User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 163
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | → | Archive 170 |
Two more WMF donors editing Wikipedia
Jimmy, would you be kind enough to look at the allegations described in this blog post, then comment on them? - 2001:558:1404:0:0:5EFE:A19:F327 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. It's a dishonest headline, implying that if you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, you get "benefits" in terms of your article. You know that's 100% false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- If that's 100% false, then you imply that there will be community-initiated repercussions for the COI editing that has been taking place regarding all of the article subjects that Wikipediocracy's series has exposed? Once you show that the Wikipedia community actually takes all of this seriously, and the COI edits are rolled back, and the involved editors are admonished on their Talk pages, then I'm sure that Wikipediocracy would gladly change the title of this blog post, if the title of it is the most disturbing thing you're choosing to react to. - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow. You know as well as I do that the community does not give favoritism to COI edits by donors to the WMF. There is a problem with coping with COI edits overall, but there is not a problem with donations to WMF corrupting the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying that a donation to the WMF has never corrupted the editing process on Wikipedia? Are you sure? Look, I completely see what you're saying, Jimbo. You're right, that a donation does not actually or even figuratively grant the donor a special exemption on Wikipedia, in terms of editing. (Although, there have been a couple of cases where I've seen comments like "They just gave the WMF a boatload of money, so we should have an article about them.") However, the fact does remain that the WMF's legal department has sent a cease-and-desist letter to a paid editing firm, and the WMF human resources department has fired an employee for the infraction of non-disclosed paid editing. But other than the Belfer Center fiasco post mortem, we have never, ever seen the WMF make any sort of public comment or provide meaningful feedback about any of the dozens of major donors who are participating in COI and/or paid advocacy editing (some with disclosure, many without). However, the WMF has made all kinds of public comments about firms like Wiki-PR or Bell Pottinger, for doing approximately the same thing as the donors are doing, but they didn't donate anything to the WMF. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that one measure of whether the WMF will formally respond to an allegation of COI/paid/advocacy editing or not, is whether the editor has made a financial donation to the WMF or not. Really, would it be so difficult for one of the WMF's legal staff, or even one of the "storytellers" on the payroll, to provide a public statement about how inappropriate it is for donors to the Wikimedia movement to be simultaneously manipulating content about themselves on Wikipedia in ways that skirt or are wholly outside of Wikipedia policy and guideline norms? Is there some reason you or the WMF would decline to do that? - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- All the chaff you throw at us makes it hard to tell if there's a real issue in there. That you think that ambiguity works in your favor makes us skeptical of your sincerity. The fact that someone donates has nothing to do with whether some IP or company shill (even from the same company) edits the article. They could do that anyway. The only legitimate accusations - the ones that could stand on their own, if they existed - would be that the WMF Office took actions to skew the article or protect the shills that go outside the stated norms of the community. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The legitimate accusation is that the Wikimedia Foundation is happy to take large sums of money from donors who are disregarding the community guidelines for proper editing of the very project they are donating money to support; and that with the exception of the Belfer Center case, the Wikimedia Foundation has only ever made public statements against specific paid/COI editing situations when it was not a donor. Have you ever seen Planned Parenthood accept a large donation from an anti-abortion activist? - 2001:558:1400:10:982A:1673:FF0D:2920 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure Bell Pottinger never donated? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
- I am (fairly) sure that they never donated enough money to appear on the Wikimedia Foundation's published list that honors the heavy donors. Happy to be proved wrong, if you want to take the time to research it. - 2001:558:1400:10:982A:1673:FF0D:2920 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- We should ask them for a donation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
- We should ask them for a donation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
- I am (fairly) sure that they never donated enough money to appear on the Wikimedia Foundation's published list that honors the heavy donors. Happy to be proved wrong, if you want to take the time to research it. - 2001:558:1400:10:982A:1673:FF0D:2920 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- All the chaff you throw at us makes it hard to tell if there's a real issue in there. That you think that ambiguity works in your favor makes us skeptical of your sincerity. The fact that someone donates has nothing to do with whether some IP or company shill (even from the same company) edits the article. They could do that anyway. The only legitimate accusations - the ones that could stand on their own, if they existed - would be that the WMF Office took actions to skew the article or protect the shills that go outside the stated norms of the community. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying that a donation to the WMF has never corrupted the editing process on Wikipedia? Are you sure? Look, I completely see what you're saying, Jimbo. You're right, that a donation does not actually or even figuratively grant the donor a special exemption on Wikipedia, in terms of editing. (Although, there have been a couple of cases where I've seen comments like "They just gave the WMF a boatload of money, so we should have an article about them.") However, the fact does remain that the WMF's legal department has sent a cease-and-desist letter to a paid editing firm, and the WMF human resources department has fired an employee for the infraction of non-disclosed paid editing. But other than the Belfer Center fiasco post mortem, we have never, ever seen the WMF make any sort of public comment or provide meaningful feedback about any of the dozens of major donors who are participating in COI and/or paid advocacy editing (some with disclosure, many without). However, the WMF has made all kinds of public comments about firms like Wiki-PR or Bell Pottinger, for doing approximately the same thing as the donors are doing, but they didn't donate anything to the WMF. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that one measure of whether the WMF will formally respond to an allegation of COI/paid/advocacy editing or not, is whether the editor has made a financial donation to the WMF or not. Really, would it be so difficult for one of the WMF's legal staff, or even one of the "storytellers" on the payroll, to provide a public statement about how inappropriate it is for donors to the Wikimedia movement to be simultaneously manipulating content about themselves on Wikipedia in ways that skirt or are wholly outside of Wikipedia policy and guideline norms? Is there some reason you or the WMF would decline to do that? - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't follow. You know as well as I do that the community does not give favoritism to COI edits by donors to the WMF. There is a problem with coping with COI edits overall, but there is not a problem with donations to WMF corrupting the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- If that's 100% false, then you imply that there will be community-initiated repercussions for the COI editing that has been taking place regarding all of the article subjects that Wikipediocracy's series has exposed? Once you show that the Wikipedia community actually takes all of this seriously, and the COI edits are rolled back, and the involved editors are admonished on their Talk pages, then I'm sure that Wikipediocracy would gladly change the title of this blog post, if the title of it is the most disturbing thing you're choosing to react to. - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, after two days, it would appear that not a single editorial adjustment has been made on Mark Amin or MathWorks (or the various articles about its products), so what do we conclude? That Wikipedians will eventually address the problem of COI employee and paid-PR editing, just not now? That Wikipedians do address these problems, just not on these particular cases, because they were brought to our attention by a "troll"? Or, that Wikipedians do address these problems, just not in the cases of financial donors to the WMF? - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- That Wikipedians are volunteers and don't hop on command. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you could have fooled me, Neil! Because when attention was called to a PR editor going to town on an article about a company that didn't donate a large sum of money to the Wikimedia Foundation, it only took two days for a Wikipedian to decimate the article with a hacksaw. I think I'll stick with my theory that COI articles about WMF donors are dealt with much more lightly than COI articles about non-donors, but thanks anyway! - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think you can rest assured that it it not the third. Relatively few of us keep up with these donor lists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
- I think you can rest assured that it it not the third. Relatively few of us keep up with these donor lists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC).
- Well, you could have fooled me, Neil! Because when attention was called to a PR editor going to town on an article about a company that didn't donate a large sum of money to the Wikimedia Foundation, it only took two days for a Wikipedian to decimate the article with a hacksaw. I think I'll stick with my theory that COI articles about WMF donors are dealt with much more lightly than COI articles about non-donors, but thanks anyway! - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously Wikipedia editors don't give a damn who gives money to the WMF; the cases Kohs cites are part of a generally lax attitude to COI editing, to the extent that COI has swamped Wikipedia. Kohs' business model is based on that laxity. So at one point do we say, "enough is enough," hypocrisy is amusing but not that amusing, and start to enforce the rules against socks of banned editors posting here? Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is a shame that most admins don't enforce bans, but any editor can enforce it. See WP:NOT3RR
The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users.
When somebody just thumbs his nose at the community, and doesn't pretend that he is editing in good faith or even try to pretend to hide the fact that he is banned, just revert him. I'll ask every editor who knows how Mr. 2001 works to just revert him every time they see Mr. 2001's edits. Admins can even join in! Of course, this is Jimbo's talk page, so if and when Jimbo says that he wants to see Mr. 2001's comments on this page, nobody should revert 2001 here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- At first I enjoyed bantering with him, even though it was classic troll-feeding. He's a kind of narcissistic guy and to be frank I sort of liked pushing his buttons (I know, my bad). I guess to me what crossed the red line is when he started to become sanctimonious about outing when 1) he has self-outed, 2) He WP:QUACKs like an airport runway-full of Canadian geese and 3) one of his primary off-wiki purposes is to out other editors. At a certain point one goes into "hypocrisy overload" when faced with that kind of behavior. Also it dawned on me that perhaps there was sort of implicit "if you don't hire me I'll expose you" at work here. But you're right, bottom line, this is Jimbo's talk page. If he wants a Constant Hypocritical Presence on his page, that's his privilege. Coretheapple (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and just to be clear, so that new audience members understand what we're talking about, we're talking about a cacophony of WP:DUCKs such as the world has never before seen: Mr 2001 is a very well known very banned editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Context here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also when he materializes he should be reported at SPI, and though action has been taken in the past, it's not guaranteed. Still, I think it needs to be done. See, bottom line, he's a banned editor, and if he wants the rules applied, they should be applied to him, especially the one that he doesn't post on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrator AGK sending harassing email, makes legal threats
| Kumioko is a banned editor with a long history of harassment of other editors, including me. A report to Kumioko's ISP, whether an employer or not, is long overdue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
You may want to take a look at this. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
not sure, due to me being different person than AGK. 75* 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
With precedent."Threat" of action against actual problem. O K. 75* 21:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think if editors are upset with this email, they should discuss whether Wikipedia should or should not be sending out these notices to anyone, and not just focus on this instance. I think these notices are pretty standard but the focus should be on how to address long-time vandals, especially ones that deluge admins and ARBCOM with email messages saying they have no intention of stopping their disruptive behavior. What would you have admins do in response? Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Rules are relative, what is problematic behavior within Wikipedia isn't necessarily problematic in an absolute sense. If I decide to pick up my vacuum cleaner to get rid of an ants nest in my home, I'm probably violating the rules that govern that ants nest. Count Iblis (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there any question of whether a government agency can identify who has been editing from any one of its particular computers? These things are usually pretty tightly controlled. —Neotarf (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
AGK did not, IMO, make a "legal threat" as in a "threat of litigation" but it is a "threat" in the sense that he is clearly writing with an implicit Arb hat on (Arbs writing sans-toque generally make that clear) - though the issue really seems to be whether this is a "routine email" or not. If it is "routine" we should be told how many precisely similar emails AGK has sent. If this is an "unusual case" (i.e. if it appears AGK does not send such emails as a rule) then the issue becomes far muddier as to intent. And far more concerning. Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Looking forwardI invite those who have expressed concern about AGK's e-mail (meaning the substance underlying it, not just the phrasing) to propose an alternate course of action that would help in putting an end to the disruption. Kumioko's behavior since his community ban, which BASC declined to overturn, has been outrageous. He has had dozens of accounts and IPs blocked by this point. He has publicly stated that he aspires to become "the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history." He stated, "[s]o now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else." He has stated, "[s]ince my help wasn't wanted, I'll just distract them with socking and trolling as I find the time. Days or weeks might go by and it may come in waves but it'll be fun." He has aspired to cause numerous innocent editors and would-be editors to be blocked as collateral damage, stating "I'll just be a pain in the ass and a distraction. In the process though a lot of innocent editors will be blocked (several already have), time will be distracted form the project and I'll have some fun. The only way they'll keep me away is if they range block the whole t-mobile and Verison Fios networks. I doubt they have the desire to do that." He added, "[m]aybe they ban editing from the Verizon network or t-mobile. Its hard to say what the long term effects will be, but its not going to be pleasant." In the same vein, "I have gotten 2 range blocks for Verizon Fios which means a lot of people coming from 172 or 208 will need to get an IPblock exemption to edit in which case most of them will assume its me and deny it. 1 for me, 0 for WP. I have also ... distracted several users. Childish perhaps but I am having fun." That was a couple of months ago, soon after he was banned; since then, things have grown worse. Kumioko has repeatedly evaded and deliberately edited around the abuse filters that were written specifically to block his access. He has left taunting and disparaging messages for numerous users. He has indicated that he intends to continue to escalate these activities, never to stop, never to respect his ban under any circumstances. He has repeatedly misused the Echo feature by deliberately pinging dozens of arbitrators, functionaries, administrators and other editors for the purpose of harassing them. He has ignored my warnings that his continued editing is in breach of the Terms of Use, and a lengthy online explanation of how his activities raise legal issues. Yesterday he suggested with pride that he is now "public enemy number one" on Wikipedia.
