A small piece of friendly advice as you're getting started: try to avoid debates about social and political issues on talk pages. Comments likethis one may lead you into discussions that are heated, lengthy, and unconstructive — and they also may make other uninvolved editors hesitant to jump in and take your side.
I know that it can be particularly frustrating when other editors try to push a hateful political or social agenda on an article, or even a talk page. But invariably, these editors will have to violate about a dozen Wikipedia policies (NPOV, DUE, BALANCE, BLP, NOR, SYNTH, etc.) to twist the article into fitting in with their worldview. It's often better to keep calm and appeal to these policies rather than to argue about the underlying values. You're unlikely to change the mind of an editor who believes that people of a certain social status simply deserve to die... but you're very likely to convince the room that the edits in question violate a whole slew of policies that are aimed at promoting neutrality and objectivity — because they do.
Just my two cents. I think you're a good editor and will be a valuable part of the community. Hope to see you around some more!Combefere★Talk17:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about how to best reply to this.
It is hard to say where neutrality ends and politics begins. I personally feel like there is no difference in kind, just a difference in amount.
The linked comment was more to establish that listing an arrest record and it's details it itself a POV push to the point of being considered completely off-topic by a different major POV.
I disagree with your attitude that editors that want to add a POV i find personally repulsive will have to twist policy, the americanoverton window contains plenty material like that.
But I have also resolved myself to talk and edit like a Wikipedian on Wikipedia, not like myself.
Wikipedianism works best when you don't argue as if you care about the objects, but care about the meta-level of these objects, which is to say, POV balancing, verifiability, centrism, i am aware.
Sorry in advance for the huge post. I really hope it's not too much of a bother; I'm trying to get something I feel is important across effectively. I'm just a random stranger passing by—I saw some of the conversations you've been involved in and wanted to share this.
I think this was maybe not the best advice for you ultimately. It's not bad advice generally, but I'm a little worried you got the wrong impression from it, and that it's going to get you in trouble eventually, which would be sad. You obviously have a lot of passion and energy, and an understanding of bias and subjectivity that in some ways is hard to come by. These could be great assets to you here if you approach things in a bit of a different way.
In truth, for the kind of debates you seem to be in, I would say that appealing to policy is unlikely to convince people of much. In a heated content debate, policy can become a very fluid and messy thing to all parties. There's enough policy, and enough ways to interpret the policy, that you can find some kind of ground to justify almost anything you want. But, the other people can do this just as well, so all that will happen is you'll just argue and argue until one side gets exhausted or blocked.
In order to actually convince people in a dispute, I recommend being laser-focused on sources. Sources are everything, because they offer something no one can argue about: the bare content of the source. They can argue about the reliability of the source, the relevance of the source, and to what extent the source supports a given position, but everyone will be on the same page about the source's contents. When basically everything else in a debate here is so fluid and relative, having something solid to grasp onto is priceless.
What's more, questions of reliability, relevance, and support are usually easy to answer. People may disagree about them, but these are disagreements that can often be settled quickly, because there's not really that much to argue about. It's much narrower terrain that arguing over the meaning of a loaded political term or a country's cultural disposition or something like that, and that's great, because we want to get back to working on the encyclopedia. The sooner we can resolve the dispute, the better.
Of course, if consensus is against you on any of those three points, and it's fairly clear you won't be able to say anything that will change the other people's mind, that's the time to go find sources they will accept, or to pack it in. I get the feeling that you may not be a fan of the popular sensibilities around here about sources, which tend to favor things like large mainstream newspapers or academic texts from famous universities or that sort of thing. Obviously, those kinds of sources have their own biases, like any sources; I often think of Wikipedia as a giant project to summarize everything that's ever been printed in those kinds of outlets, more or less, for better or for worse, whatever their good or bad traits.
There are a lot of important ideas that get left out by that approach. Most of the text produced in human history wouldn't pass muster as a reliable source with most editors here. We just have to draw the line somewhere so that we have a way to call an article roughly finished, even if the line we draw seems kind of arbitrary or problematic. It's always going to seem that way to someone, whatever line we draw.
