Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-04-26/News and notes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost‎ | 2023-04-26

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HaeB (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 21 April 2023 (+mastodon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


News and notes

Staff departures at Wikimedia Foundation

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Andreas Kolbe, Aymatth2, Bri, and HaeB

Over 7% of Wikimedia Foundation staff have left since January 1

The WMF Talent & Culture Tuning Session deck for the January–March 2022 quarter was the last such deck published. It showed that during the nine-month period from July 2021 to March 2022, WMF staff increased by about a hundred, from 472 to 570. Today, the WMF indicates a headcount of "more than 700".

The Signpost has learned from tips, and confirmed with its own research, that over 7% of the WMF staff has separated since the beginning of the year. As of our writing deadline, the Foundation has not made any official statements about the matter that we are aware of, other than a message from the Movement Communications Director in this issue's piece on the WMF's annual planning process, stating that planned expense reductions "for the coming few years ... have also included looking at vacant/unfilled roles and about a 5% reduction in occupied roles."

Tips informed us that this process was not always managed in a way that resulted in smooth handoff of duties from staff members who are no longer employed, and has had some disruption to the community of Wikipedians. An off-wiki blog post by community member Legoktm has some more information on the process of discovery and the impacts from his perspective.

Although not a formal policy as far as we know, The Signpost staff have observed that WMF employees are routinely assigned accounts on Meta-Wiki when they onboard, and the accounts are globally locked when their employement terminates (voluntarily or not). The locking is often accompanied in the global account log with a message like "no longer employed at WMF". The various public account data and logs can be inspected manually or with semi-automated tools to robustly infer information on WMF staffing. These inferences were made well in advance of any messaging from the Foundation. Every organisation experiences churn; however, since the beginning of 2023, The Signpost has noted the loss of several Senior Program Managers and Directors, which may be unusual.

For historical context, the WMF's headcount has grown very significantly over the past two years. It stood at 472 at the end of June 2021, according to this Tuning Session slide. By end of March 2022, it had grown to 570 (240 new hires and 142 people leaving in that nine-month period). Since then, the Wikimedia Foundation has not published any quarterly Tuning Session slides with more recent data. However, according to the 2023–2024 draft Annual Plan just published, the WMF's total headcount on 31 December 2022 was 711, with almost half of all staff now based outside of the USA. The draft annual plan presents the following table:

At a Glance on 31 December 2022
Our total headcount 711 We had 711 total Foundation staff on 31 December 2022.
Countries 57 Our people are located across 57 countries and all continents except Antarctica.
Growth in headcount 10% The headcount has grown by 10% in the past 12 months (Dec 2021 – Dec 2022). This is down from 15% in the last quarter, and is down from 30% in the prior fiscal year.
Non-US Workers 49% 49% of our workers are located outside of the USA.
Tenure in years 3.8 Staff members are staying on the average for about 3.8 years.

The draft annual plan also takes the proactive step of disclosing two executive salaries, that of CEO Maryana Iskander (USD 453,000) and that of Chief Product and Technology Officer Selena Deckelmann (USD 420,000). Both figures represent base compensation. – B, AK

Project-level quality assessments

When Wikipedia was launched, each WikiProject was expected to assess the quality of articles independently. We assumed that different projects would have different views on what was required for a quality article. However, over time most projects have converged on the generic quality guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment. An article is assessed in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing and so on, and these are the same for all projects.

Recently a proposal was approved and has been implemented to support general quality assessments that can be shared by all the projects that have adopted an article. {{WikiProject banner shell}} has a new |class= parameter, and {{WPBannerMeta}} lets project banners "inherit" this assessment for the purpose of assigning categories like Category: C-class Ruritania articles. A project can opt out, and continue to assign its own quality ratings. The effect is shown below. WikiProject Highways has opted out, and has assigned its own "Future" quality rating.

The change will make it easier to update standard quality ratings and reflect the changes across all the projects that have adopted the article, apart from projects that still have unique approaches to assessing quality. – A

Jimmy Wales gives up his advanced permissions

Jimmy Wales has given up all the remaining advanced permissions (administrator, checkuser and oversight) he held on English Wikipedia. Wales requested they be removed in the course of an arbitration case request brought against him by former arbitrator AmandaNP (see this month's Signpost Arbitration report).

For the technically minded:

Wales retains the Founder flag as a courtesy; however, Founder permissions have been modified so he is no longer able to grant any advanced permissions to himself or others.

For more detailed coverage of this story see this issue's Opinion piece by Smallbones. –AK


Logo of Mastodon

Wikipedia gains an official presence on Mastodon... without the Wikimedia Foundation's involvement

In late 2022, the federated social network Mastodon rose in popularity, following the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Numerous Twitter presences for Wikimedia entities also saw the establishment of a Mastodon analogue. (Including this little newspaper - follow https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost for announcements of new Signpost issues.)

