Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74

Severance pay at WMF reaches new heightsEdit

The Foundation's Form 990 published today shows that the WMF paid 5 executives a combined total of over $1.2 million in severance pay. About half of this was pocketed by Katherine Maher. Individual figures as given on page 50:

  • Katherine Maher $623,286 (over 150% of her base compensation in her last full year)
  • Janeen Uzzell $324,748 (over 100% of her base compensation in her last full year)
  • Heather Walls $153,612
  • Lynette Logan $74,645
  • Anthony Negrin $70,920

In 2021 there were six WMF executives receiving total compensation of more than $400,000; likely to be more now.

For historical comparison, the severance payment Lila Tretikov got in 2016 was $262.5K, approx. 77% of her $342K base compensation in 2015, her last full year. Andreas JN466 20:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dunno, I'm pretty sure I've provided at least 1/10 the value Katherine Maher has to Wikipedia, I wouldn't mind some of that cash. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s a bold statement. Frostly (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does this compare with typical severance settlements regarding similar posts in nonprofit organisations? Anyone have any data? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparently this has been recognized as a problem, and the "Highlights of Form 990" blog post talks about severance and links to an earlier blog post which has a small mention of "new standardized severance policy for staff at all levels of one month of severance pay for every year of their employment, up to nine months (unless local laws require otherwise)", or in other words 75% base compensation maximum. Matma Rex talk 21:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now we know what those donations are going towards. On a more serious note, we do need to take care that the WMF structure is not captured by profiteering opportunists. BD2412 T 22:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder whether the new "standardized" severance policy still requires people to agree to a "You agree to refrain from publicly criticizing, denigrating, or otherwise disparaging WMF, WMF Board members, WMF officers, or WMF staff members, or otherwise take any action which could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the reputation of same" clause (and/or "You agree not to disclose the existence, contents or negotiations leading to this Agreement, unless required by law") to get any severance. Anomie 11:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the WMF has identified a role which is unnecessary, and paid a year's salary to make that ongoing commitment go away, then that may be a wise investment which will repay itself every year. However, if the WMF just took on someone else to do essentially the same job then we need to look more closely. For example, if a departing employee didn't do their job adequately, or decided to leave of their own accord, then we must ask why they should be compensated for going. Other explanations are possible, and I make no comment on any individual listed above, as I am not in a position to assess their contributions. Certes (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reorgs are expensive, as Certes notes. When the WMF board embarked on a journey to replace the management and decided to get a new ED from outside, surely they knew it would come at a cost, but they decided the benefits were still higher. Upfront cash outlays like severance pay are more visible than other costs, but often they're worth it: a bitter departure can also come at considerable costs, as does any delay in implementing necessary changes.
Personally I think WMF management has performed very poorly for the past 10 years or more, and change needs to start at the top. If anything I hope the WMF has budgeted for more severance costs this year, so that changes can happen at a suitable speed and not be unnecessarily delayed by personal circumstances. A layoff equal to 5 % of the headcount was already announced for 2023, so I wouldn't be surprised to see one-time expenditure of 10 % of the annual budget to make it possible (especially if the more expensive USA-based roles are involved).
That said, the mantra of "professionalisation", which was constantly repeated since the early 2010s to justify the increases in wage expenditure for top and middle management, has only wrecked damage on the Wikimedia mission, so it would probably be healthy for WMF to reduce overall management costs in the next few years. Less managers often means less ill-advised vanity projects thrown to us just for the sake of justifying salaries or promotions. Nemo 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's worth noting that even the present WMF management appears to acknowledge that these payments were excessive. A Diff post published last month describes new guidelines that ...
have also provided an opportunity to better align our processes globally when staff leave the Foundation. This includes a new standardized severance policy for staff at all levels of one month of severance pay for every year of their employment, up to nine months (unless local laws require otherwise) – any exceptions require a joint recommendation by the Head of Talent & Culture and the General Counsel, with final approval from the CEO.
If I read this correctly, this would cap severance at 75% of annual (base?) compensation (for employees with a tenure of nine years or more); someone who has only been at the WMF for a little over two years (like Uzzell, for example) would only get around 1/6 or 1/4 of their compensation.
As can be seen, however, even this new policy still allows for "exceptions", plus there have been cases recently of steep pay rises for executives in their final year at the WMF (which might then obviously also increase the severance). So it seems by no means assured that the new policy will prevent the recurrence of such large severance payments, which are ultimately paid from global Wikipedia donations. Right? Andreas JN466 12:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Local laws permitting, the pay rise just before departure could be countered by handing out not one month's pay per year of service, but one twelfth of their total salary to date. The cap could still stay, though I expect the very few staff who have served for more than nine years didn't earn much ten years ago. Certes (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For an interesting historical overview of WMF executive pay see m:Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries. The page has just been updated and reorganised. Andreas JN466 11:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It'd be nice if the WMF at least reimbursed me for the books I've had to buy to write comprehensive articles that help contribute to someone's bloated pay. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 12:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say that is what still rankles with me as well: the money I spent on books back in the day (before the Wikipedia Library, and before the ballooning of these pay checks). Chipping in was all well and good as long as everybody was poor. But then ...   Andreas JN466 12:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we fork then? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the WMF fundraising giving me vibes... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a tough question which deserves its own page, if not its own website. The WMF has many faults, but there are signs that the juggernaut is starting to turn and remember its former core values of serving readers and helping editors to do so. Forking is possible but far from easy given a very wealthy owner which controls our trademarks, URLs and hardware. Certes (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No chance. Too big to fail. At this point it (like Facebook and others) can only be disrupted by something better, never replaced by an equivalent. DFlhb (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mastodon seems to be replacing Twitter, the only disruption being growing dislike of its ownership. But this thread isn't the best place for such discussions. Certes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm periodically reminded of Mastodon only every now and then when someone brings it up, a bit like the concept of an actual mastodon, and it's still not clear to me how one is supposed to use it. Cheers, WaltClipper -(talk) 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your first editEdit

