Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 151

This is important. It focussed primarily on Article 13, but Article 11 is quite possibly worse, although frankly it's all so bad that it is hard to say with any certainty which is worse.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It really is a nightmare legislation. That's why we should have a banner being displayed prominently. Wikipedia being neutral when presenting content doesn't mean being passive when our very existence is jeopardized. The Red Cross is an apolitical organization, but that doesn't mean they won't oppose legislation that makes it harder for them to organize blood drives.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• +1 support to User:Headbomb. We use Turnitin, a world leader in copyright infringement detection, but they are still only correct just over half the time. We apply them "after" a person makes an edit not before. Apply them before an edit goes live would result in significant disruption. And text is easy compared to images and video (ala Commons). Additionally German and Bulgarian Wikipedia had a banner related to this from what I understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Neutrality does not mean staying silent when threatened by legislation. —Kusma (t·c) 17:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• I also agree with the above sentiments, and I think we should post a neutrally worded banner to raise awareness of this, at least in the EU, if nothing else. We can't always remain neutral when something threatens the site's continued existence. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• @Jimbo Wales: If this needs vast volunteer support as a banner, requesting placement as a CentralNotice (perhaps with geo fencing/targeting) at meta:CentralNotice/Request would hit the widest audience - if it has foundation support it should be able to get fast-tracked. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

There was an RfC on this (further up the page) already, but there was no consensus on posting the banner. There was some support for a neutrally-worded version, but it was buried in the overall discussion. There could be reason to post another RfC specifically for a neutral banner to notify readers in the EU. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC's here (such as the one you referenced above at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Banner_in_EU_countries_explaining_dangerous_European_Parliament_copyright_proposal_and_linking_to_SaveYourInternet.eu) are about banners driven by and for the English Wikipedia only, the actual impact of this sounds much further reaching. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No. You can't just keep making proposals over and over again until one of them passes. This is at least the fourth such proposal within the past few months. At this point, I'd support Ammarpad's proposal above that we decide that political banners will not run, period, to save editors time on discussions like this. The risks from continually dealing with these proposals may be greater than the risk of not being able to act in the face of some possible future dangerous political threat. --Yair rand (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no greater risk to Wikipedia than being unable to edit it because of laws makes it a crime to do so. Opposing banners on this is like saying "We firefighters are apolitical, we'll put fire outs no matter where they happen. It's more dangerous to our existence to comment on politics than oppose legislation that would make it illegal extinguish fires." The threat is NOW. Not in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What is "the risks from continually dealing with these proposals"? Lots of proposals for banners are not and should not be supported. Some should and are supported. Disallowing discussions is a strange proposal and one I definately do not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what the proposal is here. I agree that the legislation is awful, but like AfroThundr said, there was no consensus at the above discussion. Are we proposing a neutrally-worded banner? TeraTIX 13:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo was mostly bringing this matter to everyone's attention (for those who live under a rock, anyway.) I do think we should try that RfC again with a neutral notification banner. In the closing statement of the previous RfC this was mentioned:

While I'm aware of !voter fatigue, this proposal would segue off of the previous one, and could be handled rather quickly, one way or the other. That should put this matter to bed once and for all, at least on enwiki. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 15:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree and I think that such an important discussion needs to be brought to a very wide audience within the community, as most people don't hang out on Village Pump. (The number of !votes in the above discussion shows clearly that not enough people are aware.) I think personally that a neutrally worded banner is insufficient - I think this is an existential issue for the free culture movement and therefore deserves to be killed - and the only practical way I know to kill it is to create world headlines and put real pressure from voters on the European Parliament. We have a board meeting in 5 minutes to discuss further, and I'll report back what I can, when I can! Thanks to everyone for your attention so far.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep us updated. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd support having an RfC on a neutrally worded banner, although the WMF response will be interesting and pertinent. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The neutral wording should only be used as a last resort if the community is too dumb to realize the danger is in. Jimbo is right here, we should be active in opposition to something that wants to pretty much directly kill Wikipedia and Commons and all other Wikimedia projects as best it can. This notice shouldn't just be on Wikipedia, but on every Wikimedia projects. With a blackout if needed like we did for SOPA. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

We had a board call with senior management at the Foundation yesterday, and a statement from the board is forthcoming. I wouldn't like to speak for anyone but myself, but I think I can safely say that there is consensus that (1) everyone would like to see broader community awareness of this, (2) that a decision about what action to take should, as always, not be dictated by the board or Foundation staff, but the community, and (3) the Foundation staff stands ready to assist with whatever we in the community request.

My own view is that we are at a point that I would consider to be something of an emergency. Time is very short. I'm told by reliable sources that a vote of the entire European Parliament is likely to take place on July 4th, which means that coordinated action to bring intense awareness on Parliament in the form of phone calls and emails from millions of ordinary European citizens needs to take place by July 3rd or so. If anyone is interested in how the process is likely to work, I'll explain it as best I can, but I'm still learning myself.

We are up against incredibly well-funded interests who have spent literally millions lobbying for this stuff. The general public is, as we all know from our day to day work here, quite unaware of and bored by copyright law. This is a classic example of how moneyed interests can lead law in a direction that is contrary to public interest. (I should add that in this case, at least some of the changes contemplated are beneficial in an indirect way for companies like Google and Facebook, who can afford to comply, and so I think this is a classic case of the two major financial sides (content industry and big platforms) reaching a "compromise" which benefits themselves, at the expense of the public and smaller competitors).)

The biggest challenge that I can see for us is time. The timetable is much shorter than would be desirable for a comprehensive community discussion of the type that is our great strength. The opposition knows this, and I believe this is giving them incentive to rush through a vote before we can get organized.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, Katherine, and others should probably, if not already in progress and in addition to on-line efforts, do an "emergency" media tour of Europe, hold press conferences in various cities (perhaps even at the Wikipedia Monument), interview shows, etc. (both in person and by remote-access) during the next week to up-awareness and allow Europeans to understand the extent and ramifications of what's proposed and what passage would look like. And of course put a banner up (not just in Europe but worldwide), a serious threat to civilizational communication and knowledge is occurring in a limited time and Wikipedia is one of the only platforms that can make the public aware of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At this point I really think a CentralNotice is necessary to raise awareness among our users and editors as well. As I mentioned before, there was some support for a neutrally worded banner in the previous RfC, and I think we should work with that. This goes to vote in 7 days so we should at least notify people about what is happening. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 12:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If WMF thinks this is a huge issue, CN is the way to go - since it seems to be much further impacting then only the English Wikipedia if the hype is true; not quite sure I'm seeing what the "or else" part is - if WMF just ignore this all together what impact will actually be realized? Fines levied in a foreign jurisdiction are hard to enforce generally, and unlike most other companies we don't "sell" things in these jurisdictions. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• The previous discussion was before the committee vote, when over a thousand amendments were theoretically up for vote. Now the situation is much clearer: unless on July 5 the European Parliament plenary rejects the committee proposal, we can be sure to have nightmare copyright legislation for the next 20 years or forever. --Nemo 14:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are we even bothering discussing this? Either it isn't a threat to Wikipedia and a banner is unneeded, or it is a threat to Wikipedia and a banner is needed. If the foundation has determined that it is a threat, then the foundation should put up a notice. This isn't something that editor opinion is relevant to. --Khajidha (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with @Khajidha: here, and am completely missing how this is a problem that only impacts the English Wikipedia - why is this not being considered WMF wide? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a problem which affects only English Wikipedia, and it is being considered WMF-wide. I just sent an email to the heads of all the chapters to ask for their support in making the issue known as widely as possible within their own language groups, and I have cleared my schedule of almost everything so that I can do as much as I can.

Regarding the idea that "if this a threat, then the foundation should put up a notice" without the support of the community. I'd be the first to oppose that. Decisions of this magnitude should be taken by the community - as it is a much more powerful message when coming from the community. And I personally do not think that a neutrally worded banner is sufficient, although if that is all we can get to, then we should do that at a minimum. I personally believe this is one of the very rare cases where a much more significant move is needed.

• Some languages have already run banners. EN WP represents about half of our traffic and many in Europe use EN WP thus a banner here could significantly raise awareness. Yes we could move the discussion to meta to make it movement wide but time is short.

Here's where I get to on this whole issue. At this time, the only thing that can stop this is a huge outpouring of calls and emails from the general public. We need to explain to them that this affects their rights online, and that it affects the entire free culture movement that Wikipedia is the great shining example. And we need to inform the public as to how their voice can be heard.