Not, however, the official @Wikipedia Twitter account, which is managed by the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. A November 2022 Phabricator ticket suggesting to mirror it on Mastodon went nowhere, with WMF staff stating on December 19 that "At this time, we have no plans to create an account for the Foundation or Wikipedia. This is mainly because our observations show us that Mastodon is not yet reaching a large audience." After feedback on the Wikimedia-l mailing list, the Communications department modified that stance somewhat, explaining on January 5 that "We want to be thoughtful and thorough in how we approach these questions and that takes time. We’re exploring with Foundation teams and we also have an upcoming meeting with the Communications Committee - this is on the agenda. [...] We’ll update folks on the social media talk page [...]". However, a March 31 "Organic social media strategy update" on that page made no mention of Mastodon or the fediverse.

This situation changed on April 12, with the creation of the Mastodon account https://wikis.world/@wikipedia , which has since already gained around 9000 followers. According to a documentation page on Meta-wiki, it is community-run, with the goal "to promote Wikipedia and free content on the Fediverse in a bottom-up manner." It has already been verified as official; via a code change on the Wikipedia.org project portal website. (Ironically, this happened just a few days before the @Wikipedia Twitter account lost its verification badge, among many other "legacy" verified accounts who did not take up the invitation of Twitter's new owner to convert their account into a paid one.) On April 18, this new @Wikipedia account on Mastodon was also welcomed by the official Mastodon Twitter account, which at the same time expressed excitement "to see [Wikipedia and Wikimedia] begin building integration with the free Mastodon identity verification into the Wikimedia platform."

Two Wikimedians currently have access to the new account according to its Meta-wiki page: Legoktm and Annierau. The latter is known for her wildly successful Depths of Wikipedia social media feeds (whose Twitter version has in fact a higher follower count than the official Wikipedia Twitter account - 773.3K vs. 642.4K). The news account is hosted on "Wikis World", a "Mastodon social media server for wiki enthusiasts" launched half a year ago by Legoktm and Taavi. –H


Brief notes

Article for Improvement: Sankebetsu brown bear incident of 1915, "the most brutal bear attack in Japanese history".
← Previous "News and notes"
+ 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 purging the cache.

Two Wikimedians currently have access to the new account according to its Meta-wiki page: * Legoktm and Annierau. Are there 2 Wikipedia mastodon accounts? Cause I thought TNT had access to it. Or have I been fooled by the fox..../lh ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed have. Tails Wx 13:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaze Wolf You are confusing @wikipedia@wikis.world and @mediawiki@wikis.world. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I see now. Similar but also different at the same time. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner or later TNT will probably have access to the @wikipedia account too, it's mostly on me for not having done so already :) Legoktm (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious if Signpost writers follow a different manual of style than the encyclopedia itself and, if so, where one might review it.--~TPW 13:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@True Pagan Warrior Content in the Wikipedia namespace is not subject to the MOS because they are not articles. More info at WP:PRJ. – The Grid (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ask because there is value to any news source having a style guide, be it the one from the Associated Press, or the one for Wikipedia entries, or a house guide. Based on what @Bri provided, it looks like the Signpost style guide is more about navigating mediawiki formatting than what one might find in the AP or Chicago guides. ~TPW 17:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@True Pagan Warrior Yes and no. When I'm copyediting I give credited authors a lot of leeway. But I routinely correct things that are WP standards like straight quotes and Oxford comma. The complete Signpost style guide is here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've written a style guide for a news site, and will enjoy reading this one. ~TPW 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem prudent if Wales were to retain the ability to view deleted pages and oversighted revisions. As a figurehead and de facto spokesperson, I suspect he occasionally gets asked about deleted content and BLP disputes involving oversighting. Read-only access to deleted material doesn't seem like a serious site security issue. Sandizer (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to say I love the use of the word "Abdicate" here, it seems to say just enough about the situation. Jimbo is still on the board of trustees, so at the end of the day I'm sure he has access to whatever info he needs through somebody else. ASUKITE 18:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding turnover of WMF staff, 7% in the first four months of 2023 would be - if continued - 21% for the full year. That's actually better than the December 2022 percentage ("Staff members are staying, on average, for about 3.8 years" is the equivalent of a 26% annual departure rate), and better than the departure of 142 of 472 employees in the June 2021 to March 2022 period (perhaps as high as 40%, depending on how many of the new hires during that nine-month period also quit during the period).
Regardless, for an organization that has had zero financial problems, losing 20 to 40 percent of employees every year seems higher than desirable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if anyone has looked into the reasons for this high turnover. Is it the workplace? Or just typical of the San Francisco region? (Silicon Valley is known for its employees moving back & forth between companies.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the update about general quality assessments, I totally missed it! Does anyone know if extensions such as Rater will be updated to support the new setup? Oltrepier (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scripts and tools like Rater do not conflict with the updated assessment format. So, these are safe to use. However, we would ask the maintainer, or in their prolonged absence, ask anyone familiar with JS to take up the script and modify it such that complete functionality can be introduced. But a lot of BTS work remains to complete, and it may not be soon enough. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation has 711 staff members (up from 525 last I read)? Where is Elon Musk when we need him to cut that number in half, or quarters, or a tenth, and with the right people it would run fine. No wonder they are trying to seep into Wikipedia in numerous ways recently, they have to give 711 employees something to do. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn:, this is flawed in quite a few ways at once (and I say as someone who has spent 4 years disputing WMF overreach). Putting aside that it's somewhat crass at a point when there have just been a round of WMF layoffs, several aspects come to mind: that is a truly terrible analogy - Twitter has egregious issues since Musk slashed their staff count. Additionally, the areas where the WMF try to "seep into Wikipedia" aren't really "recently". Instead, they date more from 3 years ago. The staff count was about 60% of its current tally at that point, so that's not holding up. Nor would it really hold up generally, if you take some time to look at where the staff generally are - tech development remains the biggest area, and the biggest increase on the community side is in reps who can function in more languages. Which major languages would you suggest we drop a community liasion for? Finally, I'd finish with a note that AGF applies to Foundation staffers singularly and in aggregate as well, not just to volunteer editors. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nosebagbear. You say the staff has grown by 66% in the last several years, even though it was very large even then. No surprise that they feel like they can reach into more control of Wikipedia. Tech and language functions are well and good, hopefully they continue. But a 711 member staff, up from 525 in a recent listing? Sounds like a fully functional organization, yet also an organization that promised the public and Wikipedia editors that a large amount (in the many millions of dollars) would be used on Wikipedia community projects, and those accumulated funds (how many years wasn't the announced amount spent?) should be both offered and provided to worthy projects. I and others have suggested many projects and other ways to spend the promised funding, and the foundation should also be funding major conferences around the world on an almost monthly basis. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That...doesn't really answer any of my rebuttals at all. Some are worthwhile additional points to your initial post, but my answer was never intended to be a complete defence of the WMF's spending focuses, but a response to your statement above. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis World

