We've just published a blog post summarising the new features and
functionality available to active Wikipedia editors in The Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Library is a tool providing active Wikipedia editors with
free access to otherwise-paywalled resources, including journals, books,
newspapers, magazines, and databases. Over the past 5-10 years the library
has built up a large collection of content from a wide range of publishers.
In the past couple of years we've been finalising the centralised Wikipedia
Library tool used for accessing all this content:
https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. I'm really pleased to announce that
we've finished work on some long-requested and planned features which make
it really simple to use!
The library now has:
- Proxy-based authentication for direct access of resources without a
- A centralised search feature for browsing multiple collections from
- An on-wiki notification to let editors know about the library when
they have crossed the eligibility threshold (rolling out in stages
As the project I first joined the Wikimedia Foundation to work on years ago
I'm personally thrilled that we've finally been able to deploy all these
If you're eligible to use the library (500+ edits, 6+ months editing) you
can jump in and start using the library straight away. We're now working on
expanding and diversifying the content available in the library, so let us
know on the suggestions page if there are collections you want us to make
If the tool isn't currently localised into your language, you can translate
it on TranslateWiki:
We're planning to host some Office Hours, which will be a chance to get a
walkthrough of how to use the library, as well as discuss your research
needs and requests for new collections with the team. Look out for more on
that in the coming weeks.
Product Manager, The Wikipedia Library
(This statement is available on Meta-Wiki for translation and wider
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees published a statement
supporting a community vote on the proposed enforcement guidelines
for the Universal Code of Conduct
One of the key recommendations
the strategic goals for 2030 was the collaborative creation of a UCoC to
provide a global baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement
without tolerance for harassment. The global Wikimedia community must work
well together in producing knowledge resources for the benefit of the
world. Forging welcoming, inclusive, harassment-free spaces in which people
can contribute productively and debate constructively is critical for the
The Board continues to stand by its May 2020 statement
on “Healthy Community Culture, Inclusivity, and Safe Spaces” that,
“harassment, toxic behavior, and incivility in the Wikimedia movement are
contrary to our shared values and detrimental to our vision & mission” and
to our joint strategic goals
The ratification of the collaboratively created UCoC last year was a
notable milestone, and hopefully the discussion on the ratification process
for the collaboratively created enforcement guidelines proposal today will
lead to another one.
The enforcement guidelines proposal is a major achievement of thoughtful
co-creation for the global communities that took part in the months of
consultations, the volunteers leading the drafting committee itself, and
the Foundation. The Board is very grateful to the volunteers and staff
members who collaboratively co-created first the UCoC itself that the
trustees ratified last year, and now the enforcement guideline proposal.
While the UCoC is already in effect, the completion and ratification of the
guidelines will allow everyone to begin a period of assessing how they
function, in action. We should collectively discover where both the
original document and the pathways to enforce it work well and where they
need to be improved. Once the guidelines are adopted, communities and the
Foundation will begin to collect information on how they are working for
the subsequent review of both after a year.
The Board strongly supports the proposal made by the joint letter of
for community voting on the enforcement guidelines proposal prior to the
Board’s own ratification of the final guidelines. Trustees also recognize
the support of such a vote expressed by surveyed volunteer functionaries,
affiliate members, and the drafting committee.
Based on their input, and aligned with processes used for the Wikimedia
Foundation Board Elections, all registered Wikimedia contributors who meet
minimum activity requirements, affiliate and Foundation staff and
contractors (employed prior to 1/17/22), and current and former Foundation
trustees, will have the opportunity to vote on the enforcement guidelines
proposal in SecurePoll.
A threshold of above 50% support of participating users will be needed to
move on to Board of Trustees ratification. If the majority of voters oppose
the adoption of the guidelines as written, they will be asked which
elements need to be changed and why. This would allow for another round of
edits to address community concerns prior to another vote, if needed. Both
the UCoC and the enforcement guidelines (after ratified), will also be open
for review and voter-endorsed amendments annually.
The Board asks every member of the Wikimedia communities to continue
creating a safe and welcoming culture that stops hostile and toxic
behavior, supports people targeted by such behavior, and assists good-faith
The Board believes these enforcement guidelines, once finalized, will be an
important step in encouraging productive work on the Wikimedia projects.
The Board hopes that you will step in to review and provide your feedback
and thoughts in the vote, so that the ratification process can start with a
strong preliminary approach.
On behalf of the Board,
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees.
Chair, Community Affairs Committee.
