Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2013-04

excel2wiki.net doesn't work any more

Help:Tables#Spreadsheet_to_wiki_table_format says

To convert from spreadsheets such as Gnumeric, MS Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc, see http://excel2wiki.net/.

This used to be true, but for many months (at least) it has given me only tables with everything in one column. I would delete the section, but I'm not sure it's not a problem at my end. I've put a note there, "Obsolete?", with a link to this Forum post. Would someone more knowledgeable please check it out, and do whatever is necessary? TIA. --Thnidu (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this? πr² (t • c) 00:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikikids

Hi,

I'm working again on the Wikikids proposal for a new Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project (which is for some language adopting an existing project into Wikimedia) I would be glad if you can check my english, ask question and tell what you think is missing.

I've recently made these pages :

• Wikikids/For children or by children ?;
• Wikikids/Relation to the Rights of the Child and
• Wikikids/Review of current existing wikis akin to Wikikids.

Thank you for your help ! Astirmays (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

how to join the wiki man meeting on 19/4?

how to join the wiki man meeting on 19/4? teach me, please

Providing a link to information what a "wiki man meeting" is would be a helpful first step. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

please don´t ask me for a donation if I have already done so

Is it possible to get a cookie or sth. that prevents those donation messages? Or further, thanks me briefly as supporter or s.th.? Because after donating, you get treated like an unscrupulous cadger again which feels...unappropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.133.5.251 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. You shouldn't see any banners after you donate until the cookie expires. We haven't standardized the lifetime of the cookies. But if you donated during the 2012 fundraiser in Nov or Dec, you shouldn't have seen banners again in Nov or Dec. If you are in one of the countries where we fundraised not in 2012, but in March 2013, then the same applies there. The exceptions are France, Germany and Switzerland, where Wikimedia Chapters processed payments in 2012. I believe they kept showing banners even after donations. Also remember that if you change computers or browsers, or clear cookies, you'll see banners again, if banners are running at the time. Zackexley (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The user is in Germany. If he (or she) sees this, then perhaps he will contact the German chapter with his complaint about their actions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from March 2013

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for March 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement

• • Wikimedia Foundation highlights
  • Lua speeds up pages and empowers Wikimedia's technical contributors
  • Mobile uploads launch for apps and the mobile web
  • First Individual Engagement Grants awarded to innovative community projects
  • Wikipedia Zero wins award, reaches new users
  • Ombudsmen meet, might expand mandate
• Data and Trends
• Financials
• Other movement highlights
  • Phase 2 of Wikidata is becoming available on Wikipedia
  • Evaluating the success of the "Mediagrant" project to document nature reserves
  • WikiAfrica offers physical space for Wikimedia contributions in Cameroon

About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 00:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

1. the author BlackLotux is one of puppets of User:Edouardlicn who was forbidden forever on ZH_Wikipedia. User:Edouardlicn set up a wiki-group with a open aim "anti-cult", and ever

Global Economic Map

Please see Global Economic Map.

I would love to see a Wiki project map out the global economy. In an organized format all local/country economic data would be collected. All authors would be required to write articles according to a standardized format. The model revolves around publicly released economic data: GDP, employment, industries, corporations, fiscal policy, etc. Economists and volunteers can help determine which economic data accounts are most appropriate to be required under the standardized format.

There is nothing in the world that resembles this model. There is no Wiki that allows economists to add economic data under a standardized format. I have already written the article for 'Economy of the United States'. It is 7 pages long. This article contains what I believe is the most important economic data available to the public. The data is almost entirely in table format. Citations include the U.S. Census Bureau, the World Bank, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Yahoo Finance, CNN'S Money's Fortune 500 list, U.S. treasury releases, Federal Reserve websites, company annual reports and the IMF. Unfortunately I cannot attach the Word file but I can send it to whoever is interested. My email is alexpeek1@gmail.com

The Contents are: 1. States, 2. Industries, 3. Corporations, 4. Employment, 5. Fiscal Budget, 6. Monetary Policy, 7. Creditors, 8. Cities, 9. International Accounts 9. History

All articles would be standardized and connected in an organized network. This model would go down to the most local level. All 196 countries would have a standardized country article to have the same exact format used in the attached file. This project would evolve as economists determine better ways to present the data.

The 'Economy of ______' pages are very educational and are an awesome collection of economic data. I think that these articles would be greatly improved if they were modified to become more uniform. This would allow for greater comparability. I believe that these pages would be improved with a standardized and simplified format. This would allow for greater comparability and public understanding of the economy.

Below are the Wikipedia Contents of the four biggest economy articles. As you can see, the Contents are inconsistent between them. I believe this can be fixed with my Wiki project proposal.