Multiple arbitrators, functionaries, and others have invested hours of effort in attempts to get Kumioko to stop this behavior. I believe that by now a dozen people have reached out to him both on-wiki and offline, using all sorts of approaches, with no success at all. He seems determined to continue until he goads someone into taking an extraordinary action in response to his behavior, yet now turns around and professes to be shocked, shocked, at someone's warning him that if he, himself, makes the conscious decision to persist, something of that sort might now occur. Like everyone else, certainly including AGK himself and everyone else I've seen comment on this matter, I would much prefer for Kumioko's real-world life and activities not to be affected in any way by what has become his unhealthy obsession with shrieking about alleged administrator abuse on Wikipedia. However, I would also like Kumioko to stop his disruptive and impermissible editing on the project he is banned from. An ISP report would obviously be a last resort, would obviously be controversial, and as important, it might or might not work. Who has a better idea? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
AGK's conduct is outrageous, and Wikipedia must take a strong stand against harassing threats of this sort. We are far, far too indulgent towards bullies. Kumioko complains loudly about admin abuse, and we prove his points for him by overreacting and threatening him. I suggest a solution to the problem that might actually work, as opposed to everything else I'm seeing: offer an olive branch and work out a reasonable solution with the guy so he can come back and we can all focus on writing content. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Has anyone notified Kumioko of this thread? —Neotarf (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The situation is a little close to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Threats although both users were in good standing at that time. However FT2 got into hot water for threatening another editor offwiki via threats. This situation is similar. 129.9.104.11 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I will reply to the first question, asking for some alternative action. If the core of the problem is that it may be needed to notify his ISP, but his ISP is also the place where this man works, then none of us Wikipedia users should do that. Either if common editors, admins or arbcom members, we all may lack the knowledge needed to adress a situation like this. The best way to act then is to contact the lawyers of the Foundation and let them talk to the ISP, as they will surely know perfectly well how to write a request that minimizes any potential legal problem for the man while acting upon the editor. And perhaps I will something that may have already been tried, but if the problem is with a sock puppets master, then block not just his account but also the IP from where he had made the accounts. You did so, and he repeated the process in the IP of his workplace? Block that one as well. If it is public, and several unrelated people logs from it, block the IP for registering accounts and all his accounts, and spare the accounts of unrelated users (sock puppet investigations surely know how to set them apart). Yes, he may then try to find some other place to register accounts, get them blocked, go somewhere else... and the game of the cat and the mice will cease when he is eventually tired and finds that seeking unused sources of internet and going through the registering forms would no longer be worth the effort; specially if he finds something else to do in his spare time. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Let's try to find a way backMr Wales, perhaps you could find it in your heart to wipe the slate clean and start over with Kumioko? There's been a tremendous amount of bad blood over this situation. He was a very good editor before the collapse. Good luck. Hell might be other people (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: A way back to solve at least some of thisSimple: AGK resigns from his post on ArbCom.
MoratoriumI think this would be a good time for us to pause this thread, to stop criticizing or commenting on Kumioko, and see what happens next. Kumioko's objective over the past couple of months has been to call attention to what he considers abuses by administrators (including arbitrators) on this project. Clearly he has succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that he is dissatisfied and to some reasons why. Kumioko has e-mailed me complaining that he has been criticized on this page and can't respond here. As a courtesy to him, I point out that Kumioko has responded to the threads on this page in his postings on Wikipediocracy. Anyone interested can find those posts there in the top two threads in the "Governance" subforum. While I obviously disagree with a lot of what Kumioko has written there (not least about myself), anyone interested in his side of the story can read his posts and consider what he has to say. Let's stop talking about Kumioko now and perhaps the overall situation will cool down. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawal of one allegation, with apologyKumioko has denied my statement above that over the weekend, one of his accounts vandalized a BLP. This led me to checkuser that account. It appears that that account was an imposter. I therefore withdraw that allegation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Could you please get involved Mr Wales?I think this situation requires your personal attention. Thanks. Hell might be other people (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
|
| This discussion is closed. It is completely mistaken to characterize the problem of ongoing harassment of editors a problem of being "persistent about accessing". If you have further questions, I recommend you email them to WMF legal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have no questions, but I do have a observation. The real harassment in question here has taken the form of threatening someone's livelihood. Jimbo, you have a responsibility, if you are to have any moral authority here, to take a strong stand against this abuse. We must not treat people this way. Everyking (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
Looking for an opinion on scope of Wikipedia's coverage
After being on Wikipedia for eight years, I could not help, but notice that some topics have an inherent bias against inclusion despite passing WP:GNG. I was wondering if you feel that this encyclopedia was meant to be completely unbiased in coverage and should coverage all notable subjects, or are there topics you feel are unencyclopedic and should have higher GNG requirements that the standard? Valoem talk contrib 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would be interested to know which topics have an inherent bias against them. Even your impressions would be interesting. I take it you are referring to AfD (Prod/CSD) rather than the preference for inclusion displayed by article creation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
- I find your question confusing. Can you mention some examples of these "topics" that have an inherent bias? This question is a little too abstract to know how to respond to it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I just want to echo others in their request for more details or examples. In principle, I think we should be unbiased in coverage and should cover all notable subjects. But even saying that is too simplistic as it introduces all sorts of complex problems. Musicians, actors, and sports personalities all receive dramatically more popular press than academics, judges, and business people so simplistic models of what counts as notable tend to fail. Like the others who have commented so far, I think your impressions of bias would be interesting for us to chew on. I also think it would be interesting for someone who is clever with scripts to analyze past AfD results on some kind of per-category basis to look for interesting anomalies. (A high ratio of nominations to deletions could be interpreted multiple ways depending on the circumstances, of course. Some things probably get deleted a lot because they are popular fancruft that random newbies start. Other things may get deleted for more deep seated reasons of bias, for example topics that are less known or less interesting to our skewed demographic of editors.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me, I think you have stated many issues I've noticed perfectly. There is a tremendous bias as to what we consider encyclopedic. As an inclusionist, I think, when in question keep and improve, however I see the opposite effect. Many editors appear intent on building a Wiki resume based on deletions with no interest in finding sources, such is the case in the AfD for No call, no show. An example of a topic where bias is inherent is fringe theories, and this is nowhere near the most oppressed topic. The current AfD I am involved in, UFO sightings in outer space (considered the most reliable group of sightings by academics) shows pure IDONTLIKEIT votes despite tons of academic sources documenting such events. The range of bias is extensive, Dieselpunk, was deleted 5 times and was finally restore on it's sixth AfD with minimal improvements, because as I believe, it was always encyclopedic. When the same group of editors repeatedly engage in the same AfD, we are essentially holding a kangaroo trial and this is prevalent throughout Wikipedia. There is one particular topic, which has been systematically dismantled in the past few months, because we refused to accept in topic sources as reliable and consequently the inclusion criteria has been set well higher than that of standard GNG. It is important that every topic has established sources which we accept to be at least partially reliable, especially when the topic receives less coverage in mainstream media. Poker and video game related articles have done an excellent job in establishing this and should set such a precedence to all genres.
- Per DGG, "we cover the world as people see it" even the idiocy, Wikipedia receives half a billion unique visitors per month, only 120,000 are active editors, of the 120,000, many are here to work on specific articles and leave as quickly as they surface. So, if I am correct when taking into consideration users with special permissions, sysops, reviewers, etc. we are looking at about 10,000 consistent editors who can control the flow of information to the rest of the world. In my opinion, these numbers are not high enough
and most editors are Americanand statistics suggest possible bias as to what is accepted here, may exist. Valoem talk contrib 14:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Per DGG, "we cover the world as people see it" even the idiocy, Wikipedia receives half a billion unique visitors per month, only 120,000 are active editors, of the 120,000, many are here to work on specific articles and leave as quickly as they surface. So, if I am correct when taking into consideration users with special permissions, sysops, reviewers, etc. we are looking at about 10,000 consistent editors who can control the flow of information to the rest of the world. In my opinion, these numbers are not high enough
- I generally agree with Valoem. I just want to add that in the years Wikipedia has seen a slow but definite shift in mindset, from being a young, bubbling "open source" project, with a groundbreaking attitude, to becoming a more and more conservative (in the academic sense, not political) behemoth. This shift has both good and bad consequences. The good is that now we value accuracy and sourcing much, much more than in the past, and as a result WP is overall more and more reliable. The bad is that we are more and more entrenched in making WP look like past reference works, instead of embracing the potential and freedom that the electronic media allow us; and that higher standards make editing much more difficult for new editors. While many of the early editors were in front of basically a blank sheet of paper with few hard and fast rules, now we are a Byzantine bureaucracy where a few editors control the extent of what is deemed "encyclopedic" and what not.
- I would say that in general the overall spirit of a guideline like WP:GNG makes sense inasmuch it asks us that we need to meet minimum conditions so that we are able to write an article. Without secondary RS, we cannot write a reliable article. So GNG, in its original sense, is not much about what we should put in the 'pedia, but more about what we can put in. That is what should guide us: do we have something to rely on for our writing? If yes, we should not have fear of letting it live. Every other consideration is biased. No matter how trivial and bizarre and weird a subject is, it is still a piece of structured knowledge that could benefit someone, one day. It's about collecting the whole of human culture, not only what we, here and now, from our narrow point of view, find noteworthy.
- I feel this has also consequences in terms of our current editors drain. We should make a large scale effort to simplify and streamline all the baroque ruleset that has encrusted through the years, and, while keeping high the accuracy requirements, bring some of the early spirit of WP back. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is no longer correct to say that the majority of edits or views to even the English Wikipedia come from the US (unless things have gone backwards) this changed round about 2012, IIRC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
- Thanks for the update I got that information from an article in 2010. What is true though is that many articles covered in non-English sources are nominated for deletion still without cite checking foreign sources. Valoem talk contrib 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is no longer correct to say that the majority of edits or views to even the English Wikipedia come from the US (unless things have gone backwards) this changed round about 2012, IIRC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
I agree with Valoem's and cyclopia analysis. I've long suspected that part of the problem lies in the way content policies have been codified. WP:GNG and WP:RS have been written with the needs of western audiences, and thinking about the level of coverage that western media provide. Proof of that is that we have long established practice of outcomes for keeping articles that are exceptions to the rules, as they don't fully comply with those policies (such as geographic places and schools) but are nevertheless kept because of their interest to the dominant group as a global topic; but for articles of dubious coverage that are of interest to other cultures (Bollywood films and celebrities come to mind, as well as buildings from countries without a thorough online land registry), the full strength of those policies is enforced even when some level of verifiable sources is available.
In order to achieve the original levels of participation, growth and user retention, I believe what's missing is some kind of "beta" space where the rules were not so strict, and article candidates were allowed to grow more slowly without risking deletion, benefiting from multiple collaborators extended in time. AfD should have worked for that, but it is too centered on a single editor building the article in one sitting; and I had high hopes that the new Draft space could fulfill that role, but it still suffers too much from inertia imposed by the community bureaucratic monster.
Now I don't advocate a return to the time of no editorial processes and low quality of content - at least not in the main space. However, a fork of some kind that was clearly marked as unofficial, and being limited to the bare minimum of protective measures (BLPs, vandalism, COPYVIO and the most egregious SPAM) would benefit those people who want to explore the possibilities and capture knowledge from those other cultures, without the baggage of the most subtle aspects of current policy - which, as I said, have been fine-tuned to the necessities and liking of educated netizens from the 2000s. This separate space could develop a new set of rules and a new, young community of members, from the areas of the world that the WMF is targeting. Diego (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, believe or not I made just recently made that proposal here. Wikiarchive :) Valoem talk contrib 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I can't recall an example of an actual commercial Bollywood film being deleted though articles about unreviewed works by total beginner "directors" are often deleted regardless of nationality. As an active AdD participant, I repeatedly emphasize that this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. And there are reliable newspapers, magazines, books and websites published in almost every country, except the handful of the most unstable. "Everyone knows about it in Dacca (or Dakar)" is no more of a claim of notability than saying that everyone in Sacramento (or Glasgow) knows about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Valoem:: Oh, I have no doubt that there must be other people discussing these ideas; they are similar to the perennial proposal to have a soft delete process or trash space with access to the history of non-problematic articles, which has always made sense and has never achieved consensus. Thanks for the link, btw. It has given me some new insights into what kinds of deleted content are the most valuable, and that there's a major error in treating all of it in the same way.