If the culture around sources here is deeply unappealing to you, you may ultimately decide that you're not interested in helping, and I understand that if so. But, I think there's something desirable in summarizing all the mainstream newspapers and academic texts and so on: it produces an interesting text corpus. It's fun to read, and it satisfies your curiousity about what sorts of things have been printed in those kinds of sources on a given topic. I think a lot of people who don't edit Wikipedia take it a little too far, as basically an arbiter of truth in the world or something, but really it's just a big summary of a certain kind of text, text that many people would not consider a good source for truth. But, if you don't worry too much about ultimate truth and instead just ask yourself, "Hmmm, I wonder what the Wikipedia-style 'reliable sources' have to say?", I think it can be really enjoyable to work on.Mesocarp (talk)15:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe Wikipedia isan arbiter ofa truth. It has become a major POV in and of itself.
And i don't dislike mainstream sources, it's more that I dislike self-contradiction and smuggling bias into facts, e.g. what is not being said, what are your assumptions (see:structuralism,post-structuralism).
And I do think the "All logical inference is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH" argument is nonsense. Several times I've had people reject sources because the source talk about the properties of all members of a set rather than the object of a set. Which is an easy way to keep out talk about patterns and context, editors make these kind of conclusions all the time.
Well, I guess, the idea that it has its own POV is basically what I was trying to say at the end there. By "arbiter of truth in the world" I meant like, a genuinely reliable, "metereological" arbiter of truth, something everyone can actually look to as a good yardstick for what's true. I don't think anything could really be that, not for everyone in the world. That's why I said "it's just a big summary of a certain kind of text"—if you look at it that way, I think it's easier to get things done. People maytreat it as an arbiter of truth, but I think that just breeds conflict.
The reason people don't like inferring things from the sources, bringing out the underlying assumptions, generalizing, adding context, etc., is because all they really want to do is summarize, as plainly as everyone can agree on. Two people can look at the same source and see a deeply contrasting set of assumptions and structures underlying it, so once you start asking how to incorporate those insights into an article, the probability of everyone agreeing goes way down. If you just say, "We're going to proceed directly from what the source literally says and keep the contextualizing to a minimum," it's easier for everyone to move forward from there, because, like I said, the actual content of the source is beyond debate. In some ways, people's desire to avoid original research/synthesis is just a pragmatic effort to minimize argument.
This makes Wikipedia not very critical, like in the Marxist or critical theory sense or whatever. In some ways, I think, if you're the sort of person who's adept at writing that kind of critique, it can be easier here to focus on topic areas you're not as inclined to approach that way (knitting? pancakes? :P). Otherwise you'll regularly find yourself inserting text into an article from sources you personally want to critique, and that can be emotionally trying.
To paraphrase someone more famous: "If humans don't have such a source of truth available, humans will create such a source of truth".
Also, it is literallyimpossible to not have context, you would be unable to understand anything, instead, context is carefully cultivated to becentristic. This could be made explicit.
But you make good points i can't address immediately.
Thanks for your kind words. I just want to say one quick addendum since I know you're planning a more detailed answer for later—don't feel obligated to respond to this in detail, it's just for illustration. I thought it might be helpful to give a concrete example of what I mean by "keeping contextualizing to a minimum," since you're certainly right that there is always context and I can understand how you might characterize it as centrist (although I don't think that's the intent—it's more a residue of the way sources get selected and handled). Perhaps from your angle it would make more sense to describe the articles as "passively contextualized," once sources have been settled on.
The article onAlfredo Stroessner refers to his regime as "harshly oppressive" and "authoritarian." This is based on sources with titles likeState Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South and "General Alfredo Stroessner: Dictator who mastered the fixing of elections and made Paraguay a smugglers' paradise", which useexactly that kind of language to a T—the latter article uses the phrases "authoritarian" and "brutally oppressed," for instance.
You could say this has a clear anti-Stroessner slant—judging by recent events in Paraguay I get the impression there are plenty of people there who would dispute this characterisation, considering that the new president-elect Peña has described Stroessner's regime as a time of "stability" with a mere "deficit in human rights." But, the article takes the line it does because theState Terrorism and Neoliberalism book is published byRoutledge and written by an international relations PhD from theUniversity of Bristol, the "Dictator who mastered the fixing of elections" article is an obituary fromThe Guardian which iswidely seen as a trustworthy newspaper here, and so on. The article is just parroting—plainly, "dumbly" imitating—the kind of language those sources use, the typical Anglophone-intelligentsia-and-their-comrades "reliable sources" of Wikipedia, and letting the chips fall where they may, with no effort to account for the bias or baggage that might come with that kind of source pool. The only reason it doesn't characterize Stroessner's regime as a "time of stability, despite a deficit in human rights" is because few editors here would call Peña a reliable source, as with any politician—otherwise that phrasing would be fair game.
