Trontur
WikipediaLots of talk about donating money, which is great, but donating time is equally as impactful — we always need more editors, and it's these volunteers who create and curate our content! 
--sf
JZehcuob@wikipedia you're absolutely right. I would add that too many people believe that they are not smart enough to contribute to Wikipedia or don't even know who edit the encyclopedia. We need to teach people on how to be a contributor. I did exactly that during 3 years.
@wikipedia Wikipedia tutorial, in French. I did that as a wikimedian in residence from 2019 to 2021, thanks to a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. And then as a self-employed worker in 2022.
https://youtu.be/KNOcggA6NpU?si=aHXDArK2J_uQ5w5o
https://youtu.be/KNOcggA6NpU?si=aHXDArK2J_uQ5w5o
Tutoriel Wikipédia - Première partie : Premiers pas
Himmelssohn@wikipedia
The other side of the deal would be to treat edits well. Can't see that, sorry.
The other side of the deal would be to treat edits well. Can't see that, sorry.
Joe Roe@wikipedia If not more impactful! Money donated to the Wikimedia Foundation goes to maintaining Wikipedia's servers, developing the software, and supporting community organising through grants – all important, but something it currently has ample financial resources for.
Writing Wikipedia articles, maintaining its standards, developing its editorial policies and resolving conflicts between editors all runs on volunteer time alone – and IMO that's what we're short of.
joene 🏴@wikipedia Also make sure to fix the outrageous high salaries. No-one needs to earn more than a ton per year! [1] This is one of the reasons I stopped contributing to Wikipedia and believe me, I did that a lot in the past.
So make sure to fix the #capitalism problem in the #Wikimedia Foundation and I will consider to re-contribute.
Also make sure your #LGBTQIA+ standards are also valid for other language editions, like the Dutch. Were misgendering is accepted as an 'opinion'.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries
erik eva 
@uitvreter Exactly!
totobe@uitvreter @joenepraat @wikipedia at the same time, i think it is important to consider the negative impact such an adjective has for one’s reputation… here, on french Wikipedia, several people are labelled as “islamo-”, “trans-“phobic, “climatosceptic” (with sources of why experts call them so). But in its endeavor to promote universal knowledge and neutral POV, Wikipedia must stay a safe place for everyone, even for its “enemies” and for people we don’t like…WDYT?
@totobe Transphobia is not a neutral point of view. Don't hide behind POV.
@totobe
I'm not talking about calling people transphobic, I'm talking about calling transphobia transphobic.
@joenepraat @wikipedia
I'm not talking about calling people transphobic, I'm talking about calling transphobia transphobic.
@joenepraat @wikipedia
@uitvreter @joenepraat @wikipedia oh i thought you meant “the Dutch wikipedia, where [misgendering] and where writing « this person is transphobic, according to so and so » is considered a personal attack” as opposed to a general adjective among others describing this person’s views… i’m not sure I quite understand “calling transphobia transphobic”… do you have an example on hand? Thanks! Here's the one that's had me thinking recently : https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/13_d%C3%A9cembre_2024&oldid=221209016#Le_Point_Ouin-Ouin (§Le Point Ouin-Ouin)
Seb@wikipedia @joenepraat Being involved would seem a good way to address these?
@seb321 I already did that as I pointed out. But thank you for the great suggestion. 🙄
@wikipedia @joenepraat I’m just not sure what an alternative is 🤷
@joenepraat @wikipedia also about the salaries : one PoV I heard is that the market for software engineers is very competitive so in order to have decent workers they have to offer a good salary, otherwise it’s not attractive enough…
@totobe It's not per ce about the software developer salaries, although good developers or sysadmins won't ask for these outrageous capitalist figures. Those assholes can work for Meta, I don't care. No it's especially about the executives.
They're asking for contributers, volunteers. People whose salaries are maybe 100x lower. It's not ethical to give yourself those kinds of salaries with that in mind. Those volunteers are free workers for the rich.
Tamsyn Ulthara 🏳️⚧️⛧🎃🐈⬛@joenepraat I can't even imagine what I would do with $250k+ USD. There's a point where you have every reasonable luxury imaginable and anything more is just obscene.
Space Hobo@joenepraat @wikipedia This may be a local dialect thing, but in the UK "a ton" is slang for £100, which seems like a very low amount for an annual salary. Does it have other amounts in other places?
Flaming Cheeto@wikipedia I've always been worried about me becoming... I'll have to set a timer https://xkcd.com/386/
Poupou@PizzaDemon @wikipedia this is so true!
Jonas Boström@wikipedia I've done it a bit in the past but not that much anymore. The culture is not that welcoming always. The last times I've tried to create new articles I've had to spend more time explaining to other editors why they are relevant, than actually writing the article.
