The Wikimedia Foundation has announced a reorganization of the Product and Technology departments. The re-org is expected to deliver better product development with community engagement and an audience-based approach, a more efficient pipeline and to "better prepare our engineering teams to plan around the upcoming movement strategic direction". In the new organization, the Product department will be renamed the Audiences department. The Editing team becomes the Contributors team; the Reading team the Readers team. The Discovery team will be distributed to the Readers team and the Technology department (but will still work together on various projects). The Fundraising Tech team will be moved to the Technology department. Team Practices group members working directly with teams in the Audiences and Technology departments will move into those teams, and the rest will move to the Talent & Culture department, under the newly-appointed T&C Chargée d’Affaires Anna Stillwell. Four audience verticals will be condensed into three: Readers, Contributors and Community Tech. The Design Director role will be reintroduced.
The anatomy of Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick's chest area, more exactly his nipples, has been the talk of the month. That is at least what one can gather from a Motherboard article (June 9), in which the author Sarah Emerson asks why Wikipedia hasn't replaced the image with any of the "dozens of fair use, high-resolution options" on Flickr. This because she fails to understand our strict policy on fair use images, disallowed when free alternatives are available. However, she's partly correct that there exist a few alternatives, like this one by TechCrunch.
The article includes two screenshots of "heated" debate from the talk page spanning three years. However, this discussion only included six comments in total, one of which pointed out that the nipples were worth some $2.1 billion each. Normally I would have applied {{citation needed}}
to such a statement, but given that a 5-minute Uber fare in central Stockholm costs me $13, I'm not so surprised that the pennies trickle in for the CEO. J.
The reality drama series that is the Donald Trump presidency continues onwards with its latest breathtaking episode. In a shocking development Newsweek reports (June 8) that with the help of the Twitter account @CongressEdits they've been able to uncover a traitor within the midst of the United States House of Representatives. As the Comey hearing unfolded, a rogue agent used a House IP address to add a controversial example of obstruction of justice to our encyclopedia. J.
I come late to the vision thing. I remember still that when I was standing for the Foundation Board in 2006, one Wikimedian described my platform as "pragmatic", though not in a good way. I suppose I have usually felt that the main way to build an encyclopedia is an enormous amount of painstaking effort. Right now, though, I feel the need to kick up a fuss.
The catalyst was the latest in the WikiCite conference series. I missed the Vienna meeting in late May, but it was clearly vibrant in a way that can only be welcomed. I started the Facto Post mass message to bottle the buzz.
I count myself as a four-tab Wikimedian. This means that when I sit down to my machine, I have Wikipedia, Commons, Wikisource and Wikidata tabs open. I have been heavily involved with Wikisource since 2009, and Wikidata since 2014. I arrived on Wikipedia in June 2003. So, where is Wikimedia heading right now? I have taken part in the current Wikimedia movement strategy exercise, and have mixed feelings about it. Radicalism? I don't see it there.
I have tried thinking about Wikimedia integration around Wikidata. I think this is happening, but it is hard to explain to anyone not already a Wikimedian working on several of the sister projects. Some people seem to feel threatened by Wikidata. Others regard it, with rather more justification, as the sonic screwdriver of the Wikimedia universe: Brion Vibber is supposed to have said that it solves all problems.
I put my head over the parapet with s:Wikisource talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017#Greater scope for data, citation reform and integration on Wikipedia, and make the clear case for our place in education. What would I be meaning there?
"Citation reform" suggests something is broken. Not everyone would agree. But consider whether the reader is able to view Wikipedia references consistently, in a given style. Is there a setting in "Preferences" for that? No, there may be 100 different referencing styles used in Wikipedia, and by convention there has to be a good reason for an editor to change the referencing style in an article. Normally, and this is a strength of Wikipedia, the reader is the customer here. In the way references are presented, the original author of an article has more of the status of someone who is "always right", in selecting the citation style.
Software engineers are going to recognise the issue here, namely separation of presentation and content. The essential content of a reference can be displayed in numerous ways, e.g.: which comes first, given name or family name of an author (content)? The reader who really wants family name written first, which always reminds me of old library card indexes, could in principle have that option via "Preferences" (presentation). That is a futuristic idea: another is that we should actually know the area of text that a reference applies to. (Strange but true, we don't now.) In any case, Wikidata could do the job of implementing the separation.
