Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to top
Skip to bottom
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts
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.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for engaging with and discussing the Wikimedia Foundation. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the foundation are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions.

« Archives, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

US government questionnaire

The organisation I work for has been sent this questionnaire by the US government. It has 36 questions that produce a score between 12 and 180. I would like to know what WMF's score is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

combatting Christian prosecution I would normally think this was a typo. But given the circumstances... GMGtalk 13:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep thinking that they can't be that bad, but then they come out with something that shows that they are. I'm just glad that I don't live in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither, but I still have to deal with the questionnaire. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to wonder what the actual US government would score on that thing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF doesn't need to do it though. And I'm not sure why you are posting here instead of contacting the WMF directly. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Universities in Europe are generally advising not to fill in or respond to the survey. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The advice from the Australian government is: "it is better for researchers to respond to the questions rather than refuse to respond". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have to encourage free speech and encourage open debate and free sharing of information but also be sure to not work with any party that espouses anti-American beliefs, I guess. jp×g🗯️ 04:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I filled it out. Somewhat surprisingly, Wikipedia scores a respectable 90/180 (a lot more than you would expect given the fact the organization has a suspicious absence of minerals):
1: Yes, I would hope so. (5)
2. Yes, collaborating with any such organization (or any organization with a political viewpoint at all) would violate WP:COI (5)
3: No, most Wiki-meetups are informal gatherings of editors so vetting them for being terrorists would be a waste of time as well as pointless. (0)
4: WTF. No. Clear WP:NPOV vio. (0)
5: Yes, per WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:FREECONTENT. Speech is constrained by the practical constraints of an encyclopedia but that’s about it. (5)
6: Yes? We don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)
7: No, per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have abortion information on our website. (0)
8: Yes. Wikipedia is a well-funded organization with more than enough money to cover its operating cost. (5)
9: Yes. Let’s be honest, there is a fair amount of complaining on the site of Wikipedia’s high overhead costs, but the overhead costs of Wikipedia are dwarfed by the impact of the site. (5)
10: No. Why would we? We’re an encyclopedia? (0)
11: Yes? Again, we don’t really collaborate with any organizations with policies for or against the US, per WP:COI. (5)
12: No. As an international organization with global governance structures, we collectively politely tell you to go soak your head over this one. (0)
13: Yes. Local branches of Wikipedia have, at points, received money from Russia, and worked with groups such as Wikipedians in Mainland China. That being said, Wikipedia no longer receives funding from those organizations and has never partnered with them per WP:COI. (5)
14: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)
15: No. We have programs that seek to include and improve coverage of topics not currently covered by Wikipeda. That’s a good thing. (0)
16: Yes. Endorsing any policy positions officially would be WP:NPOV. We let the facts speak for themselves. (5)
17: No, per WP:NPOV. (0)
18: No. Even though sometimes it sure feels like it. (0)
19: No per WP:NOTCENSORED. Although, let’s be honest, the fact that Wikipedia fails this is more because “Gender Ideology” is really just talking about trans people. (0)
20: No per WP:NOTCENSORED (0)
21: Yes. Wikimedia Enterprise is the business arm of the foundation. (5)
22: Yes. Millions of people across the US use Wikipedia every day. Not to mention search engines rely on it. (5)
23: Yes. We’ve already done so. (5)
24: Yes. If the free flow of and access to information is a national security need, you could hardly find a better organization to fulfill this need. (5)
25: Providing access uncensored information to authoritarian regimes who are (for now) the primary “malign influencers” undermines their interests. (4)
26: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)
27: I doubt Wikipedia has any impact whatsoever. We let the facts speak for themselves, and people make their decisions with those. (1)
28: Ironically, we probably do a better job of providing accurate health information than the current US government, which definitely mitigates biological threats and pandemics. As per “foreign dependence on medical supplies”, why even include that in this question you morons? (4)
29: Again free speech has generally helped promote US national security interests (we’ll see for how much longer). (2)
30: I guess disclosing what they are and providing information helps, sort of? That being said, WP:NPOV applies here. (1)
31: WP:NOTCENSORED means Wikipedia has information on most religions, benefiting religious minorities. Unfortunately, as you may know, the facts have a well known anti-Christian bias. (3)
32: None beyond letting the facts speak for themselves. That may be a bad thing for the current regime. (1)
33: People like Wikipedia, and many Wikipedia editors are American. That sort of cultural exchange hopefully helps people abroad see not everybody in the US is quite as bad as the current regime. (3)
34: The financial return of Wikipedia, when taking into account the benefits its provides, is massive. We’re one of the most visited websites in the world (5)
35: Wikipedia Enterprise makes bank, man [1]. (5)
36: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a concept, not a mining company. (0) Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we need a WP:NOTMININGCOMPANY section. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin has issued a legal threat to the WMF here: [2]. I think a strong community affidavit is warranted. (Perhaps some more artful version of "fuck off we'll see you in court"?) Tito Omburo (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Perhaps some more artful version of "fuck off we'll see you in court"?) We could refer them to the response given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram. (I don't necessarily think we should, but we could). Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...or Moskva vs Snake Island. Certes (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on developments in India

This communication is intended to provide an update on ongoing developments in New Delhi, India, involving Wikipedia, which have also been reported in the media. In the interest of transparency, our endeavour remains to keep Wikimedia volunteers informed regularly; however, please note that, in accordance with the applicable law, commentary on pending litigation by the parties involved is limited due to the sub judice rule.

We currently have two important updates to share:

  • Supreme Court Proceedings: On April 9, 2025, the Foundation concluded its arguments before the Supreme Court of India in its challenge [SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 2483/2025] to the Delhi High Court's takedown order concerning the English Wikipedia article "Asian News International v. Wikimedia Foundation". The Supreme Court has now reserved its judgment (i.e., it will deliberate and deliver its written verdict in due course).
  • Delhi High Court Proceedings: On April 2, 2025, the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court issued an order on interim injunction in the ongoing civil suit titled ANI Media Private Limited v. Wikimedia Foundation and Ors [CS (OS) 524/2024, IA 32611/2024]. In response, the Foundation filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court [FAO (OS) 41/2025]. The Foundation's Legal Department is currently awaiting the Division Bench's order.

Please note that the Foundation is unable to respond to specific questions or discuss the ongoing proceedings further at this time; however, the Foundation has also taken note of concerns raised by members of the Wikimedia community.

As developments unfold, we will continue to provide updates to the extent permissible under applicable laws. The Foundation remains steadfast in its commitment to access to knowledge as a global human right and will continue to take all necessary measures under applicable laws to ensure that everyone can share and access free knowledge on Wikipedia in accordance with its Terms of Use and applicable policies. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): On April 8, the Division Bench upheld the single bench judgment and ordered the content to be taken down. Wikipedia is an intermediary, can’t appeal takedown court order on merits: Are you not updated with this news? GrabUp - Talk 04:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They will have been, by their lawyers, and not a media source. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update Joe. I hope for the best possible outcome from the Supreme Court proceedings. Unfortunately I can't say I'm optimistic about the appeal to the Delhi High Court, given how it's gone so far, but it's good to hear the WMF is challenging these orders at each possible opportunity. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, the Division Bench's order has long been available. Upd Edit (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a backend tool for WMF legal that gives HTTP 451 for specific pages might actually be better than a plastered notice. I don't think anyone likes censorship (not even me), but this may be the best option to preserve access to the most number of Wikimedians. And if it is necessary to block VPNs from those same pages, so be it. It unfortunately would also mean that the page would be inaccessible from logs and recent changes. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the update: Relief for Wikipedia as Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court order to take down defamatory edits against ANI Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin 2025 Issue 7

Here is a quick overview of highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation since our last issue on April 4. Please help translate.

Upcoming and current events and conversations
Let's Talk continues


Annual Goals Progress on Infrastructure
See also newsletters: Wikimedia Apps · Growth · Research · Web · Wikifunctions & Abstract Wikipedia · Tech News · Language and Internationalization · other newsletters on MediaWiki.org

  • Wikifunctions: Wikifunctions is now integrated with Dagbani Wikipedia. It is the first Wikimedia project that will be able to call and integrate functions directly into Wikipedia articles. Read more weekly updates on Wikifunctions.
  • Edge Uniques: Introducing Edge Uniques, a technical approach which consists of privacy-preserving first-party cookies that will enable usability testing of features through A/B testing, more accurate counting of site visits, and a way to stop distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) with better precision.
  • Tech News: The Design System Team is preparing to release the next major version of Codex (v2.0.0) on April 29; Last week, the default thumbnail size was increased from 220px to 250px. This changes how pages are shown in all wikis and has been requested by some communities for many years, but wasn’t previously possible due to technical limitations. More updates from Tech News week 15 and 16.
  • Outreachy: Celebrating the excellent contributions from both interns and mentors in Round 29 of the Outreachy internship program.
  • Developer Satisfaction Survey: The results of the Developer Satisfaction Survey (2025) are available. Thank you to all participants. These results help the Foundation decide what to work on next and to review what they recently worked on.


Annual Goals Progress on Knowledge Equity
See also a list of all movement events: on Meta-Wiki · WikiLearn


Annual Goals Progress on Safety & Integrity
See also blogs: Global Advocacy blog · Global Advocacy Newsletter · Policy blog


Other Movement curated newsletters & news
See also: Diff blog · Goings-on · Planet Wikimedia · Signpost (en) · Kurier (de) · Actualités du Wiktionnaire (fr) · Regards sur l’actualité de la Wikimedia (fr) · Wikimag (fr) · Education · GLAM · The Wikipedia Library · Milestones · Wikidata · Central and Eastern Europe · other newsletters

Subscribe or unsubscribe · Help translate

For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcac(_AT_)wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!


MediaWiki message delivery 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BHL

Is the WMF able to do anything to help with this? Cremastra talk 23:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaggle

Seriously? The WMF is just gonna give our data to AI scrapers willingly, without our consent? This is revolting. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia is openly licensed and we all knew that when we contributed. This seems like a proactive move from the WMF to stop web scrapers from putting a strain on the servers, which degrades Wikipedia for everyone. I don't see any indication whatsoever that anything non-public is being shared here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this just seems to be some other variant of what's already here [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. On web scrapers, see https://drewdevault.com/2025/03/17/2025-03-17-Stop-externalizing-your-costs-on-me.html, https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/03/devs-say-ai-crawlers-dominate-traffic-forcing-blocks-on-entire-countries/. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Liliana. This is disgusting, and the community should not accept it. The wonderful Timnit Gebru and many others, especially the Algorithmic Justice League, have worked tirelessly to counter algorithmic bias. Wikipedia is still overwhelmingly written by White Anglosphere males, and disproportionately represents them. What would you expect the result to be?
Currently, training AI on the English Wikipedia would be a horrible thing for informationally marginalized groups. Lindspherg (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony of you responding with agreement with something that appears AI-generated is not lost on me. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ehh I don't see it. First paragraph just sounds like normal Robert Reich–ish rhetoric. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney

See this article in the Washington Post. There's also coverage from other reliable outlets findable online. Ed Martin appears to have picked the WMF as his next target for vaguely threatening letters. I am very interested to see what, if any, response the WMF makes to this, and trust they will continue to stand up fro free speech, free information, and Wikipedia's editor community. I see there's also some discussion on Jimbo's talk page here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Admin Noticeboard

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Trump's Justice Department has launched an attack on Wikipedia and the WMF
 – – robertsky (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin sent this threatening letter to the WMF today. Larry Sanger is involved. Here is early analysis. Cullen328 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God damn... Tarlby (t) (c) 22:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, there was a thread at the Teahouse (?) about moving the servers out of the US. Maybe this needs a rethink? Knitsey (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's he's threatening is Wikimedia's tax exempt status. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move the foundation out of the United States too.Simonm223 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would be fun to have to delete all images on Commons and Enwiki, lol. And say hello to 80 billion libel suits. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we need to delete the images? There are countries with even more liberal copyright laws than the US. Moving the servers out of the US is a common request on Commons because of this.
And as far as I have heard, WMF has already servers in several countries. Plus, there are also countries that give NGOs and the like tax exempt status. Nakonana (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last I heard, the WMF lawyer said on Commons that they don't actually have to obey US copyright law and that the Commons community was free to relax copyright PoliciesAndGuidelines a bit if they wanted to. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(See c:Special:GoToComment/c-JWilz12345-20250303024700-Y.haruo-20250302172500, cf. c:Commons:Lex loci protectionis.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
France is the most appropriate fall-back I can think of, given it is the only EU state with both freedom of speech laws and a working nuclear deterrence force to back it up. Baltakatei 04:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
France did have this episode, however. Curbon7 (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. No, definitely not France. MinervaNeue (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More recently, French Wikipedians have been subjected to threats and intimidation from the right-wing press. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't condone the dox threat (making a user accountable in their perspective), the page legitimately had neutrality issues and was sourced by a blog post. Please don't further derail the conversation. Hplotter (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Baltakatei France is not a good location for Wikimedia servers since 2015. Note that their society of architects and artists (ADAGP) is anti-Wikipedia, considering their vocal opposition to Freedom of Panorama and their criticism of Wikimedia world's imposition of commercial-type CC licensing to images of buildings and monuments. Unless you want to impose universal prohibition of all images of modern architecture on enwiki and apply a restrictive fair use exemption tag like what French Wikipedia is doing. Per c:COM:FOP France, "Even if these non-free images [of modern buildings] are now tolerated in French Wikipedia articles, the legitimate copyright holders [(like the living architects)] can send their veto so that these images will be deleted on French Wikipedia too. The same deletion will occur when receiving a French court order: their long-term presence is not warranted as long as the copyright protection persists." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though frankly, concerns about pictures of modern buildings doesn't really move the needle considering the bigger picture of what's at stake. Bon courage (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that France was the first country to be proposed here, given all the problems it has with freedom of the press (as mentioned above). As a counter-example, Switzerland has freedom of panorama, robust privacy and data protection laws, and is ranked 9th in the world for freedom of the press. Ireland, Norway and the Netherlands would also spring to mind before I'd suggest France. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Switzerland was also one of the first country that comes to mind. Maybe Norway, Sweden or Finland, too? --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finland is restrictive regarding freedom of panorama, iirc. Nakonana (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana Finland has FoP for buildings though, but they take architecture strictly; they don't follow the logic Californian courts follow with regards to sculptures that are inherent elements of architectures, like gargoyles and stained glass windows. Perhaps 95% of FoP-USonly images might be OK under Finnish FoP but not the 5%, including File:Pedro Calungsod stained glass (cropped).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Germany also has freedom of speech laws. See Artikel 5 of the German Grundgesetz. (It's just called "freedom of expression" instead of "freedom of speech".) France has very restrictive rules for copyright (e.g. even plain buildings are copyrighted), so that you'd need to delete half of the photos from wiki Commons if servers were to be moved there. Germany's copyright laws are much more lenient. Nakonana (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF already maintains servers in a number of locations around the world including Brazil, France, Netherlands, Singapore and USA. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US has a strong government that sticks its nose where it doesn't belong.
I would vote for Island. ·Carn·!? 05:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland? It's next on their list after Greenland. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate the WMF will retain counsel and send a forceful response. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts What force would they have for that, may I ask? Darwin Ahoy! 14:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Martin sends lots of letters but he's clearly wrong on the law and this won't go anywhere. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right... Well, lets see how it goes. Darwin Ahoy! 15:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my longer comment below. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone protect Ed Martin's article. Martin sent the letter and the page seems to be picking up random vandalism. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two IP edits isn't enough to warrant protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected x 4 years per WP:CT/AP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a larger campaign against sources that allow criticism of Trump policies, and includes sending letters to major medical journals. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share the administration's concerns with the media, academia, Wikipedia, and bias, but this is ridiculous. You don't combat bias with lies. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Smart lawyers don't send reams of data to a prosecutor in response to a fishing expedition letter. So I don't expect WMF to send anything more than a polite "We share your concerns about neutral points of view, accuracy, and propaganda in media. The long arc of our efforts bends toward neutrality and accuracy. There are no political litmus tests for educational 501(c)(3) organizations, which have a First Amendment right to write as they see the world. There are thousands of examples of 501(c)(3) organizations publishing from conservative points of view, including some that you yourself have founded, such as the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund." If they wanted to poke the bear, they could add, "We consider your threatening letter an effort to coerce Wikipedia to be more amenable to using its deserved popularity to push your own propaganda."
However, there is a kernel of truth in the attack; there is an imbalance in WP's NPOV. I have tried using very reliable sources (e.g. a book written by a serious scientist and professor who'd served years in the Federal Government on the topic) to inject a little neutrality into pages on Climate Change. All my edits were reverted because that source's statements conflicted with the rabidly biased existing article and with the apparent political opinions of other editors (and administrators). The cited author isn't even conservative -- merely not rabidly progressive on the topic, taking a neutral scientific view. But there's a whole "if you don't agree with us, you are DENIER of SCIENCE" attitude in WP, despite real science proceeding by airing disagrements rather than suppressing them. Another example is how the article on Paul R. Ehrlich is periodically edited to a hagiography, by editors who seemingly can't stand the idea that the prophet who taught them the world would end due to high population had feet of clay, being extremely inaccurate and often completely incorrect in the majority of his sensationalized predictions. That article remains a mess, veering in all directions and following most valid, well-sourced criticism with "but..." and praise. There is a similar problems with the articles about the Great Barrington Declaration and its authors. It was a well-sourced and legitimate disagreement on Covid policy that was ruthlessly suppressed by the left (including the Federal government) to present an appearance of scientific and political unanimity for a "lockdown" policy. Even today, its lede still uses the dismissive word "fringe"! And smears the sponsoring nonprofit as "associated with climate change denial", as if that had anything to do with whether the Declaration about Covid policy was reliable or notable.
On WP topics where there IS a current imbalance of neutrality, the deck is stacked such that it's quite hard for serious editors to correct the imbalance. What changes can the WP community make to be more welcoming to serious editing (not conservative propaganda) from people who disagree with liberal sacred cows? -- Gnuish (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ideas you want to insert are not widely accepted by mainstream academia, so they don't get equal weight in articles. This isn't the place to rehash old content disputes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about closing this thread (when it was at AN), reopening this thread, and moving this thread to a village pump. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your close of this thread, Cambalachero, and have explained why on your talk page. I urge you to revert your close. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding. I mean, they’ve finally done it, going after people that they don’t like. Jeez, what a downward spiral Sanger’s gone through. How did he get to this point of hating Wikipedia so much that he’s actively trying to shut it down? — EF5 (questions?) 02:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. And do look at the ridiculous examples that Sanger gives here on what constitutes "bias" on Wikipedia. Then note that this article was 4 years ago and he's only gotten more extreme since then. SilverserenC 02:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be closed. As I pointed when I did so, Whatever is done about this, will be decided by the WMF, not by editors (admin or not). There is no actionable request here, nor any news that changes our way to do things. In fact, the discussion has already been derailed into forum-like territory. Discussing if Trump's policies are good or not, is exactly that. Discussing things that none of us has the power to decide either way (such as moving the servers, or even the WMF itself), is exactly that. If you take a moment to think about it, you will realize it. --Cambalachero (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say I was surprised. But I have been expecting something like this from the moment he won the election. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't this discussion be moved somewhere else besides the administrators' noticeboard? It's absolutely true that this is for the WMF to decide how to respond to this. But if it's to be discussed on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be discussed somewhere that gives the impression that administrators have any more "authority" than others do about this subject. 11USA11 (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the following is the most appropriate place: Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#WMF receives letter from Trump-appointed acting DC attorney. 11USA11 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion

Page 3 point 6 of the letter from the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia says Similarly, what is the Foundation's official process for auditing or evaluating the actions, activities, and voting patterns of editors, admins, and committees, including the Arbitration Committee ... This is clearly a major concern for all editors and administrators. Clearly, these people are planning to "audit and evaluate" us when the WMF tells them that is not appropriate and not how Wikipedia works. I reject the notion that editors and administrators should meekly step aside and expect the WMF handle this latest outrage with zero input from us. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the editors and admins State-side don't receive much negativity or spotlight on this, especially those who are not really anonymous. – robertsky (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biggest concern is probably for those living in the US who are not citizens. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne Those are obviously in the front line, but the danger is for all people living in the United States, looking at what the US administration has repeatedly stated on that regard. Darwin Ahoy! 14:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the letter accuses WMF of allowing people to endanger the "national security and the interests of the United States". Since Wikipedia is a multilingual, international project, maybe the WMF should point out in its response that it is not beholden to protect the national security or the interests of any country. Also, given that the letter does not mention any examples of so-called "information manipulation", I'm not sure what Martin is trying to get at, other than perhaps trying to bully the WMF into compliance. Finally, I should note that the letter mentions that the presence of "foreign nationals" (i.e. non-Americans) on WMF's board is "subverting the interests of American taxpayers", which is a rather strange thing to say, given that (1) WMF serves an international audience, not a US-only audience, and (2) WMF receives no American tax revenue, so there is no such interest being "subverted". – Epicgenius (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tax free status is a form of government subsidy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why be specific when you can be vague, much easier to defend your statements. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From TheFP [4], The letter did not specify which foreign actors were manipulating information on Wikipedia and did not cite examples of alleged propaganda. However, a person close to Martin said he is concerned about “edits on Wikipedia as they relate to the Israel-Hamas conflict that are clearly targeted against Israel to benefit other countries.” — hako9 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the Foundation (or any non-profit/company/ect) need to know the voting patterns of anyone? That's a really f'ed up thing to include in there. SilverserenC 04:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be virtually impossible to qualify as well? Knitsey (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I think we all know exactly what sort of voting patterns and general opinions about politics (and who one supports) that they're really wanting to know by including that in there. SilverserenC 05:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess that is obvious. But it would take a long time to complete that task. I would think that the WMF might be able to string this out for, say, just short of 4 years? Knitsey (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think there'll be elections in the USA again anytime soon? Well, maybe ... But even if there were, the risk is there would be some new manifestation of US govt in future that leaned the same way, for socially-ingrained reasons that are very hard to grapple with, within the electorate. The question is: why should Wikipedia/WMF want to be in the USA? I cannot see any serious downside to decamping, and many up-sides. Bon courage (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was discussed once before, and someone mentioned that it would cost many millions of dollars to change the country that wmf is headquartered in. There is also a danger of picking the wrong country to change to, then this process would need to be repeated if authoritarianism or government suppression of free speech occurred there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a huge thing to consider, with a lot of potential problems it could introduce, but I don't think we should rule it out completely. The logistical, legal and financial costs of moving to a different country are far outweighed by the societal damage that could be done by leaving the encyclopedia at the mercy of a regime that is openly hostile to its existence.
The Encyclopédistes were forced to move their publication headquarters to Switzerland when the ancien regime tried to shut them down. Wikimedia having to move its base of operations elsewhere would not be historically unprecedented. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rousseau, Diderot, Voltaire.. Funny how these things keep resurfacing. Apparently we sometimes forget and slide backwards far enough for history to rear its head. -- GreenC 21:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae Depending on how the WMF behaves and answers to the US Administration demands, that could be a very plausible move, indeed. Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Foundation’s official process for auditing or evaluating the [...] voting patterns of editors, admins, and committees. Well that's disturbing... Curbon7 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I've never voted for any American party. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have I, but that doesn't stop them from trying to find out which Swedish parties you have voted for, or, in my case, British. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read this part as voting patterns for "!votes" on-Wiki, as that would make most sense. But given the throngs of fascism that are latched through the current political moment in the US, this may have been naivete on my part. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 One of the reasons IP editing should never have been allowed in any wikimedia project, even in 2001. As of now, all people that uses and used an IP of which the records still are in the ISP is a sitting duck ready to be sued. Darwin Ahoy! 14:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that ship sailed a quarter of a century ago, DarwIn. And it is rarely easy to identify an individual from an IP address. Cullen328 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 all it takes for any government to know location and eventually identity is to request that data from the ISP the IP belongs to, the most common case by large being that an IP belongs to some sort of ISP. In the case of authoritarian governments that information is usually at the distance of a phone call. Yes, that ship quite unfortunately sailed a quarter of a century ago, but it can, and should, be shipwrecked any day. We have already done just that at the Portuguese speaking wikipedia 5 years ago, btw. Darwin Ahoy! 17:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All you'd know then is who the name of the person who signed the contract with the internet provider for this IP. But you'd not know who made the edit: was it the person who signed the contract, was it a family member of that person (if so, then which one), was it a friend, was it a one-time guest of the person who signed the contract? It will be impossible to identify the actual editor, and after 25 years even said editor probably doesn't remember whether it was them who made the edit in question. Nakonana (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there are also public wifi at cafes, libraries, etc, which do not require people to share their personal information in order to be connected. – robertsky (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertsky I wouldn't assume the generality of IP users are Mata Haris or 007s in sunglasses and headscarf sneaking into public wifis to edit "anonymously". From my experience, people usually do that either out of laziness, or even worst, misguided by the reckless but prevalent myth that IP editions are somehow "anonymous", happily walking into the wolves mouth that way. Darwin Ahoy! 15:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana I don't think assuming the ISP contract was signed by someone else, usually very close to the person in question. is really an argument. Fact is that IP editing is and has been a significant hazard for the editors of the wikimedia projects that use that, willingly or unwillingly, endangering people's lives including their physical integrity and of their loving ones ones. Some quick examples:
It's absolutely reckless to persist in allowing IP editions on the Wikimedia projects, even more in the current context in the US where that can mean almost immediate identification of the editor, and the fact that such recklessness persists for 25 years already only makes it more urgent to stop it now. Darwin Ahoy! 15:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be absolutely reckless, but multiple times the en.wiki community has requested the mandating of 'sign in to edit', and each time the WMF has rejected it, because - apparently, as I recall - it 'goes against being the Encylopedia That Anyone Can Edit'. Even as TVTropes mandated SITE. This was over 10 years ago, and given that "temporary accounts" are apparently about to become a thing, (proper) SITE remains a pipe dream. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger Well, we've done just that at wiki.pt 5 years ago, and the WMF took no issue with it. IP editing has been successfully banned from that Wikipedia since then, and we still are the encyclopedia anyone can edit (after spending 2 seconds creating an account). Darwin Ahoy! 10:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they've changed since ~10 years ago. But the fact en.wiki remains IP-enabled points to y'all at pt. being lucky. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia also going to send letters to Facebook and Twitter/X to ask them about their official process for auditing or evaluating the actions, activities, and voting patterns of [users]...? I'd be really curious to hear Musk's reply to this. Nakonana (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You guys remember the Asian News International case, where an Indian court attempted to force WMF to provide the names and details of three users? A Wikipedia article about the case, Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation was promptly created, but had to be taken down (blanked). Is anybody working on creating an article about Ed Martin's letter to the WMF, hint hint? I don't think it would be as easy to get that taken down. Bishonen | tålk 10:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen Too early, it has a sentence in his article atm, which seems about right. But the WaPo article is a good start, don't you agree, @Valereee? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have other news sites picking this up now, though none as prominent as WaPo. Gizmodo, Huffpost, The Verge, New Zealand Herald. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I should write another blacklockable article? :D I agree it's probably too early, but if it turns into an actual lawsuit, probably notable. Valereee (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the only affirmative action WMF should do at this time is have legal write a letter indicating WMF is willing to vindicate its rights in court. Moving servers is a bad idea, for reasons already indicated, but also because it is, in a way, complying with the lawless bully. I don't know what the community response should be, since I don't know what it would hope to achieve. I had (in the earlier thread on this page) the idea of a "community affidavit", to support WMF legal's fight. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my perspective as an attorney: Ed Martin is a clown. His job thus far appears to be sending threatening letters to conservative bugbears in an attempt to chill speech. He doesn't have the authority to revoke tax exempt status (he's the interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, not the IRS), and if he actually had a case of criminal wrongdoing, his office/the FBI would be sending subpoenas or executing warrants, not sending public letters to the WMF. Even Kash Patel's FBI wouldn't open an investigation on thin bullshit like this and no judge would sign a warrant based on innuendo. As I said above, WMF will send a forceful letter in response and Martin will back down because he's got nothing. Everyone freaking out about this is precisely what Martin wants; he should be ignored. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would laugh this off -- most of those around the short-fingered convicted felon are clowns (& the rest are incompetent hacks) -- except this time around they understand what they can do having control of the White House, & have ratcheted up their oppression. Witness the arrest of a state judge for opposing the increasingly lawless ICE. I'm no longer confident that the threats having that person in office can be overstated. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're all clowns, but more of the killer clown variety. They're literally supporting more than one genocide right now. I wouldn't be laughing. Lindspherg (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My 2¢ ... I am taking a wait and see approach. While I hope voorts is right and this turns out to be a clownish distraction, I'm not dismissing the potential for it to become something serious. This administration has already shown a breathtaking contempt for the rule of law and civil liberties. The language in that letter is right out of every tyrant's playbook for intimidating and/or suppressing sources of news and information that they can't control. For now, I await with interest the WMF's response. I know they have lawyers on retainer and the resources to hire more if needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the best course of action is but, if the WMF wishes to respond directly to these questions, it will have no shortage of material. For example, there are lots of policies such as the Universal Code of Conduct which is currently undergoing a round of revision. And it can point to actions taken such as the 2021 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Chinese Wikipedia.
In any case, it's good that the WMF has a substantial endowment so that it can afford to take whatever course of action is decided.
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a massive noise to info ratio here. The most tangible damage this letter has done so far is prompting WP:FORUM-style speculation and fearmongering within the community. Several people here have taken the bait, and reopening this discussion was a mistake. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. But as someone who has a front-row seat to these disturbing political developments, I suggest as a prudent action that all Wikimedia groups outside of the US to start making regular backups of Wikipe[p|m]ia content against the worst possible outcome. (In any case, making backup copies of important data is always a good idea. Every IT system expert recommends this. Even if there is no threat from a lawless regime.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We at Wiki Project Med ship EN WP on a Raspberry Pi Zero W 2 server. So you can buy your very own version. Or you can make your own.MDWiki:WikiProjectMed:Internet-in-a-Box Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an easy enough job to download the entirety of En.Wiki (<25GB (sans media)), host would be harder with potential traffic level, but is doable. And of course, for as long as the archiving sites are up, they hold a repository of a majority of wiki articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stewing on it for a bit, I think the most practical approach that each of us individually can take to any challenge is simply to double down on our principles. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP remain the top priority. We can do our cause a lot of good just by sticking to them strictly, keeping our processes transparent and avoiding any iota of a violation on high-profile articles or BLPs within the American politics topic area. This also means clamping down on WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CPUSH, which we can sometimes be very lax with. It might be worth starting a discussion about how WP:AE handles politically charged editing that's subtle enough to avoid an instant ban. This would help with stopping these bad actors from manipulating Wikipedia from within while also stopping those who might make the rest of us look bad in the eyes of the public. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Just adding a "yes and" to say reliability is also paramount in these contentious situations. I spend little to no time on US politics-related areas of the encyclopedia, but I have seen in articles I come across that blog posts, opinion columns and even tweets and reddit threads are far more prevalent than they ought to be. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • While making backups is always a good idea and one that should be encouraged, the real threat here is not the loss of any information Wikipedia contains. The relatively small file size of the English language Wikipedia means that such a large number of copies have certainly been made that there is little risk of it disappearing. Instead, the lasting damage would come from the disruption to the networks and communities that maintain it, the inability to continue improving and updating it and the problem with accessing the aforementioned archived data. –Noha307 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to discuss this (that's not taking the bait from anyone), and I think the most important thing for the community to do (along with prudent measures like making backups, and protecting one's real-life identity, if not already disclosed) is to make it clear that we are proud of what we do (yes, sure, we have lots of mistakes, but we correct them), and we aren't going to be intimidated by bullies. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems there is consensus that the thread should stay open, I will add my 2 cents. As I understand, Wikipedia is an educative web page, and that grants them a tax exemption. But I'm sure that it can't be enough that Wikipedia self-describes itself as an educative web page, there must be requirements to it, otherwise every page out there would abuse of such loophole. And what I understood when I checked the mail was that Ed Martin was discussing if Wikipedia actually met such requirements or not. After all, we all know that Wikipedia, as a self-published source, is not a reliable source... so can we really be that upset when someone says that we are not reliable enough to be educative? So the options for the WMF may be to either change things around to fit the standards required to be a fully reputable educative source (and that may mean mass culling of topics such as TV series, videogames, films, recent events, etc, editorial oversight, editors editing under their real names and only on topics they have some actual degree or expertise, following standards on content set by external actors, etc), and then keep the tax excemption. Or, be just a general-purpose web page, that sets it own internal rules on its content and user behavior, but pays the applicable taxes. So, my question is, which are the legal rules to be considered an educative web page? Does Wikipedia meet such rules? --Cambalachero (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disinclined to treat Martin's question about whether or not we are educational as a serious question, at least insofar as the editing community's response. There is a legal question as to tax status, and that's something we should leave to WMF Legal. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should. "Wikipedia is an educative web page as definited in those laws and regulations" is a stronger argument than "Wikipedia is an educative web page because they say so, and I don't like the guy who questioned it" Cambalachero (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, but I meant that we should let Legal speak first, as opposed to the editing community getting out ahead of them. I can see that my use of the word "serious" unintentionally led me into the rabbit hole of "seriously versus literally", where I didn't want to go. I wasn't trying to say that we should be glib. Rather, I mean that we should not take the letter on face value, because the letter is clearly written in bad faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This letter has nothing to do with WMF fulfilling its legal tax status (despite what is written in it), and everything to do with intimidation by a government that does not like press freedom, free speech, academic liberty, sciences, and more broadly knowledge. — Jules* talk 10:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, a thing I learned as a Wikipedia editor is never to trust someone whose main argument is that there is a conspiracy to silence him. Cambalachero (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that there is most likely no conspiracy to silence us right now, I do think it is genuine topic of concern when it comes the administration's handling of situations like this. (Man, this is becoming a downer). Gaismagorm (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the people etc who indicate they want WP to shut up about some stuff include Musk, Heritage Foundation who said their investigation of WP will be "shared with the appropriate policymakers to help inform a strategic response", Ed Martin, ADL and orgs like New York Post [5].
This of course does not mean there is conspiracy, but at least there are some people with influence with a common view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There absolutely is a conspiracy to silence us ([6], [7], [8]). We can argue about its extent, participants' identities, and efficacy, but it is foolish to deny it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the specifics within the US, but antisemitism can lead to crimes, if not a crime in itself. And it's written at one of the disclaimer pages that editors must respect the law. So, if someone commited a crime by adding antisemitism content to this internet page, and an organization wants to track the real people behind the usernames and make them answer for such crimes before a court of law... by all means, let them do it. WP:NONAZIS surely includes antisemitism as well. Cambalachero (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for unprotected hate speech in the US is very high. GMGtalk 16:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I'm no lawyer. But even if they can legally get away with it, don't place me in the same bag, in the "us" of "There absolutely is a conspiracy to silence us". If anything, there is a conspiracy to silence them, not us, and I have no problem with it, in fact I support it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has never been about combating antisemitism. There are numerous people in the orbit of the administration who are, themselves, antisemites. Fighting antisemitism is just a convenient fig leaf for the real agenda, which is shutting down counter-narratives to the officially preferred narrative. Same thing for the bogus claim that Wikipedia harbors foreign agents who are trying to harm US interests. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, and it's a camel's nose. It's reasonable. It's even laudable! It also sets a precedent. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. This reminds me of a real-world case: the notorious nazi Adolf Eichmann escaped to my country, Argentina, and stayed hidden. Simon Wiesenthal and the MOSAD located, captured and smuggled him to Israel, where he was put on trial. Someone could have said: "this sets a precedent, if we allow this the MOSAD will soon do whatever they want in Argentina". But no. The MOSAD captured and smuggled him, mission accomplished, and except for some other similar cases of runaway nazis, things never escalated to a "Jewish occupation" as the usual antisemite tropes would claim. Projects that seek to reduce or stop antisemitism have my full support, and if that means outing a couple of Wikipedia troublemaker editors, so be it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of educational institutions could provide expert evidence that their students use Wikipedia as an educative resource. (Maybe skip Harvard this time...) Certes (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a very good idea for an action to take at this stage (as opposed to some of the more extreme proposals in this thread, which I think should be reconsidered at a later date). Putting out a request for public support from people and institutions that use Wikipedia as an educational resource, or some kind of open letter, would definitely help improve our position against any threats on these grounds. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good idea. I like the concept that we should, for now (as in while we wait to see what WMF Legal decides to do), focus on informational, rather than confrontational, things, and doing something that both (1) demonstrates how other people appreciate what we provide, and (2) lets other people know what's happening, in case they should want to speak out in support of us, is a good strategy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone who isn't already aware of it, there was an earlier, related, discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 80#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts here:

  • Don't worry about the data. WMF technical people aren't dumb, and they almost certainly have robust backups capable or weathering any natural or political disaster. Even if all of them failed, 3rd parties have backups sufficient to piece it back together.
  • WMF should have an exit plan for America at this point. They absolutely should NOT share it with us or even acknowledge it exists publicly, but they should, and probably already do, have a plan for leaving the US while maintaining continuity of their technical systems, know-how and key personnel. Sharing this plan or acknowledging it exists would just add unnecessary fuel to the fire at this point.
  • As a community, we need to double down on our policies. NOTCENSORED and NPOV are the two I think are most endangered by this right now. We need to emphasize to the WMF that these policies are non-negotiable. If the Government starts pushing on them, the community needs to communicate to the WMF the expectation that bending or breaking is unacceptable, and it is preferable for the WMF to pull out of America than to bend on our core policies.
  • The community needs to chill on the blackout talk. We're not there yet. If editor safety or our core policies are threatened, THEN it's time to breakout the banners, blackouts, and forks in escalating order. Right now we're WAAAAY premature, and the WMF has excellent lawyers precisely for letters like this. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, Wikipedians, citizens of the world, lend me your ears. We will not be cowed by the aggressive actions of a lawless regime. Its fate will be decided by the public, whose approval of the Trump administration has already sunk in opinion polls to the lower 40s ranging to the high 30s. When MAGA encounters empty shelves at stores, high inflation, disappearance of jobs, and an increasingly likely recession, suddenly the "anti-woke" will be awakened. Carlstak (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move to a more Federal model

