User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old discussions: June 2013 to May 2014, June 2014 to May 2015, June 2015 to May 2016, June 2016 to May 2017, June 2017 to May 2018, June 2018 to May 2019

Heather Thomson USA former RHONY[edit]

When you look up Heather Thomson former Real Housewives star, designer, inventor, consultant- Her image comes up with someone else’s BIO. - A New Zealand runners Bio shows up but the image is of Heather Thomson From housewives??? How can we get the image changed??????? Please help!! Memfit@gmail.com HeatherThomson (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:HeatherThomson, I believe that the instructions you are looking for are located at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. As your account has been blocked for a possible impersonation attempt, the e-mail option might be the most feasible for you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Collaborative editing[edit]

Not sure if it's the kind of example you're looking for, but I personally think Sissinghurst Castle Garden was a nice example of what collaboration on here can do. KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, KJP1. I'll definitely look at that example. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Actually I did want to stop by days ago, but life tends to get in the way, and then I get distracted. Anyway - I find it much easier to talk to someone like you who actually does or at least has volunteered at our project. It seems there are a few folks at WMF who are simply professional NPO employees (not saying that's good or bad - we need good professionals in important positions). In my mind the folks who should making decisions on members of the community here should BE members of the community here. But I'm getting off track here - while there's folks I don't have much respect for at WMF - you are one that I DO respect, and I appreciate you responding on Iridescent's talk page. I could go on, but it would be pointless venting. Thank you; both for what you've done, and for what you do. All my best. — Ched :  ?  — 11:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind note, Ched. The WMF staff seems to have a mix of folks. That can have advantages and disadvantages. I think it shouldn't matter much in background work (who really cares whether the bookkeepers like to edit Wikipedia?), and it can be either an advantage or a disadvantage in other roles. At one point, there was a 50% minimum of volunteers-turned-staff (by CEO decree), but I don't think that the numbers have been officially tracked since Sue quit.
IMO some teams, such as design, probably benefit most from a mix. I'd put both grant-making and design in that list. It might be hard to fairly evaluate a grant applicant that you've worked with on wiki. But if you know a community, you can identify some problems with a proposal that another person would completely miss. On the design side, you want both fresh perspectives and deep knowledge. The "new" designer in the Editing team, for example, wasn't really "one of us" when she was hired a year ago, but she's turning into one of us, and I am so pleased. (It helps that she is absolutely awesome as a designer, which means absolutely awesome at evaluating different processes in context and with as few unidentified preconceived notions as possible.)
On the flip side, everyone in CommTech (or maybe all but one of them now?) is a long-time wiki person, and I think that might make it harder for them to see alternatives. And I know that I have to be vigilant against my own tendency to think the English Wikipedia first and only. So a balance seems indicated. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Another thing: I don't think that most volunteers realize how many staff members are also volunteers.  My "real" team (there's an endless supply of internal re-orgs to change who's on my "official" team at any given moment) has always been 100% Wikipedia editors.  My boss has 30K edits as a volunteer; her boss has 10K edits; until the last re-org, his boss had more than 100K edits (the new C-level is a non-editor).  My team would have put "don't bother applying if you haven't already made a thousand edits to a WMF site already" on our job descriptions years ago, except that the recruiters wouldn't let us.  (We did get them to start asking for applicants' usernames.  Amusingly, a lot of non-Wikipedians then created accounts and told us that they hoped to start editing soon.  But again, it doesn't matter for other things, so when my "official" team hired a graphics artist earlier this year, hiring a long-time Wikipedian wasn't a significant goal.)
To give you an idea of what it feels like for me:  Yesterday started with one of the directors of product telling me how excited he was about an article he created over the weekend.  The dev team I've worked with the most has always had multiple Wikipedia admins on it.  Their new product manager (hired in January) has edited occasionally for several years.  Their project manager doesn't edit much herself, but has worked with local edit-a-thons.  
As you might be able to tell, I've been thinking about this problem for years.  ;-)  I don't know whether the real problem is that almost nobody realizes that "PEarley (WMF)" is the same person as "The Interior" (with my username, which I insisted upon when I was hired, the connection is obvious.  But do watch out for the capitalization...), or if there is some mental shift in which being "one of us" means something other than whether you happen to edit Wikipedia.  I was briefly tempted last month to start replying to some comments about T&S not knowing anything about the English Wikipedia with diffs of that speaker voting in favor of those team members at their (volunteer) RFAs.  But in the end, I don't think that "knowing" is what those people really meant.  I think they meant something more like, "Hey, my values are different from yours".  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Translation newbies on VE newsletter[edit]

