Wikimedia Meta-Wiki: Difference between revisions

From WikiIndex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(expand)
No edit summary
Line 28: Line 28:
#Writing and dissemination of personal essays about Wikimedia projects. Because these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, they are often summarized on neutral issues pages from multiple points of view. There is a degree of freedom in determining what is related to Wikimedia projects, which makes Meta also a [[meatball wiki]] of sorts, discussing such matters as wiki culture and patterns. This role includes more formal research and related discussion.
#Writing and dissemination of personal essays about Wikimedia projects. Because these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, they are often summarized on neutral issues pages from multiple points of view. There is a degree of freedom in determining what is related to Wikimedia projects, which makes Meta also a [[meatball wiki]] of sorts, discussing such matters as wiki culture and patterns. This role includes more formal research and related discussion.


The third purpose, essays, has not actually resulted in a large number of essays; only something in the low triple digits.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays] Likewise, there are not many issues pages.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Issues]
The third purpose, essays, has not actually resulted in a large number of essays; only something in the low triple digits.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Essays] Likewise, there are not many issues pages.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Issues] Meta is specifically excluded from the list of projects that adhere to a neutral point of view.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view] Although theoretically,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Inclusion_policy] Meta is a place for debate and advocacy concerning controversial policies and practices, behaving in too opinionated of a manner concerning contentious issues has resulted in blocks and bans.


Elections of Wikimedia board members, stewards, global sysops, etc. occur at Meta-Wiki, and sometimes users of all projects are invited to comment on proposed global policies at Meta. Sometimes users make complaints about what is going on at other projects, if it appears that the sysops of those projects have run amok, and that intervention from stewards may be necessary.
Elections of Wikimedia board members, stewards, global sysops, etc. occur at Meta-Wiki, and sometimes users of all projects are invited to comment on proposed global policies at Meta. Sometimes users make complaints about what is going on at other projects, if it appears that the sysops of those projects have run amok, and that intervention from stewards may be necessary. This is usually only allowed when the projects are relatively small and it is clear that the sysops are going against the will of the community; otherwise, the argument will be raised the Meta is not an appeals court.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_Meta_is_not]


==Culture==
==Culture==
A lot of high-level Wikimedia staff members, stewards, global sysops, etc. frequent meta. Many of them use it as their home base, and ask that users on other projects contact them there. As a result of these users being so readily accessible on-wiki, disputes that occur on Meta often quickly get escalated to the highest levels of Wikimedia, with complaints being posted on those users' talk pages, which would not be the case on other wikis. Thus, it is fairly common to see, for example, attempts to drag high ranking Wikimedia legal counsel into conflicts that would, on another wiki, be settled at a much lower level.  
A lot of high-level Wikimedia staff members, stewards, global sysops, etc. frequent meta. Many of them use it as their home base, and ask that users on other projects contact them there. As a result of these users being so readily accessible on-wiki, disputes that occur on Meta often quickly get escalated to the highest levels of Wikimedia, with complaints being posted on those users' talk pages, which would not be the case on other wikis. Thus, it is fairly common to see, for example, attempts to drag high ranking Wikimedia legal counsel into conflicts that would, on another wiki, be settled at a much lower level.  


It is fairly easy to get blocked on Meta, often with little explanation or with a vague and/or misleading explanation. Usually the blocks for common vandalism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on Wikipedia. Although there is no Arbitration Committee, the goings-on at Meta are not completely transparent because there is a great deal of [[revision deletion]] that occurs there.
It is fairly easy to get blocked or banned from Meta, often with little explanation or with a vague and/or misleading explanation. Usually the blocks for common vandalism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on Wikipedia. Although there is no Arbitration Committee, the goings-on at Meta are not completely transparent because there is a great deal of [[revision deletion]] that occurs there.


As is the case on MediaWiki.org, Meta sysops typically have free rein to do what they wish, as the community does not exercise much oversight over them. The difference is that there is more likelihood of disputes because of the controversial subject matter (policies, etc.) that are discussed at Meta, so users are more likely to get blocked. There is no equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page or a requests for comment page, where users would lodge complaints.
As is the case on MediaWiki.org, Meta sysops typically have free rein to do what they wish, as the community does not exercise much oversight over them. The difference is that there is more likelihood of disputes because of the controversial subject matter (policies, etc.) that are discussed at Meta, so users are more likely to get blocked. There is no equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page or a requests for comment page, where users would lodge complaints.

