Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-10-23/News and notes

News and notes

YOUR ARTICLE'S DESCRIPTIVE TITLE HERE

By Andreas Kolbe, Bri, and HaeB

Example inline image and caption.

The year without a month that expanded the admin cadre

Outcomes of English Wikipedia requests for adminship (RfA). Black dots are RFAs that passed.

We have had 8 successful candidacies so far in 2023, which is just one more than the worst-ever year for RfA, which was 2021. The number of active administrators started year 2023 at 500, took a big dive in mid February for no reason that The Signpost has been able to determine, touched 452 a couple of times in April, and until October was steady around 460.

On October 16, we hit a new record low for 2023 at 450 active admins. For the next record, there is an April 2022‎ milestone of 449 active admins, and before that, we have to go back to 2005 to find an equal low point..

The reasons for this are cloudy and have been covered before by The Signpost for instance at "Administrator cadre continues to contract – more" in January 2022.

Recently, a discussion about this subject came up at the Administrators' noticeboard, in a discussion titled "Twelve fewer administrators". At the discussion, BeanieFan11 noted not a single month this year have we had a net gain of administrators, and so far all but one have had a net decrease, some large - per the admin's newsletter: January: +3, -11, net -8; February: +1, -5, net -4; March: +1, -2, net -1; April: +1, -1, net 0 (only month without negative net); May: +1, -4, net -3; June: +1, -3, net -2; July: +1, -8, net -7; August: +1, -4, net -3; September: +2, -4, net -2; October: +1, -12, net -11; Overall: +13, -53, net -40

At least one disappeared admin was fallout from the WP:ROADS controversy ending in a content fork and some departures, including Rschen7754 who resigned as an administrator and editor. – B

Knowledge Equity Fund

The Wikimedia Foundation has published comprehensive notes from the recent community call about the Knowledge Equity Fund on Meta. The notes include a Q&A. The WMF also highlights that the Fund has helped it to make new connections:

We contacted user groups and connected the grantees with them geographically or thematically, explaining the objects of the fund. We are also trying to create new synergies between Wikimedia user groups and external groups to increase our impact.

A few examples of connections we made are:

• Project Multatuli, which we connected with Wikimedia Indonesia
• Create Caribbean were connected with Noircir, Wiki Cari UG, Whose Knowledge, Projet:Université de Guyane and WikiMujeres
• Black Cultural Archives were connected with Noircir, Whose Knowledge and Wikimedia UK
• Criola were connected with Whose Knowledge, WikiMujeres and Mujeres (mulheres) LatinoAmericanas in Wikimedia and
• Data for Black Lives which we connected with AfroCrowd and Black Lunch Table

Through these connections, we have seen positive synergies within the movement at large

An ongoing English Wikipedia Village Pump Request for Comment on the controversial fund stands at 34:23 in favour of adopting the following non-binding resolution:

The English Wikipedia community is concerned that the Wikimedia Foundation has found itself engaged in mission creep, and that this has resulted in funds that donors provided in the belief that they would support Wikimedia Projects being allocated to unrelated external organizations, despite urgent need for those funds to address internal deficiencies.

We request that the Wikimedia Foundation reappropriates all money remaining in the Knowledge Equity Fund, and we request that prior to making non-trivial grants that a reasonable individual could consider unrelated to supporting Wikimedia Projects that the Foundation seeks approval from the community.

