The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2023-08-15. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Congratulations to all those who contribute and make The Signpost a great vehicle for communication! - kosboot (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are placeholder images in the article. --Onwa (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The intro makes clear the author was on a bad moment, hence him not changing. Am thinking of doing it myself. igordebraga ≠ 22:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Onwa and Igordebraga: Thank you. Sorry again, just.... it's been a lot. I tried to get it into shape as much as possible, but gave up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 22:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I love the butterfly images, they're so clear and detailed. And that kingfisher! --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a long-overdue comeuppance for Bellington-upon-Porkshire! I remember his behavior during the First Infobox Crusades, back before Wikipedia's online version. Rather than use the Talk parchment, he stole the infobox letter presses and threw them in the trash! Of course, he claimed that he didn't know that this was prohibited because the carrier pigeon with the contentious topic notification never reached him. When challenged about that, he started an RfC, which of course was held locally in his village where all his friends were, and because of the Plague no one else who tried to travel there to !vote survived. That bastard got away with so much. A huge fan of portals, too. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

LIKE!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Portals?! And no one burned him at the stake? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

LIKE!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Being under contentious topics, this should have been resolved through a CT ban decades ago. I'm shocked at how the Arbcom -- which everyone knows very well has existed since the last century, much before Wikipedia came into existence -- agreed to take the case with a 7-2 majority (You know it. it's tough to calculate the percentage majority in such cases; it would have been simpler to have an 8-2 majority and write "with 80% majority"....) Sounds good, right? I can see your heads nodding in agreement... Thank you. I am out of here. Lourdes 04:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

LIKE Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

(p.s: I want "Like" buttons on every comment so I can see how many have liked any comment. Can someone point me to the guy who coded this project? No, not him... the right guy...)

Thank you for this piece of art, it made me smile.—The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Me too!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I *loved* the title "Rigorous Review of Content for Make Benefit Glorious NationCult of Wikipedia." Borat rides again!! Great stuff - we're not all too serious!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Jayen466, Adam Cuerden and Bri. I am confused by the title of the first article. What does this piece have to do with Brazil? Of course, Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil (which the article doesn't mention!) but he doesn't really talk about Brazil or from a Brazilian perspective in this short piece about Sanger. I find this title quite misleading... --Joalpe (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  You pung everyone except the guy who wrote the headline! I said it that way mostly because it was true, provided grammatical parallelism with the rest of the headline, and suggested an interesting click. (For what it's worth, the globe on my desk suggests that the Brazilian perspective is about 45 degrees tilted from the United States one, so maybe this is why the article appears slanted.) jp×g 14:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed with Joalpe; while it's technically correct, it seems a bit insensitive to Brazilians and not the way the better newspapers (what few there are left) would handle this. I'd suggest removing "from Brazil" from the headline. Parallelism be damned. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry for forgetting to add you to the thread, JPxG. Another issue with this title is that it lists two countries and a US state (and not the United States as a country). This parallelism trick is not helping to convey information adequately. --Joalpe (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. The headline is clearly showing the site's WP:BIAS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Tangentially related, published today by Lee Fang, one of Greenwald's former Intercept colleagues: Emails Show Hunter Biden Hired Specialists to Quietly Airbrush Wikipedia. --Andreas JN466 17:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Worth noting that Fang links your March disinformation report, Smallbones. Andreas JN466 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• As a brazilian I didn't understand why Brazil is in title since its not mentioned in body. I too didn't understand why to give attention to Sanger's rightwing conspiracies. The Biden laptop "affair" is an obvious dogwhistle. Ixocactus (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Mention of Brazil now added. Andreas JN466 19:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but it seems like the editors either did not read the ID Talk and/or Medium essay they linked, or else grossly misrepresented it. ... Larry Sanger supports Intelligent Design, and fought to make Wikipedia handle it more favourably. This is true: Sanger has been very vocal with his views.: First off, the discussion and essay are nearly 6 years old now, and Sanger deleted the essay 5 years ago, so you don't link any evidence that this is true in the present tense. Second, as Sanger opens his ID Talk thread with As ... an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong...., and as the thread and the essay are entirely about neutrality (and to a lesser extent, suggesting moderate policies with respect to significantly large populations in democratic societies) and explicitly neither "support" ID nor its "more favourabl[e]" coverage. Exact words from Sanger's ID thread opener, which are basically just reiterated throughout with no further reference to ID: I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. ... I'm not here to argue the point.

Perhaps the editors can direct this reader to where Sanger actually definitively "supports ID", moreover in a manner that is "very vocal". SamuelRiv (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree you have a point and have edited the entry (I didn't write it). Andreas JN466 17:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Be that as it may in this specific case (ID). But Larry Sanger had a long history of espousing fringe views. Adapted from a comment I wrote in 2021 about a Signpost story about Sanger similarly failing on his 2013 resolution ("I am finished with Wikipedia criticism. Quote this back to me if I happen to lapse."): Larry Sanger has

• been quite preoccupied with the Pizzagate conspiracy [1] [2] [3]
• appeared to espouse the Great reset conspiracy theory (e.g. "You are an enthusiastic citizen of a new clown world in which “liberals” systematically ignore and excuse the fact that the apparatus of a global totalitarian regime is being set up. This is not an exaggeration. It's 100% true. Think about it. What happened in 2020? [...] "I DON’T TRUST THESE PEOPLE—the Covid vax mafia the ppl installing a global vax regime. Sure, even Trump, when he pushes this experimental vaccine.")
• proclaimed that "there is an *amazing* amount of excelent (sic) evidence of fraud" in the 2020 presidential election (a mere four days after it happened)

Those quotes are from around 2019-2021, but it had become evident years earlier that Sanger's strong belief in his own epistemological supremacy would set him up for such failure modes. See for example RationalWiki's detailed description of how Citizendium (the Wikipedia competitor Sanger launched in 2006) devolved into promoting pseudoscience and "crank magnetism", thanks in large part to Sanger's leadership. I myself had highlighted that aspect of Citizendium in a presentation at Wikimania 2009 ("Several observers have voiced concern that the mainstream scientific view is under-represented on Citizendium in topics such as homeopathy, water memory, global warming and chiropractic." etc).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's all fine. So why can't the writing in the Signpost accurately reflect the sources being linked? The new revisions by @Adam Cuerden -- he feels they should be presented as equally valid, then let the reader decide, as per previous link -- again misrepresents what he wrote in the link cited. This kind of writing is simply sloppy and insulting to the reader, especially following the effort made in providing citations and quotations that both you and I made. (This editor did not respond to my request to comment.)

And shouldn't this popular WP newsletter be setting an example to editors to take special care that their text is faithful to their citations? This obviously does not preclude their own use of style, the writer's ability to give their opinion, or the newsletter from taking an editorial stance. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• WMF monetized the editing community's voluntarism and obsession. Now, WMF will spend their ill-gotten gains however they please. The simple solution is: stop editing articles. Stop perpetuating new content on the Main Page. Let your hard work rust and decay and perhaps someday that edifice can be yours, again. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridcolous. There are many ways to spend money on Wikimedia community, but WMF is instead wasting $$$ on irrelevant projects and their own salaries. Something needs to be done. But abandining Wikipedia is not the solution, nor is it feasible. Let's try to brainstorm a realistc way on how to "take WMF back", folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

    Yep. I always kind of roll my eyes at the suggestion that we just *stop* - I write articles because I want to make local history accessible outside of the archives of my small town's museum. If I stopped editing, that history would stay locked away. No thanks! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    @Piotrus: Allowing editors to revert office actions would be a first step, in my view. Obviously the WMF needs to be able to react to legal threats, but that ability to overrule community consensus is too much potential for abuse, in my view ([4]). Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  • @Chris troutman and Piotrus: There is another way, a better way. At the end of last year we forced the WMF to adjust their banners to remove misinformation, under threat of preventing them from fundraising on enwiki. There is no reason we cannot use the same threat to limit their ability to pursue activities that are inappropriate use of donor money; either they stop pursuing those activities, or they pursue them without the tens of millions of dollars that they raise from us each year. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Right. How did we do it? An RfC? I'd strongly support another one related to this. Having reviewed a few related grant proposals for WMF a year or two ago, I think this is a waste of our money (money we could totally use for the community projects). @Pundit, btw. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    Yep; Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196#RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign. One major change from that RfC is that we would need to provide more detail about the various potential enforcement mechanisms, as well as placing those details in the main proposal, rather than at the bottom.