Ingo Wichmann@Jonas_Bostrom @wikipedia I've put a lot of effort in researching and writing this: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ingo_Wichmann/Open_Source_Business_Alliance
It got deleted by one admin multiple times, and I can't get why.
I didn't find another instance that can explain that to me.
Small changes usually get through. So I won't invest more time .
Philip Burggraf@ingo_wichmann @Jonas_Bostrom @wikipedia Newly added articles to the german Wikipedia are deleted fairly often with the remark „keine Relevanz“ even if the article itself brings a lot of value and was written with a lot of effort.
This was/is a common problem of the german Wikipedia and exists for more than 10 years …
Other languages does not have this problem tho
This was/is a common problem of the german Wikipedia and exists for more than 10 years …
Other languages does not have this problem tho
Adam@ingo_wichmann @Jonas_Bostrom @wikipedia
Pretty sure other languages also have this problem, tho maybe its more common on German Wikipedia, I don't know
https://mastodon.social/@naught101/113716353256293321
https://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-rejected-donna-strickland-entry-before-nobel-prize-2018-10
Wikipedia rejected Donna Strickland entry before she won Nobel Prize
Dr. Donna Strickland jointly won the Nobel Prize for Physics on Tuesday, but she did not have a Wikipedia page until then. Strickland won the 2018 prize for breakthroughs in the field of lasers, becoming the third woman to receive the honor. But in May, a Wikipedia entry for her was rejected.
@adamsaidsomething It does exist on other languages as well. I've created new articles that's been nominated for deletion or moved to draft space within two hours by people that later admitted that they know nothing about the subject. Forcing me to spend a lot of time on trying to explain the relevance.
But both pages still exist today so obviously they were relevant. @ingo_wichmann @wikipedia
Derk-Jan 💙💛🇺🇦@Jonas_Bostrom @adamsaidsomething @ingo_wichmann @wikipedia i have not looked into these cases.
But in general I would say, that many people dive into writing an article way too quickly. Unless you have edited about a 200+ articles, most people should probably not sink their teeth into an entirely new article just yet.
But in general I would say, that many people dive into writing an article way too quickly. Unless you have edited about a 200+ articles, most people should probably not sink their teeth into an entirely new article just yet.
@TheDJ I currently have done around 900 edits on Wikipedia, it was a bit fewer when I made those articles, but still well over 200. And both articles where individuals that showed up as red links in many articles.
But that didn't prevent people that did not know anything about the subject to try to stop me.
@TheDJ @wikipedia OK, you did not look into these cases. But you comment anyway.
Is 299 (non-anonymous) Edits since 2004 ok for you?
Is 299 (non-anonymous) Edits since 2004 ok for you?
Carolin (Kamera-)Kram@wikipedia And yet women are constantly being driven away from the platform. Funny.
@carolin @wikipedia I think that has always been a huge problem. I can only say from my point of view, I would really like to fight that pattern of behaviour, however we can.
🌸 Christie 🌈 ♡⁛◦｡@wikipedia I'm sure this is true! I hope you find people who have time to do it. I think the people donating would also love to eventually see how much the recent donations have boosted your funds.
隻眼の王@wikipedia Jake, from State Farm.
Feldwebel KartoffelnKopf@wikipedia I so wish I could help. You folks perform a vital service. In the beginning (circa 1965) while the hardware was crude, the promise of the 'net shown like a glistening tower, something everyone could work on and make better. It was to be part of our 'utopia'.
While not all of our "prehistoric" prognostications have come to fruition, Wikipedia is a sterling example of what is possible.
Alex@wikipedia just don't sell to that ahole named Elon.
0xFFFF_FFFF@wikipedia wikipedia is biased and limits people from contributing
Does Wikipedia still ban Tor users from participating? This could be stopping many potential contributors from helping out
https://blog.torproject.org/the-value-of-anonymous-contributions-wikipedia
The value of Tor and anonymous contributions to Wikipedia | Tor Project
According to a recently published research paper co-authored by researchers from Drexel, NYU, and the University of Washington, Tor users make high-quality contributions to Wikipedia. And, when they are blocked, as doctoral candidate Chau Tran, the lead author describes, "the collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from anonymity seekers is invisible."
Nemo_bis 🌈@adamsaidsomething Not intentionally. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies#Exceptions
Ben S.@wikipedia I learned the hard way that my time is not wanted: I gradually got bullied out of editing due to rabid deletionists, who managed to eventually delete everything I ever contributed over a couple of decades, and I ultimately retired my account in protest. Get back to me when you've made the place less unwelcoming.
