Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 1

Archive 1

heading template

I don't think the heading template is accurate in describing this page as a proposal for a policy, guideline, or process. But in any case, since signatures are being collected, the letter is no longer a draft, and I suggest the template be removed. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now removed it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Add the threat of Trump

This has run its course. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is to prevent Trump from doing the same and going after any editors here who include anything negative in his articles? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC) As i said earlier Djano Chained (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Trangabellam is very good in arguements. Why dont WMF send them at their cost to Indian courts to defends the community Djano Chained (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Trump is already upto revenge politics, Djano Chained (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I'm not too worried about that, since the U.S. has much better free speech protections. However, more importantly, adding Trump would alienate a bunch of people and get off-topic from our main concern, which is the Indian lawsuit. Let's not coatrack this open letter with every free speech concern we can think of. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I agree with this. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Well, okay, but they need to keep that in mind, as he will use this as a precedent for his actions. Any sign of weakness will be an invitation for him to take action, and "free speech" is one of his targets. He will limit it to "loyal" speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I don't think this petition is a sign of weakness. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Its quite the opposite, actually. Babysharkboss2!! (WEEZER FOR PRESIDENT 2024!) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I am not referring to this petition. It is a sign of strength, but what WMF is doing is a sign of weakness. They should be willing to allow India to block access to Wikipedia, rather than give in to these unreasonable demands. The howl from the unhappy populace would be a huge Streisand effect. If they cave to India, then other nations will follow, including Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC) No. This is an open letter about an ongoing case with imminent and direct potential consequences for three Wikipedia editors. They deserve better than to have US politics shoe-horned into something intended as a statement of support for them. I think you have a right to be concerned about the consequences of a Trump presidency, but that is an issue for another thread and another statement. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. This should not be a statement, but a consideration, already now. That's my concern. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Valjean, I know it's your gimmick to refocus everything to be about Donald Trump, but that really isn't necessary here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I'll start by saying that I fully understand that this discussion is closed, and I'm someone who does not typically ignore closures and insert comments afterwards. I'm doing this as an atypical (for me) invocation of WP:IAR. But I feel strongly about what I want to say here, so if anyone gets the dumb idea of reverting me, please understand that I will edit war with you to put it back, even to the point of me getting blocked. Hear me on that, because I mean it. I agree with other editors that we should not broaden the content of the open letter. It would be incorrect to add Trump. It would indeed be a disservice to the editors this letter is about, to work other issues into it. But I want to say, as a matter of discussion, that the issue is a serious one, that all editors should care about. Dismissing the OP as "it's your gimmick" does not do justice to the underlying issue. The President-elect of the largest English-speaking nation has promised "retribution" against his critics, and he is likely to see Wikipedia as "fake news". The reason this open letter in its present form is so important to me as an editor here is that, once we let the powerful come after any of us, the powerful will come for us, ourselves, next. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Preload

Is it worth having a preload link to add a signature, because I can see this attracting edit conflicts?--Launchballer 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This might just work:

A small issue is that it only preloads the signature, so if we go with it I'll create a template to preload # ~~~~ instead of just ~~~~ Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed version:

Should work fine now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In future for consistency, a button like this which also references the diff you signed could be very useful. I say this as considering how #Phrasing tweaks is going, editors have ultimately signed different versions of this letter. CNC (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Context?

I see there's a request for this to be added to the watchlist notices. Is there something we can link "considering disclosing identifying private information" to so editors without prior involvement can see the reason for the petition? Perfect4th (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Village Pump discussions are an absolute sprawling mess, so the best we have right now is probably one of the Singpost articles on it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2024-11-06#In_focus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Perfect4th It's a bit of a long story, but perhaps

• Asian_News_International#Litigation_against_other_organisations
• Why Wikipedia has landed in legal trouble in India
• Explained: What’s ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about?

could be of use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a link to context should be added above the letter to help editors. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Or quote in brief from the BBC's article: In August, the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose who made these allegedly defamatory edits to the ANI page - and threatened to shut down the website if it didn't comply with its orders. The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That is pretty much the essence of it. Noting that as of yet, WMF hasn't shared anything, the next court meeting on that is November 8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Primary and secondary source ideally. CNC (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added a context box with links to the Signpost article, BBC article, and WP:VPWMF as a whole. Feel free to make tweaks or modifications as appropriate/needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and put a shortcut in there. CNC (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Would WP:2024OPENLETTER be a better choice, since it's likely not going to be the only open letter in the future? WP:OPENLETTER would end up shortcutting to a disambiguation page for them all. Svampesky (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, will change. CNC (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrative suggestions

1. Add a note ASAP that signatories support the idea, but that the text can be updated / modified pending talk page consensus in usual wiki way
2. consider changing "English Wikipedia" to Wikipedia, because the censorship happened in French and may happen in other languages. All languages have a chilling effect
3. permit language translation

Recommend looking at the well-designed meta:Community open letter on renaming for guidance

Bluerasberry (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on point 1, ideally the open letter would be a transclusion from an edit diff. CNC (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The text has to be stable in order for signatures to have meaning, so I don't think anything beyond minor tweaks is desirable. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Text like this is not directly translatable. It seems like an error to restrict this to English only, or to expect every language community to stay divided in protest while they make their own letters.

The wiki community has been through this process a few times a year every year for the last 20 years. Having the option to update and translate are recurring issues in each case.

You might be correct, but in general, wiki editors benefit from retaining the power to revise. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A signed letter has no meaning if it can be revised to say something different later on, as it misrepresents the intent of those signing. Thus a blanket statement that the document may be revised in any way would rob it of its utility. The time for significant revision was before it was released for signing. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Banners and icons

I made these for the reporting in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost but they did not make it to publication. These are for this event. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: you forgot to add the word "yet" in parentheses. Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! But what's going on with the padding here? Is there an SVG version? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I do not know how to convert to SVG. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What did you make this with? (Also, do you plan to refine the padding anytime soon?) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who was involved in conceiving of and drafting the letter. Good job, all. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

100%, I am so glad that we're finally doing something, and not just letting the WMF disclose the information of volunteers without consent. E_F⁵ 22:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Scope

Pardon the repeat from VPW: Since this was framed as a rewording/condensing of this draft, just a comment that I was trying to avoid the appearance of trying to intervene in an active court case (mainly, by omitting ANI/India). I'm uneasy doing so with such a conspicuous absence of relevant legal expertise involved in the discussion thus far. I'd also prefer to see us sign on to a statement of principles that would apply outside of India and beyond this case, too (including in the US, should it become necessary). Similar basic idea, just less explicit (and, granted, my draft was wordier, with an additional ask that could've been better fleshed out). Obviously not proposing a change here, since this already has a lot of signatures -- just a comment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can create a page for the statement of principles for comment and revision, and when ready, people can sign it? isaacl (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Pulled back

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pulled back from this open letter signing campaign. IMO anonymous editing is not good, editors shall be identified by their original identity Djano Chained (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If people not like what is being written about them they have right to protest and act through legal means. Freedom of speech is both way. Right? Djano Chained (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP community doesn't have to worry too much if ANI goes to court. The trial will involve both WMF and the editor who made the edit. We will prevail if there are no issues with the edit. Djano Chained (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true. Keep in mind we are dealing with Modi's India, no longer a democratic nation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"If"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

But the WMF releasing personally identifiable information would set a bad precedent. Remember that also that India is not very democratic any more and that Modi is basically a Hindu nationalist. Cremastra (u — c) 20:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Protesting and acting through legal means are two very different things. "Freedom to speak against what you said" is certainly part of freedom of speech, but "freedom to sue you for what you said" isn't. To the contrary, it's using the state's power to punish people for their speech. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You created your account yesterday and have since done nothing but defend the Indian government in this case.

You aren't "pulling back" from anything because you aren't a Wikipedia editor - that would require actually having contributed any edits. Cortador (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That would make Djano a single-purpose account. Best to keep an eye on them for potential disruptiveness. Carlinal (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah , WP:NOTHERE block is in order given that they have no other interest here other than asking for editors to be de-anonymized. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User with one edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

@Yelromcc, your first and only edit was signing this petition. Why? Cremastra (u — c) 21:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we need to know people's motivations. Anyone concerned about this situation is free to create an account and sign. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out that this petition is being advertised on everyone's watchlists. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm a new user on simplewiki and saw the invitation and I agree with the petition. Hope this helps Yelromcc (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there's no problem here, and this should be put to rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:OPENLETTER" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:OPENLETTER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7 § Wikipedia:OPENLETTER until a consensus is reached. Sdkb ^talk 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have snow closed since almost everyone request for a disambiguation page: Wikipedia:Open letters. – robertsky (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This will be ignored because...

... read up on the Iron law of oligarchy _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get into debates about the merits of hierarchy here. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing tweaks

OK, I'll post the first comment to this pristine talk page: the phrasing the suggestion that the Foundation is considering disclosing identifying private information about volunteer editors could be tweaked a bit. However much we dislike the use of auto-translation software, this letter will almost certainly be run through such software, and constructions with multiple -ing forms where some are part of a progressive verb phrase and some are adjectival can make machine translators choke. GTranslate's French version seems to interpret this as something closer to "that the Foundation intends to disclose", for instance. While it isn't possible to get rid of all potential translator traps, this particular one could maybe be tweaked – I think that humans who are not fully proficient English users might also find the phrasing a little difficult to parse. Would the suggestion that the Foundation considers disclosing private information that would identify volunteer editors be an acceptable alternative?

I don't think this is a crucial issue, but wanted to raise it all the same. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I think this would be a good change. It doesn't change the content, but improves understandability. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting the sentence, "In the light of this, we, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned at the suggestion that the Foundation considers disclosing private information that would identify volunteer editors to the Delhi High Court." I think there is a bit of complexity around the use of "considers", as a typical use would be "that X considers Y to be Z", and so the sentence seems to be left hanging. Perhaps the wording could be something like "In the light of this, we, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned at the suggestion that the Foundation may disclose private information that would identify volunteer editors to the Delhi High Court." isaacl (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Good point – I agree. --bonadea contributions talk 17:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Would [...]at the suggestion that the Foundation has considered disclosing private information, particularly the identities of volunteer editors work? 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think my suggested wording is more direct: the concern is that the WMF may disclose information. A "suggestion" that something has been "considered" is adding two levels of indirection, which doesn't sound as emphatic to me. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

On "Our millions of volunteer contributors". If we count worldwide everyone who made at least one edit this year, I guess that would be over a million and thus correct, but perhaps "hundreds of thousands" would be more on the mark. It's a minor thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There was some discussion over this in a previous thread. My take is that this is not just editors active this year, as bad players can request data relating to older edits, and even if the IP information has been deleted, the relevant e-mail address may still be linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'd quite like to know why and only makes it more likely that such pressure will be exerted in future was changed to and makes it more likely attempts at such pressure will be exerted in future, because I think my version read better, was more grammatical, and had certainly received some signatures before the change. I'm going to change it back. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  I made that edit. It was still marked as a draft at that time. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• The other thing I'd suggest is delinking Delhi High Court (the single blue link makes it stand out strongly), especially in the light of concerns that we should steer away from mentioning the Delhi High Court at all. @QuicoleJR: who looks to have added the link. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Delinked. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have also delinked Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Not sure exactly when that got linked but I really think we should just leave the text alone now: it is not as if it provides any information. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say it does provide some contextually interesting info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia

In Russian Wikipedia, there always has been a consensus that we do not comply with government censorship. As a result, one Wikipedian is in prison, another Wikipedian is under policial supervision, and one more Wikipedian is prosecuted as a "foreign agent". Should we expect that the valiant Wikimedia Foundation would give IP addresses of Wikipedians to the Russian government, so that it can persecute even more people? Such a prospect would destroy Russian Wikipedia more effectively than all the efforts of the Russian government. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already blocked with the Russian WMF chapter disbanded anyways, so probably not. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already blocked – false. However, there were numerous warnings and it's likely it will get blocked in the near future, considering they already slowed Youtube to a crawl (blocked without technically blocking it). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)