People are often narrowly inflexible about this. I recently mediated a dispute between two editors over whether it was okay to describe a filmmaker covered in a newspaper article as "independent" in wikivoice. He described himself that way on his website and the newspaper portrayed him that way implicitly, but the newspaper, the "reliable source," didn't use that exact word, so one editor felt it was inappropriate to use in the article. Like so many customs here, keeping the debates that close to the sources helps to minimize fighting, even if it might seem unsophisticated.Mesocarp (talk)03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to note, I don't mean to convey any sympathy for Peña's position there, let alone Stroessner. Reading over this I'm a little worried it might come off otherwise. I'm only trying to illustrate how mechanical the process is—like, even if many editors thought well of Stroessner, I would still expect his article to end up with a similar tone, because of how sources are picked. Anyway, I'll stop pestering you with comments. :P)Mesocarp (talk)04:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update on how it's going so far: I have been told the opposite at least 5 times on nlwiki, which is to say, debate politics, not policy. Policy is ill-defined and we like it this way.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
Wikipedia is anencyclopedia andnot a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article shouldbegin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. You might try creating a definition for this instead atWiktionary, whichis a dictionary. Please only do so if it meets that sister project'scriteria for inclusion. These require among others, attestation for the word or phrase, as verified through clear widespread use, or its use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Opponent and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Onderduiken and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Hello,Bart Terpstra!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!S0091 (talk)16:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, loving that work you're doing to the article. I did revert one ofyour edits because it might cause an issue withMOS:TERRORIST. In the spirit of full disclosure, I agree with you that that guy was a terrorist and all-around asshole, but it tends to turn heads to use even well-deserved labels that aren't widely, strongly supported by RS. I took a look around the sources used in the article and didn't find much to support the usage of the word "terrorist," and a cursory google search for "Marvin Heemeyer" "terrorist" didn't bring up much in the way of RS giving a strong view one way or the other.PriusGod (talk)16:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with your judgement and the norm is in place for a good reason at well.
I had a look atTimothy Mcveigh before making the change, and I noticed the categorization is also trying to be objective: "convicted of terrorism", "murdered people", rather than "domestic terrorist" by itself.
Anyway, I hope to lift it to B quality, it's still missing a bunch of details.
Like, the offer/counteroffer stuff or the fact they purchased more land besides his plot.
It looks like in your recent edit, you accidentally reverted me. No worries, just wanted to point it out instead of putting it back myself, since it might come across as pushy for me to have done it.
I'm on site at work right now, but once I get back to the office I might help you out in doing some digging for sources on that stuff.PriusGod (talk)17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that reverting my edit somehow didn't change the short description???
It might have been that my edit hit the server after you started your next one, but before you submitted it, which can happen, and it didn't raise an edit conflict because we weren't working on the same lines.PriusGod (talk)17:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onCredit card. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TipsyElephant was:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Most of the sources are eithertrivial mentions of the podcast or they are notreliable or notindependent. The best sources are fromThe Guardian andEsquire, but I'd like to see at least one more source with a more in depth review of the show. The Morning Star piece is pretty good, but the source's reliability has been questioned at RSN/RSP.TipsyElephant (talk)01:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:TrashFuture and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Cobwebs:Getting serious about writing The innards of the Signpost received a major overhaul in March/April 2019. Here's how we reduced behind-the-scenes busywork and improved writers resources.
Desi Polanen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Featured content:By your logic, The first issue to feature two poetry article
Concept:Wikipedia policies from other worlds: WP:NOANTLERS Material must be written with the greatest care and attention; the level of detail and commentary regarding the antlers of living persons is to be kept to a minimum.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed asStub-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GraziePrego was:
Tone issues. Posing rhetorical questions for the reader is an essay technique, and doesn't belong on wikipedia. The Simpsons quote can also go.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Crank Magnetism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
Hello, Bart Terpstra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Opponent, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello! Voting in the2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Comix:Bold comics for a new age "I think we ought to read only the kind of comics that wound or stab us. If the comic we're reading doesn't wake us up with a blow to the head, what are we reading for?" — Franz Kafka
Featured content:Real gangsters move in silence Quite literally, and other fascinating featured articles, pictures and lists
Traffic report:And it's hard to watch some cricket, in the cold November Rain If you don't fancy the sport that occupies over 25% of the slots in these lists, there's always movies, celebrities, and political follies to fall back on – or an unusual fired-for-the-weekend CEO.