Could you please mentor Stombari8 until they master the basics of translation on wikis? You have invited them to translate VE newsletter, however, applying raw machine translation output only breaks links by inserting spaces to cut _$_ links at least. I hope they will catch up soon, and be a very strong translation hand as well. Yes, I’ve been there, and don’t want them henpecked. (: Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Omotecho. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to mention...[edit]

... that keepng a list of Things to Not Break is an excellent software engineering practice. I am so glad you are doing this. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Clayoquot,
Thanks for the note. I find it helpful, and the title seems to provide clarity. From a purely selfish point of view, it's important to me that the things that I do (as a volunteer) to not get screwed up. I'm willing to make a fair trade, but not to just have stuff break. On Friday, I walked a designer through a normal morning: Step one, wake up. Step two, find out what happened at WT:MED while I was asleep, so I know who needs help today. Step three, do my bit to respond to a request for help. She and I went through everything that I did on Friday morning before work, so she could see how I did it. I want all of that to keep working.
You are always (at any time, even next year, without any need for an excuse) welcome to ping me or leave a note here with ideas that you think belong on such a list, or a "case study" that you think worked particularly well (or poorly). You are always welcome to tell me what matters to you. I can also set up video calls if you want to show someone on the team how you edit (or in person, if you'll be at Wikimania). Just let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing? ;-)[edit]

(slowest answer ever) Did you try sending me wikipedia email? I'll reply with my contact info.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kim! What a delight to find your name on wiki today. I'll send you e-mail in case you want to follow up off wiki, but first I'd like you to take a look at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk_pages_consultation_2019/Discussion_tools_in_the_past since that was what I was working on at the time. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

So what are you doing?[edit]

Over two months ago Katherine said she would find out why the Foundation continued to host the Detox tool, despite knowing it produced racist and homophobic results, and with no indication on the project page that it was deprecated, or the nature of its unacceptable results. She has not bothered found time in between tweeting managed to answer yet. I understand from her latest post that she leaves answering things on her talk page to the "Community Relations" team. So is there any chance the Foundation will answer, or is it just hoping that people will lose interest? DuncanHill (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have replied to your email, twice. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure whether it's realistically possible to get a satisfying answer to how m:Detox got dropped. Most of the people involved are inactive. I'll ask around, and I'll post when (which I suppose means "if") I learn anything potentially useful. What might be most helpful, if you happen to know it offhand, is some notion of the timeline.
As for the overall problem of what to do in the future, I'm currently thinking that experimental tools are a bit like a draft article in userspace. Anyone could improve it; some of them are worth doing that, and you wouldn't want to demolish the house while it's still being built, but at some undefinable point, which is likely variable across projects (e.g., much sooner if it's producing bad results), the odds of it actually getting improved could be small enough that you might as well delete it. I don't think that we (that's the volunteer-we) sorted out the ideal way of doing that for articles, and they have many years' less experience with doing it for tools. It feels like the bigger problem of maintaining software. Everyone wants to create the shiny new thing, but nobody wants to spend a year, or even a quarter, doing boring maintenance work. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
What I know of the timeline is it was dropped over two years ago and nobody was told, nobody on wiki even knew it even existed until Framgate when another editor found it and several of us had a lot of fun putting innocuous sentences into it and getting appalling results, and after a lot of prodding in lots of places someone else eventually admitted it was crap and not used. After a lot more prodding it was eventually marked as "completed" - not as deprecated or rubbish, mind you, just "completed", and someone else removed it from the "Community Health Initiative" - again with no in article deprecation of it, just a "we don't use it anymore" comment in an edit summary. I also had to point out other outdated pages such as this. I really don't care to dig up all the old posts across enwiki and meta and mediawiki, but I'm told there's a Community Relations team that keeps an eye on things like that and will have flagged it up if they thought it needed any WMF action or feedback. I'm sorry that last bit reads like a dig, but if we're to take Katherine's word for it that discussions on wiki are actually picked up by the Foundation then that's what you're going to get. I'm sick of management-speak and shiny-happy-oh-we-do-value-you crap from the Foundation when the actions give the lie to the words. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
m:Template:Research project doesn't support a status of "rubbish". The available options are draft, proposed, planned, active, and completed. I believe that the usual approach is to describe the limitations of any software used in the research in prose, especially since you can have a highly successful research project about a bad idea (the success being in conclusively determining that it was a bad idea). If I were designing the template, I'd consider including an option for |status=stalled or |status=abandoned, as I think that might be more descriptive in this case, but to the extent that |status=completed communicates that nobody's researching that question any longer, that's probably not wrong.
I understand that the code itself is held off wiki. I don't know if there is a process at Github for discouraging the use of individual code repositories.
I see that others have replied to your questions elsewhere. I'm not clear whether those replies answer your real questions, though. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
A reader of the Detox page would have no idea of the limitations of the software. He'd see some links to stories making claims about "toxic editors" based on Detox - claims which he would have no way of knowing were based on rubbish, and which the Foundation has done nothing to correct.
"Other editors have replied elsewhere" - well if you mean the "some people left and we were hoping it would get better" answers on Katherine's talk page, well I think you will see from my responses that I don't find them acceptable.
I don't think you are in a position to help much more on this. You don't know the history of Detox, so can't help me understand it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Recruiting new editors[edit]