This isn't only about narrowly defending Wikipedia, it is about defending our values and the broader ecosystem and culture that we are a part of.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• But much of the community will have no idea this is going on or very little understanding of what it is unless the foundation takes the first step of putting a highly visible notice out there. The community members would then know what they could do and that "huge outpouring of calls and emails" could commence. --Khajidha (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Statements from the Foundation and Board should go out soon after SF wakes up today.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, calendar cleared so...news conferences, video link to media and news shows in Europe, personal in-studio at news programs, the news releases, etc. You and Katherine can blitz Europe (wrong choice of words?) in opposition. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Our projects are generally self governing, and this typically includes the banners. Thus community opinion on these matters I feel is important. The first proposal was brought forwards by a community member. The community at that time was undecided but input was not that significant. I am hesitant to see the WMF overrule this. There does appear to be a fair bit of support for a neutrally worded banner though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I just see this as falling more or less under the "Legal issues" portion of the perennial proposals above. We, as a community, don't have to worry about the legalities, that's what we have the foundation and its legal advisors for. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure I agree. We as a community do need to worry about the political and legal environment we function within. Well the foundation can support and provide some legal opinions our communities have a significant voice when we decide to use it / are able to come to consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Request for help I am beyond my limit for what I can do to help but I see what I think are obvious problems which have multi-million dollar negative impact but which have labor solutions which could cost a few thousand dollars.

1. Relevant Wikipedia articles are in bad shape - net neutrality, General Data Protection Regulation, and several dozen related concepts are low quality. Lobbying organizations spend $$$ advocating for the consumer but the single most consulted sources of information on all these topics is Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not clearly inform and educate then there is no clear way for anyone to become informed and educated. Wikipedia's strength is supposed to be its articles but our articles on these topics are unsatisfactory.
2. Wiki labor pool needs organization - the social context is that there have been many wiki community attempts at organizing to do something about net neutrality. Most of these attempts have been a request for a banner. Despite all these banner requests where 100s of Wiki community members have participated the wiki editing of the concerned articles has been low. Someone should take a few hours to list all these discussions because having the list of records is the only way to put the sum conversation in context. Although there has not been consensus for "Wikipedia" as an entity to take a political position, I think everyone in those conversations would agree that Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects should provide clear information on the issues with wiki articles, illustrations, etc. The WMF historically has been hands off about content and this is good. However, if there were a community organizer who was neutral and who could bring the best available sources from all sides of the issue, then I think everyone would benefit. This is not exactly a winner-takes-all competition, but rather, a situation when everyone benefits when all sides of the situation get their best presentation in Wikimedia projects. The Wiki community is not spontaneously crowdsourcing labor management and really needs a funded dedicated lead (perhaps from a university, perhaps from any organization) to help sort the dozens of volunteers who each do their part here.
3. Poor external relations - there are various advocacy organizations which have information to share in wiki but fail to do things like post to talk pages, share images, and share sources. It is beyond usual wiki volunteer capacity to do office administration to interface with expert organizations. That kind of support has not been a priority of the WMF grantmaking strategy. Somehow - and not with WMF staff - the WMF needs to fund someone somewhere who can interface with the 20+ organizations who have expert content to share in Wikimedia projects.

I fail to recognize any other Wikimedia community goal in this space more important than the development of Wikimedia educational content. We are greatly bottlenecked by the complexity of this issue being beyond what is typical for Wiki community crowdsourcing and challenges accessing basic source content. It is not as if there are summary publications to choose from which could be a guideline for a wiki article on these individual topics.

I recognize that net neutrality and GDPR are different issues, but collectively these and other issues are "online community rights" and the popular global perception still groups all "computer" issues as related. We need to have clear information about all of these to make it easy for people to browse one issue to the others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• So, call the RfC: Suggest alternatives 1) black out or 2) banner with link to WMF statement and 3) 24 or 48 hour time limit. But someone with knowledge has to make the RfC proposal and advertise the question at CENT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, the most impactful action is to direct people to https://changecopyright.org/ (or https://saveyourinternet.eu/ ) during business hours. Both are localised but SaveYourInternet has an English-only call system. An option for (2) would be a slim landing page on Meta-Wiki à la m:Freedom of Panorama in Europe in 2015 (to simplify translation) with links to either campaign website and select statements. The discussion could allow several levels of support, e.g. 0, 8 hours, 16 hours, 7 days. --Nemo 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(As with my last message, I am not here making a concrete proposal but passing along information as background preparation for any actual concrete proposal that we may consider.)

I spoke today with Julia Reda, MEP. As you may be aware, she is one of the key members of the European Parliament who has been fighting the good fight against Articles 11 and 13. I learned a few things from her which I think are relevant to our deliberations.

First, the vote will take place next Thursday, July 5th. This means that our time scale to let the community know quite widely that a proposal has been put forward so that it can be voted on by a meaningful portion of the community is quite short.

Second, she agreed with my estimation that without dramatic action from Wikipedia, this is very likely to pass. It is up to us.

Third, she pointed out that the vote on Thursday works in this way. A vote from parliament tomorrow of "yes" means that the law is fast-tracked and that's the end of it. We've lost. A vote from parliament tomorrow of "no" does not mean that it is killed - it is a vote that it should NOT be fast-tracked and there will be an opportunity for the entire European Parliament to debate the whole thing and for amendments to be put forward. Given the wide range of civil society groups and Internet luminaries who are opposed to it, this seems like something that needs to be done. But what it also means is that it is quite an easy "ask" even of MEPs who think that overall the bill is a good idea - we aren't asking them to help us kill the entire thing, but to open things up for a proper debate. (To date, there has been NO debate from the full parliament.)

The point of this third point is to day: we can win this, if we can make enough noise.

My evaluation here is that it is up to us (the multilingual Wikipedia communities of Europe) to win this - we are the only ones who can. And, we actually can win this - with millions of ordinary people calling their MEPs and blanket news coverage, we can have a big impact.

I further think that this is the right moment strategically. If the WMF sends representatives in to talk about the good of the commons and so on, not many people will listen if we are a powerless small nonprofit. But everyone will listen if they know that we not only claim to have the public on our side, we can actually demonstrate it with direct action.

My next call, in about an hour, is with Danny O'Brien, who is the International Director of the EFF.

I am also in touch with policy people from Reddit, who are also obviously concerned about this and interested in helping to shine more public light on the issue before it is too late.

And finally, I'm in touch with the heads of the WMF chapters to get their feedback and guidance about the situation in other languages.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

So an immediate banner in English seems like it would help, and, as I mention above, you and Katherine should maybe be holding press conferences, media interviews, press briefings all across Europe (maybe a meeting of like minded individuals for a press conference at the Wikipedia Memorial), etc. You are our only hope, Obi-Wan Jimboi. Thanks for your energy and caring. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and I am very much on emergency footing here and planning to do as much press as I can. I think more than that is necessary, and one problem with me doing press is that, despite living in the UK for 8 years and all, there can be a feeling in Europe of not wanting an American Internet Entrepreneur lecturing them. Hearing directly from our community, and directly from our readers, is a lot more powerful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Because of your creations and the internet prestige of Wikipedia I think you might be recognized more as an international citizen. Don't want to take up any more of your time, so thanks again and good luck this week. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Time is short. We need proposals for a neutrally worded banner. I have added one possible below. Please make other suggestions. If we are to go forwards with this we need to have something ready by July 2nd to go live July 3rd. So this will be closed midday UTC on July 2nd. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yup. Pundit|utter 20:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is not an issue on which we can or should be neutral. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The second link would be to a page that lists options for engagement and further details. July 5th is just an initial vote and if successful a future vote will occur in the future. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This wording is decidedly non-neutral. How can one possibly read words such as "threatened to disrupt the functioning of the open Internet" as neutral? A test of neutrality is whether a reader, unfamiliar with the underlying issues, nevertheless knows which side is preferred by the writer of the text. The use of "threatened", "disrupt", and "open" all lead the reader to be clear which side is preferred. While I'm not exactly thrilled with the wording of option three, as I'd like us to be as nonpolitical as possible, at least that wording is neutral enough to be acceptable. I'm disappointed to see so many people I respect choosing to support this wording. I haven't updated the math but both option one and option three had strong support. I would've hope that a closing admin would not simply close on the basis of numbers, but reflect the concerns for neutrality expressed by many participants. As a bit of a coincidence, I came here immediately after responding to an individual writing to us at OTRS asking how to write an article about their company. I explained that they shouldn't and emphasized the Wikipedia pillar of neutrality. If we support neutrality in articles we ought to support neutrality in banners.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with any option but I was thinking of a text along these lines. Four points:

1. stress that we're for democracy: the JURI committee passed some texts by just one vote, we're not accusing any political group but we think fair that the European Parliament has a full debate;
2. rather than make statements about specific dangers of the directive (there are too many to summarise), say what people should stand for and why we care (the reference is also to problems created for freely licensed content, public domain etc.);
3. mention creators, authors, creativity or something like that, to convey the message that this is not about pro-users vs. pro-authors (Wikipedia editors are authors too),
4. actually reference the only thing which matters i.e. calling the MEPs over the phone, probably via http://changecopyright.org/ (which can be linked in teh landing page if/when there's consensus).