Here and now, I'm still talking about integration, but in a more encyclopedic way. Crucially, too, in a community way. The input-output issues around Wikidata now seem like a good way to understand things in the large, not just Wikidata's place among sister projects. Wikidata inputs (automated, semi-automated, and via the fact mining which I'm working on at WikiFactMine project). Holding areas such as mix'n'match, potentially LibraryBase. Wikidata outputs, not just to infoboxes but via SPARQL, and some form of WikiCite export (in other words, reuse of bibliographic and citation data held in Wikidata).
What I was saying in detail about citation reform is a technical possibility once the WikiCite project takes hold. It is a good example of a way ahead. I would think less of a Wikimedia movement strategy that didn't mention such things.
So I mean to take "post-Wikidata" seriously. About five years since its inception, there is a new perspective available, coming from Wikidatans, but not only them. Librarians find it of interest, some of the open science crowd, those looking for the salvation of digital humanities.
I felt, already last summer, that Wikidata was undeniably doing something for the digital humanities, moving our take beyond GLAM. See Andrew Gray's blogpost in the first issue of Facto Post. People really should get behind new tech possibilities for Wikimedia, I say. I believe that the "technophile versus Luddite" stand-off is divisive rather than helpful. I respect the caveat-oriented scepticism that is appropriate to new technology, but the difference between entering a caveat and nitpicking is a judgement call. So, I will go so far as to question the judgement of those who can only find nay-saying in their hearts.
To get past the title, Facto Post is a play on words. Ex post facto is Latin for "retrospectively", so reversed is possibly "prospectively"? But the play is also from the middle of "WikiFactMine", on which I'm currently working: I have a summer job as Wikimedian in Residence, at ContentMine, whose project it is. Fact as in "fact mining", a subarea of text and data mining, for us the extraction of scientific facts from original papers. Some of them are headed for Wikidata, as referenced entries.
Tim Berners-Lee himself is planning a revised Web; he praised our governance, if adding that Wikipedia is not perfect. And it is not. We are still straining to adjust Wikipedia to the semantic Web concept, his previous version. In fact, the potential is only just becoming apparent in terms of Wikimedia content being much more easily manipulated. Taming the plethora of referencing styles is just a start. The excitement is emergent, not just another "next big thing". I sought to nail it in the Editorial to the first issue of Facto Post. No doubt several passes will be needed.
Sign up to the Facto Post mailing list, do.
Twenty-two featured articles were promoted.
Twenty-two featured lists were promoted.
Six featured pictures were promoted.
One featured topic was promoted.
It has been an eventful week in the world of Wikipedia page views. Gal Gadot (retaining first place from last week) was buoyed by the success of the Wonder Woman (2017 film), which took second place. The 2017 NBA Finals kept Kevin Durant (#3), LeBron James (#11), Steph Curry (#17), the Golden State Warriors (#21) and List of NBA Champions (#10) in the top 25. Despite mixed reviews, The Mummy (2017 film) was propelled to #5. Other entertainment figures and productions ranked high as well. A movie about Tupac Shakur shot him up to #12, Dear Evan Hansen was propelled to #14 and Orange Is the New Black was catapulted up to #19 after the release of a fifth season.
On a sadder note, injury and deaths (#9) also ranked high on the list. The deaths of Adam West (#4), and the injury of Steve Scalise (#8) featured prominently. E.
