Bohdan Melnychuk | 27 Aug 12:22 2014

CAPTCHA for people with poor eyesight

Hola la todos.

I'm being curios how the blind or just people with quite poor eyesight 
are supposed to join Wiki(m|p)edia.

Fortunately though my own eyesight isn't what you call perfect, low 
myopia gives me no obstacles to use computer without spectacles. But 
unfortunately not every human being can boast not having such problems.

And I'm sure some of them could be potential wikimedians.

But when I e.g. want to proceed with registration I've got to fill a 
field with what CAPTCHA says (and except for registration there are also 
other cases when it's  shown  for nonautoconfirmed guys). But assume you 
don't see it well — how on Earth are you to pass it then? It's not 
uncommon to see audio version on many sites. But we have it not.

On Wikidata there is a link to which actually 
acknowledges the problem, there is similar page on Meta, I believe there 
are some more like this but the solution to contact siteadmins doesn't 
seem too good for me - user at least needs to reveal his email publicly 
or contact a sysop using some external to wikipages way. Not all 
people'd like to do it. Enwiki provides with a link to a tool but still you need to give your email to 

But on the other hand even such a solution is better than nothing. But 
it's local ones in perhaps dozen or two wikis while there are over 700 
of them.
(Continue reading)

Bohdan Melnychuk | 27 Aug 11:52 2014

Link-parameter image usage: attribution issue

Hola la todos.

I think I do not say nothing new:

Most files are under a free license or FUR either of which requires 

I'm omitting existing of Media Viewer - it's not important in the case.

When we use file like [[File:Example.jpeg]] (with size, position, alt 
and so on perhaps) the attribution requirement is fulfilled by the fact 
that the file is being a link to it's description page where all credits 
are to be seen.

But we can use it like [[File:Example.jpeg|link=]] or 
[[File:Example.jpeg|link=Some page]] which would suppress or substitute 
the link with another link. We can also use images via css or scripts 
for some backgrounds and so on which is not about the link-parameter but 
has the same issue in core.

The question is how attribution requirement is being fulfilled in the 
latter case?

What is general community consensus and WMF position upon it?

I'm sure that I'm not the first wikimedian who notices that thing so the 
answer should lie on some surface just I don't know where to look for it 
so I'm asking it in here. This is also not so uncommon and too rare 
usage to be ignored, I'm sure of it.

(Continue reading)

WereSpielChequers | 27 Aug 00:36 2014

Re: personally communicating with new editors (was: Re: editor retention initiatives)

Re Todd Allen's remark about raising the threshold for article creation to auto confirmed:
"Copy-pasters, spammers, and vandals will probably largely be put off by that requirement rather than
bothering to fulfill it" is an interesting theory, the counter view is that vandals and other bad faith
editors will do the minimum necessary to commit their damage, but a proportion of good faith editors will
be lost if you make it more difficult for them.

From my experiences in Wikimedia sites and elsewhere I find the latter theory much more convincing than the
former. So i judge proposals such as ACTrial on the assumption that they would be a significantly greater
deterrent to good editors than to bad ones. Of course I may be wrong, as might be those who disagree with me. 

This is one of those things where a controlled scientific test would be useful - another is the ongoing
divide between those who think it important to template new editors and their articles as fast as possible
in order that they know the flaws in their editing before they stop editing, and those like me who would like
to slow down or better re channel the effort of templaters on the assumption that the faster they  template
the newbies the quicker the newbies will leave.

It is very difficult to achieve consensus for change where large parts of the community work on
diametrically opposed assumptions. Independent neutral research might make it easier to build
consensus and better decisions.


Jonathan (WereSpielChequers)

> On 26 Aug 2014, at 17:06, wikimedia-l-request <at> wrote:
> Copy-pasters, spammers, and vandals will probably largely be put off by
> that requirement rather than bothering to fulfill it

(Continue reading)

Tim Davenport | 26 Aug 15:24 2014

editor retention initiatives

David Goodman has this exactly right — new volunteers (as opposed to casual
contributors) aren't made with templates of cookies or beer, they are
generally made one at a time, with personal attention and personal
assistance. Teahouse is one of the best ideas of the last five years, being
a place where newcomers can go to ask specific questions. Mentoring
programs is another very correct step.

I'm currently working with a buddy who is getting into it. Wiki markup gunk
isn't a big problem for him; he's about 40 years old and has been around
html enough that it doesn't put him off. Footnoting he initially found
difficult, but I taught him how to do it long form rather than using layout
clogging templates, so that might have added an hour or two to the learning
curve. Still: not that difficult and he already has the knack of it — and
once you learn that, it's all very simple.

I'm going to write him a couple thousand word email on linking today.
That's all pretty self-evident.

We had lunch yesterday and I explained to him the way that some topics
which interest him (alternative medicine) are going to be battleground
areas in which he really must be a master of NPOV; while other interests,
relating to popular culture and sports, are less intense, with rawer and
worse articles standing that need Tender Loving Care.