Shani Evenstein Sigalov
Vice Chair, Board of Trustees
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>
I have created a wishlist for Commons to have all the phabricator
tickets(approximately 900) fixed, the video upload issues to be fixed, tfa
to be added to existing tools. Via a team of Staff and volunteers being
created to focus on Commons.
Two fold fix the existing problems, and then make it possible to bring new
multimedia content to the projects.
Its in your hands now.
Nice to meet many of you for the first time! Thanks for your feedback and for raising larger concerns around resource allocation at the Foundation. These concerns are extremely valid-- especially the ones around allocating resources for less supported platforms such as Commons and broken infrastructure. The wishlist process will begin next week with the proposal phase starting Jan 10.
In the email thread, I identified some open questions about the Wishlist process so I am answering them here.
Can we vote/focus on the maintenance of tools rather than new tools?
Yes. The wishes that we work on do not have to be associated with a new tool. In the past we’ve taken on projects that were maintenance related. For example, in the last year, we took on improvement projects for Wikisource Export and Wikisource OCR tools, among other initiatives. We also maintain and fix all the tools we’ve built in the past. Check out the fresh documentation about what qualifies as a proposal here. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey/FAQ#How_to_create…>
Gnangarra, your points about the issues with bulk uploads in Commons would make a sound proposal-- a proposal does not have to be a new tool in the least. The part about uploading large files is out of scope for our team though (see link above about our areas of focus, the issue is infrastructural <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86436> and too large for what we can take on). I still believe there is value in suggesting it, though.
We have Talk to Us <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey/Updates/Talk_to_Us> hours on January 19-- where the entire team will be available for a video call to help folks who want to write proposals and polish them so that they may get selected.
What if what we want fixed is larger than what the Community Tech team can accomplish?
This year, we will be talking directly with leadership about larger wishes that we can't fulfill ourselves. To make this possible, we will no longer be formally 'Archiving' ideas. One improvement we are implementing from conversations with all of you at past Talk to Us Hours and other places, is that we will place projects that are too large for us into a new category called “Larger Suggestions'' because we still want people to be able to voice those needs. We plan to share this with the Foundation's leadership during the WMF's annual planning, which takes place in the spring.
This being said, if you have an idea that may be too large for us to take on, I would also encourage you to come to Talk to Us Hours (link above) and see if we can help you workshop the proposal into something we can help with. If we can’t then I would still highly encourage you to propose, by all means! Chances are if you think it’s an important problem, many other members do as well.
Finally, the wishlist isn't just for Community Tech. Volunteer developers and other Wikimedia Foundation teams have taken on wishes from the wishlist. For this reason, there is a chance that a wish may not be appropriate for our team, but it can be addressed by someone else.
Why isn’t the WMF fixing what we feel are be the most urgently needed fixes in functionality?
This is a larger question that gets answered at the board and C-leadership levels. There are also some relatively new teams at the Foundation, such as Architecture and Platform Engineering, that aim to improve the technical infrastructure overall in the years to come. However, every team can help with the answer and Community Tech can help with communication of technical needs. This “Larger Suggestions” collection of wishes I mentioned in the previous answer will not be a silver bullet that fixes all of the problems, but I believe in the power of incremental steps to steer us in that direction.
How can we communicate the urgency of the fixes that we need?
I don’t believe there is any lack of documentation of concerns about functionality that is broken. Folks are right to point out that it’s about synthesizing what is most urgently broken, the maintenance that is really necessary, and surfacing it to leadership. We, the Community Tech team, had a lot of hard conversations about how to handle this because we never want to mislead anyone into thinking we are going to work on ideas that are too large for our team. However, we all collectively came to the conclusion that we should still be the team that gives people the space to voice what they need from a technical perspective.
The wishlist itself can communicate urgency. If you submit a detailed wish (the more details, the better!), and if the wish receives a high number of votes, we definitively know as a team that it's urgent and high-priority. From there, we have the information we need to take next steps. This may involve taking on the wish ourselves or communicating the wish to leadership.
Does the Community Tech team work in isolation?
No, we constantly collaborate with other teams at the Foundation and most importantly, with all of you. This year our goal is to share the top wishes with other product managers who are responsible for products related to the categories in the wishlist. This way, they may incorporate relevant wishes into their team's roadmap, or they will at least consider community requests as they plan upcoming work. We always check to see if other teams are already working on solutions related to what is asked inside of the Wishlist. We plan to do more and are energized that the conversation is already beginning to happen in this thread.
Why is the Community Tech team so small? Why can't more people be hired, or why can't a second Community Tech team be formed?
