User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 185

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 180

←

Archive 183

→

Gender balance

As the globe turns into International Women's day, you may be interested to know that the gender balance for new, preference identifying, editors has been showing a steady, if somewhat volatile, increase. The average percentage of new editors who currently identify as female in their preferences, over the last 18 months is 21.22%.

The graph shows a slightly different statistic: the ratio of female-to-male (new) editors, again using only those identified in their preferences. Here, of course, the ideological target would be 100%, rather than 50%, but the relationship is not linear.

While by no means certain, it is likely that this is an underestimate of the ratio, as females are taught not to gender identify on-line.

The provisional figures this is based on will be available on a Meta sub page shortly.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

About how many new editors identify preference? If it is 50% or even only 30%, these figures would likely be useful. But if it's only 5% or 10%, probably much less so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The % varies over time, peaking at round about 6% in 2012, and decreasing to significantly less than 1 today , strictly speaking of accounts, not editors. Nonetheless the absolute numbers are large enough that the central limit theorem enables us to draw statistically significant conclusions. Full figures are now available. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

This is certainly an interesting stat, and even if we find out it's biased it could be useful in practice (e.g. if the bias is constant as a %age). In general, looking for new ways to estimate participation of different types of users on Wikipedia should be encouraged: we need to know something about who our editors and readers are. But I don't buy into the CLT working here. The folks who answered would have to be randomly selected for the CLT to apply. It, of course, would be nice to have a story on why the selection method introduces a bias. I'm not sure I believe this particular story, but it might work like this: most male editors assume "male" is normal, so they don't see any benefit in self-identifying as male. The only folks who self-identify "have something to prove", so they might be a mix of militant mens-rights folks, feminists, and perhaps even men self-identifying as women (expressing frustration perhaps). In any case bias could be introduced by other means of selection of who reports.

Another means of estimating %women editors might be textual analysis. Women use different vocabulary than men. I'm no expert on this, but ... (with lots of assumptions regarding different ages, nationalities, etc) if you could analyze the text on user pages or user talk pages and split a sample of active editors into categories identified as women, as men, and likely a group that can't be identified by vocabulary. Of course you could get a lot of people angry at you doing this! My stats are getting rusty (and I've never worked with textual analysis) but it's probably done using discriminant analysis or factor analysis. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: is the ratio reported in the graph above is F/M or F/(F+M)? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The graph is, as captioned, and mentioned in the text, F/M - which I find the more useful figure. The average percentage of 21.22% is F/(F+M), reported here because that is the way the figure has been reported historically, and in which the WMF/Sue Gardner/Jimmy set targets. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Just an aside about this, this is an article in today's Phnom Penh Post about Khmer Wikipedia and a campaign to get more women's and women-authored articles up.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Website currently off-line, http error 522.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

These numbers are in rough alignment with a recent stat given at the December 2014 WMF metrics meeting involving results of a survey conducted of 96,000 Wikipedia users in 11 countries of the so-called Global South — conducted in 16 languages (pg. 62). A total of 47,000 people ended up completing the survey, which ran both on desktop and mobile platforms. The survey showed that 21% of readers and 20% of contributors identified themselves as female (with another 2% declining to identify either as male or female and 1% selecting "other.") (pg. 64). There is definitely a gender gap but it appears to be something in the neighborhood of 80m:20f rather than 90m:10f. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a large number of edit-a-thons taking place all over the world this weekend. These are opportunities to do two things - welcome new editors in connection with International Women's Day, and write and improve biographies of notable women, and articles of interest to women. My wife and I will attend one such event in San Francisco tomorrow. (Sorry, Carrite, as I know that you distrust all that emanates from San Francisco). I have expanded one woman's biography today, and am drafting another woman's biography that I hope to move to article space tomorrow. Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, for the trend chart. The key is to welcome and assist new editors who are here in good faith, and also for experienced editors to edit in good faith to address our well-documented systemic biases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have always believed that welcoming and assisting new users is important, I am not convinced that it will make a huge difference to the gender balance, since we should retain a significant number of additional male editors - which of course is a good thing too.
Addressing content issues is another matter, and, despite two pieces of good research, one where we still are in a state of ignorance. The proposed new "views per page" which attempts to distinguish between human and automatic page views will help with this.
I hope to have a preliminary list of ODNB articles on women uploaded shortly - if anyone is looking for something to do, there will be many red-links and a lot of additional information avaiable onmost of the blue links.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks [{Ping|Carrite}} for mentioning the "Global South" report, and you are correct that the editor numbers align generally with this result. There was a survey of Internet use in the US "way back when" (i.e. around the time of the WMF/UN University survey that gave the 12% figure still cited today) which showed that readership in the US was even split M/F (and that the figures WMF/UN had promulgated were skewed by selection bias, and should have been around 16%, IIRC).

Consequently it appears that we have two very different models, which I would interpret as follows:

In the GN women and girls are as confident in using and enabled to use the Internet and Wikipedia as men and boys in the GN, but much less confident in editing.
In the GS women and girls are significantly less confident/enabled to use the Internet and Wikipedia, but those that do are almost as confident in editing Wikipedia as men and boys in the GS.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

Despite this, Wikipedia Gender Gap activists on the Gendergap-l mailing list continue to propagate the apparent error that the female editor level of English Wikipedia is "around 10% according to the most recent editor survey." To reiterate: no, that is wrong. The actual Gender Gap is approximately 80-20. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Gee Willikers!! Hold on to your hat!!! The various studies agree female editor participation is somewhere in the teens? Well, damnit, just get those good ole GamerGate boys here, I'm a sure they'll have that gap down to zero in no time. AnonNep (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why the Gender Gap Task Force/Gendergap-l is not to be taken seriously. Instead of starting with serious analysis of the magnitude of the problem, followed by testing of ideas of how to solve it, followed by cost-benefit analysis of putting those ideas into practice on a large scale, we time and time again see a facile assumption of the Worst Case Scenario (ignoring contrary evidence), followed by gender war rhetoric and throwing of verbal petrol bombs, accompanied by grant-writing for money-money-money for unproven programs. WMF is complicit in this by allowing the GGTF/GG-l to put the money cart before the analysis horse. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My long standing recommendation for those who complain women aren't *statistically* editing enough, is for those men to stop editing. This has two benefits, first it is clear they have little of value left to contribute, either for the encyclopedia or for themselves and therefore it will move them on to greener pastures. Secondarily, the less they edit, the smaller that statistical gap will be helping to resolve their moaning. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the mailing list. The recent panel discussion at WVU used the 12% figure, this article cites 10% (and extrapolates that "over 80% ... are young, white, predominantly child-free men" actually 51% are over 30 for starters). Think Progress cites 13% "according to a recent study", presumably the UNMERIT uncorrected figures from 2010. It is not helped that out article Gender bias on Wikipedia has the 9/1/80 split in a misleading graph.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC).

If one accepts the premise that women feel less welcome than men then it is likely that there will be a selection bias in any group of people that self selects to reveal their gender. It is very possible that the ratio of female editors is higher than it appears due to men being more likely to self identify gender than women. Still, even if you take that into account a rise is still a rise. Chillum 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never weighed in on this issue since it's of no importance to me, which is what I'm stopping by to say: "Who cares what percentage of editors are female?" Even if it is important--which I realize it is to many--you have no way to compile realistic statistics since so many editors do not reveal their gender. I sort of do--by saying I answer to "Grandma" halfway down my user page--but I'm generally referred to as "he." Doesn't bither me a bot. Who knows how many of us don't feel a need to shout, "Hey, I'm a woman; take note!" or, "Over 55 here, woot-woot!"

The hostility I experienced as a new user had nothing to do with gender, but with newbie-biters. Most of the biters assumed I was male. Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as Grandma's question "who cares?", I think we should all care. If Wikipedia editors are predominantly young men, then our content will be predominantly focused on the interests of young men. We won't be a true global encyclopedia. We'll be leaving out many of the topics of interest to say, 75%, of the world's population.

Perhaps somebody can list or link the statistical evidence on Wikipedia's editorship. I probably haven't kept up as much as I should have. But I have the impression that there was an attempt at a census-type survey about 5 years ago, and a couple of attempts since, as well as some indirect type evidence such as Farmbrough's above. And my general impression of everything I've seen is that women make up about 10-20% of the editorship, with a large margin of error in any particular study. Stats is not something we can fake, or decide by argumentation or consensus. Solid work needs to be done. Is there any reason that the WMF does not do a proper survey of a proper random sample? Please forget the old "ask everybody" census-type approach. Trying to get everybody involves too many problems, e.g. selection bias, cost, and inability to resurvey every couple of years. Concentrating on a much smaller random sample of active editors would allow much more accurate work to be done. It would allow updates every year or two, so that we can see if we are making progress. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that "our content is predominantly focused on the interests of young men." I find a great deal that is of interest to me; I just ignore the stuff I'm not interested in, as I assume the young men--and everybody else--likewise do. Yopienso (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's as easy to say our content is focused on Indian corporate spam.... we are not on paper, there is not limit to the potential 'size'.... subjects with no article (and admittedly, notable women are apparently underrepresented) is a far more meaningful concept than 'subjects with an article'.... the omissions are what we should care about. Revent^talk 07:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please name a notable woman who does not have a WP article. Yopienso (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to shout, Yopienso. I think you may share a common misunderstanding about the composition of the Wikipedia community. We don't need more female editors because they will create more articles about notable females. We need more female editors because we need to reflect more than just the worldview of young white males. Women may not only have different views on what is important, they may also see things from a different perspective. You've been here for a long time - you know that the same facts can be presented in a number of different ways. If you want to have a neutral encyclopedia, you want to have as much diversity in the community as you can. (By the way, to answer your question off the top of my head, Wikipedia has no biography of Leona Beldini. I'm sure there are many many more, but that's not the point.) Cheers! Mr Muffler (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's mere coincidence there was no response for 24 hours and then a response in half an hour when I raised my voice? But, thanks for answering!

I was responding to the claim "subjects with no article (and admittedly, notable women are apparently underrepresented)".

Leona Beldini, notable woman: a petty crook. Hmmm, I guess she may be notable for being bad. None of those crooks are notable (See the lists on the article page.) except those that were independently notable. Deputy mayors don't seem to cut the mustard.Yo Pienso (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

After so many editathons to add all the missing female scientists, artists, etc I imagine that there are far fewer missing articles than there were a few years ago. But that is only a symptom of the problem and correcting it does little or nothing to deal with the root cause (the gender imbalance in the Wikipedia community). As for deputy mayors on Wikipedia, I guess being deputy mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey is probably not as notable as being deputy mayor of New York City (like Rudy Washington) or a world renowned city such as Launceston, Tasmania (like Jeremy Ball). Anyway, you asked, so I answered. If you don't want to find out why Beldini is notable, I'm not bothered. Mr Muffler (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a list of notable women without articles. EllenCT (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And we reams of pages GG women. All of the following are much more influential in gaming than the ones we have covered. Hope Cochran, Stephanie Barish, Holly Liu, Jessica Tams, Kiki Wolfkill, Lucy Bradshaw (gaming). --DHeyward (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the data

Self-identifying female new editors as a percentage of total self-identifying new editors

Since 2001

Since 2004

I'd like to go back to the data—many thanks to User:Rich Farmbrough for making it so readily available. Looking at the data, I'm struck by a couple of things. First of all, I'm not sure that a linear model really fits here. When I tried to reproduce the simple linear regression performed by Rich, the adjusted R² was fairly low, at 0.6484. More intuitively, the data seem to show that female editorship (as measured by available metrics) was fairly stable around 10% until 2009, when it suddenly jumped to ~20% where it has remained. I added a smoothed spline (in red), which again suggests the relationship here is not really linear. These data don't lead me to believe that female editorship is steadily increasing; instead, they lead me to ask: what happened in 2009?

