User talk:Yngvadottir

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Archive of my Did You Knows

It comes at a great time. I felt attacked with very little recourse. Never having been blocked (or even chastised) I was in distress. WP is an important part of my day. I usually give out an EDDY award on Saturday. Today I felt seasick...like I was thrown overboard from the Good Ship Wikipedia. But...I know how to swim and I survived and have been unblocked. Thanks again! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 01:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240811015500","author":"Buster7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Buster7-20240811015500-Thanks_for_the_Support","replies":["c-Yngvadottir-20240814121200-Buster7-20240811015500"],"displayName":"Buster Seven"}}-->

You're very welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't help at the time, just express relief after you'd extricated yourself. Yes, you are very much valued. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240814121200","author":"Yngvadottir","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Yngvadottir-20240814121200-Buster7-20240811015500","replies":[]}}-->

Re your request at [1], here's that title page:

So that's one thing off my todo list. Now I can move on to December 2020. EEng 03:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240811032100","author":"EEng","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EEng-20240811032100-Better_late_than_never","replies":["c-Yngvadottir-20240811042800-EEng-20240811032100"],"displayName":"E"}}-->

Thank you! So Hollis has the subtitle almost entire. I think that's been fixed since I looked it up and it was too abbreviated to figure out whether it was in or im :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240811042800","author":"Yngvadottir","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Yngvadottir-20240811042800-EEng-20240811032100","replies":[]}}-->

Hello again! Looks like this is the second time in five years that I've had to give one of your edits more scrutiny than necessary after it stood out on my watchlist for suggesting that somebody had made a possibly controversial edit - where "the WMF" was some aspect of the article's subject who the writer was not wishing to endorse but may have inadvertently done so. The kind of edit that another user should check for neutrality, if so.

I do think this falls under the "misleading" concern of WP:SUMMARYNO, to editors who (like me) do not instantly think of the Wikimedia Foundation when someone uses the acronym when writing a few sentences about, say, the history of a high school.

Please do consider consider setting up a user page and linking to that in your edit summaries, perhaps with a hashtag (eg. School opened in 2023 as scheduled, campus opened August 13. #NOTWMF). This would also mean that a curious editor could actually see what your view of the WMF was, without having to ask you. Belbury (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240814110600","author":"Belbury","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Belbury-20240814110600-\"This_edit_intended_to_improve_the_encyclopedia_is_not_an_endorsement_of_the_WMF","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240814115500-Belbury-20240814110600"]}}-->

(talk page stalker) Personally I think the edit summary as-is is less confusing than #NOTWMF would be. If there's any vagueness about what the "WMF" is (the acronym is used in the article for something else), it could always be expanded to "the Wikimedia Foundation". Regardless, I see this edit summary as a sort of protest and I'd rather see it than lose good contributions to the encyclopedia. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240814115500","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240814115500-Belbury-20240814110600","replies":["c-Yngvadottir-20240814121200-Clovermoss-20240814115500"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Thanks, Clovermoss, that means a lot. Belbury, here's what I'd typed when I got a double edit conflict.

Interesting idea; I assume you've seen my user page and mean a subpage? But I think that would be a violation of WP:POLEMIC, which is the policy that others have raised. It's really quite simple; I love contributing to Wikipedia, but since WP:FRAM I can only square it with my conscience if I add a disclaimer (and also limit my edits to under their threshold for "very active", which at least means colleagues don't have to see the disclaimer very often!). I'm afraid not violating POLEMIC is more important to me than being clear; I believe most editors who read that far will figure out that I mean the Wikimedia Foundation, and I deliberately keep the disclaimer short and unemotional except when editing in my user space. I am sorry for the added length, but more sorry that my edit summaries have always tended to be long, because I often make a lot of changes in one edit. (One of the few helpful things the WMF has done in the past decade is increase the maximum edit summary length.) ... And I think people who clicked on a link to something in my user space, as opposed to seeing a formulaic extra sentence, would have real reason to be annoyed. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240814121200","author":"Yngvadottir","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Yngvadottir-20240814121200-Clovermoss-20240814115500","replies":["c-Randy_Kryn-20240825142800-Yngvadottir-20240814121200"]}}-->

I've always enjoyed your edit summary, and believe that the WMF needs to greatly enhance its funding to Wikipedia projects and conferences (per its donation request implications and promises). And yes, I liked your well-written comment at Clovermoss's survey. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240825142800","author":"Randy Kryn","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Randy_Kryn-20240825142800-Yngvadottir-20240814121200","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240825151100-Randy_Kryn-20240825142800"]}}-->