Economy of the United States 1 History 2 Overview 3 Employment 4 Research, development, and entrepreneurship 5 Income and wealth 6 Financial position 7 Industry Sectors 8 Notable companies and markets 9 Energy, transportation, and telecommunications 10 Finance 11 Health care 12 International trade 13 Currency and central bank 14 Law and government 15 See also 16 References 17 External links

Economy of China 1 History 2 Government role 3 Regional economies 4 Development 5 Macroeconomic trends 6 Financial and banking system 7 Industry Sectors 8 Labor and welfare 9 External trade 10 Foreign investment 11 Demographics 12 Transportation and infrastructure 13 Science and technology 14 See also 15 References 16 External links

Economy of Japan 1 Economic history 2 Infrastructure 3 Macro-economic trend 4 Services 5 Industry 6 Mining and petroleum exploration 7 Agriculture 8 Labor force 9 Law and government 10 Culture 11 Other economic indicators 12 See also 13 Notes 14 External links

Economy of Germany 1 History 2 Macroeconomic data 3 Economic region 4 Natural resources 5 Sectors 6 Infrastructure 7 Technology 8 See also 9 References 10 External links

Maybe we can use Wikidata which forces data to be in a consistent, organised format. Or use an infobox with standard parameters. Maybe ask on Wikiproject Economics. πr² (t • c) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already have asked there. πr² (t • c) 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think my project would be more educational as it's own Wikimedia project. Simplicity is very important. Mcnabber091 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

More draft articles added to the Global Economic Map proposal

Please check my project: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

The goal is to map out every country down to the local level in a standardized format. This would be the first Wikimedia project to focus on economics. You can see the format by clicking on one of the links below. These draft articles are open to edits.

Here are the current drafts for the project. The U.S. article is the most complete.

1. United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

2. China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_China

3. Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Japan

4. Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_Germany

Mcnabber091 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia involved in the Wikidata project?

Whose project is Wikidata? And is it ok for them to include links to copyrighted material from Wikipedia? Thanks, Farrajak (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata is a Wikimedia project. Even if it wasn't, it would be okay to link to Wikipedia content QuiteUnusual (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"By permission only" images on Indonesian Wikipedia

I don't speak the language and wouldn't even begin to know how or where to bring this up on :id, but a couple of images showed up at en:WP:PUI that had been uploaded based on this statement of permission at id: id:Wikipedia:Permintaan_izin/kapanlagi.com. From using Google translate, it seems to be saying that the permission is for Wikipedia-only - not an appropriate free content license. There are over 1000 images that link to this permission. Is there someone who can speak Indonesian who can inform them of the relevant policy - that "by permission only" images are not acceptable? id:Wikipedia:Permintaan_izin has a handful of sites listed where they have obtained Wikipedia-only permission, so they need to either obtain a free permission or have a bonfire. --B (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For en.wp, they can all be safely deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Kapanlagi.com. For Indonesian, we're trying to get a replacement image one by one. ✒ Bennylin 05:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Interproject links goes to English version

I just noticed that, even if I am in a non-English language version of a project, still sister project linkings take me only to the English language version of the project. This happens to all kind of projects (e.g., Wikipedia:, wikt:, q:). I expected it to take me to the same language version itself (ie, if I am in Spanish Wiktionary, then such a Wikipedia: link should have taken me to Spanish Wikipedia). On the other hand, typing the code (say Wikipedia:) in search bar takes me to the same language version itself. Why is the former set so?···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 05:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a little confused. :-) On the Spanish Wikipedia, [[q:test]] goes to the Spanish Wikiquote. You can see an example here: <https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario:MZMcBride&oldid=66196789>.

Meta-Wiki is a little strange. It assumes English for historical and logistical reasons. Look at <https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuario:MZMcBride&oldid=66196789> to see expanded syntax you can use to be precise (e.g., w:zh:test). --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right. But the problem exist for long version of link. (I foolishly thought that the same exists for shortcuts as well). See https://ml.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%8D:Vanischenu&oldid=1723765 If I am clicking on links appearing as [[Wikiquote:]], [[Wikibooks:]], etc., I will go to English version. If I click on [[q:]], [[b:]] etc., I will go to Malayalam version!···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 09:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Different mapping! Those hardcoded (static) to English versions are controlled from Interwiki map, eg. Wikiquote/Wikibooks/Wikisource/... Whereas q/b/s/... are coded elsewhere and are language relative and dynamic. To see how they are interpreted see Special:Interwiki at whichever wiki you are editing.

With regard to meta and the other specials, as MZM says they default to "en". Also note for these specials the interlanguage links default to the Wikipedias unless you are on one of the sister sites, where they will be interlanguage to the sister sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikilivres

Wikilivres:Main Page says: "This site does not belong to the Wikimedia Foundation." But Wikisource:Help:Wikilivres says "Wikilivres was started as an indepedent project in Canada but it is now operated by Wikimedia Canada as a Wikimedia project." Wikimedia Canada lists it only in Projects in discussion. And the name has never been spelled in this forum before![1]. Is it a Wikimedia Project. (Toolserver is listed in the page Wikimedia Projects of meta-wiki). Further, WMF considers only 12 projects as "Foundation:Our projects" and says "the only projects which are part of the Wikimedia Foundation are those listed [in that page]", and does not list even meta-wiki.···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 16:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikilivres and have not clicked any of the links you provided, I'd just like to generally add that national chapters are independent, hence any project run by Wikimedia Canada is *by definition* not a Wikimedia Foundation project. That's only my personal understanding though and not a position of my employer or such. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!···Vanischenu「mc|Talk」 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikilivres sprung out of Wikisource community due to the difference in copyright law (they can host things that a US-located site cannot), and was independently run. Last year the original maintainer was devolving themselves of the maintenance, and now its upkeep is done by Wikimedia Canada as their project. As AKlapper indicates each chapter is independent, and as such will be incorporated as a legal entity in the country of the chapter. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Licensing question

If I set my wiki as CC-BY-NC-SA or CC-BY-NC-ND-SA, can I still import CC-BY-SA content from other wikis? I'm guessing that it might work since it's more restrictive rather than less, not like having CC-BY-SA and importing CC-BY-NC-SA content. Inquisitor Ehrenstein (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you can not. w:CC-BY-SA requires all derivatives to be licensed under the identical license (CC-BY-SA) (i.e. the license is intended to be w:contagious). Ruslik (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Soliciting questions for Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner

Hi. Wikimedians are encouraged to submit or endorse questions at Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Open RfC on removing the rights (i.e., sysop, bureaucrat flags) of inactive users

Please see Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders. This is a proposal that will affect many wikis, not just Meta. It will not override local policies, if they exist and are implemented. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A few more new RfCs (check out Goings-on on the Main Page) including Requests for comment/Musical score transcription project proposal. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on inactive administrators

(Please consider translating this message for the benefit of your fellow Wikimedians. Please also consider translating the proposal.)

Read this message in English / Lleer esti mensaxe n'asturianu / বাংলায় এই বার্তাটি পড়ুন / Llegiu aquest missatge en català / Læs denne besked på dansk / Lies diese Nachricht auf Deutsch / Leś cal mesag' chè in Emiliàn / Leer este mensaje en español / Lue tämä viesti suomeksi / Lire ce message en français / Ler esta mensaxe en galego / हिन्दी / Pročitajte ovu poruku na hrvatskom / Baca pesan ini dalam Bahasa Indonesia / Leggi questo messaggio in italiano / このメッセージを日本語で読む / ಈ ಸಂದೇಶವನ್ನು ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಿ / Aqra dan il-messaġġ bil-Malti / norsk (bokmål) / Lees dit bericht in het Nederlands / Przeczytaj tę wiadomość po polsku / Citiți acest mesaj în română / Прочитать это сообщение на русском / Farriintaan ku aqri Af-Soomaali / Pročitaj ovu poruku na srpskom (Прочитај ову поруку на српском) / อ่านข้อความนี้ในภาษาไทย / Прочитати це повідомлення українською мовою / Đọc thông báo bằng tiếng Việt / 使用中文阅读本信息。

Hello!

There is a new request for comment on Meta-Wiki concerning the removal of administrative rights from long-term inactive Wikimedians. Generally, this proposal from stewards would apply to wikis without an administrators' review process.

We are also compiling a list of projects with procedures for removing inactive administrators on the talk page of the request for comment. Feel free to add your project(s) to the list if you have a policy on administrator inactivity.

All input is appreciated. The discussion may close as soon as 21 May 2013 (2013-05-21), but this will be extended if needed.

Thanks, Billinghurst (thanks to all the translators!) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery (Wrong page? You can fix it.)

Excessive wikilinking

Is there a tool which deals with this issue? Take a look into article Hasso von Manteuffel. Every instance of word Germany and 1. panzer division is turned into link. It is quite boring to manually correct this. -- Bojan  Talk  14:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you try to discuss the issue on sr.wp? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ypnypn (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why should I do that? -- Bojan  Talk  18:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Um...because that's where the problem is? Ypnypn (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thre is no problem, just newbies who link every word, such is summer, spring, 7th panzer division, summer, spring, brigadier general, Wehrmaht summer, spring, 7. panzer division Germany, spring, summer, 7th panzer division, brigadier general, summer, spring, Germany, France, Germany, Wehrmacht, Germany, USSR, summer, Germany, France, USSR etc -- Bojan  Talk  03:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On some wikis, where a policy on overlinking exists, w:WP:AWB is used to assist fix of such problems. --Nemo 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Work Plan for Indian language Wikimedia Projects (2013-14) - DRAFT FOR FEEDBACK

CIS-A2K Team would like to share with you it's draft Work Plan (2013-2014) for Indian language Wikimedia projects. The detailed work plan can be found here. The main objective of this document is to present a detailed plan with projection of outcomes and expected impact of the A2K programme activities, during the next 15 months.