I went back to the data and truncated/removed all of the data points before 2004 (bottom panel). It's a bit arbitrary, but I think it's reasonable since a) the sample sizes before 2004 are tiny, and b) 2004 marked a huge increase in Wikipedia's popularity, readership, and editorship with attendant fundamental changes in the community. Interestingly, the linear relationship becomes much stronger with the truncated data, at least as measured by R², probably as a result of excluding a bunch of 0's from 2001–2003. But once again, the relationship appears to be bimodal rather than linear, split around the year 2009.

The final thing that jumps out about these data is that they suddenly become very noisy around mid-2013. The increase in unexplained variance is really quite striking, since variance was remarkably low up until 2013. I don't know why the data suddenly become so noisy, but this implies that we should be extremely careful about drawing inferences from short-term changes in this metric, since there's a very high risk of over-interpreting statistical noise rather than responding to actual trends.

I don't have much to add to the points raised above about the metrics. Obviously, we're making the very large assumption that the sample of editors who choose to self-identify is representative of the population of editors as a whole. I love the central limit theorem as much as the next guy, but I don't think that large sample size and the CLT can overcome inherent selection and response biases. Of course, there are no better data available, and I hugely appreciate the work that Rich and others have done with what we have—I just want to make sure we're interpreting these data with the appropriate caveats. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I share your doubts about a linear fit, but since my graphing program (Excel if it was on my laptop, open office if it was on my desktop) gave that trend line for free I left it in. There appear to be two jumps. I have posited that the 2009 jump is related to the introduction of edit filters, which meant far less vandalism, and consequently recent changes patrollers being more relaxed. The later jump may relate to things like Teahouse, editathons, coverage of gender balance, etc.

The volatility is curious, but can perhaps be explained by class registrations and larger editathons. If a large number of students or volunteers are following a step-by-step process that includes registering gender, then the gender balance of that class will affect the month it is in. Possibly sock farms might influence them too, but I find that unlikely.

As to the question of whether these are good samples, it is difficult to say, but I can think of one systemic reason it may give a high F/M ratio (classes/editathons), and two to suggest it may be low (desire to avoid identifying as female, to avoid negative consequence, and lack of desire to explore all the preferences options).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

This looks to me as if changes to the Preferences/User Profile entry form (or the relevant help file) may have had an effect. The following was added in early 2009:

"Gender: This option allows you to select a gender (male or female), or unspecified. This option is designed for languages where, unlike English, words, and therefore interface text, can change depending on your gender. As such, this option is not greatly useful for English users at present."

How was gender entered before that? The comment about gender being irrelevant for English can't have been very helpful, either. Does anyone know when it was changed to the present form, asking whether the user would like to be addressed as he/she etc. Wasn't there also a (somewhat discouraging) warning that the information would be public? --Boson (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC) PS: I see there is now a message (in small print) "This information will be public." I believe it used to (somewhere) say something like "... but not easily found". --Boson (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I haven't tracked down the source of the phraseology yet, search doesn't find it in a mediawiki page. I'm checking translatewiki, but there are 24k+ mediawiki messages! Design flaw somewhere I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

MediaWiki:Prefs-help-gender seems relevant, but the wording looks like the old wordning you refer to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

It appears that these graphs misrepresent the proportion of women by at least(exactly?) two orders of magnitude. The graphs' claim that less than .25%, or one in 400, new users self-identify as female rather than male is obvious nonsense. Is this just an axis labeling issue?--Noren (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that the y-axis label should read "proportion" rather than "percentage". These are proportions, so 0.2 = 20%, and so on. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a linear model might be the best one to use here. While you could construct a more complex model which fits the data better there is the problem of over fitting the data. What I would probably do is fit three straight lines, upto 2009, 2009- mid 2013 and mid 2013 onwards. It looks like there are three distinct regimes to the data, making them not really comparable. Is there any reason for the jump in 2013?--Salix alba (talk): 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting — at least there is some sort of only partially explained major break in 2009 and that it might be most useful to set that as the zero point if one is attempting to fit the data to a meaningful trend line. I'm a little confused also why the data points scatter so much. One would think that the proportions, while dynamic, would be changing slowly but steadily rather than showing broad short-term fluctuations. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians should come out of their closets

IMHO the main reason for gender disbalance is not the mythical hostility towards women on wiki (as 95+% of editors do not reveal their gender this factor could only affect less than 5% anyway). The main reason is peer pressure in the real world, there wiki editing is somehow acceptable for male students, barely acceptable for female students, weakly unacceptable for adult family men (considered a strange but harmless hobby) and totally unacceptable for adult married women with family and kids. The idea that a mother of a family spends a few hours a day not earning some wages, not attending for the kids, not tending the home but editing wiki - looks like absolutely atrocious to the society. We need good role model both males and especially females. And we especially need adult professional family males and desperately need happy professional adult females with families. How often have you seen a female wikipedian announcing birth of a child? We must press editors to reveal their identities. Unless special circumstances (e.g. life in a dictatorship couuntry, etc.) editors should work under real names. All Arbitrators/Checkusers/Oversighters should have their real life identity and basic bio revealed. All new admin applications should be accompanied by real names and biographies and, yes, I am sure most !voters would give women especially adult women with families some preferences. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that the 'men' who edit wikipedia are being fed grapes from lustrous virgins as we speak. Could someone remind me why I (p.s. as a woman) would want to reveal my gender when I don't want simply to please some gender identity demagogues of questionable competence and reputation? Why would I ask the same of a man? This suggestion is underthought and uninspiring. Perhaps the childish feminists of wikipedia, who seem to be self-guilt tripping white men need to man up and respect that one of the reasons they don't see many women editing wikipedia is because they wish to turn every woman into a juvenile. Nobody wants to be special objects. This is not acceptable, fundamentally anti-feminist and embarassing to everyone involved. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If I could do it over, I sure wouldn't pick a gender-specific user id or otherwise identify as female. I've experienced the same issues that most people complain of, plus stalking, tagteams, mansplaining, and the endless accusations that my politics, because they are actually congruent with the demographic center's preferences[1] instead of skewed to the right as the major political parties skew in their desperate attempt to garner campaign contributions from moneyed interests,[2][3][4] are somehow out of the mainstream. Male-identifying users with my point of view do not, as far as I can see, have to deal with that bullcrap. EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ya lost me with use of the pejorative "mansplaining." Don't be "femhearing" me now... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to aid your comprehension. EllenCT (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean you wiksplained it? Formerip (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you (Ellen) think that if you would indicate that your technical background makes your understanding of clumsy wiki-syntax and arcane wikirules to be complete (wish I could say so myself) you would still be bothered with offering of help? Maybe you could benefit from some opening of your real life background. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I don't mind being talked down to on technical issues because I realize how difficult it is to discern what an editor does not yet understand from a few limited interactions. The reason I use the perjorative to which Carrite objects is because of the several instances where enthusiastic opposition from editors with primary sources on content disputes where I've gone to the trouble to find literature reviews never have involved a single female editor, even when there were female editors on the other side of the issue. If you can show me how to get the guys to stop countering secondary sources with COI-sponsored primary sources, on Talk:Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States for example, then I would be happy to say more about my background and life experiences. But for now, I would simply prefer to not dignify those WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDHT issues with continued engagement, because the enthusiasm without regard for the rules frankly makes me wonder what other rules they are willing to break to suppress the secondary literature's conclusions with which they disagree. EllenCT (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you missed something there, I'm well aware of the pejorative neologism "mansplaining." See: Pejorative. Happy to help. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I ,for one, am certainly glad that I have not made anything about my real life identity very public. And given the lack of concern from the arbcom about the attacks on those wikipedia editors who did have their public lives targeted because of their Wikipedia editing strikes me as solid gold proof that I would strongly advise against ANYONE doing so, particularly women or people with children. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the project as the whole is hindered by unnecessary secrecy over identity of major contributors. Corporations spend billions on so called team-building efforts so to encourage their employees to share their informal lives. Most major charities do the same. They maybe ignorant but not stupid. Currently Wikiediting is seen as a shameful activity suitable only for primary school students (preferably male). This perception hurts the project greatly. Luck of positive role models (particularly adult women) hurts us internally. Difficulty in spotting conflicts of interests arising from the identity secrecy hurts us greatly. I am editing for almost 15 years under my real name, and only once regretted, then some idiot with IP geolocated 10 km from my home was making threats about me. Still under real name helped to clear my name over accusations of COI (some very painful), so in long run was beneficial. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You may consider anonymity "unnecessary". I consider my anonymity on Wikipedia the reason that my family has not been subjected to hateful death threats and SWATTING. When you share personal info with a co-worker you are not sharing it with the whole fucking world that is full of crazies who do things like target Wikipedia editors they decide they dont like.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this principle, and would prefer if physical world factors were excluded from the consideration of Wikipedia editors. That was one of the original goals of cyberspace, if one can remember. To break down the walls of reality and replace them with an open space for everyone, regardless of factors that one cannot control, such as the imaginary constructs of sex, race, gender, and so forth. The internet has not worked out that way, but that's what it was meant to be, and what it should strive to be. This demand for people to make a decision as to whether they consider themselves a woman or a man is offensive and absurd. Many of us, for example, consider ourselves neither. What are we to do, then? This obsession with imaginary boundaries, to translate connotations attached to physical principles into the immaterial digital realm, seems to be an attempt by certain people to hold onto a stability of existence that simply does not exist. Neoliberalism really has accomplished its goal, hasn't it? That is, to balkanise the proletariat in every possible way. Instead of allowing the internet to become a space of pleasure in unity and commonality, it has become an expression of artificial difference, controlled by corporations and other unsavoury groups.

Regardless, I find this whole "controversy", if one can call it that, absurd. The neoliberal authorities that control this encylopaedia have no desire other than to balkanise the proletariat, even in a space that is meant to be based on collaboration. They struggle to enforce imaginary boundaries in a space where those boundaries lack visual representation. More and more, we see this battle playing out. The battle, itself, is exactly what the neoliberal authorities want to see. The more they can divide the proletariat, the less the proletariat can fight back against corporate capture. That's what the heart of the matter is. "Come out of one's closet", and be captured by the camera of corporate surveyors and data-mongers. One must recognise that one is in a corporate space, a space where one produces capital for the ruling class without reaping any benefits for oneself. The producer-consumer, the person who carries the burden of the neoliberal class. That is what this encylopaedia is, of course. A factory for content, data, &c., all of which is produced by unwitting participants for the sake of the gain of a few. We are kept occupied by both producing content and consuming it, and by doing so, entrench their dominance. That's not to say there are no other benefits to the project, and of course those are often the reasons that editors remain. However, until the proletariat can break down the imaginary barriers prescribed by the ruling class as a method of dominance, there can be no true freedom or unity in human singularity. It is our duty, then, to stop this continued balkanisation and madness. It is our duty to say no to categories that do not exist, such as "man" and "woman". It is our duty, then, to defend this space from further encroachment by corporate authorities. It may already be too late, but it does not hurt to be a martyr for one's cause. RGloucester — ☎ 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, Alex, I'll take the bait. Short answer: no. Long answer: Do we really want Wikipedians to be even more easily doxxed and targeted by online trolls? No.