My understanding is that she has different priorities for funding than you do, Randy. I get the impression she is way more concerned about technical debt than showy conferences and I'd tend to agree, even if Wikimania and WCNA are fun events to attend. I would imagine the average person donating thinks that it "helps keep the servers running" or whatever. Some organizations offer a drop-down menu when you donate of where you'd wish for it to be allocated. We don't but I think that we probably should. Let me know if I'm putting words in your mouth, Yngvadottir, I'd never want to do that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240825151100","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240825151100-Randy_Kryn-20240825142800","replies":["c-Yngvadottir-20240825224300-Clovermoss-20240825151100"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Thanks, both! A drop-down menu of options for directing donations is an interesting idea, but the WMF might feel it revealed too much of a disconnect between the kinds of things they spend money on and the needs implied in their advertising. I would prefer them to downsize radically and to pause fundraising semi-permanently (they have a sizeable endowment, and a significant part of their workforce is fundraisers). But my disclaimers arise from quite basic disgust at the organization, which came to a head with Framgate and its aftermath. Others left the project. It's not about wanting more resources from the WMF, it's about their responding to the needs and wishes of the community (technical included—the largely ignored wishlist), which should be what they do. (By the way, Randy Kryn, I think you're responding to something I said on that unnameable forum, so I should make clear that it wasn't the thought of your having read my bloviations that gave me an ick feeling, but rather the thought of Jimbo having read them.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240825224300","author":"Yngvadottir","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Yngvadottir-20240825224300-Clovermoss-20240825151100","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240825233400-Yngvadottir-20240825224300"]}}-->

significant part of their workforce is fundraisers may I ask why you think that? I got the impression that most foundation staff have some sort of tech or communication based role. I could be wrong and I tend to find it valuable to understand why people think the way they do. It's entirely possible my preconceived notions are wrong here.

As for Jimmy Wales, may I ask why having him read your comments would make you uneasy? Is there something specifically you don't like about him as a person or is it more about your unfavourable attitude towards the WMF generally? I think that there needs to be less of a disconnect between the community and the foundation and listening to dissenting voices is important. It gives you a better grasp of a situation compared to people only telling you good things because of who you are (his talk page says he's still on the board unless that's outdated). I didn't start editor reflections thinking that the foundation would care about it but I do think having a variety of perspectives is important. If they're willing to start listening to community voices more, isn't that a good thing?Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240825233400","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240825233400-Yngvadottir-20240825224300","replies":["c-Yngvadottir-20240826013600-Clovermoss-20240825233400"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

The financial statements tell the tale, but some of what you're thinking of as "communications" may be fundraising in my mind. (And there are also a lot of people involved in planning and strategizing that from my perspective is a lot more harmful than useful.) I'll hunt for a link to check out whether I'm wrong; as I recall they reduced their fundraising staff last year. Yes, it's good for WMF employees to listen to us more, and not just as representatives of the WMF but as individuals; the fact there is a disconnect is fundamentally wrong, and I hope that page of questionnaire responses has been widely read. Jimbo is a special case; he was involved in the establishment of the project but I think he was quite surprised how it turned out, he set up the WMF, and he's wisely stepped aside as an admin. It was Jimbo I was being sassy about off-wiki. Messy response, I know, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826013600","author":"Yngvadottir","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Yngvadottir-20240826013600-Clovermoss-20240825233400","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826014100-Yngvadottir-20240826013600"]}}-->

I don't mind messy responses. When I think of communications roles, I mostly think of the few editors I know who also work for the foundation. I don't really know of anyone who does fundraising-specific stuff so if you can find the links for that, I'd be incredibly curious. I liked Jimmy well enough when I met him but I can understand why not everyone would feel the same way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826014100","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826014100-Yngvadottir-20240826013600","replies":["c-Randy_Kryn-20240826024500-Clovermoss-20240826014100"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

The love of money is the root of The Beatles, or something. My attitude about WMF funding raised and WMF funding spent comes down to sharing the wealth a bit more. I've never read the wish list page, does it have a rundown of top items wished for, the funding needed to achieve the major long-term and agreed-upon goal, and how much of that funding has already been given? From outside thinking about looking in, but not doing so, it seems obvious to me that WMF should be funding Wikipedian initiated and Wikipedian produced projects at the rate of, picking a billfold out of a hat, 20 million dollars American first-time lump sum and then see where that takes it. Probably many donators believe they are funding all of good things aobut the projects, that's how they are presented and believed.