He's enthusiastic about WP, and there is absolutely no substitute for that.
That is the thing that is missing in college students doing class projects.
My experience thus far with them is that they dive in at the 11th hour, do
minimally decent work necessary to complete the assignment, ask zero
questions, and then vanish.

(Continue reading)

James Heilman | 26 Aug 07:38 2014

Add a link to "contributors" or "authors" to Wikipedia's byline

Yes I agree that mobile is a little much. I am just proposing a simple
linked word (either author or contributors) in the by-line. It is important
to have this information in the by-line rather than to the left as this is
where people expect to find the authors / contributors.

Not attached to were it links to as long as that page contains a clear list
of the authors. Maybe we could add some of Xs tool info to a Wikipedia
based page?


James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l <at>
Unsubscribe:, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request <at>>
James Heilman | 26 Aug 02:19 2014

Add a link to "contributors" or "authors" to Wikipedia's byline

Started a proposal here about it

And have created a mockup of what it would look like here

Wondering peoples opinions.


James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l <at>
Unsubscribe:, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request <at>>
Quim Gil | 25 Aug 11:50 2014

Tracking bugs in the open (was Re: Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes...)


On Monday, August 25, 2014, svetlana <svetlana <at>> wrote:

> A first step here, I believe, is have the Teams track bugs in the open;
> from my own experience, the Flow and Multimedia folks track bugs somewhere
> else where I can't even view or comment (and even if I could, it being
> different from Bugzilla would make things harder).

All WMF Engineering teams track bugs in the open (unless they are
security/privacy related, for obvious reasons), although the use of
multiple tools doesn't help indeed. This is why we decided to move to

> I'm not sure what about migration to Phabricator, but I think it's an
> operations style of thing (I'm yet to figure out how to get involved, but
> it'd make it easier for anyone to work on the new features - they are
> really documented on-wiki (thankfully they only internalise only bug
> tracking atm), although so far only in English mostly).

I'm not sure I understand, but in any case


Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager  <at>  Wikimedia Foundation
(Continue reading)

Pine W | 25 Aug 05:19 2014

Re: Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

I have heard very few people say "don't ever change the interface." I have
heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
is an improvement."

VE was a good example. The sentiment of the community wasn't that VE''s
concept is wrong, it's that the implementation and rollout had major

The MV issue is larger than than the usual editor-focused interface change
because it impacts readers as well as editors, and there were issues with
the display of licenses to readers. Personally I feel that the MV issues
are fixable but the rollout should have been handled differently, and I am
glad that the community and WMF both want to avoid repeating rollout
problems again and again.


On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen <at>>

> Hoi,
> In the metrics meeting, a presentation was given that showed that mobile
> editing is really starting to happen. It is happening to the extend where
> new editors are predominantly mobile editors.
> When I asked my question "do we need to keep you happy" I specifically
> targeted the vitriolic parts of our community. In my experience it it the
> part that is conservative, not willing to listen, not open to change and
> not willing to consider what is important to others.At Wikimania one of the
> presenters indicated that he was willing to contribute to Wikidata. This
(Continue reading)

Jeevan Jose | 24 Aug 19:03 2014

Wrong attribution in PDF output of Wikipedia atricles

Try to "download as PDF"

Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.

It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
License: unknown Contributors: Fir0002, Peteforsyth

This is very wrong as license is not fetched  and photographer is only Fir;
not all people edited that "file" page.

I raised this complaint earlier (in Commons). This is mentioned at EN too
by Stefan:

I think this is a serious violation and need immediate attention.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l <at>
Unsubscribe:, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request <at>>
James Salsman | 24 Aug 03:55 2014

editor retention initiatives

Is there a list somewhere of all currently active Foundation
initiatives for attracting and retaining active editors?  I am only
aware of the one project, "Task Recommendations," to try to encourage
editors who have made a few edits to make more, described starting at

I am not worried about pageviews at all, given that the trend is as
constant as it has ever been when mobile users are added in to the
total. Sadly, the greater number of mobile users appears to be harming
active editor numbers beyond their already dismal trend, so it would
be nice to have an idea of exactly how much effort the Foundation is
applying to its only strategic goal which it is not achieved, and has
not ever achieved. I am amazed that so much more effort continues to
be applied to the other goals, all of which have always been met
through to the present. What does this state of affairs say about the
Foundation leadership's ability to prioritize?

Is there any evidence at all that anyone in the Foundation is
interested in any kind of change which would make non-editors more
inclined to edit, or empower editors with social factors which might
provide more time, economic power, or other means to enable them to
edit more?

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l <at>
Unsubscribe:, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request <at>>
Wikipedia Signpost | 23 Aug 22:09 2014

[Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 10, Issue 32 -- 20 August 2014

Interview: Improving the visibility of digital archival assets using Wikipedia

Traffic report: ''Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero''

WikiProject report: Bats and gloves

Featured content: English Wikipedia departs for Japan

Op-ed: A new metric for Wikimedia

Single page view

PDF version /
Wikipedia Signpost Staff

Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public
mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
(Continue reading)