TLDR: Did you make an edit first, or did you create an account before your first edit?

A conversation over at Meta-Wiki about m:IP masking has revived my curiosity about how experienced Wikipedia editors got started. Specifically, was your first edit as an IP, or did you Special:CreateAccount before making that very first edit?

For example, my first edit was as an IP, probably sometime in 2005. It was probably fixing punctuation, because when someone puts a comma in the wrong place, I'm in the "Duty Calls" mindset.

This is meant to be a fun question, and I hope that a lot of registered editors are willing to help me find out what's common. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited as an IP firstEdit

  1. WhatamIdoing (=volunteer-me) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Pretty sure I did.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Aye, I don't remember which page but I did make one or two edits before registering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Just a few typos. I show an unreasonable level of hatred for sites which expect me to register just to read content they could have served me instead of a registration form, but soon realised that Wikipedia did not fall into that category and was well worth joining. Certes (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I made about ~150 edits over 3 years as an IP, before creating my account when I wanted to create either a redirect or a disambiguation page (don't remember which), which I couldn't do while logged out. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Random minor type edits back in 2005, but if I started on a new project today I'd register first. — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. One edit early in 2005, added a phrase that a radio station's call letters supposedly represented, then waited to see if it would be reverted because it was unsourced. Created an account in August 2005 to make one edit, started editing in earnest in October 2005. - Donald Albury 16:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Obviously. But maybe I don't count here, since I never made an edit with the account I eventually created. (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Yes, and I revealed it many years ago, see User:Redrose64#Editing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Minor edits. Dege31 (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Yes, but I probably wouldn't if I was starting out today. the wub "?!" 21:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. I edited for quite some time before making an account. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I think it was about a month as an IP. Art LaPella (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. I edited for a few months as an IP years ago, improving a few pages here and there, but I mostly did anti-vandalism. OutsideNormality (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Probably around a dozen small edits in January and February of 2013. I don't think I would've became a regular editor here if registration had been required. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. I absolutely did, probably for several months in late 2005 to early 2006. I was so excited to find a website I could actually correct. I didn't register until I found I wanted to write a missing article. Ntsimp (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Yes, I did. But that was back in 2002, which was another time & another Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Made hundreds of edits in 2014 before registering. – SD0001 (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. I loved to contribute with no account, and I still do. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. I edited for probably half a year as an IP before making an account. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created an account before first editEdit