Yes, the technical side is ultra-important, although I can't imagine how they do the things they do. I read a tech discussion and understand what the term "it's all Greek to me" means. Not to fully wall-of-text this, Clovermoss, your idea of a pull-down funding bequest has merit, a nice thought. As for conferences, WMF giving many more full scholarships to regional and worldwide conventions would give both long-time and newly minted Wikimedians the experience of being in those conference rooms, lobbies, bars, Indian restaurants, and conversational spaces with fellow volunteers. An invaluable individual experience and a culminative plus for all the projects. The North American conference could also use an evening banquet or two. As for fundraising, the more the merrier, and I've advocated for obtaining massive donations from the world's billionaires, many of whom "know" the importance of Wikipedia and the other projects (another avenue where specificities concerning a list of things to be funded would apply). I have more, but my computer screen is running out of ink. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826024500","author":"Randy Kryn","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Randy_Kryn-20240826024500-Clovermoss-20240826014100","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826030300-Randy_Kryn-20240826024500"]}}-->

I think many people would be rightfully concerned about more funding from large companies and billionaires. At its heart, Wikipedia isn't a for-profit so anything that might interfere with that should get side-eyed at the very least. I do find value in the conversation-sharing aspects of conferences but I don't think they should be the highest on the list of priorities when there's so many other things to worry about. I doubt the average person hearing that Wikipedia needs their money would be that happy finding out that it's going towards a fancy banquet but there's a decent chance they'd be alright with the general concept of allowing editors to connect with each other in person (which is why they should be given the choice in how they want to allocate their funds). Does that make sense? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826030300","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826030300-Randy_Kryn-20240826024500","replies":["c-Randy_Kryn-20240826032200-Clovermoss-20240826030300"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Of course, all ideas and points of view along these lines make sense. There shouldn't be any problems with funding both WMF and Wikipedian/Wikimedian generated ideas, just more of them and a few billionaires willing to be asked to pet-project WMF programs. Those billionaires would have to understand that their personal Wikipedia biographies would be scrutinized for any favoritism and would almost-necessarily gain negative facts and language as a logical countermeasure to the impression of selling Wikipedia's words. That said, I bet lots of the deep-pocket fans of Wikipedia would love to give the volunteers a banquet, complete with speeches, special appearances, and a show (if VivaWikiVegas26 occurs who knows, we might, unlike the Democratic Convention before us, be voluntarily entertained by Beyonce. Or at least one or two long-time Vegas performers who would love to "give back" to some of the volunteer editors who created this cultural phenomena). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826032200","author":"Randy Kryn","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-Randy_Kryn-20240826032200-Clovermoss-20240826030300","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826034100-Randy_Kryn-20240826032200"]}}-->

I suppose we'll have to disagree on what is possible. 😅 Fun fact about me: the other top two contenders for my name were Courtney and Beyoncé. I am infinitely grateful that my parents went with Hannah, I could not imagine any of those other names suiting me. I also wonder why my Dad wanted me to have the name of a "worldly" singer given the whole religious upbringing thing. I'm officially named after this Hannah. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826034100","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":13,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826034100-Randy_Kryn-20240826032200","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826041700-Clovermoss-20240826034100"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Seriously this throwaway line from my childhood is making me question how that's even possible. What was my Dad thinking? Were my parents just joking when they said this? I was looking at the article for Beyonce to see if maybe her music at the time would be something my parents would have been alright with me listening to and that's an easy no. If my Dad wanted to name me after a famous person, he could've suggested Serena given that she was actually raised as a JW (even if she didn't get baptized until recently). Did he just think that the name sounded nice? This is starting to drive me a bit crazy. I almost wish I could ask him why.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826041700","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":14,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826041700-Clovermoss-20240826034100","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

To get a bit more on track though, why do you think something of that scale would be necessary, Randy? It seems like it wouldn't be the most effective use of financial resources. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826042200","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826042200-\"This_edit_intended_to_improve_the_encyclopedia_is_not_an_endorsement_of_the_WMF","replies":["c-Yngvadottir-20240826103800-Clovermoss-20240826042200"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Randy, you obviously trust the WMF to have the best interests of the projects at heart; from my perspective, they may mean well, but helping the volunteers is not their main focus, and the objectives they do have tend to be damaging. The conventions are an example: not everyone can go (in addition to financial constraints many people have work or other commitments, or can't travel for various reasons, and with the best will in the world there are accessibility issues at a convention), or indeed wants to, and they contribute along with the structure of local chapters and affiliates to a sidelining of the actual volunteer effort on the projects, which is online, and the development of two tiers of editors: the Wikimedians and the rest. On the software, I'm referring to meta:Community Wishlist (which they largely ignore to instead foist on us excrescences like WP:FLOW and bad redesigns of the default skin), and I am unimpressed with the quality of WMF software work, such as the many years required to make VizEd even halfway fit for purpose, and what I am told is an extremely bad mobile editor. There are things I would like the WMF to do, but most of them I don't trust it not to muck up either deliberately or accidentally.