– AK

Community rejects proposal to create policy about large language models

A request for comment (RfC) to create an English Wikipedia policy or guideline regulating editors' use of large language models (e.g. via ChatGPT) was rejected recently. Specifically, the RfC concerned the proposal to elevate the draft page Wikipedia:Large language models (created in December 2022) to policy or guideline status. As summarized by the closing editor:

There is an overwhelming consensus to not promote. 1 editor would promote to policy, 7 editors prefer guideline, and 30 editors were against promotion. 2 editors were fine with either policy or guideline. [...] The most common and strongest rationale against promotion (articulated by 12 editors, plus 3 others outside of their !votes) was that existing P&Gs [policies and guidelines], particularly the policies against vandalism and policies like WP:V and WP:RS, already cover the issues raised in the proposals. 5 editors would ban LLMs outright. 10-ish editors believed that it was either too soon to promote or that there needed to be some form of improvement. On the one hand, several editors believed that the current proposal was too lax; on the other, some editors felt that it was too harsh, with one editor suggesting that Wikipedia should begin to integrate AI or face replacement by encyclopedias that will. (2 editors made a bet that this wouldn't happen.)
Editors who supported promoting to guideline noted that Wikipedia needs to address the use of LLMs and that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. However, there was no general agreement on what the "perfect" looked like, and other editors pointed out that promoting would make it much harder to revise or deprecate if consensus still failed to develop.

Similarly, on Wikimedia Commons a page collecting guidance about AI-generated media (particularly the use of generative AI models such as DALL-E, Stable Diffusion or Midjourney), likewise created in December 2022, is still marked as "a work in progress page", although it appears to have progressed a bit further already towards reflecting community consensus.

In any case, discussions about generative AI are continuing in the Wikimedia movement, also in off-wiki fora such as the "ML, AI and GenAI for Wikimedia Projects" Facebook group and the "Wikimedia AI" group on Telegram (non-public but with public invite link). At Wikimania 2023, it was the subject of various sessions including two panels titled "AI advancements and the Wikimedia projects" (video) and "ChatGPT vs. WikiGPT: Challenges and Opportunities in harnessing generative AI for Wikimedia Projects" (video). – H

Brief notes

[[File:|center|300px|]]

Example filler image and caption.

• Annual reports: Wikimedistas de Bolivia
• Wikimania videos are up: Two months after Wikimania (which took place in Singapore as an in-person event, for the first time since 2019), video recordings of the conference's sessions have become available on Commons (joining unedited recordings that were already published during the event on YouTube).
• New user-groups: The Affiliations Committee announced the approval of this month's newest Wikimedia movement affiliate, the TKTK.
• Milestones: The following Wikimedia projects reached milestones this week: TKTK
• Articles for Improvement: This week's Article for Improvement is Color calibration. Please be bold in helping improve this article!

← Previous "News and notes"

In this issue

23 October 2023

News and notes

In the media

Gallery

Featured content

Traffic report

News from Diff

Humour

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try .