Thanks for featuring all the efforts that have been going on to improve Wikipedia's presence on Mastodon and the broader Fediverse. If anyone wants an invite to the Wikis World Mastodon server, let me know :) Legoktm (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: Do you prefer invitation requests on your Meta user talk page? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere that I'll get notified about is fine :) I just need to be able to email you the invite link or some other private communication mechanism. Legoktm (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The change to the Wikipedia portal allowing @wikipedia@wikis.world to be verified has been reverted for now. Nevertheless, that account remains active, helping this project to reach the Fediverse/Mastodon audience. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mxn: Was hoping someone else would ask, but: what does "verified" mean in this context? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Verification makes the profile look more trustworthy by confirming that the website link in the account profile “belongs to” the account in some fashion. For the @wikipedia@wikis.world account, the idea is that the account belongs to the Wikipedia community. Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, new to Mastodon. So the website has to do something to attest that the Mastodon account is connected to itself? In other words, account verification is something the website provides to "the world"? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: No worries, we’re all rookies, it’s the Wild West! It’s sort of a handshake protocol: the Mastodon account claims to be controlled by the same entity as a website, and the website claims to be controlled by the same entity as the Mastodon account. Once Mastodon sees the link in both directions, it adds the verification checkmark so readers can see that it wasn’t just someone randomly claiming to be Wikipedia. I don’t know if it’s possible for a site to claim to be multiple Mastodon accounts, but it isn’t a general service the way that, say, Twitter was deciding on a list of verified accounts. Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I think it works like this (I couldn't access Mastodon from where I was yesterday). If your Mastodon profile links to a website, and the website links back to the same Mastodon account with a rel="me" attribute, then Mastodon will display that account profile to others with a "verified" checkmark on the website. And we had this all set up for a while for the @wikipedia@wikis.world account linking to enwp, until WMF un-verified the account. Correct? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. There’s some uncertainty about when the wikis.world Mastodon instance or other Mastodon instances will actually notice that the account has been unverified, but long-term the verification does depend on the wikipedia.org portal. Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK with you if I condense this conversation and include it in News and notes with both of our names listed as author for the item? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine with me, though note that the discussion is still ongoing with the Communications Department about Mastodon and this account in particular. Minh Nguyễn 💬 16:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graph extension

The Graph extension is used widely on Wikipedia to display charts and graphs of all sorts, as well as on sister projects, and even on non-Wikimedia sites – it's included in MediaWiki, so there are about 884 public sites using it.

What does "included in MediaWiki" mean here? HaeB (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki is the wiki software that provides the platform on which Wikipedia and sister projects run, as well as many other sites. Presumably the phrase means that the Graph extension is included in the standard release of MediaWiki. I suspect, though, that many sites that run on the MediaWiki platform do not make actual use of Graph.  --Lambiam 20:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
means that the Graph extension is included in the standard release of MediaWiki...except it isn't though, which is probably why HaeB was asking. Legoktm (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those 884 are probably just wikimedia websites (and maybe miraheze, i don't know if they were using it, but they usually enable any extension wikimedia uses). Its certainly still a popular extension (Most extensions that wikipedia articles depend on are, as people often want to copy stuff from wikipedia), but the 884 number is very misleading without context. Bawolff (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Make sure we cover what matters to you — leave a suggestion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-04-26/News_and_notes&oldid=1150952946"