I saw your comment over at User talk: Iridescent, & felt I should share one issue that will discourage new editors, of any age, at least to en.wikipedia: the lack of low-hanging fruit. This was brought forceably to my attention this weekend when I attempted to update some articles on ancient Egyptian history. I had some weighty reliable sources at hand (such as Kitchen's The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt (1100-650 BC)), & lots of experience in writing articles, yet I found time & again that it was a challenge to improve these articles. They're currently a level that it would require several hours of dedicated research to improve on, time I didn't happen to have. And for a new editor, who is not quite confident about participating & is no more than casually interested in the subject, this would have been a disincentive.

I know this situation is not limited to just a few instances. Other examples I've encountered include many history topics (e.g. ancient Chinese, & Roman). Even to improve pop culture topics, say a television series, would require countless hours of searching for information to add, then learning how to properly add the source. (Which is a problem for new users, & notorious for discouraging many of them from continuing to contribute.) About the easiest low-hanging fruit I can think of would be to find & add the Native American names for prominent landmarks, a chore I've been pondering recently. Or, if one owns a copy, verifying all the citations of the Elder Pliny's Natural History, & adding useful information from it to the relevant articles. (I consider that easy because one needs simply to extract relevant information as one reads through the whole work, a tactic I have found works from experience.)

I hope I'm not coming across as somehow biassed against fresh blood, or defeatist, but IMHO the chief barrier now to people becoming regular contributors is finding something they can write about without needing to spend hours of prep beforehand. (Back in the Stone Age, when I first joined, the challenge wasn't finding something to contribute, but finding articles with enough content to be useful.) Further, it is an issue that will only grow in importance as time continues. To be honest, I would rather have a Wikipedia full of useful content that is a challenge for newbies to contribute than the opposite. I don't have a solution for this, but any campaign to recruit new editors needs to at least acknowledge this issue so that they aren't disappointed when their work doesn't result with the success they expect. (For example, no matter what shape Visual Editor is given, no matter how easy it makes editing an article, it won't solve the problem of providing the content an editor wants to contribute.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For anyone with some liking for the subject, and a willingness to use a library or spend say $10-20 on books from Amazon, I can recommend the great majority of our articles on Indian art or architecture, and similar subjects such as PreColumbian South American art (not Mesoamerica so much). Or even well-known English or European churches & country houses etc, where our articles rarely analyse the architecture at all, beyond dating it. Also almost all our articles on the decorative arts are pretty poor, where they even exist. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There are some general-interest subjects, but I agree with llywrch that there are fewer obvious gaps at the English Wikipedia than there used to be. I could expand Johnbod's list by saying that most articles about rare diseases need someone to add the prevalence/incidence information, and a new editor turned up at WT:MED this week to say that we are missing articles about medieval physicians. As a first approximation, we can assume that everything about cosmetology is in poor shape (during a review of Acne, my dear friends at WPMED tried to prevent anyone from mentioning Concealer in the article, on the grounds that there was no good scientific evidence for it), and most things about children and parenting are weak. I expanded Baby food and one of the childcare articles some years back, and that would have been within the reach of a new editor, except as we noted elsewhere, there seems to be a dearth of parents (or apparently even doting aunts and uncles) and therefore of people who are interested in that kind of subject. We are also short on articles about politicians in non-English-speaking countries.
There are also difficult subjects that need re-written. Updating Multiple chemical sensitivity has been on my list for over a year (I find that being employed significantly interferes with my ability to write articles), but I don't think that's an appropriate article for a new editor to attempt.
However, the WMF's focus is theoretically less on whether the English Wikipedia is complete and more on other language editions of Wikipedia. If you click, say, ht:Special:Random or so:Special:Random ten times, I think you'll notice plenty of opportunities for expansion. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
There are two issues here I must mention. One is that there are some topics which are difficult to write about to Wikipedia standards. I am the father of two adopted girls, one of whom we were foster parents for, which required I & my wife to take 20+ hours of professionally-taught classes. One would think this gave me access to a chunk of reliable sources that would enable me to write useful articles on the subject of adoption (or at least adoption in the state of Oregon), but the printed materials we were given were print-outs that are not easily accessible to anyone not involved in the system, & are subject to revision at any time. (And the rest of the material -- verbal & audio-visual -- fail to meet Wikipedia standards due to WP:VERIFY.) In brief, it will take a lot of work & imagination to write Adoption in Oregon, even for an experienced Wikipedian with knowledge of the subject.
