Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

Page protected with pending changes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.

Threads may be automatically archived after 14 days of inactivity.


« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct[edit]

Continuing my efforts to post WMF-related stuff here so that people don't have to keep WP:VPM on their watchlist... Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 73#Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of ConductNovem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I'll put this on W-Ping but I hope we get a louder reminder when voting opens. Certes (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Novem Linguae for the ping here. I will make sure to also ping the messages here in the future. JPBeland-WMF (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: See Approval of Enforcement Guidelines without first approving a Code of Conduct. (link fixed, new section with revised question) Alsee (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone know of any voter guides or summaries of the UCoC? One paragraph summarizing what's in it, and one paragraph summarizing why WMF thinks we need it, would be useful. There's an incredible amount of information to read through on meta and it's a bit overwhelming. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first section in m:Universal Code of Conduct, "Why we have a Universal Code of Conduct", gives an overview of what the code of conduct is intended to help enable. The rest of it is not too long so I'd suggest just reading it to see what's in it. m:Universal Code of Conduct/FAQ might also be helpful. Although overall it has many paragraphs, each answer is just one paragraph. The first question briefly covers what triggered the development of the code of conduct. isaacl (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting is now open. Please register your choice here. Certes (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am ineligible to vote, despite 0 blocks and clearly sufficient activity on enwp. Is there a glitch? Anyone else? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should email ucocproject@wikimedia.org and they can hopefully help you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Vector 2022 deployment update. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct[edit]

Just a ping here for this message: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 73#Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. JPBeland-WMF (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an RfC on whether Vector legacy should be restored as the default skin on the English Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Wikipedia return to Vector 2010 as the default skin?. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Wikipedia losing ground?[edit]

I remember when Wikipedia content began appearing within the first five results of a Google search (a proud moment indeed). Soon after, our content consistently appeared as the first result after any paid ads. This has been the default condition for so long now that I have become accustomed to it, even expectant. Today, I was disconcertingly surprised to see content from "Disney Wiki | powered by Wikia" delivered ahead of Wikipedia content when searching "Michael Clarke Duncan", a subject covered in Wikipedia. If this is the begining of a trend, it is rather ominous in my opinion and I earnestly hope it is a short lived trend that we can help correct. I am keen to see what others say about this, and what others think is the meaning or cause. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monopolies are rarely a good thing. If there is any particular reason why monopoly-Wikipedia appearing at the top of monopoly-Google should be an exception to this, I can't think of one. Maybe the Wikia article is better? Haven't looked. Don't particularly care. Write good encyclopaedic content, attract readers looking for good encyclopaedic content, and let the readers decide for themselves what they want to read... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean regardless, Jimbo's probably happy about it :) (note: I don't know how involved Jimbo is involved with Fandom/Wikia nowadays, but he did co-found it). JCW555 (talk)♠ 11:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is losing ground. Especially in niche topics (which we keep out the door) we are starting to see plain better websites than Wikipedia. These websites have more information that people are looking for (read cannot be answered by wikipedia), are 'reliable enough' and many of them are updated faster. And the rest goest to TikTok. This has been happening for a while, but i'm glad more people are starting to notice. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our goal is to write the best encyclopedia we can. Google's goal is to sell advertising. Sometimes those goals align, sometimes they don't. Worry about doing what we do and let Google worry about what they do. The alternative is we start down the slippery slope of search engine optimization, which would be a serious mistake. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What Roy said. Wikipedia's main job is to write high quality, well-researched encyclopedia articles. If no one read those articles, that would still be our goal. Which is not to say that people shouldn't read them. But we write to write, and let everything else figure itself out. --Jayron32 16:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael Clarke Duncan is still the top result for me, but Disney Wiki populates the Knowledge Panel, which is surprising. I don't know if I've seen that for anything other than niche topics. I guess there are three considerations here: is Wikipedia doing something differently or otherwise becoming less popular; are other sites doing something to appear higher up in the results; and has the Google algorithm changed in a way that affects Wikipedia. I suspect it's mostly the latter. Unfortunately, one of the big problems with the giant tech companies is they closely guard those processes, making it hard to tell what/if/when something changes (in another tab, I'm writing about how hard it is to study YouTube in part because in addition to the challenge of studying video content at scale, they don't disclose basic statistics about the site and make it really hard to create a sample of videos unfiltered by the recommendation/prioritization algorithms). IIRC Wikipedia's prominence in the rankings dropped somewhat when, first, Google started incorporating more of our content into e.g. the knowledge panel, and second, when companies like Google and Amazon started using our content more via virtual assistants? Not sure, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I think this has it right. I think part of the hope of Wikimedia LLC was to make providing data easy enough to Google that this wouldn't happen. FWIW, when I searched on Bing, we were the source of the infobox and we were the #1 result on Duck Duck Go (no infobox presented). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael Clarke Duncan is still the top result for me as well. So that one may not be the best example of Wikipedia's Impending SEO Death. Perhaps a false alarm? On the topic of SEO, I will say that I don't like how Google downranks our medical articles, and I also don't like Google's recent trend towards upweighting listicles. I find myself adding the word "reddit" to search terms to get away from listicles and blogs and to see what regular people think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Update from Wikimedia Foundation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]