Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2021/March

New reply tool and VisualEditor
Thoughts on enabling it on Wikibooks (the latter as opt-out, rather than opt-in)? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would definitely advocate for enabling both tools here on Wikibooks. I've been using these two tools at Wikiversity and they've been very helpful! See Wikiversity's discussion on enabling VisualEditor and enabling the new reply tool. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I think it is a no brainer to allow DiscussionTools. I thought that Visual editing was already enabled here (although i don't use it). -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * VisualEditor is enabled as an opt-in tool; an anonymous user wouldn't be able to enable it for instance. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. If you feel this will be OK you have got my support. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I currently use the visual editor, since even though I know Wikitext I think the UX is a bit better, and it helps me focus on writing. As long as those who want the old editor can opt out, I don't see any issues, and I think enabling this could help new users get started easier. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 00:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Enabling blocking in abuse filter
Apparently I need to get consensus, so here we are.

I have an abuse filter that's managing to single-handily block GRP (chess spam, see filter 65), but however, the effectiveness of the abuse filter is not as strong as it could be due to the fact that it cannot block users. My proposal is simple: change the AbuseFilter settings so that it can automatically block user/IPs s after giving a warning (this requires a Phabricator change). What do you all think? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We've been using this on en.wn, though it isn't often triggered (looks like typically a few times a month). It should be used quite cautiously, of course, but afaict can be used to good effect.  I'm agreeable to giving it a try here. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We have the expertise and experience here to use if properly and it would be a useful benefit to the project. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good for our project. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been enabled. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need FlaggedRevs?
I know that's kind of a "central" part of Wikibooks, but for mainspace articles, I'm seeing it as unnecessary. The reason is that by default, we set mainpage articles to show the latest revision by default, which means that there isn't any benefit for the average user. The exception is for the Wikijunior namespace, where we set the default version as the last reviewed one, and I think FlaggedRevs is useful there.

My proposal would hence be to discontinue use of FlaggedRevs on the mainspace - I don't see it as a particularly useful benefit here and personally only causes unnecessary overhead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keeping it is highly desirable imho, yes. There's a vast amount of sorting-out-of-what-isn't-vandalism contained in the revision state of pages.  The information expressed by a review of a single revision of a page would be difficult to reproduce (the judgments involved are highly context-dependent, so one has to immerse oneself in the specific situation-as-was to figure one what was going on), and when you multiply that by the number of pages involved the cumulative value is staggering. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Highly desirable per Pi zero. I've done a fair bit of anti-vandalism work, and I find it invaluable to do so; since I don't have many pages on my watchlist its my main tool. Without FlaggedRevs I think that I would have difficulty in maintaining this work, as no other tools exist that I know of that would take its place. Sure you could use Special:RecentChanges, but it would be a lot harder to sort the pages. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Add autopatrol to Autoreviewed_users
Autoreviewer is normally given to users who aren't ready or do not need reviewer but are making a lot of constructive edits or creating many pages. For some reason, only  is enabled, which does not make sense because Wikibooks also makes use of Patrol and users with Autoreviewer don't need their edits to be patrolled. Hence I propose adding  for autoreviewed users. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it sounds completely reasonable to me. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * --Minorax (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Media too restrictive?
I've been looking at Media, and to me it seems over restrictive. In particular it says:"The inclusion of non-free media files is strongly discouraged and must only be used when:


 * 1) Free license or public domain alternatives aren't available;
 * 2) Creating a free licensed or public domain alternative is not an option;
 * 3) Books are enhanced by related media being used;
 * 4) A reasonable rationale has been given for using a non-free media file; and
 * 5) Deleting a non-free media file would render a book unusable."

Now my big issue is with point 5, as it seems to almost completely ban the use of non-free media in books. After all, it could be argued that any book is usable without media, although of course that would be highly detrimental: but it would still be usable of course. I don't know how much this has been applied in practice, but for me (unless I am misunderstanding something) it suggests that it would be almost impossible to use non-free media.

Point 2 is also difficult, as it could be argued that any non-free media could be independently replicated to some degree. Again this suggests to me at least an almost complete ban.

Now I contribute to English Wikipedia, and they have a similar policy at w:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is used in templates such as w:Template:Non-free use rationale 2. To me this seems a lot easier to work through, and is presumably not illegal as its been used countless times for the project. In a nutshell it says this: "# No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
 * 1) Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
 * 2) Minimal usage.
 * 3) Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
 * 4) Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace
 * 5) Previous publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.
 * 6) Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
 * 7) Media-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
 * 8) One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
 * 9) Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
 * 10) Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
 * 11) Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: (see policy)"

To me this seems particularly superior, and could be adapted for this project. Any views on this? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How about simply remove point 5? That point is ambiguous anyway, because it does not define what "unusable" mean. With regards to point 2, I don't think that sounds like a complete ban. All that is saying is that if a free alternative exists, use that instead, and sounds sensible to me.
 * I am not in particular praise with Wikipedia's policy, mainly their point 3. I get very irritated when I see computer screenshots (which are usually fair-use) that are reduced in resolution by some DatBot (if I recall correctly). The problem is that in many cases, this reduction in resolution (unless manually overturned) loses important and crucial fidelity. The rest seem similar to Wikibooks, only a bit more detailed. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks those are really good points. Maybe getting rid of Wikibooks point 5 would solve it. With Wikibooks point 2, maybe it could be amended to "Obtaining a free licensed or public domain alternative is not an option"? I think that's probably what it was meant to mean anyway.
 * Also instead of Wikibooks point 5, we could simply explain what a "A reasonable rationale" means in a little more detail. One way of doing it might be by saying "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." and "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
 * Also I think we should get rid of "The inclusion of non-free media files is strongly discouraged and must only be used when: " and replace it with "The inclusion of non-free media files should be done with caution, and must only be used when: " -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion looks fine to me. because I know you had expressed concern over the policy not being detailed enough. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With some modification, I prefer the Wikipedia policy as it provides lots of detail, and is pretty unambiguous. It also makes it look like the policy has been thought through to ensure it is legally compliant - I don't think ours does. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this a bit, and one possible way forward would be to adopt the Wikipedia policy but to make a modification about resolution. We could say instead "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate should be used, if this is adequate for the purpose of the media". This suggests a default of low-res, but gives some flexibility if this is inadequate (e.g. high-res screenshots from Visual Studio, if high-res was needed to read the text). Any thoughts? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is OK with me (I personally prefer removing the resolution part since the benefit of keeping a low resolution is dubious, or alternatively discourage high-res instead of forcing low-res), I wonder if or whether that's the only modification had in mind. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant modified to deal with the concerns you raised earlier re. image resolution plus any wording that doesn't align with Wikibooks (e.g, substituting "one article" for "once per page" or "once in a book"). QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I really think we need some restriction on resolution. Consider the following scenario: strategy guides take off here, and some high-res screenshots are locally uploaded. Now its pretty unlikely, but conceivably the copyright holder could sue the WMF for copyright infringement. Now this would be a disaster; but if most media here was low-res this would be very much less likely to happen.

Now possible phrasing would be something like 🇨🇴 which would give some leeway for higher-res if needed. Another thing we could do is have a "grandfather clause" for media already uploaded, e.g. say 🇨🇴. Any thoughts? (also QuiteUnusual) -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , must all screenshots be low res? Also, what is the maximum resolution that they can be? Btw, I agree with your suggestion to remove rule 5. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm only talking about non-free media uploaded locally; if you can get an c:Commons:OTRS release for screenshots it wouldn't apply. Secondly, I'm saying that media should be in low res unless there is a need for high res, for example elements aren't legible unless it is high res. Another option would be to crop an image, so a low-res image is again sufficient.
 * Under the proposal, there wouldn't be a maximum resolution, but rather the onus would be on the uploader to keep resolutions low if possible. A low res image typically wouldn't be more than about 500pxX500px, which is large enough for most purposes; and of course this could be made big using the image options; and also a high-res image could be cropped to show details, making it low-res. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly I was thinking to keep that limit at 800 * 600 atleast; 500px would be a lower bound. I think sufficient fidelity would be retained at that resolution. I am OK with discouraging unnecessarily high resolution images (such as Full HD or higher) in general though. How about something like this: "The resolution of the image should generally not be above 800 * 600px, however, this is not absolute and higher resolution images may be uploaded with rationale." Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * that sounds fine. How about this 🇨🇴 And the rest would be basically the same as en.wp policy, with minor changes. How does that sound? -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks OK to me. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal
I propose we replace Media with the text at Media/sandbox.

Please correct it if you feel it's necessary, but abstain from major changes unless you discuss here first.


 * as proposer. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * looks good for me. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good ! But will the depository here are separate entity from Wikimedia Commons ? Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 11:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Separate from Commons, but part of this wiki, as wikis already have the capability to upload locally; this is just an updated policy for it. For examples see Category:Non-free files, it contains locally uploaded files. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have my Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I try the Upload Files function on the left bar BUT it leads me to Wikimedia Commons . Is there any way to upload to Wikibooks depository? Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , you'll need to go to Special:Upload instead. That being said, it will not work for you yet because you don't have uploader, and you'll need to request it at WB:RFP, where it can be given by any admin. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove flood flag from own account
What do you think about the suggestion to give a user who has the flood flag the permission to remove it from his own account? This way users could remove the flood flag themselves when they are done and not have to ask a bureaucrat for doing so. Regards --Zabe (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * sysops can remove the flood flag from their own account when they are done, and hence there is no need to ask a bureaucrat (who can still remove the flood flag from anyone if needed). Is there something I'm missing? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)