Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Village pump archive 63

Archive
Archives

Congratulations!

edit

“Wikiquote by now has become a reputable source - at least the English version.” (Originally: „Wikiquote ist inzwischen eine seriöse Quelle geworden – jedenfalls die englische Version, ...“) w:de:Gerald Krieghofer in Der Spiegel (This article is for subscribers only; however, I can provide gift links to the first three people asking for it.) SebastianHelm (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice find, Sebastian! Good work on all us. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of new templates

edit

I don't think it's very controversial, but I wanted to give a heads up to the community that I've been creating a new kind of navigational templates that act as headers to navigate at the top of sequences of articles, such as {{South Park header}}, {{SpongeBob header}}, and {{The Simpsons header}}. This replaces text that was copied and pasted repeatedly in articles and I think it's nice if we keep the formatting consistent across these. I don't care that much how it looks as such, but if they look similar, I think that's preferable. Any feedback is welcome. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the new navigational templates. Consistency in formatting is a good idea. I've checked them out and they look good to me. Let's keep up the collaborative effort! Saroj (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Jahnke

edit

I don't think Danielle Jahnke is notable. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I've proposed it for deletion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Rfa, if you want to participate

edit

Ottawahitech recently suggested announcing any new Request for Adminship here, so that more people have a chance for input. I have been active here for a few years, creating some content and doing some cleanup. We are a small wiki, so I am offering to pick up a mop to help out with the admin chores. If you want to ask questions or voice opinions, here is the page: Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/HouseOfChange. Thanks for being part of this great project. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charter will close on 2 February 2024. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.

The current version of the U4C charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.

Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 17:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review

edit

Hello. A policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, interface administrator, etc.) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis with no inactivity policy. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no logged actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Pmlineditor (administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki.

Thanks, Superpes15 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the results of the UCoC Coordinating Committee Charter ratification vote

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Thank you everyone for following the progress of the Universal Code of Conduct. I am writing to you today to announce the outcome of the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Charter. 1746 contributors voted in this ratification vote with 1249 voters supporting the Charter and 420 voters not. The ratification vote process allowed for voters to provide comments about the Charter.

A report of voting statistics and a summary of voter comments will be published on Meta-wiki in the coming weeks.

Please look forward to hearing about the next steps soon.

On behalf of the UCoC Project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flood flag

edit

I propose the creation of a new user group, "flood flag," on English Wikiquote to prevent repetitive changes from flooding the RecentChanges feed. This will streamline the feed and enhance the user experience for contributors. Saroj (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group can be added by sysops and removed by sysops and the users themselves. --Saroj (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saroj, There is no consensus for Fabricator Task T351250 which you started merely two days after posting here. Can you please cancel it until such time that there is proper wq:consensus.
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T351250

Comments

edit

According to fabricator this proposal has received community consensus?

edit
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T351250

According to today's version of the Phabricator (see link to the right), there is consensus by this community to add a flood gate:

  • "The English Wikiquote community has discussed enabling a flood flag user group. Here is the consensus of the community. The group can be added by sysops and removed by sysops and the users themselves."

How can this be true when I can clearly see 2 Opposes? Where is consensus defined?


Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would share your concern that this topic is really not yet decided. But in reading further on the page, I see that the ticket is not currently closed, but rather has been moved from Stalled back to Open, so I believe the discussion can continue. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada survey

edit

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are song lyrics allowed?

edit

Hey folks, new guy here ... I looked through "What Wikiquote is/is not" and didn't see it mentioned, so I'm asking here: May song lyrics be included as quotations? I hope so; I just added a few lines from Pink Floyd's song "Time" to this Category article. If it's not OK, please just revert, no hard feelings. Also, I wrestled with the formatting without much success ... if anyone can fix/improve the way this entry appears, please do, and if necessary, tell me how it should be done. Thanks! Yesthatbruce (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, song lyrics are the same in principle as other material that is likely to be copyrighted, so please just make sure that you're sticking to actually quotable lyrics and not just copy/pasting everything from the Internet indiscriminately. Happy to have you, B. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Will do re copyright; it's important. And I now realize that I was looking at a Category page, as opposed to a page about a person, such as Bob Dylan, whose page includes trillions of lyrics. Duh. Yesthatbruce (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hindsight is 20/20. I appreciate anyone brave enough to ask a good faith question on the Internet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