    As for the proposal itself, I am not yet certain of how best to word it. I believe what we want is a level of oversight on how the WMF spends the money that they raise through enwiki, but without otherwise curtailing their independence. BilledMammal (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    In that RfC, North8000 made a good comment; I think that there are two issues blended together here. One is the broad general one that WMF has overall gone pretty badly astray. The other is the fundraising wording one. To me the latter has a simple fix. The banners HAVE given the (false) impression that that there is a threat to English Wikipedia's survival that needs money to resolve. Reword them to stop giving that impression.

    We addressed the banners issue, but we haven't addressed the broader issue; it is probably time to step up and do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    @BilledMammal: What are your thoughts on office actions? I'd like them to be able to be overturned by community consensus or reverted. Right now it's Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved. Yikes. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    That's a separate can of worms from the one discussed above, which is wasting WMF's funds on things that have zero relevance to the community. I mean, there are zillion worthy causes out there, but we are a worthy cause, and it is ridcolous we are giving away our funds instead of using them for ourselves (developing new software, hiring people to support community, giving grants to the community members, paying for more stuff for the Wikimedia Library, etc.). Heck, even organizing some legal action in support of freedom of panorama would make much more sense than 95% of the grants discussed here, which are just "feel good in the context of digital divide" actions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't this just punish the same readers that the WMF is defrauding? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if you are the most prolific contributor on the website: the WMF will not notice you leaving. In fact it seems many have not noticed the editors who have already voted with their feet and stopped editing, which has caused the critical volunteer shortage we've faced over the last several years. Instead we need a strike, but strikes have to be coordinated, organised and well-timed. Something like the SOPA/PIPA blackout, but this time the WMF would resist and try to overturn the blackout. — Bilorv (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of a strike; of course as long as office actions exist, the community has little power over the WMF. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

      On reverting office actions: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. — Bilorv (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of any misgivings over longstanding endowment concerns, never expected my own Windward Island homeland to receive a Wikimedia grant; chiming in as practically that country's only wiki aficionado. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It seems like a fantastic project as well! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's hard to argue with the projects' merit, but all we need ask is simply a requirement that their noteworthy aspects be documented on Wikimedia projects. That seems like such an easy requirement that I can only conclude it was assumed but neglected to be put in writing. Certainly asking for it would not be controversial within the Foundation, would it? Sandizer (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's my sense too, but it would be nice for that to be more explicit. – SJ + 09:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Slgrandson You should reach out to them. Maybe you can make sure that at least some of these kids will upload a picture to Commons, or write a little draft article using local sources. Andreas JN466 18:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466: I'd gladly love to, but at this writing, I'm now living in Florida instead. (Though a possible trip back home [during local Independence season ca. early November] is still in the cards; up to my superiors to get things ready, passport issues or no.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Slgrandson: I had read your user page and knew you weren't there any more. I was just thinking of remote help – like reviewing draft articles or suggesting subjects to write about or take pictures of, both of which might benefit from being done by a Wikipedian who grew up there. Best, Andreas JN466 08:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Like everyone else here, I'm appalled that the Foundation is giving away money to outside groups without considering our own needs first. Or at least involving the communities in the grant process. Consider it a Plan B to stopping these "Knowledge Equity Fund" grants: no more of these grants unless they first open it to all volunteers given a chance to both nominate worthy causes & to comment on those under consideration. IMHO, this could be accomplished with a well-advertised comment page over on Meta. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Llywrch: How about a collective letter of complaint to the WMF? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  • • Speaking for myself, I like the idea. -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

      @Llywrch: Done. Feel free to make some adjustments, and please sign the draft, so my signature doesn't look so lonely. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The majority of commenters at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37179587 seem to express profound unhappiness with how Wikipedia donations are managed. --Andreas JN466 23:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, User:Victoria, you said last year,

Equity Grants were an idea of the previous CEO who is no longer with the Foundation so there isn't a chance of them recurring. The Board has done its main job - changed the CEO. Victoria (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So how come we have this new round of grantees? Andreas JN466 16:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I’d like to clarify a few of the misconceptions shared here. First, the Knowledge Equity Fund is a limited fund of $4.5 million from the Foundations 2020-2021 budget. Each round of grantmaking spends down these funds which were set aside two fiscal years ago. The Equity Fund does not come from or compete with the Foundation’s annual plan budget. Our annual plan priorities and budget allocations were discussed with Wikimedia communities through a robust community collaboration process earlier this year. This year alone, the Foundation is spending $17.5 million on grants to the Wikimedia movement.

As a member of the Knowledge Equity Fund selection committee, I can also share that we do not see these grants as tangential to the Wikimedia movement; they are intended to find new ways of supporting knowledge creation on underrepresented topics, so that newly available knowledge resources can be used to strengthen content on the projects themselves.