The twenty-five most popular articles on Wikipedia for the week of June 11, 2017, were:
Rank | Page | Image | Views | Class | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Gal Gadot | 1,233,820 | Having made her name playing Gisele Yashar in the The Fast and the Furious franchise, Israeli actress and model Gadot has moved on to playing Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman in the nascent DC Extended Universe. The character debuted in last year's Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice; Gadot returns as Wonder Woman in the eponymous film. And on the subject of that film... | ||
2 | Wonder Woman (2017 film) | 1,192,581 | ...it is second in this list. Patty Jenkins has directed the fourth film in the DC Extended Universe, and the first superhero movie from a major studio to have a female lead since 2005's Elektra, since when there have been three new Batmen, two new Hulks and two versions of the Fantastic 4, to give you an idea of how long that is in film-making time. The film has thusly obtained some symbolic value as a test of the viability of female led movies in the modern era, and with a gross of $571.8 million to from opening day to June 19, it's probably passed. | ||
3 | Kevin Durant | 1,053,517 | Top scorer for Golden State Warriors in every game of the 2017 NBA Finals, unanimously named the winner of the Most Valuable Player Award. | ||
4 | Adam West | 961,246 | The late Batman actor saw much interest after his death on June 9, at 88 years old. He, while mainly known for being Batman in the 1960s, also played opposite Chuck Connors in Geronimo (1962) and The Three Stooges in The Outlaws Is Coming (1965). He also appeared in the science fiction film Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964), and performed voice work on The Fairly OddParents (2001), The Simpsons (1992, 2002), and Family Guy (2000–2017). | ||
5 | The Mummy (2017 film) | 896,532 | The 2017 American action-adventure film debuted to negative reviews. The film has grossed $295.6 million (up to June 19). While it was the largest global debut for Tom Cruise, the film was largely a flop in the United States. It only made $31.7 million of the originally projected $35–40 million (second behind Wonder Woman). In its second weekend, ticket sales dropped 56% to $13.9 million, and fourth place at the box office. | ||
6 | Grenfell Tower fire | 836,550 | The 24 storey building was struck by a fire on June 14. 79 people are presumed dead as a result of the fire, and all of the building's inhabitants are homeless. The fire burnt for around 24 hours and was fought by hundreds of firefighters and 45 firetrucks. The fire is the deadliest fire in mainland Britain since the start of the 20th century. | ||
7 | Darth Vader | 778,261 | There has lately been a revival of interest in this famed villain. The announcement (and subsequent release) of a new comic about Vader in late March (and early June) may be driving traffic. | ||
8 | Steve Scalise | 747,127 | Steve Scalise getting shot has a lot of people heading over to his Wikipedia page to figure out, "Who exactly is Steve Scalise?" The Republican current United States House of Representatives Majority Whip and representative for Louisiana's 1st congressional district, serving since 2008 (and as House Majority Whip since 2014). Before that, Scalise served for four months in the Louisiana State Senate and twelve years in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Scalise's condition has improved from "imminent risk of death" to "critical" with "vital signs stabilized." Scalise is still in intensive care and is likely to be in the hospital for weeks. On a brighter note, the Congressional Baseball Game was not cancelled due to the incident, and in fact attracted a larger crowd than usual, raising over $1 million for charity. | ||
9 | Deaths in 2017 | 689,172 | The near-ever-present list of the deceased stayed in the same place this week while losing about 11,000 views in total. | ||
10 | List of NBA champions | 675,034 | For the third year in a row, the NBA Finals came down to the Golden State Warriors against the Cleveland Cavaliers, with the former winning. | ||
11 | LeBron James | 643,575 | The professional basketball player was at the forefront of the Cavaliers' effort to win in the finals for the second time in a row. Despite scoring an average of 33.6 points per game, it was not enough this time for the Cavs to overcome the deficit and they lost, 1–4. | ||
12 | Tupac Shakur | 610,200 | Shakur is consistently ranked as one of the greatest and most influential rappers of all time, and occasionally one of the greatest artists of all time. The release of All Eyez on Me has spiked his popularity again, fittingly, just as he would have been nearing 46 years of age. | ||
13 | Otto Warmbier | 607,175 | The recent spike in popularity was driven in the earlier part of the week by the release – after eighteen months in captivity – of this 22 year old American by North Korea. However, Warmbier succumbed to his injuries after six days. | ||
14 | Dear Evan Hansen | 578,312 | This musical, following a high school senior with social anxiety disorder in the turmoil that follows a classmate's death saw an increase in views following the 71st Tony Awards, in which it was nominated for nine awards, winning six including Best Musical, Best Score, and Best Actor in a Musical for its lead Ben Platt. | ||
15 | Rafael Nadal | 577,002 | "The King of Clay" has proven his dominance yet again. He won the 2017 French Open, bringing his total French Open wins to an astounding 10. Only one player has ever topped that in a Grand Slam tournament, Margaret Court with 11 Australian Opens. | ||