  • May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
  • June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
  • June-August 2024: Campaign period
  • End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
  • October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
  • Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include a Quote

edit

Good afternoon,

A former teacher of mine, Ramon A. Qeuevedo, that worked at Bebensee Elementary in Arlington, TX would say, "Of course you don't know it, it is called learning. if you knew it, it would be called review.". or "of course you don't know it, it is called learning. if you already knew it, it would be called review." I see that one version of this quote is listed in Quotepark.com and the quote is attributed to him. What can I do to include the quote here?

Thank you, Gabby Estrada 1gabbyestrada (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

edit

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

edit

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 20 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 March 2024.
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
  • GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption text is small compared to text in rest of article

edit

Any idea how I can fix that? On the page Victor L Berger.

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the image is the standard size. It can be modified with CSS, but why is that necessary? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just seems much too small,[1] no? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a little tiny. Is it smaller than (e.g.) en.wp? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Paid editing is something I would like to know the definition of and how it differs from receiving financial benefit. For example, if you make residuals from having worked on a film, would it be paid editing to make changes to the wikiquote page for that film? If you work for a corporation isn't it a conflict of interest if you added nothing but negative quotes to the page for that corporation's main competitor? What if you're the mayor of a city, can you make edits to the page for that city? What if a family member benefits financially from your edits, like a mayor that benefits from the work of their child editing about their city, it seems pretty extreme to forbid people from editing certain topics because of circumstances beyond their control. Does being imprisoned for your edits count as a form of payment, it does result in food and shelter you might not otherwise have? If jail somehow counts as a form of payment than wouldn't being a slave count as paid editing?
From my present, largely uninformed, point of view a strict definition of paid editing would effectively prevent scientists from writing about their areas of expertise and it would prevent most government employees from writing about pretty much anything, because it seems like pretty much everything has become politicized at this point. Is Wikiquote supposed to be like how the Olympics used to be, where only amateur athletes but not professional athletes were allowed to compete?
Also doesn't reporting someone getting paid for editing require evidence of their identity, which means by reporting them you are doxing them? I thought that was against the rules here as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQ inherits its "paid editing" guideline from Wikipedia, so reading that will answer some of your questions. Doxxing is indeed a much bigger violation of policy than "conflict of interest" editing. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how anyone could engage in a fruitful degree of paid editing on this particular project. I suppose a wealthy and widely-quoted person might want a page (low-visibility as it may be), or may want to control contents of their pre-existing page. BD2412 T 02:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a much bigger likelihood of COI editing in a negative way -- for example, the George Galloway article. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of the MO for paid editing being limited to self-portraiture or character assassination is a very limited way of looking at this issue, however the unlikeliness of this rule actually being effectively enforced unless someone self incriminates by posting a photograph onto Wikiquote of themselves being handed money by their financial benefactor (who is also on camera), while publishing an edit with their other hand, makes my concern for this issue laughable. It's a serious issue, but the enforcement of it is essentially nonsensical if it depends entirely on confessions. It also doesn't account for being paid not to edit, like if you work for someone famous that would prefer you not be talking about them on social media, or if you work in the government and your boss doesn't like your politics because it makes your organization look bad. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote as homework

edit

Would it be against the rules here for a teacher to assign contributing quotations to Wikiquote as homework for their class? Would it make a difference whether the teacher themselves was a contributor? Does the age of the students make a difference? I personally think this would be a bad idea, however that's different than being against the rules. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Quote Limit

edit

I have taken issue with the “only two quotes per episode” rule, especially since there are so many pages that have already broken this rule and nobody has done anything about them. Can we raise the limit to something like twenty? As long as we’re not posting the entire script, it should be fine. 2603:7000:1200:825A:4511:238F:3F2C:426A 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please lift the “only two quotes per episode” rule. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? People told me that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, there’s people who treat the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but every other page for the show is ignored. Either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? —This unsigned comment is by 2600:1017:b835:be2:c889:d83f:2bb:361a (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 April 2024.

Template:Wikiquotelang

edit

Hi, is it possible to add Bengali Wikiquote (বাংলা) in there? We recently crossed 1K mark. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: শুকরিয়া/মারহাবা! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf, The code is wrong, should be "bn" (not bg), you can add something like this. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two quotes per episode is too few.

edit

Can we please lift the “only two quotes per episode” rule. Two episodes per quote is too few in my opinion, and what if there’s a memorable quote someone wants to post but can’t because there’s already two quotes for the episode? People told me that it’s because there’s risk of the site being shut down if too much copyrighted material is posted, but that’s never happened as far as I can tell. Besides, there’s people who treat the Family Guy Seasons 8 and 9 pages very seriously with this rule, but every other page for the show is ignored. Either we enforce this rule consistently, or we significantly relax, if not out right abolish it. Which one is it? Playland1998 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to avoid violating copyright, but where in policy or elsewhere is there a "two quotes per episode" rule? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WQ:LOQ (and the associated talk page). There have also been numerous discussions on this topic elsewhere (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, Wikiquote:Quality and Quantity, and I am sure there are more in the archives - I will keep looking and update if I find others). Much of this discussion originated when a sister project in France was threatened with complete shutdown.
There had been discussion about relaxing this restriction (I believe 5 per 1/2 hour episode and 10 per hour episode had been put forward), but we never got consensus. The Limits on Quotations page is a proposed guideline - it never got enough traction to become official policy. But that being said, the community consensus seemed to be that we need some limits so that we can maintain reasonable pages - there was also discussion that even if limits did not prevent bloat that appears on many TV show pages, that the criterion of quotability should also be applied and would likely limit some of the additions by applying that lens. The idea of this site is to post a selection of notable quotes - not full scripts of films or TV shows. Despite the seemingly arbitrary nature of selecting a numerical limit for quotes, it does seem to have benefitted our film and TV show pages in particular, keeping them to a manageable length and level of quality. I do feel there is some leeway we should have for film pages (especially established classics like Casablanca), but for TV shows (that have so many hours or material), it seems like it would be a bit absurd to allow an unlimited amount of quotes per episode. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that the people in this website aren’t truly practicing what they preach, and it’s just not fair. It’s only those two specific Family Guy pages that have the most restrictions from other people, while everything else is just left alone. Long ago, I anonymously added the entire story of how Debbie Grund was killed to the page on King of the Hill's fourth season, and last I checked, no one has deleted it. Playland1998 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon and Category:Richard Nixon

edit

At d:Special:Diff/2134319560, I was alerted that Category:Anti-Semites is added to these pages. The main article was made first, and I made the category by copying all categories from the main article (I didn't notice about Category:Anti-Semites until the message). I'm not sure if the enwiki article supports this categorization. Should we remove Category:Anti-Semites from these pages? MathXplore (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is dating someone just because they edit Wikiquote paid editing?