  1. I was read-only for quite awhile and then made my first edit using this account. RudolfRed (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Ditto, but I read Wikipedia through a mirror. Once I found out this site could be edited, I created my account and began contributing. Graham87 06:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. If I recall I created an account to participate on talk pages, editing after that. CMD (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I seem to have created an account in May 2006, made my first edit with it in June 2006 (seems unlikely - possibly I edited pages which have since been deleted?). I suppose I might have edited earlier as an IP but have no memory of doing so! PamD 07:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @PamD: Your earliest deleted edits are three from 15 June 2006, all to The University of Nottingham Hillwalking and Rambling Society. Your earliest live edit is from 9 June 2006 - six days earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Redrose64: Ah yes, I remember that article. I wonder why I created an account a month before I used it ... will never know. I do know that I was encouraged to edit by my former colleague, the late lamented GuillaumeTell. PamD 07:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. My first edit was to an AfD discussion to which I had been canvassed, but I didn't make a comment that the canvasser would have liked. I don't think that I was aware that I could contribute to the discussion without creating an account. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. I seem to have created this account at the end of 2012 with my first edit in late 2013. Although I did not start regularly editing till March 2017. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Created this account in case I ever wanted to edit. My first edit was two years later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. It was so long ago (early 2003) that I can no longer be sure, but I think I created this account for my first edit. Probably unknowable at this point. Skynxnex (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure it was an account with a plan Nosebagbear (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. I've only ever edited logged out by accident. I don't think I knew it was possible to edit logged out. Had some trouble even finding the edit button. Schierbecker (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. My first wiki was another in 2005/2006ish timeframe in an ecosystem that had an expectation of logging in (video gaming). Besides it being natural here, I understood the privacy context for logging in as well rather than editing logged out. IznoPublic (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. I created an account to avoid my IP being shown publicly. Frostly (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. I had the idea (I don't remember where from) that I could do some Wikipedia copyediting as a distraction / procrastination activity. As I recall I created an account because it was recommended at the time – I remember being annoyed that my preferred username was already taken. Wham2001 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. I had the idea that if I write something I am responsible for my words. unfortunately people tend to misuse this.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other discussionEdit

Should this discussion refer to editors whose earliest edits were signed by users who signed off their names in red letters, because they had not learnt how to set up user pages? That was the case with me, and you might, if you traced back the history of some articles far enough, find edits I signed as being by ACarl or Cardamom, both in red letters. YTKJ (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) You can find some edits by "Cardamom" on the article on the Psychology of Religion, dating back to July 2005. YTKJ (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many editors "sign off their names in red letters" because they see no need to set up a user page, just as many people (like myself) don't have a presence on social media or an email account. Anyone wishing to contact such an editor can set up a user talk page for them themself or ping the editor. (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey Wikipedia 2023Edit

A banner currently on my watchlist reads:

Please help us better understand what you do on Wikipedia! By responding to this questionnaire created by an international group of university researchers and members of the Wikipedia community. (Answers are collected outside the Wikimedia Foundation's servers, by the public research center, in France)

I spent 15 minutes or so answering questions, then was called away to attend to a domestic issue for a few minutes. When I returned, I spent another few minutes answering the questions on the current page, hit "next", and was told:

We are sorry but your session has expired.

I therefore advise people to avoid this egregious waste of time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just hate things that do this. Don't people realise that by taking part in a survey we are helping them, rather than ourselves, so no such obstacles should be put in our way? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Pigsonthewing. Sorry to hear that; of course we want people to be able to answer as smoothly as possible! As said below, we are going to expend the session time, before turning to other solutions Jullienn (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've asked the server host to extend the session time (in the meantime, I've add a sentence reminding to "save" the session. Hope that helps Jullienn (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got the "session expired" message a few minutes ago in what seemed like spurious circumstances as well. Feels like a blunder in the back end. BSVulturis (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jullienn: is the point of contact for this survey/banner. Pyb en résidence (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am sorry to hear that; we have chosen to not put cookies, and people can register their session, but you are right it has to be volunteer. Do you think putting cookies would be better? Jullienn (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add me to the list of people who couldn't complete the survey, whose session suddenly expired without warning or reason (I answered the questions in what I would consider a reasonable time). Jullienn: it's not that people can register their session, it's that they are apparently required to do so. Most sites would handle this with a session cookie which stores the session identifier while the browser window is open. Registering a session would then save the cookie in a more persistent (still temporary but non-session) cookie, so you can close the window and return later. Perhaps you're saving the session ID in the querystring parameters, in which case the time is set way too short or it's malfunctioning in some other way. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what Nicolas meant to say is that the office is going to extend the session time. (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exact. I've also add a sentence to remind that the answers can be saved (a button on the top-right of the pages). Jullienn (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This survey is currently on for ~5% of the traffic. I did eventually take it, but it is excruciatingly long. — xaosflux Talk 10:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Xaosflux, how long did it take for you? (we've test several configurations, but you are probably on the extreme, I think it's important to have a fair estimation on the front page Jullienn (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jullienn certainly more than 10 mins, maybe 15? Long enough that I would have certainly abandoned it if I wasn't one of our senior-uber-elite-vested-contributors (but really, just because I was checking it related to the central notice). I did the password save/continue route and completed it in 2 or 3 sessions. Do you have abandon rate statistics? — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, we put 10 to 20 mins. I see that ~ 10% of the people finish the questionnaire.
    In 2015 we had a 2 steps procedure (the banner sent to a landing page, the landing page sent to the questionnaire), and ~ half of the people who went through the landed page finished the questionnaire.
    So, it is hard to say if it's less, or not. However the landing page would discharge the server for sure.
    => maybe we could speak of that in the research page (or in the banner request page) Jullienn (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jullienn the landing page does warn of the 10-20 mins already, so it shouldn't be shocking. Perhaps put the timeout warning on that page, letting people know that they can have more time with the save/resume option. — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, it happened to me twice despite the fact I never took a break for the questions.. When I made an account and saved frequently, I finally managed to get through the whole thing without issue. –MJLTalk 19:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I immediately got the "your session has expired" message lol. I didn't even see any questions. SWinxy (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No survey that takes so long can possibly get a representative sample of its target audience. You will only get people with loads of time to spare answering it, which will skew the results massively in favour of those with loads of time to spare. Chop it down to a maximum of three short questions and you might get a usable result. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia and InkscapeEdit

