Sorry to interrupt from cheering to a ‘walled garden’, and I don’t want to be negative, but there are some important questions about this endeavour that weren’t answered while the site was being developed: 1. Is the translation of the new site easily available for volunteers? I see only ‘English’ in the options, and from my knowledge (I might be wrong, that’s what I am aware of), current translators of new website have to provide their translations by email (!). 2. Who’s going to fix the links to the old website? doesn’t work anymore − and there are probably hundreds of non-interwiki links scrambled around Wikimedia projects, and I would guess across the Internet as well. 3. Was it so hard to develop the website using MediaWiki platform (and your soon-to-be-deprecated website) instead of WordPress? There’s really nothing that unusual there that warranted such a breaking change. It’s kind of laughable that OSM Foundation can use and customise MediaWiki, but Wikimedia Foundation that directly supports its development can not.

The current trend for English-only, non-translatable websites for Wikimedia Foundation is, frankly, shameful. We get that you are an American organisation, but you’re, after all, an organisation that represents a global movement. — Public Policy website is English-only for three years or so already since its existence. ( — Transparency Reports website is also English-only since its existence. ( — Donation information website features multilingual text, but it’s designed in such a way that most of people won’t know how to use it. ( Now the head website is being made English-only without any simple and visible ability to get involved because of preferring WordPress to an easily localisable system like MediaWiki.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to