Previous · Index · Next


Jump-to links

2025   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2024   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2023   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2022   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2021   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2020   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2019   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2018   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2017   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2016   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2015   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2014   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2013   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2012   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2011   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2010   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2009   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2008   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2007   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2006   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2005   Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

2004                                                           Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec  

"Macropharmacology" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

The redirect Macropharmacology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 1 § Macropharmacology until a consensus is reached. Myceteae🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What's your take on AI and Wikipedia's future?

edit

It's been awhile.

I'm interested in your analysis or opinion of AI.

Sincerely,    The Transhumanist   10:21, 18 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

AI relies on ground truth, so does Wikipedia. Both have issues in this regard, but AI's ground truth often is Wikipedia, it can't work without it. Ultimately AI will be better at determining epistemological values than a group of WP editors, but that time is not now. Doubtless AI will be used more and more in producing Wikipedia and similar content (and tools), as will other IT tools.
Wikipedia provides a number of valuable things, you can refer to the Wikipedia page on Foo and it will be the same for everybody (in a sense). WP loads faster than an AI can provide similar levels of content. You can rabbit hole faster.
There are interesting overlaps though.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC).Reply
Very insightful, thank you.
What would you expect the ETA, for AI determining epistemological values better than WP editors, might be? A year? 2 years? 4 years? How long do you think we have?
Concerning similar content, such as output on an AI's prompt page, how long do you think it will take for that to become nearly as good as Wikipedia (i.e., without much hallucinating), and what effect will this have on WP reader and new editor traffic?
Good point about centralized reference locations. Instant generation doesn't have stability like published material does, even if that material is subject to editing in real time (which is what permalinks are for). That wouldn't be the case if AI produced error-free citations, but for the time being, this feature of AIs is a faulty claim. Now that AIs have entered the encyclopedia space (Grok, etc.), how long will it likely be before those are preferred for training data over Wikipedia?
Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic (producer of Claude AI), has been raising the alarm for months that AI will soon be able to do all white collar work soon, including his job. That sounds like the entire computer ecosystem could be transformed. Wikimedia has at least one data center, so it is positioned to do something. What will Wikimedia (and/or Wikipedia) need to do to stay in the game?
I look forward to your replies. Sincerely,    The Transhumanist   19:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think we could do it now with the right questions and sufficient human resource to bootstrap it. Grokepedia is working on it.
It's not clear what the products will be. We need to understand the use of our extra-somatic information stores, a lot of pleasure is obtained by finding things out, rather than having them presented shrink wrapped. Similarly we want to hear the history of music, not just the composed for us melodies that exactly fit our mood.
But for utility perhaps there will be a new paradigm with easier navigation than existing formats. And of course rudimentary computer-brain interfaces are not a million miles away.
It's unlikely that we will carry on for long without a universal basic income or equivalent, at least in the more developed world.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC).Reply
Makes sense. Perhaps Wikipedia faces 2-pronged competition: AI-built sites (Grokepedia, etc.) and instant AI media of nearly any type: articles/tutorials/readings/books/courses/documentaries in text/audio/video.
Now that they are applying AI as programming and AI development tools, the projected timeline is shrinking. What took years now takes weeks. It doesn't appear we will have to wait very long for these things to arrive, except that governments aren't designed to respond that quickly. Out of curiosity, are you programming using AI these days? Sincerely,    The Transhumanist   13:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #717

edit

Tech News: 2026-06

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 17:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedians for Sustainable Development - January 2026 Newsletter

edit
This is our fifty first newsletter. This issue has news related to SDG 15.

Wikidata weekly summary #718

edit

User:Mirror Bot/threads is up for pending deletion under criterion for speedy deletion U6

edit

Hi Rich, as the subject line says, User:Mirror Bot/threads is up for pending deletion under criterion for speedy deletion U6, as a page in the userspace of a user with no edits outside their userspace that hasn't been edited for more than six months. It was tagged by CSD U6 Bot under Category:Candidates for U6 speedy deletion as of 2026-02-08. I'll leave it up to you to do whatever you want (or nothing) with this page. User:Mirror Bot/threads/7357 will eventually be tagged for deletion too by the U6 bot (or it can be tagged for deletion by a human editor at any time); somehow I was the last one to edit it; I can't figure out how I got there. If you want the bot's pages exempted from deletion, you can add them to User:CSD U6 Bot/Ignore list as a template editor. It could be added to the list of userspace-editing bots already on that page, but because the bot never really got off the ground, I'll leave the ball in your court regarding that. Its situation is similar to this discussion about a bot page I added to and then removed from the ignore list. Either way, I fixed the closing template at Mirror Bot's BRFA. Graham87 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to the ignore list as your edits to the pages only had the effect of resetting CSD U6 Bot's six-month counter. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Graham. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC).Reply