Does Wikipedia use Inkscape for their content, such as maps, crests, diagrams and other symbols? Espallosgi (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inkscape is a tool. Any tool can be used by a Wikipedia editor to produce output in a format supported by Wikipedia, such as SVG. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created graphics for Wikipedia using Inkscape, but plenty of alternatives are available. No particular tool is recommended. Certes (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I create my SVGs using WordPad, and view the result in my browser. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How's Wikipedia doing lately?Edit

I've been too out of the loop from the Village pump and everything community related for a long time. Is everything running smoothly enough or is there any growing issues like what Twitter has grown cancerous with? Occono (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what issues like Twitter's would look like, but I think the overall answer is some things are better, and some things are worse, and some are about the same. For example: We still have maintenance backlogs. We will always have maintenance backlogs. The existence of maintenance backlogs is what demonstrates to people that their help is needed in this area.
The content itself is objectively better than it was back in the day. For example, the percentage of sentences with inline citations has gone up by about 50% in the last five years (or was it 10? I'll have to find the source later) – not a small feat. The median article is probably a four-sentence stub now (remember when two sentences was considered a decent starting point? And sources were pretty much optional unless there was a dispute?), but the articles produced by new editors are substantially longer and better sourced than that.
Of course, there's the flip side to that: We achieve better-looking articles by rejecting articles on subjects that are probably notable and by blanking apparently accurate, uncontroversial content just because it's not yet cited and one person decides that the article must not contain any uncited content and would rather remove good content than cite it.
The content and contribution systems are also much more complex than they were when you and I started editing. It's harder to learn some things, like coding complex templates. You can't tweak your template into complexity; at some point, you have to re-write it into a Lua module. I think this leads to us feeling less empowered: if it breaks, all I can do is blame and shame the people I believe broke it. I can't fix it. This is a growing problem with old scripts and gadgets. A while ago, the developers removed a bit of code affecting Javascript. In addition to making announcements in all the usual places, they had forced that code to emit console warnings about the deprecation every time the script was used by anyone for seven years(!) before its removal. And on the day of the removal, it was still a complete surprise, because the scripts were written back in the day, their authors were long gone, and editors had copied them and passed them around by word of mouth, without anyone actually knowing how to maintain them. Most of us non-devs don't even know how to find the web console, much less to figure out what to do about any warnings in it. While we still have a group of awesome volunteers at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), we seem to have a lower percentage of technically skilled editors than we used to, and very few people with a broad focus.
And, also obviously, editors live in the real world. The personal, social, and economic pressures of the last couple of years mean that some people can't contribute their time here, or that they are more stressed or less able to cope. The loss of trust in institutions due to political problems and the pandemic mean loss of trust by Wikipedians in Wikipedia's institutions, too. We have always had these problems in smaller ways (e.g., armchair lawyers), but there seems to be more of it now, affecting a larger percentage of editors. So we are stressed, and people in the real world are stressed, and they are passing laws that affect us here, like declaring Wikipedia to be a Very Large Online Platform with specific legal obligations, like a confidential way to report alleged abuse.
Overall, I'd say that the content we have is better, the missing-content situation is a little better, and the average individual, as well as the community as a whole, are a bit more stressed than we were back in the day. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some pretty good [1], some less pretty good [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2023Edit

Dear Wikimedians,

We are glad to inform you that the 2023 edition of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign is coming up in July.

This is a formal invitation to invite individuals and communities to join the campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and other relevant media files.

If you're interested in participating, please find your community or community closer to you to participate from the Participating Communities page. If you're organizer, please add your community or Affiliate to the page.

The campaign primarily aims to promote using images from Wikimedia Commons to enrich Wikipedia articles. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photos, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years. In this edition of the campaign, eligibility criteria have been revised based on feedback and campaign Evaluation Reports of the previous editions. Please find more details about these changes and our FAQ on Meta-Wiki

For more information, please visit the campaign page on Meta-Wiki.

Kind regards,

Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos International Team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]