- My proposal is not so much inspired in principle but in pragmatism, taking inspiration in how software projects evolve. In order to release new versions, they require freezing a stable version and creating a new branch where unstable and low-quality edits are composed to build new areas of functionality. Wikipedia has similarly reached the stable state, but by not further allowing it to break, we're at the same time stiffling any potential to grow.
- @Cullen328:: The whole point of an alternate venue is that notability shouldn't be a hard requirement in such alternate space. Knowledge is accumulated in small pieces, and we could gain a lot from compiling verifiable facts from reliable sources that aren't a good fit for any current article. The WP:PRESERVE policy, which is nearly defunct now, could shine again and accomplish its process of slow improvement, in a region away from the spotlight where it wouldn't put us at much risk. Diego (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I can't recall an example of an actual commercial Bollywood film being deleted though articles about unreviewed works by total beginner "directors" are often deleted regardless of nationality. As an active AdD participant, I repeatedly emphasize that this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. And there are reliable newspapers, magazines, books and websites published in almost every country, except the handful of the most unstable. "Everyone knows about it in Dacca (or Dakar)" is no more of a claim of notability than saying that everyone in Sacramento (or Glasgow) knows about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer a simpler approach than opening a novel namespace. Simply put, deletionists want a stiff encyclopedia with few entries which are clearly notable and well polished. Inclusionists are more of a "this is a work in progress", horizontal approach, where basically if it can be sourced, it's good to come in. What I would do is simply to assess pages within WP. We already have GA and FAs. We used to have Start,A,B etc. class articles. Whatever. The point is: instead of making it a binary distinction "this goes in ,this goes not", we take most stuff in, but we also assess roughly article notability and quality and give it to the readers. They then decide what they want to read, and are appropriately warned. Instead of bringing articles with few secondary sources to AFD, we can just stick "Warning: This article relies primarily or only on primary sources" or "Warning: This article relies mostly on unreliable sources such as blogs and forums". Readers can then proceed at their own risk. It could also be decided to make such articles not necessarily accessible by default on search, with the reader that can choose what part of WP they want to access. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer that as well, but there's a generalized sentiment that anything without some "trascendental" nature should be excised from the project and buried under a strict no-access regime; I think doing this provides some people with some sense of cleanliness or completion. This is why it makes sense to have a separate space that these people won't find in their day-to-day work.
- Moreover, it's the only way that we could have less stringent rules - anything in main space is evaluated to the letter of law and WP:Ignore All Rules is seen as an exception, instead of the "widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow" as it should be.
- But maybe you're right, and simply creating filters and leaving out by default everything unassessed or below C-class quality would be enough to satisfy people at all sides of the scale. Diego (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer a simpler approach than opening a novel namespace. Simply put, deletionists want a stiff encyclopedia with few entries which are clearly notable and well polished. Inclusionists are more of a "this is a work in progress", horizontal approach, where basically if it can be sourced, it's good to come in. What I would do is simply to assess pages within WP. We already have GA and FAs. We used to have Start,A,B etc. class articles. Whatever. The point is: instead of making it a binary distinction "this goes in ,this goes not", we take most stuff in, but we also assess roughly article notability and quality and give it to the readers. They then decide what they want to read, and are appropriately warned. Instead of bringing articles with few secondary sources to AFD, we can just stick "Warning: This article relies primarily or only on primary sources" or "Warning: This article relies mostly on unreliable sources such as blogs and forums". Readers can then proceed at their own risk. It could also be decided to make such articles not necessarily accessible by default on search, with the reader that can choose what part of WP they want to access. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, I think you might mention many of the delete votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination) were reacting to this version of the article, which leaned so heavily toward dubious fringe rumors from unreliable fringe sources it was difficult to tell if they were even notable. Also, some "academic sources documenting such events" in the earlier version included stuff like Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of UFO Studies, and New Frontiers in Science [4]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- That is an exemplary example of the problem. Despite seeing multiple solid sources editors have voted delete because there were issues with a few sources. It's a clean up AfD, which is not what an AfD is. Valoem talk contrib 00:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- 10,000 committed editors and 120,000 intermittent editors and 4,514,696 english language articles. Between 40 and 400 articles for each editor to maintain and improve. CONCLUSION: we need to widen the scope so we can get more articles. Um...yeah... SteveBaker (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @SteveBaker: Just to let you know this has nothing to do with my original question. The topic has since diverged, my question was how to deal with inherent bias against articles which just so happens to be discouraging to all editors, not just the new and whether this bias was an original factor, intended from the beginning? Valoem talk contrib 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, so your complaint is about specific editors who were biased against specific articles? It sounds like WP:AN/I is the appropriate venue for that kind of complaint. I don't see this as a case for loosening of notability restrictions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- @LuckyLouie: No, there is no complaint, I was looking for input on dealing with bias on Wikipedia, and the scope of coverage. Valoem talk contrib 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I was confused. Above you said:
"When the same group of editors repeatedly engage in the same AfD, we are essentially holding a kangaroo trial and this is prevalent throughout Wikipedia."
I was involved in one of the AfD's you mentioned, so I wanted to make sure that if you have a beef with specific editors or group of editors it goes to the proper venue. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)- I was talking about the Dieselpunk AfDs, I have no problems with you and appreciate the work you've done on many articles :) Valoem talk contrib 15:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I was confused. Above you said:
- @LuckyLouie: No, there is no complaint, I was looking for input on dealing with bias on Wikipedia, and the scope of coverage. Valoem talk contrib 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Wait, so your complaint is about specific editors who were biased against specific articles? It sounds like WP:AN/I is the appropriate venue for that kind of complaint. I don't see this as a case for loosening of notability restrictions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- The idea is to widen the scope so we can get more editors. Diego (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is preferable to sacrifice quality of articles in exchange for quantity of editors. jps (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: It's a mathematical assumption that higher quantity of editors leads to higher quality of articles. While I believe namespace storage is feasible, it simply will not work on Wikipedia. WMF, instead, should open a different wiki entirely for storage presumably named WikiArchives, which all viewers are aware of possible unreliability. This archive cannot be searched through any search engine to prevent promotionalism and the only requirements for listing is NPOV, non-promotional, and verifiability. We edit for the masses not for ourselves. I think we are discouraging new editors because we have not been open enough regarding education on editing and deleting their work has not helped either.
- Getting back on topic though, I came here wondering if there was any topic Jimbo feels is unencyclopedic and should have higher requirements for listing, I haven't mentioned the topic in question as of yet, but it is being dismantled despite meeting GNG. Valoem talk contrib 23:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is preferable to sacrifice quality of articles in exchange for quantity of editors. jps (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @SteveBaker: Just to let you know this has nothing to do with my original question. The topic has since diverged, my question was how to deal with inherent bias against articles which just so happens to be discouraging to all editors, not just the new and whether this bias was an original factor, intended from the beginning? Valoem talk contrib 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- @QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: The flaw in that argument is that if you need a wider tolerance of article subject in order to attract new editors then it's certain those new editors would want to work on the new articles. Those people won't immediately start to edit our present "core" set of articles. More likely, the core group of editors that we have now will feel obligated to spend time on those newer peripheral articles - and that will further dilute the "core" editor pool working on the present set of "core" articles. The gamble is: "Will the hypothetical newly-attracted editors 'convert' to wanting to work on core articles faster than our existing 'core' editors feel obligated to fix problems in the newly expanded article pool?" I think the answer to that is an obvious big, fat, no! These newly created articles will have been created by newbies - and they'll be on sketchier subjects than we currently allow - that's guaranteed to soak up mountains of time from experienced core editors who are struggling hard to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. I could easily see that pushing us into a death-spiral from which we'd never recover. SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the answer to that is an obvious big, fat, no!
- I think the answer is an obvious big, fat yes! What you are speaking of is actually how most of most senior editors actually got drawn to Wikipedia, in the old wild days. Imagine it as a giant sandbox. It allows people to contribute, to get an idea of how the wiki process etc. works, and to get involved. And then they can feel more comfortable dipping into the toes of the more bureaucratic, controlled, complex environment of "proper" WP. I think many of them will "convert" easily. Now instead we have created a huge, steep barrier of bureaucracy and checks to new editors, and it is not a surprise editors are decreasing in numbers.--cyclopiaspeak! 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- @QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: The flaw in that argument is that if you need a wider tolerance of article subject in order to attract new editors then it's certain those new editors would want to work on the new articles. Those people won't immediately start to edit our present "core" set of articles. More likely, the core group of editors that we have now will feel obligated to spend time on those newer peripheral articles - and that will further dilute the "core" editor pool working on the present set of "core" articles. The gamble is: "Will the hypothetical newly-attracted editors 'convert' to wanting to work on core articles faster than our existing 'core' editors feel obligated to fix problems in the newly expanded article pool?" I think the answer to that is an obvious big, fat, no! These newly created articles will have been created by newbies - and they'll be on sketchier subjects than we currently allow - that's guaranteed to soak up mountains of time from experienced core editors who are struggling hard to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. I could easily see that pushing us into a death-spiral from which we'd never recover. SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, as one single individual editor here, I think it would be worthwhile for a lot of topics, and individual WikiProjects, to develop pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal/Encyclopedic articles and similar pages, listing the items covered in existing reference sources on topics, and the relative amount of space they are given in that print source, as well as any named subsections which might themselves potentially qualify as separate articles. Yeah, I acknowledge that some so-called reference sources lean heavily on the woo side, and that should be taken into account regarding each such source individually. But for articles of the kind being discussed here, which seem to me at least to be of a broad "topical" type, as opposed to say individual movie releases, where notability requirements are more easily applied, they would serve as at least a good starting point for determining what we cover and where.
- And, for topics which might not meet such criteria, I think it would really be in everybody's interests if we could maybe somewhere, maybe WikiNews, get together an article or series of articles dealing with contentious matters from the major relevant "sides". Such pages could be referenced in related articles here, and possibly/probably fairly easily assembles into book form of some sort or other. For a lot of topics of importance but maybe dubious notability, and there are a lot of such topics, that might be the best way to present data on them until and unless notability can clearly be established. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Concerns the interesting issue of whether that article on a EU decision is better served by linking primarily to the court decision and articles thereon, or ought also include a link to the original material about a non-notable person, on the basis that the Streisand Effect applies and that material is now directly salient for use on Wikipedia about that person. Collect (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- One factor to consider is that in order to fully understand the case - to fully understand what type of material can now be censored from Google's index - the reader has an interest in reading the original. This is, of course, just one factor among many to consider, but for me personally, it is decisive. In terms of the BLP1E issue, it is fairly minimal in my view.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Collect On the internal issue JW above quite right. An earlier discussion the same page as to whether it's now "lawful" to publish the link given the ruling misconceived. No applicability and in any case it's not "publication" (inserting in a database) that's ruled unlawful but refusing to comply with a (valid) strike request. Nightmare for Google of course. Good thing creating jobs IMHO. Former ArbCom members might well like to apply :).Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Proper" and "lawful" are two quite distinct issues.
- That we can do something does not mean we ought to do it. Reliance on Wikipedia being non-profit is not relevant -- the question is whether Wikipedia has a sufficient nexus to the EU to allow lawsuits in the EU then having to be addressed by the WMF is a legal matter for the WMF to ascertain, and I would be amazed if it were not being closely examined. And I am unsure that "the reader has an interest in reading the original" any more than readers have any specific reason to need any "original documents" in the first place. Collect (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's true about original documents. We are looking for secondary sources per policy, however providing that secondary sources are quoted (and the temptation for original research resisted) I don't see any harm in citing the original document. A case in point that occurred in my own editing recently concerned a high profile trial (in the UK) where the sentencing judge made comments that were widely repeated in the press, but not in any systematic way. In that case I thought citing the judge's sentencing remarks worthwhile. Concerning judges' opinions, which are often masterpieces of English prose notable for that in their own right alone (for example Mr. Justice Gray's ruling in Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt comes to mind as well as in the same trial the expert testimony of Richard Evans is also very notable), I think editors are justified certainly in citing the documents, though I agree there's a question as to how far they may make commentary on them. I expect that's been debated elsewhere. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Complaint
I would like to make a complaint against the way I've been being treated in Lusophone Wikipedia. A certain editor tried to distort an article to create a dubious association between Nazism and Socialism. I protested against this attempt at manipulation of WP and I was treated like a criminal by administrators. They did not analyze the case, just accused me of things I never did and imposed an endless blockade against me. In short, I was treated like a dog and I feel ashamed.
