On the deletion of the german WP:Café.

We are experiencing strange times in german Wikipedia. The political mood is heated. The deletion of the cafe can be considered as part of a cultural revolution in de:WP. For the edification of colleagues who might read this story with mythical creatures written and and published in the WP:Kurier by User:Matthiasb:

„ Raid on the café

The raiding party arrived early on Sunday morning. First, men dressed in black and wearing combat boots stormed the café. They smashed the china and all the glasses. Then they filled their pockets with silver cutlery. When they left the bar, they took mainly high-quality alcoholic drinks with them. They left a beer barrel behind because they obviously couldn't carry it. The leader of the group, a man in a leather coat and floppy hat, who said he was a certain Don T. Rump, explained that the swamp had now been drained. The administration would never again accept free citizens meeting in the café and opposing the administration. The café was closed with immediate effect. Our special reporter reported all this, citing Matthias, one of the bartenders who was still on duty when the operation began. The administration was ruthless and did not accept any of the arguments. Some onlookers are said to have applauded and started chanting insults.

A man from Eichstätt, who has been a regular for almost 20 years, expressed his incomprehension. Once or twice a year, guests misbehave, but over a quarter of a million guests have visited the café over the years and ensured a good atmosphere. The tips in particular have been plentiful, barkeeper Matthias told our reporter. That's why he enjoyed his work, even when a guest misbehaved.

The café opened on May 5, 2005. Its first landlord was a certain Mr. Simplicius, but another team soon took over and secured the business.

The regulars are showing a fighting spirit. They already have their eye on replacement rooms and will reopen better and nicer, said one of the regulars on condition of anonymity. He explained his motives by saying that he was afraid of being bullied by the administration and did not want to be recognized. A regular with the nom de guerre Proofreader was less anxious. He said that they would not let themselves be defeated, adding that some people were meeting at the information desk to discuss their next steps against the authorities. MaB, 03.02.“

Happy readings Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural revolution? I don't agree with the closure of the Café but this is absurd. The point is simply that from the beginnings of the German Wikipedia, exchange forums without a close connection to the article namespace were seen as suspicious and sometimes deleted (as unrelated to "encyclopedic work"). This is not a revolution but simply a new appearance of this tendency. An experienced user compared the motives for closure to a "protestant work ethos", not the worst description for Wikipedia as a whole. I don't like it but it's only a minor disruption at the margins of Wikipedia, nothing "revolutionary". Mautpreller (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give a third explanation: A place, that was invented for relaxative talks of Wikipedia contributors changed itself over the years to a place of very heated and sometimes aggressive political discussions. Which may be seen as part of a political swing and cultural revolution in Germany and worldwide in the last couple of years, but surely not one, that was launched from the German wikipedia. A growing number of Wikipedia contributors did not feel at ease in the climate of the Café anymore and a growing number of users of the Café were not contributing to the articles at all. So the site got more and more disconnected from its initial purpose, to be a chill-out zone for all contributors. After another violation of UCoC in the Café discussions, the argument was gaining strength: Why spend ressources on moderation to a platform, that was doing more harm than good for Wikipedia at all. Of course, the regulars of the Café see it the other way around. Some want to hold up Free Speech and weighten it more than the first pillar ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"). And the ones, that feel suppressed in Wikipedia or the society anyway see it as another sign of that suppression. Magiers (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In part this is a reflection of the global political situation – as tensions flare up, opinions become more extreme; discussion spaces become more contested; and the social climate becomes increasingly authoritarian. Last year's ruwiki fork, the Heritage Foundation's targeting of individual editors in the English Wikipedia and the current allegations of a nationalist takeover in the Hebrew Wikipedia are all indicative of this. With Trump's anti-woke authoritarianism in Wikimedia's home country and Musk gunning for Wikipedia and Wikimedia, it looks like the next four years may present the Wikipedia movement, and the very idea of a volunteer-run global encyclopedia that isn't controlled by the powers that be, with its most significant test to date. --Andreas JN466 13:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was admin-adjacent to an ongoing dispute that had its roots in the Hebrew Wikipedia and when I was examining the situation on that project it seemed like politics played a role on there. Politics are present to some degree on all language Wikipedia but it seemed much more complicated there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should start our own Café in honor of the German Wikipedia Café. I will miss the Café, even if I don't speak much German. The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hedgehogs)} 01:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a huge danger to the viability of all projects and without being overly dramatic, I would suggest to shut all Wikipedias down immediately if this will ever become law. The Foundation so far only sees the data protection angle that we would need to get and administer data on users whether they are over the threshold(s). But the real issue is that such a regulation would require all content in the projects to be assessed for their suitability for certain ages! And who ever does that assessment would be liable for their decision! Or we set all content for mature audiences only. But that would defy the purpose of Wikipedia and all other projects. --h-stt !? 20:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]