Maybe an adjective like "problematic" is warranted before "new copyright directive", but I'm not sure it matters. --Nemo 21:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Rubber stamp" does not sound very "neutrally worded" at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  "Approve" would be equally fine. It's just hard to pick a verb which doesn't suggest the thing goes immediately into effect. It's a mandate for negotiations. --Nemo 07:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know enough about this to draft any text but the current options have problems, mainly that there is no mention of any problem for Wikipedia. Option 1 suggests something will affect the internet and Wikipedia might express an opinion. Option 2 has far too much advocacy with no indication of a problem for Wikipedia. Unfortunately these will not get due consideration, particularly given the recent and poorly framed RfCs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• None of those banners tell me, presumably the person who would see them - what it is that I need to actually do - I'm not represented by anyone in the "European Parliament" - what am I supposed to do here? Is this intended to be a geo-notice? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

  Yes the plan is for a geo notice. The prior discussion leaned towards a banner that informs rather than directs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• As the previous discussion's closer, I'm hesitant about the wordings of either proposed option here. The proposal calls for a neutrally-worded banner, but neither option seems neutral to me as they still appear to be advocating for a position. If the WMF decides to put up a banner regardless of community consensus, there's nothing I can do on that part, but right now as it stands, neither banner is "neutral". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• No matter how reluctant I am to admit that a banner is needed, and, maybe, just maybe, one is, I cannot endorse the syntax of either banner: both seem to be non-neutral to me. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  User:Narutolovehinata5 and User:Javert2113 do you have any suggestions? Or can you explain which parts you see as non-neutral? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  Sure, Doctor. First, the non-neutral parts, as I see them: "These changes threaten to disrupt the functioning of the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of." While true, they can be seen as Wikipedia passing judgement on the proposed directive/legislation itself, which isn't neutral. Likewise, "Speak up now for creativity, free culture and an open Internet." seems to intimate that the bill's passage would lead to deleterious effects for creativity and free culture, which are both somewhat too intangible to be expressed so. (For instance, I could see graffiti protesting this law should it pass; would that not be creative?) Anyway, regarding alternatives, hmm. It's late, so I'll probably re-visit this in the morn, but...

How's that? —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and agree it is an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As for how neither proposed banner is neutrally-worded, one makes the claim that the directive will "disrupt the functioning of the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of", the other banner uses words like "rubber stamp" and "speak up now". Option 1 expresses a particular opinion, Option 2 requests making a stand. They seem pretty far from "neutrally-worded" to me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in both the net neutrality RfC and the previous EUP directive discussion, I'm opposed to a banner, even a neutrally-worded one, of any kind. Personally I myself have concerns about the implications of the directive, but Wikipedia, as a neutral website, shouldn't really involve itself in political affairs. Even the mere presence of a banner, even a neutrally-worded one, can be interpreted as Wikipedia taking a stand on an issue. With that said, if a banner has to be implemented (most likely by office action), it has to be carefully worded and ideally should link to a website that only shows facts and does not advocate a certain position (so no SaveYourInternet.eu). But in any case, I still am unconvinced that we need a banner on the main site. There are other alternate venues, such as social media and the Wikimedia Foundation's own website, where the WMF position can be stressed, but Wikipedia itself may not be the right place for this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Taking the stand that people should be informed, is at a level a political position, as of course some believe that people should not have the opportunity to be informed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• The 'action call' on this is to join the discussion - but going there doesn't show a discussion, its talk page is pretty much empty as well. Are you expecting people to just put comments on the associated talk page? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes that page still needs a fair bit of development. I encourage people to join in improving it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see

• meta:EU policy/2018 European Parliament vote

and subpages

• meta:EU policy
• :meta:Talk:EU_policy

Meta-Wiki is the place for cross-wiki discussions, including discussions among Wikipedias of different languages and the various Wikimedia projects like Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. I moved the discussion about potential banner text on English Wikipedia to there because the proposed banner is a multi-lingual, global issue.

Community organization is hard and it is very challenging for the Wikimedia community of volunteers to respond to complicated government policy proposals very quickly. The rumor in circulation is that the proposed policy is an existential threat to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects as it exists now. I as a Wikimedia community member am unable to evaluate this claim but I see urgent messages

• Wikimedia Foundation board is in opposition - Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Statement Opposing the EU Copyright Package
• Wikimedia Foundation itself state opposition through general counsel - How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia
• Wikimedia Foundation policy experts state opposition - Time is running out to defend user rights online

I recognize that the English Wikipedia community historically tries to stay neutral about most legal controversies and I think that is for the best. Despite all these statements I am unclear on what is happening here, but if I am reading this correctly, the lawyers and experts in the Wikimedia Foundation are in great fear of disruption in publishing and presenting Wikimedia projects.

I expect that the Wikimedia community can always protest and oppose direct threats to the existence of Wikipedia. An easy political position for us to take is that no law can threaten the fundamental existence and operation of Wikipedia. If this is what is at stake then banners on English Wikipedia or anywhere else seem fine. Since this seems like a multi-national, global issue then discussing this on Meta-Wiki seems best so I moved the text and some discussion there.

I wish that this matter was easy to identify as "direct existential threat to Wikipedia with no ambiguity". That is what I am reading out of this. If anyone has doubts then please raise them. I presume that if this is such a threat then everyone would support opposition. We are all in agreement here that no law or policy is good if it directly attacks the existence of Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the copyright directive would do to Wikipedia. All of the WMF's posts on this have been terribly uninformative. I'd like for someone at the WMF to write up something like a "day after" plan, for what Wikimedia would likely do in the immediate aftermath of the passing of this law, which would help people determine what we're dealing with here. (If the answer is "nothing, this doesn't directly affect us in any way", that would also be informative. --Yair rand (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The day after would probably look very similar today. I think the big concerns are "what ifs", not "for certains". That said, I too would like to see more information on what the expected effects would be. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)'

Well the next vote on July 5th in the EU is about if the entire parliament should discuss and vote on the directive or just accept the conclusions of a small committee. Raising awareness will hopefully allow further discussion of what the effects of this directive will be. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adam9007, Alanscottwalker, Ammarpad, Bellezzasolo, Beyond My Ken, Bluerasberry, Carwil, Chetsford, Chris troutman, Daß Wölf, Doctorow, Doktorbuk, Double sharp, EllenCT, Epicgenius, Finnusertop, Galobtter, GenQuest, Grin, Guy Macon, Hawkeye7, HiLo48, InsaneHacker, Insertcleverphrasehere, Jimbo Wales, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Joe Roe: @John Cummings, Joshualouie711, Justlettersandnumbers, Khajidha, Kudpung, Kusma, L235, Masem, Mike Linksvayer, Natureium, Nocturnalnow, Nyttend, Only in death, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Power~enwiki, Sadads, Sandstein, SilkTork, Slatersteven, Sphilbrick, TheDJ, TonyBallioni, Trovatore, Winged Blades of Godric, Winner 42, Wnt, Wumbolo, Yair rand, and Yann: Pinging previous participants who have not yet participated here. Apologies for any missed, redundant, or unwanted pings. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Preceding exceeded 50. Retrying the excess. @Winged Blades of Godric, Winner 42, Wnt, Wumbolo, Yair rand, and Yann: Pinging previous participants who have not yet participated here. Apologies for any missed, redundant, or unwanted pings. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: FYI, I didn't get this ping. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks for the feedback. I had received a system-generated notification reading: "You tried to mention more than 50 users. All mentions above that limit were not sent." That didn't give me a warm fuzzy but I had to assume that all "mentions" below that limit were sent or risk sending 50 notifications twice. On the strength of your comment I'm now going to retry the 50; if none of those editors report that they received the first one I'll take the issue to WP:VPT. Notifications have become too important to tolerate fixable bugs and false feedback. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adam9007, Alanscottwalker, Ammarpad, Bellezzasolo, Beyond My Ken, Bluerasberry, Carwil, Chetsford, Chris troutman, Daß Wölf, Doctorow, Doktorbuk, Double sharp, EllenCT, Epicgenius, Finnusertop, Galobtter, GenQuest, Grin, Guy Macon, Hawkeye7, HiLo48, InsaneHacker, Insertcleverphrasehere, Jimbo Wales, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Joe Roe: @John Cummings, Joshualouie711, Justlettersandnumbers, Khajidha, Kudpung, Kusma, L235, Masem, Mike Linksvayer, Natureium, Nocturnalnow, Nyttend, Only in death, Pharaoh of the Wizards, Power~enwiki, Sadads, Sandstein, SilkTork, Slatersteven, Sphilbrick, TheDJ, TonyBallioni, and Trovatore: Pinging previous participants who have not yet participated here. Apologies for any missed, redundant, or unwanted pings. To help resolve a technical question regarding pings, please also respond if you received a similar ping on 30 June (it should still be in your notifications history, accessible via the bell icon). ―Mandruss ☎ 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a confusing message. Am I supposed to reply here? I got the ping. Didn't get one on 30 June. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Thanks for the response, although it was unnecessary if you didn't get the 30 June ping (per the confusing message). The ping had a dual purpose: increasing participation in the neutral banner question, and trying to resolve the tech issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I only got the second ping, and was going to consider the proposals before chiming in, but the discussion closed before I did – which doesn't matter, as I fully respect the consensus that resulted. (I happen to agree with it, as I would support option 1 and oppose the others myself, but I would of course respect it regardless of whether or not I happened to agree with it.) Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Likewise on both counts. I only got the second ping. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The tech issue is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Pinging over 50. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here
• And one from the board of the WMF here