Yes, it is true that I skirted the partial blockages that have suffered, but I did it because I enjoy writing in WP. I'm not a thug, just want to fight for the quality of the project, but I am always treated like a dog. I can not stand this situation, ask you to interfere with justice and analyze the conditions that led to my many locks. I just want to collaborate in this encyclopedia for the texts have quality and credibiidade. I do not deserve to be lynched that way. I'm tired of being forced to endure a horde of arrogant people gathering against me, help me please.
Sorry fot my bad english. Leandro LV (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
SPA and hoisin sauce
Today I went to Talk:Main Page for whatever reason and an editor left a link to hoisin sauce, a term I did not know. When I clicked on the link, the first thing I saw was a glaring advertisement for "Lee Kum Kee Hoisin Sauce" on the top right hand corner, something I detest as a supporter of an advertisement-free Wikipedia, a mark in which the Foundation has great pride as well. I checked the history and found that the editor responsible, User:Kenixho, had also made a similar edit on Plum sauce. I reverted both edits, and then went to WP:SPA to find the appropriate action to take. I am not as optimistic on editorial change as SPA is, and now I'm wondering if an administrator can ban a user for such actions, or in what direction I should focus editors like Kenixho. Earlier today I watched [5] and assuming your position has not changed regarding PR firms, how should I deal with such a user? Seattle (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user indefinitely for blatant advertising. If the problem continues through other accounts, you can raise the problem on the administrators' noticeboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- It was ghastly, but I have to say, when I went to the previous version of those pages, I laughed out loud. Good catch. I think I'll prowl the condiment pages. Coretheapple (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have to ask, why is File:Lee Kum Kee Hoisin Sauce.jpg for Lee Kum Kee "ghastly" while File:Hoisinpet.jpg for Amoy is considered acceptable? I have a bottle of Kikkoman hoi sin in the fridge at the moment, LKK products are usually too sweet for my liking. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Both images are up for deletion, the Lee Kum image was accompanied by advertising copy(vio). I prefer Amoy but don't think I've had Kikkoman. There's also a good one I get made by a London restaurant. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. I converted the inline imgs to links, too. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons
| Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England | |
|---|---|
 As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows:
We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list. | |
The article creation process
Removed comment from banned user. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- At five visits a day I am not certain we should care. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- You know, I used to enjoy bantering with this particular banned editor (I don't mean Saffron, obviously, but the one to whom he responded). But when he began participating tendentiously in AfDs of companies that were dumb enough to hire him, brought 3RR cases and otherwise cynically gamed the system, my views have changed. I mean, it's sort of amusing to get a lesson in ethics from a person whose business model is unethical, but that has worn thin just a bit. Especially when he retreats to an external website and goes on about how "funny" it is that he is causing so much disruption and wasting people's time. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Always nice to see Jimbo's "open door policy" being "enforced". KonveyorBelt 16:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I always enjoy seeing the policy against banned users editing articles and posting in AfD discussionss and noticeboards being "enforced." Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously this is a troll, but I find the censorship more obnoxious than the troll. There is an uncomfortable truth at the heart of the troll, I think, that an WMF event sponsor had an article about them created after they were announced as being an WMF event sponsor and it was noted on Wikipediocracy that there was no WP article about the event sponsor. Voila! An article appeared. Funny how that works. Sweeping this under the rug because an IP is presumed (via ABF) to be one particular banned editor is unseemly, regardless of whether or not one thinks there was any sort of quid pro quo — which seems highly unlikely... Carrite (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe Wikipediocracy ought to find someone other than a banned editor who operates a paid editing mill to be their Chief Ethics Officer. But I will say this: he definitely belies the "we're only trying to improve Wikipedia" line of bullhockey that the paid editing apologists tend to spew out. I mean, editing from a company's computers, disclosing it and his affiliation with the banned editor's paid-editing mill, then saying that he was just wandering by a hotspot, and then still being in that "hotspot" six hours later while he repeats that malarkey. Then tendentiously editing the AfD of the article he was editing, still using the company's computers. Then filing a 3RR report. Then edit-warring here. Then engaging in schoolyard personal attacks in his posts and edit summaries. Then this, then that, making a total fool of himself. It just kind of makes the paid-editing apologists look pretty bad, don't you think, with this guy as their primary goodwill ambassador?
- Then going to an off-wiki site and canvassing the AfD.
- Then, to top it off, somebody like you comes around and weeps bitter tears that there is "censorship" taking place and that we're not "assuming good faith." When the only way we can have this pleasant conversation at all is because the page is semiprotected to keep that nuisance from blundering in here and making a pest of himself yet again. Coretheapple (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really think that an administrator semi-protecting this page would stop He Who Cannot Be Named from posting here for even one minute — assuming that the IPs in question were, in fact, used by that person? This is silly. The basic fact is this: an ethical complaint was made (to make a point). And it was censored away from view. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, all kidding aside (I assume you're not being serious), do you think this guy gives a hoot about ethics? Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I actually do — although I'm positive he would frame the problem at hand differently than you would. But I think this is the big issue for him: hypocrisy. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- But it's a phony issue. Even if he was Jack Pureheart, it would be a phony issue, because the volunteers here genuinely don't give a f--k who donates, who doesn't, who is with the WMF, who is a brother of Jimbo, who is Jimbo's main squeeze, etc. etc. It just doesn't register. People are here for other reasons (boredom, fascination with mid-20th Century theater, hatred/love of Ethnic Group X), and "covering up for Jimbo" is maybe Reason Number 10,000,000 or so down the ladder. There is so much dreadfully wrong with Wikipedia, and "unbridled self-editing by contributors, pals of Der Jimbo and other WMF-connected people, covered up, hushed up, horrible!" is not one of them. It just isn't. As I said, objectively, putting aside his own misconduct, assuming he's Jack Pureheart, the problem is, objectively, more him and the values that he represents (using Wikipedia for personal gain), than anything he raises, here or anywhere. What I find strange, though, is how the only serious Wikipedia-scrutiny website has become an echo chamber for paid editors and their enablers and tools. To me, that's remarkable in itself. Don't you think so? Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- No reason to argue, he's a banned editor and has been for 6 years. In that time he's insulted or tried to intimidate almost every editor. Just revert his edits on site. If he'd like to take me to arbcom, I'm sure that will give the arbs a good laugh. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- But you have to admit, he knows how to game the system. For instance, this great Foe of Censorship systematically censored my posts here and on the AfD page of the article he edited, to remove any mention of his COI even though he disclosed it. He brought you to 3RR. To top it off, he produced so many IP socks that the SPI that I commenced reads like the Philadelphia telephone directory[6], to make it tl;dr. I used to defend the guy's presence here but now I revert him on sight, unless Jimbo says otherwise, this being his talk page and all that. Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- No reason to argue, he's a banned editor and has been for 6 years. In that time he's insulted or tried to intimidate almost every editor. Just revert his edits on site. If he'd like to take me to arbcom, I'm sure that will give the arbs a good laugh. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- But it's a phony issue. Even if he was Jack Pureheart, it would be a phony issue, because the volunteers here genuinely don't give a f--k who donates, who doesn't, who is with the WMF, who is a brother of Jimbo, who is Jimbo's main squeeze, etc. etc. It just doesn't register. People are here for other reasons (boredom, fascination with mid-20th Century theater, hatred/love of Ethnic Group X), and "covering up for Jimbo" is maybe Reason Number 10,000,000 or so down the ladder. There is so much dreadfully wrong with Wikipedia, and "unbridled self-editing by contributors, pals of Der Jimbo and other WMF-connected people, covered up, hushed up, horrible!" is not one of them. It just isn't. As I said, objectively, putting aside his own misconduct, assuming he's Jack Pureheart, the problem is, objectively, more him and the values that he represents (using Wikipedia for personal gain), than anything he raises, here or anywhere. What I find strange, though, is how the only serious Wikipedia-scrutiny website has become an echo chamber for paid editors and their enablers and tools. To me, that's remarkable in itself. Don't you think so? Coretheapple (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I actually do — although I'm positive he would frame the problem at hand differently than you would. But I think this is the big issue for him: hypocrisy. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, all kidding aside (I assume you're not being serious), do you think this guy gives a hoot about ethics? Coretheapple (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Do you really think that an administrator semi-protecting this page would stop He Who Cannot Be Named from posting here for even one minute — assuming that the IPs in question were, in fact, used by that person? This is silly. The basic fact is this: an ethical complaint was made (to make a point). And it was censored away from view. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Then, to top it off, somebody like you comes around and weeps bitter tears that there is "censorship" taking place and that we're not "assuming good faith." When the only way we can have this pleasant conversation at all is because the page is semiprotected to keep that nuisance from blundering in here and making a pest of himself yet again. Coretheapple (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is the essence of the difference: Your own concerns about WP ethics are focused on abuses of the editorial process by those mingling with noble volunteers for nefarious commercial purposes. HWCNBN's concern is with perceived ethical abuses by the official establishment which makes use of the freely offered labor of the noble volunteers for its own nefarious ends. So you are both rather obsessed with ethics, it seems to me, although coming at the situation from completely opposite ends. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- (I personally think you're both a bit overwrought on the matter, I add.) Carrite (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong on every count. I don't care about paid editing all that much. I think it sucks but I've come around to the belief that it is the Foundation's problem. User:MyWikiBiz/TheKohser is a banned editor, and when he posts he gets reverted on sight per WP:BANREVERT. Coretheapple (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Quoted from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: "(Note: there is no evidence known to me that this IP is a banned user whose posts should be reverted as such. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:16 pm, 17 May 2014, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−7) " Do you have such evidence?KonveyorBelt 15:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)- So you want to know if I have "evidence" about some IP who posted on some other noticeboard having absolutely to do with the banned editor's obsession and his current, disclosed editing job? No, I don't have any "evidence" concerning this totally irrelevant IP. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry. I thought the two were the same. KonveyorBelt 16:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- So you want to know if I have "evidence" about some IP who posted on some other noticeboard having absolutely to do with the banned editor's obsession and his current, disclosed editing job? No, I don't have any "evidence" concerning this totally irrelevant IP. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong on every count. I don't care about paid editing all that much. I think it sucks but I've come around to the belief that it is the Foundation's problem. User:MyWikiBiz/TheKohser is a banned editor, and when he posts he gets reverted on sight per WP:BANREVERT. Coretheapple (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- (I personally think you're both a bit overwrought on the matter, I add.) Carrite (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is the essence of the difference: Your own concerns about WP ethics are focused on abuses of the editorial process by those mingling with noble volunteers for nefarious commercial purposes. HWCNBN's concern is with perceived ethical abuses by the official establishment which makes use of the freely offered labor of the noble volunteers for its own nefarious ends. So you are both rather obsessed with ethics, it seems to me, although coming at the situation from completely opposite ends. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Great cartoon. Says it all. Everybody should read it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I rather urgently need a bit of research help.
This explains it. Best to answer there, to keep the discussion contained.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- [7]. Email me if you need more details about the ODNB entry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- For another time: I understand you're resident in London, so you could join your local public library and, almost certainly, it will offer you 24/7 online access, from your home or office, to ODNB and a whole range of other reference material: Oxford English Dictionary, The Times archive 1785-1985, etc. Depending on what borough you're in, find a page like this one for Kensington & Chelsea and you can just log in with your library ticket number. PamD 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Have emailed the article to you Jimbo Wales - and echo what PamD said about joining your local library. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- What an exciting idea, joining my local library. I've never actually been.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The online access (off-site) to subscription sources makes it well worth the trouble of turning up with some proof of name and address to join. I'm sure they'd be delighted to meet you! PamD 15:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- What an exciting idea, joining my local library. I've never actually been.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Have emailed the article to you Jimbo Wales - and echo what PamD said about joining your local library. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- For another time: I understand you're resident in London, so you could join your local public library and, almost certainly, it will offer you 24/7 online access, from your home or office, to ODNB and a whole range of other reference material: Oxford English Dictionary, The Times archive 1785-1985, etc. Depending on what borough you're in, find a page like this one for Kensington & Chelsea and you can just log in with your library ticket number. PamD 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo on BBC Radio 4
The followup to the above: a nice little spot in the last 5 minutes of Today, discussing myths. Wikipedia came out of it very well, as John Humphrys and the "London tour guide and historian" Peter something - I can't catch his name - Berthoud (added, see below) agreed that Wikipedia is "definitely benign and very useful" as long as you check the page history. The discussion started with Phyllis Pearsall but Jimbo then talked about the question of who invented the aeroplane (was it the Wright brothers or ...?) as another instance where everyone "knows" something but may not all "know" the same. Hear it (for a week, and perhaps only in UK?) on BBC iPlayer here (last 5 mins). PamD 13:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Surname added 15:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I adore BBC4. But I so wish the interviewers would occasionally let their subjects complete a thought. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This blog, linked in the talk at Phyllis's article, suggests the "Peter" was probably Peter Barber, author of London: A History In Maps (ISBN 9780712358798) and Head of the map collection at the British Library. PamD 14:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)- Actually this fellow stands in opposition to Peter Barber, who has been apparently critical of Phyllis Pearsall. Here is his twitter feed, and from it he links to his blog post on the matter.