16 | Earth | 571,679 | It's the Earth. | ||
17 | Stephen Curry | 562,359 | Oft considered the greatest shooter in history, Curry proved his dominance yet again, seizing the championship title, after narrowly being denied last year. | ||
18 | Donald Trump | 526,315 | Trump's back. Well he was never really gone. As it is, he appears on the list again, this time due to reversing the Cuban Thaw policies of Obama, his predecessor. | ||
19 | Orange Is the New Black | 494,706 | The release of the fifth season of the popular Netflix original about women in prison sent it up to #19. | ||
20 | ICC Champions Trophy | 471,026 | When things are big in India, they are really big. Everywhere. | ||
21 | Golden State Warriors | 449,547 | The Warriors won their fifth championship against the Cavs. They took their lead early, and held on to it with the help of two players you may have heard of. Kevin Durant and Steph Curry. | ||
22 | Floyd Mayweather, Jr. | 436,040 | The undefeated five-division professional boxing world champion announced he has seen a contestant emerge from a whole different sport: MMA star Conor McGregor (#24), who will fight Mayweather in August. | ||
23 | Pound sterling | £ | 432,583 | From Brexit to the snap election, this currency just can't seem to get a break. Regardless, most traffic is probably driven by... you guessed it, Reddit. | |
24 | 2017 ICC Champions Trophy | 421,569 | The 2017 edition of this quadrennial cricket tournament was held in England and Wales. India returned to the final, held on June 17, but lost to neighbour/rival Pakistan. | ||
25 | 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup | 420,904 | In preparation for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, Russia is receiving the continental champions, plus current world champion Germany, in a tournament that started on Saturday. Like in the previous edition, it is being held amidst nationwide protests – but not exactly tournament related, despite plenty of reasons they could be. |
A monthly overview of recent academic research about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, also published as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter.
In his first book, Wikipedia, Work, and Capitalism. A Realm of Freedom?,[1] Arwid Lund, lecturer in the program of Information Studies (ALM: Archives, Libraries and Museums) at Uppsala Universitet, Sweden investigates the ideologies that he believes are shared by participants in peer-production projects like Wikipedia. The author typologizes the ways that Wikipedians understand their activities, including “playing v. gaming” and “working v. labouring,” (113-115) to explore his hypothesis that “there is a link between how Wikipedians look upon their activities and how they look upon capitalism.” (117) Lund characterizes peer-production projects by their shared resistance to information capitalism—things like copyright and pay-walled publishing, which they see as limiting creativity and innovation. His thesis is provocative. He claims that the anti-corporatist ideologies intrinsic to peer production and to Wikipedia are unrealistic because capitalism always finds a way to monetize free content. Overall, the book touches on many issues not usually discussed within the Wikipedia community, but which might be a useful entry point for those who want to consider the social impacts of the project.
Lund uses a combination of social critique and qualitative interviews conducted in 2012 to provide supporting evidence for his thesis. One recurrent theme is that Wikipedia is part of a larger trend in gamification—a design technique developed in Human–computer interaction (HCI) to describe the process of using features associated with "play" to motivate interaction and engagement with an interface. One example he gives is that editors report that they find Wikipedia's competitive and confrontational elements to be game-like. (143-144) He also claims that Wikipedians' descriptions of their work and play balance changes as they take on more levels of responsibility and professionalism in the community, such as adminship. Still, it’s highly questionable whether the 8 interviews, which mainly focus on the Swedish Wikipedia, are a sufficient sample size to make his claims scalable.
The culture of Wikipedia valorizes altruism in its embrace of volunteering for the project to produce information for the greater good. Lund argues that Wikipedians' belief in the altruistic aspect of the project, makes it easy for them to depoliticize their work and to ignore the how Wikipedia participates in the corporate, information economy. To him, Wikipedia is symptomatic of the devaluation of digital work, when in past generations, making an encyclopedia might be a source of income and employment opportunities for contributors.
So, he argues, contributors believe that peer production represents a space of increased autonomy, democracy, and creativity in the production of ideas. But from his view, attempts at a “counter-economy,” “hacker communism,” or “gift economies” (239, 303) are prone to manipulation, because we can’t create utopian bubbles within capitalism that aren’t privy to its influence. Still, peer production projects operate as if creation of value outside of the capitalist system is possible. Lund argues that Wikipedia cannot avoid competition with proprietary companies which see Wikipedia as a threat, and have an interest in harvesting its content for their own benefit. (218) Yet it would be nice if he brought in more examples to make this claim. The reader is left wondering who these corporate interests are, and what exactly they derive from Wikipedia. Having this information would help us understand where Lund is coming from.