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For those who want to help this effort, the better our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market is the better the chances that the politicians will make a decision that doesn't harm Wikipedia. Staffers, constituents, and sometimes the politicians themselves often turn to Wikipedia for information on an upcoming vote. If we can also create/improve similar articles in French, German, etc. on those Wikipedias, all the better. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• That statement lends itself to a better banner than any of the options above. Removing some commas and changing "the proposed directive" for clarity:

I rather like that one. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Could it be tweaked to remove the ambiguity? Right now it could mean that the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees stands on the side of the people in Europe or it could be asking the European Parliament and Council to stand on the side of the people in Europe. Other than that, I like it. I like it a lot. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I also very much like this version. We're getting short on time. Is anyone going to turn this into an RfC so we can get consensus, or what are we planning? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 04:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We have people voting above on 4 proposals. This is slated to close at noon UTC which is slightly less than three hours from now. A little rushed I agree but to be effective needs to go live on the 3rd. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Can be seen HERE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

And the other languages? XOR'easter (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Italian has replaced banner with press release and obscured all Wikipedia Italian pages. - see here [1]. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the English text of the Italian blackout notice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

And this BBC news article shows that such action is effective in spreading our message. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is Spanish blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here is Japan Times article on Spanish Wikipedia blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

Here is the Latvian blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Estonian blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here is Eesti Rahvusringhääling (Estonian Public Broadcasting) article on Estonia blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Polish blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here is Japan Times article on Polish Wikipedia blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the the Catalan blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Euskara blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Galician blackout notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Hungarian banner notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Slovenian banner notice. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There is strong numerical consensus for banner option 1 and 3. And consensus against "no banner" and option 2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and if this is being voted on in three days, why is a banner (any banner; some banner; all banners) not already live? - MrX 🖋 12:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that 1 of the supports for Option 1 said that they preferred Option 3 (Wnt), while there were 7 supports of Option 3 that were either weak supports or said they preferred Option 1 (dimi_z, Headbomb, Pbsouthwood, Ahecht, XOR'easter, Yann, and Kaldari). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that while both options 1 and 3 gained significant support, option 1 has the most support of the two. We should implement this soon, or this whole discussion will be moot. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Will be going live on July 3rd per my understanding. Folks at the WMF have agreed to take care of the technical aspects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there is not. We just had this discussion. Three times. It would be silly for everyone to specifically say yet again that they oppose political banners every single time. And the idea that "no banner" is an equivalent option needing equivalent consensus in favor of "no action" is incorrect. --Yair rand (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A few things. 1) More has become known since the last discussion. 2) The last discussion was "no consensus" not outright opposition 3) It left "open the possibility towards proposing a neutrally-worded banner" which is what we have been discussing here and which is what has gained consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Tbh, I suspect that we've somehow become less-informed since the previous discussion, including some people seeming to think that the passing of this would mean that the project would be killed outright. (If they're right, please say so as soon as possible.) Most or all of us are running completely blind here, and we're talking about going into a major political action, in a discussion that discounts almost everyone who has commented on the proposal because a mostly-irrelevant detail was changed after everyone got tired of having the discussion restart. Many individuals who participated in the previous three discussions made it completely clear that they oppose political banners. Discounting those because they did not keep coming to vote again and again is really unfair. As you'll notice, almost all who participated even in the most recent discussion did not participate in this one.

Whether there's consensus is something for the closer of this discussion to try and figure out, but regarding the issue itself... @Doc James, I'd consider you to be a trustworthy source of information here, and you were presumably at the WMF board meeting on this topic last week, and likely received some details regarding what there is to worry about. Are you personally sure that there's a risk of this directive would really harm Wikipedia in a substantial way? If you can vouch for that, I'll take your word for it. --Yair rand (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Yair rand we have an excellent legal team at the WMF who have raised significant concerns about the proposed legislation. [2] I was at the meeting in question. We also have a bunch of other organizations I highly respect including Creative Commons and Internet Archives who strongly opposed.

Wikipedia functions within a wider open movement. This proposal I do believe has significant potential to harm not only Wikipedia but the entire movement we function within. As another example github shares open code but also is a commercial plateform. Well we may get exceptions to parts of the legislation others we rely on do not.

I would not describe this as a "major political action". Blacking out Wikipedia for a day would be that. This is simple a proposal for a fairly bland banner, present for a day, asking people to inform themselves. A fair number are requesting we do more than this but that currently lacks consensus. Also this is a push to have the entire parliament consider this legislation rather than just a small part of the partliament. Whether you support or oppose the underlying ideas in the directive getting copyright law correct is critical.

Italian Wikipedia has done more today and is currently "blacked out"[3]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doc James: Have you looked at the banner? It links to an external advocacy website with a giant "CALL NOW" button, asking all users to phone their MEPs. (Linking from a CentralNotice to an external website is, incidentally, in violation of CentralNotice policy.) This is not what users above were discussing, and I don't think it's fair to say that this is just "asking people to inform themselves".

(Thank you for the information on the directive, though.) --Yair rand (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(Also, it appears to be scheduled for 44 hours, not just a day.) --Yair rand (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean the link to Mozilla.org to help people reach out to their MP's? That was used in a number of language banners I think. I imagine legal at the WMF okay-ed that link. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opinionated regarding what should be done for this particular situation, but I'm concerned with the process. If it is desirable to have a community consensus because it is a "much more powerful message when coming from the community", then for better or worse, sufficient time must be given to allow the community as a whole to participate (consensus requires patience). Even under ideal circumstances, it takes time to build a real consensus, and it's worse with English Wikipedia, where a) the group of persons who participate in such discussions are only a small fraction of the entire community, and likely not representative, and b) there is insufficient alignment of purpose amongst its editors for a decision to be reached quickly. To say that a message is coming from the community based on maybe a couple dozen voices weakens the message, in my view. I appreciate the time-sensitive nature of the intended message, but the fact that a vote was coming (even if the exact date was not known) is not a surprise. To be asked to make a decision like this in a few days feels like brinksmanship, and it's not a pleasant feeling.

Also, to be honest, a simple banner feels like a mismatch with the community's skill set (though I understand the outreach goal of the banner and its importance to try to influence the vote). If the community's forte is compiling information and editing it into a cohesive narrative, then a way to deploy these skills in support of this issue could serve both readers and those seeking to safeguard an online knowledge-sharing ecosystem, while at the same time showcasing the strengths of fostering this ecosystem. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I was very surprised when I saw the ComCom email about the banner because it was my impression that a banner proposal was dead. Though I strongly support the banner, I share isaacl's concerns about the process by which the banner was authorized. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• What are we waiting for? Option 1 has the most support at the moment, and it is time to go. Unless this is implemented in the next 12 hours or so, there won't have been much point in having the discussion in the first place. @Doc James: what happened to July 3rd? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Insertcleverphrasehere: It's already been implemented for any logged-out users in Europe. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The directive aims to protect those who earn their money by creating text or other material, by limiting the ability of websites to upload their material without payment or acknowledgement. Not for profit online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia are exempt from the directive. By supporting this banner you are supporting the notion that other websites (not Wikipedia as it is exempt) may steal other people's work.