edit

I was wondering if I could go out on a date with someone without it being a violation of the rule against paid editing. I'm assuming not everyone here is single and that those who are in a relationship currently wouldn't be willing to break up with their partner just so they'd be allowed to continue to edit Wikiquote. I mean, how am I even supposed to know if the only reason someone is dating me is because I edit Wikiquote? I would prefer to date someone who sees enough value in this website that they themselves would like to contribute, but I wouldn't want to make it a necessary condition for them having a relationship with me. I would be pretty heartbroken to find out I was being objectified in a relationship just because of one of my attributes, or that someone was getting paid to date me, but there's no guarantee I'd be able to figure it out if they were.
As a follow up question, would mandatory celibacy even be a rule we could officially implement? What about a new rule that excludes editors based off their gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity or some other status that is typically protected against harassment; is that something Wikiquote could technically do, or would Wikimedia object to us promoting blatantly discriminatory values that are contrary to theirs? People often mention that we are not Wikipedia, but just how different from them are we allowed to be? I can't imagine something like that going very well with the media, and although Wikiquote might not get mentioned in the news, Wikimedia is, and it receives a lot of donations that it might not otherwise receive if one of the websites it operates starts discriminating against people. I'm just trying to follow the rules and maybe introduce someone to this cool hobby of mine that everyone here shares, but when the rules are vaguely worded and no one responds to my questions it can be kind of difficult to know what is and isn't allowed. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fear, but I'd settle on Black comedy. Wikiquote may not be very popular, however as several of the pages I've created for the abortion category contain more references than the corresponding Wikipedia pages, it is arguably one of the most comprehensive learning resources available for abortion on the internet as it combines text from both PubMed and Google Books. As such, it is a particularly well curated data set for an LLM. Given this is a civil rights issue and civil rights advocates have a history of being unjustly targeted by both criminal and law enforcement elements, I believe my increased concern is at least somewhat plausible. I'd make for a pretty terrible civil rights activist, but I'm a halfway decent scholar if you'd like to test my knowledge of the subject, not that civil rights has ever really come down to correctly answering test questions. I like editing Wikiquote and would like to continue to do so, I'm aware that what most people consider payment is financial transactions that have to be reported to the IRS as taxable income or gifts, not the amount of food you eat during a sleepover. I've been a bit on edge recently because it's an election year. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is that "Paid editing" involves getting money or whatever (a promotion, a date, etc.) in exchange for something you are being asked to do in a wiki project. If you already did some work here because you thought it improved the project, that is not "paid editing," even if some third party decides to reward you for what you have already done. That said, WQ articles are not set up to be a source of balanced or reliable information about Beauty, Truth, Abortion, etc. That's Wikipedia's goal, not something we could easily achieve. Creating a reliable guide to some topic entirely by cobbling together a lot of sourced quotable quotes would be like trying to build the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we have to have personal interpretations indicates that the rule is ambiguously worded. I wonder whether that is a communicative error on the part of the editor/editors who wrote that rule, or whether it's intentional to provide enough flexibility that essentially anything can be construed as paid editing. Is paid editing really dependent on the formation of a verbal contract? Isn't dropping a roll of cash in front of a cop as they go to arrest you still considered a bribe even if you didn't say anything? I said that most people wouldn't consider the food you eat while visiting a friend to constitute a bribe, but I don't think that most of the people here have read A Woman in Berlin either, even though the editors of Wikiquote are a particularly well-read group of people and a lot of them present themselves as being deeply concerned for civil rights and social justice. The formation of a verbal contract isn't necessarily a defining feature of bribery and the payment doesn't have to be taxable, it can be a perishable item such as food rations, or like you've mentioned HouseOfChange, a promotion, a date or some other service.
Paid editing is using the carrot, but what about using the stick? We can be blocked for using threatening language in a conversation with other editors on site, Kalki has done it to me before, but what about using threatening language off site? Isn't mentioning offsite activity that reveals details of an editor's identity usually considered doxing them? It's kind of hard to enforce a rule regarding off site behavior when our most important rule is respecting everyone's privacy. It doesn't really matter if offsite harassment is against the rules or not if talking about it is considered the worse offense. Should we be going to the police or journalists instead if that ever happens to us? It would be shameful if that was Wikiquote's first time being talked about in the news. Threats can, and usually are, vaguely worded; similarly, you can imply a bribe without specifically spelling it out for people, it doesn't have to be as obvious as "If you do X I will give you Y".
As for Wikiquote being less balanced than Wikipedia and more cobbled together, Wikipedia attempts to have a neutral point of view while Wikquote is made up of people's points of view, but they are both cobbled together from references to sources that a teacher would consider acceptable to include in a term paper, unlike Wikipedia which is not, and for good reason. Wikipedia summarizes references in much the same way that a streaming service summarizes episodes of a TV show or films. A lot of the nuance of language is lost in creating a brief synopsis of the works of others and in the case of entertainment most of the plot points are simply glossed over. There aren't a lot of Wikipedia pages that are edited solely by one person, but there are several Wikiquote pages with only one editor, I know this from personal experience being one of those lone editors. It seems that not a whole lot of people here seem to be interested in spending their time creating or improving articles about abortion, for whatever reasons those might be.
Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not actually adhere to the Fairness doctrine which stipulated giving equal airtime to both sides of an issue, Wikipedia emphasizes facts, which is a point of view, whereas following the Fairness doctrine means giving equal weight to the words of a NASA astronaut and a moon landing denier. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the moon landing you will see that is not the case. The page for Treatment and management of COVID-19 mentions Ivermectin, but it does so in a section labeled ineffective treatments. If you believe in facts, then you are biased, NPOV may not be the ideal that you think it is, it's not very well defined. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Poetlister case, wikiquote has engaged in enough off-wiki issues that has effect on wiki. You can date with someone, nobody disallows you to do so. However, trying to make promotion about the one you date is COI.
As for BIAS and POV, just take a look on Israel -Hamas related content, Russia -Ukraine related articles. There's something more serious always just happening on this project. -‎Lemonaka‎ 22:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf, HouseOfChange, Lemonaka; as the three of you are administrators, tell me what you would think of the following scenario which is neither complex nor hypothetical. I show some of my contributions to someone who believes in reproductive rights and in social media such as Wikiquote as an effective means of education and outreach, they are impressed enough by what I've done that they decide to let me stay at their house and continue to create pages about reproductive rights because they share my concerns for the future. Is that paid editing, yes or no? If you have different answers to this question, than why is there that little consensus among the Wikiquote administrators as to what paid editing even means? Anyone else can free to state their "interpretation" as well, although unless they are also administrators who are tasked with enforcing the rules here when they are broken, there opinion will not mean much to me, even if it's Jimmy Wales. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your original question is no. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Koavf by original question do you mean, "I show some of my contributions to someone who believes in reproductive rights and in social media such as Wikiquote as an effective means of education and outreach, they are impressed enough by what I've done that they decide to let me stay at their house and continue to create pages about reproductive rights because they share my concerns for the future. Is that paid editing, yes or no?" I'm still a bit confused why if someone gave me three thousand dollars to pay the rent for a New York City apartment so I can edit Wikiquote fulltime it's paid editing, but if they own their own New York City apartment and let me stay there rent free so I can edit Wikiquote fulltime, it's not paid editing. They both sound like a gift of three thousand dollars that is being given in exchange for edits that haven't happened yet, the only difference is that I don't have to report the second one to the IRS, but as HouseOfChange has made clear, they interpret paid editing to include services that lack any financial value whatsoever, like going on the world's cheapest date. I hope that HouseOfChange isn't in charge of interpreting and enforcing the legal definition of prostitution. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Justin, no. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Resolved
—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

edit

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

edit

Aren't this copyvio? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the original source is The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians is a set of eight volumes published between 1867–1877 in London. Any book published in the 19th century is not a copyvio. It would be better to first ask on the talkpage of the article. However, some copyediting is still needed and is work in progress. --ᘙ (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not copyvio then but quotes should not be that long, it's very hard to follow. You know Wikisource exist for this type of book. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The India they saw: Foreign accounts is a compendium of quotes on India, in which the same extract is quoted in full. This means that at least another published editor found this particular episode interesting, quotable and coherent enough to quote in full. Smaller parts of the episode have of course been quoted often elsewhere. But the extract could be split into smaller quotes and perhaps trimmed, to make it more readable. As I said in my last reply the article still needs copyediting and is work in progress. I will have a few more tries at the article when I find the time. Thanks for reminding me. --ᘙ (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
 

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senator:RamonRevillaSr.@JoseBautistaSr.com

edit

The Senaator is Planning to run for President at 2028 Presidential Election.As the headline of [{PDPLaban/com})Mb.com 124.106.110.221 04:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy change proposal: More quotes per episode

edit

I’ve been trying to add more quotes to the pages for Family Guy's eighth and ninth seasons, but people kept preaching to me that there should only be two quotes per half-hour episode, or else they will get a copyright claim. Anonymous user 100.8.243.246 said to me on UDScott’s talk page that the event it never happens is “unlikely”, but cannot disagree with him more. The page for Season 18 for example has 14 quotes for the episode The Movement, and not a single copyright claim has happened to that. I also added the entire story of Debbie Grund’s death to King of the Hill’s fourth season, and guess what people did about it? Nothing! Besides, why would anyone copyright claim this website anyway, when there are so many other quote websites that are just left alone?

So I’m coming up with a new proposal to raise the maximum number of quotes per episode, since not a single copyright claim has happened to Family Guy Season 18 or King of the Hill Season 4. The maximum number of quotes should be: five quotes for a show less than a half-hour long; 15 quotes for a half-hour; 20 quotes for an hour; 25 quotes for an hour and a half; 30 quotes for two hours; and 40 quotes for 3 hours. Because since no one is copyright claiming those pages, then why should we even care?

P.S. I expect a satisfactory response as soon as possible. I don’t like it when people ignore my words. Playland1998 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A slight increase might be OK but fifteen quotes per half hour seems much too high. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about ten? Playland1998 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote doesn't have all that many active users, but this is an issue people might realistically vote on in mass, given how much activity on this website concerns television shows. This is just my assessment, but we seem to favor movies over TV, and video games and comic books are largely dismissed despite modern video games being comparable in length to novels in their word count and a large portion of the movies coming out being based on comics. If you think we can normally interest a group of twelve people for a vote on anything than you are sorely mistaken, but raising this issue might actually accomplish that. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have that many active users, but my complaint is that whatever users are active only focus on those two specific Family Guy pages, while leaving everything else I edited unchanged. Either ALL pages follow these quote limit rules or none of them do, and I am definitely in favor of the latter option. Playland1998 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing wrong with providing context. Just don’t post the entire script. Playland1998 (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

edit

Hi. I've been editing the English Wikipedia for a while now and decided to check out Wikiquote. Is there anything like the Task Center where I can find things to do? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikiquote. We are a small project, without a Task Center as far as I know. Most people work on pages about things/people where they already have some knowledge and some interest. Another source of inspiration can be news stories that contain quotable quotes from notable people. I hope you will find areas you enjoy working on and decide to stay. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.

We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • –
  • Northern and Western Europe
  • Latin America and Caribbean
    • –
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
    • —
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    • –
  • Middle East and North Africa
  • East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
  • South Asia
    • –

The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now on Meta

edit
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The final text of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now up on Meta in more than 20 languages for your reading.

What is the Wikimedia Movement Charter?

The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a proposed document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

Join the Wikimedia Movement Charter “Launch Party”

Join the “Launch Party” on June 20, 2024 at 14.00-15.00 UTC (your local time). During this call, we will celebrate the release of the final Charter and present the content of the Charter. Join and learn about the Charter before casting your vote.

Movement Charter ratification vote

Voting will commence on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. You can read more about the voting process, eligibility criteria, and other details on Meta.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment on the Meta talk page or email the MCDC at mcdc@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the MCDC,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_63&oldid=3548700"