Revision as of 05:48, 6 March 2014

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/b/bc/Wiki.png Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
Recent changes
WikiNode
About
[No Mobile URL]
Founded by:
Status: Vibrant
Language: Multilingual
Edit mode: OpenEdit
Wiki engine: MediaWiki
Wiki license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike"Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike" is not in the list (Custom license, Attribution to contributing authors, Copyright to contributing authors, Site retains copyright, WTFPL, Licence Art Libre, Open Content License, Apache License, BSD Documentation License, FreeBSD Documentation License, ...) of allowed values for the "Wiki license" property.
Main topic: Wikimedia Foundation
Backups: unknown or dynamic date
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki.jpg

original Meta-Wiki logo

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki – this 'meta' wiki is used by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to act as a central primary coordination wiki for all of their 'projects' and activities, which include running Wikipedia and various sister projects, and also originally included developing their own wiki engine software, known as MediaWiki.

This meta wiki also used to include a lot of information about MediaWiki; including user manuals, installation manuals, and development information; however, this has now been moved to the MediaWiki.org wiki (a more logical place for it). Inevitably, the discussion pages related to those manuals start to act as a kind of support forum, but there are other channels for seeking user/admin/development support.

Purposes

The main purposes of meta-wiki are to help facilitate:

  1. Discussion and formulation of Wikimedia projects, in particular policy discussion relevant to across projects, such as open-content licensing. The central venue for discussion is the Wikimedia Forum. Some high-level discussions, held mainly in 2009, were split to Strategy Wiki.
  2. Interlingual (cross-wiki) and international coordination concerning the Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement in general, including discussion in languages other than English. This includes requests (for pan-Wikimedia or other wikis), translations and news, and the description, documentation, and discussion of real-life activities and facts related to the Wikimedia Foundation and affiliates. This includes reports, events, outreach:, and grants.
  3. Writing and dissemination of personal essays about Wikimedia projects. Because these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, they are often summarized on neutral issues pages from multiple points of view. There is a degree of freedom in determining what is related to Wikimedia projects, which makes Meta also a meatball wiki of sorts, discussing such matters as wiki culture and patterns. This role includes more formal research and related discussion.

The third purpose, essays, has not actually resulted in a large number of essays; only something in the low triple digits.[1] Likewise, there are not many issues pages.[2] Meta is specifically excluded from the list of projects that adhere to a neutral point of view.[3] Although theoretically,[4] Meta is a place for debate and advocacy concerning controversial policies and practices, behaving in too opinionated of a manner concerning contentious issues has resulted in blocks and bans.

Elections of Wikimedia board members, stewards, global sysops, etc. occur at Meta-Wiki, and sometimes users of all projects are invited to comment on proposed global policies at Meta. Sometimes users make complaints about what is going on at other projects, if it appears that the sysops of those projects have run amok, and that intervention from stewards may be necessary. This is usually only allowed when the projects are relatively small and it is clear that the sysops are going against the will of the community; otherwise, the argument will be raised the Meta is not an appeals court.[5]

Culture

A lot of high-level Wikimedia staff members, stewards, global sysops, etc. frequent meta. Many of them use it as their home base, and ask that users on other projects contact them there. As a result of these users being so readily accessible on-wiki, disputes that occur on Meta often quickly get escalated to the highest levels of Wikimedia, with complaints being posted on those users' talk pages, which would not be the case on other wikis. Thus, it is fairly common to see, for example, attempts to drag high ranking Wikimedia legal counsel into conflicts that would, on another wiki, be settled at a much lower level.

It is fairly easy to get blocked or banned from Meta, often with little explanation or with a vague and/or misleading explanation. Usually the blocks for common vandalism are for lengthier periods than would be the case on Wikipedia. Although there is no Arbitration Committee, the goings-on at Meta are not completely transparent because there is a great deal of revision deletion that occurs there.

As is the case on MediaWiki.org, Meta sysops typically have free rein to do what they wish, as the community does not exercise much oversight over them. The difference is that there is more likelihood of disputes because of the controversial subject matter (policies, etc.) that are discussed at Meta, so users are more likely to get blocked. There is no equivalent of an administrators' noticeboard incidents page or a requests for comment page, where users would lodge complaints.

There are not many rules governing conduct, so it is left up to sysops to make their own judgments of what is appropriate or inappropriate. Specifically, there are only seven policies applicable to Meta in particular.[6] Meta has an "anti 'snowball' policy" that prohibits speedy closure of discussions at this project, but in practice sysops can and do close discussions summarily and implement what they think is best sometimes.[7]

The users of Meta-Wiki tend to be more multilingual than those of other projects, and much of the editing that goes on consists of translations of pages.

Wiki size: 35,946 article pages see stats

(As of: 06 November 2013)

Template:Wikimedia

Retrieved from "https://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Meta-Wiki&oldid=175765"