Howard requested an extension time for their report due to operational delays. We will post the report shortly. We have been working towards a more structured reporting process for the future year. KEchavarriqueen (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel like I'm a bit out of loop. What exactly is the Knowledge Equity Fund? Is it the origin these grants? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@KEchavarriqueen (WMF):And how is a non-profit organization based in Indonesia that works on human rights and advocacy issues for indigenous people in any way related to the project. Nice? Yes. Relevent? No. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see if you search the Web (or Meta) for it, the m:https://meta.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Albert Einstein&lang=en&q=Knowledge_Equity_Fund was a one-time fund set aside two years ago with the stated desire to trial a separate grant pool to support communities whose knowledge resources or language might not yet be represented on the projects, and who might have other barriers to being able to contribute to our form of collaboration. It's a reasonable conceit and countering systemic bias is a long-standing and important WP idea. one can propose better ways to do it or better ratios of investment, but a 20:1 ratio of community grants to this sort of (out-of-community / potential-future-community) grant is a plausible start. Cool concept, deserves more integration and more & better proposals. – SJ + 22:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone who knows my history will be aware that I've gotten into it pretty hard with the WMF, but (and the Signpost article suffers the same flaw) at least I didn't do it on the basis of wild-ass conspiracy theories For all the bluster about the WMF, I'm still not seeing how the cited evidence is proof of some grand conspiracy; and if there is one, arguendo, the WMF is conspiring against its volunteers... why? An answer to that doesn't seem to be forthcoming. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking for myself, I'm not insinuating that there is some kind of conspiracy here. What I am concerned about is that the Foundation is giving money to groups that have little or no clear benefit to any Wikimedia projects, when there is plenty of need at Wikimedia projects. Not only are we donating our labor for free, some of us are spending money out of our own pockets to benefit Wikipedia, so if there is more money in the Foundation accounts than is needed to run their side of things, why not spend it on us? Or at least some charitable organization that clearly helps us? In short, someone set the wrong priorities, & we (okay I, I'm not speaking for anyone else) would like this decision either revisited or reversed. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. No-one is saying there's a "grand conspiracy". Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  You two aren't, but there's a tinge to this article which is definitely coming off as what they don't want you to know. Jimbo addressed some of this on his talkpage in the days before this was published, and noted much the same thing; I have no reason to disbelieve his comments or those of the WMF employee above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There have been lawsuits attempting to enforce the Gnu Public License terms on derivative software (see gpl-violations.org), but when it comes to CC license violations in the reuse of photographs, you're apparently on your own... AnonMoos (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos, your impression is refuted by reality: there are many cases of lawsuits and legal threats around (actual) CC license violations, often resulting in redressing the misuse (e.g. adding missing attribution), and sometimes involving the paying of a compensatory fee without going through a court of law. A whole spate of such legal threats has just taken place in my native Israel in recent months. Ijon (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a centrally-organized funded group which undertakes such lawsuits on behalf of photographers? That would be very new, and I'd be interested to hear about it. AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Pixsy, which I use send demands for payments on my behalf (they take 50% of any settlement), and if they don't pay they may refer the case to one of their legal partners for a proper lawsuit. One such case is Glad v. 1BusinessWorld, Inc. in the works right now (me being "Glad"). But Pixsy has gotten a bad rep' due to some photographers using it to send demands to re-users who has actually tried in good faith to attribute, but failed - one such creator and their images has even been banned from Wikimedia Commons due to this practice. This something I...am undecided on; since they didn't follow the license they offered, why should a creator demand anything less than full adherence - not all users/creators are contributing "to this community" simply to spread libre/free/open ethos around the world, some (think e.g. corporations such as Disney) could begrudgingly "allow" to donate a work under a free license given that any re-users are forced to follow the license specified - and we would not believe anything less than the fact their legal department would stamp on any re-users who would not adhere to the license. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Does the photographer have to individually approve any demands before Pixsy sends them? For some of the cases where people have said they received inappropriate demands from Pixsy (or maybe a similar service), it was not clear to me how involved the photographer was in the demand process, so I would be curious to hear from you about the workflow. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 01:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the photographer needs to fist review the match (if Pixsy's automatic 'image-finder' has detected an image elsewhere online) and then actively press something to start a case, then it needs to fill out when the photographer first became aware of this infringement, if it is used by a commercial company or not, (and if it is licensed under Creative Commons, the photographer needs to confirm that the re-user did not attempt to attribute at all) and then agree to Pixsy's terms of service before Pixsy can actively start pursuing something. So no, Pixsy cannot and won't act one something without prior go-ahead. But how they pursue or what they send to the re-users is not something I as a photographer knows (more than what amount they feel they should ask for).. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Josve05a: that is somewhat reassuring. To confirm, you get to see exactly where and how the image is used, so that you can see whether it might be non-infringing or only-kind-of-infringing, and you also approve the amount that is demanded, although you don't get to choose your own amount or see the exact form of the demand? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 18:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I get to see the image being used (their site displays my image and their image next to each other so I can see if it is the same image or a false match - if they are I'm prompted to open their website to view and review its usage. I can then either skip the match (mark as "Not my image", "Ignore match", or "Approved usage"), send a DMCA, or I can submit a case to Pixsy (if the domain seems to be in their coverage area - I believe about 14 countries). When submitting a case, I have to confirm (swear) that there isn't an existing commercial license or good faith attribution (in case of Creative Commons) before I can proceed to submit a case. I am the one who submits each case. I can either suggest an amount myself, approve of "Pisxy's pricing", or ""Whichever is highest" (in case I wish to demand a minimum amount). After that, I get updates as follows:

1. When they reviewed if the case is accepted: organizational use (not personal), in their accepted countries, not fair use etc.
2. When they start investigating the usage (the spread, the type of usage, etc.)
   1. If they think they can negotiate with the company they'll contact the infringer, and then I find out what amount they will seek.
      1. When they start calling, in case of non-responsiveness
      2. When they send a final notice
      3. When they either decide to give up, or recommend to pursue the legal route
   2. If they do not believe they can negotiate, or if the above has already been tried they will refer to their legal partner
      1. I might get asked if I want to pursue a lawsuit or not.
      2. I haven't done anything further than this...

There has been some cases in the "news" of good-faith Creative Commons re-users who has been "hit", but either the photographer lied when submitting the case that there were no good faith attribution attempt, or the infringers complain because they are under the mistaken understanding that the 4.0 licenses gives them a 30 day notice period to correct their attribution (this only applies if they actually tried to attribute in the first place) and since Pixsy don't go after images licensed under 4.0 due to this, but will go after images licensed under e.g. 2.0, they complain it is just technicalities with license numbers. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning that one of the people you refer to is Cory Doctorow (see [5], which is unfortunately paywalled). He describes receiving false Pixsy complaints in cases where he did properly attribute the original material, and hearing of other cases where reusers did make a good-faith attempt to attribute but made "minor" mistakes. Given his involvement with the copyright reform movement, I think it is rather implausible that he would've messed up something as basic as a Creative Commons attribution (and he also says that the complaints against himself were withdrawn when he pushed back). The problem of photographers lying or exaggerating the degree of a violation seems (to me) a rather serious issue. Creative Commons is supposed to be an assurance that I can use an image without having to consult a lawyer, so long as I comply with the conditions. When that breaks down, it undermines trust in the whole system. --NYKevin 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but that is really the creator’s wrong-doing lying when submitting a case, more than Pixsy’s “false complaints”. Due diligence should be done on both sides, but it seems like an echo chamber is made when a few “false positives” cause other false positives refer to each other claiming a systemic issue. I sometimes Google reverse image search my images, and in 60-75% of all images there is absolutely ZERO attempts to attribute the CC license. True, there is a few “personal usages” which I don’t care about on blogs etc. but the other ones I despise on some level. I give away a free image, under the premise I get credit (and technically also a link-back) - I deserve at LEAST that much - in other settings I deserve money if I weren’t this generous, donating for free. Cases where individual reusers claim to have attributed in good-faith rarely seems to back that us with Wayback archived versions of their sites, and simply point to other infringers complaints online, inferring some bad faith on the creator’s side…that’s at least my interpretation on most cases. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a question of what the reuse is. If it's a commercial operation, say a Wikipedia mirror, yeah, they better make sure they have their licensing in order and done right, and I have no sympathy for them if they don't. If it's a 14 year old kid who used it as part of a Facebook post, on the other hand—well, at least try asking them to fix it before you sic the lawyers on them. (Also, bit of a nitpick, but always a bit bothersome—infringements are not correctly referred to as theft. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