- It seems, given what I know so far, that there is a double myth here. First, it is a myth that she walked all the streets of London to create the first version of the guidebook. And second, it is apparently myth that she ever claimed to do so. There are a great many reliable sources which claim both that she did, and that she claimed to do so. But this historian has turned up no evidence that the story originated with her and her autobiography explicitly says otherwise. (Indeed, I have a copy here which I bought yesterday, and she tells the story of making the map in exactly the way that Peter Barber rightly surmises that she must have - by going around to the local councils to get their maps.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I see from his blog that he's Peter Berthoud: difficult to catch from the broadcast. Two Peter Bs in same territory: scope for confusion to lead to more myths. PamD 15:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- She was interviewed about how she created her maps on Woman's Hour, Wed 7 Nov 1984. Unfortunately the episode is not currently available online, but I understand that the BBC do sometimes make transcripts available for research purposes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's a partial transcript here, which does tell the party story (in the framing material, not her words), and does have her saying she "walked down every long road in London and got to know London intimately. I loved it really because I met all sorts of people while I was doing it." DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, either backstage at the radio show, or on air, Mr. Berthoud acknowledged that she did say she walked down "every long road" - a very different and more plausible thing than the urban legend has attributed to her.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's a partial transcript here, which does tell the party story (in the framing material, not her words), and does have her saying she "walked down every long road in London and got to know London intimately. I loved it really because I met all sorts of people while I was doing it." DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Walking a road is a very good way of spotting gross errors on street maps. Not sure if you've found this yet, but her brother has written a website with his thoughts and recollections. Untold Sixties.net DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I enjoyed listening to Jimmy Wales on the Today programme this morning on BBC Radio 4. He came over well and has an easy style. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 08:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Urhobo cuisine
In the Urhobo people article it says they eat Iriboto, Iriberhare, Okpariku, and Oghwevwri'sha. I can't find anything in a Google search or in Google books for any of these dishes except mirrors with one exception. This source which gives me a snipped view that says "their preparation and consumption such as Ukodo,Oghwevwri,Irhiboto,Ovwovwo,(Ophopho), Okpariku and Amiedi." Is there anyone who can get me the full sentence and preceding sentences? I saw in some sort of WikiNews type update that it was possible to get research assistance directly through Wikipedia to Australian librarians? How do I do that? Any other suggestions are welcome Thanks very much. This is a critically important subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Candleabracadabra: - Here's a suggestion; why not post to the appropriate talk page? I'm sure Jimbo has a scholarly knowledge of the people of southern Nigeria, but I'm not sure he's going to be able to help on this particular matter. NickCT (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, even the wikiproject pages are rarely attended. Fewer and fewer people are editing because it's been made so difficult and unpleasant here. But I will try your suggestion. The good news it that I think I was able to sort out some of these items. It seems to be an issue of transliteration. Not sure how we came up with the spellings in our article? Maybe original research which is, or was, it's own kind of start when it was allowed back in the glory days. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Candleabracadabra: - re "Sadly, even the wikiproject pages are rarely attended" - I see. Well if you're just trying to get more eyes on the topic, it might more appropriate consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa or to think about an RfC before visiting Jimbo's talkpage. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would prefer that people be recommended to do things like that 'as well as' visiting my talk page. I like to hear about things like this, and one of the valuable things about this page is that it gives us all an opportunity to reflect on particular examples of what might well be wider problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good suggestion Nick. I wonder if that project is active? Usually when I try posting to the project pages I get no replies. For example at the Colombia Wikiproject. This seems to be a popular page where I could get some replies and suggestions. I've always wondered why there was no centralized discussion page for general input. It's always seemed so weird to me that it's so challenging to get basic input and ideas. I guess people use the IRC channels for that? I don't know. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I thought about it and the Africa wikiproject is so generalized I don't see how it's any more useful to post there than here? I checked the Nigeria wikiproject page but the posts there don't seem to generate any responses. My question was also seeking a specific answer on how the Australian library project thing works and any other approaches that might be useful for hunting down this kind of thing which I come across frequently. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Candleabracadabra: - re "This seems to be a popular page where I could get some replies and suggestions." - Yeah. And 911 is a good number to call if you want attention. That doesn't mean it's always appropriate to dial 911 when you want attention.
- But seriously, the problem you're pointing out is a pretty common one and there are common approaches to dealing with it (which don't include posting to Jimbo's page). If I find stuff like that I typically tag it with a Template:Verify source. If no one does after a couple months, come back and delete it.
- re "Australian library project" - Hadn't heard of that. Don't know. Sorry.... NickCT (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Has Jimbo said that we can't use his talkpage to ask for help or ideas with article subjects? He seems to get good results here when he's working through research subjects. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Candleabracadabra: - "Has Jimbo said that we can't use his talkpage" - No. Jimbo is wise and inviting, and his tent is big. But still, if everyone came here to post on random subjects, the page would get a little busy, don't you think? NickCT (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fantastic idea! I think it would be great for the encyclopedia. And once it gets too busy as you predict a discussion page can be created!!! FABULOUS!!! Wikipedia editors communicating with Wikipedia editors as they work through article creations and research ideas. Mana from heaven. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:EAR could stand to have a little more activity. --NeilN talk to me 21:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fantastic idea! I think it would be great for the encyclopedia. And once it gets too busy as you predict a discussion page can be created!!! FABULOUS!!! Wikipedia editors communicating with Wikipedia editors as they work through article creations and research ideas. Mana from heaven. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Candleabracadabra: - "Has Jimbo said that we can't use his talkpage" - No. Jimbo is wise and inviting, and his tent is big. But still, if everyone came here to post on random subjects, the page would get a little busy, don't you think? NickCT (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Has Jimbo said that we can't use his talkpage to ask for help or ideas with article subjects? He seems to get good results here when he's working through research subjects. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Candleabracadabra: - re "Sadly, even the wikiproject pages are rarely attended" - I see. Well if you're just trying to get more eyes on the topic, it might more appropriate consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa or to think about an RfC before visiting Jimbo's talkpage. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, even the wikiproject pages are rarely attended. Fewer and fewer people are editing because it's been made so difficult and unpleasant here. But I will try your suggestion. The good news it that I think I was able to sort out some of these items. It seems to be an issue of transliteration. Not sure how we came up with the spellings in our article? Maybe original research which is, or was, it's own kind of start when it was allowed back in the glory days. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't see anything wrong with bringing this sort of thing here. Jimbo's a man of the people, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind hearing about small day-to-day editing concerns once in awhile rather than the usual litany of problems, crises, abuses, etc...that take up much space here. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oghwevwri is defined in the article. HTH All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC).
- Re: The Australian librarians thing, see this Signpost article. Graham87 01:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- THANKS all for the feedack. An editor came to my talk page and assisted me with the source I mentioned. User:NeilN I was unaware of that page. I knew about the teahouse, but that seems to be just for new editors and not really for discussion and collaboration. That seems like a great place to try the next time I have a research or subject matter issue I'm wondering about. It's too bad it's not more popular. Maybe a zippier and more inviting name would make it as popular as the drama boards? Certainly there are lot of editors here doing article work and it's always nice to be able to get some ideas and share thoughts. As I mentioned, many of the project pages are fairly quiet and they can also be pretty insular. User:Graham87 thanks for the link! I'm going to reread the article and see if it's something available and usable for non Ozies wanting research assistance. Jimmy, thanks for letting me know I'm welcome here in future if I need any more help. I appreciate it. Take care and be well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Verifiable, but not true
I quote to you from The Times, Saturday May 17, 2014, page 10, "What the world thinks" - a sidebar to a bigger story entitled "Criminals rush to keep online data away from Google": "Jimmy Wales, the British founder of Wikipedia, said..." Of course there are other sources which differ on this point, but they are older, and they do acknowledge that I have moved to London. Possibly I've gained UK nationality? Well, actually, no, it's just a funny little error.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Don't know. Are resident aliens sometimes called, British? Speaking from a British place, perhaps, subject to Her Britannic Queen's Majesty, in some sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I am aware of. I really do think it was just an error in the paper. Perhaps the reporter wrote "the London-based" and some copyeditor thought it tighter to say "British". Anyway, I'm not British. Blue passport, not red. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, as a British resident alien (or is that an American resident alien), you are apparently confusing or strange to them. :). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not that I am aware of. I really do think it was just an error in the paper. Perhaps the reporter wrote "the London-based" and some copyeditor thought it tighter to say "British". Anyway, I'm not British. Blue passport, not red. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Don't know. Are resident aliens sometimes called, British? Speaking from a British place, perhaps, subject to Her Britannic Queen's Majesty, in some sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
FWIW - The only really bothersome "Verifiable, but false" situation that I've run into here was also from The Times, which claimed that Paul Wolfowitz was a "registered Democrat" in 2005, see Talk:Paul_Wolfowitz#Democrat. The coincidence of both being from The Times probably doesn't mean much - perhaps they just didn't realize how little "registering" for a political party means in the US (next to nothing except for voting in some state primaries). Or has The Times just gone downhill? BTW, Jimbo, can you vote in the UK? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I had been told by some random person that once I am resident, but not citizen, I can vote at least in some local elections. However, my research into that hasn't proven very fruitful, and it appears that I'm unable to vote at all. (I believe my random advisor was confused about something like either European residents (as in, from Germany or whatever) or possibly Commonwealth residents (like Canada). Anyway, as far as I know, I'm unable to vote here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that's right, assuming US nationality is your only one per this. But Irish citizens do have the right to vote in the UK, and given the descent rules of the Irish nationality law, any green in your family tree might give you the vote.:) DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo Wales: I don't think you're missing much by not being able to vote! Thanks, Matty.007 18:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that's right, assuming US nationality is your only one per this. But Irish citizens do have the right to vote in the UK, and given the descent rules of the Irish nationality law, any green in your family tree might give you the vote.:) DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've updated your user page for you.--v/r - TP 17:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding wikipedia WikiProjects and other WF entities
There was some discussion some time ago here about wikinews, and the relative lack of involvement of a lot of editors there. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Might wikipedia WikiProjects expand a little into other WF entities? about possibly trying to get some of the topical WikiProjects here in wikipedia maybe a bit more actively involved in content of other WF entities. I would definitely welcome input from anyone, particularly anyone with ties to the foundation itself, about such possible activity, as there might theoretically be some questions of foundation policy or guidelines involved. John Carter (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought you maybe interested in this DRV
Justin Knapp. Valoem talk contrib 23:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Collapsing question that is both answered and better suited to the reference desk. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
|
CC-by-SA as a blackhat SEO strategy
Note: this is a Creative Commons issue, not so much a Wikipedia one, though it affects us to an extent. I'm posting it here because of your CC involvement.
Jimbo, could you take a look at User talk:Mindspillage#CC-By-SA_and_Stackexchange_weirdness?
I don't know if Kat (Mindspillage) has seen that post. Anythingyouwant sent her an email asking her to look at it, but didn't hear anything back, and she hasn't commented, and it's been several weeks.
Do you have any thoughts? Can you pass the concern on to CC staff if you think it is appropriate?
Thanks.
70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I missed this question earlier, as I know Jeff Atwood of Stack Exchange (a little bit) and I think he's a totally sensible guy. I've pointed him to the discussion as I suspect he's never even thought much about the issue and will modify to suit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hope you are right. I'm a bit cynical but we will see. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
An SPI
You are mentioned and may have an interest in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
VisualEditor newsletter—May 2014
Did you know?
The cite menu offers quick access to up to five citation templates. If your wiki has enabled the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, press "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" and select the appropriate template from the menu.
Existing citations that use these templates can be edited either using the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" tool or by selecting the reference and choosing the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu.
Read the user guide for more information.
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on the new citation tool, improving performance, reducing technical debt, and other infrastructure needs.
The biggest change in the last few weeks is the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". The new citation menu offers a locally configurable list of citation templates on the main toolbar. It adds or opens references using the simplified template dialog that was deployed last month. This tool is in addition to the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu, and it is not displayed unless it has been configured for that wiki. To enable this tool on your wiki, see the instructions at VisualEditor/Citation tool.
Eventually, the VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for these citations. When this long-awaited feature is created, you could add an ISBN, URL, DOI or other identifier to the citation tool, and VisualEditor would automatically fill in as much information for that source as possible. The concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog, and your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted.
- There is a new Beta Feature for setting content language and direction. This allows editors who have opted in to use the "Language" tool in the "Insert" menu to add HTML span tags that label text with the language and as being left-to-right (LTR) or right-to-left (RTL), like this:
<span lang="en" dir="ltr">English</span>. This tool is most useful for pages whose text combines multiple languages with different directions, common on Right-to-Left wikis. - The tool for editing mathematics formulae in VisualEditor has been slightly updated and is now available to all users, as the "⧼math-visualeditor-mwmathinspector-title⧽" item in the "Insert" menu. It uses LaTeX like in the wikitext editor.
- The layout of template dialogs has been changed, putting the label above the field. Parameters are now called "fields", to avoid a technical term that many editors are unfamiliar with.
- TemplateData has been expanded: You can now add "suggested" parameters in TemplateData, and VisualEditor will display them in the template dialogs like required ones. "Suggested" is recommended for parameters that are commonly used, but not actually required to make the template work. There is also a new type for TemplateData parameters: wiki-file-name, for file names. The template tool can now tell you if a parameter is marked as being obsolete.
- Some templates that previously displayed strangely due to absolute CSS positioning hacks should now display correctly.
- Several messages have changed: The notices shown when you save a page have been merged into those used in the wikitext editor, for consistency. The message shown when you "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cancel⧽" out of an edit is clearer. The beta dialog notice, which is shown the first time you open VisualEditor, will be hidden for logged-in users via a user preference rather than a cookie. As a result of this change, the beta notice will show up one last time for all logged-in users on their next VisualEditor use after Thursday's upgrade.
- Adding a category that is a redirect to another category prompts you to add the target category instead of the redirect.
- In the "Images and media" dialog, it is no longer possible to set a redundant border for thumbnail and framed images.
- There is a new Template Documentation Editor for TemplateData. You can test it by editing a documentation subpage (not a template page) at Mediawiki.org: edit mw:Template:Sandbox/doc, and then click "Manage template documentation" above the wikitext edit box. If your community would like to use this TemplateData editor at your project, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.
- There have been multiple small changes to the appearance: External links are shown in the same light blue color as in MediaWiki. This is a lighter shade of blue than the internal links. The styling of the "Style text" (character formatting) drop-down menu has been synchronized with the recent font changes to the Vector skin. VisualEditor dialogs, such as the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽" dialog, now use a "loading" animation of moving lines, rather than animated GIF images. Other changes were made to the appearance upon opening a page in VisualEditor which should make the transition between reading and editing be smoother.
- The developers merged in many minor fixes and improvements to MediaWiki interface integration (e.g., edit notices), and made VisualEditor handle Education Program pages better.
- At the request of the community, VisualEditor has been deployed to Commons as an opt-in. It is currently available by default for 161 Wikipedia language editions and by opt-in through Beta Features at all others, as well as on several non-Wikipedia sites.
Looking ahead: The toolbar from the PageTriage extension will no longer be visible inside VisualEditor. More buttons and icons will be accessible from the keyboard. The "Keyboard shortcuts" link will be moved out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) and inline images is being developed. You will be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. VisualEditor will be available to all users on mobile devices and tablet computers. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.
If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 10:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Standard of conduct for arbitrators
There's little doubt that parties in arbitration cases are often users who have engaged in some type of questionable conduct, which was prompted in response to difficult situations. Given that arbs are elected/required to vote in relation to that sort of thing, is it unreasonable to expect that arbs should lead by example in their own editing, conduct, and interactions with others?
Personally, I think the on-wiki arbitration policy in relation to arbitrator conduct is a bit of a joke as it does not really address situations which are more likely to arise with arbs, or the likely outcomes required to address those situations, or why a minority of arbs ought to be sufficient to effect temporary action sometimes. Note: although it might appear this post was made after I encountered this response to a comment/criticism/suggestion I made as an uninvolved editor, I had actually been thinking about the subject generally earlier.
What are your thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speaking only to the general principle, with no comment of any kind at the moment on any arbitrator's specific actions, past, present, or future: I expect that arbitrators should hold themselves, and each other, to the highest standards of behavior at all times. I think the community has a right to expect and demand the same. This does not mean that we should go ballistic every time an arbitrator says something firm to someone, or takes an action that gives rise to some minor controversy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflicts) Thanks for that, and I agree. For the avoidance of doubt for any others who might see this, I'm not seeking comment in relation to any specific arbitrator's actions and I don't plan on hanging around to go through any at the moment. But if there are any issues, I hope they are resolved (somehow, even if it is not on here). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yet the community seems to have no real recourse when confronted with poor behavior by Arbs or Admins except to appeal to those same people for action. Seems a bit like a self-licking ice cream cone to me. Intothatdarkness 16:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- We hold elections every year for ArbCom. I think we should have some ArbCom recall process as well, but designing one to not be infinite drama for limited benefit has proven to be quite difficult.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Recall in general is something that should be looked at, since the Arbs on the whole are normally Admins as well. But there's far too much OWN of policy for change to take place, I think. Intothatdarkness 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There probably needs to be a fair amount of detailed discussion on ideas, change, and procedure, though I suppose it's also a question of where to have the discussion, how to structure the discussion, and when to have the discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think some editors see arbitrators as a powerful position but I see it as a role that involves an enormous amount of time and effort and that involves editors unhappy with your rulings taking pot-shots at you. It seems like every current arbitrator as well as previous arbitrator gets slammed for both their actions and their inaction. I can see the value, theoretically, of having a recall system but I can see it could be used by anyone who is discontent by the comments of an arbitrator. There has to be a high bar for a recall and given the low number of people who vote in elections, I'm not sure where the threshold should be set. Personally, I am impressed that as many qualified editors run in ARBCOM elections as they do as it seems like a thankless job. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There probably needs to be a fair amount of detailed discussion on ideas, change, and procedure, though I suppose it's also a question of where to have the discussion, how to structure the discussion, and when to have the discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Recall in general is something that should be looked at, since the Arbs on the whole are normally Admins as well. But there's far too much OWN of policy for change to take place, I think. Intothatdarkness 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- We hold elections every year for ArbCom. I think we should have some ArbCom recall process as well, but designing one to not be infinite drama for limited benefit has proven to be quite difficult.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- In any good democratic or republican system there is a system of checks and balances to prevent absolute power. Where are such measures here? KonveyorBelt 17:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- WP:Not a democracy or a republic but rather an online encyclopedia's website generally written and largely managed by volunteers. Thus, process is adopted by those same volunteers. So, if some new Process is needed, and current process is insufficient, get a new process (see, Eg WP:VPP) or anyone of the relevant WP:Policy talk pages) and WP:Consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Except that OWN of policy is quiet real, and works to prevent actual change. It's actually quite easy to block major policy change here, as anyone who's watched the process should know. It also isn't optimal that Wikipedia policies are scattered at multiple levels of the site's architecture, and are often buttressed by (or confused with) the various essays and general ramblings that appear to have developed into rules. "Get a new process" is easy to say, especially when it's understood that it's very difficult to accomplish. Intothatdarkness 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, as anyone who has lived knows, it's terribly difficult to work with others and come to agreement sometimes. As for owning policy, that seems to be a complaint that "I don't own it". As they say, if it's not hard, it's nothing worth doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the longest-serving arbitrator as of the moment, and if I've ever been close to having "absolute power," I sure as hell didn't notice it at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you for the snark. It illustrates the point quite well. Intothatdarkness 18:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't snark, it was refutation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I would say not. It might have been a counterpoint without the "Of course, as anyone who has lived knows" and the "terribly difficult" construction that follows. Your suggestion that I somehow wish to OWN policy is likewise not in the spirit of discourse but rather a veiled accusation (or snark intended to discredit the position). At best you were defending the status quo. If policy belongs to everyone, then anyone is free to comment on it without being attacked, no? Intothatdarkness 18:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- It was directly responsive to "as anyone who's watched the process should know". The spirit of discourse, well allows for the presentation of a different perspective on the "own" claim. Policy is responsive to whomever comes up with an idea formulated in words that others buy into. Such policy evolution happens often. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I guess my question is, Intothatdarkness, if you say a getting a new policy is difficult and close to impossible, what other way is there to change a process? I mean, the current system of proposing policy changes might not be as efficient or fair as it could be, but I don't see an alternative.
- The process of reviewing procedures involving discretionary sanctions took a year but I think the effort was worth it. The system favors people who put forth proposal changes as part of a collaborative effort (not on their own) and who are willing to put in the time it takes to see the dicussion through. Liz Read! Talk! 18:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Though it may be next to impossible to "get a new process", it's barely cumbersome to "proceed with a process anew"; there's nothing inherently wrong with Arbcom's remit. Just remember:
At the end of the day
When your best is in play
Don't wonder about what's amiss
For it's already known
As the "good book" has shown
The crowd will clamor: Barabbas!
- I would say not. It might have been a counterpoint without the "Of course, as anyone who has lived knows" and the "terribly difficult" construction that follows. Your suggestion that I somehow wish to OWN policy is likewise not in the spirit of discourse but rather a veiled accusation (or snark intended to discredit the position). At best you were defending the status quo. If policy belongs to everyone, then anyone is free to comment on it without being attacked, no? Intothatdarkness 18:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't snark, it was refutation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you for the snark. It illustrates the point quite well. Intothatdarkness 18:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the longest-serving arbitrator as of the moment, and if I've ever been close to having "absolute power," I sure as hell didn't notice it at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course, as anyone who has lived knows, it's terribly difficult to work with others and come to agreement sometimes. As for owning policy, that seems to be a complaint that "I don't own it". As they say, if it's not hard, it's nothing worth doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Except that OWN of policy is quiet real, and works to prevent actual change. It's actually quite easy to block major policy change here, as anyone who's watched the process should know. It also isn't optimal that Wikipedia policies are scattered at multiple levels of the site's architecture, and are often buttressed by (or confused with) the various essays and general ramblings that appear to have developed into rules. "Get a new process" is easy to say, especially when it's understood that it's very difficult to accomplish. Intothatdarkness 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The check on an individual arbitrator is that they can be removed by 2/3 of the committee. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators
- The check on the committee as a whole is the election process. Given the low number of voters compared to the number of editors, it's apparently not a concern to the vast majority of editors. See also WP:The Committee. NE Ent 03:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Konveyor Belt is right. Despite that Wikipedia itself is not a democracy and doesn't therefore have to adopt any of the systems we have in democratic societies, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do so to deal with the adminstrative aspects of Wikipedia. I think that a key universal aspect that makes the justice system work is to have multiple layers of independence. When you don't have that, the system breaks down, not because of corrupt justices, rather because people are not naturally good at being objective. Count Iblis (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A modest proposal
Given the above discussion, and many similar discussions, it seems fair to conclude that there is some dissatisfaction with the overall current governance of en:Wikipedia.
For the record,
- I don't see any reason not to have conduct codes for both admins and arbs, but the only thing I might add to it, is that they should never be paid editors.
- I'd think arb recall would be an endless time-waster, but a "lightening-strike" removal from above (the Trustees?) might be required every 50 years or so.
- NYBrad is correct that arbcom does not have unbridled power. In fact, I don't think it has any real power, beyond deciding a dozen or so contentious cases each year, and whatever power it can acquire from a general acknowledgement among the general editorship that it has done a fantastic job.
- There is no general acknowledgement of the above, in fact arbcom seems to be everybody's favorite punching bag (for whatever reason).