The other is that en.wikipedia far too often exerts a hegemony over the other language Wikipedias, much to the injury of all projects involved. The case I have direct experience with was the articles relating to the Empire of Trebizond, admittedly an obscure subject yet having high quality information in many languages. In fact, the most recent work on the subject is in modern Greek & Russian. Notwithstanding, when I turned to the relevant articles in el.wikipedia & ru.wikipedia, they were translations of an older version of the equivalent article in en.wikipedia, which at that time was based on a book written in 1926! (It remains the standard reference in English.) This led to the situation that in some articles I was using a contemporary French-language source, meanwhile the French articles were citing an older English source! In short, there are many languages where the information for some subjects is more full &/or up to date than in English. And this does not apply only to major languages (e.g. German, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese), or specific subjects (e.g. modern Arabic publications on Arab or Muslim history), but in many other situations. Some an educated American like myself has no inkling of. (One area I do suspect exists would be Turkish & Portuguese-language works on computer technology: Turkey & Brazil both have very active technology industries & a large enough educated population to support a non-English audience in those disciplines.) Not only does this benefit those smaller Wikipedias, but by publishing this information it allows other Wikipedians to find this information & add it to our Wikipedias. (When writing on a subject, I for one make it a habit to look at the equivalent articles in other languages, if for no other reason than to assure myself I haven't missed including something important in the English-language article.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
There's still a significant quantity of low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked, as soon as you step outside the period where all the details were logged online in real-time, and especially once you take even the most tentative step outside the Anglosphere. (There are still redlinks on Panthéon#List of people interred or commemorated, and these people are quite literally officially the most important people in the history of France, and France is hardly some obscure backwater where nobody's bothered to write the histories.) Pick any popular author or artist, and provided they were active before c. 2000, in almost every case at least half their works will either be redlinks or ultrastubs—Here's one of the most successful authors of all time, almost all of whose works are still in print and who has been the subject of multiple biographies, but only ≈5% of whose works have a stand-alone article to get you started. Even when it comes to the most familiar topics in the arts, there's still plenty of low-hanging fruit, e.g. most of the entries on List of works by Vincent van Gogh are either ultrastubs or just redirects to lists. When you move away from "topics which North American, Aus/NZ and UK/IE audiences find interesting", the low-hanging fruit swells to the size of melons—head on over to something like Category:National anthems and count how many of the articles are more than three sentences long.
The "Wikipedia is largely written and attention should now turn to maintenance" meme is one that refuses to die—and one that certain people at the WMF who should know better (not WAID) continue to propagate—but is not remotely true. If I were approached by someone who wanted to write a bunch of articles, I'd advise getting hold of the catalog for a prestigious exhibition at a major national museum and getting to work on the redlinks—selection for inclusion in the exhibition will be prima facie evidence of notability, and the catalog will say enough about each entry to write an adequate stand-alone summary, even if the author never bothers to flesh it out from other sources. If you'd rather work on high-traffic topics, there are still boatloads of genuinely core topics that are in a wretched state—Speech, Industry, Performing arts, Adult, Human behavior… (To take WAID's example of medical topics, Injury and Disease—which surely are the coriest of core topics when it comes to medicine—both read like the half-finished homework of a bored 12-year-old.) If, instead of using Special:Random, you use the "third link" method—pick an article at random, click on the third link in the text, and repeat—you'll come to a really, really bad core-topic article (frequently Existence for some reason) in fairly short order. ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
First, I want to acknowledge that there is a clear consensus here on one point: would-be new editors are better introduced to Wikipedia by taking a generally-accepted reliable source, & mining it to improve/create articles, than writing an article on some subject that interests them. (Unless they are very well informed on some obscure topic.) And I agree with Iridescent about the "Wikipedia is largely written" meme. (Want article ideas? I can supply you with article ides.) That said, there are speedbumps with the tactic of mining a reliable source. A few months ago I obtained a copy of The National Audubon Society Guide to Fishes of North America, & thought I'd work my way thru it fleshing out the inevitable stubs on North American fish I know exist, only to encounter a significant problem off the bat which I detailed here. I am still waiting on an answer from one of our biologists.