And if the situation is as you claim and women are ashamed of editing here, requiring them to divulge their real identities would only exacerbate the issues. Many people edit here under anonymous names because they would be ashamed if their real identities were known. KonveyorBelt 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be some accountability for behavior on WP, but with complete anonymity, it will never happen. I edit under my real name and have never had any problems online, but I attribute this to staying away from controversial articles. That's not to say Ive never had problems with other Wikipedians, both male and female, but I pick my battles. I have to laugh at the mansplaining complaint though. Essentially it is a man arguing with a woman the way he argues with other men. In reality, he is treating a woman equally to a man. Seems to me that we women need to develop counter-tactics more effective than demand that everyone act the way we want to them to.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why focus on editors instead of readership?

I don't understand why all the focus is on the low participation rate of women when it comes to editing. Above, someone quotes the statistics that "21% of readers and 20% of contributors" identify as women. Therefore, there is no gender imbalance when it comes to who decides to edit - women are not being scared away from contributing. The same percentage of them who come to Wikipedia to read become editors as do men. Recently the lunch conversation among my coworkers (in a high tech field) turned toward reading habits as kids. Nearly ever male reported reading an encyclopedia for fun as a child, but I was the only woman who did so. Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but along with the statistics, it suggests that if you want more women to contribute to Wikipedia, you first need to get more women to be interested in reading an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right. Do notice, however, that the statistic you cite is for the "Global South", in the US, for example, readership (I beleive the question was something like "have you used Wikipedia in the past month?") from a large independent survey showed roughly equal numbers of males and females using Wikipedia. Of course the way it is used may also vary by gender. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. I'm a bit surprised at the disparity in the survey results, though maybe I shouldn't be if the questions were worded very differently. I'd be interested in learning more about the way Wikipedia use might vary depending on gender. Deli nk (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which surveys other people are referring to, but I believe the main survey that showed roughly equal participation by men and women (as readers) was based on a representative sample of Americans (with an online connection and a landline telephone), which incidentally also asked about Wikipedia usage, and was carried out by an established social/market research organization (Pew), while all the other studies were based on "opt-in", self-selecting samples. Personally, I think it would be much, much better if the Foundation commissioned Pew (or another established organization that routinely performs research for people who bet money on the results) to perform a similar survey of Wikipedia readers and editors based on a representative population sample. Doing our own studies with self-selecting samples may be much cheaper but it seems a bit like looking for the lost key in the bushes, in the dark, when you know you dropped it in the road, under the streetlight. --Boson (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I would imagine it would be simplest to add a few questions (e.g. Wikipedia editing: frequency, topic and medium) to an existing omnibus survey on Internet usage. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Pew 2008 research which covered readership was used to correct the Wikipedia 2008 readers and editors survey (and apologies if I referred to that as the 2010 survey elsewhere) by Shaw and Hill in 2013. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Confidential poll right here :)

Throw a coin twice, if the first outcome is heads then write down your sex, if it is tails, then if the second throw is heads write down "male" for your sex and "female" if it is tails. If the fraction of females is pf, and the fraction of males is pm = 1-pf, then the expectatio value of the the fraction of "females" in the answers is 1/4 + 1/2 pf, allowing one to estimate pf. Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Female . Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I am totally confused. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
My coin says either "Reply hazy try again" or "You may already have won!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
My coin landed on its edge. So...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think my coin will land eventually, but I'm currently in a very low gravity environment, so this could take years. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
And then it will probably bounce a few times and land in a dark corner where it can't transmit the results back to you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
^I saw what you did there Pedro : Chat 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
My coin turned into a six-sided die, bounced a few hundred times and landed on Jumanji. Neutron (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
How far should I throw the coin? I'd like to get it back if possible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't actually be bothered to toss a coin. But, as far as I can see, the bigger the sample size, the more reliable the result will be, so I thought I should at least register a response. Formerip (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Male, but I used a two-headed coin. --B (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Furry. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I strongly approve of the motivating principles of this poll, but I question whether anyone can know how accurate it is if it's self-selected. Why don't you perform the same poll by asking on, for example, the talk pages of the most recent N editors including IPs, so you can use the responding proportion to evaluate significance, please? EllenCT (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the NSA could save us a lot of time, and just tell us the answer, already! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Good idea! Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The only information this poll can provide is the sex ratio of respondents (assuming that people understand it, and give honest answers). It can tell us nothing about the ratio for contributors in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my point. If you know the proportion of respondents, you can constrain their population statistics, but not if they are self-selected. I would gladly participate in this form of anonymization if it was taking place on respondents' talk pages. EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not confidential either. It reveals the respondent's sex with probability 3/4. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This actually depends on the very answer we're after, i.e. the prior probabilities of someone taking part of the poll being male or female. You can easily that if indeed most people contributing here are men, then the poll will be a lot more confidiential for them than for men. We have:

p(answer = f, sex = f) = p(sex = f) p(answer=f|sex=f) = 3/4 p(sex = f)

p(answer = m, sex = f) = p(sex = f) p(answer=f|sex=f) = 1/4 p(sex = f)

p(answer = f, sex = m) = p(sex = m) p(answer=f|sex=m) = 1/4 p(sex = m)

p(answer = m, sex = m) = p(sex = m) p(answer=m|sex=m) = 3/4 p(sex = m)

The prior probabilities for the answers are thus given by:

p(answer = f) = sum over sex of p(answer = f, sex) = 3/4 p(sex = f) + 1/4 p(sex = m)

p(answer = m) = sum over sex of p(answer = m, sex) = 1/4 p(sex = f) + 3/4 p(sex = m)

The conditional probabibilties for the sex given what someone answers are therefore:

p(sex = f|answer = f) = 3/[3 + p(sex = m)/p(sex = f)]

p(sex = m|answer = f) = 1/[ 1 + 3 p(sex = f)/p(sex = m)]

p(sex = f|answer = m) = 1/[1 + 3 p(sex = m)/p(sex = f)]

p(sex = m|answer = m) = 3/[3 + p(sex = f)/p(sex = m)]

So, if the 20% figure for female editors is correct, then:

p(sex = f|answer = f) = 3/7

p(sex = m|answer = f) = 4/7

p(sex = f|answer = m) = 1/13

p(sex = m|answer = m) = 12/13

The amount of information someone reveils by giving an "f" or "m" answer is given by the drop in the Shannon entropy:

I(f) = 3/7 log_2(3/7) + 4/7 log_2(4/7) - 0.2 log_2(0.2) - 0.8 log_2(0.8) = -0.2633 bits

I(m) = 1/13 log_2(1/13) + 12/13 log_2(12/13) - 0.2 log_2(0.2) - 0.8 log_2(0.8) = 0.3307 bits

I(f) is negative because after you give such an answer your sex is pretty much a tossup while a priori it was a relatively safe bat to assume that you were male. So, giving this answer leads to a loss of information. Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile create more articles for women

I think it could help both readers/editors to have more topics about female issues. For instance, I just now created redirect "nursing pads" (after 14 years) to link "nursing bra" as a start to answer 3 requests a week about nursing pad/pads. Perhaps start other related articles as redirects, for now, until specific details can be added to create separate articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Need someone to help with a BLP issue

I need someone fluent in Danish and English to help with a BLP issue that has been brought to my attention. I'm going to post as well on BLPN here, but I'm not sure where to go on Danish Wikipedia to see if someone there would like to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

See Category:User da and Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Danish Wikipedia
and Category:Wikipedians in Denmark and Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark#Members.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) has an interlanguage link to da:Wikipedia:Biografier af levende personer (da:WP:BLP), whose discussion page at this moment shows comments only in Danish.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Status of Kosovo

Greetings Jimbo Wales! I would ask you that the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons still don't recognise the independence of Kosovo as it's at odds with the international law and the UNSC resolution 1244. VS6507 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no mechanism by which to recognize or not recognize anything at all. Collect (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would remind VS6507 that wikipedia is supposed to reflect what sources say, rather than maintaining a political ideology. Sources say that Kosovo declared independence and is recognised by most countries. Edits like this - deliberately replacing a current map of Serbia with one that annexes Kosovo to Serbia again - are obvious POV-pushing. I am surprised that wikipedia has tolerated so much of this, from an editor with a long history of cross-wiki canvassing and POV-pushing. Just another day in the Balkans... bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

IKR, the Balkans. If the Wikipedia ever blows up it will probably be on account of some damn thing in the Balkans. Herostratus (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Bobrainer, the most extreme editor always pushing all-around Kosovo as independent, and those evil Serbs annexing Kosovo... And his already boring remark "Just another day in the Balkans"... Even in a simple comment here on Jimbos page he is unable not to push-up the idea that Kosovo is not part of Serbia anymore and Serbia annexed Kosovo. if this continues he is close to be topic banned from editing within the scope. Half of the countries of the world recognize Kosovo as independent, other half still regard it as part of Serbia, so his crying here how the editor is deliberately replacing maps is ridiculous. Basically, his complain against the editor is as just rightfull as his own insertion of maps excluding Kosovo. Oh boby boby, you really don't know where the borderline is, do you? FkpCascais (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There can't be any one correct answer. This is a location map template. That means that it is for encyclopedic use in locating events and places, some of which occurred at some time in the past when Kosovo was unarguably part of Serbia. Because it is a template, there is no Main Version - we can have one that includes Kosovo, one that doesn't, and let each and every article writer decide which to use. That said, because the template is already in-use, I agree it should stick with whichever version was first and the copy should go the other way, to avoid unobserved alterations to the articles that use it. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais's response is a fine example of the problems we face in the Balkans. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's also review the status of Crimea, the Kuril Islands, the South Chinese Sea, Kashmir, Tibet, The Western Sahara, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most encyclopedic thing and what we basically do is simply mention in prose the de jure by world standards if different. I think frankly maps cause more problems then they solve in situations of templates on history pages and such. As opposed to most of User:Count Iblis's list (with the exception of Crimea) Kosovo has the problem that it is a VERY important part of the identity and history of the nation building of Serbia, that much is not up to discussion, it's a fact; the problem is that Kosovo is Albanian in culture and language and the people have decided they want to nation-build their people (as opposed to just being "Albanians") and to build a state. Metternich once said about the Italian peninsula that a state can build a nation but a nation can not build a state... Austria-Hungary, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia proved him wrong, and Belguim going that direction. Kuril Islands don't hold a nationality defining moment of history for Russia, India and Pakistan have no huge religious meaning to Kashmir, Tibet doesn't define to China what the nation is, same for Western Sahara and Morocco, and Georgia and Azerbaijan with the last three. Crimea is the odd person out in many reasons, it really is Russian majority and it does have meaning to Russian history as does all of Ukraine back to the times of the Rus and Kiev principality. Static maps can not represent the nuances of history, politics, culture, language, a map of North America showing the Louisiana Purchase claims the US "owned" a vast tract of land when in reality all it was, was the French selling the exclusive rights to purchase the land, a map of that period doesnt show who actually controlled the land, the Souix or the Comanche Empire for example. This problem with maps is evident all over China-related history maps where those with a pro-China POV push maps showing China ruling Tibet pretty much forever and never recognize an independent Tibet in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries for example. POV pushers will always find a map to push their POV.97.85.247.26 (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Blast from the past

One thing led to another and I found myself doing some editing on The Big Lebowski, and in the process noticed that you created that article 14 years ago. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And today he would have been templated all over the place for SUCH A STUB. (There are some at Wikipediocracy who laughably contend that there is no inherent trend at Wikipedia towards improvement...) Carrite (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be speedy deleted. Nyth 63 22:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it, I looked up in our encyclopedia that Wikipedia was 38 days old when that article was created. And hey, "the Dude abides".--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Rules are different when everything is new, and 38 days old is definitely new. I have to agree with Jimbo on the The Big Lebowski creation gist. Definitely one of the few movies I've seen more than 10 times. Others are The Breakfast Club, Platoon and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Dave Dial (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

From the editor: A salute to Pine

News and notes: SUL finalization imminent; executive office shake-ups at the Foundation

In the media: NYPD editing articles regarding allegations of police brutality and misconduct

Op-ed: Does the Wikimedia fundraising survey address community concerns?

Featured content: A woman who loved kings

Traffic report: It's not cricket

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Reddit IAmA

Just wanted to say, thank you (along with Jaffer and Tretikov) for hosting the AMA on the NSA lawsuit. It's really cool to see a lot of questions being answered, and hopefully a lot of people learn more about it.

For anyone reading this, here's the live Reddit "Ask Me Anything" where Jimbo and company are answering questions related to the suit. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You were fabulous, Mr Wales! Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the goal of privacy for innocent people is a noble one, but to that end this lawsuit seems pointless because of all the other sources of invasion of privacy on the internet, from other governments and corporations to private individuals. And it's not just the internet but surveillance cameras, iPhone cameras, webcams, etc. And if you have a monitored home security system, the company that electronically monitors your home has the potential to have a record of your comings and goings. The GPS navigation in your car has the potential of monitoring where you go. The snoop genie is out of the bottle. It comes down to the individual being careful about what needs to be kept confidential, with limited success.

In one of the Q&A at the above reddit link was the following exchange.

Q — "Let's suppose this lawsuit is successful, and the NSA is legally barred from collecting upstream data. What about controlling/regulating the same sort of data collection by corporate entities, and other governments (e.g., China)? Does a successful outcome here protect privacy only with respect to the US government, or would it affect of influence privacy rights in other contexts?"

Answer from Jameel Jaffer — "This suit is about surveillance by the US government. The ACLU is involved in other efforts relating to surveillance by other governments--see, e.g., this case against the GCHQ in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/05/uk-mass-surveillance-laws-human-rights-tribunal-gchq. But the truth is that a more global solution to the problem of mass surveillance will require diplomacy, not just lawsuits."

P.S. When I was working on this message, is there the potential for someone connected with Wikipedia or someone who has gotten hold of certain tools, to see what I was working on before it is posted? Also, is there the potential for a user to be tracked by Wikipedia as to which articles and other pages are just visited and not edited? What are the surveillance capabilities of Wikipedia for following users on this site and other sites they visit while on Wikipedia or after they leave the Wikipedia site? Has it been disclosed to users? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While no one can speak for the WMF on this - the software intrinsically allows for such, even if it not used (provided by the web browser IIRC). Almost all search engines, for example, keep track of how people reach any site through their search. Not all that complex, and around in use since the advent of the WWW. Collect (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with half truths told in the Western media?

As I pointed out here, the mere fact that in the West we have a free press does not always lead to objective news reporting. A good example could be the Iraq WMD issue, our last Wikipedia article before we could have direct access to the truth is a textbook example of how our media can get corrupted, affecting our Wiki articles too. It's not by telling outright lies, rather by telling only selective truths in a tendentious way. The fact that something is wrong with the conclusions suggested by the news reports can often not be sourced from equally high quality reliable sources, or it's based on a critical analysis by some group that may have some agenda so it will be given less weight (already in the media, long before editors here would have to consider the matter).

Usually this problem will manifest itself in hot buttom issues, like the Iraq's WMD was, or today Russia's involvement in Ukraine or Iran's nuclear program. E.g. the fact that the referendum in Crimea was obviously held in flawed way, doesn't imply that the vast majority of the people there didn't want to join Russia, but in the media we usually only read about how flawed the poll was that was held.

In case of Iran's nuclear program, for all the talk about the number of centrifuges how far Iran is to building an nuclear device and what breakout time we would want the Iranians to have, there is nothing whatsoever one can read about how large Iran's enrichment capacity would need to be in order to provide fuel for the Bushehr reactor, if they were to choose to not renew the contract with Russia for fuel deliveries in the early 2020s. This turns out to be a simple back of the envelope calculation that any ten year old can do, but that simple calculation would all by itself tell a story that is in complete disagreement with the suggested story told by the selective mentioning of the facts we can read about.

Then Wikipedia does have the ability to push back against such pressures to some degree but I think is still leads to significant bias in our articles. E.g. in case of Iran's nuclear program, the core issues are covered, but they appear at the end of the article, the polemics are presented in a more prominent way. This reflects the way our media writes about these issues, which is ultimately due to the fact that the free media has to compete with the entertainment industry for the attention of the public. So, Netanyahu telling a scare story will always win from a professor giving a rather complicated assessment of the facts. Count Iblis (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And do you have a proposal as to how we deal with this? One that doesn't fall foul of WP:OR and WP:RS policy? I can't think of one offhand... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That's indeed the problem one faces, you don't want a solution to thisn't issue that would also give cranks the opportunity to get in their version of "the truth" as well. We could perhaps change NPOV to SPOV, i.e. giving far more weight to scientific assessments of an issue. In case of the Iran issue, that would mean giving far more weight to what legal experts, nuclear experts etc. have published in papers on this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I absolutely agree with count iblis on this issue. Wikipedia is becoming unreliable because much of even the so-called mainstream media is biased. In fact, it would be an understatement to say that mainstream media is biased. It is extremely biased would be more apt. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that the media parrots everything that comes out of the White House? Take for instance the ISIS stories online. The media would have you believe that only ISIS engages in sectarian murder, but the Iraqi government has done the same thing. Yet, how much coverage does it get when an U.S. ally does it? In order to boost neutrality we should give more leeway to alternative media. I leave it up to you Jimbo or any other knowledgeable wikipedian to alter our guideline pages. Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And the evidence that 'alternative media' is less biased than the mainstream can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Source analysis, particularly for recent/ongoing events, is a pretty specialized skill set. One which usually requires an area expert or a subject matter expert. Because of how Wikipedia is set up almost all of the results of source analysis are considered original research. This is as it should be because there is no way to vet the skill/knowledge of the editors who want to vet the sources.

Wikipedia is a place where we document what the reliable sources say. analysis is not and should not be done here. As these 'current events' fade into the past we the report other's analysis - people whose knowledge and credentials we can verify. The bias of the news/media is the bias of the encyclopedia because our job is to document not analyze. Jbh (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that source analysis is a specialized skill; it is, however, one which we must do. It is not our function to regurgitate errors made by the mainstream media echo chamber, it is to determine what is objectively true and to present that information in a fair and temperate manner. Unfortunately, controversial topics are frequently populated by content warriors attempting to spin reality to advance political ends, and therein lies the rub. But the abandoned doctrine of "verifiability-not-truth" is best left in the dustbin. Carrite (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For an excellent example of what I am saying in practice, see for example the way that "reliable sources" are handled by those tending the medical articles. It's not beneficial to recycle garbage churned out by the hacks of the press; even scientific studies are handled gingerly. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If the standards laid out in WP:MEDRS were replicated elsewhere, I'm sure we'd have a more reliable encyclopaedia - but a much smaller one. And somehow I doubt that the WMF would be particularly keen on that, since 'anyone can edit' seems currently to be more of a priority than 'an encyclopedia'. Ultimately, I think it comes down to the question as to who the project is for - readers, or editors? And lowest-common-denominator standards probably make for higher donations (or do they? does anyone know what percentage of contributions come from Wikipedia editors?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I would jump for joy if Wikipedia were limited to high quality academic sources and vetted quality media. If the Daily Mail and similar sensationalistic sources were not used. But who vets the media and what is their POV? If people looked into issues and understood the concept of national narrative, echo chambers and could tell what they are not being told etc. That is just not going to happen because once you try to write rules for source analysis you provide a venue for ever more drama. Proper source analysis goes far beyond NPOV. It means editors must examine and understand their own POV down to such basics as 'my government does not lie' and 'those people I hate might have a point from their perspective'. They would also need to discuss each other's POVs if a frank and open manner and be receptive to having their POV challenged directly by other editors. There would be no simple understandable, rules to fall back on - and most conflicts here seem to be about rules not principles. At best you would end up with SPORTSRS, POLITICSRS, INTERNATIONALRELATIONSRS, WARANDCONFLICTRS etc. each with #CURRENT and #HISTORICAL sections.

Specifying all these 'bestRS' might be possible if the Foundation engaged area experts to identify/specify/quantify the sources for a given area but understanding and applying those rules would place Wikipedia beyond the reach of 'anyone can edit'. That might not be bad, as articles become better they require more specialized knowledge but I do not see it happening. Jbh (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See The Infography.—Wavelength (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool site! Jbh (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for citing alternative media - there's nothing in WP:RS that says we can't, provided they have an editorial process. I realize de facto that PressTV or RT may get harsher treatment than a comparable British outlet, but that's not written into policy. Even within 'mainstream' sources, almost the first hit I got for bushehr centrifuges is [5], which seems to make this argument, but in reverse; they say explicitly that Iran's potential needs in these cases are to be ignored. It's not at all clear to me that you can't get the information across that you want to, under existing policy, without back-of-the-envelopes. Wnt (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is inaccurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it was always reality that's got it wrong". This has always been the case with Wikipedia, pretty much by design. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For those who don't recognise that quote: it comes from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by the late great Douglas Adams, describing the Guide itself. And instead of ~~wasting~~ spending time here editing Wikipedia I strongly recommend you to get hold of a copy in print or audio (originally written as a radio series) and sit back and relax with a real treat! Then come back, refreshed, to carry on building this encyclopedia. PamD 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the phrase "Mostly Harmless" gave some of us our first look at deletionists... Wnt (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The last time we trusted the mainstream media we got the Iraq war based on a now disproven theory of WMD's. Now the warhawks want to meddle us into another conflict this time with the 17th largest country in the world. We can start by creating a Wikipedia:List of fearmongering sensationalists in order to discredit these BS warhawks. I'm getting sick of these endless wars. Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The "last time we trusted the mainstream media we got the Iraq war"? Seriously? Trusting reliable sources happens on daily basis on Wikipedia. Every minute of the day I imagine that some editor is providing a reference to one article or another from mainstream media. Wikipedia writes for the long haul, not for the moment. When the WMD argument was disproven, I'm sure that the relevant Wikipedia articles were changed to reflect this understanding. There is no version of an article that is set in stone. As better, more accurate information becomes available (which is usually after some time after the event has passed), this is reflected in the article and its references. I'm sure if you could come up with a better system, that is easily defined and followed by editors with varying levels of language ability and education, I'm sure you could make a proposal at the Village Pump and it would get reviewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We could avoid publishing anything less than "some time" old. Say, not including anything less than one month and not discredited thus far, would avoid lots of drama. After all, we shouldn't be the "battleground newspaper" which we (too) often are (news & opinion), but an encyclopedia (timeless facts). Except for the "obviously factual facts". Yeah. Will never happen, but would avoid a lot of ficghting and confusion... - Nabla (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While WP:CIR, the policy has to be clear enough that a high school student can understand and follow the guidelines. It should be consistent enough that Editor A and Editor B would come to the same decision regarding the source (and go to WP:RSN if there is a debate about it). Most of the proposals I've seen are complicated and nuanced and therefore are subjective which is to be avoided in policy matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Iran has not invaded another country in 200 years. And yet U.S. opinion polls view Iran as a threat - [6]. What explains that? Is it the media? Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There probably is need for a free multilingual encyclopedia with extremely reliable sourcing and review by experts. Citizendium failed at this because its cumbersome procedures could not attract the right experts. Another effort might do better than that project did in 2007, but, unlike Wikipedia, it will take the more conventional publication form of top-down control by paid editors. Given the surplus in the WMF budget, perhaps this could be a parallel project--or funding for an independent split--a deliberate split to give the chance to start over.

But the first step is the realization that we should not destroy what we have, and should continue writing the existing Wikipedia by the existing methods, which have in ten years basically transformed information access in the world. What we have works; other projects could work differently and do different things, but they could not do the things we do much better. Our major ongoing difficulty may prove to be our lack of competition. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@ DGG: I would say that our major difficulty is that growing quantity of the English Wikipedia data becomes rapidly unmanageable by the handful of volunteers operating with varied competence and expertise ... and what is worse, I can see that this trend goes hand in hand with the growing (and often blind) trust to Wikipedia by the outside world, the mainstream media etc. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Vejvančický (talk · contribs), That's exactly my point. The current WP can not greatly increase in accuracy precisely because it must also be accessible to open editing by editors with our a wide range of contributors. greatly in accuracy. But the value of open editing is more fundamental to our project than the specific development of content--because our project is a model for the development of other aspects of free culture--a broader and even revolutionary goal that we should not compromise.

It was never actually intended at the start (or at least not realistically intended) that we would be more than a convenient summary without authority. That people use us for more than this, and think we're reliable, was not planned for. I do not think we really accommodate this need art a consistent level. It will take a different project. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I take your point, but it looks strange when you say that Wikipedia was not planned as a reliable project. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The folks here who like to get to the bottom of things might be interested in Houthis. In the Western media this group generally seems to be portrayed as a radical Shia sect that is trying to spread across all Yemen, even though much of the enclave it controls is Sunni and the area it controls bears a suspicious resemblance to North Yemen, and its founder Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi apparently got in trouble with the central government for advocating South Yemen separatism (the two were joined in 1990). Yet media reports talk about their capture of one of the last regions in North Yemen they don't control as a "strategic city" on the path to Aden (the old capital of the southern part). [7] Now I don't know much about this topic, and am certainly in no position to do original research, but I imagine some folks here could make interesting finds in the existing sources. Are the Houthis sectarian, or nationalist? Are they less than half done taking over Yemen, or nearly successful in establishing northern independence? Are they able to govern some of the heavily Sunni regions in their existing territory? I feel like sooner or later Americans are going to get involved somehow in this fight, which is scary since I don't know a damn thing about it and 99.9% of voters probably know less than I do. Wnt (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that the media is Islamophobic? Kuwii hinugu yiri (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not see where you get that from. Wnt seems to be saying that there is a lot of complexity to the situation in Yemen. There are sectarian and tribal issues that go beyond the simplistic narrative provided by much of US main stream media. That observation can be generalized to most, if not all, of the current conflicts in the world. Jbh (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kuwii hinugu yiri: That wasn't really my point, though it's possible; I don't claim to be entirely above a bit of Islamophobia myself. It's pretty common, really - if you ever wanted to measure, you could see if any of your local supermarkets failed to isolate their PA systems from outside telephone lines during that wave of pranks a few years back... if one slipped up, you could try saying "Allah u akbar" a few times in that deep throaty voice over the intercom, and measure quite precisely how many people are Islamophobic and how many stay inside shopping like normal. :) Anyway, I generally believe we all have biases when writing articles; the question is whether we prioritize bias over what we can learn and share. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we not talk about personal ethnic bias? That is not a constructive avenue to pursue. And that's not what the original topic was about which was how reliable Western mainstream media sources are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

New essay

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I do not agree 100% with all the implications, it is a good read, and thank you, Collect. Shipwrights are more accepting of those who swear at the bad things in life and in the world, and at our mortal fate, than they are of those who swear hatefully at and about their co-workers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

For my many faults, swearing at co-workers is not chief among them. My chief fault - now and always - has been an unremitting belief that biographies of living persons should "do no harm" - the listing of the advert signers from Duke was a clear case to me. And I wish Gibbs (very arcane NCIS reference for everyone) good luck on his boat, as to all editors who seek to build ships which will sail straight and true. Or for another arcane reference - to those who build and sail Masefield's tall ships, and see WP:BLP as a "star to steer her by." Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with the do no harm issue. Of particular ugliness is when someone does not like, disagree with or has other non benign reasons for editing a BLP (or any bio for that matter) and argues non stop for inclusion of negative issues and has nothing else they add to the article. Such editors should be BLP banned and if they violate their ban, then be site banned immediately.--MONGO 16:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Me? I swear at co-workers and my team all the time. In the UK this is no big deal. We try not to be prudes. Guy (Help!) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the "do no harm" principle cited by Collect is not part of WP:BLP and was explicitly rejected years ago; see Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. He might have a happier time editing BLPs if he didn't have the wrong idea about how to do it in the first place. Prioryman (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I trust your comment about me personally was fully unintentional, indeed. Collect (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" is not (at least not in English) the same as "do no harm". But I'm probably not the right person to try to explain it to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See User:Collect/BLP - I feel strongly that seeking to do harm to any living person 9in any article is contrary to reason for any encyclopedia. How would you regard the actual examples given on that user space page? Collect (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between "seeking to do harm" and including negative but relevant/well-sourced encyclopedic information which might reflect negatively on an article subject. The former is categorically forbidden, while the latter is explicitly authorized by policy, at least in regard to public figures. You continually conflate the two situations, and you tend to regard any effort to explain the distinction as a personal attack—an unfortunate combination of behaviors which partially explains the soon-to-opened ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear that it is intent to do harm which is involved -- just as Hippocrates referred to "intent" - as all doctors do actually "inflict harm" at some point in their careers - it is the "intent" which is barred. For classicists - we should adhere to non-maleficence. I note you also seem to whish to make personal commentary about me, which I deem grossly non-utile - deal with the topic of maleficence and kindly do not try to attack me while doing so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you're echoing that distinction here. But in practice, you generally fail to distinguish between inappropriate intent to harm and appropriate, BLP-compliant coverage of negative material, and lump both together as "BLP violations". I can find an example right now, in a BLP/N thread that you started recently. The thread involves allegations which are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, yet you insist on characterizing them as a BLP violation. There are innumerable other examples of this failure to understand WP:WELLKNOWN and to distinguish such material from actual BLP violations. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean as in my horridly erroneous belief that List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush was violative of WP:SYNTH? I think the AfD on it pretty much stated my position was widely held. (The closer stated The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK.) Sorry - I find your commentary here not to be strongly related to the essay, and possibly more intended to make a point about me personally. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but that's quite different from your supposed "do no harm" principle. A BLP may legitimately convey information that is harmful to the subject's reputation - e.g. that they've been convicted of a crime, or have been the subject of a controversy. It's impossible to avoid this unless you deliberately set out to whitewash and skew articles so that they do not include so-called "harmful" information. As WP:HARM says, "doing no harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about all subjects, including living people." The kind of BLP fundamentalism that you apparently advocate has rightly been rejected by the Wikipedia community. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See User:Collect/BLP for examples of what I consider to be involved. It is willfully desiring to do harm, not the incidental "infliction of harm" from including critical facts about a person, which is what I refer to by "do no harm" - I trust you will concur that seeking to do harm is contrary to any encyclopedic purpose. YMMV. Collect (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Which ArbCom case is this about? Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. The permanent link to the current version in history is [8]. P.S. If you need such info ever again for anyone, try looking in their contribution list. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks! I thought it was about some old case but it's a brand new one, that's why I didn't check myself first. Count Iblis (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mild qualifier - a shipwright who drinks and swears so much that all their co-workers flee their company, won't be able to build much of a ship at all. But a fair point otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You haven't hung around construction dudes much, clearly... Carrite (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as shipbuilders would not throw wood at one another encyclopedia-writers should not throw words at one another. Constructive use of language is important. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WRT the charge that I erroneously stated some material about Rick Scott was violative of WP:BLP one should note that the offending material has been removed by others -- including material removed by MrX at [9], and HughD at [10] and that the current language in the BLP comports with the sources, while the original claim made: Members of Scott's administration directed employees of the state Department of Environmental Protection to avoid using the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in official communications, according to four former employees was relevant to that department, but the sources did not make any direct charges about Scott personally ordering anything (other than in one headline which was not supported by its article). In short, what I said was a BLP violation is no longer in that BLP. Glad to assist in remedying a substantial and certainly accidental misapprehension there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a good essay, an reflective of the first of the five pillars. That said, Wikipedia is also not written by one person. Contributors must work as part of a team, which requires social norms. Maintaining those social norms may sometimes come at the cost of losing contributors. We should be as accepting as possible when it comes to social norms, but some semblance of order must be maintained. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The material that I removed this morning was inserted this morning, three days after your post on BLP/N. I removed it because it inappropriately linked to copyrighted content, not because it violated BLP policy, which it doesn't. The content in question (last two paragraphs of the climate change section) is now substantially similar to how it looked three days ago when you opened the BLP/N discussion.- Mr X 20:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone here can see the changes - and the fact that we do not now assert at all that Scott ordered any ban. Which was the BLP issue if you care to read it. And I would note that I linked to your exact edit - the fact that others violated policies does not seem relevant to the essay which is what is being discussed - is it? (In March 2015, it was revealed that Scott has banned the state's Department of Environmental Protection from using the phrases "Climate Change," "Global Warming" or "Sustainability" in their literature was the claim which violated BLP, by the way) Thank you most kindly indeed. Collect (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Here is the version of the article at the time you opened the BLP/N discussion. Here is the exact wording:

In March, 2015, Scott denied that members of his administration directed employees of the state Department of Environmental Protection to avoid using the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in official communications. ¶ Although Scott denies banning the term "climate change" from official use by Florida state officials, there is evidence that a ban exists and there has been one recorded occurrence of a Florida state official having been reprimanded for use of the term. A longtime employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was reprimanded with suspension pending a mental health evaluation from his doctor to verify his “fitness for duty” reportedly after having used the term in the course of his official duties.

Perhaps you would point out where the violating words are in this version, or in the version that you reverted before opening the BLP/N thread.- Mr X 21:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you will read the damn versions which were provided - and I assure you that using Wikipedia's voice to assert a "fact" which the sources do not support is, in fact, a BLP violation -- just as I noted. I note that you are the "official complainant" at ArbCom - and I note also that your position on BLPs is exceedingly labile, while mine is the same for Kim Jong-un or anyone else. [11] has you removing sourced non-contentious material with the edit summary: ‎Mozilla: Removed poorly-sourced content and unsupported claims per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:BLPSPS. Reliable, independent sources are need for BLP claims.

Noting here the "bad sources" included Whatwg.org used as a source for Whatwg.org (proper use of SPS), an arstechnica.com (Conde Nast publication and well-known RS) cite for him working on TraceMonkey, and claims made about his work from his own site but which are trivially sourced. And removed them all as a BLP violation, or "unsupported" which was clearly inaccurate on your part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What don't we all drop this conversation and save the energy for the arbCom case? It will be all litigate there, evidence, rebuttals, and the rest of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Only issue is that I shall present no evidence whatsoever there. I have made some requests that all my essays be examined (as the complainant asserted they were improper), that all involved be CUed (noting the very recent SPI case filed specifically against me), that the exact circumstances of all my blocks be examined (as one person asserted that anyone with that many blocks is automatically a behavioural problem), that the colloquy on my user talk page be examined, especially with regard to harassment, as well as such material as I had emailed to arbitrators some time back (noting that I have, indeed, been successfully harassed from anything remotely connected to politics and BLPs though I did remove violations from Group of 88 as a result of the recent AfD on another article, etc. and a major edit saying Rick Santorum plays fantasy sports (woo-hoo) as trivia, since reinserted so we can expect tons of trivia in BLPs this year.) Else - I truly doubt Moby-Dick is an area of much contention. Have fun. Collect (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia still had as many editors as it did in 2006, it would be easier to protect BLPs from established WP editors and admins with political/cultural agendas (such as fighting against alternative medicine) who use BLPs to unfairly malign people. But, since most, if not all, of the editors who were truly trying to build a neutral 'pedia have long since departed, you get the situation that we have here with partisan editors trying to argue why their interpretation of WP's vague policies is the correct one. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "vague" about our policies. Maybe mis-interpretation and mis-application (and I am sure Collect does what he does in good faith) , but nonetheless, these mis-applications need to be addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

query about a notable organization article

Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has just been started - alas it appears to be Coatrack from the Rick Scott article with its current content and sourcing. I find no sign that the organization is generally notable, but the author is the one who filed the ArbCom case against me - so I dare not touch this one. If the organization is notable, I would like to know. Right now its "claim to fame" is its allegation that Florida employees are officially barred for saying "climate change." Including a claim that since Scott does not answer questions about the "ban" that this s somehow "notable" in itself.

I have now been quite successfully harassed from anything remotely connected to politics or BLPs on Wikipedia by the many complaints and noticeboard posts, and even a "proposal" on my UT page that we declare Florida officially a "fringe state" filled with "fringe politicians" with "fringe ideas" which I find a clear case of harassment, alas. In any event, I will not touch this "organization" but think the views of others on its inherent notability may be worthwhile. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What? Making an entire state subject to WP:FRINGE? I mean, Florida might be an epicentre of bullshit, but WTF? Guy (Help!) 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The context was, to my reading I was part of the Wolin discussion, a hyperbolic comment about the use of analogies in a discussion about whether Sheldon Wolin and his concept of Inverted Totalitarianism were FRINGE. Here is a diff [12] of the exchange between Viriditas and Collect leading up to that comment. Jbh (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. It was an analogous joke based on Collect's use of similar leading questions in subject headings. As that lengthy, multi-thread discussion shows, Collect does not do well with analogies and metaphors, as he interprets them quite literally. This is one reason (of many), that I find it impossible to communicate with him. And notice, even after it was explained to him that this was a joke on three separate occasions, he is still insisting that it is a real and serious proposal. Clearly, there is more than just a simple reading comprehension problem at work here. He's been repeatedly informed it was a joke yet says above that this is a serious proposal. This is about as WP:IDHT as one can get. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the link leading to the complaint about your harassment of Collect, which was ongoing even after he asked you to stop, which you were doing while he was blocked and now you accuse him of reading comprehension issues, a personal attack.--MONGO 01:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I've never harassed Collect, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. You sure are fond of making baseless assertions over and over again sans evidence. Clearly, there is a reading comprehension problem at work; Collect has been informed of the joke and had the joke explained to him, and yet, he still insists it isn't a joke. If that's not a reading comprehenion problem, then it's IDHT compounded by a difficulty reading. I hope this is the last time I have to correct your errors. BTW, repeatedly accusing me of harassment is harassment. And these repeated appeals to Jimbo compound the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This fact that you were not harassing him is why numerous editors asked you to not harass him. I'm going to report them all for incompetence!--MONGO 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. I stopped posting on Collect's talk page before you ever filed a report and before anyone ever asked me to stop. No harassment ever took place. You seem to be fond of making false allegations over and over again. This is similar to saying "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" over and over again, even when there is no evidence. Where's the evidence of harassment? It doesn't exist. Collect said he felt harassed, and you filed a report. So you created the evidence, much like the rationale for the Iraq War. I hope the analogy works for you. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The evidence of harassment was not "created" by MONGO.

It is clear who was doing the harassing, and it was damn sure not I.

I posted See WP:HARASS and stop it now. Collect (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You posted Thanks, Cullen, but I'm not entirely serious (but I am raising points for discussion). Mostly, I'm trying to keep Collect occupied during his "vacation". Idle hands and all that.... :-) Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC) which damn sure looks like deliberate harassment form 93 million miles away. And more than six hours later.

I had not raised your blatant harassment here -- but when a person who is deliberately harassing another is successful, they damn sure should not claim a third party "created" the evidence.

You have been successful in driving me away from Wikipedia. You have been successful in making me feel threatened and intimidated, in taking actions intended to be "noticed by the target", and in seeking to make editing Wikipedia to be "unpleasant for the target."

So when you then attack MONGO as though he were the one at fault, I shall defend MONGO.

You can damn sure intimidate me and accuse me of lying and anything you damn well want, but attacking MONGO for "creating" this charge is one of the lowest forms of debate I have ever seen on Wikipedia - and I have been attacked by the best of them -- remember Ikip at his worst? He would never have sunk that far. I find your accusation against MONGO despicable and vile. And you can add that to your laundry list of charges over the years. Accusing other editors of "creating" evidence is, indeed despicable and I have no fear from you whatsoever.

Yes, you have successfully driven me off - but attacking others is not something I will stand idly by for. To all - cheers, and sail straight and true. Collect (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really have no idea what you are talking about. You appear to have misunderstood yet another comment. I have no idea what you could possibly mean when you say you have been "driven off", as it makes no sense. Our discussion occurred when you were blocked, so you could not edit. Frankly, I really have no desire to interact with you at all because it is impossible to understand you, but I keep getting pinged into these discussions. You misrepresented a comment I made in your initial post here. Why would you constantly bring me up if you thought I was harassing you? In such a situation, people avoid such harassers, they don't constantly refer to and invoke them. I really think you and MONGO are engaging in deliberate baiting and trolling so you can attack me when I respond to your misrepresentations. If you and others would just stop making wild claims and accusations about me, I'm sure we would have nothing to talk about. Enjoy your weekend. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Youre not suppose to tell anybody that I can create evidence! Only myself, Jimbo and a couple others are able to override everyone else's password and make posts using their usernames!--MONGO 13:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This matter is partially being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, I'm not sure what Wales can contribute to this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The article Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has recently been beefed up, and it now looks entirely legitimate. Maybe we should contact FCIR to investigate the personality conflict between editors, described above (surely FCIR would do a better job of it than ArbCom).Anythingyouwant (talk)

Unbelievable! Ten hours after asking Collect to stop talking about me up above, what does he do? He starts a new thread about me on his talk page but doesn't mention my name directly.[13] For all of his false claims of harassment, it really looks like Collect is the harasser. Can anyone think of a single instance where someone who is being harassed can't stop talking about the alleged harasser like this? I certainly can't. If someone harasses me, I make it very clear that I'm not interested in discussing with them. Yet, since the first day Collect made this false claim about me, he's done nothing but discuss and refer to me on a daily basis. I think it's clear that I'm the subject of harassment here, not Collect. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that fact that I shall post nothing whatever on the ArbCom pages? And I note that I specifically did not mention your name - so your umbrage may be a wee tad overstated - especially since you posted on my page six hours after being told quite clearly not to. I fear, alas, that you missed what I had thought was a quite clear statement on my page asking you to stop the harassment and you have now won that battle entirely. Your desire has been met. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You're still continuing this nonsense? 99.9% of the evidence submitted so far against you in the arbcom case has nothing to do with me or my comments on your talk page. Stop making false claims of harassment to distract others away from your bad behavior. I have not harassed you at any time. Now, stop talking about, stop referring to me, and stop mentioning me in passing without naming me. It is extremely unusual and uncommon for someone to do this if they think they are being harassed. It is expected that you stop interacting with your alleged harasser, not continue talking about them. It's very obvious at this point that you are purposefully creating a red herring to avoid scrutiny. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Accounts and watchlists

I have six questions (including one double question) about accounts and watchlists.

(1) How many accounts have been registered on English Wikipedia?
(2) How many accounts on English Wikipedia have no edits?
(3) How many editless accounts on English Wikipedia have watchlists?
(4) How many editless accounts on English Wikipedia have been accessed after they were registered?
(5) How many watchlists of editless accounts on English Wikipedia have been accessed?
(6) How frequently have watchlists of editless accounts on English Wikipedia been accessed (individually and collectively)?

—Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC) and 23:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Idle curiosity - why do you want to know? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to have a better understanding of (a) why people register accounts, and (b) who accesses watchlists.

—Wavelength (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wavelength, I'm pretty sure that the English Wikipedia doesn't collect this type of information, especially #5 and #6. You might have better luck going to the Wikimedia Research pages and see what data has been collected and whether you can adapt what aspects of Wikipedia have been studied by others to attempt to address some of your concerns. If nothing else, maybe you can make contact with someone who can help you out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to questions 2 and 4, remember one of the results of most editors having accounts that work across all Wikimedia wikis is that your account is activated on a wiki if you visit it whilst logged in. So an account on English Wikipedia with no edits could just be an editor on the Romanian wiki who occasionally looks at the English version of articles to see their choice of image. I know my account is "active" on many more wikis than I've edited on. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year

Hi Jimmy, the 2014 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year has been decided, and it is a fantastic photography of butterflies feeding on the tears of a turtle in Ecudaor. Would you like to join me in congratulating the photographer for their incredible photography, (credited as amalavida.tv - Dirección de Información Turística del Ministerio de Turismo del Ecuador) and also in thanking the uploader, Russavia, who secured the release of the winning image (and countless thousand others) under compatible free licences, and was so prolific in then uploading this quality content.

It would be a nice act of reconciliation if you would investigate how the WMF can again allow Russavia to resume uploading and editing at some point in the future. The nature of WMF's Global Ban (permanent, non means of appeal) is draconian and is the very antithesis of what the free content movement should be about, at the very least, I would hope you would recognise the contribution Russavia has made and would move to allow him to appeal the Global Ban in some form. Nick (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does the WMF need to "allow Russavia to resume uploading and editing"? It seems that he has not stopped uploading and editing. Right now there is a discussion about an account named "EcuadorPutas" which has uploaded hundreds of files just today. Every day there are discussions on Commons about Russavia's sockpuppets. Mr Muffler (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason for anybody to reconcile with Russavia - he's the worst troll who ever appeared on Wikipedia. Anything he does now anywhere on any Wikimedia project is sockpuppeting, further proving that he can't be bothered ever to follow any rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

He can obviously never be allowed back in. Count Iblis (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Russavia being Russavia — the name "EcuadorPutas" means "EcuadorWhores." And on cue there's good old Odder, Fae, Wnt, Abd and friends chiming in to defend our Australian friend and the principle that Commons Iz Not Cenzored, Maaaaaan.... News flash: SanFranBans have got no teeth if the communities don't support them. Trolls are treated well at Commons, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Precisely why should we allow malicious trolls to evade their blocks and bans? This dude had every chance years ago to conduct himself properly, and rejected every chance he was given, just to revel in trolling over and over again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Russavia was nothing but a troll who used Commons before, and, in my view, his ban was long overdue. The very fact that he's still socking shows that he has a complete disregard for our policies and if we let him edit again the same sort of behaviour will ensue. As much as that picture is nice, there were also pictures uploaded with the intention of disrupting Wikipedia.--5 albert square (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Among a great many productive contributions, Russavia may have been involved in a few provocative things, but many people feel he was within his rights on the only issues we think are associated with his ban. The problem is, if the WMF wants to ban people without explaining why, and for what we think is insufficient reason, then why should the community of volunteers, people who don't rate an explanation, take part in enforcing it? Wikipedia was supposed to be open, inclusive, everything on the record, and above all, uncensored, and such volunteer work is diametrically opposite to the reasons why people participate. The present objection to his username seems undermined by User:Pleclown's citation of [14]; in any case, he has not resorted to wholesale trolling in any normal sense - the worst you can really accuse him of is resisting unstated censorship criteria, which of course in every society is the most serious of all possible crimes, but not from the people's perspective. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"he has not resorted to wholesale trolling in any normal sense " ROFL - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia was supposed to be open, inclusive, everything on the record, and above all, uncensored", Wrong. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a platform for trolls who seem to think that intentionally offending people for no legitimate purpose is a political act. It isn't. It is nothing but the sort of egotistical attention-seeking behaviour that the rest of us grew out of by the time we started school. If people want to campaign against censorship, fine - do so where it actually matters, and where it is actually occurring. In places where real protests against real censorship have real consequences. Or would actually taking a meaningful risk rather than engaging in facile willy-waving be too much for these individuals? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is at the center of scores of controversies. Sometimes the good guys are out ahead: Jimmy Wales' recent lawsuit against the NSA. The SOPA protest. The PD-Art tag. Rorschach blots. Muhammad images - before Charlie Hebdo. French spies who want to re-classify their old nuke command bunker. Critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. Jihadist source links. Sometimes they seem to be behind: URAA files. "The Good Old Naughty Days." The Aaron Swartz memorial protest against mass surveillance. And, yes, the inimitable Pricasso, whose pen is mightier than the sword. But always Wikipedia is relevant, and when it stands against censorship, it matters. The principles that convince people to stand against censorship therefore also matter. What doesn't matter is "meaningful risk" - reason wants principles, not martyrs - which is not to say it doesn't exist. There is a great evil rising, the "Internet Referral Unit" with its (at least) pan-European mandate to suppress any political thought it dislikes; working hand in hand with the spies it seeks to be the sole arbiter of allowable thought. It is the companion of spies who think they are gods, warriors with neither uniform nor honor, machines that command men, defense companies who make themselves the root of all fears, and already it expects Wikipedia to take its orders. There is as much real war to be had here as anywhere in the world, and it won't be long now until that becomes too clear. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Trolling isn't in any shape or form whatsoever 'making a stand against censorship', though I have no doubt that it suits the infantile mentality of trolls to pretend otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. You don't make a stand against censorship by speaking, but by not censoring. Russavia did that on occasion as an admin; others from Commons did that for him; I just wish we were all on the same page there. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocking trolls who intentionally disrupt the encyclopaedia isn't censorship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Russavia is just another front in the "good content contributor, bad person" war, and Jimmy and the WMF have already made their positions well known on the subject. Don't expect anything to change here. KonveyorBelt 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space: "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[8] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks." Count Iblis (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender bias in Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject UO Weaving Women Into Wikipedia (a new WikiProject) "seeks to bring Oregon Ducks together to collaborate in working against gender bias on Wikipedia".
—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bias in news media

This article can help editors to avoid biased [ˈbīəst] news reports.

"Can You Trust the News Media?"

—Wavelength (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) and 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good list, but it's missing anything on groupthink. Bias is in terrible shape, and Media bias could use a look to see if it has everything on that list and groupthink too. EllenCT (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article includes a discussion of the Asch conformity experiments, which studied groupthink.

Young People Ask . . . Peer Pressure—Is It Really All That Powerful?

—Wavelength (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article includes a discussion of groupthink in relation to macroevolution.

"Is Evolution a Fact?": section "Evolution—Fact or Myth?"

—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it have anything to say about groupthink amongst the followers of a particular religion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have serious problem on the English Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo! As you can read on the headline, I have serious problem on the English Wikipedia? Are you ready to listen to my problems? I would be very thankful. 91.113.38.199 (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Old saying: don't ask if you can ask, just ask.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much that you will listen to my problems. I tried to contact a German administrator and I told him my problems in German because I live here in Austria and my English is not perfect. So I try to explain you my request but I can't promise if you will be able to understand my English but I try it... The thing is that it is allowed on the English Wikipedia to remove personal informations so that only admins or oversight can see these personal informations. Ok. The problem is that I made contributions with my old User:Morris Munroe to the articles of Osama bin Laden, Starmania (TV series) and Tulln an der Donau. Tulln an der Donau is the hometown where I live and it is totally unconfortable for me that my edit to this article can be seen by everyone of the whole world because I also made contributions to the talk page of the List of administrators where even more people on Wikipedia can see my hometown. That's really as unconfortable as I added my personal informations to the Wikipedia. Another problem is the thing that I made contributions about Osama bin Laden and my hometown and I'm really afraid that my hometown will happen something such as a terror attack because I made a contribution about Osama bin Laden too. After several requests to the Team of the English Wikipedia, these contributions have been marked or crossed out but not removed. I so much wish these contributions to be removed so that only the Oversight Team can see these removed contributions but the English Wikipedia team always tell me that this is against the GFDL License ( I don't know how to call this license...). Now my question is to you if you could solve my problems to hide the marked contributions from my User:Morris Munroe account so that no other user can see it anymore? This problem on the Wikipedia makes me feel so depressed for several years, since 2007 and it is very frustrating for me that my contributions will be saved for the rest of my whole life. Can you please find a solution to my problem that I feel happy and great again? You are the founder of the Wikipedia. Can you please help me? 91.113.38.199 (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the discussion we just had above, this is either an epic example of Streisand effect or a classic example of a troll. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: This is neither a Streisand-affect nor a troll! It's a serious request! Just mind your own business and stay away from other's business!! Thanks!

Oh, trust me, it is one or the other. Apologies for assuming the latter rather than the former. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales. I'd very appreciate that if you would help me with my request. Please don't listen to other users like Carrite what they say... 91.113.38.199 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to say I find this rather silly, as all of those edits were over eight years ago, seemed to be innocuous and were completely forgotten to history. Nobody was ever going to care - certainly nobody was going to attack your home town over some of the trivial changes you made to the Bin Laden article almost a decade ago. So bringing attention to it now is rather counter productive, but also equally unlikely to cause anyone with nefarious intent to care. That being said, the admins who have previously handled your requests are correct. We can't delete your contributions because that would violate the licensing Wikipedia uses. The only thing I can suggest is that you read Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. Assuming you can prove you are the person behind that old account, you can request that the old account name be changed to one of our random "vanished user" accounts, which will at least disassociate your name from the edits. Reso lute 18:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons, again...

Why are so many senior people on commons willing to take the side of a committed troll and globally locked user over the rest of the project? [15]

Hell might be other people (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I honestly wish I knew. It's been a mystery to me for a long time. The only time I've come across Russavia's images previously is when they've been uploaded to disrupt Wikipedia. I can only assume it's because he sometimes uploads nice images such as the one above.--5 albert square (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

He has uploaded lots of seriously wonderful images such as Commons:File:Ours nageant (Musée du quai Branly) (3034045389).jpg. I'm staying out of the debate because my head acknowledges that we shouldn't exempt people from other rules just because they do great work, but my heart is torn because of the great work he has done. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Why do people reward trolling by commenting on it rather than simply ignoring it? NE Ent 02:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reading that debate is chilling, as so many flout the WMF openly. I heard today that Guy Kawasaki has been appointed to the WMF board. Perhaps he will have the guts to clear out the vile rat's nest that infects the leadership at Wikimedia Commons. I speak as someone who has donated hundreds of photos there, and who continues to hope for radical reform there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope so. It's IRC channel has also been terrible lately. The sad thing is, most 'normal' people seem to just leave or stop participating in conversation, not willing to step into the drama. Russavia's behavior despises me. And there are a few others who are not far behind, mostly due to the way they choose to cheer him on. sad sad sad —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to see Russavia sock-puppeting, frankly it annoys me and I have asked him to stop. But at the same time, if all he's doing is uploading in scope freely-licensed photos I don't see a particular need to stop him. He's proven an ability to work round any ban imposed on him, is it really worth our time to play whack-a-mole if he's not actually being disruptive? The community on Commons has never endorsed such a ban, probably because no one has given a convincing explanation as to why he was banned to begin with. The site ban imposed is problematic on many levels: the lack of transparency, the lack of appeals process, the fact that not even the person who was banned knows why he was banned, and also for being so hideously inept that the process doesn't turn off email notifications. Let the Foundation impose an IP ban if they want, it's their ban, they can deal with the problems it caused. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends how one defines "disruptive," Matt. Russavia's latest sock is "EcuadorWhores" in Spanish... Do you find that disruptive? If not, why not? It now appears on 999 graphics files in the history as the uploader, easily seen by everyone who opens the file in Media Viewer. Commons is not censored, you say? Why, you yourself deleted my Commons User Page that said simply, "Fuck Commons. Love, Carrite from En-WP." Do you remember doing that, oh defender against disruption? Whoa, I guess Commons really is censored, isn't it? Thanks! What do you estimate my survival time would be, in minutes, if I started uploading encyclopedic, educational graphics to Commons as User:CommonsWhores??? The truth is that Commons administrators are scared shitless of the new SanFranBans being used against one of their own and are attempting to nullify them and render them impotent by ignoring them... Congratulations on your fine work, uh, preventing further disruption of Commons by doing that! Carrite (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite: You are right that your userpage comment shouldn't have been censored. As I recall, censoring Wikipedia user pages was one of the first steps down the slippery slope, and has helped to create a cold, pro forma, antisocial atmosphere. It's quite the departure when every other major site online wants people to put their whole lives into the company database. Besides, one should never dissuade an opponent from making a fool of himself. :) Every time anybody censors anything we're shooting holes in the bottom of the boat, and we're all in the same boat, and we can only bail so fast.