Record low number of active administrators

The net -40 admins this year refers to all administrators, not active ones, which is partially a function of changes to inactivity desysop practice. Aside from the weird one-off drop from 8 February (498) to 9 Marchish (462), depending on how exactly you assess it the drop in active admins during 2023 is somewhere around 10-15 (eg. there are 449 as of last update). CMD (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re: Record low number of active administrators – Long and short of it: it's not that being an admin is unattractive. For me personally, having the tools would mean more areas where I could help out and not having to bother an admin to edit a fully-protected page. While I've had a few run-ins with admins, the vast majority of my relationships with them have been highly educational, leading me to honor them, all of them, at every opportunity for their help and for the trust they have earned before and during their tenure as admins. So maybe it's the way an editor becomes an admin that is not so attractive? RfA with all its shortcomings over the years has given us many really good and trusted mop wielders; however, we all know how stressful it can be for some editors. Is there a better way? Perhaps when an editor meets certain requirements, longevity, number of edits and such, they become eligible to attend a formal admin instruction system. This school of sorts could show them the basics to help them decide where they want to work and such. I've always thought that becoming an admin should be much more educational and far less the rigors of a confrontational gauntlet. We could learn something from various other training programs and adapt them to what is inarguably an original and unique situation. But that's just me; I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• this article is going to generate a whole lot of discussion about administrators, and as usual, nothing will be done. ltbdl (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  +1 unfortunately. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 03:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not really active on enwiki, but are we sure that a low number of active admins is a bad thing? Like are there problems in areas of enwiki that are caused by a lack of admin participation? I feel like those problems should be mentioned when covering this "issue" if that's the case... Lectrician1 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The answer is pretty plainly yes, we need administrators. As a single data point, as I write this, there are 75 cases in the sockpuppets investigations backlog – either CU Requested or Open. I'm sure there are other places one can look for unacceptable stats in critical functions where the admins are absolutely necessary. Any number of which represent at the best, drag on the overall system, and at the worst, the potential unraveling of a trust- and cooperation-based environment. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    But most admins aren't checkusers, right? That's a similar problem, but still a separate problem. -- asilvering (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Checkusers are needed for the part of the backlog that is pending checkuser, not the others. They probably need more clerks. I asked if they are short handed, but didn't ever get a reply. Clerks can be administrators but are not necessarily; of the current roster, about half are admins. If you are a non-admin clerk, you can't see deleted contributions so there are some technical limits to the amount of investigation that can be done. Clerking is frequently listed as a qualification of people seeking adminship. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Right, so again, the issue there is not a lack of admins. -- asilvering (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    That's not my takeaway from the link to RfA discussions. The folks who bring it up are often saying to the community "I need to be an admin to be effective as a SPI investigator". And most of the time that is a good reason to be made an administrator according to the RfA outcomes. Quoting the nomination for Ivanvector, We need more SPI clerks, and we desperately need more who are administrators. I think that says it plainly enough. Oh, that was in 2016 by the way, when there were about 100 more active admins than today. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  • added later See what Liz says below that seems to corroborate my observations. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I've long been in favor of an academy of some kind, as well as a rehabilitative academy/program where trust may be re-acquired after someone has had their mop removed. I still believe in the gauntlet of RfA. I believe the core value one brings to the position is trust. I'm biased towards a demonstration of commitment though time served. The entire process runs on AGF and willingness. I must remark, not very many folks at WP:ORCP any time recently. Of Archive 16, about 5 are non-serious queries (Carolina Heart, Ekdalian, L1amw90, Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300, Seawolf35), five are serious inquiries where the OP received significant feedback (Epa101, Adolphus79, AirshipJungleman29, Mattdaviesfsic, Taking Out The Trash), one (Partofthemachine) is a deliberately disruptive self-nom, two (Curbon7, Ganesha811) are clear agreements and one (Ingenuity) is now an admin. BusterD (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I notice several admins amongst several others, retiring this year. I wonder if its the start of a trend, lots of the original folk retiring and leaving. A lot of these folk have been here since the beginning. Nothing will change until we get rid the circus that is RFA. We need a much more professional system that doesn't puts people through the mill. Wikipedia lost a good editor this year who was massively productive as an NPP coordinator. He was really put throught the mill, beyond belief and then disappeared immediately afterwards. An application system and that is what it is, which is so destructive needs to go. If its a trend, it might accelerate, bringing the WMF in here in 3-4 years to appoint admins. We will have no choice. They are not going to let their product go under, due to lack of progess our part. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• I can certainly understand the admin issue. It is an intersection of several problems. One is that administrators wield tremendous power compared to us ordinary yokels and have far greater prestige, by which I include the "soft power" of their status even when their "tools" are not used. Anyone who has ever ventured into ANI can attest to that. They have to be selected with great care because it is a lifetime position, very much like a federal judge in the U.S. Yet at the same time, the process of becoming an administrator is protracted and can be cruel. Longtime users avoid burnout by staying out of fights if at all possible, and finding a little niche in which they may be of use. This is a far better way of using one's limited spare time than becoming an administrator. I know of no way of resolving this problem, and it is a problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are some niches for administrators to avoid burnout as well, the thing is of course anybody unhapppy even with a single administrative action can just require a full report on everything an administrator has ever done, which in the best case scenario leads to a huge time loss. Ymblanter (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That "full report" you mention is news to me. First I've ever heard of such a thing. Is that something new? Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. It is just a literal application of WP:ADMINACCT - in theory, an admin must be able to explain every single edit, and sometimes users insist on explaining every single edit in a certain episode. (Basically saying, that if the explanation is not forthcoming immediately, the matter gets referred to Arbcom). Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh come on. Users, good or bad, haven't an icicles' chance in hell against admins in the drama boards unless they have a huge phalanx of supporters to back them up, especially at AN and ANI. I've seen abusive admins taunt proles about going to ANI. They know the deck is stacked. Sure you can ask for a "full report," and you will then be tasked with pounding sand. Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth#Previous attempts at resolution to see how hard it is to desysop an admin who wasn't actually malicious or abusive, just a nice guy (I've met him in real life, he is) who was sub-optimal over years of issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the admin or arbcom case in question, but the record of that arbitration paints a different picture than you are presenting (e.g. he or she "regularly performed deletions that do not comply with the deletion policy" among other things), and it substantiates my point, that it takes the Wikipedia equivalent of World War II to dislodge bad admins from their posts. Calling such positions the "mop" as some do, and saying it is "no big deal" is delusional, as if it was such a triviality, admins that bad would be desysopped right and left. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Coretheapple I read Ritchie's comment as a supplement to your own, not a refutation of it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  You know, you're right? I'm striking out my comment. Sorry Ritchie. Coretheapple (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Pinging Ritchie333 to be sure he sees my mea maxima culpa. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re "Record low number of active administrators", I think folks are just busier in real life since 2020, myself included, often caretaking for relatives with long Covid. I would love to be an admin again, and perhaps will run again in 2024. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• It's not just a low number of RFAs with passing candidates that is an issue, we have areas that need admin care that are seeing fewer and fewer admins participating in them. This is a volunteer job so that is their perogative to work when and where their interest takes them, but I've seen a change just over the past few years. When I started closing AFDs nearly two years ago, I could probably name a dozen admins who would go over to close AFD discussions. Now, you look at a daily log page and you'll see the names of 3 or 4 (or sometimes only 2) admins on any given day closing discussions (along with helpful NAC closers). And it's not just deletion discussions but noticeboards as well. I'm not sure if it is burnout or getting called to Deletion Review to be scrutinized or just a loss of interest and moving on to other activities. But it's much easier to handle the load with a larger group of admins each doing a little bit. Of course, it could be that there is an overabundance of deletion discussions now compared to past years but someone would have to run the numbers to see what past averages were.