For me it's a matter of laziness. A few years ago Warner Brothers was making Sully (film) and they liked my photo of a parade on Fifth Avenue as a background for a barroom scene. So, they asked for a license. Go ahead; it's already licensed, I said; see the file in Commons. No, they were going to edit the photo and wanted a specific, signed authority from me. This meant I had to remember how to prepare and activate my printer, sign the form, rummage for my scanner, remember how it works, and send the form. With my secretarial skills it took a couple hours. Had they simply used it without credit, I would have been ahead. Difficult for me to imagine why I would want to spend hours defending my rights in such a matter, big corporation or not. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Creative Commons licences are not free! If it was licensed under CC-BY-SA, then they did need your permission (a new licence), because otherwise they would have needed to attribute it. While most people can (and do) get away with it, everyone knows Warner Brothers have deep pockets, and refilming or digitally altering the scene to remove the image might have been expensive. I know a few Wiki-photographers who habitually chase down unattributed use of their material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to hear about Pixsy, but it's based on a rather different model than Gpl-violations.org. I declared most of the images I created on my own (i.e. not derivative of images by other people) to be Public Domain, since I don't really care who uses them, but some people have asked me for permission anyway. (Of course, none of those images are photographs...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• To my mind, the biggest issue here is Satan himself, Getty Images, who very much has a history of fondness for charging people to use PD, CC0, or otherwise CC images. I'm not especially kind to finding instances of Getty taking some historical PD image from the Library of Congress and trying to charge a fee because they have better SEO. GMG^talk 12:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  And the courts have ruled that it is legal for them to do so! That's one of the big drawbacks of making your images PD. It is better to licence your images as CC. Pixsy can then charge them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, but it still feels very much like theft by deception. Feels very Aloysius O'Hare charging people for air. GMG^talk 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to defend Getty Images or their fee structure. However there is value in organizing freely available photos in ways that facilitate users finding an apt photo for their illustration needs. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  One could (in a very construed and forced way) draw parallels to Wikimedia Enterprise which charges for access to freely licensed articles and content here (Wikipedia and Wikidata) - they charge for access but not the copyright in this instance. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  Getty can provide a valuable service in allowing content creators an easy way to monetize their work, much like YouTube offers a low barrier-to-entry for content creators who would otherwise be working away on some site on the fourth page of Google. But reselling public domain content is morally gross. GMG^talk 21:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing you have to remember is that even stationary things like buildings and monuments change over time. You have to think of a photograph as not just an object, but as an object-at-a-point-in-time. So if there's been no photograph for the past 5-10 years, I'd say it's still valuable to have a photograph at this point in time. What about during various times of day, or particular seasons? These are all valuable records. So don't be so easily dissuaded from taking photographs. - kosboot (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, places change, but when every place on my list is being photographed by others, and some of them are even taking requests, I don't ever need to tackle that work myself. If I could expect or notice any changes, of course I could request another photo or seek one out myself. My efforts are better spent doing things others won't, like this new article: Frederick W. Schumacher mansion (among scores of others!) I can see the same thing happening in most other cities, and especially all cities larger than Columbus, if Wikimedians connect with photographers like I have. ɱ (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Ɱ: The Frederick W. Schumacher mansion all of the citations are bare URLs, and most of them are dead links because they were dynamically generated for a logged-in user. A double uh-oh. Maybe they still work for anyone with the proper credentials? If not, the cites are unverifiable because they lack metadata and would thus necessitate deletion per WP:V, making nearly the entire article unreferenced, and thus vulnerable to deletion at AfD. Or, same issue in the future if the links stopped working for logged-in users (inevitable with time), without proper metadata, they are unverifiable. Highly recommend addition of {{cite web}} including |url-access=registration or similar. -- GreenC 04:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

GreenC, I'm still writing the article. Cool your jets. ɱ (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Done, and I have emailed NewsBank in years prior, asking for a more friendly URL. They don't want to do anything, they view it as a database needing a login, not something to integrate into the larger web. Hopefully someday they'll see the value in the latter idea. ɱ (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The article does also read quite a lot like [the author's] city of Columbus, Ohio has a 2020 census population of 905,748. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this, contributing in a way that leverages for the greatest good. It is very efficient and scales well, one person can make a bigger impact. Also this idea of pictures through time is interesting. It's hard to sustain when only one person is the photographer, but community effort could keep such a project going indefinitely, and for many places. -- GreenC 04:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a quick note thanking for you writing this article and bringing this method of contributing to Commons more to my attetntion. Take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't often get as good a discussion of Wikiphotography as this one. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, https://flickr2commons.toolforge.org/ and the future Commons:Flickypedia are awesome projects to migrate photos to Commons. Especially with the new limitations added by Flickr since 2019 that automatically delete older images, we have to hurry with these migrations. Taking photos yourself can be expensive and time consuming, migration provides an easy mechanism to contribute lot of photos of various places and topics to Commons in short time. - Vis M (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yet there are most likely too many such images worthy of inclusion for this process to be fully performed manually, and if it somehow was – that is, if somehow enough people decided to volunteer for this job –, it would seem like quite a waste of editors' time compared to the possibility of using bot imports. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers, is measuring from first edit maybe a little misleading as a way to assign a "class" or generation? Look at the editing history of FireFangledFeathers, a brand-new admin. They created an account in 2009, but it wasn't until 2021 that they made their 100th logged-in edit. So are they the class of 2009, or the class of 2021? I'd say 2021, myself. Is there a way to capture what year people actually started actively editing?

I also wonder if we can even assign any meaning to length of time (whether between first edit and RfA or between "becoming active" and RfA) because of course the average time is going to be longer in year 22 than it was in year 5. In year 5 it couldn't have been more than four years. Valereee (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, yes there are people who create an account several years before becoming active with that same account. I think they are rare, but yes they exist, and if someone comes up with a way to start the clock at when people become very active rather than first edit, then their study will likely be better than mine. Also I accept that we are now almost a 22 year old organisation rather nearly nine. So averages would be expected to stretch, but that isn't my focus. I'm looking at the gap between when we recruited our admins and people are joining the community. Of course to make that clearer it would make sense if we had the same data on currently very active editors, and compared it to currently very active admins. It is possible that the real problem is that we aren't recruiting new editors, and the very few we recruit are mostly becoming admins, I'm pretty sure that's not the case, but I haven't currently got the data to rule that out. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Things have not got better over time, actually they have got worse. Instead of 90% of admins having made their first edit more than three and a half years ago, we now have 99% of our admins having made their first edit over four and a half years ago." Lots of us would not consider that any kind of problem, as we expect admin candidates to have several years of experience, and of showing constructive work here. The fact that zero of our current admins first started editing as recently as 2022–2023 is perfectly fine by me (nor am alone in feeling that way about it). The majority of our admin corps being people with deep institutional memory is a good thing. "Over 90% of all our current admins made their first edit before I wrote that article [13 years ago]": Well, we retain admins as active editors (and as admins) at a higher rate than we retain editors in general, so this makes sense. Yhere has been an uptick in requests for adminship in the last maybe two years, after a several-year slump, and most of these requests have been successful The real problem with RfA is that it is legendarily a nightmare to go through, so there is little incentive for people to do it, especially as we don't seem to have a "we're running out of admins" emergency. I think the years-long RfA slump we had (largely because of how awful RfA was getting) is the answer to your "surprised at how few admins we have who joined the community in the decade of the 2010s" wonder. (As for 2016 in particular, it's just a statistical blip in a small sample size.) Another factor is that many formerly-admin tools have been unbundled from the admin bit (page-mover, file-mover, template-editor, etc.), thus fewer people actually need the admin bit. Is there really a pressing need for a bunch more people running around with the ban-hammer? As you say yourself: "three hundred new admins we have had since I published that [2010] article". That's an awful lot of admins.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said "I can understand why we don't yet have any admins who started editing in 2022 or 2023: few candidates now succeed without two years' experience in the community, and candidates with only one year of experience are very rare indeed". So that bit is fine by both of us. My concern in this article is about the Wikigeneration gap between the admins and the current community. Yes we expect experience at RFA, but in 2023 people argue whether new admins need one, two or three years experience, it is now 2023, there aren't many members of the community who would baulk at an admin who started editing in 2019, letalone 2010. Hence my question, why don't we have more admins who stated in the 2010s. As for the idea that there has been an uptick in RFAs in the last two years after a several year slump; 2021 had 7 successful RFAs and 2022 14. Looking at Wikipedia:RFA by month the last three years were three of the five lowest years ever for new admins, and this year is looking similar. I'm seeing a downtick, but I ignored that in the article as possibly COVID related and maybe not statistically meaningful. ϢereSpielChequers 06:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• The answer is that becoming an admin is stressful and difficult, and even those with good credentials are unlikely to succeed. For example, I'd love to become an admin one day, but I don't think I have a chance with my current editing credentials. In 2005, my credentials would have let me glide by. (Well, I've been an editor for 16 years, so ignoring that Wikipedia hadn't been around that long...) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 14:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Rockstone35, if you had become an admin last week, you would still appear in the statistic as "2007". Perhaps the time needed between starting editing and becoming an admin has increased significantly, and faster than the years have progressed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Expectations did rise around 2008, and the average tenure of successful RFA candidates has increased dramatically. But I'm fairly sure someone with 12 months active editing could pass if they were otherwise fully qualified, and I would be surprised to see an oppose based on lack of tenure if someone had 24 months active editing. It isn't the average that an RFA candidate need worry about, it is the threshold, the minimum that the community expects. ϢereSpielChequers 22:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I know that, for me, adminship came at a time when I had finished high school and college, and I wanted to play a more dedicated role behind the scenes (while still contributing content). As for joining in 2005... well, it was the wild days of old Wikipedia when growth was exponential and notability was... if not looser, than more broadly construed. As such, it was perfect for a high school nerd to write about things that are now hosted by Wikia.