Janis@wikipedia I used to donate to public radio, too, until I found out their executives take in 100x what I do, and I make about as much as thier DJ's and techs.
it's time for Wikipedia to lead. What does it look like when the panhandler isn't getting paid (quite that much) more than the nickel-tosser?
Jim Dory@wikipedia Gave up trying to curate on the one subject I know to be incorrect on wikipedia when it wouldn't let me correct the mistakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Saloon
Sidebar has address correct.. built in 1899 for Jafet Lindeberg. Max Gordon was a much later inhabitant. Became a residence in 1916 by Antonio Polet. We met with NPS folks and showed evidence when they were reworking their historic places in Nome book, but we were ignored. Casts doubt on all historical compilations.
Sidebar has address correct.. built in 1899 for Jafet Lindeberg. Max Gordon was a much later inhabitant. Became a residence in 1916 by Antonio Polet. We met with NPS folks and showed evidence when they were reworking their historic places in Nome book, but we were ignored. Casts doubt on all historical compilations.
Joe Heafner@wikipedia I would love to, but my discipline is guarded by gatekeepers with PhDs who have nothing but disdain for people, with non-PhD graduate degrees, who specialize in teaching the discipline rather than doing research. Plus, for some reason I was banned from editing an article I authored. Not worth my time.
Florian Schmidt@wikipedia
Maybe there should be a "Notability Clearance Help Desk", so people who really want to contribute can check up-front if their topic is worth spending effort on.
Nothing is more frustrating than doing your research, citing reliable sources, writing your own text, edit it to look nice, add photos on this very subject (that are accepted on Commons!) - only to find all your stuff deleted by a grumpy admin the next day, telling you it's violating WP:N.
To a newcomer nonetheless!
Maybe there should be a "Notability Clearance Help Desk", so people who really want to contribute can check up-front if their topic is worth spending effort on.
Nothing is more frustrating than doing your research, citing reliable sources, writing your own text, edit it to look nice, add photos on this very subject (that are accepted on Commons!) - only to find all your stuff deleted by a grumpy admin the next day, telling you it's violating WP:N.
To a newcomer nonetheless!
Sebastian Lasse@schmidt_fu
Ack.
But this is one of the reasons for a federated wikipedia.
Before recontributing it to the centralized knowledge of the world, your own stuff should not be deleted by the grinch, it should enhance the fediverse knowledge.
We talked about the "context" and "describes" in the last Social CG meeting.
Later today there is the next Issue Triage (just btw) https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/socialcg/calendar/
Anyway, you can say " this happens in the context of this wikidata/wikipedia 'topic' " or "this describes a wikidata/wikipedia entity"
Anyone in fedi can find it alongside the item. Then any contribute component can be the bonus step …
In general, wikbase should be an ActivityPub Actor itself (for trust).
Then official articles can be visually "official" but when I am interested in your view, it is fine too ...
@sl007
I'm not sure I follow. The point of the donation debate is that right-wing actors try to control who sees what (by owning news, channels) or creating an infinite amount of bullshit (with "AI") to control the public's view on certain topics (say, elections, oil and gas, climate change, ...).
Wikipedia cuts through this bullshit layer by forcing people to agree on one version of the common reality - if not without conflict. I'm not sure a distributed wiki achieves the same goal.
@wikipedia
I'm not sure I follow. The point of the donation debate is that right-wing actors try to control who sees what (by owning news, channels) or creating an infinite amount of bullshit (with "AI") to control the public's view on certain topics (say, elections, oil and gas, climate change, ...).
Wikipedia cuts through this bullshit layer by forcing people to agree on one version of the common reality - if not without conflict. I'm not sure a distributed wiki achieves the same goal.
@wikipedia
Well, this applies to federated wikis too!
It feels particular unfair, why?
The right-wing actors (partly probably the same you mentioned) wanted to create a "censorship-resistant and federated wiki based on ActivityPub".
This was a Direct Message to me by Dr. Larry Sanger who names himself "wikipedia-cofounder" but as of today is a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
I am very thankful that a particular member of the ActivityPub community shared S.s recent publications so that I could tell him to go along and …
It is just about using a federated wiki edit workflow. In any case the content would be at least the "commo reality" of your instance.
If you see my realist-talk at "Public Spaces" , I doubt that any "common reality" will have any majority - unfortunately - but: Hope!
Anyway, it is not a distributed wiki, as said, in the ideal world, it would just be the ActivityPub signature of e.g. https://de.wikipedia.org/
Any fedi software can have a contribute buttonfor API:Edit
1/2
because you said "Wikipedia":
There is no "common reality" but a "common reality of a language-speaking community" otherwise let's say wikidata.