The A2K team has, over the last two months, extensively engaged with various stakeholders in developing these plans. These include a) some Wikimedia India Community members across various Indian language Wikimedia projects; b) some English Language Wikimedia community members from India; c) Wikimedia India Chapter Executive Committee; d) some potential institutional partners; e) a few like minded advocates of free knowledge; f) A2K Programme Adviser Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana; and last but not least g) a few of the Wikimedia Foundation staff. We are extremely thankful to all of them who have taken time out in sharing their ideas and opinions and in actively giving feedback, which has helped us immensely in drawing up these plans. This document has been made keeping in mind the objectives, opportunities and challenges faced by each of the Indian language Wikimedia projects.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions to further refine these plans. However, for the sake of structured engagement, we would request you to please read the following guidelines on how to share your feedback. We would deeply appreciate if you could share your valuable feedback in the next two weeks based on which we will revise the plans. Looking forward to receiving your inputs. Thank you. Vishnu(talk)09:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Translation tool bug

Hey,
I just translated this blog post Wikimedia_Blog/Drafts/Try_out_the_alpha_version_of_the_VisualEditor,_now_in_15_languages/de. Unfortunately, there seems to be a bug, I can't fix. The second heading ("How can I help?") does not appear in the translation tool, so it's still in English (despite the fact that it says that the translation is to 100% complete). Can anybody help me? Thanks! --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The translation administrator did not follow the best practices and something went wrong. Should work now. Thanks for the report, and use Meta talk:Babylon next time for faster response. --Nemo 13:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Making inter-language links shorter

Interesting discussion and proposal: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.i18n/662 Try the prototype at http://pauginer.github.io/prototype-uls/#lisa --Nemo 14:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a solution in search of a problem. – Ypnypn (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic summary, but the proposal lists several issues in the current system so it would be nice to hear why they are not issues if that's your opinion. --Nemo 12:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Global signature

Is it possible to make your SUL-sig valid and the same for all projects. I do it manually now when I visit one of the about 100 projects my account is registered.  Klaas|Z4␟V:  11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no possibility to set a global signature (yet?), but you can request it to be set by bot here: User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Synchbot#Global_settings_change --MF-W 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The destruction of Falun Gong members on zh wikipedia

Sorry for my poor English,so I have to post content on here in Chinese and looking for translation.

The content below is about my research on zh wikipedia.It is about the destruction of Falun Gong members.

本讨论為法轮功学员在維基百科的活動研究。以下内容遵循维基百科支柱方针制作。

事實上，由於本人抵觸法輪功學員的做法，因此本人多次受到他們的威脅，例如“人在做、天在看”，“上天一定會懲罰你”之類的言論。本內容在中文維基的傳播也因此受到影響。

定義

法轮功学员組織，是一個非正式的活躍於維基百科的團體。目前沒有任何證據支持此團體與其它组织本身的關係，但由其系列成員對維基百科編輯內容的定向性，以及行動的一致性，可以將其與其它用戶，包括管理员、巡查员、回退员等用户组，或台獨、藏獨、港獨用戶群體區分開來。

用戶特徵

另從用戶頁的資料看，他們並不會宣稱自己是法輪功學員，而喜歡貼上一大堆的用戶特徵模板。而且相較其它類似的用户组，此用户组有著更為強烈的正义感和热情。或者說，其他用户组根本沒有組織性，而他們有。這是在維基百科，尤其是中文維基百科所絕無僅有的。

組織架構

法轮功宣傳用户并无任何证据显示具有上级领导等的架构体系。除在法轮功宣傳的过程中，他们会显示出行动一致性外，无法了解他们的层级模式。
从用户页资料显示，及其与其它维基人的日常对话，他们普遍不在中国大陆，多分布于北美地区和台湾。而且目前看香港澳門地区活跃的用户并不多见。

