MusikAnimal (WMF)

Hi. I've flagged the bot but I can still see their changes on Special:RecentChanges. Maybe you should review its code to see if there's a &bot=0 or something else that allows the bot to ignore their bot flag. Regards, —MarcoAurelio 11:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@MarcoAurelio: Should be fixed! I wasn't able to add the assert=bot beforehand because it didn't have the flag :) Many thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

hi Leon Ziemba , I know i'm late & Voting phase will begins November 28th .can i request for adding my proposal.plz.THANKS.

• Problem: Wikipedia acknowledges that the encyclopedia should not be used as a primary source for research, either academic or informational. According to Academics [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] & Harvard [8] ,Carleton [9],livescience [10] ,forbos [11],guardian [12] ,nature [13] wikipedia articles are "not enough RELIABLE" for academic research/study.some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources. [14] [15] [16]. And there is "Lack of methodical fact-checking "...Inaccurate information that is not obviously false may persist in Wikipedia for a long time before it is challenged. [17] .. For a list of hoaxes that have occurred on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia .

1. Accuracy is the biggest problem about Wikipedia . Anyone can add subtle nonsense  or erroneous information to articles that can take weeks, months or years to be detected and removed (which has been happening since at least 2002). Deliberate hoaxes can also be perpetrated.
2. Even unregistered users are capable of this. For example, some one can just come and edit this very page and put in "khats r four doughs onlee" or add mention of some unrelated topic: ===like how great pineapple pizza is===
3. Dross can proliferate, rather than become refined, as rhapsodic authors have their articles revised by ignorant editors.

• Who would benefit: all wiki reader & editor . 18 billion user every month . pageview 18 billion every month.[18][19][20]

• Proposed solution:I have a five step solution .

1.(Easy reporting): by Making it much easier for people to report "factual accuracy", misinformation faster. google,google news,facebook [21] ,twitter,bing everyone have a interactive reporting & feedback system .We can have a interactive reporting in wikipedia similar to google feedback [22] (with screenshot ; highlight issue in "yellow" & Black out private information private information) for highlighting a specific block/line . In wikipedia articles , we can have a [Report] link in every section ,beside [Edit] link . In reporting , there should have features for adding ,section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category., There are several noticeboards (for  inaccurate content  &  factual inaccuracy) at which accuracy disputes may be listed to gain the views of other editors, particularly the Dispute resolution , Fringe theories , reliable sources, no original research, neutral point-of-view, Conflict of Interest and biographies of living persons noticeboards.All report should go there or open a request for mediation (RFM) & Requests for Comment . some report should go here and here.In this way, we have a possibility  to get 18 billion "factual accuracy" report in every month  :) . [23][24][25]

2.(Algorithm): Leverage algorithms and artificial intelligence.Stronger detection Algorithm .Facebook already using machine learning—different algorithms than the ones that drive the Trending section—to try and catch misinformation on the platform . We can have a Algorithm similar to google,facebook [26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] & twitter  [32] fake news algorithm .When a user create a article with Factual Accuracy/misinformation,claim,Fringe theories , original research ; without proper citation ; then the Algorithm should automatically add section dispute template & inline dispute template with Citation needed template & Accuracy disputes category. ...from reliable sources guideline , we can create a algorithm for "cross check ". when a editor insert a citation then it & will automatically start cross-checking the content with other similar reliable source & will create a " reliability meter ".

3.(Third party verification): Over the last several years, fact checking has come into its own. Led by many respected fact checking organizations like the International Fact-Checking Network, rigorous fact checks are now conducted by more than 100 active sites, according to the Duke University Reporter’s Lab. They collectively produce many thousands of fact-checks a year, examining claims around urban legends, politics, health, and the media itself. Google added a fact check tag on Google News in order to display articles that contain factual information next to trending news items.[33].Facebook using snopes [34] .snopes.com is a well-known resource for validating and debunking such stories in American popular culture, receiving 300,000 visits a day. [35] The Reporters’ Lab at Duke University maintains a database managed by Mark Stencel and Bill Adair of fact checking organizations. The database tracks more than 100 non-partisan organizations around the world. Articles are also examined based upon whether the site examines transparency of sources and methods, tracks political promises, examines all parties and sides, and examines discreet claims and reaches conclusions.

4.(User Right): We can have a user right group "Fact Checker". This user group will have some expertise & tools .Or, this right can be added to Admin group. they will get notified , when point 1.(Easy reporting) will happen , mainly for good , A ,GA &  B  articles. They will try to solve Factual Accuracy from these category as much as they can .