There is, of course, a petition in support of the directive. Don't be mislead. Look into the issues yourself. And if we are to have a political banner, I would prefer we had one in support of the directive, not against it, as while I enjoy the idea of everything being for free, I recognise that a lot of people make their living from making music, writing text, taking photographs, etc, and we shouldn't be campaigning to allow websites to steal from them.

The other petition: Makeinternetfair. SilkTork (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Extract:

There are two sides to this story. SilkTork (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

NGOs like Wikipedia may have some exceptions but are not exempt to the entire package of changes.

Saying that Wikipedia may "steal other people's work" is not accurate. We do get take-down notices, most of which are unfounded.

Those supporting this are not looking for "acknowledgement". That would be an easy and supported request by all here.

The vote that is coming on July 5th, 2018 is NOT about whether to approve or reject this legislation, it is about whether or not the ENTIRE parliament should consider what is being proposed to make sure it is clear, unambiguous, and fair. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it very important to note that I completely reject the idea that my opposition to Article 13 as currently written is in any way involves "supporting the notion that other websites... may steal other people's work". That's a pretty outrageous take on the matter. Badly written laws proposing measures which are not likely to help, while at the same time imposing burdens on innocent people, can be opposed even when the alleged goal is noble. We might as well say that opposition a law mandating mandatory breath tests before getting behind the wheel of a car is supporting the notion of drunk driving.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it'd probably be cheaper and more accurate to install a breathalyzer in every steering wheel than to have everyone engineer a version of Content ID that actually works. —Cryptic 09:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out above in the previous section on the banner [4], WMF has enabled a banner for en.wiki in European countries as seen here meta:Special:CentralNotice. I think that makes any further discussion on banners unnecessary. --Masem (t) 13:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As noted in the other discussion above, a banner was added as meta:Special:CentralNotice by WMF staffer User:Seddon (WMF):. Different verbiage was selected, with about 90% of the banner linking to changecopyright.org. As Doc James mentioned, you can see what it looks like by following this link.

It is targeting viewers in the following countries: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI and SK. This banner is currently set to expire on 2018-07-04 23:59. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I added a screenshot to this section. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I was pleasantly surprised to see this banner when I logged on just now, but I think it came a bit late given that it is 4 July now. Adam9007 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The directive was voted down by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstaining. [5] TeraTIX 12:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As of right now, Italian, Latvian, Polish, and Spanish Wikipedia are dark to raise awareness of the EU Copyright Directive. I have seen an email sent around by a copyright maximalist lobbying group complaining about the Wikipedia community's direct action here - the attitude appears to be that back room deals in Brussels by highly paid lobbying firms is fine, but the public speaking and responding is not. I am reminded of the famous case of Chris Dodd of the MPAA complaining to Congress in the US "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake" and also calling our action an "abuse of power". As I said then, millions of people calling their lawmakers is not an abuse of power: it's democracy.

The Polish Wikipedia in particular moved very quickly from a proposal to a blackout. I'm not suggesting that we can do the same here, but I am wondering what others think. English Wikipedia is the loudest voice for free culture in the world, and our banner certainly is helping... I just fear that it may not be enough. If we could black out for just 4 hours before the vote (which is at noon Brussels time tomorrow) then I think we'll get their attention at just the right moment.

To remind you - a "No" vote tomorrow just means that there will be a wider debate in European Parliament, involving the entire chamber, in September. Amendments can be offered and our action will make sure that free culture has a voice at the table. A "Yes" vote tomorrow means that our only choice will be to try to kill the entire thing in September... when it is only Articles 11 and 13 which are the problem. (The rest, I am told by activists, is pretty straightforward and useful modernization.) Obviously it will be harder to kill a mixed bill then, and a shame to kill it. So I am keenly hopeful that tomorrow goes well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW we have Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that should include any major coverage of the protests or reaction to the protest. --Masem (t) 17:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would firmly oppose an enwiki blackout for this. While it's an important matter, it's not exactly an existential threat that would justify such an extreme measure. A blackout would adversely impact our readers with no real upside.- MrX 🖋 18:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The upside: stopping a terrible anti-consumer anti-free culture law in its tracks, showing that this is not an area that moneyed lobbyists can tread into without fear from a reaction from the public. The downside: a few hours of inconvenience. It is no contest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd support a localized SOPA-style blackout from now until the vote on July 5th personally (or until September if this passes with no option but to kill it in full in September). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that geotargetting to Europe would be best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Given that our servers, if I'm not mistaken, are mainly based in the United States, and, as a result, the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and law, I would wholly oppose any English Wikipedia blackout that could be seen as a political action to cajole, coax, interfere, or otherwise effect a response from lawmakers and representatives of other nations and states, which would in no way affect U.S. law. It would, as Mr X says quite plainly, detrimentally affect our user-base, as well, in the United States, Australia, and other English-speaking, non-UK nations, which would hurt us severely regarding editor retention, too. I cannot, for these reasons, support any sort of black-out of English Wikipedia. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very narrow view which I hope we could not take. This will hurt the entire free culture movement, including Wikipedia, worldwide. If we do not take a principled stand that open culture matters, then we will be increasingly boxed in. If we were a for-profit company, or if we were narrowly a non-profit organization, then we might take such a narrow view. We are neither. We are a community with a great deal of power to help Internet users world wide, and I think with that kind of power comes responsibility.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Wales, I certainly recognize your position, and though I continue to disagree on the possible impact of this legislation, I think a compromise might work: geo-targeting Europe, as you replied above, would be an acceptable policy (whether or not that includes the United Kingdom, I leave up to you, the Trustees, and the Foundation). I certainly wouldn't object too strenuously to that, though I opine that open knowledge means open to all, regardless of location, political pressures, or public opinion. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The geotargeting is pretty much assumed. The SOPA blackout was only in the US and the banner was only in the EU. I have been working with the EFF to (depending on how the current vote goes) have them pick a blackout date and start asking websites to join. I have explained to them that while Reddit or Facebook can make such a decision in days, it will take us a lot longer, so the date should be set sooner rather than later. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'd also oppose any blackout, localized or not. This isn't an existential risk, and a blackout disrupts our primary goal. --Yair rand (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing more disruptive to our primary goal than the erosion of the open internet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Do you believe that if this passes, Wikipedia will cease to exist? --Yair rand (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