  It reminds me of when I was a graduate student working as an adjunct professor. We were all anxious because we were getting extremely low pay for teachig and they were not tenure-track jobs. But the regular professors were concerned because with fewer non-adjunct professors, there were fewer professors to sit on committees, fewer advisers to students, fewer bodies to handle the non-classroom duties that are part of their role as tenured professors that go largely unacknowledged. So, while we need more new recruits, through RFAs, we also have to keep existing admins interested in helping out where and when they can. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• A not-insignificant cause can probably be attributed to RFA. I'm not entirely saying it should be a cakewalk to become an administrator, especially given the sheer amount of things that can be done as a sysop that, for necessary reasons, not everyone has access to review and criticize about. One notable example should be the ability to delete pages. These are then entirely hidden from everyone except other administrators, so it's not like the permission should be handed out to anyone who tosses their hat in the ring. But perhaps something that is a problem is the immense and overwhelming pressure at RFA. I'm fairly sure anyone who's looked at an RFA oppose section can, more often than not, see commentary that can range from mildly distasteful to outright incivility, and this is perfectly fine in an RFA, while it would result in a warning or even a block in other places. It isn't necessarily a bad thing that the bar is a little higher for what counts as incivility at a forum to decide whether someone is trustworthy enough to wield some of the most powerful tools on the site, but the bar seems way too high for what is actually acceptable before an admin removes it for breaking WP:CIVIL. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't like the idea of setting the bar for incivility higher on RFA than elsewhere; it would just make RFAs the new ANI. If someone has an issue with a candidate that would cause them to oppose their candidacy, they should be able to express it without the use of incivility. Civility is one of our five pillars, and the standards at RFA shouldn't be somehow different than elsewhere. I don't think the issue with RFA is necessarily incivility, though (I'm sure there are examples, but can't think of any; I don't recall any incivility issues on my own RFA). I think the main problem is that there are no official standards to becoming an admin, so editors concoct their own criteria and evaluate candidates based on that. It isn't like our content, where we have firm, official policies on verifiability and notability, and discussions on talk pages are generally centered around those. RFA has no guiding Polaris, so people are essentially free to support or oppose based on whatever they choose. You can't help but feel rather disheartened when people just try a little too hard to find (idiotic) reasons to oppose. While coming up with such terrible arguments would at best get you laughed off a talk page, such a circus directed at the candidate can dissuade them from running again, if their impression of RFA is a place where editors go to turn their brains off. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The civility rules are not uniformly enforced on Wikipedia to begin with, and in fact one of the perennial complaints one hears is that certain admins flout the civility rules themselves, while expecting those same rules to be enforced strictly if they are subject to criticism. If admins required re-confirmation every few years, that issue would be largely alleviated. Indeed, the fact that these are permanent positions, and that abusive admins cannot be readily removed, is one of the reasons RfAs are so demanding in the first place. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• While the fall in admin numbers is concerning, I think there are other metrics we should look at alongside those statistics. From what I can tell, we've managed to keep (most of) the admin backlogs down to a reasonable level fairly consistently over the last few years, even with fewer of us around to do it. Noticeboards like UAA, AIV etc. are usually cleared fairly quickly, people get a quick response at AN and AN/I, AfDs are often closed or relisted promptly 1 week after they open... so while the numbers might be dwindling, the "mopping and stopping" seems largely unhindered by having a smaller team doing it.
  I think the advent of various filters, bots, helper scripts and other tools have taken a fair chunk of the admin strain away so while we may be fewer in number, we're still a fairly efficient bunch on the whole. Perhaps another change is that a lot of situations that previously were new and needed in-depth discussion now have clear precedents and policies for us to fall back on, enabling us to act quicker and more decisively in a lot of cases. WaggersTALK 09:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm with the others skeptical that lower admin numbers per se are a problem, though obviously it isn't an encouraging trend. Liz's comment about service work in grad school strikes me as illustrative here: I think the problem is a lack of committed, capable volunteers in various parts of the project. In my nearly three years of AfD participation, I have only very rarely noticed a concerning backlog in closes - usually none at all, and never more than a couple of days, and then only for difficult cases. My enduring impression of AfD is that it desperately needs more contributors, not more closers. I am an AfC reviewer, and we need many more AfC reviewers (also not admins) to keep on top of that backlog. SPI is cited above as another area, and again that's one that doesn't need admins as such, but rather clerks and checkusers. The only area I can think of that needs more admin help is DYK (and I remember leeky's first run at RFA and the absolute deluge of ageism she received for doing so). A common RFA oppose is "no need for the tools". Frankly, it doesn't look like Wikipedia is desperate for people to use those tools, nor does the community tend to support people who offer to use them. What Wikipedia does need is sensible people working in various areas of need. We need work on mobilizing more people to do these back-end maintenance jobs. -- asilvering (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have noticed this as well. One of the areas most starved for attention is Copyright cleanup investigations. Most of the work there doesn't need admin rights, just somebody prepared to go through and do a bunch of what I'd consider to be boring and repetitive work, with an added bonus of being yelled at if you make a mistake. To be honest, it's one of those things you won't make a serious dent in unless you paid someone to do it, but the whole stigma of "paid editors" (as opposed to simply crap paid editors with a massive conflict of interest) seems to shut down this avenue of thinking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333 At least from the perspective of overcoming systemic bias, I truly think it would be a good use of WMF money to hire some fluently multilingual editors to go through backlogs at WP:PNT and WP:AFC in Chinese and Arabic. The fluently multilingual volunteers we have have more interesting and less burnout-inducing things to do with their time. For the copyright cleanup, I assume that will be backlogged to hell until someone sues the WMF over it, at which point we may indeed get a "paid editor" working in that space. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: The reason you see no backlog is because you are looking at the "popular" XfD page. If you look at WP:RfD instead of AfD, as of the time of writing, the backlog goes all the way to September. And that's not just a one-off - RfD is pretty much always backlogged a ridiculous amount. RfD is hardly the most important thing that admins could be doing, but that's exactly what makes it such a great barometer of administrator backlogs. It is the routine, boring running of the wiki that is backlogged, not necessarily the high-profile stuff that admins (and regular users) want to do. --NYKevin 17:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• In my own humble, but experienced opinion, there have been two factors at work with the number of admins. One contributed to an unreasonable inflation of numbers: it's obvious to anyone who has edited Wikipedia for more than a few weeks that since anyone can edit Wikipedia, there's no way to prove one is an "important" member of the community -- as opposed to a dabbler who is sorta involved -- which led to a lot of people wanting to be an admin. However, when the Foundation evolved from a paper existence to a real one, those needing to prove they're an "important" member can get involved in the functionary aspect of things, thus reducing the attraction of being an admin. (By "functionary" I mean those volunteers who occupy themselves in the numerous committees or the Wikimedia chapters. Not to say all, or even most, people who are involved in those are simply looking to add a line to their resumes. However, it is a fact most committees will have one or more members who are there to simply prove they are doing important work -- the more important the committee, the more likely it will have deadwood.)
  The second factor effecting the number of admins is a negative one: most of what an admin does is not all that exciting. Spending some time doing it with little acknowledgement -- & more often negative than positive or constructive -- results with admins losing enthusiasm for the task. I'm not pointing fingers here -- I'm definitely as bad if not worse than anyone else about not providing positive reinforcement -- but for the Wikipedia community to survive, we need to provide more support for each other. -- llywrch (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Update: Daily update, 444 active admins - Rick Bot, latest. Another record. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Working on it, give me a minute... jp×g 01:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• tl;dr: Wikipedia does not have enough administrators → People complains about it → People all agree that RfA is the main root cause for it → Make an RfC on how to fix RfA → People complain that doing so would lower the administrator standard → These changes are not enacted → Wikipedia does not have enough administrators → ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  @CactiStaccingCrane: You ever look at the instructions for nominating: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate It's by far the most discouraging page on here. There's an essay somewhere too that lists all the things you have to do including make your signature custom but boring, which pops to my memory because I just looked JPxG's RfA and one of the top questions is Are you open to changing your signature....Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Time to fix it then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• I just got a notification of a new RfA discussion, meaning as of date there are 3 candidates, all of whom have high numbers of supporters. Seems like this edition of Signpost is doing something. GeraldWL 04:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ha ha ha ha, this page actually helped a lot. Kinda like when three busses follow the same path... The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And bang goes another admin: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lourdes. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Permalink for the reader of the far future. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Knowledge Equity Fund

• "Data for Black Lives which we connected with AfroCrowd and Black Lunch Table... Through these connections, we have seen positive synergies within the movement at large". That's very nice. Now, can someone translate this from corporation speak into plain language? We have spend five six(!) digits on that particular KEF grant, presumably. And what does it mean for Wikimedia? All I can find is more happy marketing corpo speak at [1] that "They will be receiving a one year grant of $100,000, which they will use to launch a Movement Scientists Fellowship. This Fellowship will match racial justice leaders with machine learning research engineers to develop data-based machine learning applications to drive change in the areas of climate, genetics, and economic justice. They will also launch a new series of educational programs, such as free and open oral histories that promote data literacy." I applaud what those NGOs are doing - but I don't see why we should be funding them?? (Bonus points for anyone who can point me to where that particular grant proposal actually exists, I couldn't even find it through Google or meta search). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions