Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals sections when appropriate, or at the help desk for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for a week.

« Archives, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74

Upcoming WMF fundraising campaign in India

Dear all,

I would like to inform our community members in India about the upcoming annual Wikimedia Foundation fundraising campaign in India.

The fundraising campaign will have two components.

1. We will send emails to people who have previously donated from India. The emails are scheduled to be sent between the 2nd of May and the 1st of June.  
2. We will run banners for non-logged in users in India on English Wikipedia itself. The banners will run from the 30th of May until the 27th of June.

Prior to this, we are planning to run some tests in April and May, so you might see banners a couple of times before the campaign starts. This activity will ensure that our technical infrastructure works.

We have now launched a community engagement page where you can find more detail around the campaign. We are also sharing some banner examples there and are inviting you to give feedback on the examples as well as provide your own messaging on the talk page.  

I will also be hosting a community call on the 23rd of April at 19:30pm IST to which you can bring your questions and suggestions.

Generally, before and during the campaign, you can contact us:

• On the talk page of the fundraising team
• If you need to report a bug or technical issue, please create a phabricator ticket
• If you see a donor on a talk page, VRT or social media having difficulties in donating, please refer them to donatewikimedia.org

Thanks you and regards, JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): I am not convinced we should be running any campaigns in the global south, but while we are can you please post all banners that you use so that we can ensure they meet the requirements of the 2022 Banners RfC? BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you can find example banners on the community engagement page we created. As always, we provide our control banners as example banners. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBrungs (WMF): Thank you, but what I was asking for was as you deploy different banners you post the banners here so that they can be reviewed by the community. BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We will use the community engagement page, and the community call on the 23rd of April at 19:30pm IST, to talk to Indian volunteers about messaging improvement ideas they have as well as inviting new messaging ideas from them. This is very similar to the process we had around the English campaign. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please no more "community calls". Hard to see this as a good faith practice. small jars tc 14:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

How is a community call with Indian Wikimedians about a fundraising campaign in India not a "good faith practice"? dwadieff ✉ 15:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@David Wadie Fisher-Freberg: It is not a good faith practice because the Wikimedia Foundation is not soliciting active consent, they only solicit for opposition. There is no Wikimedia community in India which has the infrastructure to organize a response to this call. Part of the reason for that is that the Wikimedia Foundation does not fund community organization in India. Because there is no community which is able to oppose or even appear at these calls, the Wikimedia Foundation by default interprets lack of participation as consent for the foundation to proceed. Also, the Wikimedia Foundation sets the agenda for the conversation, not the community. The community in India would like support for accessing grants, not to volunteer in assisting the transfer of money from India to the Wikimedia Foundation. If the volunteers had their way, first they would get WMF sponsorship to organize themselves to participate in conversations, then after that there could be conversations about India giving money back to the foundation.

The ethical alternative that I would propose for this and all other community conversations is a global Wikimedia default presumption that there is no Wikimedia community consent, until and unless there is on-wiki evidence of active consent. Only "yes" means yes; the absence of "no" is not consent. A great demonstration of consent would be for Wikimedia user groups and individuals in India to sign their support for this kind of fundraising to happen. That demonstration of support does not exist - the Wikimedia Foundation's evidence of support is that few or no people show up to the calls. If we ever had a third party researcher at a university evaluate this consent process, it would not pass as valid.

The fundraising is not the problem, exactly. The problem is colonization in which the Wikimedia Foundation speaks for the community of India, while also not supporting the development of community infrastructure which would empower local people to speak for themselves. If the people could speak for themselves, then I expect they would ask for collected funds to support programs in India, and actively negotiate how that would look. I am aware of no evidence that such community conversation is happening. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: For reference, here are the sample banners and sample email texts Julia kindly posted on m:Fundraising:

• Fundraising emails in India - 2nd to 19th of May. Here are some example emails please note, we are still working on those and they might change, we also test emails and you might see different variations of these emails: Email 1, Email 2, Email 3, Email 4
• Fundraising banners in India - 30th of May to 27th of June. Here are some example banners - please note that we constantly test banners and you might see different variations of these banners: Desktop large, Desktop small, Mobile large, Mobile small

--Andreas JN466 19:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

We ⚠️⚠️choose⚠️⚠️ not to charge a subscription fee – emphasis my own. small jars tc 23:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That passage is unacceptable. Andreas JN466 07:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate your response, this is really helpful feedback that will help improve our content. Based on what you have shared we are changing the line in our email copy to say "There is no subscription fee to access content on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we don't need support from our readers." 2601:C9:100:9CF0:7412:2FEB:7826:C5EF (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my response below did not show my login name and I wanted you to know this was coming from someone legitimately at the Foundation:

Appreciate your response, this is really helpful feedback that will help improve our content. Based on what you have shared we are changing the line in our email copy to say "There is no subscription fee to access content on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we don't need support from our readers." DBu-WMF (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"There is" is no better: we need "There will never be". Even with that change, the line would be deceptive since it strongly implies that financial support from readers is needed to provide access to Wikipedia, a notion that has repeatedly been demonstrated to be far from the truth. An acceptable message, especially one targeted at people living in the global south, can only be one that honestly attempts to summarise what the WMF spends the majority of its funds on, as anything coming in from fundraisers at this point is surplus that will have no impact whatsoever on servers or site access, unless it was kept saved for many decades. Indian people are currently battling with the impacts of a serious heatwave; surely the last thing they deserve is to be swindled out of their money by an organisation (subtly?) threatening to remove their access to a cornerstone of free knowledge resources. small jars tc 21:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Help finding an essay on not watchlisting your created articles

I've lost a link to something that I intended to re-read. It was about not watchlisting articles you create. A phrase in it struck me, that the original revision that you created is always there so you should not feel that anything is "lost" by subsequent editing. The problem is I'm not sure where I read it. It's probably an essay in WP: space but maybe a user essay. And possibly off-wiki entirely. Sorry for the broad ask, but I thought maybe it is well known to another editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bri. Maybe Wikipedia:Don't watch articles that you care about? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I was just in progress of linking to the same page... (I found it from its link on Wikipedia:Don't overload your watchlist!, which came up in a Wikipedia search for "watchlist created articles".) isaacl (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Misunderstood on first try. Try again. Every edit you ever make is preserved in the page's history, unless it has been revdeled or oversighted. All you have to do is look in the edit history of a page for edits you made. If you are on the [(article name):Revision history] page, there is link at the top to a tool that will let you search the history for all edits made by a designated editor. Donald Albury 16:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking for the essay that references that fact. It's in the spirit of "Don't watch articles that you care about", but more specifically about the page history preserving something you might otherwise feel compelled to prevent changes to. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for. Once an edit has been committed, it is preserved for ever (or, at least, as long as the current WikiMedia software is in use), and cannot be changed. Old edits can be hidden by revdel or oversight, but they are still there, are still visible to admins (revdels only) and oversighters, and can be made visible again to regular editors if it is decided policy will allow that. When you edit a page, you are creating a new version of the page that is the default seen by readers, but the pervious version is unchanged, and can be seen by anyone who cares to dig into the edit history. Donald Albury 21:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Donald, I'm aware of the edit history feature but I'm looking for the essay that references it. Sorry I'm not being clearer but my memory of exactl what the essay said is fuzzy. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

You might try looking in the Help: or User: namespaces. Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, creating, and maintaining articles/Who did what: Page histories and reverting says something about everything being preserved forever, but I don't think that's exactly what you're looking for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading something about not worrying about changes being lost forever as you can retrieve them from the article history, but I don't remember this being tied to your watchlist. So far, I haven't found what I was thinking of by looking through Wikipedia:Essay directory and Template:Wikipedia essays. isaacl (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

But please do continue to watchlist articles you create. I'm increasingly worried that there are articles out there slowly degrading through incompetent, or worse, edits which are not noticed. For a sad saga, see this ANI report where I described the edits of one editor who had left a trail of muddled edits, most of which had not been picked up and corrected (stuff like changing the surname "Yampier" to "Vampire" or "Bibliomemoir" to "Bibliometric" because their spellchecker suggested it). The essay Wikipedia:Don't watch articles that you care about seems to be about avoiding stressful content disputes, but there are other reasons to watchlist articles: just keeping up the quality of the encyclopedia. If you don't look after the artices you create, perhaps no-one else will do so. PamD 08:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@PamD: Agreed, in general, to the limits of this being a volunteer project and all that; a lot of the articles on my watchlist are only there because no-one else seems to be watching them. Bri, was this inspired by the email I sent you, since you linked me to the first essay noted above? (I occasionally check out all the village pumps which is how I found this). I'll briefly summarise the relevant case here. It was about the Sally Whitwell article that you created, which had a blatant lie about a supposed breakup of her long-term relationship that stayed in the article for over two years. Literally my first thought when finding out about this situation was "I wish article creators would keep a better eye on their articles". She was very distressed when she discovered the vandalism; I know this through mutual friends (she's fairly well-known among the Australian blind musicians community, which I used to be involved with, because she helped us out in the past). Adding an article to Wikipedia increases its knowledge base but also increases its maintenance burden, especially regarding biographies of living people like that one. Having said that, the watchlist system does have major problems ... it's all-too-easy for things like that to fall off the wagon, even with assiduous watchlist checking ... and it's always good to find new pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Graham87 11:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Bot requests that were made two months ago but got no response

here is the link to the requests. I don't know if there is a better place to be posting this. 137a (talk • edits) 13:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

permanent link in case this gets archived 137a (talk • edits) 13:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input on an RFC related to WP:CATV

Hello! For anyone willing to provide input, there's an RFC related to a couple mass-shooting categories here, and any input would be greatly appreciated. The question is: "Should this article, concerning firearm-related violence with multiple persons injured, be included in mass-shooting categories, even though no sources directly refer to it as a 'mass shooting'?" The key debate concerns whether "mass shooting" is a special term that requires labelling by a reliable source. Thanks in advance!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Award certificate (or any other official document) as a source

Hi! Does enwiki have any policy regarding the use of these? Is it acceptable to use a photo of an award certificate as a proof of that award if no other sources are available? P.S. especially if it's been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons and hadn't been published anywhere else? Piramidion 17:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm! If an image has been uploaded to Commons, but is not available anywhere else, that is a problem. Commons, like Wikipedia itself, is not a reliable source. Anyone can upload any image to Commons as long as they claim it is in the public domain or is released under a license compatible with our requirements. Without a link to a reliable source establishing the provenance of the image, it is not usable as a source. Even then, I would question using such an image as a source. Donald Albury 17:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Can one change the email address associated with an existing login username?

I have been asked this question to which I do not know the answer. Can one change the email address associated with an existing login username, without surrendering the username? Thanks in advance.

@Krushnarjun: with regard to your query

Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never done it but sure, why not? Special:UserLogin asks you to enter a username, not an email address. The email address can be changed any time at Special:Preferences. More robust answers would be available at WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Specifically this is under "Notifications" at Special:Preferences. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@AshLin: Your email address may be set in either of two places in preferences - the "Change or remove email address" link Notifications as noted above, or the Change or remove email address button at User profile. Both of them are titled "Email options", and both take you to Special:ChangeEmail. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks :) @Redrose64, Phil Bridger, and Johnuniq:. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Music articles

I'm probably just running against the wind, but I would really like articles on songs to include the music basics, in particular, what the song's time is. When I have requested this at specific song sites, I have gotten either silence or statements that the song can be in different times. But most song articles focus on one rendition, e.g., Maggy May, so it would be reasonable to say what time and key the song (in the version discussed) is in. (I realize this might be hard to document, but I think it would be worthwhile for those of us who are musically challenged but also musically interested.) Kdammers (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

When you try to add this information, does anyone revert it or complain about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Quite. I don't see how anyone could complain if the content is reliably sourced. The time of most songs does not change much, but many folk and other traditional songs, such as Maggie May (folk song), can be performed in many different keys. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The length (and other characteristics) of a particular recording is fixed, but performers can choose different tempos, keys, and so forth for their performances for stylistic or practical reasons (and of course just ordinary variance). An indication of a recording's tempo might be a more basic data point than its length, but as far as I know there's no reputable third-party reliable source for that info. isaacl (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

An article about a song ought to be thought of as primarily about the song as a piece of music and only secondarily about recordings of the song. A notable song is rarely recorded just once and then never performed live, never recorded in other versions by the original performer and never recorded in cover versions by other performers. Songs are not recordings, although obviously, the most notable recorded versions need to be discussed in articles about songs. Folk songs can have very long histories and many variations before they were ever recorded. Therefore, it is not possible to say that a given song is so many minutes and so many seconds long. We can only say that about a specific recorded version of that song. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I was interpreting time as being as in time signature. Of course the length of time that it takes to perform a song can vary enormously. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

So was I. Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) is in ²
₄. We have plenty of reliable sources for this, and we don't really need a specifically third-party source for it.

I understand that others would find the tempo (=beats per minute) to be useful, but that will be specific to individual recordings. I'm not sure I'd include that routinely, but it can be relevant to an article in some instances (e.g., the Bee Gees "Stayin' Alive" is just the right tempo for CPR; consider downloading that to your phone in case you need it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Time signatures for music influenced by 18th century European musical traditions is usually obvious, and if sheet music is sold for a given song, it can be used as a source. Note not all music follows in that tradition, and there are instances of songs when determining the time signature for a specific passage comes down to musical interpretation. There are also unusual cases where songs have been notably performed with different meters ("The Star-Spangled Banner" being an example); a discussion of this would be reasonable to include within a song article. As long as editors don't try to force a single standard upon all songs, such as requiring a single time signature to be assigned to every song, there shouldn't be an issue with including this info for cases where the time signature info is well known. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the key of a recording (*): it can be tricky to find a source that meets English Wikipedia's standards for reliability. For some types of music, it's fairly clear. Piano pieces following 18th-century European musical traditions played on pianos tuned to a known standard are straightforward enough (though analog recordings can introduce additional uncertainty). Again, generally speaking if sheet music is available and it can be established that it matches the recording in question, it can be used as a source, but it isn't always the literal truth: a rock piece might be written in an easier-to-play key, but the recording may have been made with the guitars detuned so the performance is actually in a different key. Thus the same caveat about not forcing a one-size-fits-all standard applies.

(*) Key isn't an inherent characteristic of songs, as they can be transposed to any key. Usually for a given performance, it's transposed to a key suitable for the instruments (including voices). isaacl (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

(I am the original poster.) I was referring to time signature. I understand that for classical pieces there is published sheet music, but for pop songs such material might not be available. Still, I would like to read if a song is in 2/4, 2/2, 4/4 (all of which seem to be the same to me, but I would still like to know), 3/4, 7/8, 5/4 etc., especially since I usually can't "hear" which time signature is applicable.Kdammers (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

From a timing perspective, the bottom number in the time signature doesn't technically matter (you could double it and halve the tempo to match, for example, so everything would be the same), but there are different connotations for musicians when reading it, plus it's usually more convenient to use certain notes as the basic beat. In a similar manner, whether something is notated with three or six beats per measure, or other multiples of a prime number is usually a matter of convenience. (Two or four is a bit of an exception; because the first beat in a measure traditionally has a stronger emphasis, some might choose to use two instead of four for more frequent emphasis.) Time signatures with anything other than multiples of two or three as the top number are relatively rare for popular music in the European-influenced cultural traditions, though there are some bands (particularly in the jazz world) who like to create music with more complex time signatures. Most common pop music has four beats per measure, so you can first try counting to four repeatedly in time with the song's beat, and see if it fits the melody. A song with three beats per measure has a waltzing feel (One-two-three One-two-three). And for popular songs, you can readily find the beats per measure information through searching online; the results don't meet English Wikipedia's standards of reliability and won't handle unusual cases (such as changing time signatures), but will be good enough for a lot of music. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kdammers: for pop songs such material might not be available - it might be difficult to obtain, but legally, sheet music should have been made available in order to establish copyright in the melody and lyrics, and to satisfy PRS requirements concerning public performance of anything that you didn't write yourself. Try going to a musical instrument shop, they normally have a sheet music section - have a look through what is on sale, you might be surprised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot about the discussion you started last year at the idea lab village pump, which can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 43 § Time in music articles and has more discussion about the challenges of identifying a specific time signature in a manner suitable for inclusion in an English Wikipedia article. isaacl (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this a policy violation?

Does this comment violate any Wikipedia policies and can it be removed Talk:My_Days_of_Mercy#The_identity_of_the_star 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:BLP. I've removed it. RAN1 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft

Greetings Wikipedians. The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to share a summary of our draft annual plan with you here on English Wikipedia. If you're interested in the full plan, it's available on Meta-wiki, and we encourage you to take a look. We'd also love to hear your thoughts, so feel free to leave a comment on the talk page here on English Wikipedia or on Meta-wiki. The comment period is open from now until May 19th. Thank you for your interest in our work. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

BLPs tagged unreferenced and unclear notability

Per Petscan:24767247, there are currently 97 articles that are tagged as both having unclear notability and being unreferenced BLPs. If it was just a few, I would simply nominate for deletion, but that feels inappropriate for this many articles. Would a mass deletion or mass PROD be appropriate here? Given the sensitive nature of BLP articles, I think that addressing BLPs which are both unreferenced and non-notable should be high priority. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course it should, but we need to ensure that the tags are correct - anyone can put a tag on an article just as anyone can create one. I am actually surprised that the number is so low, low enough that existing deletion processes can take care of things without any panic about a "mass" anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many, many more unreferenced non-notable BLP articles that simply aren't tagged. I've AfD'd and BLPPRODed several such articles over the last few weeks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked 3 of them at random; and all of the ones I checked, while they don't have inline citations to RSs, are ineligible for BLP prod due to the presence of sources in other forms (such as external links). At least one of them has been around since 2005. They seem to be mostly complex, edge cases that don't fit neatly into the "easy to dispose of or fix" boxes.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The complexity is why I made a post here instead of just dealing with it myself. There are plenty that I'm still trying to figure out what to do with. I felt these ones leaned toward the "easy to dispose of" end of the spectrum because they've been tagged for notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the same faith as you in notability taggers as opposed to article creators. One may be wrong as much as the other. Taking ONUnicorn's lead I too checked three at random (asking random.org to give me three numbers from 1 to 96) and found one that was already at AfD and two that, if I had a bit more time today, I would take to AfD. That is just using existing procedures, rather than asking for mass deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My faith in article creators that create entirely uncited articles is approximately zero. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked one on the list, it was created 17 years ago...expectations were a bit looser back then. I found two reliable sources and one WP:ABOUTSELF so added them. I still nom'd to AFD for lack of notability, but that I was able to find a few sources tells me that the lack of sources on any on that list might just be for lack of looking. Schazjmd (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Why, then, is your faith in notability taggers close to 100%, which it must be for you to propose this? They are the same people. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Because unsourced content is at best an acceptable loss and at worst actively harmful. I'd like to delete all unreferenced BLPs, but that's not as plausible as simply deleting the ones that have been tagged for notability for several years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

We had that debate many years ago, and the result was the WP:BLPPROD procedure which already allows all unreferenced BLPs to be deleted. What is so wrong with that procedure that you need extra powers? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there are still over a thousand unreferenced articles about living people that are ineligible for BLPPROD, many of which are about non-notable people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Inviting external editor(s)

How do I invite the The Toy Pool team to improve the articles like My Little Pony, Equestria Girls, Littlest Pet Shop, Monster High and Ever After High, and their related articles? JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 08:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You can mention to them that anyone can edit Wikipedia. However, to avoid misunderstanding, you should keep in mind the policy at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry and the guideline at Wikipedia:Canvassing. You should also inform anyone from that site that you recruit to edit Wikipedia about the guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Donald Albury 17:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Elections Committee: Call for New Members

Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation elections committee (Elections Committee) is, from today until April 24, seeking an additional 2–4 members to help facilitate the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee (Board) selection process.

The 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election is being planned. New members are invited to join the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee oversees the Board of Trustees community seat selection process. Join the committee and contribute your valuable skills and ideas to the Trustee selection process.

There are eight community- and affiliate-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board. The wider Wikimedia community votes for community members to occupy these seats. In 2024, the Elections Committee will oversee this selection process for the community- and affiliate-selected seats with expiring terms. This process will be supported by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Elections Committee members sign up for three-year terms and will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Members can expect to contribute 2–5 hours per week before the selection process and 5–8 hours per week during the selection process.

As an Elections Committee member, you will be responsible for:

• Attending online meetings between now and the next election (mid-2024)
• Attending onboarding and online training in May–June 2023
• Working with the Committee to fulfill its other responsibilities

New members should have the following qualities:

• Fluency in English
• Responsiveness to email collaboration
• Knowledge of the movement and movement governance

If you would like to volunteer for this role, please submit your candidacy by April 24, 2023 23:59 AoE (Anywhere on Earth) on this Meta-Wiki page.

You can read the full announcement here. Thank you in advance for your interest! If you are not interested but know someone who might be, share this message with them. Please let me know if you have questions.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)