The Wikimedia movement started in the USA, but it has been a global movement since its earliest days. There are other global movements around that we can compare ourselves to, at least in how we handle money. Some are relatively loose confederations, with each national organisation having its own fundraising. The Wikimedia movement is an odd hybrid with some chapters like Germany handling the donations from readers in Germany but most, including the UK, being grant funded from the USA with UK readers donations going to the USA. Now would seem an appropriate moment to reconsider that model. Maybe move one or both datacentres from the USA to another country such as Canada, Iceland or Ireland, the endowment to a financial hub such as London or Franfurt, and decentralise fundraising to any country where we have a national registered charity. It would be odd for a for profit US organisation to do charitable fundraising in other countries.

If the US organisation was only handling US donations, then it would be reasonable for its board to be US based, with a separate global board to coordinate the various national chapters. If the only wikimedia donations handled in the USA were donations from people in the USA then the movement's exposure to US taxes etc would be greatly reduced. Disclosure, I have at times been a member of WMUK and worked for it from 2013 to 2015, however I'm not connected to it these days. ϢereSpielChequers 05:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers sounds good on paper, but in practice, it will be a complicated setup as different countries have different rules on how donations raised within the borders should be disbursed within the borders and internationally. From what I understand, the German chapter passes on the excess amount collected back to USA (excess of what was would be budgeted originally with Foundation).
I organise the Singapore user group and I did consider a scenario of what if the donation banners are activated for Singapore IP addresses and the money collected through Singapore IP addresses into a future Singapore charity for Wikimedia. If the aim is to share this collected amount to other affiliates that do not have fundraising options, it is not pretty as the 80% of the net proceeds raised in this manner mostly likely have to be set aside for the activities in Singapore. If the collection of the amounts is way beyond what we have budgeted for the year, we may have to find ways to spend it (I don't know... maybe like offsetting costs of running the datacenter in Singapore? yeah. the Foundation has caching servers in Singapore) or endure criticisms of having a reserve fund that may not be depleting over time. – robertsky (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EN.WP serves Canada, the UK and several other Commonwealth countries with English as a first language. Federation other languages would not make a US-only board even remotely OK. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To consider another example, in Canada a charity must be Canadian-registered or a UN agency in order for donations to be tax-deductible. To be registered as a Canadian charity, the organization must be carrying out its charitable purposes itself (or be in direct control of the work being done by others). (Donations to a U.S. charity can be eligible with some restrictions if you have U.S. income, or you or your family are enrolled in a U.S. university.) Based on my understanding, a Canadian Wikimedia charity wouldn't be able to simply transfer tax-deductible donations to another organization. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a federal model has implications, individual chapters would have to adopt particular projects as DE has done with Wikidata. The WMF board would have to split into a USA chapter board and some sort of global council, and the two combined would have less power within the movement than the WMF has today. But if organisations as diverse as Greenpeace and the Red Cross can do this, we could to. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good idea, but I have little knowledge of charity laws in different countries. I admit that I don't contribute any money to the WMF, but I know that if I contribute money to a UK charity I am usually asked if I am a UK tax payer, in which case they can claim back the tax paid on the donation. I certainly don't like contributions from outside the US going towards the MAGA agenda. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Red Cross carries out its own relief work, and Greenpeace Canada is a non-profit but not a registered charity. I agree it's possible in theory to transform the network infrastructure into separately run subnetworks. They'll be additional overhead, with duplication of functions across the separate organizations, and fundraising challenges to ensure each organization collects enough funds for its operations and endowment fund. isaacl (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There's a lot of talk of servers above, but moving things between data centres is relatively trivial. The primary reason we're vulnerable to this kind of pressure from the US government is that the WMF made the early mistake of concentrating its financial and organisational resources in the US, instead of going down the route exemplified by Wikimedia DE. I hope this will prompt them to reconsider that choice. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What efforts went into the SOPA blackout?