Humour:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies This page in a nutshell: Whether or not someone has denied unsavory allegations — though such a denial may not merit being given equal weight in an article — a worthless shitpost should still be included.
Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Opponent".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Crossword:when the crossword is sus The Signpost Crossword is a 2018 online multiplayer social deduction game that takes place in space-themed settings where players are colorful, armless cartoon astronauts.
BJAODN:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense Edit summary: "Only need this page for about 30 minutes to demonstrate to a friend how easy it is to create a Wikipedia page. Then it will be deleted."
Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Onderduiken".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "Bell stroke".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
From the editor:NINETEEN MORE YEARS! NINETEEN MORE YEARS! The Signpost can now drink beer and chant slogans in Canada. What slogans should we chant for the next nineteen years?
News and notes:In other news ... see ya in court! Let the games begin! The 2024 WikiCup is off to a strong start. With copyright enforcement, AI training and freedom of expression, it's another typical week in the wiki-sphere!
WikiProject report:WikiProjects Israel and Palestine What are the editorial processes behind covering some of the most politically polarizing and contentious topics on English Wikipedia?
Hello, Bart Terpstra. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission orDraft page you started, "TrashFuture".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopediamainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Comix:We've all got to start somewhere Writing a good subheading for a one-sentence joke is basically like writing an entire second joke so I'm not going to do it.
Hello, Bart Terpstra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Crank Magnetism, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
WikiConference report:WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap Outcomes of the event including newly published videos and photos, the archived conference website and program, and some attendee reflections on its significance.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In the media:War and information in war and politics Advocacy organizations, a journalist, mycophobes, conservatives, leftists, photographers, and a disinformation task force imagine themselves in Wikipedia.
Essay:Reflections on editing and obsession A lost Signpost submission from fifteen years ago brought into the light, as good and true now as it was then.
Serendipity:A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics User Hawkeye7 opens up on his experience as a media representative following the Australian team at the latest Summer Paralympics in Paris.
Opinion:asilvering's RfA debriefing User asilvering reflects on their recent successful request for adminship.
News and notes:Are you ready for admin elections? More changes to RfA on the way in October, final results for the U4C elections revealed, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
In the media:Off to the races! Wikipedia wins! Perplexing persistence, pay to play, potential president's possible plagiarism, crossword crossover to culture, and a wish come true!
From the editors:Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime But not everybody is able to legally read Wikipedia, and not everybody is able to legally edit Wikipedia.
Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Traffic report:SomethingWicked for almost everybody Fighting and killing – on screen, in politics, and in the ring – competes for attention with Disney.
News and notes:Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" What the VLOP – findings of an outside auditor for "responsibilization" of Wikipedia. Plus, new EU Commissioners for tech policy, WLE 2024 winners, and a few other bits of news from the Wikipedia world.
News and notes:Let's talk! The WMF executive team delivers a new update; plus, the latest EU policy report, good-bye to the German Wikipedia's Café, and other news from the Wikimedia world.
Community view:24th Wikipedia Day in New York City Wikimedians and newbies celebrate 24 years of Wikipedia in the Brooklyn Central Library. Special guests Stephen Harrison and Clay Shirky joined in conversation.
Traffic report:A wild drive The start of the year was filled with a few unfortunate losses, tragic disasters, emerging tech forces and A LOT of politics.
Technology report:Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year From patrolling new edits to uploading photos or joining a campaign, you can count on the Wikimedia platform to be up and running — in your language, anywhere in the world. That is, except for a couple of minutes during the equinoctes.
Opinion:Sennecaster's RfA debriefing User Sennecaster shares her thoughts on her recent RfA and the aspects that might have played a role in making it successful.
News from the WMF:Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan A look at some product and tech highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation's Annual Plan (July–December 2024).
Traffic report:One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes.
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Getting Started
Tips
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onCredit card. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hello, Bart Terpstra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Opponent, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