5.(reliability meter): in visual editor cite templates , we can add reliability meter . from the help of point 2.(Algorithm) ; every reader will see "reliability meter " , when they click in the "citation " & in "REFERENCES" .there is third party databases [36] [37] [38] [39] or we can create our own . when Reliability/Accuracy 100-81% ; we will see   . when Reliability/Accuracy 80-61% ; we will see   . when Reliability/Accuracy 60-50% ; we will see   .

• More comments:
• Phabricator tickets:
• Proposer:--- md masum (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Community discussion:

@Ahm masum: Hey! I'm sorry to say the proposals phase of the wishlist survey has concluded, and we'll have to decline this for now. I highly suspect the work involved might be too ambitious for our team anyway, if that makes you feel any better. Nonetheless I'm impressed by the research you've put into the idea, and I think it's worth seeking other venues to pursue it. First try consulting your local community, they may be able to help with #4, adding a new "fact checker" user right. These user groups are configurable on a per-wiki basis, and if consensus permits we can help with that. Hope this helps, and sorry my reply could not be more favourable! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do it like so...

1.   Support
2.   Support

     Oppose

3.   Support

Basically, just indent the 'Oppose' and 'Neutral' votes, and then, they won't be counted. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Whatever is less confusing for people, which sifting through the pages appears to be numbering :) We have our own automated system counting supports, so we don't need to indent. I see that's how it was done last year, so numbers it is! Thanks MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

the two categories editing and misc both contain the most proposals and the most votes of all cats. would it still be possible to split this two cats for better overview? in the case of misc it might be possible to split a mail&notifications cat?

btw: user page "became in admin" -> "became an admin" ??

--𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 11:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

We are nearing the end, so I think at think point we might stick it out, if not just to avoid confusion (there are a lot of links to specific proposals on those pages, etc). Better categorization is yet another thing we'll work to improve next year :) Thanks for pointing out the error on my userpage, fixed! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello MusikAnimal (WMF), do you know if the logging system has a "cheap" way to query logs for "what was" values? For example on the move log, given the current title - what was the prior title? On the global rename log, given the current username, what was the prior username? If this would be better directed elsewhere - please let me know. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Xaosflux: If you want to use the API, for global renames, there is an "olduser" value in the "params" hash [40]. If you want to query the database directly, parse the log_params of the row in the logging table [41]. From there you can use regex to figure out the old username, something like /olduser";s:\d*:"(.*?)";/, where the (.*?) would capture the username. For the move log, I'm not actually sure how to do it with the API. With the database you'd search within log_params, instead of parsing it [42]. These queries still run reasonably fast, but if by "cheap" you meant easy, maybe the answer is no :) Hope this helps! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

By cheap I mean fast - as in fast enough to request getting these incorporated to the front end like other log search parameters. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Xaosflux: It goes sufficiently fast, I think. I'm sure there's a reason it was omitted from the front end, not sure :/ Seems worth investigating, though! Did you create a phab? I would like to follow MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've been searching for one - I can't imagine noone has asked for the move log type before - probably in bugzilla land with an odd title. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Possibly phab:T40123 would encompass? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, actually it that were resolved it should fix our issue. You were right, an old bugzilla with an odd title :) The issue they are having is indeed about moving pages in general, not just when they've been protected. I have ran into this before, where I had to dig through a bunch of logs before I could figure out who originally protected the page (since it will say "User:NotAnAdmin moved protection settings from A to B"). So annoying MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, phab:T152829 and phab:T152830 created - I'm sure someone will jump right on them :D — xaosflux ^Talk 04:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

[43][44]: Perhaps you and User:DannyH (WMF) should agree on a "correct version" instead of changing it forth and back. ;-) --Vogone (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yep :) The process sort of changed, and there was definitely also some lack of communication. At any rate, we've learned a lot. Next year will go much smoother, I think! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ha, silly. I was trying to be helpful. :) -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Me too :(( … Is it possible to seperate the support votes section next year? I mean comment, neutral and oppose aren't insignificant, but it is very confusing to find a proposal having 25 entries and only six supporters. Yesterday I wanted to read less supported proposals primarily to save a bit time – nonessential to raise strong supported entries. But that's no fun on a controversial topic, because »only support votes are counted« in any case. Only how many? --Plagiat (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Community_Tech_bot/WishlistSurvey/Votes might be helpful. --Vogone (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thx! Can we announce this pagelink within template WISHLIST2016/Category header? Okay - now it's a bit late, but next year? --Plagiat (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