Let's not leave the federated wikipedia thing to the fascists. They will be isolated in their own bubble anyway …
This is the benefit of decentralized networks, see the video from our official ActivityPub Conf by Derek
https://conf.tube/w/sLCED7n6351UtA7QrvkSnU
Decentralized Social Networks vs. The Trolls
PS forgot the link;
it was on a network where I left meanwhile but the answers are available thanks to Internet Archive https://web.archive.org/web/20210103235132/https://twitter.com/sl007/status/1345880410140643330
#wikipedia #larrysanger #altright #fascism #conspiracy
Sebastian Lasse | [email protected] on Twitter
“@lsanger @Datatitian @LayAngels @jimmy_wales @Wikimedia I have just read this article https://t.co/1TbFaSAoqY I did not read it before. I will now delete all my posts here. Go along.”
bazbt3 🦣@schmidt_fu Painful isn't it. Did you consider first adding your text and images to a page that already exists, that your deleted page has relevance to? If that is 'allowed', it may be something worth building on - in the future.
*However* the problem with Wikipedia is that we can't just create a new page based on information on an existing Wikipedia page – as you've found it has to have notable external references.
@bazbt3
I had my share of trying to contribute my knowledge to WP, my problem isn't even that there is a process and that you can follow it eventually. My problem is, that it isn't *honest*, it doesn't work as advertised. And this puts off many newcomers.
@wikipedia
I had my share of trying to contribute my knowledge to WP, my problem isn't even that there is a process and that you can follow it eventually. My problem is, that it isn't *honest*, it doesn't work as advertised. And this puts off many newcomers.
@wikipedia
@bazbt3
"Wikipedia verlangt nicht, dass dein erster Artikel gleich alle wünschenswerten Anforderungen ab der ersten Version erfüllt. [..] Das Wiki-Prinzip beruht darauf, dass einer anfängt und viele mitarbeiten und verbessern, deshalb sei mutig und lege neue Artikel an."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:Neuen_Artikel_anlegen
@wikipedia
"Wikipedia verlangt nicht, dass dein erster Artikel gleich alle wünschenswerten Anforderungen ab der ersten Version erfüllt. [..] Das Wiki-Prinzip beruht darauf, dass einer anfängt und viele mitarbeiten und verbessern, deshalb sei mutig und lege neue Artikel an."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:Neuen_Artikel_anlegen
@wikipedia
@bazbt3
This is just not what's happening for real, and not for at least one decade.
The last time I had a chance to see this in effect was when #Natenom, one of the most well-known bike activists in Germany, was killed by a car-driver and it was big news, even in world-wide media. Someone tried to be helpful, and created a new article. The article was immediately subjected to a #Löschantrag, and only saved due to the alertness of people *still mourning a recent death*.
@wikipedia
This is just not what's happening for real, and not for at least one decade.
The last time I had a chance to see this in effect was when #Natenom, one of the most well-known bike activists in Germany, was killed by a car-driver and it was big news, even in world-wide media. Someone tried to be helpful, and created a new article. The article was immediately subjected to a #Löschantrag, and only saved due to the alertness of people *still mourning a recent death*.
@wikipedia
@schmidt_fu Absolutely right. It seems to me that some frequent users believe the position they themselves have cultivated gives them the right to remove content - they are confusing objectivity and subjectivity.
The measure of whether something is notable (or is not) works both ways. I remember when the company that bought the app.net domain believed their more recent claim to relevance was greater than for the years the app incubator/social network existed.
People eh!
varx/tech@wikipedia If you want more editors, then you need to deal with the fiefdom problem.
I used to be a frequent editor, filling in major gaps and helping deal with edit issues, spam, and heated conflicts. But over time I was driven away by editors who believed they "owned" a part of the wiki, and were *very* good at quoting the rules. (And there are a *lot* of rules.) Basically, toxic bureaucrats.
I love Wikipedia, but I can't justify spending my time bringing things to arbitration just to tweak a sentence.
You've gotta do something to get rid of these prolific but hostile editors. They're a net negative to the project.
⁂ Fish Id Wardrobe@varx @wikipedia I have successfully edited two wikipedia pages — because nobody cared about them. All the other edits I made, mostly just correcting English IIRC (this was a while ago), were immediately reverted. Wikipedia: the encyclopaedia you're not allowed to edit.
Bodhipaksa@wikipedia The little experience I’ve had of trying to edit Wikipedia is of encountering toxic, imperious gatekeeping. I think you’d benefit from two things: 1. Mandatory training courses for existing editors in how not to be an asshole. 2. An on-boarding process for potential editors (preferably including mentoring) so that venturing into Wikipedia doesn’t feel like being tossed into a pit of jackals at the Coliseum.
חנן כהן • Hanan Cohen@bodhipaksa Giving advice to Wikipedia is useless. Don't ask me how I know.