I think that being prepared to support a banner or a blackout to protest is warranted at this time. The SOPA blackout had senators phones ringing off the hook. This is political power. The Wikimedia community has the power to shape public opinion-politicians-law through banners and blackouts. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO USE IT. Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA#Wikimedia_community Victor Grigas (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of being afraid to use it, but that this is an encyclopedia with editors from around the world and of many different opinions rather than a campaigning site for Americans. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to seriously propose a blackout, they'll need to begin with a fully formed proposal that clearly lays out a very credible existential threat to the English Wikipedia, supported by reliable sources. Basically your proposal needs to be Featured Article quality when you first post the RFC. And you need to post it far enough ahead of time that consensus has time to happen. Keep in mind that you'll have to convince or outvote those who believe Wikipedia should be entirely apolitical even in the face of an existential threat, people from other countries who aren't familiar with US politics or culture wars, and the opposite side in the US culture wars (yes, there are such people here). And hope that someone else doesn't decide to post a "stub-class" proposal while you're preparing your FA-class proposal, and thereby poison the well. Anomie⚔ 13:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the threat, there would need to be a compelling case for impact. The SOPA/PIPA blackout sought to raise awareness of the potential impact of specific legislation that was likely not very well known among the general public. That's not the situation the Martin WMF letter creates. CMD (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes however the wmf (if I remember correctly) is based in america. Even if someone isn't a US resident, it would still effect them. I do however understand the sentiment, but I do highly support a possible blackout/banner. Wikipedia is used very frequently, so it would definitely get people's attention (which, sadly, I feel is the most people can do nowadays as regular citizens, oh well). Gaismagorm (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it is an American thing, there are many things that international editors do here are reliant on the laws in America and the status of WMF to shield them from their own. Nonetheless, the use blackouts like SOPA's should be considered when the threat becomes very real, whereas the situation now is still fluid. Case in point, just yesterday we learned that ICE is reversing the termination of international students. The letter from Martin may be another round of bluster with little substance. – robertsky (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(From French Wikipedia.) Obviously what happens to the WMF affects and concerns us too, very much. — Jules* talk 10:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas For now the threats are to the Wikimedia Foundation, not Wikipedia. As a consequence of these I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation may indeed threaten Wikipedia freedomness and neutral point of view at some point to comply with these demands, but that's another story and we'll deal with that if it eventually comes to that. Darwin Ahoy! 14:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a lot of overreaction here. Nobody has made any existencial threat to Wikipedia, only that it may not be suitable to get a tax exemption. A protest to keep a taxes priviledge may actually have the opposite effect as the one expected. It may be better to let the WMF deal with this behind courtains, and if it can't be done and the WMF looses the tax exemption... just accept it and pay the taxes. --Cambalachero (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that this is just a normal governmental inquiry into tax status. It's coming from the same motivations as the attacks on universities, the press, and law firms: the motivation to shut down any source of honest, unbiased information that goes against the Trump administration's preferred narrative. But it's also true that we shouldn't take any reckless, knee-jerk actions. We should be deliberative and thoughtful, and respond only in well-considered ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but cambalachero has a good point. It won't look good for Wikipedia to protest for a tax exemption. While I want it to have a tax exemption, out of context it sounds kinda weird. I do hope that WMF will be able to deal with it however, since that will make everybody's lives a thousand times easier. I do however trust that, no matter what, we'll survive. I feel as if Wikipedia has likely survived much worse threats than this. It won't be fun while all of this lasts, but i'm optimistic that things will get better. They always do, and they always will. But maybe that's just hopeful thinking. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that other right-wing attacks on wikipedia turned out to be essentially nothing (such as the heritage foundations recent scheme, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened, and I don't think it will). Once again, this is likely just me trying to remain optimistic so I can remain sane. Gaismagorm (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that protesting framed in terms of tax status would be politically tin-eared. As for Heritage, it hasn't happened yet; this may be where it starts. And as for one's sanity, me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, always assuming the worst case scenario is narrow-minded by definition. We need to respond to the scenario in front of us, not the hypothetical scenario that sounds the most dramatic. Addiction to pessimism porn is more harmful than most psychological dependencies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the scenario in front of us does not require any response from en.wiki. Whether the WMF will issue a response on their end is up to them. CMD (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The larger issue isn't whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation has to pay taxes; it's that donations will no longer qualify for a tax deduction. If I understand meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Finances § Budget numbers correctly, the vast amount of revenue comes from the fundraising campaign, so there will be significant effects on operations and funding model. isaacl (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is WAY too soon for any response from the community. The WMF has an excellent legal team. They can deal with this. Don’t over-react. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't advocated for any reaction from the community. I agree that the WMF is capable of deciding the next best steps. isaacl (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that at present both congress and the senate are politicaly non functional so convential campaining is unlikely to be effective. For the most part the best option is to try and keep a low enough profile that people lose interest. On a technical level ensuring there are overseas cold backups should probably be a thing.©Geni (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the community just rejected a proposal for a blackout, which would have been in response to an Indian media conglomerate using lawfare to intimidate individual users and censor our content, I would honestly find it a bit insulting for us to propose a blackout over a letter questioning the foundation's tax-exempt status in the United States. This letter is certainly a bad sign of things to come, but let's be real here, it does not yet represent an active and present threat to us in the way that the ANI lawsuit does. We should absolutely be proactively considering how to react if things get worse, and if the political environment in the United States presents an active threat to the project's functioning, but this is really putting the cart before the horse. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't blackout for the middle-eastern arrested editors either, but we did blackout for platform-wide threats. This is a giant fiscal threat to WMF and that means super-reduced operations. That said I want to see how this situation progresses first especially with WMF legal. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to educate and teach, not to protest. IF this reaches a point where there is a need to formally react to any of this, a banner explaining the situation might be considered, but it should not take the form of a blackout/protest banner. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something threatens our ability to educate and teach, we absolutely should be protesting against that. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar has said elsewhere on related topics that we should all wait 10 years to consider reacting to the current situation. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They might have been referring to WP:10YEARS, which is about covering things in articles, not project activity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud - we don't need to blackout the site because questions were raised about tax exempt status of the WMF. In no way does the WMF potentially needing to pay taxes undermine the neutrality of the encyclopedia; before last November half of the editing base here was perpetually pissed at the WMF for wasting their money more than anything else. And we shouldn't forget that the Obama admin was targeting various nonprofits at one point; I don't think we got riled up over that did we? American politics are cyclical in many ways. Yes, there are some things that occurring in the USA that concern me. And yes, I'm aware that the editing base of enwiki skews to the left. And yes, a lot of more conservative media sources aren't near as reliable as they use to be (there's a reason Fox doesn't run the "Fair and balanced" tagline anymore ...). But we need to be really careful that we don't create an editing environment in which 49.8% of the American public doesn't feel that they can contribute. Hog Farm Talk 22:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in: a lot of editors here are increasingly falling into pessimism porn addictions. The explanation there describes many of these "everybody panic" posts we've been seeing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of finding a middle ground between learned helplessness and over-reacting. We shouldn't do things that are premature, or that will backfire on us, but we also shouldn't ignore reality. We can look at what has already happened, as a matter of public record, to other institutions that have been targeted in the same way. US universities provide some good examples. Initially, universities that were accused of antisemitism (as opposed to harboring people hostile to the US, which is what we are accused of) made the mistake of trying to keep their heads down and placate the Trump administration. Their grant funding got cut anyway, and the demands just increased. These demands included having administration personnel monitor curricula and hiring. Translate to Wikipedia, and that would be administration officials getting to rule on what our content says, and which editors can be blocked. Now that Harvard has announced that they will fight back in court, there's a greater sense that things will play out in the courts over time, and that reason can prevail. We need to recognize that this is the path we are facing, too. It isn't about whether WMF will pay taxes. It's about whether we will allow ourselves to stop being a reliable encyclopedia, something we will not allow. We shouldn't freak out, but we need to be realistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a scenario where a government has full editorial control over Wikipedia, but otherwise I think we're in agreement on the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I only see that scenario happening if we let it happen. But I do see a realistic chance of them trying to get us to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My genuine concern is that we're going to overcorrect and end up taking a general political stance that is incompatible with encyclopedic goals. I personally can't imagine a situation in which the US court of public opinion or the US court system is going to side against the general principals of Wikipedia if we stick to them. If we get to a point where WP:NPOV, WP:RGW, etc. get replaced by a political shibboleth in our response to this, or we create and accept WP:NOREPUBLICANS to go alongside WP:NONAZIS and Wikipedia:No Confederates, then we've 1) lost our credibility as a neutral encyclopedia and 2) will lose a good chunk of said court of public opinion and end up destroying the encyclopedia. Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that a handful of people here want this to happen. You'll see people around here who think we have a moral obligation to take a stand on political issues using Wikipedia as a platform. Then there are also the people who are only WP:HERE to try and push a Trumpist viewpoint into articles. Higher up I mentioned the same thing about principles being the most useful path forward. I also suggested a discussion about how to address people who want to violate these principles for their own political ends, and I have since started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Clarification on POV pushing and AE action. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, we should be taking this constructively and look at ways we can do better. Unfortunately, some of his criticisms and questions are somewhat valid. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share Hog Farm's view. We need to maintain our credibility as a reliable encyclopedia that isn't distorting the facts, in order to maintain (or recapture) the political upper hand. Giving in to feel-good retribution in mainspace will assuredly backfire. But I also believe that editors should feel free to speak plainly in the behind-the-scenes namespaces. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% with Tryptofish. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely on the side of wanting WMF Legal to be able to take the lead here. We shouldn't do anything that would undercut their effectiveness. I also think that any actions we eventually take should play to our political strengths, and not play into the hands of those threatening us. I'm not wild about a blackout, because depriving readers of the information we provide is actually what the Trump administration wants, so why should we do it for them? I like the idea that Blueboar mentioned, of an informative banner. If members of the public come here, and still find the information they want from us, but they first have to get past a conspicuous banner (maybe one that you cannot make disappear by clicking an x) that tells them of the situation and points them to ways to object to what's happening, that could be very effective at getting public opinion on our side. Something else that we should all try to do is to stay faithful to our values in terms of NPOV and the like. The more we continue to insist on accurate and neutral content, correcting errors as we find them, and not engaging in WP:RGW in mainspace, the more credibility we have, and the weaker our opponent's case will be. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't see any particular efforts in any direction we might take as having any gravitas. The reality of this situation is that what is asked for by the letter is impossible to achieve by the deadline imposed. The WMF doesn't have the pockets to fight this sort of thing like Harvard does, and certainly doesn't have the pockets to weather the storm that's coming. The WMF will lose its 501c3 status. It's essentially a given. How much of an impact will that have on donors? Who knows, but the status will be gone in three weeks time. No imagined solution generated from this or any other page where this is being discussed is going to change that reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apes together strong. We should join with Harvard in a coalition of the willing. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for facing reality, but I think it's maladaptive and frankly craven to adopt the position that we should just take it and say thank you can we please have some more. I understand and sympathize with how unpleasant it feels to deal with government-by-bullying, and how that can make editors just want to rationalize inaction. But rationalizing is what it is, and that's facing reality, too. Editors (and indeed people in the "real world") should feel self-confident enough to call this what it is. Now that said, I also expect that it's quite likely that the tax status is going to get pulled. I also expect that, subsequently, it will end up in litigation, and that will go on for a long time and have unpredictable aspects. Simultaneously, I expect further demands, that will go beyond tax matters, along with very public efforts to discredit Wikipedia and our content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to depriving readers of the information we provide is actually what the Trump administration wants, there's the simple fact that a blackout is pointless. It certainly won't change any of our opinions. And those on the 'other side', it won't change theirs either. It'll only affect the people in the middle - by making them pissed off at us. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would demonstrate two things: (1) that Wikipedia is an American organisation and not an international one; and (2) that it engages in political lobbying against the interests of the US government. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm against a blackout, too. But I feel the need to clarify that "the interests of the US government" are neither "the interests of the Trump administration" nor "violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech". But I agree that members of the public may very well see a blackout in the way that you describe. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly less constructive musings