活動形式

法轮功宣傳用户，从帐号上看，排除使用的傀儡，基本上可以被认为是个体，除非单个角色使用多重人格。在一定的时间段，会有固定的个体维持在维基百科的法轮功宣傳活动。而如果此个体在编辑过程中发生违规行为而被封禁，则在其活跃期结束后（主帐号及傀儡帐号），他会永远离开维基百科。
他们往往会编写有关法轮功方面的内容，并借用BBC、CNN等西方媒体（规模不限，由大报到地方小报都有），以及与法轮功相关的媒体作为引证。尤其是，他們會優先選用法輪功相關媒體作為資料來源，這也是他們區別於一般用戶的特徵。
但他们从来只有列举各国对法轮功内容及组织的同情，以及对其自由宣扬表达内容的权利的保护，而从来没有展示过法轮功组织的理论、手段正确性的证明材料。
而当法轮功受到质疑时，所有活跃帐号会一起行动，对质疑者展开宣传工作，引导他走向法轮功的一面。在讨论过程中，他们会表现为轮流上阵，你说完到我说。
法轮功宣傳用户，普遍对号称唯物主义组织表现为强烈的反感，认为号称唯物主义组织是邪恶的，是非正义的，是非自由的。
在2012年以前，法轮功宣傳用户会选择以激烈的方式编辑维基百科。在法轮功宣傳的道路上，他们会用直来直往的手段编写法轮功内容，并有可能会因此与维基百科管理员产生冲突，从而导致其被封禁。被封禁后，他们有可能会使用傀儡帐号继续编辑。
2012年开始，法轮功組織似乎改变了编辑模式，换句话说，希望能更好地融入到维基百科群体中去。为此，他们会使用各种沟通方式，竭力讨好其他维基人。这其中包括条目编写方式建议，修改协助，投票支持条目通过选举等。但一旦有人质疑法轮功背后的事实，他们马上会显得极具正义感。
法轮功宣傳用户的水平参次不齐，但普遍表现为像新手那样对维基百科的运作模式了解得未够深入，例如搞错维基百科商标的所属权、误解维基百科编辑的“自由”含义。他们编辑的内容一般情况下，在初期，由于过分的义愤填膺而显得比较凌乱。但在其它维基人的指正之下，如果条目到最后未被提删，往往在质量上会有提高甚至飞跃。此外，他们中的部分成员知识水平存在提高空间，如将黑龙会与日本维新会混淆。根据目前的观察，这些编辑人员几乎不参与理科类型的条目编辑。

其利用維基百科宣傳自身的手段

维基百科，因其接近无政府状态，极为容易引起某些团体的信息发布地。而我们可见的目前，法輪功學員正对此引发一场前所未有的宣传革命。以往，他们希望不断地使用破坏手段，以对抗形式对维基百科的信息编辑修改为倾向有利于他们的内容。而目前我们可见的是，他们开始改变他们的形式和态度，尽管他们的目标从来没有改变的打算。 我们可以简单将他们的手段归纳为：

1. 事先编好一个地区并且互相表示没有联系，唯一特征是都支持法輪功。
2. 对维基人的友善，不宣传信仰信息，只拉近关系。
3. 到人家DYK投票区时表现勤快，且经常给人编辑意见（至于其意见是否正确，这里不作分析）。如果有人打算参与什么评选，则积极支持，甚至主动提名。如果对方需要协助拉票，则主动前往协助。还可以适当地相互吹捧一下，维持大家之间的关系。
4. 偷换各种概念，使用维基百科方针对自己的编辑行为作出各种各样的辩解。
5. 喜歡長篇大論地討論大是大非，稱反對自己的用戶為非正義。
6. 一旦讨论抵觸法輪功，他们会表现出极大的愤怒，认为这是中共的走狗，是对西方普世价值的不尊重，是违反维基百科的方针。
7. 喜歡聯繫各地的民主內容宣傳條目編輯者以擴大影響力，甚至影響投票本身的公正性以達到互惠互利的效果，如對法輪功同情者的優良條目以真人傀儡投票予以灌票手段。

他們的目標

他們似乎非要製造一個虛擬的敵人，所以所有反對者一概可以稱之為“五毛黨”（意思是受中國共產黨收買的維基人）。他們存在的意義好像只有打倒中共，這也是他們打出的旗號。但為此，他們所使用的宣傳手法，與中共的五毛黨甚至中共中央媒體毫無差別。
维基百科一向并不封死任何政宣群体的宣传道路，这也是滋生这些人群的重要因素。不过目前可以预见的是，这些人群正以类似的手段，对维基百科的方针、运作模式乃至参与者发起挑战。在今后的未来里，一部分同情他们的人群，可以被他们组织起来，针对对他们不利的信息以群体互助的信息予以删除。如果再将目光放远一点，他们甚至可能获取管理员甚至行政员的位置。我在这里简单归结这些手段的总体目标：由以往简单的政宣场所，变为“我们自己的政宣场所”，持续扩大我们自己的人群，以强化我们自己的力量。

fin.--BlackLotux (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting someone to translate it into English.--BlackLotux (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