Liz's comment "the current system of proposing policy changes might not be as efficient or fair as it could be, but I don't see an alternative," is what I'd like to address. I think in the current system it is next to impossible to make any major change in any policy. Too many people - perhaps a majority - would like to say "please don't make any change in policies - in fact bring them back to the way they were when I first figured out what they were." Combined with a consensus system where a highly motivated group of perhaps 5% of the editors can block just about anything, and we've got a formula for "no change in policy is ever allowed" with the exception of folks who spend a tremendous amount of time nibbling around the edges of current policy resulting in a bit of confusion what the policies actually are and brownian motion around the current policies. In the fast changing technology sector, this sounds like a formula for disaster. We could become the new America Online in a year or two (did I remember their name correctly?)
Remember I said "in the current system it is next to impossible to make any major change." I say this as somebody who IMHO has helped to make a major change of policy - instituting reasonable regulation on paid editing. Yes, the board still has to make an announcement on this, but I'm 99% sure they are not going to go against the views expressed by 80% of the respondents (and likely 90% of the real editorship). One "vote" like this, and the Hoser-style wild west period of paid editing will never come back. But there was a certain amount of luck, and an impossible amount of work by many people just to have a chance at getting that forum. And i don't think that a political style voting system is what we really want or need here.
So I'll offer an alternative for Liz and others to consider - remember, this is not a vote with campaigning, political parties, and the like.
- The WMF should gather info from editors on what policy, technology, etc. improvements might be made, as well as the current contentious issues.
- They then take a limited sample random survey (not a census, not a vote) of both the editorship and the readership (anons) on these issues 4-6 times per year. Keeping the sample size limited (say to 200 for each group) would allow the multiple surveys to be taken fairly quickly without intruding much on editors' and readers' time. It would also limit the effect of campaigning and the downsides of a voting system.
- If a survey shows a policy to be way out-of-line with the editorship and readership opinions, we allow the proponents of the various sides to formulate (simple) questions with a focus on proper wording, and do the survey again in the next scheduled round.
- If the new survey show the same division between policy and the ed's and reader's opinion, we do it a third time. So from the 1st survey to the 3rd, it would take 6-9 months, and decide the general result of how a new policy should be written.
- The editorship - who would have to implement the new policy, would then be told to rewrite the policy within the bounds suggested by the surveys. Same basic RfC format we have now, but the closer would have to ignore any comments outside the bounds suggested by the surveys.
Totally fictitious example
Some editors are starting to talk about doo-dads and say that every article needs one. But they are generally reverted by editors who say doo-dads violate our deepest beliefs. The WMF picks up on the discussion and runs a quick survey on the question and find that 60% of editors favor doo-dads and 80% of the surveyed readers do as well.
Given the surprising results (and a presumed conservative policy against doo-dads), a more carefully worded survey is constructed with input from both sides. This survey confirms that 65% of editors would allow doo-dads and 90% of readers would allow them, but neither group favors requiring them.
Given a pretty clear approval over a six month period, a third survey is scheduled in 3 months. Assuming similar results, editors would be given instructions to write a policy allowing doo-dads.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- There has always been perpetual dissatisfaction with the governance of Wikipedia. This is nothing new or special. We have a good process to remove an unworthy arbitrator: the community can use WP:RFC/U or hold a similar style discussion elsewhere. If a clear majority thinks an arbitrator should resign, they will. It's happened several times in the past, and is available if needed in the future. Jehochman Talk 23:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Jehochman about RfC/U being available for arbs. Having said that, although I can see some potential problems with Smallbones rough ideas as expressed above, I could see some utility in the discussions if for no other reason than to increase the appearance of transparency. Yeah, it is certainly possible that such polls could come up with something like "white guys should not be allowed to edit articles on Africa" or "only women can understand the pains of childbirth, and men should leave pages on that subject damn well enough alone or be ready to sleep on the couch for the next few years" or things like that, but such unlikely to succeed proposals, even if indicated by survey. would probably not get much real support. And it would be more or less in the spirit of wikipedia in general. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- It would be pretty unlikely that the WMF would select those type of questions for the survey. One thing I left out is that having to use all 3 surveys would be unlikely. After the 1st or 2nd survey, editors would likely see the writing on the wall and seek a reasonable compromise. With short to-the-point questions, 6 or so could be done at one time, so there can be an "inventory" of surveys available. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Jehochman about RfC/U being available for arbs. Having said that, although I can see some potential problems with Smallbones rough ideas as expressed above, I could see some utility in the discussions if for no other reason than to increase the appearance of transparency. Yeah, it is certainly possible that such polls could come up with something like "white guys should not be allowed to edit articles on Africa" or "only women can understand the pains of childbirth, and men should leave pages on that subject damn well enough alone or be ready to sleep on the couch for the next few years" or things like that, but such unlikely to succeed proposals, even if indicated by survey. would probably not get much real support. And it would be more or less in the spirit of wikipedia in general. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Smallbones
ArbCom has surprising power, both overt and implicit. It would be interesting to make a list. The obvious power is to decide disputes, but (off the top of my head)
- ArbCom also appoints all checkusers and the committee that audits them.
- All Arbs are automatically checkusers and I believe oversighters
- ArbCom can pass motions that sanction a user out of the blue. In at least one case this scuppered a good faith community effort to resolve a long-standing issue - just because a particular arb lost patience.
- Arbcom can redefine their own processes at will
- Arbcom are privy to comfidential information that can break users - and they have published it in the past.
- Arbs are generally powerful socially, and not one wants to cross an arb. (I did, and he took me to ArbCom - and amazingly won!)
- ArbCom also has a chilling effect. Resolving the date linking mess took years because everyone was scared they might bring down the wrath of ArbCom, despite clear community consensus.
- AbCom does not set policy, but they set tone. I had an admin cite an arb case "principle" as justifying a block just a few weeks ago.
- There is a perception that arbs stick together, generally this seems to be the case, rather than "demanding higher standards" of each other.
- Arbs are taken as authority - both by others and in some cases themselves. One recently remarked that to overturn his re-revert (contrary to BRD) I would need several "checkusers or a larger number of editors".
- Instruction creep tends to push more power to Arbs/Checkusers. See the discussion at WP:VPP where they had picked up sole authority on allegations of admin socking.
- Arbitrators usually have a lot of hats, increasing their power, both technically and socially.
- An Arb (and indeed any checkuser) can take actions which no non-checkuser is allowed to revert. Several have misused this ability.
- I'm sure I have omitted powers both those clearly laid down in procedure/policy and hidden, but that I think is pretty good start.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
- A few good points above. Granted, there is reasonably a kind of presupposition, I think, on the part of any arb that another currently seated arb probably knows what they're doing. This is, of course, barring any private communications of individual arbs or the mailing list of which we may not be aware. And, of course, there could be, in some cases, really damning information about someone only they are aware of. Finding some way to fairly try to give elected arbs the respect they have more or less earned by being elected and the community input about arb com decisions they think misguided would be difficult. So, in effect, we might want to try to lower the bar of arb recall while at the same time ensuring that the process doesn't get abused. That might be kinda difficult, like, oh, maybe harder than getting Bill Clinton to become an ardent Rush Limbaugh groupie. I suppose, though, some sort of independent arbcom review board, selected some damn way, might be useful. Something like an independent police review board. They might not be active very often, though, and selecting both the individuals to join it, and enough individuals to make it really functional, would be a bitch.
- Regarding the poll, maybe, and this is just a maybe, having the first stage ask for a numerical rating of an issue or matter of concern, like deletion, sanctions, or whatever, with 1 being OK, 10 being so bad to need immediate attention, might work, particularly if they are also given a chance to provide details of their concerns. The information could then be released to not only allow for further poll rounds, and informating editors/readers of the results, but also allow for others to maybe know what seems to need work, and motivate them to try to find some way to deal with those concerns? John Carter (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Smallbones, I like the proposal you've written. But
- a) I'm not sure that this is a responsibility that WMF wants to take on as they tend to work Foundation-oriented projects and
- b) policies vary from Wikipedia project to Wikipedia project. I don't just mean the hundreds of different language Wikipedias but also projects like Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikidata, etc. In just one example, the role of admins varies on different Wikipedia projects quite a lot, from being powerful to, basically, being janitors, carrying out necessary, routine tasks. Editors who hold this role aren't even called "admins" on every project. This diversity of projects and decentralized nature of the entirety of Wikipedia means that, beyond WP:FIVEPILLARS, policies created and followed are not a "one size fits all". WMF has made some system-wide changes but they seem to be of a technical nature, not involving governance.
- But I don't think your proposal should be dismissed because I could be wrong, I haven't studied WMF as an organization. It would be useful if there was some "higher authority" one could appeal to to settle disputes or enact policy changes but Wikipedia has a very loosely structured and project-specific hierarchy. I just don't think WMF would choose to interfere unless a dispute had legal or financial implications that could impact WMF as a whole. I do think that policies can be changed at the project-level, it just takes leadership and a great deal of time and effort. Liz Read! Talk! 13:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I think a revised standards of conduct is a very good idea and very appropriate not only for Arbitrators but for everyone else as well. Over the last week or two alone we have seen troubling displays of unprofessionalism from all levels of Wikipediadom from editors all the way up the Arbcom through big Jim himself. Unfortunately I have my doubts that anything would be enforced since it is in many cases the enforcers that are displaying atrocious acts and policy violations. Even committing what was once considered a cardinal sin here on Wiki and outing editors and contacting their employers. Gone are the days of cordial and professional editing and I think a new standard of conduct, if anyone actually had the intention of enforcing it, would be a terrific idea and a welcome improvement to the increasingly toxic editing environment here on the project. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Gone are the days of cordial and professional editing..." Errr, what days were these? Wikipedia has always had its content generated by enthusiastic amateurs. With guidelines such as WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS we are actually increasing the quality level of edits from the "old days". --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, NeilN. I've gone into ARBCOM and AN/I archives, read over a lot of disputes, and they make today's controversies seem like a tea party. Some of the conversations look like a free-for-all. There might have been more editor freedom and less bureaucracy ten years ago but there were also a lot more wild cards, more extremes of behavior, less socialization into Wikipedia editing norms. As Wikipedia becomes more institutionalized, we need to look out for ossification and realize that old policies need fresh eyes and that it is not possible to introduce radical changes (um, unless they are technological changes suddenly mandated for use). Organizational growth goes through stages and Wikipedia is simply at a different stage than it was 13 years ago, 8 years ago or 4 years ago. Different stages, different strengths and different needs and concerns. My two cents. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- My perception is that there was a period when "being an admin was no big deal" and part of the reason was that admins were prepared to reverse each other, disagreement was voiced clearly and consensus reached, people moved on. Then there was a period where things became "more serious", reversing blocks was taken personally and cited as wheel warring, AN/I became a vicious place as a rule, not as an exception. Now AN/I is fairly civilised, but not always. The big difference is the loss of many of the old hands who a) Understood the "open" movement, and b) could string a few coherent thoughts together, c) were not judgemental but pragmatic. The horrendous instruction creep really doesn't help. In 2012 I analysed the content of Wikipedia, both by pages and bytes, less than 40% is actual articles. Since then a number of large contributors to article space have had their contributions curtailed, while a lot of the work on the non-project parts appears to be focussed on making life as difficult as possible for contributors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC).
- My perception is that there was a period when "being an admin was no big deal" and part of the reason was that admins were prepared to reverse each other, disagreement was voiced clearly and consensus reached, people moved on. Then there was a period where things became "more serious", reversing blocks was taken personally and cited as wheel warring, AN/I became a vicious place as a rule, not as an exception. Now AN/I is fairly civilised, but not always. The big difference is the loss of many of the old hands who a) Understood the "open" movement, and b) could string a few coherent thoughts together, c) were not judgemental but pragmatic. The horrendous instruction creep really doesn't help. In 2012 I analysed the content of Wikipedia, both by pages and bytes, less than 40% is actual articles. Since then a number of large contributors to article space have had their contributions curtailed, while a lot of the work on the non-project parts appears to be focussed on making life as difficult as possible for contributors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC).