Some thoughts, either thinking outside the box or desperately needed tragi-comic relief.

  1. Give up 401(c)(3) status. Reincorporate elsewhere (Liechtenstein?) and move all financial assets offshore. This will have zero impact on contributions from non-US sources, and US sources may donate 20%-30& less.
  2. Create a MAGA Wikipedia, en.maga.wikipedia.org, with its own rules. Let that be how the Wikimedia Foundation is able to demonstrate that it accommodates all views. Fans of "separate but equal" will embrace this. (Hide it from search engines.)

Feel free to add yours. Largoplazo (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both. Your second option is, in fact, precisely the central heart of this dispute. If you go on to Twitter right now (or any other right-wing forum) you will quickly discover that the most shared or viewed discussions on this topic are concerned with this very problem. MAGA believes that Wikipedia articles are hostile to conservatism because Wikipedia doesn't entertain or accept alternate facts or baseless conspiracy theories and doesn't use or rely on poor unreliable sourcing like "Ron Vara". That's what this is all about, no more, no less. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but hear me out here. It would be hilarious if we beat conservapedia at their own game. Especially if the second option is taken such a hilarious extreme where it rolls back to satire. Gaismagorm (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No action needed on our part. See Conservapedia's article (permalink) about The Room. — Newslinger talk 01:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Conservapedia's essay "Greatest Conservative Songs" (permalink). — Newslinger talk 01:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most concerning thing about Conservapedia at the moment is that it has entirely embraced Putinism and Orbánism, two styles of government that are behind the push to extend the reach of an autocratic state into education and private industry. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's priceless. I love how the "legacy" section smoothly transitions into an explanation of social conservative, centre-right politics. Cremastra talk 23:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conservapedia is unintentional satire, but they are neither aware of it or understand why it is satire. I mean, let’s not forget, they literally invented one of the most famous memes on the Internet: Supply Side Jesus riding a dinosaur. And they were dead serious about it at the time. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fans of "separate but equal" will embrace this. (Hide it from search engines.)

lmao that so quintessentially embodies segregation. But to make it nominally equal instead of "arbitrarily" silenced, it should probably be on a separate domain (magawikipedia.org?) the WMF registers through ICANN; as there are no links to that domain, it would not appear on search engines for quite a long time. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deeply unconstructive proposal. This is not the anti-MAGA encyclopaedia. Our articles are not supposed to push any particular political theory. We are supposed to be (in article space) neutral even on the topic of Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a giant WP:POVFORK Kowal2701 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)&oldid=1287876985"