Although the word “work” in the title might suggest that Lund focuses on wage labour, the author’s aims are more broad, and he uses the word to connote a variety of aspects of social, value-producing activities. (20) Namely, the production of “use-value,” the Marxist term for the productive social activity of creating things which are deemed useful and thus of value to be bought and sold in the market (even if producers don’t consider their work to be commodities). He draws from Marxist thinkers and semioticians, among them V.N. Volosinov, Terry Eagleton, and Louis Althusser, to unpack different approaches to describing why Wikipedians might feel like they are playing when they are really working. (107-108) Marxists call such assumptions “false consciousness,” but the concept is difficult because it requires us to analyze manifest and latent (discursive and non-discursive) awareness. It would have been useful for Lund to look at how the fields of anthropology or psychology talk about ideology. Both fields have extensively researched the topic. More stringent ethnographic or qualitative methods might have also made his argument more convincing. But, based on the references he provides, it seems that the book's target audience may be media theorists and social scientists, people who already familiar with Marxist political economy.
Lund makes a compelling case that capitalism instrumentalizes freely-produced knowledge for its own monetary gains. Meanwhile, he says, Wikipedia's design and its heavily ideological agenda, make it difficult for the community to address the issue. The book is an interesting contribution to ongoing conversations about how Wikipedia and projects motivated by copyleft principles can be defined from a social perspective.
A discussion paper titled "Economic Downturn and Volunteering: Do Economic Crises Affect Content Generation on Wikipedia?"[2] investigates how "drastically increased unemployment" affects contribution to and readership of Wikipedia. To study this question statistically, the authors (three economists from the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) in Mannheim, Germany) regarded the Great Recession that began in 2008 as an "exogeneous shock" that affected unemployment rates in different European countries differently and at different times. They relate these rates to five metrics for the language version of Wikipedia that corresponds to each country:
For each of these, the Wikimedia Foundation publishes monthly numbers. Since the researchers did not have access to country-level breakdowns of this data (which is not published for every country/language combination due to privacy reasons, except for some monthly or quarterly overviews which the authors may have overlooked, but only start in 2009 anyway), "to study the relationship of country level unemployment on an entire Wikipedia, we need to focus on countries which have an (ideally) unique language". This excluded some of the European countries that were most heavily affected by the 2008 crisis, e.g. the UK, Spain or Portugal, but still left them with 22 different language versions of Wikipedia to study.
An additional analysis focuses on district-level (Kreise) employment data from Germany and the German Wikipedia, respectively. None of the five metrics are available with that geographical resolution, so the authors resorted to the geolocation data for the (public) IP addresses of anonymous edits (which for several large German ISPs is usually more precise than in many other countries).
In both parts of the analysis, the economic data is related to the Wikipedia participation metrics using a relatively simple statistical approach (difference in differences), whose robustness is however vetted using various means. Still, since in some cases the comparison only included 9 months before and after the start of the crisis (instead of an entire year or several years), this leaves open the question of seasonality (e.g. it is well-known that Wikipedia pageviews are generally down in the summer, possibly due to factors like vacationing that might differ depending on the economic situation).
Summarizing their results, the authors write:
While leaving open the precise mechanism of these effects, the researchers speculate that "it seems that new editors begin to acquire new capabilities and devote their time to producing public goods. While we observe overall content growth, we could not find robust evidence for an increase in the number of new articles per day [...]. This suggests that the increased participation is focused on adding to the existing knowledge, rather than providing new topics or pages. Doing so requires less experience than creating new articles, which may be interpreted as a sign of learning by the new contributors."
The paper also includes an informative literature review summarizing interesting research results on unemployment, leisure time and volunteering in general. (For example, that "conditional on having Internet access, poorer people spend more time online than wealthy people as they have a lower opportunity cost of time." Also some gender-specific results that, combined with Wikipedia's well-known gender gap, might have suggested a negative effect of rising unemployment on editing activity: "Among men, working more hours is even positively correlated with participation in volunteering" and on the other hand "unemployment has a negative effect on men’s volunteering, which is not the case for women.")