I also seem to remember (I'm sure we have stats somewhere) that that was around the time when editorship was also growing rapidly as Wikipedia became more mainstream.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

this shows an exponential growth until 2007. then decline from 2007 to 2014, and then the 2015 rally, which since we are now in 2023 we should accept as more than a blip. ϢereSpielChequers 19:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. It's a shame that this data only starts in 2006, as the rise in active editors was quite precipitous. And it does make sense that a lot of the early adopters - maybe not ground floor, but close to it - would be more committed to the long-term success of the project. Not to use cliches, but there are a lot of "true believers" in that crop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised that so many of the people who started editing in the early years are still around. I'm just surprised at how few of our newer members have become admins. I'm pretty sure we have a lot of active editors who started in the 2010s. ϢereSpielChequers 21:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• It was easy and painless back then. Now it's painful and difficult. And the best and most experienced candidates have the hardest time. The best criteria now for an "easy in" is lack of experience/ exposure in contentious areas/situations. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• This reminds me of companies with a flagship product that appeal to an aging population. A Reuters article about Harley-Davidson says "the company began an effort to attract buyers born after 1964"... with mixed success; their "average rider age was rising steadily at a rate of about 6 months every year since at least 1999". Innovate and recruit new buyers, or the company only lasts as long as the youngest of the cohort. Unfortunate but a fact of life. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think we are a long way from a Harley Davidson situation. What I should have put in the article is that we are still recruiting new editors. Though one echo of Harley Davidson is that I suspect many of our recent recruits are of retirement age, while some of the class of 2005 were teenagers. However we are still recruiting a few teenagers, and some of those run at RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 19:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  That "class of 2005 [as] teenagers" bit reminds me: I actually started out on WP as a Dominica State College student, aged 18. (Might as well declare a COI here, meaning that I'm de facto prohibited from editing that institution's article.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking as a member of the "Class of 2005", I had my first RfA fail 6 months after my account was created and my second one succeeded 4 months later. I think that current standards are entirely too restrictive, and we need more administrators. --rogerd (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• I think there are multiple complex reasons, most of which are not about RfA, and the ones that are about RfA are mostly about things more complex than a simple "RfA was good, then it got bad". One I don't see people talking about a lot is that many editors these days became active quite a few years after they made their account (Barkeep has talked about this, as a 2005 registration who became active in the late 2010s). This decreases the number of adminabiles relative to the number of active editors, and produces strange outcomes when trying to track editor tenure by either registration date or date of active editing (because neither are quite right). The questions raised here are "why do so many editors take years to become active Wikipedians?", and tie in with other forms of adminship weirdness like the incredibly shifting, mirage-y "tenure standards". (COI lol statement: 2016 reg, started editing in 2021.) Vaticidalprophet 00:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• The Foundation has strange ways of telling its administrators how important they are and how much they truly care about their contributions. We really feel blessed and appreciated. We hear them telling us how things like making millions of trivial edits or editing for over a decade straight without ever even taking a single day off are more important than the boring and complex administration of the content. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• As a "rookie" on this platform (I signed up in April 2022 after years of editing as an unregistered IP user), I wonder if the lack of new admins might also be influenced by the fact that new faces are, in a certain sense, "lonelier" than users who have been around here for a longer time. Let me explain: so far, I've come to love the large amount of guidelines, resources and services, such as the Teahouse and the help desk, available to anyone of us who takes Wikipedia seriously and wants to develop his skills as an editor/contributor. However, I've found myself struggling to build consistent connections with other people who could "mentor" me, mainly because of factors like real-life tasks or GMT differences: that's a shame for me, because I'm always trying to get as much constructive feedback as possible in order to keep making progress. Considering that admins are "expected to have the trust and confidence of the community", and need to go through a community-led process in order to get promoted, I fear the sense of isolation some newcomers feel might hold them back from even considering a role like this. These are just my very humble two cents, though, so let me know if I'm missing something bigger! Oltrepier (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's an interesting perspective. Most of the collaborative areas of Wikipedia have gone into decline, but you might try reviewing articles at WP:FAC, I've always found that a very cooperative area, especially for reviewers who pitch in and fix things as opposed to just criticising. And of course the Signpost. More generally trust for adminship is often earned by correct reports of vandals at WP:AIV and clueful participation in the deletion process. But the interaction may not feel so obvious there. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @WereSpielChequers: My bad, I forgot to mention that I've already tried my hand at contributing to various areas, including AfC, Good Articles, Did you know, AfD and In the news. If I had to rank them all, I'd say DYKs and GAs left by far the best impression on me, since I've found a lot of hard-working people curating the whole process over there: plus, the feedback has usually been positive and helpful, either when I nominated the article or I was the one reviewing it. ITN looks a bit intimidating at times, but it's still useful and lively enough; on the other hand, I didn't get much direct interaction at AfC and AfD, unfortunately...

  Actually, I'd love to contribute to the Signpost in some capacity in the future! But first, I need to find time and something interesting to write about... Oltrepier (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, and I was involved in this year's WikiCup, too! I didn't get as much interaction as I would like there, but it was still a fun experience: plus, it made me get involved at GA and DYK in the first place! Oltrepier (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• As someone who started editing in 2021, I can say that I personally had no trouble finding "friends". I don't think that's the norm, though. casualdejekyll 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Casualdejekyll: I guess it also depends from our own personality and how quickly we adapt to the giant environment this platform provides. Oltrepier (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have found much more success with finding people in WikiProjects. Everyone in a WikiProject wants to improve their project's articles, which leads to collaboration and kinds of friendship. Outside of that I find that WP:DISCORD was the way to go.

  (sorry for late response) JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• There are unique factors in adminship that prevent promotion of new candidates (e.g. RfA is too much scrutiny on one individual). There is also a long-term volunteer recruitment and retention crisis. Many areas of the site, both admin tasks and non-admin tasks, are non-functional. Many more have a limited volunteer pool with a small bus factor. Meanwhile, the vast majority of readers have no idea that Wikipedia is written by unpaid volunteers (and they could be one of them). — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• I think I've beaten this horse to the point where hungry coyotes started hanging around, but the problem isn't RFA, it's Arbcom. It's not giving the mop, but taking it away, which has become such a thoroughly bureaucratic process that it takes hundreds of contributor hours. So we started with a process that's fairly routine, evolved into admission to a peerage, and then became more treacherous than admission to sainthood. The community is extremely wary, as well they probably should be, because the decision has been rendered nearly irreversible, and even when it is reversed, the process is so opaque that it's open to a very small group that understands how ArbCom works. GMG^talk 11:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  And yet those few candidates who run often pass by acclamation. I'm aware of the theory that our problem is a very picky electorate, with various reasons for that electorate being picky. But if that was the issue we'd have more candidates, most of the passes would be marginal and the last one over 90% would be years ago. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem 10 years ago was that the electorate was far too picky and rejected candidates who should have been promoted. Today, every potential candidate knows this and self-selects themselves out of standing. There aren't enough outliers who do stand to make much statistical conclusion from there.