That report is meant for internal purposes. Guess the word got out :) Not sure if we'll advertise it next year either. We will share a nicely formatting table when voting closes, though. Thanks MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure? Seems to be a mismatch? --𝔊 (Gradzeichen Diſk✉Talk) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

A bot parsed all the proposals to find the phab tickets. Seems there was a bug! :) Thanks for letting me know. We still need to go through all the "related" phabs, as they may or may not be actually relevant (the bot lists any phab that's linked to in the discussion/voting sections). This obviously will take considerable time, and we didn't want to hold back the results from everyone in the interim. Best, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello MusikAnimal!

May I ask you why you are using 2016 in following pagetitels?

• 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/ar

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/de

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/en

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/es

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/fi

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/fr

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/ja

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/lt

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/pa

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/pl

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/ro

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/tr

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num editors/vi

• 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/ar

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/de

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/en

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/es

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/fi

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/ja

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/lt

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/pl

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/ro

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/tr

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num proposals/vi

• 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ar

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ba

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/de

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/en

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/es

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ja

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/lt

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/ro

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/tr

2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Num votes/vi

I think it would be better to remove the year, so that we can use them every year. I would do this, but I have no authorization. Could @Johan or @Danny contribute something? --Plagiat (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Plagiat: Wonderful idea, we can definitely re-use these next year, along with other similar messages :) Community Wishlist Survey exists as a redirect to the current survey, but indeed we could start nesting all reusable pages under it. I will try to do this soon, but in the meantime I'll update 2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Lessons learned to suggest we centralize anything that could be reused year to year. Thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

About stats: mw:Talk:Wikistats 2.0 Design Project/RequestforFeedback/Round1/Site dashboard. Wikisource stats: https://tools.wmflabs.org/phetools/statistics.php Aubrey (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been using Massviews with your edit for over a week now, and I love it. It is definitely something we needed, so thanks! My only desire now (but I really don't know the depth of the complexity here), would be a combination of Massviews + Topviews: would it be possible to count the views of the books (with subpages) and order them by count? At least weekly/monthly? Right know I'm checking book by book, but it's not sustainable. As you can see our Topviews gives us single pages. Not sure if I already asked you this, in any case thank you again. Aubrey (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Aubrey: That would be quite nice! However, this indeed would be very complex. The issue is Topviews pulls from the /top endpoint of the Pageviews API, which only gives us single articles. What I could do is automatically process those pages and subpages, but then the ordering may be off. I'd have to go through all 1,000 top pages to ensure the ordering is correct. Additionally some of the pages the API gives us may not actually be the main page of the book :/ Worst of all, this approach would slow things down tremendously.

One thing I can do, which is not a solution, is include a link on Topviews to view the page and subpages in Massviews. That way you at least don't have to copy/paste the page titles into Massviews one by one. How does that sound? Not ideal, but hopefully an improvement :) MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a low-hanging fruit useful enough. I don't really care about the correct order of the first 1000, but it's important to me to know the core books of Wikisource. As Wikipedia, we follow some kind of power law, so it's important to know which are the most read books we have. Aubrey (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm contacting you because you voted for the Infobox Wizard in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

The Infobox Wizard has gotten an upgrade - it's now a Template Wizard which works for infoboxes and all other templates. The feature is being developed as an extension (which will allow for localization) but there is a prototype user script which works well.

The Wishlist Team would love it if you could take a few minutes to try the Template Wizard prototype script out and give us feedback on whether it lives up to your expectations. This feedback will help build the script into an extension. To get started, add the following to your Special:MyPage/common.js -

mw.loader.load( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwilson/TemplateWizard.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