It has long been observed how Wikipedia relies on the leisure time of educated people, in particular by Clay Shirky, who coined the term "cognitive surplus" for it, the title of his 2010 book. The present study provides important insights into a particular aspect of this (although the authors caution that economic crises do not uniformly increase spare time, e.g. "employed people may face larger pressure in their paid job", reducing their available time for editing Wikipedia). The paper might have benefited from including a look at the available demographic data about the life situations of Wikipedia editors (e.g. in the 2012 Wikipedia Editor survey, 60% of respondents were working full-time or part-time, and 39% were school or university students, with some overlap).
While human-created knowledge bases (KBs) such as Wikidata provide usually high-quality data (precision), it is generally hard to understand their completeness. A conference paper titled "Assessing the Completeness of Entities in Knowledge Bases"[3] proposes to assess the relative completeness of entities in knowledge bases, based on comparing the extent of information with other similar entities. It outlines building blocks of this approach, and present a prototypical implementation, which is available on Wikidata as Recoin (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Ls1g/Recoin).
Information extraction (IE) from text has largely focused on relations between individual entities, such as who has won which award. However, some facts are never fully mentioned, and no IE method has perfect recall. Thus, it is beneficial to also tap contents about the cardinalities of these relations, for example, how many awards someone has won. This paper[4] introduces this novel problem of extracting cardinalities and discusses the specific challenges that set it apart from standard IE. It present a distant supervision method using conditional random fields. A preliminary evaluation that compares information extracted from Wikipedia with that available on Wikidata shows a precision between 3% and 55%, depending on the difficulty of relations.
See the research events page on Meta-wiki for upcoming conferences and events, including submission deadlines.
Other recent publications that could not be covered in time for this issue include the items listed below. contributions are always welcome for reviewing or summarizing newly published research.
When you search on Wikipedia you can now find pages on other Wikimedia projects that could be relevant. They appear next to the search results. By introducing this feature, the Discovery department hopes to provide visitors with additional information, and reduce the likelihood of searches returning zero results. This also raises the visibility of sister projects, and may encourage visitors to explore these projects further, and potentially contribute to them. Some communities have already had similar functionality via custom JavaScript.
On English Wikipedia, a Village Pump RfC was held to determine which sister projects should be included. There were concerns that "content returned by some projects is too often irrelevant, problematic, outdated, spammy, or in some other way contradictory to the aims and purposes of [English Wikipedia] and not really what we want to send our readers to". The RfC resulted in the following projects being approved:
Commons multimedia, Wikinews, and Wikiversity results will not be shown. Wikidata and Wikispecies are not within the scope of this feature.
Results from Wikibooks are also currently displayed, in contrast to the RfC closure; a Phabricator task has been opened requesting their suppression.
Since the feature was enabled, there have been multiple requests for an opt-out option. A way to collapse the sister project results was suggested on a Village pump (technical) thread:
Here's a quick snippet you can add to your common.js to make it collapsible and collapsed by default:
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgCanonicalSpecialPageName' ) === 'Search' ) { $.when( mw.loader.using( 'jquery.makeCollapsible' ), $.ready ).done( function () { var $mwInterwikiResults = $( '#mw-interwiki-results' ); $mwInterwikiResults.addClass( 'mw-collapsible mw-collapsed' ) .find( '.iw-results' ).addClass( 'mw-collapsible-content' ); $mwInterwikiResults.makeCollapsible(); } ); }
While at a Village pump (proposals) discussion, code to remove those results was posted:
just add
div#mw-interwiki-results { display: none !important }
Aaron Halfaker (User:EpochFail), a data scientist with WMF, conducted an Ask Me Anything session with Reddit contributors on 1 June (UTC). The question-and-answer session attracted 118 comments and covered Halfaker's ORES AI-based antivandal project and AI construction in general, Wikipedia editing for wider audiences, Reddit, and AIs for content generation, including automatic summarization for unseen Twin Peaks episodes. B.
New user scripts to customise your Wikipedia experience
Newly approved bot tasks
{{London Gazette}}
parameters that have been deprecated and/or are no longer supportedLatest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community: 2017 #24 & #25. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available on Meta.
irc.wikimedia.org
has to be rebooted. This will probably happen on 21 June. It may be postponed. Some tools use this to get the recent changes feed. They will not work when it is down. (Phabricator task T167643)Special:PageData
will be an entry point for machine-readable page data. (Phabricator task T163923)&fuzzy=1
to the end of the web address when looking at Special:Undelete. (MediaWiki.org page, Phabricator task T109561)importScript( 'User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js' ); // Backlink: User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js