On money, I agree with Clovermoss but I'd go further: donors should be appalled at the amount of their money that is already spent on the social side of the projects, and it would be shocking to ratchet that up any further. There's an important difference between using donor money for on the one hand, donating laptops and wifi hubs to widen access to the projects and providing scholarships to enable non-wealthy people to present at conferences/conventions, and on the other, laying on banquets or just increasing attendance at the conferences/conventions. The WMF has an awful lot of money for a non-profit, especially considering it uses ads insinuating the servers may need to be shut down, and especially considering it also gets grants from Google and others. We've had donors posting at noticeboards about how they gave money they really needed for rent and food. That makes me feel ashamed; those appeals were nominally made on my behalf. It also makes me ashamed to think what worthier causes some of those donations might have otherwise gone to. If the WMF wants to spend down its stash a bit, it would do more good supporting the Internet Archive than almost anything it spends money on. So I'm afraid I disagree with you. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826103800","author":"Yngvadottir","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Yngvadottir-20240826103800-Clovermoss-20240826042200","replies":["c-Randy_Kryn-20240826123300-Yngvadottir-20240826103800"]}}-->

Not being conference-centric, just one of many ideas. By "banquet" I mean a Saturday or Sunday evening buffet or catered box dinner with pre-packaged good but not overly expensive food, not a seven-course meal served by Britannica workers. And no, not every Wikipedian can attend or even has an interest in a conference, but a couple of hundred more scholarships for each conference seems feasible, especially when major donors are given that funding option (and especially for the 2026 25th anniversary conference in Paris). More importantly, as long as there is a well-developed wish list of feasible projects awaiting funding, the WMF should be allocating yearly funds toward those goals (i.e. some of the initial 20 million mentioned above).

As long as this discussion has veered into in-depth analysis, what about the so-called Wikimedia Movement and its goals. Why not add, if it isn't being done already, a major emphasis on funding programs to promote and enhance early childhood reading? The earlier a child can read the earlier the brain's pathways develop specific cognitive abilities, and early childhood reading seems to directly coincide with the structure of WMF's hopes and dreams. Things like that, summarized and presented as funding options (such as your mention of donating new computers to long-time users), would give non-donating billionaires more tangible ways to focus their money (a deep dive into Elon Musk's mind: "I certainly don't want to fund Wikipedia, where the wild things roam, but since the WMF is coming to me with several funding options, their early childhood reading project has success written all over it.") In other words, tech upkeep first, the sky is the limit second. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826123300","author":"Randy Kryn","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Randy_Kryn-20240826123300-Yngvadottir-20240826103800","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826134600-Randy_Kryn-20240826123300"]}}-->

Ah, that seems a bit more reasonable to me although I can't speak for Yngvadottir. I'm uncertain about the WMF funding other things that aren't directly project based given how much is already spent. Something that was interesting about Wikimania was getting the chance to interact with affiliates and other partners like the Internet Archive because those sorts of inner workings are somewhat of a mystery even to someone like me whose become incredibly involved on the community aspect of the movement. I felt a bit out of place at times because it sometimes felt like everyone I was meeting was involved in an affiliate or a grant funded project. I'm in the middle of writing an interesting essay about those sorts of things. That said, you might want a better example than Elon Musk. I can't see him being supportive of anything involving "wokepedia". He's kind of the poster child for why people might be wary of anyone with a bunch of money throwing it at the foundation, even if that might also come with access to resources we wouldn't otherwise have. I do think Yngvadottir makes a good point that the foundation isn't broke either and there's good reason to be concerned when the fundraising campaigns imply otherwise or employ manipulative tactics. Tech upkeep should definitely come first because I'm under the impression we're years behind on that and that's not a good state of things for a tech-based nonprofit. Even newbie me had some thoughts on that even if she was a bit more naive on how all this works [2]. As for mobile editing, oh wow do I have thoughts. I'd encourage people to take a look at CENT and read my essay on that. Anyways, I'm off to go take a long walk off to a library I wrote an article about recently (no freely licensed photographs exist yet). I also have high hopes for learning about how Norway funds religious communities and maybe expanding Jehovah's Witnesses. That situation seems complicated, too. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826134600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826134600-Randy_Kryn-20240826123300","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->