  On "marginal passes", votes at an RfA aren't given by a Binomial distribution, where each vote is independent. Instead, there are only a few possible outcomes : "near-universal support", ..., "crat chat", ..., "near-universal oppose" (plus a couple in between). Groupthink is determinate and to some degree inevitable in a vote with no criteria. The current RfA is thankfully a "near-universal support" case, but if we were to somehow go back to Day 1 and conspire with five other experienced volunteers to craft carefully written oppose votes then I promise you there would be dozens more piling on from the same people that have piled on as supporters. — Bilorv (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think what we really need is more GoldenRings, but the problem is that the overlap of "users who want to be an admin" and "users who should be an admin" is very, very small. I think the project would be a much better place if we went back to things being WP:NOBIGDEAL. casualdejekyll 20:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  This was meant to be a reply to WereSpielChequers, I just put it in the wrong spot - oops! casualdejekyll 20:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: Actually, complaints that the Admin process was "far too picky" started longer ago than that: IIRC, people were comparing it to running a gauntlet as early as 2006. I have my own theories why it became a rite of hazing instead of a reasonable evaluation of suitability, & some of the motivations were obviously not to help the wiki or encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, the last one went to a crat chat.

  Just to use myself as...obviously the example I'm most familiar with, I'm an admin on two other projects and a crat on one. I don't want to touch en.wp RFA with a ten-foot pole. I tried once, and was basically called a Nazi, for espousing essentially the same principle others, including functionaries have expressed, that WP is agnostic to people as long as they edit in a way that is civil and neutral. I can think of at least one other editor with whom I share adminship and is also an admin on data, and they were similarly dragged through the mud, with editors combing through a decade of activity to find something that was objectionable. We both know how the tools work. We've both used them for a long time. We both don't want to subject ourselves to whatever that is.

  The relevant metric is less RFAs that failed, but rather RFAs that never happened, because folks don't want to be forced to defend that one comment they made in like 2015 in front of two hundred people. GMG^talk 12:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: You abandoned your RfA after it had run for 4 days and 14 hours and the count was running at 73.8% (169/60/8). An RfA just passed this month with a unanimous bureaucrat consensus after the count was only 73.3% (195/71/9). The community voted to lower the bar so that more candidates would pass, and then you went and denied us that by self-selecting yourself out? I'm glad you self-nominated, because if you had done that after I nominated you, I would not have been happy. Not one little bit. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It was going to go to a crat chat at best, and I was going to drag the community through a lengthy and difficult process, instead of writing an encyclopedia. I take that mission seriously. GMG^talk 14:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  No...I think...I think I want to revisit this comment, because this is emblematic of the hazing mentality behind the process. I'm supposed to be ashamed that I didn't want to endure another three days of public flogging, so that I can do what? Volunteer for extra work. There is absolutely a lack of humanity and charity there that forgets there is someone behind the screen. There is a person who has a job, and has kids, and has things to do other than Wikipedia, and we don't value that. We're supposed to be inclusive and we're frankly not. I wasn't required to undergo a hazing when I stood for OTRS, or stood for the mop on Commons or Quote. I'm sure as heck not going to stand for a hazing here when I could be reading to my kiddo, and there are a lot of people on that train with me. GMG^talk 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  GMG, no, I don't think you needed to "endure another three days of public flogging". After four days, all the important questions have been asked. I'd be in favor of disallowing new questions after four days. You could have just logged out of Wikipedia for the last three days and spent them with your kids while resting your back. Then log back in sometime the next week to find out the outcome. If you had a nominator, then let them act as your lawyer/campaign manager taking on the job of calling out the out-of-bounds oppose statements. Some candidates want to advocate for themselves and can handle that pressure, but others are better off just delegating that. This is how democracy dies. People fold when bullies start breaking glass. You have to stand up to them, to preserve the system and not allow them to turn Wikipedia into an authoritarian system that they control. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Wbm1058: I'm not sure the "preserve the system" bit necessarily follows if the point is that there are systemic problems. The system here on en.wp is just kindof strange. It's not used by most projects, and is kindof a historical relic. I've demopped a few admins. In fact, I've nominated one admin I highly respect for demopping because they were embroiled in a controversy with another that involved use of the tools. I was confident, and ultimately correct, that the community would resoundingly support one, while stripping the tools from the other.

  There's been a thousand attempts to reform RFA, and I've said it a thousand times: If you want to reform RFA on en.wp, reform the "taking away" part. Adopt the same system we use on Commons. A demopping generally follows a community discussion, is proposed, is seconded, and we have an up-or-down !vote as assessed by the crats. It's hardly anarchy, and we generally have a !vote to determine whether we have a !vote. And the process on Commons is so much harder because it's multilingual. You can have a discussion that is littered with German, Russian, and Italian, and we have to keep a list of what language each admin speaks so we can translate. But ultimately the community giveth and the community taketh away. Except here they can't take, and so the process continually drifts toward a beatification. As indicated in the original post, the corps continues to drift away from the community. I don't think that's healthy for a project I'm very committed to, and I don't think it's healthy for global access to free knowledge, because like or not, en.wp is the flagship that moves this fleet forward. GMG^talk 11:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  You need to be dead to be admitted to be a saint, which makes the process significantly less stressful than RfA. casualdejekyll 20:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not totally true. Last I checked Elijah is supposed to still technically be alive. GMG^talk 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Whether or not this is an issue can't be evaluated without knowing the wikiage distribution of the editor population at large. If, say, most editors are also from pre-2010 and the admin wikiage distribution looks like the editor wikiage distribution shifted by a year or two, the issue is less likely to be the editor-to-admin step rather than the reader-to-editor step. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think it becomes an issue when there are a lot of admins who's Wikipedia accounts are older than the real life age of other admins. Which is true now. casualdejekyll 20:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I take that as a good sign. My concern is how few the new admins are, not that we have some admins who started editing in the 2001-2006 era and others who were born in those years. ϢereSpielChequers 10:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  I was more worried about the ratios - the "generational gap" as you describe probably applies just as much to actual real-life ages as it does WikiAges, I think, there's just no data to back that assertion up. casualdejekyll 13:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's a fair point. I took it as read that we have a lot of contributors who started in the last decade, how else could editing levels have increased since the late 2014 minima? But without some figures on that it could lead people to wonder if this is just a failure to recruit new editors and the whole community is withering away. It would be odd though to have total edits increasing, a steady trickle of established editors leaving and no new members. ϢereSpielChequers 10:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Discussion at Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37155329 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni made a fascinating comment on the interplay of de-facto tenure requirements for adminship with how long a typical user stays active at Wikipedia. Something that Tony didn't quite go into detail about—and perhaps something that resonates with me in particular—is how much free time one needs to pass RfA. (That many edits feels like overkill to me but that's been the rough minimum this year; last year there were a few candidates in the 10–15k range) If we look at successful RfAs from 2023 so far, we're looking along the lines of 20,000 edits over 24 months as a minimum, spread out reasonably consistently in that span. That's over 800 edits per month and about 25–30 edits per day. That's a very substantial time commitment, and unless one uses various tools to inflate edit count (which is eventually unfavourable at RfA), it would seem easy enough to end up with a 20+ hour per week commitment to a hobby, which selects out a lot of admin hopefuls who can't sustain that kind of commitment over 24 months (and that's without going into the fact that a lot of people simply don't have 20 hours to devote to a hobby in a week in the first place) . The major reason I've been fairly inactive since leaving ArbCom is because I was generally devoting in the range of 15–20 hours per week over 36 months (mostly behind-the-scenes), and I've wanted to do more things that aren't Wikipedia with my spare time. So, we can get back to the five-year number from the diff at the beginning: the time commitment becomes unsustainable over some time, whether, for example, through having done too much Wikipedia in the first place, wanting to do other things with one's spare time, or experiencing life changes. Contrast the current state of affairs with the fact that until (roughly) the end of 2007, a few months and a few thousand edits was the bar for RfA, which doesn't filter out nearly so many admin hopefuls. Maxim (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  When it comes to both tenure and edit count we need to beware of both outliers in terms of standards and the use of averages. One year of active editing used to be the de-facto minimum, and it still may be so, though there will be a few opposes who expect two years. I'm not sure when we last had a successful RFA for someone with less than 4,000 edits, but if those edits were manual and high quality then I wouldn't be surprised if someone could pass now. though I don't fancy the chances of someone who is close to the minimum on both criteria. As for discussing averages rather than minima, there is an obvious risk of a ratchet effect whereby averages become minima by the process of people publicising an average and then others opposing candidates for not achieving it. Looking at things such as RFA criteria by active RFA voters, I suspect 10,000 edits is still an outlier. I'm sure an RFA could still succeed with far less than 10,000 edits, but there would be some opposes. ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. I wonder what role technical development has played in sysop recruitment? My intuition is that most editors today have access to tools that rival those handed out to sysops in the project's first decade. Simply put, for a lot of tasks, you don't need sysop to accomplish them these days. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but speaking for myself, I didn't see the sysop tools as particularly necessary for the kinds of work I wanted to do. If it weren't for some pressure from friends, I probably would have been content without the block-protect-delete buttons. With all that in mind, I would argue that the nature of the position has changed. Previously, sysop was a natural request because it provided tools that most power users would want to do their job (complex moves, editing what are now template-protected pages, etc). But most tools are available through permissions or scripts without needing +sysop. So why request it? Well, block-protect-delete, but those aren't that useful for content work especially since modern interpretation of INVOLVED basically prohibits using them in areas where you engage as a content editor. So unless an editor wants to block vandals, protect pages, or patrol AFD/CSD queues, there's not much reason to request sysop. Rather than signing up for additional tools, you're essentially asking to do a different kind of work. It's not at all what Maxim or TonyBallioni meant by "tenure requirements", but it made me think of this analogy: the modern admin role is like getting academic tenure so you can become department chair or dean. You take on a service role so that everyone else can get on with their research and writing. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (lots of areas of the encyclopedia have become specialized), but I think it helps explain why there are fewer requests (and with my arb hat on, I think this change in expectation might help explain some of the recent "legacy admin" cases). The workload has become more specialized, and there are just fewer people interested in doing the more specialized "administrative" (clerical?) tasks now that most of the peripheral tools have been spun out for those doing the work that needs them.
  This isn't to say that the limited recruitment is not a problem---I agree that we should be promoting more---but I'm wondering if maybe there's a root cause to the "problems" or "causes" we've been pointing out over the years. I don't think requirements are increasing randomly, especially since it's something we all seem well aware of. The role is changing (e.g., the NOBIGDEAL discourse), we all seem to be coordinating on expectations for that new role (e.g., 2 years & 10k edits), and we seem pretty willing to hand it out (e.g. rise of the "not a jerk has a clue" rationale and glut of obvious passes), but what's not clear to me is a consensus on what the job description is. Is it really just a few extra tools for editors with clue? We don't seem to behave like it---not just in our voting patterns but even in how we distribute tools with nearly every permission besides block-protect-delete being unbundled to some non-sysop group. I don't have any answers or solutions right now. This is just where my head's at after looking through your interesting data here. I feel like we all have evidence that can be synthesized into something, but the synthesis remains elusive. — Wug·a·po·des 07:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is something WSC and I discussed a bit at the previous location's talk, but just as a for instance, I opened my account in 2006 but didn't make my 200th logged-in edit until 2014. So are we counting me as class of 2006? FireFangledFeathers' editing history is even more stark; if we're counting them as class of 2009, I'd argue they should be counted as class of 2021 as that's when they actually started actively editing. I don't know how we get at this data.