Tech News: 2026-07

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 23:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Listing for discussion of Template:BibTeX

edit

Template:BibTeX has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Listing for discussion of Module:BibTeX

edit

Module:BibTeX has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Proposed deletion of Yadavilli (name)

edit
Notice

The article Yadavilli (name) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for almost 15 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Unsourced WP:BLP. Fails the relevant notability guidelines, including WP:NLIST.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #719

edit

Tech News: 2026-08

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 19:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 17 February 2026

edit
  • Disinformation report: Epstein's obsessions
    The sex offender's attempts to whitewash Wikipedia run deeper than we first thought.
  • Crossword: Pop quiz
    Sharpen your pencil. How well do you really know Wikipedia?

Engvar

edit

Hi Rich Farmbrough, I've just done a partial revert on some of your edits to the use British English tag but I don't know how many articles you have added it to and don't want to go through them all. The Use British English tag only accepts one variable which is the date it was last checked e.g. 'Use British English|date=February 2026'. It won't process an additional '|Engvar=February 2026'. Was there a reason you've been adding it? Jonesey95 is pretty knowledgeable on that sort of thing so I've pinged them here too. Dgp4004 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, just FYI, maintenance tags should be added at the top of the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, rather than the bottom as here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Woman_No_Cry_(painting)&diff=prev&oldid=1339426060 Dgp4004 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it shows that the Engvar script has been run. The categorizing functionality has been destroyed by someone, but should have been implemented when {{EngvarB}} was merged to {{Use British English}}. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC).Reply
Please link to a version of {{EngvarB}} that accepted an |Engvar= parameter. I was unable to find one. Nor do I see such a parameter in the edit history of {{EngvarB/doc}}, but I might be missing it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
See
See also: Wikipedia:Engvar_workshop
Engvar used a different category hierarchy rooted in Category:EngvarB , which had a different meaning. The disjunct between the Engvar and Use Foo English templates, which we need to maintain in the new system, or the redirect is damaging.
You reverted the changes I made to integrate the two systems without discussing it. You deleted the Category tree without mentioning it to me. We seem to have lost the work of those editors who used the Engvar script. We seem to have also lost, or almost lost, the author. Disenfranchising Wikipedians is not "tidying up". Tidying up may or may not support the project, it's not a project goal. If tidying makes life more difficult for other editors it's damaging. Namespace pollution may be a "thing" but it's not a big thing, and need an entropy based understanding.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC).Reply
You're being asked not to add a parameter to transclusions of a template that does not support it. I have asked for any evidence that the parameter ever existed. If you can provide that evidence, please do so.
As for what you posted above, I'm not sure which "you" is being referred to here, who is being quoted as saying "tidying up", or what I am supposed to glean from a link to a 9,000+ word discussion in which "Engvar=" does not appear. And Wikipedia:Engvar_workshop was a one-person show. I see that there is a proposal there to add "Engvar=" to the template, but I don't see that it ever happened. {{EngvarB}} and the categories that it used were modified after consensus discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Here. You removed this without discussion. You could have joined the workshop and expressed any opinion, or brought it up at the time of the discussion. My goal was to enable the merging of the two systems without loosing functionality. This seems perfectly reasonable and easy to understand. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 06:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC).Reply
Sorry for being grumpy about this, I put a considerable amount of effort into ensuring that this otherwise contentious template merge went smoothly and avoided the pitfalls of previous attempts to do similar things. The amount of effort to write the workshop was probably less than was put into the discussion, and this seemed to me to be the most constructive way to get those involved to move forward together. I also rewrote the script and made the necessary template changes. I now find that this is being ignored or reverted and those who might have disagreed with the merge have found their interests overridden. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC).Reply
Thank you for that link. The template supported |Engvar= for almost nine hours due to an undiscussed, no-consensus edit to a widely used template. It can be tough to put work into a proposed change and have it ignored or rejected by the community, but such is life at Wikipedia. If you have followed any of the TFDs around these Use X English templates, you have also seen me make arguments that I thought were persuasive, only to have them rejected. So it goes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #720

edit

Tech News: 2026-09

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 19:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"Cladotherianthrope" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

The redirect Cladotherianthrope has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 28 § Cladotherianthrope until a consensus is reached. Abesca (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Time spent handling this request, 1 hour 25 minutes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC).Reply

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 28 § Category:Session musicians on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SMasonGarrison 19:28, 28 February 2026 (UTC)Reply