So it is your position that we should not oppose anything that hurts Wikipedia, no matter how badly, unless it actually causes us to shut down the encyclopedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that even if the Wikimedia Foundation were to be shut down by the US Government, Wikipedia would survive. If we come to a dystopian totalitarian future and had to go into hiding and work to reassemble secretly and edit articles, like the characters in Fahrenheit 451, I think we would, and my life work would be to help lead that in any way that I could, and Wikipedia would survive. My point is that I don't think much can cause Wikipedia to "cease to exist". Wikipedia is an idea. Wikipedia is a community. Wikipedia means something to people, and we will persevere even under great pressure. My point is really that I don't think "Wikipedia will cease to exist" is the right filter for deciding when to act. We should act when we see something that will significantly damage the free culture movement, that will undermine the view that people have the right to upload things to the Internet without a prior assumption of potential criminality, and when we see that we actually can make a meaningful difference. There will be many cases where we should not act, and there will be cases where reasonable people will disagree on whether we should act or how we should act. But I don't think that "We only act when Wikipedia will cease to exist if we don't" is particularly meaningful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I think this very much is relevant to the English Wikipedia, and anyone around the world reading it, because the standards sets by the European Union will affect any website with clients within the EU, which is basically every website everywhere (see how the recent privacy bill created a global standard). Article 11 would allow websites to demand that we purchase a license from them when quoting their text (even small snippets), which would make life miserable for us trying to maintain neutrality and due weight in articles by writing thoughts as quotes attributed to wherever they came from. Meanwhile, Article 13 creates some unspecific obligation to filter copyrighted content (with whether our systems are sufficient being anyone's guess), then bungles an attempt to create an exemption for us, so that whole thing is asking for regulatory creep. Overall, the whole thing is quite menacing to our project and goals, and I'm more than willing to sacrifice a couple hours to help stop it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727: As with one of the comments above, something I think is missing is the enforcement part of this rulemaking, and what the projected impact of that would be, do you have a good way to explain it to the common reader what happens if: (a) These new EU rules become active and (b) Wikipedia just ignores them. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  If the answer is "fines" include and and (c) ignores the penalty. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach to take in terms of thinking about it. What happens if this passes and we ignore them? Then the major platforms extend their monopoly power, as competition is suppressed. (Google and Facebook can afford this - their smaller competitors cannot.) That increased power means more and more leverage to squeeze out free culture entirely. A symbiotic relationship will emerge between the copyright lobby and big platform lobby, with ordinary people left out. There is only one group who has both the power, and the motive to defend free culture. That is us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo Wales this is the part of the message that I think is missing, while I think WMF can "ignore this" for direct impact, the indirect impact (e.g. on availability of sources, local governments restricting access) demonstrates how this may hurt many more people. When trying to engage our readers I don't think we are giving a very solid message - we are saying "we think this is important" but not why "this matters to you". Unfortunate for this matter our huge North American readership doesn't have representation to engage though. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Enwiki Blackout both strategically and logistically it would be better to do so in advance of a September vote rather than doing so for the current one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I support a blackout in advance of the September vote and will campaign for it if necessary. But I think it would be strategically sub-optimal. As explained above, the chances of victory in September are much lower, and the vote tomorrow is about allowing for debate in Parliament in September. It is therefore easier to convince parliamentarians now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support The site was blacked out for the Americans for SOPA on the understanding that similar action would be taken for other countries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Hawkeye7: one big thing to consider is audience. enwiki has a huge US readership that has representation related to SOPA, but much less for EU matters (i.e. our US/CA readers are not governed or represented by the EU), so the geonotice makes more sense. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to me to be an existential threat to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. stand in solidity with EU Wikipedia.Italian, Spanish, Latvian, Estonian, Polish, Catalan, Galician Wikipeida went dark and Slovenian and Hungarian sites put up banners. A few hours in convenience in EN Wikipedia is too small to compare with the threat to free culture worldwide. I remembered when SOPA incident before I join Wikipedia, seeing that was profoundly important in understanding of such threat. It is general Wikipedia do not involved in political matter, but an existential threat to Wikipedia is another matter all together. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Tentative Support. A blackout would definitely send a message, although I wonder if it would be better timing to save it for the September vote instead. There is also the already-running banner to consider. I don't believe a blackout for a few hours would have a significant adverse impact our users, though. The world can survive without us for a few hours. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 03:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support I do not believe this passing will result in Wikipedia ceasing to exist, but I do believe that this passing in its current form will significantly affect the functioning of Wikipedia. The lack of freedom of panorama makes Commons super complicated. Imagine if how many words we can use within a quote varied by the EU country of publication? Upload filters would suck for commons (it is not clear we are truly exempt per the entire sentence in the document in question). While the media and publishing groups are trying to frame this as a disagreement between them and Google, I do not believe that. Google in fact may benefit from the current proposal. This is more the large platforms and publishers attempting to divide the Internet between themselves while pushing out the open movement. We need to stand up for and defend our movement and an open Internet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Gamaliel (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• If a September blackout still seems necessary at the time (cynical prediction: yesofcourseitwill), we should be planning for it more than two or three days in advance; we missed our chance this time around, though it was ultimately unnecessary. I'm not comfortable putting a bolded support here, though, since I don't geolocate to Europe and so presumably will be unaffected. —Cryptic 11:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it would be prudent if we could go over the text as it was, and annotate it collectively. Noting concerns with the areas in question, indicating what usecases we consider to be critical to be possible within the framework, red lines, alternative suggestions etc. and then providing this as feedback to MEPs. Anyone else willing to work on something like that ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The directive should be getting a substantial reworking. Hopefully what comes out of that will take our and others concerns into account. But if it remains problematic we need to be ready to act again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any further activism, until we have a clear consensus-based guideline to handle such situations. The constant disregard for valid concerns from a significant large number of editors and the rushed PoV pushing in favor of yet more activism are deeply worrying. As noted, I am not totally against emergency actions in exceptional cases. But the current handling ignores the underlying fundamental question (should Wikipedia be politically active and if yes, when and how?) and cements a notable divide within the community instead of looking for an acceptable and clearly-worded general consensus. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have avoided these debates and decisions, including this one, since before SOPA basically because 'I don't get it' and 'it's not my field'. That, I suppose, makes me truly neutral. On the other hand, I am not institutionally opposed to us supporting the other language projects with a black-out or banner (after all, we run a banner and notices for other things and no-one expects such a thing to be wholely "neutral"). As far as it is suggested that Wikipedia is neutral about Wikipedia, that's seems a paradox, and a sophistry -- in many ways it makes no sense to anyone that an organization is neutral about itself (no matter, how much it tries) -- if the organization continues, than it must wish to continue as is, and is not neutral on itself, even if it loves and hates itself, that is not neutral. As for the current system of making the editorial decision organically within the basic Consensus model, that does seem the most "neutral" way to decide because there is no, it must happen, here, and must not happen there -- editor/editor(s) perceive a need, advertises centrally, and persuades others -- we already know the initial individual and institutional response is 'don't bother' and 'don't bother me', and that response will win-out most days and years, regardless of any politics. But if you are an editor that sees a need for more 'rules' in these decisions, go for it and get Consensus, but see above about the potential immovable object you will likely run into. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No proposal here, but as this has been widely discussed here I thought it appropriate to note. We won as the EU Parliament voted NO.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Depends on who "we" are, but a good result, whoever did it. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I thought the vote today was to have the whole EU parliament consider it in September with amendments. Is that still the case, or has the bill been fully rejected/killed in whole? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is basically simple an approval to consider further in September. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah they pretty much kicked the stone down the road here, but this gives us more time to prepare. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

True. And more time for a thoughtful, reasoned debate about how and when we should take political action. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been about as thoughtful and reasoned as it gets at Wikipedia. Ideological differences are not resolved by debate but by numbers. Whatever the outcome, we should refrain from unsubstantiated statements (and section headings) implying a causal effect of presence or absence of a Wikipedia banner. Correlation is not causation. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes § ArbCom wants there to be an RfC and the drafting of infobox inclusion criteria

Short version: In two RFARBs, the Arbitration Committee has said that it can/won't resolve the perpetual "infobox warring" problem, because this is a content and policy decision that the community has to make. We've been asked repeatedly by ArbCom to develop inclusion criteria for infoboxes so that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" does more than resolve (or devolve) to "fight about it endlessly article by article and category by category". But this has yet to happen, and it won't be easy.

The discussion now open isn't an RfC for !voting, but a place to discuss drafting such criteria for eventual RfCing at Village Pump.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Don't do it The last thing we need over the summer. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Heh. I suspect this would take multiple discussions over more than just a couple of months.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I just had to undo a bunch of disruptive moves from draft to mainspace by a newly autoconfirmed user (whom I've blocked). I'm sure we have some rate limits already (if somebody could point me to the details, I'd appreciate that), but whatever they are, they're not strict enough. This user was executing several page moves per minute. Surely that's not something most users need to be able to do. I'm sure a rate limit of one page move and/or creation per hour would satisfy the needs of 99.999% of our users. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See 2 sections up, abuse filter 68. —Cryptic 14:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cryptic: please note filter 68 does not apply to autoconfirmed users. @RoySmith: the autoconfirmed move limit is 8 moves per 60 seconds. Please note most moves are 2 moves (page+talk). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you certain re 68? That regex in line 3 won't match "autoconfirmed". —Cryptic 14:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cryptic: oops, yes you are correct - however the threshold for this is still quite low. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Whew, thought I was going crazy. Second question: where are you getting the 8 per 60 seconds figure? I don't see any other filters restricting page moves in general, as opposed to ones by specific LTA. (They aren't particularly straightforward to search, though admittedly they aren't remotely in my bailiwick.) It's not in core or another extension, is it? —Cryptic 18:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cryptic: it is a configuration parameter here (search for # wgRateLimits @{). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

8 per minute is too high a limit. Good point about the talk page doubling, but 8 is still pretty high. Do we have the ability to implement burst limits with the current software? I.e. 2/minute and 20/day? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. —Cryptic 18:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Xoasflux, one per hour would prevent moving any page along with its talk page. Moving a template could easily require 8 moves (template, template talk, /sandbox, /sandbox talk, /testcases, /testcases talk, /doc, /doc talk), or more if there are archived talk pages. 8/minute is a sensible burst rate, but a limit of something like 24/hour may make more sense. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Several (avoidable) issues about pagemove by new and newly-autoconfirmed editors/vandals have been resurfacing in the recent with filters proving ineffective. It is time for concrete proposal to restrict (move) ability to only Extended confirmed users. There are cogent reasons favoring this in this archived discussion which was incorrectly closed as SNOW. I am yet to see any reason not do this, except the usual and banal cliché that "this is a wiki that anyone can edit". –Ammarpad (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we have a sense of how often pagemove vandalism happens compared with how often there are legitimate mass-moves done by autoconfirmed users? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't regularly clean up pagemove vandalism, but I'd find it roughly the same amount of work to revert ten page moves as to properly histmerge even one good-faith cut-and-paste that should've been a move instead. And we'd see a lot more of the latter if we did this. —Cryptic 18:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  re Ajr, Not sure if there's such stats, but it's pretty recurring issue lately. I saw many discussions on ANI and VP on this within past few weeks. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  New editors cut-and-paste moving instead is a good point. I think limiting page moves to EC could cause more disruption than it would eliminate. Natureium (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  This is a really good point. Its easy for an admin to clean up page move vandalism. A single messy history merge is going to be as much work as correcting a fairly large number of bad page moves. Page move vandalism is fairly rare too... Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • The extended confirmed permission was created to enfore a specific arbcomm remedy on editing certain pages in inflammitory topic areas. Extending this to cover unrelated permissions to combat run-of-the-mill vandalism is a huge amount of scope creep. I know I supported this proposal the last time around, but the more I've thought about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that it would likely not have a net positive empact on the encyclopedia. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 18:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

    That was before. Extended confirmed is no longer used only to enforce arbitration remedy. And this has nothing to do with scope-creep, it is simple technical restriction not screed of text advising new editors not move pages. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with why I was hit with a rate-limit error yesterday? Damnedest thing; I'd never seen one before.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Newcomers need a few reading links before they begin editing, and definitely before they begin creating articles or drafts. AfC provides too many reading links, and is geared towards someone already committed to writing a new topic. The welcome template reading links will catch many of them before they commit to an ill-advised topic. Too many newcomers' talk pages are created by speedy deletion notices or AfC decline notices.

It's a very old perenial proposal, but I can't find anything in any archive that provides a good reason to not do it.

Perenail proposal links are:

• Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users & Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Frequently_denied_bots#Bots_to_welcome_users

The reasons sound as if they have been unreviewed for about six year.

Responses to the reasons for previous reject:

• 1. If bot-weloming is cold and impersonal, then being completely ignored is absolutely shilling.
• 2. Vandals can be exposed by a red user_talk link? True, but primitive, and the technique still works by looking at the color of the user link.
• 3. An estimate 1000 welcomes for every non vandal that edits? This is a WP:PERFORMANCE objection, and it reveals a lack of value for the registration process. It is not trivial to register, stuff to read, having to find a likeable never-used username, auto-welcome is far less an expenditure for the project than for the registrants.

• Hostbot? Run by User:Jtmorgan, good, but, the welcome givne has zero reading links, too few. I see from a look at a few authors of new drafts that it is not catching many authors. Looking at new authors, it is common for the registrant to make their first edit, a draft page creation, a few hours after registering. I think for them, the welcome links would help and not hurt. It is also common for new registrants to wait a long time before their first edit, in which case Hostbot misses them.

There is an interesting discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_3#Response_of_New_Editors_to_a_Welcome (August 2012)

• I agree with User:Berean Hunter 21:08, 26 August 2012 "The real purpose of the welcome is about getting them off to a good start with some links".
  Welcomes are for giving the basic starting information, initiating a conversation is not a high objective.
• User:Steven Walling 22:13, 26 August 2012 conclusion from a a German Wikipedia experiment, rings true, that: Shorter welcome templates are more effective.

• My feeling is that template:Welcome is about right, not too many links. Line links for reading/following. Maybe a few less would be better. Template:Welcome only, with zero reading links, has too few.

The most common theme of opposition is that autowelcoming robs human welcomers of the chance to be first to give the welcome. While I agree that this is a downside, it is far short of compelling. Human welcomers, like Hostbot, wait for edits. Newcomers need access to the reading links before they start editing. Also, a great many editing editors are never welcomed.
I suggest that human welcomers, and even Hosbot, could continue to thank new users for their first edits. A slight differentiation of the templates would be easy.

The proposal:

• All new registrants on en.wikipedia.org are to have their user talk page created with {{subst:Welcome}}, with the modification to the signature to explain that this is an automated welcome. This should be done by WMF software working straight from the registration process, to be developed if the proposal is supported.

• Accounts from other WMF projects, such as other language Wikipedias, will not be welcomed.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: are you aware that everyone who registers already gets a notification linking to Help:Getting_started? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't, but as per the Steven Walling 22:13, 26 August 2012 point, Help:Getting_started is way too heavy, WP:TL;DR. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. Sorry to be a wet blanket but a hand-crafted welcome is much better than a machine that welcomes silly vandalism. I put {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~ on a new user's talk page, but only when I think it would help the encyclopedia. Some people do not like receiving an automated welcome, and often they are the kind of academic person that we really need (I have seen that a couple of times, but can't provide a link). Edits made by someone with a red-linked talk page need extra scrutiny and a bot should not hide that. Welcoming vandals makes us look dumb and would encourage some personalities to think Wikipedia needed to be attacked because such a system is obviously silly. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The "hand-crafted welcome is much better" response I think is well answered by "hand-crafted welcomes are woefully failing to welcome newcomers when they need it most, which is after registration, and before their first edit.

Some people do not like receiving an automated welcome, sure, but the solution is to keep is brief, to the point. Most unlike Help:Getting_started. In this world, it is a common thing to sign up to things, and to immediately receive an emailed welcome providing the basic information. "red-linked talk page need extra scrutiny", yes, as do redlinked user pages. The counter point is that a newcomer seeing their own redlinked usertalk page is feeling a cold shoulder.

Welcoming vandals makes us look dumb? That's almost funny. Welcoming them before the vandalise looks like AGF not dumbness. I guess you really mean that welcoming obviously bad usernames looks dumb? I don't think so, everyone can understand what registration auto-welcome is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. If you check out the summary of message testing results the tl;dr is that even with automated messages delivered via tools like Huggle, a shorter message that is written in an informal, first-person language performs better. If we do want to try out an automated welcome, I'd just suggest writing it in a style that still feels like a person wrote it just for you. Additionally, some of the best help in such a message is to tell people how to contact a real fellow editor, not just give them FAQs or policy pages to read. Steven Walling • talk 04:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks User:Steven Walling. You were writing some very interesting things on this topic six years ago. At the very least, I think it is time for a review. I think, going on feelings, that newcomers these days, setting aside the very much large number of spammers, are arriving with less patience, and your point is even more important now than then. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• Per Steven Walling, a message simpler than {{welcome}}, but not with zero reading links like {{welcome only}} I think might be good. Perhaps a single reading link, to WP:5P? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• pinging @DRAGON BOOSTER: as he does a lot of welcoming. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm leaning to oppose because redlink talkpages are useful for detecting potential vandals and give an indication of "newbieness". My replies to redlink TP users are always different than my replies to bluelinked ones. I would propose a banner or automatic editnotice for newcomers instead. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think warning every new account is helpful. If the link they are pinged to isn't helpful, propose to change that page. I don't see how a redlinked talk page could feel like a cold shoulder. If they asked a question and no one answered, sure, but this isn't a social network, and we don't need to send everyone an impersonal automatic message. Natureium (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - same reason as L293D, redlinked talk pages are the number one reason that I review an edit on my watchlist. It is very important to look at the first couple of edits made by a user to detect if they are vandalizing Wikipedia. It also allows me to add specific messages to their talk page (for example, if they are making good edits but using primary sources to cite the information). Daylen (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per L293D and per the fact you'd just be welcoming vandals..... which would send out the wrong message, Also worth noting not everyone who registers immediately edits and some never do so again there would be no point welcoming them ...... –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support a trial. There needs to be concrete data and proper A/B testing to test an automated welcome message's effect on editor retention and rates of vandalism. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggest looking at the quality of newcomers first edits, comparing new registrants pointed to 5P in a brief message, against new registrants ignored. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support trying out the use of a bot for this purpose; if the biggest concern regarding this proposal is that we'd welcome some bad-faith editors who don't "deserve" to be welcomed, and it would clearly help new users who are here to contribute constructively find their way around, that's definitely a good idea. Everymorning talk to me 00:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support something different: We should be auto-delivering some pointers to basic editing how-to, key policy summaries, etc. so people can get started. "Welcome" sentiments are something that real humans should deliver.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. No issues with not calling it “welcome”. Help:Getting started is too heavy, I think few read it, and what I think too many are missing is WP:5P. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• What we should be doing is either rewriting Help:Getting started to be digestible, instead of the overgrown designed-by-committee monster it is, or making a new page and retargeting the hooray-you-just-created-your-account notification there. Save the talk-page messages for a human welcomer. —Cryptic 11:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Instead of autowelcoming new users, how about an automatic editnotice for their first ten edits? L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You know, that's a rather brilliant idea. I'd support that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that’s an excellent idea, but not instead. I think new users need to see WP:5P, that shouldn’t hinder a notice on their tenth edit. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There already is a notification for the tenth edit. (And the first, and hundredth, and each power of ten up to the millionth.) List of text here. Easy enough to customize that. —Cryptic 10:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the proposer means an actual WP:Editnotice, at the top of the editing window, not an Echo notification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Would help new users better understand WP, which is always a good thing. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd to discuss a talk page on its associated non-talk page, but proposals tend to go here, so we thus end up with a slightly odd self-referential discussion. Wikipedia talk:Village pump isn't a good place, because it's so rarely used (just six sections in the last two years, several of which don't deal with the VPs), and I don't want to propose this at one talk page and leave out anyone who cares about the others but not the one where I propose things.