And for many of us there are multiple reasons we might see such a pattern. In 2006, when I created my account, I had a 13-yo and a 10-yo. I was flipping busy. I created the account for a single purpose: to create a missing article for a prominent author of lesbian pulp fiction. Then I went back to spending my time and energy on real life. It wasn't really until my youngest went off to college that I started becoming active. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that that would be a better way to do things, but these are the stats I could create. If someone else can do the same thing but count from the first month that someone made 50 edits in that month then I suspect the figures will be a bit different, One excuse for my doing things this way is that I started by doing the same sort of study as I did thirteen years ago and then compared them. My belief is that many years ago accounts where people had made the odd edit or two and then become more active after many years were relatively rare. Now it is common. If someone were to analyse things that way then the more recent classes would be larger - but I'm confident they would still show a wikigeneration gap between our admins and our active editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WereSpielChequers (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Fascinating discussion, all! I've taken the liberty of history-merging in the old discussion to here (so the Signpost article and talk page histories are in the same place) and pasting the old comments to the top of this page. Graham87 08:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't count in the above table, I'm sure, but my account was created 2017 and I consider myself "class of 2020". (Although really, using the high school metaphor, I'd be class of 2023 and my freshman year was 2020.) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, the data was drawn before your RFA completed. Hopefully if I rerun this in another thirteen years (or maybe less) you'll be in then. I agree that it would be better to treat class as the time you became active rather than first edit. But there are advantages to using the same criteria as before when you make historic comparisons, and sometimes you have to work with the data you can access - my rusty IT skills weren't up to doing this the way that many people would prefer. Perhaps someone else will? ϢereSpielChequers 06:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

One could use median age of edits. Thus, an account that was sleepy in its first few years would be aged from the much more recent time it got fire in the belly. Not that this is would be a commonly found pattern. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And an editor who starts using AWB would suddenly become more "recent". I used the term class because of the connotation of a group of people who started out at about the same time, and my concern at the gap between when most of the admins started and much of the current community. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to measure from the hundredth or even the thousandth edit. But I don't have an efficient way to do that, also I can see it becoming contentious if people start saying that their first x years and y edits in the community are being ignored. ϢereSpielChequers 19:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The main cause of all of this is the fantastically over-complex and excessively rigorous RfA process. Back in the day, adminship was said to be "no big deal"; admins were editors like any other only with a few more powers than others, and the requirement to use those powers only according to the site's rules (with a bit of occasional WP:IAR where absolutely necessary). They were basically janitors, not demigods.

My solution for this is to go back to something closer to the previous state of affairs. Adminship should be far more easily granted to any well-behaved well-established editor who shows the willingness to do so, with a probationary period of say six months during which new admins have their admin bit put on hold, or removed entirely if they misuse their powers, based on something as simple as consensus in a discussion on WP:ANI. After that, they can keep adminship indefinitely unless they misbehave, with a somewhat higher burden of proof required for de-adminiship. A list of well-behaved productive editors could quite easily be maintained by a bot. — The Anome (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I've long thought we need some form of assistant/junior/apprentice Adminship. Application would be based on fixed criteria, e.g. experience in multiple areas, lack of bad behavior, etc. Powers would be limited, e.g. no more than 24 hour blocs. A full admin would be assigned to mentor. Terms would be limited, with renewal based on performance in the role. Promotion to full admin would be based on their record. We need to open the process up.--agr (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly proposed, and repeatedly rejected. And I certainly don't want a bot deciding what counts as a "well-behaved productive editor!" There's a famous story on how statistics can be misleading: often times senior doctors at a hospital have worse casualty rates from operations than junior doctors. Are they senile / out-of-touch? No, the very best doctors also take the hardest cases, while the trainee still in residence is given the easy cases. Basically, if an admin wades into a radioactively controversial area - which are often exactly the areas that *need* admin action the most - they're much more likely to do something that will be considered "misbehavior", or to make "enemies", or whatever. The bot wouldn't realize this and would think an incompetent admin in a low-stress area is better than a very good admin in a high-stress area. It's much better for admins to be admins, and not have any special probationary period where they have to worry about taking action in controversial areas.