：：这渣英文……我就简要说几句吧，虽然我还是觉得不要管的好。So this user is concerned about the increasing conflict between users advocates Falun Gong and other users. Those users usually hold a strong belief that their actions is morally justifiable.--Inspector (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

the article's risk against Wiki-Community

• I think the article above is not appropriate, the author is zh:User:Edouardlicn, and now he use one of his puppet account zh:User:BlackLotux.I think the Chinese content perhaps violate Wikipedia Policy「Wikipedia:No personal attacks」："“Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.”
• The author zh:User:Edouardlicn（User:BlackLotux) Labels, or Misunderstands some Different-opinioned Users as a group or meatpuppets with political intent, and does not assume the different-opinioned good faith but malice. However, Users of Wikipedia are from different cultures, with different values and information, all we should keep learning communication and expanding tolerance with defference. So, hope everyone Assumes the different-opinioned Good Faith.
• The article has been ever published on ZH_Whkipidia during December 2012. I ever offered my opinion expressing uneasiness, part of my opinion as below published in Chinese on Dec 21th, 2012.Wetrace (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(！)意見--看到這篇「原創研究」文章，當下就看到許多對社群負面的疑慮，隨筆寫下一些問題觀察；但這幾天熱烈頻繁的交鋒，大家也累，因此本不再想回應；但是，經過一天的觀察與考量---覺得還是應該 提出來切磋，以對社群負責，僅供社群前輩們參考：

1. 茲聲明--對事不對人。單純談 「此文、此地(互助客棧)」對維基百科可能意味什麼？可能的副作用？不特定用戶、社群全體可能的風險。個人謹請各位前輩用戶「放下觀點，不用支持、反對任何人或議題。」

如果，今天這種文章 可以公開在「互助客棧」發表，以後 「任何針對某族群、某議題」也可以藉由類似形式來發表---會不會形同「暗示性向『當局』舉報」之效果？？對於維基社群之發展.....對於 透過一些隱匿方式在維基百科經營的 C國/部分有網路監控國家 的用戶們，會不會增加政治上及宗教上風險？（我這裡並未指 原文章撰寫者 有此意圖，但行為可能招致、提高類似風險）

不要人身攻击方針：

典型的人身攻击例子，包括但不限于：「对于用户会導致政府、雇主或其它人在『政治、宗教上的威脅或行為』。這類違規可能會在被任何管理員發現後，被封禁一段時間。处理此類行为的管理員應該保密地通知仲裁委員會（Arbitration Committee）成員及吉米·威爾士并說明其管理行为及原因。」

——维基百科:不要人身攻击

1. 這可能導致後果已非意氣之爭、觀點之爭了。以下，我以自己的理解與認知，試著分析此文章 對 各位編輯、特定用戶、不特定用戶 可能帶來的風險。----有沒有道理，由社群公評、各位自行判斷。若無必要，我也不再回應、多說什麼。---我在此盡了 維護維基社群、為維基用戶安全 的責任，我無意危言聳聽（我是一名長期關注中共網路封鎖、監控、對海外攻擊的網路使用者）。
2. 依據zh:Wikipedia:不要人身攻擊方針以上所例示
   1. 由於「當局」對網路異見人士，一貫採取的打壓，有許多人因此被抓捕，以言論入罪，例如 =師-濤=等人。並且有諸多證據指出「由政府支持的駭客組織積極攻擊各國政府及團體」，包括Google系統的公開警告、美國政府、德國政府的受害警告。
   2. 這篇文章，可能導致「（綜合 zh:User:Edouardlicn-zh:User:BlackLotux多篇公開文章內容指涉，所可得輕易推知之）特定用戶」及「不特定用戶」，在言論自由、隱私、人身安全增加遭到威脅的風險。---此文章 無任何證據 指控「維基百科」存在一個絕無僅有的「組織」，且該「組織」敵視「當局」---此說法之導致後果--可能形同「通報「當局」（以各種手段）盯上維基並影響許多用戶」之後果。
   3. 這篇文章，可能增加 不特定用戶之心理壓力及恐懼，導致用戶們 害怕談論/編輯 C國人權、C國政治議題---形同警告「莫談國事」，擴大「寒蟬效應」。變相達成「當局」想做卻不容易直接做到的效果。
3. 這樣增加用戶風險之內容，建議清除也許較好。呼籲 原撰寫人、管理員、社群 嚴肅對待，這樣的文章不要再發生了。Wetrace（留言） 2012年12月21日 (五) 13:48 (UTC)

