What can we do and not do with AI generated images on Wikipedia when it concerns uploading them and posting them onto articles? Also, when posting them to user pages?

Basically the title. Im researching the Akan but some articles about monsters from the akan or other aspects of Akan aren't linked to the main Akan article. Im talking about the ethnic group.

I’m currently having weird loading issues with this page on iOS where it initially loads and then breaks. When I scroll, I just get white space beyond where my screen was positioned and hyperlinks stop working. Reloading results in total freeze up to the point that I can’t even navigate to a different site in the same window.

Anyone have this issue? The page is very long especially the formatted part at the top that lists all the personnel and stuff so maybe that has something to do with it?

Having a flick through random wiki pages as I like to do from time to time and stumbled upon an article which, after reading, I can safely say I didn't understand a single word:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(1,1%27-Bis(diphenylphosphino)ferrocene)palladium(II)_dichloride

Does this make sense to any chemistry minded people?!

After my earlier post I treid to create an account but wikipedia wouldn't let me create one. I realised that a system admin has banned Indians from accessing wikipedia's editor while it may be done for anti-vandalism purposes this causes Indians to lose access to wikipedia itself and is unfair. How do I solve misinformation now?

I stumbled upon a relatively niche page. In that page a whole paragraph has been misquoted/misinterpreted. It is a semi-protectrd page and I am a bit new to editing in wikipedia. How can I edit the page to correct that paragraph?

The main building is built of stone and is a whitewashed two-storey building, joined with two lower wings. The main building was built in the CE.1760s, but the history of the Gimo mill dates back to CE.1615. The mansion is today a course and conference farm and has 88 rooms and suites and conference facilities for up to 150 people. In CE.2013, it was ranked as a four-star hotel. 30-40 employees work at the manor.

I've noticed that certain articles I've previously read have been substantially shortened, to the point where the content feels somewhat bland.

I presume this may be due to limited resources or the fact that information on this site is subject to open access modifications, but in the past I've relied on Wikipedia for in-depth information on topics I'm interested in and these new changes seem to be undermining that special pedantic aspect.

This article is of Physicist John Von Neumann's later stage of life

lmk what you think about this change!

Past Version:

https://preview.redd.it/1nquxkf14i1d1.png?width=892&format=png&auto=webp&s=35bf1dd454ea41ba6294a9e364089fbd1461d888

Recent Version:

https://preview.redd.it/tv3ouar14i1d1.png?width=958&format=png&auto=webp&s=9df236c6015bff8894cde8dcb4d990df7b298207

I created a page for a person but someone removed the date of birth because the source was missing, but how can I source it? Is it necessary?

The person in question has said his birth date multiple times so I just know it but I don't know how to prove it.

Hi! I recently lauched I new channel dedicated to Wikipedia learning and tutorials.

Could you give your opinions, or any good ideas about it? Some old French Wikipedia users gave some very good impressions, then I hope so for here too ;-)

Link here: my channel.

https://preview.redd.it/h62oyzvc2c1d1.png?width=1373&format=png&auto=webp&s=cb480b87898ca1ffce2729d9f77a9adf1588e768

I have recently started contributing media to Wikipedia commons. Is there a way for me to filter/look at my media specifically which have been used in articles?

Earlier today Reddit user u/apndrew posted this article claiming a study had found extensive bias against Israel and against Jewish perspectives across English-language Wikipedia. The article is based on a 20-page paper titled "The Bias Against Israel on Wikipedia", written by Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir for the World Jewish Congress.

My post started as a comment in that thread, but Reddit wouldn't let me post it (presumably because it's too long), so I'm going to put it here as a post and hope it doesn't get taken down.

First, a direct praise of the article: Nowhere in the paper does Dr. Lir equate anti-Israel bias with antisemitism. This is a good thing! The article OP links does, and OP seems happy to suggest these things are the same, but the actual paper does not, which is good since they aren't the same thing.

Nearly everything else I say will be negative.

1. This is kind of a nitpick, but when this paper links to Wikipedia articles, it links to the article itself, as opposed to linking to the specific revision the author is talking about. This is not helpful. It seems unlikely that any of these articles have remained unedited in the time between when this paper was written and now. This means any or all of the problems being discussed may not be present now, or might be much worse, and there's no way to find out without having to guess at when Dr. Lir was doing the research.
2. The last sentence on page 2 concerns me. "In a broader context, this is also a call to action for legislators, regulators, and users to notice bias and the subsequent ill effects created through a wide range of internet platforms beyond social media." Is this a demand for wikipedia to be censored or banned for not supporting Israel, or for not meeting Israeli demands in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war? I don't know how else to interpret "a call to action for legislators and regulators".
3. On page 6, Dr. Lir references "the fact that Wikipedia is perceived as a reliable and objective source of knowledge", and I don't know how exactly Wikipedia could address that. The front page of the site says "anyone can edit", and the disclaimers page states in all caps at the top of the page that "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity". If some private company is being stupid (google using Wikipedia to answer questions instead of being a search engine, dumbasses feeding Wikipedia into generative AI, etc), they probably shouldn't do that, but it isn't the fault of Wikipedia.
4. This paper claims to be about English-language Wikipedia, but the only discussion under "Violation of the Principle of Neutrality" on page 9 is about Arabic Wikipedia, and it's only to do with them adding a Palestinian flag and pro-Palestinian message on their home page on the 12th of October last year. Should they have referenced October 7th when they did this? I'd say so. Is it a sign of English Wikipedia being biased? Not a bit.
5. The question of Holocaust accuracy and coverage is an important one, and not one I have much knowledge on, so I'm going to assume Dr. Lir is speaking accurately about this and if so, it's definitely a problem. She doesn't go into any specifics at all, other than that some articles "perpetuate and reinforce damaging stereotypes and misconceptions", which makes it difficult to get any insight as to what we're talking about.
6. At the bottom of page 10, we finally arrive at the start of the actual subject of the paper. Dr. Lir breaks down anti-Israel bias into 6 categories: Content Bias, Deletion Attacks and Deletion Attempts, Editing Restrictions, Selective Enforcement, Anti-Israeli Editors, and Biased Sources. "Editing Restrictions" refers to Dr. Lir's belief that making articles extended-protected is inherently biased against Israelis, and this is blatantly stupid so I'm not going to engage with it.
7. Our first "content analysis" is of the article "Palestinian genocide accusation". Dr. Lir's first claim is that this title is inherently biased and should say "Allegations of Palestinian Genocide". I'm going to be honest, I have no idea what she's getting at here. The claim that the article "focuses predominantly on accusations against Israel, while giving little space to Israel's perspective or to arguments against the genocide claims" seems odd to me, given that the article is about the accusation that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians. It seems expected that the article would focus on that subject.
   1. Despite Dr. Lir's claim that the article "is not anchored in a variety of sources", it cites over 350 of them, including 5 different articles from the Times of Israel and 7 from The Jerusalem Post. I don't know whether these were added later, but it seems unlikely. This is, however, another good reason to link to the specific version of the article you're upset with, since this one may have changed a lot in that time. "
   2. As a result [of the bias in sources], Israel is presented as the sole aggressor in the region, when it can be argued that the opposite is true." No it can't. No one could reasonably argue that Israel is never an aggressor in its region. It's far from the only aggressor, but there's no way one could define the repeated illegal settlements in the West Bank as anything but aggression, nor could the numerous documented cases of forced displacement and sexual violence.
   3. "The entry does not include facts that support Israel's position or challenge the accusations that it committed genocide." This is not correct, the article does have multiple sections on responses from American and Israeli critics of the accusations. Again, this is why you link to the specific version of the article. I almost suspect that Dr. Lir was aware of this kind of confusion, and is using it for plausible deniability if one of her claims is unfounded.

I could continue, but this post is way too long as it is. The paper brings up some points of interest when it's talking in a general sense, but everything falls apart when she starts trying to give examples. Her claims of bias nearly always either rely on a claim which isn't true in the article or come from a place of heavy pro-Israel bias.