Why do the various VPs need to have separate talk pages? The Reference Desks share a single talk page (see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Humanities, for example), as do WP:AN and WP:ANI. WP:AN3 has a different talk page, but it has a different structure: each section's completely isolated, and it's template-populated, versus discussions at AN and ANI. How are the various VPs at all different from each other from a technical perspective? Aside from our choice to put proposals here, ideas at the idea lab, etc., is there any difference among them? It seems to me we could just merge all of them into one, and either we could retain the existing archives or we could dump everything into one big page, rearrange them chronologically, and create a single unified archive system for everything. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Suppose Wikipedia talk:Village pump would suffice if going this way. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling this has come out on the Village Pump before, although I do not recall what the discussion said. Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Link to a related discussion here. TeraTIX 07:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think that's actually a bit different; the person asked why the VPs have any talk pages at all, while I'm simply asking about merging them all into one. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said 'related' instead of 'previous' or 'another'. TeraTIX 01:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean that what ever section of the Village Pump one is on, clicking on the talk page will take you to the same talk page? Vorbee (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that's what they mean. I personally am not sure about it, but can see the argument either way Nosebagbear (talk)

I suggest that Special:Recentchangeslinked be expanded to also list changes to associated talk pages. Now, a link list page must have links both to the subject page and to the talk page in order for talk page posts to be listed. This could be done easier with links just to the subject page, and have the "related changes" list talk page posts as well. Iceblock (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You can already elect to see (related) changes to "Talk" namespace only: example here showing changes to the pages that link to Talk:Wikipedia only. I hope this is what you're looking for. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If I view related changes to Category:Moon, only article-space pages are shown. Changes to Talk:Moon are not shown. The same thing happens when I create a page linking to Moon. Changes to Talk:Moon are not shown in this case either (unless there also is a link to Talk:Moon). What I propose is to include associated talk page changes to these lists. Iceblock (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Click on the "hamburger" icon to access the filters. Scroll down to "advanced filters". Click "namespaces". Select which namespaces you want.

Or you can put the page on your watchlist and the talk page comes along for the ride. --Khajidha (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, all pages in the User: namespace are automatically noindexed by the software. I think if we simply tell people about this, we might stop a few spammy userpage creations.

We already have {{Base userpage editnotice}} which only shows for base userpage creations (not subpages). I think if we change it from:

If you want to draft an article, please create a userspace draft instead of creating it here. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article, which explains what is expected of articles on Wikipedia. Articles or promotional content, including CVs or resumes, on user pages may be deleted. For more information on user pages, see Wikipedia:User pages.

to something along the lines of (alternate phrasings welcome of course):

If you want to draft an article, please create a userspace draft instead of creating it here. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Your first article, which explains what is expected of articles on Wikipedia. Articles or promotional content, including CVs or resumes, on user pages may be deleted. For more information on user pages, see Wikipedia:User pages. This page will not appear in any major search engine listings.

then maybe some spammers will think "why bother?" They'd have figured it out soon enough after they created the page, but this way they don't waste our time.

I don't know what to do about subpages. We might not want to irritate frequent userspace-draft creators with a garish editnotice like this. But if there is some way to only display a notice to new users, something similar could be created. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support sounds like a good idea to discourage spammers. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Easy anti-spam fix, and would also be nice for legit new users to understand (i.e., no need to be embarrassed about early-draft work).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as well, for above reasons. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 01:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose all this will do is make it more likely for them to force indexing by a magic word if they are dedicated enough. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Savvy spammers bypass this. I'm no fan of security through obscurity, but I'm still reluctant to help unsavvy spammers along: they're not going to think "why bother?", they're going to google up the various ways to bypass this. I'd rather be deleting unindexed user pages than indexed articles and drafts, by far. —Cryptic 01:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BEANS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Neutral: No harm in this, but not sure it will do anything either. I think the part telling them CVs/promotional content will be deleted (as rightly they're) just suffice.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Cryptic, and I'd add why teach people how to be WP:NOTHERE? If there is some problem stuff cluttering up the servers is that existentially bad for us? If not, hold your nose and move along. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Either they have a spammy clue, or they do not have a clue. If they do not have a clue, nothing is to be gained from educating them. Spam in user pages is better than span elsewhere - and there are ways and means of getting spam elsewhere (mostly) undetected.Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cryptic and BEANS. MER-C 12:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would be in favor if it wasn't easy to permit indexing (if __INDEX__ did not work for user pages, which I would personally like, but that would be the subject of another perennial discussion)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose:The last thing we need are spammers indexing their pages without even moving the shit to article space — FR ⁺ 16:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cryptic and BEANS. Let's not tempt spammers, eh? —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - If a user's intent is to spam, advertise, or promote, this proposal will basically them where they need to be adding their spam, advertising, or promotions... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm against this proposal. Edit notices are already very ineffective at conveying information to people because of banner blindness; the notices need to be made smaller, not larger, to be more useful. --Deskana (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as this won't be helpful. As mentioned above, some may just add __INDEX__ to the draft to index it and this would also be WP:BEANS. Probably would do more harm than good. — MRD2014 ^Talk 12:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In fairness to those who create articles, can something be done to bring together the rather loose criteria applied by those who review articles and the very rigorous criteria of those who are dedicated to trimming and deleting? Jzsj (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You should make a more specific proposal. Ruslik_Zero 21:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I would propose that whenever a reviewer passes an article (as notable), that this must follow a check of references to assure that at least one reference is given that passes WP:SIGCOV. If they do not find such a reference and they still pass the article, then they must place a warning on its Talk page that it does not pass WP:SIGCOV and may be deleted. Jzsj (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you consider writing up an essay and posting it in your userspace. Some user essays are used a lot; I often get comments about my essay at WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

But, 1AM's a policy, Guy.  %-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't review for WP:SIGCOV, but for WP:SIGNIFICANCE, a lower bar. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Where is the official guideline for reviewers that directs that you follow this essay rather than WP:SIGCOV? Thanks with help on this. @Hawkeye7: Jzsj (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's in the speedy deletion criteria, esp. A7: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7; no essay needed. That is, there's a specified pretty low bar needed to avoid speedy deletion. SIGCOV is still required, but this gives more time to work on that, and then off to AfD if it can't be found. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That's right. The NPP works to WP:NPPCSD: "In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete under CSD A7 where you think the topic is not notable, or does not prove notability by the references included. This is a common misunderstanding. The standard under A7 is solely whether the content contains a credible assertion of importance or significance (whether it actually is notable is a subject for an AfD discussion, not for speedy deletion). Consider using a Notability tag instead of a speedy deletion tag." This links to the aforementioned essay, as does WP:CSD, which is a policy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is a poster child for the existence of VPI. IMO, this page is for well-formed proposals, not a place to develop a proposal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am in the process of trying to make my way through all the policy and guidelines related to this and will reformulate my above proposal, possibly where proposals are developed rather than here. So let me call this one off, though I appreciate the guidance so far given. Jzsj (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

• meta:Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Meta: Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS

 – --Pipetricker (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)