Now, that said, Arbcom should be a little freer on pressing the de-admin button for admins who have proven just to not be very good at the job, or have become detached from the community. But that's a different solution than two tiers of adminship. (And we'd need that ability even if we did decide to have two tiers - the admin who just did non-controversial janitorial stuff during their junior adminship and then starts going rogue after getting a full adminship.) SnowFire (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Several years ago I did a trawl of the admins who had had the bit removed "for cause". Instead of a bunch of newbie admins screwing up in ways that a probationary system might have helped, what I saw was a bunch of longserving admins who after three years or more had drifted away from community norms. I think that the admin newsletter was set up in response to concerns about longterm admins and community norms drifting apart. We could do more along those lines, including periodic retraining. I'm not convinced that we have an unresolved problem with new admins screwing up, or that when it happens we don't notice it or get new admins to learn from it. But we do have issues with longstanding admins and it would be good to either retrain or get them to arbcom earlier. ϢereSpielChequers 05:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WSC, did your research seem to show any patterns about admins who've been desysopped for cause for reasons that are temperament-related vs. operating outside current community norms? (Wow, which brings us right back to the idea of "not a jerk, has a clue"!) Valereee (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Valereee, I'm not sure where I documented that trawl, but the one thing I remember is that three year peak. My suspicion is that part of our "temperament" problem is that people who learn to communicate with problem editors by dealing with and blocking vandals don't sufficiently up their empathy level when they move to dealing with edit warring and articles on insufficiently notable people. But I haven't done the work to test that theory or quantify it; however it does fit with the phenomenon that it is the experienced admins that get desysopped, not the new ones. ϢereSpielChequers 11:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Following User:Maxim/ArbCom and desysops, in the past several years, the typical admin who gets mixed up in an arbitration case has been around for a solid decade or more and has been an admin most of that time. The major exception in that list is RexxS, and he lasted almost two years as an admin. I think it's tough to paint a picture of an "average" admin who ends up at ArbCom, but it's reasonably clear to me that it's not a newbie admin. Maxim (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There was a point a couple of years ago when we had lost three of my fellow Brits in a row, all slightly older than me, and all people I had met multiple times in real life. Looking at the rest of that list I suspect that there is a bit of an Atlantic skew in there. There are four other former British admins who I have met in real life on that list, and those seven are definitely not the only non Americans on the list. True I have met a lot of current and former admins in real life, and most of those I've met are my fellow Brits. But it is chastening to go through that list and see the names I recognise and can put a face to. I don't know whether there are some norms of American culture that have become unwritten rules for adminship as enforced by Arbcom, or whether we Brits are more likely to have the free time to become just a bit too active on this site. Or its just that give us Brits a bit of power and eventually it goes to our heads. But I'm seeing a bit of a pattern in that list of desysops and it feels quite personal. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think wiki had a bad reputation for a while, like 2008ish, when it was still seen as non-reliable. The 2010s were getting better, but it likely didn't improve notability-wise until about 2020. Just my memories, no proof to back it up. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

That many admins have stayed with the project could also be viewed as a positive, unless they have been secretly conspiring to keep out as many newer candidates as possible, although I don't see a clear indication of that in the numbers provided! CurryCity (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

If there is one clear sign from the figures it is that most admins don't take part in the typical RFA. I suspect that most admins haven't !voted in an RFA for more than a year. There are nearly 900 admins, nearly 500 active admins, and the most recent RFA is only the fourth ever to get over 300 supports (many, perhaps most of which will not have been admins). ϢereSpielChequers 19:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This should be straightforward to check if one of the bot owners would agree to help. Ymblanter (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have just gone again through the oppose section of the RFA from the beginning of this month. I counted 14 admins and 57 non admins in the oppose section, of course that one passed and it is possible that there are others where admins are piling into the oppose section. But somehow I doubt it. My impression is that the people in the oppose section are usually not admins. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe I opposed two or three candidates in my entire life. Usually if I am not sure I prefer not to vote. Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Excellent guide, and happy to see Grainger up there as an example! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is such a fantastic article that I feel it should be made a stand-alone Wiki "how to" article. - kosboot (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'll probably work it into essay(s) once I have made a couple additions. I think we need a more detailed restoration guide, with screenshots, and maybe a long-form copyright guide to link to for more detail. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Very nice article, and good tips & tricks. Small addition to the Dutch section: already uploaded to Commons:
• Dutch heritage site RCE: 490,000 images (used 53,000 times onWiki); higher resolution will be uploaded this year;
• Naturalis Biodiversity: 270,000 images uploaded to Commons; used 32,000 times;
• Dutch Nationaal Archives: (as mentioned) 430,000 images uploaded to Commons, used 220,000 times;
• Rijksmuseum Amsterdam: 250,000 images uploaded to Commons; new batch will be uploaded to Commons later this year. Vysotsky (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Vysotsky: Thank you very much. I know for a fact that there's no way I can possibly mention every deserving archive, so I focused on the ones I've used. And even then probably missed a lot. I was constantly going back and adding more as I thought of them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Virtually all American newspapers before ~1970 are in the public domain, per c:Template:PD-US-no notice, as newspapers of this period almost never included copyright notices. If using newspapers.com, this is extremely easy to check; you literally just have to flip through and see if there's a notice or not. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Good advice, although the image reproduction quality of the average newspaper (after the end of the woodblock engraving era, anyway) will pose certain quality issues. Though you can sometimes link it back to a better copy by showing publication without notice, then grabbing the improved image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 21:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is a well-written article.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 00:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Excellent guide. I think it's also worth mentioning that a lot of those image editing tips also apply to photographs one has taken oneself; judicious use of tools like that can help remove, for example, unsightly garbage in tourist areas.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492: Part of me feels like that should open up a whole conversation about verifiability/reliability in image sourcing, when we're discussing presumably-encyclopedic photography... FeRDNYC (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  @FeRDNYC: I would be interested in reading some of the discussions on that subject on Commons, and how it got its current plethora of templates to document the digital manipulation (restoration work, focus stacking, image stitching, etc.) that images may have experienced. Others, such as colour balances, contrast, exposure, etc. are probably less contentious but could still be viewed as lending to the question of verifiability. All of the manipulation I mentioned has been accepted on Commons, and our FPs have included examples as well. (Meanwhile, we have the dress to show how images right off a camera can lie) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Adam Cuerden: Thank you so much for this! I'll definitely remember your instructions whenever I'll need to upload/find new images. I don't remember if you already mentioned it through the article, but may I ask you which are typically the best sources for current/very recent events, please? I was thinking about using Flickr to get pictures from World Youth Day 2023, but I don't know if it's the right move... Oltrepier (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Oltrepier: I'd say Flickr would be easiest, given there's tools for import and the licenses are easy to check. Reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-15/Serendipity might be useful as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.5% of all FPs.} 17:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• This is a delightful guide! I will note that Google Books, remarkably, is not a bad source for old images -- if an old book has been digitized and all images inside are in the public domain, it may be an option, especially when the subject is obscure enough. I found a photo of Marcellus E. Wright Sr. in the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography (published 1917) and was absolutely delighted, as I hadn't been able to find many other images of him (Colonial Williamsburg was very helpful, actually, there were a few pics of him with other architects in their archives). RexSueciae (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Because one gets some secondary skills when one has 645 featured pictures.
  — User:Adam Cuerden

  Among them: humblebragging. 😉 FeRDNYC (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I put a shout in for the Geograph UK & Ireland website, which has all images on a Creative Commons 2.0 licence. Also Geograph Channel Islands and Geograph Deutschland. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• "a nation that only creates runners" - see List_of_international_cricketers_from_Jamaica. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Forgive me for not thinking of that. Past reports show I come from a place that hardly knows about cricket. (for the sake of a joke, I almost wrote "runners and bobsled teams") igordebraga ≠ 03:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)