• If you guys just wanna continue the argument that lasts on Chinese Wikipedia for months, you might as well move this section back to Village Pump there. I believe that most users on this page prefer to read messages in English. --Kuailong (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• hi,thanks forKuailong's reminder. I do not wanna continue argument, I think everyone should tolerate each other , so I have stopped unnecessary argument at Village Pump and directly replied opinion at BlackLotux's Talkpage. While BlackLotux published this article here, I also reminded him at his talkpage that it's inappropriate, after several days, then I just replied here with good faith. Indeed I do not wanna continue. Wetrace (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Some user like w****** are attempt to hide what he do on zhwp,with "humanright".--BlackLotux (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Public Awareness of Wikipedia Vetting Processes

My name is Michael Cockrell. I am a Social Studies teacher. Because of that I talk to a lot of people and I can tell you that there are many misconceptions in the mind of the public regarding the way Wikipedia functions. The general perception, particularly among educators, is that there is no accountability for the the accuracy of information posted to Wikipedia. I tell anyone who will listen that this is simply not true but I am a lone voice in the wilderness. This idea of "wild wild west" Wikipedia is so deeply ingrained that I believe some sort of outreach program should be undertaken to combat this damaging misconception. I am not sure if I have posted this to the right place. If necessary, would you please see to it that this proposal is forwarded to the proper channel? Thank you.

Best Regards, Michael Cockrell Social Studies Composite 8-12 Dallas, Texas

If you are looking for a general article, you might want to try w:en:Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia or w:en:Wikipedia:Academic use. For a more specific article, you might consider searching the archives of the Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia's newspaper. The Signpost has done several articles on the pros and cons of reusing Wikipedia's information.

The short version of the articles is that Wikipedia's information is generally very reliable, but has various errors, and has had a few high profile errors in the past. Wikipedia does have a requirement that you cite reliable sources, especially for biographies of living persons, though the nature of the encyclopedia means that the policies aren't followed in all cases.

A good rule of thumb is that you should treat Wikipedia like any other encyclopedia or tertiary source and use it as a starting place for gathering information, but restrict your actual citations to the sources used by Wikipedia, not to the Wikipedia article itself. If you decide to cite Wikipedia, we do have a guide for how to do it at w:en:Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, but it is not generally recommended. I hope this answers your question - if you have any further questions, please post here or contact me on my talk page. Happy editing! – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Censorship of interwiki links on the Japanese Wikipedia

I do not know what is the right venue for this, so if anyone knows if there is a better place to discuss this, please point me the way.

As of now, the Japanese Wikipedia has a policy of not disclosing the names of individuals involved in criminal cases etc due to privacy laws in Japan that mandate such censorship. However, the other language Wikipedia articles have titles about the very individuals. For example, the Japanese article ja:宇治学習塾小6女児殺害事件 is supposedly interwikied through wikidata to en:Murder of Sayano Horimoto. However, in the past few days, something has been added to the article censoring the link to the English Wikipedia.

Although I appreciate the fact that the Japanese Wikipedia can do whatever they want with regards to self-censorship to follow their censorship laws, I believe that it is highly improper to censorship interwiki links for this purpose. Should any Wikipedia be allowed to censor interwiki links like this?--New questions (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A more extensive list of interwiki links that have been censored: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --New questions (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Every project may have its own policy about interwiki links. Ruslik (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If the situation described by New questions is true, then I'm very worried. --NaBUru38 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So long as jp.wikipedia's actions only affects jp.wikipedia, then it's probably up to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

See also the long discussion at ja:Note:Kōbe child murders#About other language editions. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a matter of interwiki. Publishing real names of ex-convicts and criminal victims could be a libel or an invasion of privacy under Japanese law. Deletion policy in jawp explicitly describes we basicly delete (not remove) them. From a viewpoint of Wikidata, Jawp cannnot join dataset of cases and incident article which include real names of ex-convicts or victims. --Ks aka 98 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, ja.wp can legally join Wikidata and can publish these names, because ja.wp is on a computer in the United States and is therefore an American website and may legally contain anything that any other American website may contain. However, most of ja.wp's users cannot be directly involved in an action that publishes these names, because they (the human people, not the website) are bound by Japanese laws.

So it would be legal for me (an American citizen) to go to ja.wp (an American website) and add these names; it would not be legal for a Japanese citizen to do the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Japanese Wikipedia should be lawful under the law of Japan, where most of readers/users of Japanese Wikipedia live. We should (at least, try to) be lawful under the United States law and the law of countries where the wiki's content is predominantly accessed even if the servers are in the United States.　It's the same reason why German Wikipedia prohibits Holocaust denial (see also de:Diskussion:Holocaustleugnung) and each wikis can adopt their EDP for non-free content.--aokomoriuta (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia has no legal requirement to be lawful under the law of Japan, because legally, a website belongs to the country where the computer server is located, not to the country where the readers are located.

The Wikimedia Foundation (the legal American owner of jp.wikipedia) gave permission to the editors at the Japanese Wikipedia to write more restrictive policies, but there is no legal requirement for the editors at the Japanese Wikipedia to do so.

Put another way: Imagine that a Japanese business writes a pro-freedom website to help Chinese political dissidents. Would you expect that Japanese business and Japanese website to be covered by Japanese laws, no matter how many Chinese readers it attracts, or would you expect that Japanese business and Japanese website to be covered by Chinese laws as soon as most readers were from China? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, an EDP must be "in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any)". It is unclear if this only applies to copyright restrictions (such as non-free images) or also to other restrictions (such as names on Japanese Wikipedia or criticism of the w:Communist Party of China on Chinese Wikipedia). --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

An Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) is only about copyright law, as the rest of the sentence clearly indicates. It says "A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law", not "A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the desire of some governments to censor the content of the Wikipedias that their citizens read." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Who's responsible for the quality of Wikipedia?

Who is tasked with increasing "the percentage of material reviewed to be of high or very high quality by 25 percent" under the strategic plan? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody. --Nemo 14:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

+1 ;) 90.183.23.27 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Why wasn't I notified??!! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The annual plan forgot this step in the implementation of the multi-year plan. You can propose it for the next plan after it's approved in its definitive version.[9] --Nemo 14:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Finalization of Wikimedia account unification (SUL)

Unfortunately, some accounts are currently not unique across all our wikis, but instead clash with other users who have the same account name. To make sure that all of these users can use Wikimedia's wikis in future, we will be renaming a number of accounts to have "~" and the name of their wiki added to the end of their accounts' name. This change will take place on or around 27 May. For example, a user called "Example" on the Swedish Wiktionary who will be renamed would become "Example~svwiktionary".

All accounts will still work as before, and will continue to be credited for all their edits made so far. However, users with renamed accounts (who we will be contacting individually) will have to use the new account name when they log in. It will now only be possible for accounts to be renamed globally; the RenameUser tool will no longer work on a local basis - since all accounts must be globally unique - therefore it will be withdrawn from bureaucrats tool sets.

For those interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Cf. mw:Admin tools development/SUL Audit. --Nemo 06:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Single User Login finalisation announcement. — Scott • talk 08:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Username policies

FYI: «All Wikimedia projects should have a help document or policy describing what is and is not an acceptable username», says a Wikimedia Foundation product manager. His idea is to enforce this supposed policy via the software he develops. --Nemo 07:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That'll be a neat trick on a multilingual project with one global account for all projects. Trying to ban all names that might be unacceptable on any of the 900+ projects would be all but impossible. If we use the five enwiki unacceptable criteria:

1. Misleading. Nearly always a matter of judgement. In addition banning words like "official", "bot", etc., runs into the language challenge.
2. Promotional. Will always be a matter of judgement. If I choose to use the name "Heinz" is that promotional or not as it is both a name and a company / product name?
3. Offensive. Depends on the language and the context (the "Scunthorpe" problem).
4. Implying shared use. Language issue and context issue (is "I am Bob and Mad" an implied shared use by Robert and Madeline, or implying the editor bounces up and down and is crazy?)
5. Confusing. Again, very much depends on the language and context.

Once you get beyond setting a maximum length of name and banning having "WMF" in the name there's not a lot more that can be safely automated. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It is an absurd idea. Wikimedia projects create help documents or policies describing what is and is not an acceptable username when they feel that they need them, and use titleblacklist to block some outrageous names (if they want). (Btw, would my name blocked when banning having "WMF" in the name? :D ) --MF-W 15:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see bugzilla:47704 for detailed discussion. This not about adding or changing an automated blacklist like TitleBlacklist in any way. It is discussion of when and if to add a link to the username policy on the signup page. Superm401 | Talk 20:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

On Wikidata since we don't have a username policy, I just replaced the interface message with &nbsp. Legoktm (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah don't spoil the fun, we could debate this non-existent idea for ages QuiteUnusual (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

[en] Change to section edit links

The default position of the "edit" link in page section headers is going to change soon. The "edit" link will be positioned adjacent to the page header text rather than floating opposite it.

Section edit links will be to the immediate right of section titles, instead of on the far right. If you're an editor of one of the wikis which already implemented this change, nothing will substantially change for you; however, scripts and gadgets depending on the previous implementation of section edit links will have to be adjusted to continue working; however, nothing else should break even if they are not updated in time.

Detailed information and a timeline is available on meta.

Ideas to do this all the way to 2009 at least. It is often difficult to track which of several potential section edit links on the far right is associated with the correct section, and many readers and anonymous or new editors may even be failing to notice section edit links at all, since they read section titles, which are far away from the links.

(Distributed via global message delivery 18:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC). Wrong page? Correct it here.)