Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.
« Older discussions, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

en wikipedia growth[edit]

why growth of en Wikipedia articles decrease than years ago example in 2006 add 665000 articles and in 2017 add 220000 articlesAmirh123 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In part it was because, back in 2006, we were writing articles on “obvious” topics that did not require any specialization to write about. Those were topics that lots of people knew something about, and so it was easy for the average person to start an article about it. By 2017, most of these “obvious” topics were covered. We have shifted to writing articles on less “obvious”, more “specialized” topics. These are topics that fewer people can (or want to) write about, so fewer new articles get started. The pace of new article creation naturally slowed down once the “easy” topics were already covered. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
2005-2007 was the peak for Wikipedia quantity in most metrics: new articles, new users, number of edits etc.. After that there was a decline, but has since leveled off somewhat. Metrics on quality would look different. -- GreenC 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer retention, burnout and dropout in online voluntary organizations: stress, conflict and retirement of Wikipedians[edit]

I generally don't post information about my Wikipedia research here, but I feel this one is VERY relevant to our community, so here it goes :) I put my 10+ years of Wikipedia experience into writing this, as I think the issues I discuss there are something that is quite important for the project's (and our) well-being and future health. The official release is likely paywalled ([1]) but I did upload a pre-print copy to ([2]), at worst, you need to create a free account to download it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent paper; you made some really interesting points. I think everyone here should read this. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there any chance that this could be made available at Wikibooks? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
[ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: An interesting idea, but it's an article, not a book. Well, a book chapter. Not sure if it is in-scope for that project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, it might be a better fit at Wikisource.[3] That is assuming that you own the copyright on your own words and that Emerald publishing didn't make you assign the copyright to them or not be published. See Open access and Copyright transfer agreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
TBH I don't know what is their archival policy and I can't be bothered wasting time to find it out, since I already put a non-paywalled copy up in academia. If someone finds out what policy they have, ping me and I'll see about uploading a free copy to wiki servers. It's pointless to do it before that, as some trigger happy paranoia admin may delete it just in case. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Professionals Inc promises Wiki bio pages[edit]

I recently received this promotional spam.Most likely Wiki Professionals Inc is already known to the Wikipedia community,but just in case. —Sothomensch (Tom Holzinger)

 WikiPedia <>To: <redacted>Oct. 13 at 8:05 a.m.Thomas Holzinger,Do you think Gangnam Style, Justin Bieber and Adele went viral based on just the quality of their work? You’d be wrong if you thought so!Generating the right type and amount of exposure for yourself or your business is not just a matter of fate or chance but rather a focused and calculated work of digital sciences.In the digital age, businesses, actors, writers, singers and everyone else who wants to be popular have teams working for them to strategize and manage their content and reputation over the internet. We believe it’s time you took a step in the same direction to get the fire started.What do we propose? We will take you and your business truly global with a place on the world’s largest online encyclopedia, taking you instantly to the top of your league! It might look like a simple page on Wikipedia but here is what you really need to know to understand the real power of Wiki.1. Wikipedia is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet.2. It is ranked the fifth-most popular website.3. It comprises more than 40 million articles in 299 different languages.4. The encyclopedia has 18 billion page views and nearly 500 million unique visitors each month.5. Wikipedia's level of accuracy has approached that of Encyclopedia Britannica.We are not saying that this is all you’ll ever need to go from common to ‘famously known’ but this will surely be the smartest first step towards it.Interested to know more about it? Don’t wait any longer! We are offering a Special 85% discount on our Digital Services this New Year Click Here to Activate your 85% Off Deal Now.Your Sincerely,David WilsonSenior ConsultantWiki Professionals Inc4330 Clarence CourtFayetteville, NC 28306

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sothomensch (talkcontribs) 05:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Your bailwick. I assume you know some admins who would be interested in this. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I got one of those too a few days ago. How does the WMF address stuff like this? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 09:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"The real power of Wiki"? Now I want to make a Dark Dungeons / Wikipe-tan mashup... Eman235/talk 07:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Everyone should email them back and ask for a portfolio of their past work...for science. GMGtalk 11:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting article from MIT about Wikipedia[edit]

I wanted to share this with the pump readers. Also posted on help desk and teahouse.

TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright of Automatically Derived Knowledge[edit]

While facts themselves are not copyrightable, at what point would a machine learning model that learned to ask and answer questions using wikipedia content be subject to the copyleft clause for wikipedia content? In terms of generative writing style, a model would be a statistical summary of the writing styles on wikipedia i.e. a derived work of the copyrightable presentation of the non-copyrightable facts. On the other hand, a reformulation of words based on reading other works is precisely what humans can and would do if they "ingested" wikipedia, and I don't believe there would be any issue with a human using wikipedia as a source of verifiable content and writing or synthesizing new text (for example question and answer texts) in their own words.

Related, is knowledge derived by analyzing meta data about wikipedia such as the link structure between articles considered derived content and therefore copyleft territory?Notabotyet (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Edits to this page are currently being throttled"[edit]

If I attempt to post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment, I currently get:

Edits to this page are currently being throttled due to an automated vandalism attack. If your edit is constructive, please ensure you are logged in to your account and try again in a few minutes. If you feel this filter is malfunctioning, you can report it.

Now, first, I have no intention of ever having a Wikipedia account. I'm talking about posting from an IP address, as I am doing here. And second, I understand that this "throttling" is going on because there have been ongoing vandalism attacks on the reference desks, and I have no problem with such actions being taken.

But there are still problems. First, there is no notification at the top of the page (as there would be if it was semi-protected) to say that this is going on. I only found out after I had composed my posting. That's not nice.

Second, there is no option (as there would be if it was semi-protected) to post an "edit request" to a page where someone more privileged can verify that the posting is constructive and post it.

Third, there is no explanation of what "throttling" even means, or what "this filter" is blocking.

Would someone please arrange for better information to be provided? -- (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You were hitting an abuse filter, and it is only possible to warn/notify you after you hit it not before. No one will explain to you what the filter is blocking as that will defeat its purpose. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia, like life, is not perfect. The anyone can edit mantra means stuff happens and there can be unfortunate consequences. I understand that some people don't want to create an account (I was like that for a month) but that solution is available and it's a matter of choice. There will be no public proclamation about the limitations because that would encourage more silliness. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. -- (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please sign[edit]

Hi! Can you please sign the petition to TASS and RIAN requesting them to release certain historic photos for Wikimedia by adding your signature to the signature section? Also, please do spread the word to other Wikipedians. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

template for requesting language check?[edit]

Hi, is there any maintenance template requesting that an article be checked by a native speaker of English for grammatical and/or spelling mistakes? Some hours ago, I overhauled some parts of maximal entropy random walk and wondered in some places whether the sentence order is correct (e.g. choose stochastic matrix such that) or if nouns are missing articles (e.g. all vertices but the marked ones have additional self-loop or analogy to electrons in defected lattice of semi-conductor). However, not being a native speaker of English, I cannot decide whether this is just a matter of style.

If there is an appropriate maintenance template, please tell me so I can place it in the article; or, if someone just happens to have time, feel free to check the article now. -- (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


I recently got an email from Flickr.

"After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit. Members may always choose to download content over the limit at any time prior to these dates."

I've noticed many of the images in Wikipedia articles came from Flickr.

Perhaps we should make an effort to transfer over as much as we can before it's too late?

Benjamin (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The Commons thread on this covers this a lot more. As for deletions, they have changed course. The images will not be deleted but normal (non-pro) users with greater than 1,000 images will just not be able to upload new images. --Majora (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Worth noting, as linked in that thread, that Creative Commons licensed images shouldn't be deleted (at least no by Flickr). Still, this raises the issue that external websites can't be trusted to keep content forever. Sam Walton (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A quick note specific to English Wikipedia. This work is a follow up to the 2016 RfC related to the subject. The Reader web team made improvements in March 2018 in response – with this latest update being a continuation of that work. Thanks, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb is changing this OK with current English Wikipedia policy? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Was there any discussion about YouTube using Wikipedia content? Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)