The Template Wizard will show up as a puzzle-piece icon in the 2010 WikiEditor. You can click on the icon to insert a template. Your thoughts are needed on whether it makes sense for the wizard to be available for all users by default or if there should be a preference for it. If it's a preference, what should the default be? Please leave your feedback here. Thank you! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. From the backend are you able to see, or monitor the effectiveness of the title blacklist? Is there any sort of measurement possible? Or is it just a blacklist to a blackhole? I know that the powers that be that manage code don't allow any visibility on the hits for privacy reasons (did that battle in my stewardry days). Thanks for whatever info you can provide.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst: There is Special:Log/titleblacklist but it looks like it isn't being populated. I recall someone linking to this log some time ago on IRC, or maybe that was the spam blacklist. I'm sure you could scour production logs to see what pages were blocked by the title blacklist. I am not sure how to do this, though, or if I'm allowed to share such information. Sorry! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look to be off, and the request to enable appears to be stalled for 4 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is off on the front end (obviously my allusion failed and I couldn't be bothered digging out the phab ticket), so I was uncertain whether it was totally off in special access areas, or what might be available elsewhere for knowledge.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you moved many pages today, but unfortunately left some double redirects. This won’t work ;-) regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes it's turning out to be quite a mess. I am working to fix everything. Feel free to fix some yourself, but obviously this is not your problem :) Thanks for the note, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

With the transclusion of several parts of the page, you remove the translations. Almost all have been translated into several languages by volonteers so, please consider moving the translation to make them fit with the new organization of the pages -- Noé (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yep! Working on it. All translations will be restored. Sorry for the confusion MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No problem, thanks for your work on this matter! Noé (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Following your notice elsewhere, I am going back to past Community Wishlist Survey pages and putting dates back; one small thing, that under "Translations:Community Wishlist Survey 2016/13/ja", it has an extra tag as Community Wishlist Survey/Survey explained which I don't see on /en page. Could you have a look and maybe remove the tag please? --Omotecho

I was going through 2016 Community wish-list and came upon a proposal where you mentioned this to be not so good.Any particular cases where it gives erroneous outputs or fails to lead to anything?Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Winged Blades of Godric: I don't have an example off hand but yes that tool doesn't always work, or gives the wrong revision, and it can be really slow. The proposal from 2017 still stands, by the way. Hopefully we will be working on it in the next quarter. The service we were planning on using is available now as an unaffiliated browser extension that you can experiment with. I don't think there's any need to re-propose this wish for the new survey, if that's why you're asking. Regards, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notification. Does that mean that I can't also take part in discussions about proposals? --89.25.210.104 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dont try to censor the discussion. You are just an employee of the foundation and have to be neutral. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, the removal of the toolbar has nothing to do with Community Tech. We have a strict schedule for the Survey, I am merely enforcing it. I'll note we won't be able to do anything for you until after the survey is over. I think y'all should be showing your disappointment on the relevant Phabricator task at phab:T30856. Community Tech can't help you until 2019 MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do not hurry. There're more then enough editors left... --DaizY (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You renamed some pages about old Community Wishlist Surveys, but lost some old translations. See top of Special:WantedCategories for effect review.

Please improve this. --Kaganer (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah FuzzyBot didn't move them :( I reported this on IRC but was told it was a known bug (I think). It wouldn't even let me move them manually. I'm not sure what to do. Sorry :( MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

no problem, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Multimedia_and_Commons/Lightroom_to_Commons_upload is the one that I hope someone else might pickup at some point, and i withdraw that one and keep the rest. :JarrahTree (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I think you are very brave and hard working person - to have to cope with people not understanding you are not the creator of problems that people dont have clear understandings of where they come from, and cannot really believe how brilliant the new changes inside preferences and xtools are since I first started in this very strange world... :JarrahTree (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hehe, that's very kind of you :D I really appreciate the praise, and I hope I haven't created any problems! I've put hundreds of hours into XTools, and I'm not done yet either :) Glad to hear people are noticing the improvements. Cheers, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could we have this banner dated November 11 marked for translation? Or if you need to asign somebody, I’d do ja. Cheers, —Omotecho (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Omotecho: Is it possible to use the Translate extension on edit notices? The category pages (Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Citations, etc.), where this would be shown, are not localizable either. This is unfortunate, but it's all we have for right now :( We hope to invent a better system for next year. MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Too bad...Help:CentralNotice says "... links to translate the text should be provided in the banner.", and I imagined maybe adding links to translate the text would solve the issue (someone needs to mark the sentences for translation anyway?). Thanks anyway (: --Omotecho (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I see there's now separate Community Wishlist Survey category for notifications that has 4 proposals. There are also two other categories with only 3 and 5 proposals. So I wonder, can we also have a separate "Maps" category that would take 4–5 proposals from miscellaneous category and perhaps also this and this? Pikne 08:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done! Thank you, MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could you tame your bot so it does not remove this? This proposal actually fits in two categories. — Automatik (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply