Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council

icon To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject, as well as all subpages of this talk page itself, redirect here.

WikiProject Council was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 April 2011.

? view ·edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What's a WikiProject?

A1: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a subject area, a collection of pages, or a list of articles tagged by the group.

Q2: How many WikiProjects are there?

A2: There are 660 WikiProjects tagged as "Active" (see Category:Active WikiProjects), and 311 WikiProjects tagged as "Semi-active" (see Category:Semi-active WikiProjects); many of these have one or more subsidiary task forces or work groups.

Q3: What's the biggest WikiProject?

A3: Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date. You can find out which projects' main pages are being watched by the most users at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers.

Q4: Which WikiProject has tagged the most articles as being within their scope?

A4: WikiProject Biography has tagged 2,174,546 articles, which is more than three times the size of the second largest number of pages tagged by a WikiProject. About six groups have tagged more than 500,000 articles. You can see a list of projects and the number of articles they have assessed here.

Q5: Who gets to decide whether a WikiProject is permitted to tag an article?

A5: That is the exclusive right of the participants of the WikiProject. Editors at an article may neither force the group to tag an article nor refuse to permit them to tag an article. See WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN.

Q6: I think a couple of WikiProjects should be merged. Is that okay?

A6: You must ask the people who belong to those groups, even if the groups appear to be inactive. It's okay for different groups of people to be working on similar articles. WikiProjects are people, not lists of articles. If you identify and explain clear, practical benefits of a merger to all of the affected groups, they are likely to agree to combining into a larger group. However, if they object, then you may not merge the pages. For less-active groups, you may need to wait a month or more to make sure that no one objects. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects for more information.

Q7: I want to start a WikiProject. Am I required to do anything in particular?

A7: Because new WikiProjects, especially new groups that are proposed by new editors, rarely remain active for longer than a few months unless there are at least six or eight active editors involved at the time of creation, we are now imposing the requirements that are outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Newly created pages are listed automatically at Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects; if a newly created page looks like it doesn't conform with the advice, it may be moved to your User: space or sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

Q8: Under what circumstances are WikiProjects deleted from Wikipedia rather than marked as defunct or historical?

A8: Typically, projects are only deleted when they are "false starts" (incomplete projects that never got off the ground), serve as a repository for material that infringes on copyright laws, exist solely as an attack page, or have no other redeeming value. It is more common for semi-active projects to be merged into their parent project, sometimes as a task force. Most inactive and defunct projects are simply left intact with the hope that the materials and discussions collected by the project may become useful at a later date.

Q9: How do you revive an inactive WikiProject?

A9: The Signpost has written extensively on the subject. Keep in mind that some projects have run their course while others have a scope that is too narrow or too broad to attract a sizable community of editors. If you still want to revive the project, a good way to start is by updating the participants list, inviting new participants, reaching out to active projects for help, and fixing any broken templates and automation. Start discussions on the project's talk page about how to improve the project's organization, goals, and collaborations. Reviving a WikiProject often feels like an uphill battle. Just don't get discouraged.

Q10: Who can assess articles?

A10: Anyone can assess articles, although it is wise to read and follow any assessment guidelines unique to a particular project before deciding what "class" and "importance" should be assigned to an article. For instance, WikiProject Biographies has a unique importance structure with 200 "core" articles. Good Articles, Featured Articles, and Featured Lists are determined through processes independent of the WikiProject, so using those assessments inappropriately may have negative repercussions.

Q11: Is there a limit to the number of projects that can add their banner to an article?

A11: No. Each project determines its own scope and can include whatever articles they like. For instance, Elizabeth II is under the scope of 18 projects and task forces while Barack Obama is handled by 22 projects and task forces.

Q12: Some WikiProjects provide a WikiProject Watchlist and some do not. Why?

A12: As with all tools available to WikiProjects, not every project has set up a watchlist and some projects may not desire to have one. There are multiple types of watchlists a project can use, from Tim1357's watchlists to new article notifications to article alerts to hot articles. A project can choose whatever watchlists they want to use or even devise their own unique tools.

Q13: What's the difference between a sister WikiProject and a related WikiProject?

A13: People tend to use them interchangeably, but the term "related WikiProjects" is broader than "sister WikiProjects." The terms "parent," "sister," and "child" provide a way of categorizing projects. An example of sister projects would be WikiProject Pittsburgh and WikiProject Philadelphia, while related projects would also include their parent projects (WikiProject Cities and WikiProject Pennsylvania in this case), and any child projects or task forces (WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers and WikiProject University of Pittsburgh come to mind). However, one confusing bit about the term "sister projects" is that it has also been used to compare different wikis or languages of Wikipedia (i.e. Wikisource, Wikinews, Chinese Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc.) which is evidenced by the Signpost's defunct sister projects column.

Q14: How do I participate in a WikiProject?

A14: Participating in a WikiProject is easy. Most projects have a participants list to which you can add your name. Next, you'll want to add the project's talk page to your personal watchlist so that you can keep up to date on the latest discussions and help editors in need. Check out the project's Featured and Good Articles for ideas about how to improve articles under the project's scope. Take a look at the project's goals or browse the project's stubs and start-class articles to find areas where you can help today. Projects may offer a userbox you can add to your user page as a sign of pride that also doubles as a way to add yourself to categories listing all users who are interested in a particular topic.

Q15: What can I do to improve Wikipedia's community of WikiProjects?

A15: The WikiProject Council is welcome to anyone with ideas for building stronger collaborative links between WikiProjects. Participate in discussions at a variety of projects and try to answer the questions of newcomers. If multiple projects are working on the same article, try to recruit participants from these projects to collaborate. Host meetups for the participants in projects in a particular geographic area. Create contests and backlog drives that anyone can enter. We've interviewed projects that have used social media to recruit participants, partnered with educational institutions, and even manufactured their own games.

Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

See earlier archives at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject/Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

This page has archives.Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III .

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject icon Council

WikiProject icon This page relates to the WikiProject Council , a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil

WikiProject Council

FAQs Overview + talk Council page
Coordination
Guidelines (WikiProjects– Task forces) Assessment FAQ Technical notes
Directories
WikiProjects Proposals Signpost

v t e

Shortcut

WT:COUNCIL WT:COUNCIL

Proposing a new WikiProject Astrobiology

Latest comment: 3 months ago 49 comments10 people in discussion

As far as I'm concerned, there is no WikiProject on astrobiology. I would like to create it. As you can see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology), WikiProject Biology has several subprojects under its umbrella, but none of them is astrobology or similar. Astrobiology is such a broad topic, from the search of microbial life on the solar system to the search of extraterrestrial life in the galaxy and beyond that I think it deserves its own WikiProject. Astropedian (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC) User:DocWatson42 User:Aldaron User:Viriditas User:Vsmith User:Kalidasa 777 User:Marskell Reply

Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. Are all of you planning to work on this together? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you kindly for the invitation, but I decline. Good luck! ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I would like to be part of WikiProject Astrobiology Grantus4504 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

No, I am still busy looking for intelligent life on Earth. Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Me too. I've been to many countries on 5 continents, and I refuse to accept that human beings are the highest form of life in the universe. I'm in. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Try to avoid the trap of hierarchical thinking, à la scala naturae . There is no higher or lower here. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just know that the highest or lowest life form in the world is due to our point of view and if we change it even slightly we can see that possibly we could possibly be nothing in the scale of many galaxies. That's what makes astronomy and nowadays related games especially Space Engine that interesting. So, I am on no higher or lower side. Abdullah1099 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I do see the scientific validity of your opinion; however, IF I were an ET with higher technology, I would definitely want to stay out of the crosshairs of human mentality and weapons. As I myself am one of those humans, I would definitely consider such an ET to be of higher intelligence and wisdom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Science fiction authors have pursued just about every angle of this problem. In many cases, the idea that such speculative species are of greater intelligence, and let's say even wisdom, does not make them superior, and in many cases presents several flaws that can be exploited. The Borg of Star Trek and the Tet of Oblivion are just two examples. There are hundreds more. Best to be skeptical, and not give in to astonishment. ("What does god need with a starship?") From our position, a more advanced species will likely be perceived as evil, just as an ant perceives a boot stomping on its hive as an enemy. The Vogons destroyed the Earth to make way for a hyperspace route, just as we destroy native habitats every day to make way for roads. I believe it is far more likely that an advanced species will not share our moral compass or ethical concerns. The idea that they would is likely an artifact of 20th century naïveté. Rod Serling famously made this point. Stay vigilant. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for that! SF is so, well, restricted is the word, I guess. It's restricted to human imagination, limited to the edges of our minds. Reality lies beyond those edges. We must all stay vigilant, the price we must pay to maintain freedom! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't but i think i going on science fiction but these are my own views:

But another thing is that the so called aliens could not have that much great luck like use. Like think about our solar system and thing we are lucky that we don't have some of the exotic and monster stars like red supergiant, O-type and B-type stars, etc like within 100 ly and not talking about all other astronomical objects and then think in alien point of view like if they have a similar earth like planet everything almost same but just a thing that in there constellation that blue or red bright star is within like 50 ly and there is a high chance that those can go supernova before there system proper motion etc save them. Then i think there main objectives would be not human not colonisation but those bright stars even if they are ahead of us in everything. Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Don't get me wrong, I do love the subject of astrobiology . The thing is... it's a science. And as a science it would prefer to use the scientific method to study the prospect of life elsewhere than Earth. As project members who are not necessarily scientists, we would probably be okay with imaginative speculation. There's an entire Universe chock full of black holes and other exotic features. That also includes the possibility that life elsewhere might not be "life as we know it", but instead might be other than carbon-based. Nucleic acids may not be the only biomolecules in the universe capable of coding for life processes. The farther away we look, the longer in the past we see. Such a project has the potential to really have its hands full! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

...prefer to use the scientific method to study the prospect of life elsewhere than Earth... That's called science fiction. You may not like it, but that's what it is. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, it is fiction with a prospect of becoming non-fiction. For those of us who support the science of astrobiology, we should recognize the need for skepticism to keep the project grounded. Since the idea of life elsewhere than Earth is as yet unsubstantiated, moving forward will also require an article of faith. It will take more than a strange bit of radio signal data to convince a skeptical populace. See also {{Extraterrestrial life }}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

To bring this back to a WP:NOTFORUM discussion, the validity of the subject is not at issue when determining whether to OK a new WikiProject. It's basically down to whether there are enough editors willing to participate and whether there is enough coverage in article space to warrant it. The latter part is covered, as far as I can see, when looking at Category:Astrobiology. And it's only a growing field, with governments behind the efforts. the Stefen Tower 19:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

As I informed you on your user page, I would like to join this. Normally I'm focused on geographical subjects, but this subject area intrigues me. the Stefen Tower 00:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Good work, I will be happy to join. But i it will be better to link it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, where Astronomy WikiProject is the parent WikiProject Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

It should be assumed that WP Astronomy and WP Biology would be parent projects. the Stefen Tower 18:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Task forces can have multiple "parents". The idea of a parent project is strictly informal anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Indeed. the Stefen Tower 18:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

@StefenTower@WhatamIdoingThat what's my objective with Astronomy Working group, a Working group dedicated to unite all regularly work astronomy related things like not only only Astronomy, Spaceflight, Astrobiology, etc. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Got it. Astropedian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, That's a good idea. Hey @StefenTower,I want to know what are the topics, i want to be familiar with them. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Perusal of astrobiology should be helpful here. the Stefen Tower 18:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

User:WhatamIdoing Do we have green light? Astropedian (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Astropedian The approval for a new WikiProject comes from a consensus in the discussion here. As far as I can tell, we have three participants in the new WikiProject, including myself. In my view, that's not quite enough to go with. WikiProjects can peter out, so you probably need around 10 at least to start. Have you asked around on the talk pages of all related WikiProjects? the Stefen Tower 23:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Agreed - not enough people. Normally new projects start with an energetic phase of article-tagging, then peter out. With a small group you can coordinate things without the need for a project. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just asked in biology, so I will ask in the rest. Astropedian (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

The FAQ near the top of this talk page might be helpful. For example,

Q7: I want to start a WikiProject. Am I required to advertise it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and/or have a specific number of editors support it?

A7: No, there are no requirements. However, new WikiProjects, especially new groups that are proposed by new editors, rarely remain active for longer than a few months unless there are at least six or eight active editors involved at the time of creation.

So... perhaps WikiProject Astrobiology's time has come? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd be much more optimistic about the group's long-term success if there were six interested editors. I'd suggest that the current three start working together in a userspace group or as a WP:TASKFORCE of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy for now, and work on recruiting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd personally prefer a userspace group as the rigmarole surrounding creation of a taskforce in an existing project is more than I care to deal with. It would be like another big round of negotiation/discussion and potential rejection. With a user group, you just do it. the Stefen Tower 19:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hey @Astropedian @StefenTower,Can you guys help in building and improving Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astronomy working group/Members, made in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group. Abdullah1099 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do you have a specific request here? Also, I'm not sure why a working group would have a title or topic coverage that matches the project at-large. the Stefen Tower 18:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, It is, i mean this Working group can be also helpful for your WikiProject. Sorry for the name, But at the time and till now i have not found a better name. Abdullah1099 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I honestly don't see how an undefined working group within Astronomy has something to do with eventually creating a WikiProject Astrobiology. You may want to flesh out what the working group is for on its page. I saw in WP Astronomy's project talk that other members don't understand its purpose. the Stefen Tower 21:23, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

You can WP:MOVE the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astrobiology (or any similar name) if you want. You can also ignore this and round up a few like-minded folks on a User: page of your choice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also prefer to see if more people join the conversation here; I have posted the request in all the related WikiProject talks.

As soon as WhatamIdoing give us green light here, I will start the WikiProject page. Astropedian (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Like I said before, the guideline is for a consensus in this discussion to make a decision, like in any RfC. Nobody is singularly in charge. the Stefen Tower 03:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah @StefenTower, That's why i ask as I want to know is there any need of a working group. I made because i see a lack of working group at WikiProject Astronomy Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I guess I just don't understand creating a working group before you know one is needed. I'm a bit befuddled. the Stefen Tower 05:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Abdullah, all WikiProjects are "working groups". Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together to improve Wikipedia. Therefore we don't need a generic "WikiProject Example/Working group".

What is sometimes wanted is a "WikiProject Example/_____ working group". This is a sub-group of participants that is focused on a specific sub-part of the whole group's goals. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has a Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force – a smaller subset of the group, working on a smaller subset of articles.

It might have been useful to create a page for a Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Astrobiology working group. A "working group" for the whole group is not very useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

What's the purpose of the group? Astropedian (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Nevermind, i read it above. Astropedian (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am noticing some off-topic discussion above. Please think of folks who are watching this page. Please observe WP:NOTFORUM, everyone. the Stefen Tower 23:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'd like to join. Would it make sense to add 'astrobiology={yes|no}' and 'astrobiology-importance=' options to the {{WikiProject Astronomy }} template, rather than adding a separate template? I suspect it's mainly going to be a subset of the astronomy WP articles anyway. Praemonitus (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, That thing i doubt Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Cleaning up or merging dormant projects

Latest comment: 2 months ago 20 comments5 people in discussion

This came up today in a discussion with Pine and others about the WMF annual plan.

How can we clean up and merge dormant projects, while continuing to support Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 article evaluations and categorization?
When small wikiprojects are merged, what else has to happen to update the functioning of the whole system?

– SJ + 17:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, @Sj. This has been discussed several times in the last couple of years, so you might want to start in the archives for this page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Merging WikiProjects is where we're collecting some of the practical information.

Overall, I'd say that the problem areas include:

The actual process of merging (once you reach the point of clicking buttons) is boring and occasionally fiddly work. Some parts could be semi-automated. Some parts require an admin (e.g., to delete unused 1.0 cats). WP:TASKFORCES can preserve the varying |importance= ratings for 1.0, but mostly I think that blank-and-redirect works out in practice, and based on the experience for WP:MED, I'd particularly recommend that for the talk page even if a task force model is used.
WikiProjects are groups of people, which means that merging depends upon social factors. If you "forcibly" merge the groups, the individuals might walk away rather than participate. We need participation.
What individual editors want is not what Wikipedia needs. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile is basically inactive, but an editor recently decided to start Wikipedia:WikiProject Chilean Legislatures. Why? The editor only wants to work on Chilean legislators and legislative institutions, not on everything else about Chile. What Wikipedia needs is an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and a lively Wikipedia:WikiProject Chile, and if you want to write about politicians in Chile, then you pick one or the other, without making yet another tiny doomed sub-speciality group.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks! It feels like our version of Dunbar's Number could be "optimal range (min/max) for effective WikiProjects" and strong guidance to keep projects at a scope that they have a set of active users in that range. (and perhaps layout / template / page design norms that make it easy to refactor where people spend their time w/o lots of fiddly work) Individuals might have a weak preference but not strong enough to say "no I want to start a project that will become inactive within a year" – SJ + 19:46, 11 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

@WhatamIdoing not sure if there is a better section to ask this, but is there a list of "active" or inactive WikiProjects anywhere? Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Katzrockso The definition is here: WP:INACTIVEWP. Because it says Projects are generally considered inactive if the talk page has received nothing other than routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries for a year or more. it is pretty difficult to determine which are truly dead (it is difficult to filter out routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries using software).

To get a rough idea of the scope of the problem, Wikipedia:WikiProject says The English Wikipedia currently has over 2,000 WikiProjects. Category:Active WikiProjects contains ~654 pages. The last time I checked over 200 of those had not been edited for over a year. And I didn't even bother to try to filter out routine/automated announcements or unanswered queries. That means that WikiProjects are basically vestigial at this point.

The entire system should probably be replaced with something better. I don't know if it worked in the past but its certainly not working now. Polygnotus (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

There are a good number of truly active WikiProjects, but overall, you're in the ballpark. I think WikiProjects basically are the right idea but they need a fresh take. the Stefen Tower 01:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@StefenTower I think we need to combine:

your WikiProject leaderboards
using WikiProjects as a meta-talkpage, see User:Polygnotus/PAWS/Astronomical
automatically finding people who edit in the areas covered by a project (e.g. User:Polygnotus/PAWS/cat2users) and automatically showing them relevant stats
showing stats on the wikiprojects and Special:Impact and Special:Homepage (unanswered questions, edit requests, how many edits did you make, requested articles, articles with maintenance tags etc)

and various other things.

That addresses the flaws of the current system. Polygnotus (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think we are close to being on the same page. A WikiProject is basically people contributing toward a topic area. And people rightly might want to know the impact of their contributions toward that topic (perhaps even from before they mindfully joined the project - like what my leaderboard does). Also, it would be nice if we can somewhat standardize the presentation of how editors can help without it seeming like a bland to-do list, where editors can easily see what issues need addressing, what voids need filling, what resources are available, what milestones the project is moving toward, etc. I have even mused about what would happen if we took the spirit of portals and fused them with WikiProjects - so they're not just workspaces but also showcases. Various projects are already doing many of these things, but I often get the nagging feeling we have not come anywhere close to optimizing what we can do. the Stefen Tower 05:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject X, which worked on this kind of stuff some years ago? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes. I was around when that was being worked on, and I mused on why it didn't ultimately succeed in the link I gave above ("a fresh take"). Of course, opinions may vary. the Stefen Tower 07:21, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@StefenTower I think we should move away from "Stefen has added his name to a list of WikiProject participants" and should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen". Getting people to subscribe is a major hurdle that can be avoided.

The problem is that the WMF, for various depressing reasons, won't work on stuff like this.

And since we can't realistically get a substantial subset of the ~40k active editors to install a bunch of JavaScript we do need the WMF to make meaningful changes in this area. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Polygnotus That would definitely be a major (and useful) mind flip for the Wikipedia, and beyond the WMF apparently not taking an interest in such, there are such things as inertia and development costs/prioritization. I have been lightly proposing a happy medium that can eventually be done without particular higher-up support – making WikiProjects more like action centers around topic areas (kind of like a portal, but for editing collaboration). But certainly, a key issue around this is getting editors to visit these places, that is, to match their editing interests to a topic's editing needs. How we can better implement these connections is our challenge, even with the current state of WikiProjects. the Stefen Tower 21:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. A lot of Wikipedia editors are really not interested in coordinating with other people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree. Belonging in a group is voluntary. I have not intended to indicate any change to that paradigm. the Stefen Tower 01:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

To be clear, it would be useful for editors who do edit heavily in particular subject areas to know there is an option for further concentrating their work. I don't want to nag any editors but gently making them aware somehow may be useful. Relying on editors discovering WikiProjects or WikiProjects occasionally inviting editors seems to not quite be a robust-enough model. the Stefen Tower 04:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@WhatamIdoing I don't think we should treat editors who have an interest in a given subject as being editors who want to work together in a group. That is not what [We] should move towards "Stefen edits in these areas therefore this information is relevant to Stefen means tho.

Showing someone a dashboard of stuff that may be relevant to them is not the same as assuming they want to collaborate with others.

The mantra "A WikiProject is a group of people" is irrelevant here. Polygnotus (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes. 1) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by human changes (sort on Status); 2) Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects with no activity the Stefen Tower 01:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@StefenTower thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the first database report seems to be very generous. WP:WikiProject Religion has solely notices to RfCs, deletion nominations and RMs on the talk page. Katzrockso (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's not intentionally generous. It's just reporting the status setting. If a status is incorrect, per the guidelines, then they can be changed. the Stefen Tower 01:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Input requested on merge proposal

Latest comment: 3 months ago 4 comments2 people in discussion

A merge discussion is underway regarding Penn Foster-related articles: Talk:Penn Foster College#Proposed merge of Penn Foster-related articles

Input would be appreciated. DegreeDriven (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, @DegreeDriven. Can you tell me where you found a link to this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @WhatamIdoing, it was at the top of the list when I searched on Google. User error on my part! I was looking for a different talk page. DegreeDriven (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

No worries. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

WikiProject advice pages

Latest comment: 3 months ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#RfC: amending project guidelines on infoboxes suggests that the nature of WikiProject advice pages is not as clear to some people as it could be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Is every article supposed to be covered by at least one active WikiProject?

Latest comment: 3 months ago 11 comments6 people in discussion

I've noticed some, like Talk:Chambered nautilus, which are not. Because WP:WikiProject Cephalopods is inactive, that page isn't categorized. Melozone crissalis (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

As far as I know, this is not a requirement. However, coverage by WikiProjects ideally directs editors dedicated to and skilled with particular topic areas to the article, and that is good for the article and thus Wikipedia. the Stefen Tower 20:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

We don't have a clear standard for what makes a WikiProject active. What categories are you looking for? The class/WikiProject ones? CMD (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I assume it doesn't have those categories because the project is marked as inactive. Melozone crissalis (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is my understanding, the current tools are tied to WikiProject tags. Ideally we would want all pages to be on active WikiProjects for article alerts, discussion notifications, etc., but even then it would be helpful for the tools to not be tied to this. I don't think we have a current solution at hand. CMD (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Why are we suppressing the cats for inactive groups? Is that a sensible choice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is beyond my current knowledge, although I'm sure I knew once. Ultimately though, a delinkage of the tools and the template in some way would be ideal. CMD (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

WikiProjects are groups of editors interested in collaborating in a certain area. So yes, ideally every article would have an associated group of active, interested editors. But since editors work on whatever articles they want, there's no way to ensure this. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

If I run across an "unclaimed article", can I tag it as not having been claimed by any WikiProject (when I don't know which WikiProject should make a claim)? rootsmusic (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

There's no tag or category for that purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Personally, I don't think "claim" has the right connotations. Articles aren't claimed by editors, and WikiProjects are just groups of editors. I think it would be more fruitful to collaborate with other editors interested in an area in which you're interested and, in the course of that collaboration, find articles that are within the scope of interest. isaacl (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Activity of WikiProject Biography's talk page

Latest comment: 2 months ago 7 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I previously tagged WikiProject Biography as "semi-active" merely because it's been lacking replied and consisting of just notifications and announcement, but then it got reverted. I addressed the reversion at WP:VPP (archived discussion). Anyways, the WikiProject's talk page is still abysmally filled with reply-less messages. Makes me reluctant to post anything biography-related. I can't help wonder how long this will continue and not expect anything in return (or something like that) whenever I post there? George Ho (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Maybe we should try to WP:REVIVE that group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

By announcing the need of recruitment at WP:VPM? Okay... if that works. George Ho (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The worst-case scenario of posting something on the project's talk page is not getting an answer. Still, as it's the 39th most active project in the past year per human (non-bot) edits, it still seems worth a try. the Stefen Tower 08:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Posted notice about this discussion at that talk page and other related talk pages. George Ho (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

"Biography" is just too broad a term, if you ask me. Issues are always likely to get more response at a more specialized project page. Probably the tag should be restored to warn people. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hmm... Shall we continue discussing this at WP:VPIL? That way, we can figure out what else to do with WP:WPBIO. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

WikiProject Library and Information Science

Latest comment: 2 months ago 6 comments4 people in discussion

This project seems to have been created unilaterally by Kerrieburn without following any approval process — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

WP:MFD is where these are handled. the Stefen Tower 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Merge up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries? Or just move to User: space?

Invite the editor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange?

(Also, feel free to watch Wikipedia:Database reports/New WikiProjects to find other instances of newly created WikiProject pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I recently joined this project https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Library_and_Information_Science (project page created in January 2024) after meeting members at WIkiCon Australia last month.

WikiProject Library and Information Science (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q125310122) was created in April 2024.

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Library and Information Science to collate additional content that would be useful for those involved with the project. This followed the same procedure used in another WikiProject that I am involved with. I was not aware that there was any kind of approval process required. Kerrieburn (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Kerrieburn, traditionally, there hasn't been any kind of process here, with the result that we have about 2,000 "groups of editors" that have just one or two editors, or even zero. What we care about is whether there are people here, editing the English Wikipedia, who want to work together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks @WhatamIdoing We definitely have a group of editors working together on this project. Kerrieburn (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Revival of WikiProject Feminism

Latest comment: 2 months ago 3 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed that editors @ipiggot and @The Ars Goetia are seeking to WP:REVIVE the project, which was previously considered. Anyone interested in supporting WP:WikiProject Feminism are welcome to join! Mitchsavl (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is a great idea. I wish them lots of luck. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you mitchsavl for the notice, I will say that I will try my hardest to revive the project but I will be mostly inactive for the next 2-3 weeks Goetia [She/They] (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Revival of WikiProject Bowling

Latest comment: 2 months ago 2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm going to attempt WP:REVIVE the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bowling (Zakk😎) 14:33, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Go for it! WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page

Latest comment: 2 months ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WikiProjects_in_Main_Page. Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

One question on the wiki project criteria

Latest comment: 2 months ago 3 comments3 people in discussion

It says to not start a project on any individual person. However WikiProject Taylor Swift is all abt Taylor Swift and seems to be productive. Why is that allowed to exist? Was it simply grandfathered in before this rule was made? 🥤 Spravato! 🍒/🧋 08:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am not sure which criteria you are looking at, but the guidelines are advice aimed at increasing the chance that a WikiProject is successful. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taylor Swift is not very active, and that's despite the very active work on related articles. CMD (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, it was grandfathered in. Seeing how these various groups have fared over the years is why the rule was created a few years ago. Eventually, I think most of them will get merged up to Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

WikiProject Nurses in Red

Latest comment: 2 months ago 1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nurses in Red has been created. This is apparently a group/event that's been happening for several years. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals should mention the WikiProjects that are more event-focused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Bot request relating to a WikiProject's categories

Latest comment: 1 month ago 2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests §Mass-removal of WikiProject categories added directly in wikicode to talk pages. I'm making a note on this page in case someone here has other ideas/can explain things better than I have. I can't find an exact guideline about this situation but I know it's not the way we normally do things. Graham87 (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

BRFA filed phuzion (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

Latest comment: 1 month ago 146 comments57 people in discussion

Here is our application to make WikiProject Intellectual Diversity official.

1. Member pings

Pinging @Larry Sanger, שלומית ליר, Prodos, Pietrus1, Carrite, LuniZunie, Ferdilouw, Lawfare, Pantarch, MetalBreaksAndBends, Wh1pla5h99, Vitorperrut555, T Magierowski, Riposte97, Lionel Cristiano, VidanaliK, Philroc, Flounder ceo, Wikipedian12512, Boutboul, Eulemann, Dtobias, Félix An, Allthemilescombined1, 123957a, Jenhawk777, and Scarpy:

Sometime in the last six weeks or so, you signed up as a member of a proposed "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" (WPID). Now that we have well over ten people interested starting in this group, and having jumped through a few other hoops, I think we're ready to make it official and to "get this party started"!

The WikiProject application instructions specify that "the editors who have agreed to join the group...need to join this discussion and confirm that they will actively participate in the new group, if it is created." Please respond to this by letting the WikiProject Council know you're still on board and that you will actively participate.

2. Other, related WikiProjects

Most WikiProjects are focused on particular subject areas, like countries or academic disciplines. Some however—like this proposed group—are focused more on Wikipedia policy. Over the years, a number of "Wikipedia reform" groups have popped up and disappeared; none seems to be presently operational. As per the application instructions, I am inviting four active WikiProjects that seem to have at least some overlap with this one. While these groups seem to be solid in their own way, none is focused on advancing intellectual diversity in particular. The four are as follows; I include, per instructions, a discussion of why none of the groups is "good enough for our purposes":

Wikipedia:WikiProject Democracy: This group has the laudable intention of increasing the ease and effectiveness with which democratic functions are carried out on Wikipedia. While we can support that—since more robust, meaningful democracy would doubtless improve intellectual diversity—our task is broader.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia: While this might indeed serve our purposes, it appears to be defunct. It was declared to be defunct by just one person, last year, so we went ahead and included it in our new WikiProject notice; but we have heard from no one about it.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias: This is one of the oldest and, in some ways, most distinguished WikiProjects. Again, in some ways, this might seem to be most similar in goal to WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. There is, however, a really significant difference in that WPCSB aims primarily to increase demographic representation (especially that of women and minorities) among article topics, and they seem to be particularly concerned to exclude "far-right extremists on Wikipedia." WPID, by contrast, seeks to influence Wikipedia policy, not articles, and we seek to help Wikipedia better represent a genuinely broad intellectual diversity, regardless of whether, in their home countries, some paint them as "right-wing" or "extremists."
Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion: This is the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and is one of the very oldest WikiProjects—the group precedes the official WikiProject system. While intellectual diversity arguably skews in an inclusionist direction, it is also arguable that a reformed Wikipedia that is unusually intellectually tolerant might remain deletionist. This is, in any event, a good example of a very early WikiProject focused on advancing a particular policy stance.

None of these groups do the sorts of things we aim to do with WPID. We let them know about our plans with WPID last week, and we have not heard back.

3. Our goals

Our goals are detailed here, but we can summarize as follows. WikiProject Intellectual Diversity aims to make Wikipedia more intellectually diverse—that is, much more meaningfully diverse in the representation of competing ideas and worldviews. To this end, we hope to organize Wikipedians to help ensure fair and open decision-making and governance, broaden the range of permissible sources, reinforce genuine neutrality, rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability, retain editors by creating a more inclusive atmosphere, and engage the public more. We aim to push Wikipedia policy to change in these ways through established on-wiki processes, advancing these principles iteratively, not all at once, but in concrete, achievable, incremental ways. Our PolicyScanner already monitors over 90 policy, guideline, and process pages, giving WPID a useful tool to organize around.

4. Why WPID will be here in five years

We are starting with a strong bench of established Wikipedians, a useful PolicyScanner tool, and a set of goals that are ambitious enough that it is reasonable to think we will not have entirely achieved them in five years. WPID serves an enormous body of current and potential Wikipedians—all those who have been systematically driven away by practices and policies that alienate those whose views are systematically excluded from Wikipedia. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Using a DEI framework to carry water for right-wing propaganda is a bit rich, Larry.

Why not simply say that white hetero upper class males are the true victims here? Selbstporträt (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment - add WikiProject Conservatism to the list of related WikiProjects (scope seems to overlap significantly and not sure what other forms of diversity are being advocated for other than more inclusion of conservative ideas). Not sure why WikiProject Democracy is listed... Superb Owl (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Discussion of WPID

I'm committed to maintaining the PolicyScanner tool, which I developed myself. There are many other things we might do. One subproject I have in mind is to go through many different policy pages (WP:NPOV could be the first) and discussing how we might change them—all with the aim of proposing changes in the correct venues, of course. But this is just one idea. WPID is a group of people who agree that Wikipedia's policy should be friendlier in various ways to a much more intellectually diverse body of contributors, and as such, there are many things we can do together as a kind of reform club. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
In what way is this not an attempt to give an unearned DEI-type lift to far minority, such as far-right, positions? If not that, can you explain how it is not that? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would also like to bring everybody's attention to this polemic on the WPID "hub", the barely-contained seething frustration of which kind of betrays the real spirit of WPID. This text is designed to welcome new/returning editors, particularly those participating in WPID, and is a thinly-veiled manifesto instructing them how to "play the game" to advance their ideological aims. From the "Important tips that WPID must be aware of", we get excerpts like (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia is a game—not a battleground, but a place in which those who play most expertly by the rules will thrive. Those who violate the rules will be quickly spotted and eliminated by the referees. Thus it is particularly important that you take the rules seriously. If you do not, you will be blocked.

If you receive a warning from an administrator (or even a veiled threat from a high-ranking editor), take it seriously. Avoid arguing, even if you think you are in the right... You cannot win every fight.

Avoid building a single-purpose account. Edit a variety of topics; having plenty of edits on a variety of topics may make administrators think twice before blocking you.

It is quite interesting that this innocent WikiProject would feel the need to produce a 10-point handbook instructing its members on how to "play by the rules," build plausible deniability, and avoid getting blocked. Unless, you know, its members were expressly not here to build an encyclopedia and mwrely trying to conceal that fact for however long it takes them to impose their ideological vision here.

WPID is transparently a fifth column. It's a barely-concealed attempt at a coup d'etat via canvassing. It's a sabotage operation. Athanelar (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
@Athanelar So, just to summarize, the whole proposal is essentially an attempt at WP:GAMING. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
FWIW, Draft:Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is still a draft. I reset the content from scratch but put old sources down into the "Further reading" section. Also, I'm wary about how this proposed WikiProject would attract non-US editors here. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
This draft is irrelevant (i.e., not part of) the WikiProject. Also, Wikipedia is of course quite open to non-US editors. What are you talking about, George? (FWIW, George has not joined WPID.) Larry Sanger (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
This draft is irrelevant (i.e., not part of) the WikiProject.
Wanting this project to be intellectually diverse is a lot of ask, isn't it? Furthermore, I'm more worried about this WikiProject's goals, especially on WP:LLM guideline. How inclusive have you wanted LLM-dependent editors to be?

Back to the quote above, which I see you already said in your talk page (link), the draft may be "irrelevant" to the WikiProject, but Wikipedia still doesn't have an article about "intellectual diversity". Furthermore, I dunno whether "intellectual diversity" is defined or exemplified actually by the WikiProject's goals here. I'm hesitant to consider it so, and I'm uncertain whether the following exemplifies "intellectual diversity":
We do not assert any authority over such pages. Rather, we review and propose changes to them.
George Ho (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Sounds good! 123957a (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I intend to participate. Hopefuly this wikiproject can be an avenue to improve the project. The best days of Wikipedia are in its future! Pietrus1 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Hmmm.. sounds good. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
One important note about WikiProjects in general: They cannot override Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly in the sense of trying to enforce a different set of ideals against them. However, as WikiProjects are groups of people, you can organize to work toward adjusting said policies and guidelines. And of course, the entire Wikipedia community has the right to participate in these adjustment discussions. the Stefen Tower 04:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think we know that WikiProjects can't "override" policies and guidelines. We are under no illusions on that score, we have not suggested otherwise, and we have said that our intent is to push for more robust intellectual diversity via the usual channels for making changes to Wikipedia policies. We know that, of course, the whole Wikipedia community has a right to participate. Larry Sanger (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Right but I don't think I've quite seen you explain how this is not effectively just an alt-right wikicanvassing group because, reading thoroughly over everything you wrote above and all of the diffs people are providing below, this just looks like an alt-right canvassing group. Snokalok2 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Making intimations about what political direction some group is oriented toward with the effect of trying to smear them with guilt by association does not further a constructive discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Neither does going on long and intense rants about the evils of trans people but I can't think of any other circumstance under which certain names were pinged to join. Snokalok2 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
If the aim here is to bait me into an argument about a subject from which I'm topic-banned, so that I can have more sanctions imposed, I refuse to take the bait. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think the point is that the number of editors who have topic bans and cbans who are listed as members of the putative group is alarming especially combined with the policy scanner. It honestly looks like a canvassing tool. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Oppose: The proposed WikiProject appears to me to be for the purpose of coralling editors who would like to more freeely make usage of fringe and unreliable sources to noticeboard dicussions about the reliablity of such sources. I don't see how this is of any possible benefit to the project. TarnishedPath ^talk 06:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I agree with you. Before we know it Reddit would be seen as WP:RS. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose as per TarnishPath. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I support WPID! Félix An (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policies and Guidelines and Wikipedia:village pump (policy) about this proposal. George Ho (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Thanks @George Ho. I'm in the process of notifying noticeboards which would be affected by any potential coralling. TarnishedPath ^talk 06:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Question - Please correct me if I've misunderstood, but the main aim of this project seems to be to have a place where editors can discuss "What's the best way to change Policy X to achieve Goal Y?" But isn't this already possible at the relevant policy pages? For example, if you wanted to change WP:NPOV you could start a discussion at WT:NPOV, or discuss with interested editors at their talk pages beforehand. What does this being a WikiProject achieve? The policy scanner is nice, but could easily be a standalone thing. InfernoHues (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
You are not misunderstanding, but you are making the erroneous assumption that the goal here is to improve Wikipedia processes through our consensus-based approach; what such a platform would actually allow would be to give a veneer of legitimacy to what is quite clearly meant to be a canvassing operation aiming to actually override our processes and achieve the listed goals anyways. That is exactly why the policy scanner is an integral part of this, and not a standalone thing. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Oppose based on the "Broaden the range of permissible sources" element of the project. The last thing we need are sloppy sources. We need high quality sources. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Based on the multiple public interviews the editor organising this proposed project has given, he seems to strongly disagree with having WP:FOXNEWS and WP:BREITBART considered GUNREL. Additionally there are the other interviews given where he has argued that the bible, vedas and upanishads, etc, should be cited as sources more in religious articles. So, these would suggest that "intellectual diversity" has a specific direction that it seeks to drive guidance on RS. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I was blissfully unaware of those issues, given my lack of interest in politics. But that makes no difference if they want to weaken WP:RS requirements. I think we need to "strengthen" WP:RS. So they can be right handed, left handed, ambidextrous or whatever, I would still oppose any weakening of WP: RS. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Anyone who thinks that WP:BREITBART should be useable as a reliable source probably shouldn't be editing. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Well, I have never read Breibart. Not even once. So I can not and will not think about it. Am I lucky, or what? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think I might have followed a link once or twice. I wasn't left anymore informed for my troubles. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Breitbart and similar like Daily Wire are overtly unreliable. They're as unreliable as Belarusan state media. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Say that there is a non-peer reviewed magazine that asks individuals to explain their culture. From what I can see, one of the goals is to allow this. I don’t think we could call it a reliable source now, but it would be near-perfect for the things it tries to do. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
There is no requirement for our sources to be peer reviewed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
It's also why categorizing sources as broadly "reliable" or "unreliable" can easily be misleading. Sources can be reliable or unreliable for certain purposes, and the same source that would be priceless for an article describing a culture's medical practices might be much more problematic if used to provide an assessment of how effective these practices are, for which we'd need to reach out for a higher WP:MEDRS standard. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

it would be near-perfect ← There are multiple levels of misunderstanding here. The source would likely be reliable for what is relayed. But where would the WP:WEIGHT be? Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources. If other sources had ignored these primary accounts, why should Wikipedia pay attention? Elevating such a source endangers WP:NPOV. And who could say such sources were representative anyway? Random Wikipedia editors? (WP:NOR is the problem then). It's concerning to see a root-and branch WikiProject proposal being made on the basis of such little clue. If the proposal is: we should allow random Wikipedia editors to decide which primary sources matter, rather than the outside world of published experts, then the answer is: no way. Bon courage (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Whether it would be reliable would depend on the context. To put that in concrete terms, if you read the magazine article and see that an individual says "I'm a chef from Ruritania, and one of the most important elements of our culture is cheese-making", then it depends on whether you write in the Wikipedia article that "Cheese-making is important in Ruritanian culture" or "One chef said that..." This is because it can be true that one person said this, even if what the one person said is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
(edit conflict) We hope to open Wikipedia up to using more sources, permitting responsibly-written sources that represent views of currently-disfavored ideologies, parties, nationalities, religions, and other viewpoints. So one of the stated goals of this proposed WikiProject is violation of Wikipedia policy? I share TarnishedPath's concern above, especially in light of Larry's past track record with WP:FRINGE- and politics-related topics - some of which has been mentioned on the mainspace article on Sanger. For example, In an August 2021 interview with The Sunday Times of London, Sanger objected to Wikipedia's description of alternative medicines, such as homeopathy, as "pseudoscience". He believed such a definition lacked true neutrality. Java Hurricane 06:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Comment Beyond my point of order above, I wonder how a WikiProject like this could be arranged that doesn't violate WP:CANVASS (Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.). I mean, having a group where you establish agreement on particular policy directions is one thing, but then using the group for notification when wanting to push a policy change does have quite the feel of canvassing. the Stefen Tower 07:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Oppose: That's weird, my dog started whistling. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

To clarify: The actual meaning of "intellectual diversity" here (the dogwhistle) is injecting conservative viewpoints into Wikipedia and attracting the sorts of people whom some [paint] as "right-wing" or "extremists." If only there was a WikiProject Intellectual Honesty. Gnomingstuff (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment. I don't have any real opposition to creation of a Wikiproject – people should be free to associate however they like on here, as long as it is not disruptive. However, I am concerned that the framing of this project around "intellectual diversity", in the current way that term is deployed, as an effort to organize editors around the inclusion of fringe, unreliable, or highly contentious viewpoints. For example, the Free Press and the University of Austin are organized around a principle of "intellectual diversity", but that seems to mean anti-woke, anti-trans, pro-Israel, anti-mainstream, right-wing contrarian, and has to the contrary developed its own sort of orthodoxy. I found three signatories under ArbCom sanctions for contentious topic editing: two blocked and one topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict. While it's clear that Wikipedia does need more diversity, the Free Press style of "free speech diversity" is really another sort of walled garden, and this project seems to be aiming to build precisely such a set of like-minded "free-speech" warriors. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Comment What is intellectual diversity? It seems a very vague term and I think most people won't understand what it means. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
It sounds a bit like learning disabilities, but actually it appears to be campaigning against the 'woke' mainstream media and universities. Secretlondon (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I will be direct: a project whose raison d'etre is that the existing project to counter systemic bias is too eager to include women and minorities and exclude far-right extremists does not seem like a good idea to me. ~2026-34036-29 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Oppose I think you need to come out and say with your chest what kind of content you think is being withheld from Wikipedia that needs addressing by more "intellectual diversity", though I can make a pretty good guess by looking at what two of your members have already been indeffed for recently. At least be honest to the community. Orange sticker (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
It may provide some insight looking at the various public interviews the editor has given, where he has discussed Wikipedia's use of sources and policies with regards to those sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
It all seems rather trippy to me, like some psychadelic experience from Easy Rider mixed with the dance macabre from the Seventh Seal. Not my idea of an encyclopedia.Intellectual diversity, woo woo, original thought, everybodys' idea should be considered is the stuff for making original research and I'm all in favour of that - but not for an encyclopedia which is for the altogether other end of the line where you want what has already been through all that and people want to see something fairly definite. NadVolum (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Oppose. The proposed WikiProject page (current revision) suggests that the project aims to undermine established Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly the three that the WikiProject page places in scare quotes: the due weight policy, the fringe theories guideline, and the reliable sources guideline.
Regarding the project's "Broaden the range of permissible sources" goal, I note that whereas the Wikipedia community deprecated the American far-right fake news website InfoWars in 2018 as a generally unreliable source in a decisive request for comment, the WikiProject proposer Larry Sanger appeared on the 31 October 2025 episode of the podcast of Alex Jones (who was then the host of InfoWars) to promote his list of grievances and criticize the Wikipedia community for blacklisting InfoWars and other sources he described as "alt news sources". The proposed WikiProject is essentially a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) campaign in favor of such unreliable and fringe sources, which constitutes unwarranted promotion of fringe views and would reduce Wikipedia's credibility. — Newslinger talk 09:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I have concerns that its aims are a bit worse than undermining our policies. Larry states that part of the aims are to rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability. Given that part of the proposed project is the User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner page which includes a link to a recent discussion in which an editor was WP:SNOW WP:CBAN'd, I have concerns that the proposed project's reason for being is corralling editors to WP:VOTESTACK discussions on noticeboards. TarnishedPath ^talk 10:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Notably that cbanned editor is also listed as a member of the proposed wikiproject. Simonm223 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Oppose. I do think that there is systemic bias on Wikipedia that should be combatted, and that our coverage of certain topics, like astrology, for example, focus more on how modern science has debunked it rather than its historical relevancy -- which makes it seem more like RationalWiki article. For my views on this topic, see my essay WP:RATIONAL. However, as others have stated, this goal of this proposed WikiProject is to inject ideological nonsense into Wikipedia, as has been Larry's goal since he left the project. I do not believe he is actually WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia anymore, but rather promote his ideas about how to drive Wikipedia into the ground like all his other projects "improve" Wikipedia. Other notable members of this project, like שלומיתליר (talk ·contribs ) are here mainly to criticize community consensus for clearly ideological reasons. At least one of the people Larry pinged here, Riposte97 (talk ·contribs ), is an avowed racist, this user has since been INDEF'd after a unanimous decision (I do have to say, though, the 'editing your comment to slap niggardly in place of uncharitable and act like that's a normal thing to do' thing is a 200 IQ move). One editor, handpicked by Larry, was given a topic ban from all gender-related topics for consistently rambling about trans people, such as comparing MOS:GENDERID to newspeak. It is clear from this what the project's goals actually are: monitoring the treatment of viewpoints that dissent from Western, academic, secular, or mainstream-media consensus and promoting sources from currently-disfavored ideologies, parties, nationalities, religions, and other viewpoints means giving undue weight to Larry's personal opinions about theology, gender, and Zionism. PolicyScanner is little more than a large-scale WP:CANVASing operation.wound theology ◈ 09:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Agreed, there's certainly more discussions to be had around the interpretation and actual text of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and other issues, but that'll come from editors actually here to build an encyclopedia (eg. look at the rework of RSP), not lobbyists. This also seems like a pretty transparent attempt at setting up a prototype of the 'political parties' idea of his, which would just divide and polarise the community, WP:BATTLEGROUND says Work with whomever you like, but do not organize a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus. On bias, it is obv subjective in nature, one person's "attribute everything" is another's "WP:FALSEBALANCE and post-truth", both seemingly-valid and utterly-irreconcilable perspectives. English Wikipedia reflects the bias of the institutions regarded as producing and verifying knowledge in Western society, which is not a bad place to be if we remember the goal is to document knowledge. That there's trendy scholarship which cares more about making moral statements than understanding, a broken media landscape, and a lack of other reputable epistemological institutions atm which we can tap into aren't problems for us to solve, we don't lead. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support. I remain on board and intend to actively participate in WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. I see it as an important opportunity for constructive, policy-based work on bias, contested knowledge, and meaningful improvements through the usual on-wiki processes. שלומית ליר (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Strongly oppose the whole idea of this Wikiproject, for two reasons;

The whole thing is being framed in an extremely (frankly, dishonestly) generous manner. I encourage everyone unfamiliar with Larry Sanger to read the nine theses on his profile to understand what he's advocating for through this wikiproject. Where this proposal says broaden the range of permissible sources it should be made absolutely clear that what Sanger means by this is completely abolishing our editorial standards, and presenting the information in fringe viewpoints and unreliable sources as equal to those in reliable sources in the aim of maintaining "neutrality." In other words, Sanger wants WP:FALSEBALANCE to be a mandate, not a warning. In his own words from the first time this was brought up and pitched at the Teahouse, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished. The explicit goal here is to redefine "neutral point of view" to mean "uncritically platforming every viewpoint equally with no regard to reliability or due weight."

It is wholly inappropriate to use a Wikiproject as a voting bloc/advocacy group like this. The activities of this Wikiproject would be nothing less than transparent WP:CANVASsing. Athanelar (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose. This proposed project appears, from statements made by the proposer both on-and off-Wikipedia, to be motivated by a desire to replace a 'systemic bias' by another bias - one giving entirely undue support to fringe concepts that have no place in an encyclopaedia, and to the political agenda of the US right wing that seems so keen to promote Larry's critique. There is, in my mind, no question that Wikipedia has it's biases (it would be truly astonishing if it didn't) but even applying the purest AGF, this proposed solution has all the hallmarks of the 'There is a problem, something must be done. This is something, therefore this must be done' fallacy. And I see no particular reason to over-apply good faith to proposals coming from this particular source. Furthermore, since I am of the opinion that in as much as en.Wikipedia has any consistent bias (a statement that really needs a 'compared to what' clause), it is a reflection of the biases of its contributors (an entirely unsurprising conclusion, I must admit), a project like this could only succeed by replacing the contributors with others. At root, this seems to be an attempt to replace the existing policies, content, and contributorship of the project with something else - something that would then be 'Wikipedia' in name only, and oriented around the political perspective of a small minority of its intended global English-speaking readership. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose - This sounds like the promotion of a populist gish gallop (not to be mistaken with democracy and not reality-based), it has flavors of a wedge strategy (an attempt to corrupt via policy using questionable means), there is already evidence that those not already signed-in are summarily being dismissed (how diverse is that)? Then it is clear that the proposed project is to work against important policies like RS and GEVAL, which make the difference between a credible source of information and an indiscriminate collection of information (which Wikipedia is WP:NOT and which is not what WikiProjects are for). By someone who long has been an outsider and who suddenly visits expecting to have some type of authority over the project's direction... There is a claim of lack of "intellectual diversity", a type of conspiracy theory positing that the encyclopedia doesn't cover topics (because it does not cover them from the perspective of propagandists with a conflict of interest, but relies on independent reliable sources, the only viable approach). ~2026-33889-87 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support(ish) I am unsure what is making it an "official" project achieves, as it will not be a policy, and so could not be used to overturn policy. If (However) the goal is to give it the weight of policy, then I would oppose it. Slatersteven (talk)

I would also oppose it if it had the power to overturn admin actions, without going through proper channels. It should only be a talking shop. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hard Oppose I would be very interested to know which far-right, right-wing, and extremist worldviews you believe the project is treating so unfairly as to warrant a wikiproject like this. Snokalok2 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose because it's not practical. Unlike some editors I think it is true that WP (like any website or any publication) has a bias. It is a bias towards academic and demonstrably respected mainstream positions, and I can also see why that is not perfect. OTOH, perfection is not possible, and we've made a reasonable practical decision about what we are NOT good at with this set-up, which is original research. In effect WP has decided that summarizing the most respected parts of the mainstream (to put it crudely again) is a doable mission, and everything we've been doing in recent years has been in that direction. Without that idea, I think WP would have long ago failed like many Wiki projects do. So while I can see genuine value in the idea of a project which tries to somehow use a broader range of sources, it is a completely different project to this one, and extremely difficult, with a very high probability of failure. It necessarily involves debate about new and original ideas. How do you judge the relative merits of non-orthodox/controversial claims if we can't use their academic/mainstream "status" as a proxy of their right to be reported? It would effectively mean creating a debate forum and research platform. WP is NOT good at those things. So the aim might be good, but WP is NOT the right starting point for such a project. To the extent that it supplies a big bundle of information to the public can of course help people (or AI's like Grok) to attempt such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support I have experienced a power imbalance as an editor here, resulting in a silencing of my voice. I ask that my tban appeal should be heard by an independent nonpartisan group, not the same editors who control the topic space. I hope there is a will to restore an open exchange of ideas to this encyclopedia. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Allthemilescombined1 (talk ·contribs ) was TBAN'd for edit warring and POV-pushing (like advocating WP:POVSPLITs Accusations of usage of human shields by IDF and Usage of human shields by Hamas and this project seems to function, indeed, as a "counter-project to support Western ideas and refute blood libels against Israel". This is the sort of editing that WPID wants to endorse. wound theology ◈ 11:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose The proposal states that "we seek to help Wikipedia better represent a genuinely broad intellectual diversity, regardless of whether, in their home countries, some paint them as `right-wing’ or `extremists’." This sounds like a potential conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:FALSEBALANCE. For example, in the U.S. the right wing, which is heavily represented in the Trump administration, holds many views that are in direct opposition to established science, on climate change, on vaccines, etc. A small example: today’s NY Times reports that in April Secretary of Defense (who prefers to be called Secretary of War) Hegseth removed vaccination requirements from the military, calling them "absurd" and "over-reaching", and at one military base now almost 160 soldiers are sick with the flu. I don’t think we want to "intellectually diversify" if it means giving sympathetic coverage to anti-vaxx, climate change denial, Holocaust denial, or Great Replacement conspiracy theory opinions. NightHeron (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose the heart of the project is this User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity/PolicyScanner used to route folks to ani threads and policy when members are getting discussed. This is just a canvassing operation dressed up in better clothing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
the dog whistle of intellectual diversity is clearly only for a certain type of culture warrior interested in the thin veneer of intellectualism to win one over on wikipedians. The obsession with policy and the an threads is to allow for options fundamentally incompatible with wiki values in defense of this vague idea of "intellectual diversity "

There is little redeeming value to this at all. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Many of the members of this group face tbans or blocks, betraying who hears this dogwhistle the clearest. Perhaps a better name for this project is project povwarriors or project battleground User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 11:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
It is worth noting that one of Sanger's policy positions is that Wikipedia should abolish permanent blocks and bans, again in the name of "intellectual diversity" or what have you. I don't think it's surprising therefore that it would attract a "Suicide Squad" of individuals who think this is a possible route to getting their sanctions overturned (see one of the supporting votes above who directly cites their grievance with their ongoing ARBIPA tban as a reason for their support) Athanelar (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Of note, every single edit at User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner and the associated User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner output, which the former transcludes to, has been made by Larry himself. The proposed project very much seems like an attempt at legitimising canvassing. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Another thought, there are already legitimate channels for discussing policy on Wikipedia anyways. What does this project do beyond that? canvassing, it does canvassing User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 12:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Reading over the "goals" page for WPID, I see this very conspicuous statement in a section about making Wikipedia more "inclusive"

we plan to monitor blocking threats and policy discussions that are used in making such threats, including canvassing and coordination policy. I wonder why this project, specifically, might have a particular named concern for block threats based on canvassing and coordinated editing. Curious. Athanelar (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Not much wondering is required. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. TarnishedPath ^talk 13:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Athanelar I decided to take a quick look.

Out of the 27 members of this proposed WikiProject, 2 have since been indeffed (Wh1pla5h99 and Riposte97), and at least another 2 are currently subjected to topic bans (Allthemilescombined1 and Dtobias). Around half of the other 23 members either do not have enough edits to meet ECR or have very few mainspace edits in the past year (some of whom only have edits related to this WikiProject recently). EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Quite interesting that around half of the other 23 do not have enough edits to meet ECR. TarnishedPath ^talk 14:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
@TarnishedPath

To be precise, 5 don't meet ECR (Prodos, Ferdilouw, Lawfare, Flounder ceo, Eulemann). Another 4 (שלומית ליר, T Magierowski, 123957a, and Jenhawk777) have very few to zero mainspace edits in 2026, Pantarch has primarily edited one mainspace article in 2026, and Larry Sanger has only edited four mainspace articles after November 2012. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
https://x.com/lsanger/status/2052100348118970850

https://x.com/lsanger/status/2065545305072795803

some off wiki posts about it fairly tame tbh User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Does this constitute of wiki canvasing? Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think it goes in that direction. If they linked to this discussion it would cross the line. TarnishedPath ^talk 14:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose Well, I have to admin that "Intellectual Diversity" is a classic euphemism, something along the lines of "collateral damage", I suppose; it sounds harmless enough but hides a multiplicity of problems. I presume the Reinforce genuine neutrality part is something that is there because the author really doesn't like the fact that many opinions that he holds (climate change denial, anti-vaccine, etc ) are described as fringe, and so therefore we must give more coverage to things that are fringe, even though very few reliable sources can provide evidence that those things are true. Nope, doesn't make any sense to me either ... unless, of course, you Broaden the range of permissible sources. Now this is genius - if reliable sources can't source the things we want to say, we'll just try to change things so that we can use unreliable ones as well - after all, they're only "unreliable" because those nasty left-wing Wikipedians agreed they were (see WP:THESIS3). Mr Sanger still seems unable to get his head around the fact that sources are not deprecated because they're right-wing, they're deprecated because they print lies. The fact that a preponderance of sources that do this tend to be on the right of the political spectrum is not the fault of Wikipedia editors. Anyway, whilst I do agree with a couple of points, this all simply points to being a big canvassing operation, and we all know how badly they always end. Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
^100% this. TarnishedPath ^talk 11:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I've had a lot of experience recently with editors on political articles who have seemed to put forward that the use of social sciences to discuss the political right is non-neutral because of... well basically because they believe the Grievance studies hoax people were right. To see a group that contains so many confirmed WP:PARTISANS arguing to expand sourcing suggests that, as the tactic of denying academic sources are reliable seems weak, they would rather just fill up our sourcing with actual fringe garbage. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose because Larry Sanger. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 12:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I will be honest, some of the goals of the project are genuinely appealing, and I'm glad that I can see eye-to-eye with Larry on these (e.g. more accountability for admins, a more inclusive atmosphere for newer editors, more public engagement). I'm also quite happy to see him take the step to propose this as a formal WikiProject, as I was previously worried that we'd have another "backyard project", ironically with little accountability of its own.
However, I'm still not entirely convinced by some aspects. "Reinforce genuine neutrality" is certainly a charitable goal, but one person's neutrality is another person's POV pushing, and we should be especially careful with this. Combined with PolicyScanner, I am worried that this may be uncomfortably close to canvassing, and I am tempted to oppose the project in its current state, although there are certainly lessons to learn from it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Would that accountability for admins stretch to doxxing them, do you think? Black Kite (talk)

Comment: Just to be clear, "intellectual diversity" is not to be confused with neurodiversity? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:02, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Has anyone conflated the two? Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I did when I first saw the name without further context. Personally I would've chosen the name "viewpoint diversity" instead. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I wonder if it will encourage gender diversity? Bon courage (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Putting aside the rest for a moment, since this surprisingly hasn't come up yet: how are the aims of this project substantially different from the existing WikiProject Alternative Views? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
In which case this proposal would result in needless duplication. TarnishedPath ^talk 13:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I was not aware of it, but then projects are often a kind of ghetto that only those who belong to it know about. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 14:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose I worry a little bit about a wikiproject that purports to be supporting intellectual diversity and that contains multiple founding members who have topic bans, page blocks, site bans or community bans in contentious topics. In addition I share the concerns of other editors that this project seems to be seeking greater acceptance of fringe sources. I don't believe this project to be a net positive to Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose The further we move away from WikiProjects acting like lobbying groups first and venues for organizing article improvement second, the better off everyone will be. We have been going in the right direction for some time now, and this proposal is essentially a screeching U-turn. This project seems to not even bother pretending to be about improving articles, instead focusing exclusively on goals that are either transparently ideologically driven (everyone here knows exactly what broaden the range of permissible sources means), or things that are laughably out of scope for WikiProjects (we will monitor proposals to enable reader ratings and feedback systems, how Wikipedia handles public complaints, [...] seriously?). This misguided attempt to reclaim the limelight by one of the people who have worked the hardest and the longest to damage this project for their personal gain is as pathetic as it is a waste of time. The incredible arrogance of thinking any such kind of personal vision so completely disconnected from the reality of this place has any value is honestly impressive in its own sad way. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 14:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

wp:npa and wp:blp apply as much to Sanger as to anyone else, even if the aim is to show them what a wild-west wiki would look like. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This isn't showing a wild west wiki though, it's showing a wiki where we're forced via canvas group to always be a certain level of far-rightSnokalok2 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think WP:PACT applies here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
You were faster than me, was actually going to mention it as well. This is the most clear-as-day PACT situation I can find in recent memory honestly. That, or a Trojan Horse, depending on anyone's metaphor of choice. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

If it's honest, it is, because it means we can have the viewpoint that X is the greatest man who ever lived and X is a dirty pedo. Based on equally biased and crap sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Sorry, and what are these biased and crap sources on the left that you speak of? Snokalok2 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Social media posts, for one. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Who is advocating to use social media posts for anything beyond limited WP:ABOUTSELF? Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
No one, yet. But is not weakening our policies on what is an RS not part and parcel of Sanger's ideas? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I am confused because I thought you were supporting Sanger's proposal here. If we both agree that using social media posts as RS is a bad thing this line of discussion can close. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think I said is I have no issue with the idea of a place to just talk, and that I oppose anything more than that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am genuinely curious if WPID would equally fight for, say, Occupy Democrats to be marked as reliable in the name of providing a wider range of viewpoints. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose per InfernoHues. As has been stated by others, the proposal seems to have a serious potential to downgrade the list of reliable sources we can use on articles. If this were to go through, people could just cite any random Twitter user for unproven facts about very contentious topics. For example, I have a negative personal opinion of Donald Trump (which falls under WP:AMPOL, a contentious topic), but I would not want to see a Tweet by @RandomJoeSchmoe123 cited in the article about him, even if I agreed with its contents, and I think this is what the proposal would allow. I also agree with Howardcorn33 and am curious: are intellectual diversity and neurodiversity (e.g. autism spectrum disorders) the same thing? How are they the same, or how are they different? Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support. All the attempts to smear this as "far right" only prove the need for such an effort. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
When I started editing this comment there were only five references to far-right on this page. One of those is Sanger saying here is, however, a really significant difference in that WPCSB aims primarily to increase demographic representation (especially that of women and minorities) among article topics, and they seem to be particularly concerned to exclude "far-right extremists on Wikipedia." WPID, by contrast, seeks to influence Wikipedia policy in which they are complaining that the Wikiproject on Systemic bias is too focused on keeping far-right figures out. Another is a mention of Sanger's appearances on Alex Jones's podcast that points out that Infowars is far-right. A third is a talk quote repetition of Sanger's comment with a question about what their critique of the Systemic Bias wikiproject is. Two editors have suggested that this wikiproject is a possible vehicle for the far-right. So what is meant by "all the attempts?" Simonm223 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

That you immediately believe all the criticism here is political reveals what intellectual diversity is about. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Probably best to not cherry-pick a "smear" to negate other sound arguments like WP:CANVASS made here. the Stefen Tower 17:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose I struggle to see WPID as something other than a tool to implement Sanger's bullshit "NPOV" thesis. Sanger also has been on an active crusade against Wikipedia for the past year or so (which was very good for his wallet), and WPID seems like a way to show the (predominantly right-wing) media that "look at me! I still have credibility with the Wikipedia community!" m s k 15:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Case in point, User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity is written like a press release for the media. m s k 15:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Wrong WIPD. Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Whoops! Fixed. m s k 16:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

This seems to be veering into what can be construed as personal attacks on Sanger. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

As any mathematician will tell you, a compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer, is another wrong answer. It's vital that we don't compromise on NPOV in any way at all. It's well known that reality has a left-wing bias. Those who want to diversify away from that are welcome to spend their volunteering time on one of the many alternatives to Wikipedia that the internet has to offer.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
All of which are so highly regarded that Wikipedia has a real struggle to compete with them...Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
According to whom? No one cares about Grokipedia Snokalok2 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Yes, I know...Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

There are not so many of these alternatives anymore, to be honest. A fascinating history though, going from Digital Universe, to Citizendium, then Everipedia, and even encyclosphere.org... It feels like there is a common thread running through all these projects that failed miserably, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. I suppose we might never know. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think you're discounting the network lockin effect. You could say the same thing about friendster, myspace, livejournal, and would then end up also conceding that Facebook "won" because it's the more virtuous of the social networks. Which is clearly false. - Scarpy (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
I think you're discounting the network lockin effect.

Or, like I've told family members who grumble "their team" never seems to win certain states, counties, cities or towns in elections: you're not owed anything, even a seat at the table. You get to speak. No one has to listen or care. You're only entitled to have the chance to sell your idea. No one has to buy. Lockin is kinda meaningless, because we've had endless "standards" get kicked in the teeth and knocked over throughout human history by something better. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose As said by the many people above, I struggle to see how this project is anything more than an attempt by Larry to undermine out policies to replace our NPOV with his own and farther-to-the-right POV, all under the guise of "neutrality". toby ^(t)(rw) 15:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I support the creation of WikiProject Intellectual Diversity and intend to participate.

Like any WikiProject, it would have no special authority and could not override existing policies or guidelines. It would simply provide a place for editors to discuss ideas and develop proposals through normal community processes.Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
The User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner page doesn't suggest that's its purpose at all. TarnishedPath ^talk 16:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 15:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Support If I had created this project, I might have called it WikiProject Epistemic Humility. People are, understandably, defensive when their cherised platfrom - and maybe by extension themselves - are alleged to not be as intellectually diverse as they could be. But that's not really what this is about, it's about knowning enough to know that even the narrow domain of the Republic of Letters as it pertains to Wikipedians, there is an infinite tapestry of worldviews. Yes, for the myriad ways of looking at things, given some critiera, some worldviews will be clearly lacking, while other worldviews will have obvious advantages. For such worldview criteria, who decides what they are? Who decides who decides what they are? Quo warranto? - Scarpy (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Your edit also seems to have deleted a comment by a prior editor. Was that intentional? Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Sorry that was a mistake. I grabbed the most recent version and didn't see a warning about an edit conflict. - Scarpy (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
That's fine. I'm sure they'll restore it if they feel necessary. I certainly won't revert that back in. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Let a message on their user page. - Scarpy (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Thank you. That was definitely the right course of action here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

That "infinite tapestry" sounds like it's promising a flying carpet just to deliver a rug pull. I have little confidence in the ability of WPID as currently established to keep advocating for worldviews beyond their own few, which, while certainly distinct, aren't really broader than Wikipedia's current span of views. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
If bias of the current members is a concern, why not just join the project? - Scarpy (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Comment To anyone opposing this on the grounds of "oh anything could be used as a reliable source soon", this project does not claim, ask for, or in any way have the right to supersede WP:RS and WP:NPOV. It simply remains to be seen what WPID will turn out to be a few months from now, and only then do I think enough time has passed to tell if it should be rejected. I too share some of these concerns, and will reconsider my participation once more time has passed. I do hope it turns out to be neutral and simply to remove Wikipedia's inherent biases. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
Except the entire project's express purpose is to campaign for PAGs like RS, UNDUE and FRINGE to be scaled back or abolished. Your point is basically that that won't happen immediately if this project is formed, which is true; but that's the end goal. Athanelar (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Again this does not address the policy scanner nor the presence of multiple people with cbans and tbans as a result of disruptive editing in multiple contentious topics. Even if we steelman Sanger's well-known views about WP:FRINGE and suggest there was something actually useful to Wikipedia treating WP:HERITAGEFOUNDATION and WP:INFOWARS as reliable sources, this project, in its proposed form, still seems to be a support group for disruptive editors. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Or, its down to its supporters to convince us it will not be misused, not just to some hope it will not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose as apparently an attempt facilitate deprecation over time of NPOV and to bootstrap/upflift likely harmful anti-human and anti-humanist ideas endemic in far-right political and ideological ecosystems. They, like anyone, deserver zero "screen time" on Wikipedia articles unless they can pass the same rigor and standards as anyone else. No free meals. Happy to be convinced this is not that, if for same example if we could suitably assured this carries no water for such hateful extremism or to backdoor it into the neutral encyclopedia with unearned "privilege". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose. There are three aims to this group: (1) an aim to counter Wikipedia's assumed left-wing bias; there are already plenty of mechanisms to campaign about this, and Sanger's been doing them for years; if he hasn't achieved his aims via the normal channels by now, we're not obliged to provide him with new ways to carry on flogging this old and rather dead horse; see also point (2) that this is basically setting up a canvas-group; (2) to canvas for increased inclusion of sources we currently regard as unreliable, in the name of balance. Regardless of whether you feel that stirring falsehoods and conspiracies into a subject makes the result more "balanced" this is still, absolutely, canvassing, and we don't do canvassing. It's forbidden. We rely on individuals coming to a subject because they're interested, not because they share an aim and were brought there by a party whip; (3) to liberate Wikipedia from the evil tyranny of admins and make newcomers welcome; there are already copious ways to be nice to newcomers and copious mechanisms to be nasty to admins, we really don't a group using these laudable aims as a cover for sowing general chaos. No, bad group. Elemimele (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
While I agree with most of this, I wouldn't call mechanisms for admin accountability "being nasty to admins", and there is certainly much work left to be done in terms of onboarding newcomers. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply
To clarify, I still very strongly oppose the methods Larry suggests to provide this accountability (borderline doxxing). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose – If Larry Sanger had spent more time on the now-draft page (Draft:Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), which he recently considered "irrelevant" to this proposed WikiProject, then I wouldn't object to this. Indeed, I've worked on the draft a short while ago, but it's now stub-ish. This proposed WikiProject is probably not defining "intellectual diversity" properly. Neither are its Goals nor its scope. However, WP:OR doesn't apply to discussions like this (and perhaps the WikiProject's talk page). Also, per those above, and I don't think I need to summarize their own arguments, do I? George Ho (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Oppose. Some of the issues represented here are true issues. We do need to engage more readers and convert them to editors when they believe our articles are wrong or not neutral. With the hollowing out of reliable right-wing media, attaining NPOV has become more difficult. There are two fundamental issues with this Wikiproject: (a) the project has the explicit goal of influencing consensus-making processes, in the form of adjusting policies and guidelines to be more friendly towards fringe and far-right viewpoints. It is difficult to reconcile this with WP:CANVASSING. (b) the Wikiproject says it wants to monitor "the accountability of high-authority users (CheckUsers, Bureaucrats, ArbCom, Oversight members, others), and whether those exercising significant power are identifiable". This is a thinly veiled threat to dox folks. I think this project is so ill conceived that it will now become more difficult to implement elements that I hoped we would get implemented around engaging with wider audiences. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Deprecated website affecting thousands of articles

~~Latest comment: 1 month ago 1 comment1 person in discussion~~

The Wikipedia:Archive.today guidance has given us a backlog of links that need to be replaced or removed. This affects literally over half a million citations spread across a few hundred thousand articles, so basically every WikiProject could help.

If any WikiProjects would like a list of all articles that they've tagged and that contain one of these WP:ATODAY links, please see the example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Deprecated archival service. You'll need to copy the code for the bot and change the name of the WikiProject to yours (must be an exact match against the database). Post here if you run into problems with getting the list for your WikiProject; post at Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance if you have general questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council&oldid=1360168187"~~