As a team, we deeply believe in our work, and we hope to keep growing. We know how important it is to work directly with community members and fulfill community requests. If you want our team to grow, one of the best ways you can champion us is to participate in the wishlist. As participation rates grow (and they have!), the more effectively we can advocate for our team and its resources.
P.S. We are still welcoming help to promote the survey and to translate the updated documentation. Thanks for reading.
Senior Product Manager, Community Tech
The Community Wishlist Survey 2022
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022> starts in
less than two weeks (Monday 10 January 2022, 18:00 UTC
We, the team organizing the Survey, need your help.
- Translate important messages
- Promote the Survey
among anyone and everyone you know who has an account on wiki. Promote the
Survey on social media, via instant messaging apps, in other groups and
chats, in your WikiProject, Wikimedia affiliate - wherever contributors
with registered accounts may be.
- You may also start thinking about ideas for technical improvements or
even writing them down in the CWS sandbox
*Why are we asking?*
- We have improved the documentation
friendlier and easier to use. This will mean little if it's only in English.
- Thousands of volunteers haven't participated in the Survey yet. We'd
like to improve that, too. Three years ago, 1387 people participated. Last
year, there were 1773 of them. We hope that in the upcoming edition, there
will be even more - if you help us with translations. Also, you are better
than us in contacting Wikimedians outside of wikis. We have prepared some
images to share. More to come.
*What is the Community Wishlist Survey?*
It's an annual survey that allows contributors to the Wikimedia projects to
propose and vote for tools and platform improvements. Long years of
experience in editing or technical skills are not required.
Thank you for your time and attention. To those who have participated in
the Survey - many thanks for your dedication.
See you in January!
Szymon Grabarczuk (he/him)
Community Relations Specialist
There's an old MediaWiki feature: When an administrator deletes a page, a
bit of its content is automatically added to an edit summary. This is later
viewable in deletion logs.
If you edit in the English, German, or Italian Wikipedia, then you haven't
actually seen this feature in years, because administrators in these wikis
essentially removed it by locally blanking the system messages that make it
In many other wikis, however, this feature is still working.
Is it actually useful? Or should it perhaps be removed?
Here's a Phabricator task about it:
If you have an opinion, weigh in there or here.
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
We want to give you an update related to Wikimedia Wikimeet India 2022.
Wikimedia Wikimeet India 2022 (or WMWM2022) was to be conducted on 18 to 20
February 2022, and is postponed now.
Currently we are seeing a new wave of the pandemic that is affecting many
people around. Although WMWM is an online event, it has multiple
preparation components such as submission, registration, RfC etc which
require community involvements.
We feel this may not be the best time for extensive community engagement.
We have also received similar requests from Wikimedians around us.
Following this observation, please note that we are postponing the event,
and the new dates will be informed on the mailing list and on the event
Although the main WMWM is postponed, we may conduct a couple of brief
calls/meets (similar to Stay Safe Stay Connected call) on the mentioned
date, if things go well.
We'll also get back to you about updates related to WMWM once the situation
on behalf of WMWM
Centre for Internet and Society
For some time now there's been a project called Wikidebate on Wikiversity:
The project has matured over the years, receives occasional contributions,
drives some 7000+ views a month and ranks first on some search keywords
like "objective reality" and "subjective reality".
I feel it has potential, but the truth is it hasn't been growing much
lately. So today I thought I could ask others for their wisdom: do you have
any ideas on how to help it grow? Maybe doing something to the home page,
the flow for creating new debates, or the title conventions?
Feel free to reply here or at the main talk page of the project:
I’m writing to share the latest update on the Equity Fund, a pilot program
created by the Wikimedia Foundation to address the barriers to free
knowledge experienced by Black, Indigenous, and communities of color around
As we've shared on Diff today , based on feedback from the first round
of Equity Fund grants we are continuing to iterate on our process for
choosing grantees and increasing community participation. Today, we are
opening up the second round of Equity Fund grantees and are seeking
community recommendations. We know that many of you work closely with and
are aware of external organizations that can help advance the movement’s
goals and address equity gaps. We invite recommendations from current
Wikimedia volunteers and communities through an intake form available on
Google survey  and LimeSurvey . We’ll be taking your suggestions for
Round 2 through February 18. Thank you to those that have already submitted
You can read more about the current status of the Equity Fund, criteria for
grantees, as well as other updates around community participation with the
Equity Fund on Diff . We invite your questions and feedback on Meta .
Nadee Gunasena, on behalf of the Equity Fund Committee
Executive Communications Manager
Wikimedia Foundation <https://wikimediafoundation.org/>