- Agreed, NeilN. I've gone into ARBCOM and AN/I archives, read over a lot of disputes, and they make today's controversies seem like a tea party. Some of the conversations look like a free-for-all. There might have been more editor freedom and less bureaucracy ten years ago but there were also a lot more wild cards, more extremes of behavior, less socialization into Wikipedia editing norms. As Wikipedia becomes more institutionalized, we need to look out for ossification and realize that old policies need fresh eyes and that it is not possible to introduce radical changes (um, unless they are technological changes suddenly mandated for use). Organizational growth goes through stages and Wikipedia is simply at a different stage than it was 13 years ago, 8 years ago or 4 years ago. Different stages, different strengths and different needs and concerns. My two cents. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Gone are the days of cordial and professional editing..." Errr, what days were these? Wikipedia has always had its content generated by enthusiastic amateurs. With guidelines such as WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS we are actually increasing the quality level of edits from the "old days". --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I think a revised standards of conduct is a very good idea and very appropriate not only for Arbitrators but for everyone else as well. Over the last week or two alone we have seen troubling displays of unprofessionalism from all levels of Wikipediadom from editors all the way up the Arbcom through big Jim himself. Unfortunately I have my doubts that anything would be enforced since it is in many cases the enforcers that are displaying atrocious acts and policy violations. Even committing what was once considered a cardinal sin here on Wiki and outing editors and contacting their employers. Gone are the days of cordial and professional editing and I think a new standard of conduct, if anyone actually had the intention of enforcing it, would be a terrific idea and a welcome improvement to the increasingly toxic editing environment here on the project. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Article creation on Igor Janev is limited only to admin. accounts!?
| Yet another sock of User:Operahome. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dear Jimbo, I found that administrator on Eng. Wikipedia had blocked creation of the article on Igor Janev in the way that only Administrators of Wikipedia can create that article. I tried with my account to create article on Janev, and I found that it was impossible. It is my understanding that administrator Rschen7754 had limited creation of that article for admin. accounts. If so, can anyone fix this problem. Prof. dr. Igor Janev exists, and he is the one of the most prominent intellectuals and a public figure in Macedonia. There were no reasons for such an extreme action by an administrator. I Hope that someone will find the solution for this situation. Sincerely yours, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.45.130 (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
|
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a username, among other benefits.
Hello, is there a policy shift towards banning IP editing? This change [8] seems to indicate that IP editors should be discouraged from editing. Thereby leading to a loss of IP-editors. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- This has been around for a long time, and is not intended to discourage IP editing. It is a worthwhile warning, because all IP edits have their addresses recorded in the edit history. A WHOIS search can be used to trace the likely source of the edit. Also, even edits from many years back will have their IP addresses recorded in the edit history of an article, whereas an ISP's records may go back only one or two years. Adding the stop hand beefs up the warning, but the principle behind it is the same as before.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The use of File:Stop hand nuvola.svg is new -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The newest replacement File:Ambox warning pn.svg is much more indicatory instead of exclusionary. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The use of File:Stop hand nuvola.svg is new -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note that Risker has stated their reasoning for the change over at the technical village pump, and that another discussion was also started on the template's talk page. Hopefully we can keep this topic centralized in once location. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, SuperHamster. I'm perfectly happy to change out the stop hand and use a different image, but it's really important that it (a) be big enough to be eye-catching and (b) not fade into the background colour. The more frequently seen Ambox warning (the "!" in a yellow-orange triangle) fades into the orange-yellow background of the warning, so perhaps changing the background colour may be useful, even if it is non-standard. The previous version of the Anon edit warning was so small that it was easily missed when a new editor got her first eyeful of a sea of wikitext, especially as the "warning symbol" was a tiny key instead of anything that is usually associated with a warning. We have had problems with new users being shocked and distressed to find that their IP was publicly displayed because they'd missed the previous warning, and while many oversighters have quietly suppressed the IP information as an IAR action, technically it's not an approved use of suppression, and has been reverted on some occasions, thus compounding the new editor's distress. I know there are many editors who consciously choose to edit knowing that their IP address will be entered into the public logs (I'm pretty hesitant to call that anonymous editing, especially with the advent of IPv6 which is often extremely specific), and the warning has never really been directed at them. It's directed at those new editors who don't realise that their IP address is their "username" for the purpose of editing, and at registered users who are (usually unintentionally) logged out. Risker (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Humorous aside: I very nearly posted the above while logged out - for some reason, Wikipedia has been logging me out unpredictably quite often lately - but the warning caught my eye. Well, that, and the fact that I was on Vector (instead of my usual Monobook) so the sidebar looked weird. Risker (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be useful to add "of your choice" after "username". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Humorous aside: I very nearly posted the above while logged out - for some reason, Wikipedia has been logging me out unpredictably quite often lately - but the warning caught my eye. Well, that, and the fact that I was on Vector (instead of my usual Monobook) so the sidebar looked weird. Risker (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The new warning is much better (a beep would be good as well). Experimenting, I notice also you get a "Consider opening an account" invite when you attempt to edit IP. I don't know if that's new, or how long it lasts, but that strikes me as worthwhile (a "Don't show me again" checkbox if it is indeed longlasting?) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that is part of the the current anonymous editor recruiting experiment. It's a good idea too. Risker (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's a fine line between encouraging voter registration and making "producing one's papers" compulsory. I many ways I wish I had chosen a pseudonymous account, and indeed for around a year (2012-2013) I did revert to IP editing, though I kept no records. The real crux is how we treat one another, and the original concept of functional equality does something to promote equal treatment. We have degenerated to a ladder of rights, and with it our own caste system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC).
- Many people mistakenly believe that editing as an IP offers the highest degree of anonymity. This is clearly incorrect and we should stop referring to IP editors as "anonymous" as this is misleading. If someone wants to edit anonymously, they should create an account, and edit using only that account, disclosing no personally identifying information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Most registered accounts are actually anonymous. And of course they hide your IP, so people can't even geolocate you. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK - challenge for you. Find any of my IP edits between March 2011 and March 2012 - other than where I subsequently logged in and signed a talk page message. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- OK - challenge for you. Find any of my IP edits between March 2011 and March 2012 - other than where I subsequently logged in and signed a talk page message. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- I agree. Most registered accounts are actually anonymous. And of course they hide your IP, so people can't even geolocate you. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Many people mistakenly believe that editing as an IP offers the highest degree of anonymity. This is clearly incorrect and we should stop referring to IP editors as "anonymous" as this is misleading. If someone wants to edit anonymously, they should create an account, and edit using only that account, disclosing no personally identifying information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is rather intimidating, I think, to see a big red stop sign warning you that you are editing anonymously when you just are fixing some minor typo. I think most people fully know that they don't have an account when they edit as an IP, and the warning is rather redundant unless you normally edit as a user and were accidentally logged out. To have a popup and have to click the edit button again every single time is also not helpful, even if . If we want to discourage IP edits, we might as well come clean about it and make our policies reflect that; until then the "anyone can edit" moniker is little more than boilerplate text in the face of these new policies. From what has been implemented so far, Risker's "encouraging registration is the same as discouraging non registration, or so it seems by the new changes. KonveyorBelt 16:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- You have to keep up, Konveyor - the red stop-hand was replaced shortly thereafter with the red ambox (exclamation point on a white background with a red border), and WMF staff have since reverted entirely to the previous version (see the top of this section...you probably didn't even notice that it had changed, how is it supposed to be a warning to logged-out and new unregistered users?). I have no idea what concept you're trying to attribute to me above. I don't care one way or the other if an editor registers; I do care that it's easy to miss the "old"/current warning that doesn't look anything like a warning, and new editors were shocked to discover they had unintentionally provided what is in some cases very personal information about themselves because their edits were logged to their IP address. Risker (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Konveyor
seems to beis correct that the "Sign up to edit Wikipedia" (no thanks - Sign up and edit) box pops up on every attempt to access the edit interface. A simple cookie could remember the "no thanks" for, say, a week. As it is editing is one-click for registered users, two+ for IPs. These little things build up to discrimination. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- Konveyor
- You have to keep up, Konveyor - the red stop-hand was replaced shortly thereafter with the red ambox (exclamation point on a white background with a red border), and WMF staff have since reverted entirely to the previous version (see the top of this section...you probably didn't even notice that it had changed, how is it supposed to be a warning to logged-out and new unregistered users?). I have no idea what concept you're trying to attribute to me above. I don't care one way or the other if an editor registers; I do care that it's easy to miss the "old"/current warning that doesn't look anything like a warning, and new editors were shocked to discover they had unintentionally provided what is in some cases very personal information about themselves because their edits were logged to their IP address. Risker (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo in the news - fighting the good fight
"When asked about this, Wales simply smiled and said, "Good luck coming after us."
Well said, Mr. Wales. Well said.
http://www.ibtimes.com/eu-google-ruling-wikipedias-jimmy-wales-ridicules-right-be-forgotten-1584247Smatprt (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ironic? Sounded to me very much like an American telling the rest of the world how it should be run (i.e. like America). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- What's more ironic is the amount of ""courtesy deletes" in his logs. -- John Reaves 18:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- These articles have relevant information.
- —Wavelength (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo was born in the USA, where Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González would go straight in the bin on First Amendment grounds. As with previous rulings by European courts on privacy, the basic principle of Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González is well meaning but poorly thought out. A home repossession in 1998 based on a debt that has since been paid off isn't the most important thing to know about a person in a Google search. However, trying to make search engines responsible in this area is like trying to empty the proverbial lake with a thimble.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ian. I'm editing in Europe. My edit was just a balancing effort, reflecting the internationalism of Wikipedia. I contributed to an earlier debate here, correcting basic misconceptions about this ruling, for example here. I might contribute to Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González once it's published. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum: erm ... why was my 14:59, 16 May 2014 edit on the "Right to be forgotten" revdeleted! Can I have it back, please? I haven't the faintest idea what is was now, but I'm quite sure it wasn't offensive or needed oversight, and I rather object to the implication that it was. I demand the right to be remembered ... :) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- This was the edit: "@ianmacm: I don't think there's an issue for BLPs as long as they're lawfully published. Articles 15 and 16 of the judgment dealing with the facts of the case make it clear that the newspaper report involved was lawful. I'm not aware that any newspaper has expressed unease about protecting their content, and I don't see why Wikipedia should be any the different. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)" Why revdeleted? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- No revision deletion in the page history or any other log. There seems to be a recurring problem with people's edits getting overwritten as some sort of weird variation of edit conflict, though. You might want to walk through the last dozen or so edits in the page history to see if that's the case. Risker (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Risker. I see it's there in the page revision, although revdeleted in the page history. Some weird hitch I expect. I was just curious. Thanks for your trouble. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Coat of Many Colours: At 14:57, 16 May 2014, user "Coretheapple" allegedly restored some information possibly outing a supposed banned user editing from an IPv6 address (from what I can gather looking at the edit summaries). At 15:18, 16 May 2014, user "AGK" redacted the info and revdel'd the edit. All *diffs* in between (including yours at 14:59, 16 May 2014) were suppressed, since the diff would also include the redacted info; however, your *edit* remains on the page, your *diff* is just un-viewable to mere mortals. HTH. Rgrds. --72.251.71.103 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers IP. Thanks for that. I see it's that AGK again. Of course you know, this means war AGK. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about? AGK [•] 16:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I presume COMC means that it is incredibly unwise to redact part of a page where your behaviour is being discussed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- I presume COMC means that it is incredibly unwise to redact part of a page where your behaviour is being discussed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
- What on earth are you talking about? AGK [•] 16:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers IP. Thanks for that. I see it's that AGK again. Of course you know, this means war AGK. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Coat of Many Colours: At 14:57, 16 May 2014, user "Coretheapple" allegedly restored some information possibly outing a supposed banned user editing from an IPv6 address (from what I can gather looking at the edit summaries). At 15:18, 16 May 2014, user "AGK" redacted the info and revdel'd the edit. All *diffs* in between (including yours at 14:59, 16 May 2014) were suppressed, since the diff would also include the redacted info; however, your *edit* remains on the page, your *diff* is just un-viewable to mere mortals. HTH. Rgrds. --72.251.71.103 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Risker. I see it's there in the page revision, although revdeleted in the page history. Some weird hitch I expect. I was just curious. Thanks for your trouble. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- No revision deletion in the page history or any other log. There seems to be a recurring problem with people's edits getting overwritten as some sort of weird variation of edit conflict, though. You might want to walk through the last dozen or so edits in the page history to see if that's the case. Risker (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- This was the edit: "@ianmacm: I don't think there's an issue for BLPs as long as they're lawfully published. Articles 15 and 16 of the judgment dealing with the facts of the case make it clear that the newspaper report involved was lawful. I'm not aware that any newspaper has expressed unease about protecting their content, and I don't see why Wikipedia should be any the different. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)" Why revdeleted? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)