS app’s Picture of the Day widget displayed the same image every day instead of updating daily, has now been fixed. 
Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?
Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist. This will let you see when someone adds a new language version to the corresponding Wikidata item. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Confirmed sockpuppet of Blackbombchu. 
Comment: Newbies are already covered by BITE, as noted, although I think we're pretty quick to BITE and need to chill with them too. I'm saying that over a certain number of edits and time spent as an editor, the track record should be heavily considered. @Chaotic Enby, there is certainly a lot of editors who have allies defending them on ANI, however look at the bans of long term editors and from what I've seen, people will bring up slights from long before the main issue being discussed. Say every 1,000 edits a hypothetical editor isn't their best self and gets in a dispute where they are in the wrong on a talk page somewhere. Each one of these disputes can leave a bad impression with multiple editors in the discussion, so when something comes to ANI, there could be several people jumping in voting not on the issue at hand, but on the track record of edits that stood out to them over the years. If they mostly focus on building an encyclopedia and don't build many relationships many other individual editors, they are unlikely to have strong allies. WP:TIAC, but we should formalize safety nets for long time editors who are not part of one. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
. I can’t think of a single reason I would support hiding an LTA username that isn’t suppressable. OS criteria 4 gives us this ability locally for attack usernames, and the other OS criteria gives it to us for libel and PII. Globally stewards don’t have to lock-suppress, they can lock-hide as well (unless that’s changed recently.) So what is the target of usernames were revdeling here where all logs need to be redacted? I’m just not seeing the purpose here or where this helps. I can also think of several potentially negative things that could come out of this, so I’d want to have a very strong reason to support first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
15:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Let’s say that I’ll try to continue to assume good faith also about the messaging, but I also hope that the next developments would be shared with a large part of the Wikimedia communities! Sukkoria (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
wikimedia.org? In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
. DarkVador79-UA (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