I don't mean to shame anyone with that link -- after all, most editors are more interested in writing than scouting thru talk pages for questions to answer. And if I wanted an immediate answer, I would know how to find a better place to ask. (FWIW, I am also waiting on an answer on this question. But if none is forthcoming, I'll repeat it over at the Village Pump. And if I still can't interest a discussion on this, I might just be bold. Or drop the issue.) My point is that besides suggesting this tactic of introduction, there needs to be some form of mentoring -- if not from more experienced Wikipedians, then from outside experts. (My question about Hagfish species probably could be answered by anyone with a biology degree.) And, of course, money would help to ensure they are available. -- llywrch (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
On the hagfish one, I'd have thought Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes would be the place to ask, since it's the one page (almost) anyone with an interest in fish can be expected to be watching. On the stub one, I'm not touching that; as far as I'm concerned the whole concept of formally tagging pages as "stubs" is about a decade out of date (either a page is useful, or we shouldn't be hosting it; my views on 'quality assessment' are on the record), although I would say that regardless of formal definitions I'd consider year articles to be an extension of Wikipedia:Set index articles rather than "true" articles, and as such not subject to quality or importance ratings. ‑ Iridescent 18:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestions, but they miss my point: how is a beginner supposed to know where to ask questions? If a beginner asks in the wrong forum, they may not get useful answer -- or no answer at all. Both of these will discourage a new user -- far more than trying to figure out how to embed an image or what template to use -- who will then leave & may never return. In short, Wikipedia has become difficult to edit, in large part because it has become useful. And being useful means it has become complex. Yet this is not a problem that can be solved with simplistic solutions. (One being "software can solve all problems", a view too many have.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The new Signpost has something too long and boring to read from the WMF that might be relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Re your (llywrch) point, I can see a hypothetical way to address it within current limitations, but it would either involve resurrecting the corpse of the unlamented Flow, or huge gobbets of complex autogenerated wiki-markup code which would clog the edit window and be very unstable; on creating a new section on an article talk page, the software grabs a list of the Wikiprojects from the banners at the top of the talk page, and prompts the editor to ask whether they only want to post the question on the article talk page, or whether they want it transcluded to the project talk pages and/or the reference desks as well. It's certainly theoretically possible through the judicious use of noinclude tags to treat a section as an editable template and have it simultaneously visible—and editable—in multiple places (we do it occasionally with appeals or evidence from banned users who are restricted to only editing their talk page, to allow them to participate in a particular discussion elsewhere). It would be messy to do it using the existing wikitext editor, but it's theoretically possible if there's a will for it and it's certainly something we could lean on the WMF to consider for their next attempt to redesign talk pages. ‑ Iridescent 22:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Ugh. Why not set up a mentoring or outreach system? -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, they're thinking about it. So lemme tell you about the three most closely connected ideas – I'm going to assign them to individual people, because I think it'll help us keep them straight, and just trust that you understand how completely unfair that always is in reality.
First, there's DannyH's idea of "neighborhoods". I like this idea a lot, but I don't think it scales downwards to small wikis. Think of this as the "send me straight to WikiProject Medicine" idea.
Next, there's the problem of getting people to ask questions in the right place. For the next 14 months, that problem belongs to Peter on the Editing team. I wish him lots of luck, especially since the answer is different in every wiki. This is not merely a matter of scale; it's a matter of how communities choose to organize themselves. Enwiki and dewiki and frwiki aren't that different in scale, and the best place to ask is not the same in those three wikis. However, for the enwiki model, I think there's another way to reach the WikiProjects, which is to put the WikiProjects into a proper metadata space. Then you can run the Feedback tool, which is what dumps auto-signed wikitext-based messages from newbies onto WP:VEF. The Feedback tool could be updated to the "structured feedback" model that Abbey Ripstra and I talked about a few years ago: You click one of ~four options as the destination for your comment, and the tool routes it to the right place. That plus generous pinging with replies ought to get newbies the answers they need.
(Two small points about Flow: First, the decision to "physically" de-install Flow to placate a few users here (don't you think we could trust enwiki admins not to set up a Flow board against consensus? I do, anyway, and it's not something that a non-admin can do) not only created long-term extra complexity for Ops, which is Not Nice, but it also means that I can't get the Feedback tool to send that feedback to mw.org, where the devs would actually see it. Second, IMO Flow should not return to active development unless someone's ready to devote four or five years to it. It has great potential, but what we've got barely resembles the goal.)
Third, Marshall (Growth team) is working on mentoring, and it turns out that this is more complicated and culture-specific than I would have guessed.
(Must run for now.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)