But as I explained in my "!vote", I was moved by the citation of [16], that Russavia was apparently uploading images from the "Marcha de las Putas", a real event. I understand that not every person shown who was uploaded was necessarily in on it, and you might argue it is a "bad username" for potentially affecting some bystander somewhere, but it's surely not a low-grade troll. You might call it a high-grade troll, but only if you think that calling attention to a social movement to push back against attitudes regarding sexual minorities is "trolling"; I think it can and should be taken seriously, and the content, or at least what of it is potentially useful, therefore should be preserved. Whether for you or Russavia, trolling has its place, because protest has its place. In hindsight it appears even the vandals have a valuable role to play, helping to patrol the admins and keep them out of mischief! In the days when unknown wags did things like code goatse.cx in HTML tables and make it the background for the main page, I don't recall nearly as much hostile contention within the community over ideological battles. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"Whether for you or Russavia, trolling has its place, because protest has its place." — On this we agree. Carrite (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Predictable escalation of a conflict about basically nothing that started about 2 years ago. We're now at this stage. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In replying to the Original post, what is the definition of a "troll"? Urban dictionary defines it as someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community. The WMF has locked/banned 8 users and only 2 of them are people i'd categorize as "not trolls". I'm aware of the reason for the ban of 7 of the 8 users on that list, and the odd one out if obviously Russavia. You asked why the commons community is taking his side, well there is one simple answer, he is the ONLY one banned by WMF without a valid reason and if you read my comment on the page you linked. Most of the users in the 'know-how' know the reason for the ban of the other 7 editors and we actually agree with all the bans, so going back to the topic since it seemed to have been derailed by the "trolls" above, he may be locked by the WMF, but he has been an invaluable member of the commonswiki. Heck, the 2014 "Picture of The Year" on wikimedia was uploaded by him and not to mention the current picture of the germanwings plane that crashed in the Alps on the Main Page, was sought after and uploaded by him even after he was globally banned by the very foundation he is helping, you asked why "many senior people on commons willing to take the side of a committed troll and globally locked user over the rest of the project?", because on commons (not sure how it works on enwiki anymore), we judge users by their contributions and their dedication to the project as a whole and not by some meaningless ill-thought-out global ban by the WMF which only brought Commonswiki down to its knees. As someone who works on commons and tries to upload great high quality images for use on not only this wiki but 700 odd other wikis on wikimedia, i see him as a valuable member of our community. Its not easy to get licensing rights for use of copyrighted images, I know, I have tried and failed many times but if we are just going to ban people like him and continue to tolerate the 1000+ others on SPI's then it makes us wonder, who exactly is a troll?...--Ste moc 04:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see "so many senior people on commons willing to take the side of a committed troll and globally locked user over the rest of the project." What I saw is exact opposite. Please check the user profiles of each users participated there instead of merely counting the numbers. And the lack of much participation is another sign that Commons is not much interested about such dramas. BTW, it will be nice if legal can clarify whether a banned users contributions/uploads are well under wmf:TOU. If yes; I will neglect them. Otherwise better NUKE all edits by a banned user along with blocking their socks. It is not a big thing to discuss much. J e e 09:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: What difference does it make if they are "well under TOU"? When we look at an image we should only be asking whether a) it furthers the educational mission and b) whether legal authorities hinder people from using it. I see little ideological difference between deleting images a "sock account" uploads because it violated the rules and deleting all the content that any account has uploaded after it is blocked/banned/locked/etc. just for spite. Before long you could be nuking half the files on the project, because Wikipedia has developed a bad habit of banning longtime contributors, simply because they have the most opportunities to get into a spat with somebody. Wnt (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We enjoy the safe harbor protection provided by DMCA. So only the "editor/uploader" is responsible for his mistakes as far as service provider and maintenance volunteers are not aware of it. Here I don't know whether a banned user is how much responsible for his "edits". Further, I don't know how much WMF can claim they are not aware of such edits as they already locked the sock accounts. IANAL; so better the legal answer to it. If everything is OK; I prefer not to touch any of their (banned users') uploads. J e e 11:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard of any serious copyright-based allegations against Russavia, though I'm sure with all his uploads there's the inevitable "that horizon is copyrighted!" "FOP" issue on occasion. Also, I'm not aware that any provider is required to assume that anyone will infringe copyright - so far as I know, DMCA notices are issued against files, not people. Also, locking an account and reviewing all its uploads for copyright issues are two very different things. So I really don't see what DMCA safe harbor possibly has to do with this. Also, I don't see what the legal difference is between a WMF employee locking the account and an Arbcom volunteer doing it; again it seems like you're very close to saying just delete anything any blocked user ever posted. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If the goal is to stop Russavia from creating sockpuppets then deleting all the socpuppet uploads makes sense. A mentally sane person will get frustrated and stop when they are not accomplishing anything. Mr Muffler (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of blocking him is that he is a troll, yet you believe that preventing legitimate use of his productive contributions (while adding to the workload and distress he causes admins) will frustrate him and make him go away. I think that this quite literally falls under the textbook definition of doublethink, a skill I admit I'm not very good at. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know if he is a troll but anyone can see that he is causing argument among users. If he stops trying to upload images the arguments stop. Any child can use the toolset to upload images from Flickr. Why let one user hold Commons hostage? Mr Muffler (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

He's not holding us hostage in any way shape or form. He's not threatening us, he isn't making us change our policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So your idea is that anyone who causes argument, block 'em? If a case is contentious, always throw out the user? "Not to be guilty when accused is disorderly, and being disorderly is a crime." A very modern attitude, no doubt, quite well established in regard to Guantanamo Bay, for example. But it's not what we're here for. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Suppose you told me "You are fine. But please don't come to my home anymore." Do I argue with you, "I'm fine. So why not I can come?" or "Hey; there are so many people and places where I'm not only fine; I'm wholeheartedly welcomed too. Then why not care him and his home." This is more a gentleman business than something that can be defined/restricted by rules. BTW, no other banned user want to sock. I don't know any of them personally. But as far as I know, Dcoetzee was a gentleman onwiki and we all admire his uploads related to Google Art Project which are much valuable than of the user in question's uploads. I didn't see a single sock of him so far.

The current situation is disturbing. If this continues, it will end up more than 365 socks in one year. I will not complain even if WMF take some extra ordinary measures to stop it, something like merely allowing a single sock to "upload only" rights :(. J e e — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: As you know, this is not a private home. The situation is closer to that found when somebody in a college administration throws out a beloved member of a fraternity for making him look bad, but the people who actually live there take little interest in helping to ensure that the persona non grata order is actually respected. Now it may be, as in the case of the fraternity, that in the end every single member must be convinced very conclusively that the building is not their home, and that a college (like an encyclopedia) is run by and represents the interests of one single person only, the one in charge. But that is an outcome with notable destructive consequences. Wnt (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how blocking an editor who has generally uploaded good images be of any benefit to the foundation..aren't we actually trying to get more editors involved in both enwiki and commons and banning/locking users willy-nilly without a justification will just deter them from joining. I personally do not like Russavia, and even he knows it but I have been around for over 8 years and I always value a user via their contribution and dedication to the project which russavia undoubtedly has and even though he is locked, he still helps out users like me on IRC and i value that...I would do the same for any other editor on any wikimedia project. As i said above, unless the WMF can clarify on the reason for banning a productive user who at that time was also an elected admin, I refuse to take their side. What if one of you get locked here by the WMF without any justification? It can happen to anyone. Transparency is all we ask for and I'm glad he hasn't gone mental yet and on a vandalism spree which happens to a lot of users who are banned with out a valid reason...--Ste moc 01:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm; I personally DO like Russavia, even though failed to tolerate with his behavior. I know nothing about the reason behind his initial ban; so can't comment on it. But I've plenty of reasons to believe he is eligible for a ban which includes my experience with him after that ban. I don't know how much transparency is possible. But I had handed over many evidences to the crats, admins in CU team and to IRC ops. I'm not a guy who post everything publicly in paste bin.

I still support a move like this. If a good standing volunteer like Nick can talk with WMF and acts like a mediator, he has my supports. I missed his early post in this page. There may be a possibility to allow an account with limited rights or so. But the first thing we expect from a person who is willing for a negotiation is to stop socking. J e e 03:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy

Op-ed: How my father's railroad image collection now benefits the world: the value of digitization

Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland of uncles, and some people with attitude

Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014

Traffic report: Oddly familiar

Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability; academic attitudes

Blog: The Wikipedia Library Team reflects on its new Visiting Scholars program

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Privacy - Let's not publish the IP address of non-logged-in editors

In this 10 March 2015 thread the point was made that Wikimedia should not publish the IP address of every non-logged-in editor.

In this 23 March 2015 Wikimedia Foundation "office hours" irc discussion (focussed on the NSA and the privacy of our readers and editors), the point was raised again:

[18:11:26] <Dragonfly6-7>: actually, how does this apply to the NSA's (and everyone's) total access to our database of every edit made by an IP user?
[18:14:44] <lilatretikov>: Dragonfly6-7 You are right, we are thinking about how to mask that. It is on the radar to address. Not ETA yet.
[18:15:02] <Philippe>: (Lila, you mean the historical edits by IP, right?0
[18:15:02] <lilatretikov>: Dragonfly6-7 as it is a community related issue as well. You would need to concur.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Simply open an account with a non-descript user name, disclose no personal information, and your IP address will not be disclosed, and your privacy will be protected. Problem solved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. I forgot to sign in. Would a watching admin or OS (or whoever does this kind of thing) please make my IP address disappear from the history of this page? Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Without the IP address, how would we know who was responsible for what edit? It would give the vandals a field day... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As I suggested in the linked thread, the IP address should be replaced by a unique identifier (unique to that IP address). Checkusers would be able to see IP address. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

One possibility is a cryptographic hash function.—Wavelength (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

An obvious consequence of that would be that it would be impossible to detect the most common form of IP-swapping (where only the last part of the IP changes) without having to request checkuser. Again, facilitating vandalism. There is also the fact that we require a public means of identifying the source of edits to satisfy copyright requirements. It is arguable whether IP alone actually does this, even now - making it entirely impossible to identify the source of unregistered edits would make a nonsense of the claim that anonymous contributors hold the copyright to their posts, since they would have no way whatsoever to prove that they made them. Frankly, I think that this thread is a classic case of missing the point: if the NSA wants to find out the IP's of anonymous contributors, it has the means to do so regardless of what is publicly visible - all hiding the IP will do is give a false sense of security. A more responsible course of action would be for the WMF to make it clear that regardless of what individual websites do, any action carried out by anyone via the internet is vulnerable to interception - both legal and illegal - and that contributors need to consider the potential consequences of posting accordingly. We aren't going to foil the spooks by hiding data they can easily obtain anyway, and we shouldn't be implying that we can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

We need more transparency and accountability in editing, not less. Cloaking IP addresses would be a big step backwards. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised people are still making that argument after Eggers destroyed it in The Circle, a fictional work that shows how in the very name of transparency and accountability, a society transforms itself into a totalitarian state. Cloaking IP addresses is a huge step forward. You don't need to see an IP or a real name to know who is shilling what and pushing a POV. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The practical argument I make about the real world of Wikipedia hasn't been "destroyed" by an obscure piece of antiutopian fiction. It seems goofy for me to even have to say as much. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the merits in both arguments, and so it makes me wonder if there isn't possibly a "third way" that solves all the problems. First let me lay out the two main principles that I think we all agree upon, the problem being that the principles are "in tension" with each other:

Improving user privacy by hiding IP addresses would be beneficial, particularly since geolocation is easy and good these days and an ip reveals.
but ip addresses provide a crucial form of minimal pseudo-identity that we find, as a practical matter, very useful - we'd like to not use that.

Key to that second point is that it is (moderately) hard to change one's ip address, and often the only means to change leaves one with a "nearby" ip address: x.x.x.123 becomes x.x.x.214 for example, which is enough to give us key information that we find useful

Some potential "middle ground" solutions:

Is there a way to "hash" the IPs that preserves the property of "closeness"? I think it deserves some thought. For example, we could hash the first 3 numbers and leave the last digit in the clear. This would give significant locational privacy (since just the last digit is pretty useless for identifying someone) while still preserving what I think is the core value.
Should we change the user flow at logged-out-editing to more firmly encourage logging in? This would require the Foundation to do some A/B testing, but I would imagine that if done well, it could increase overall retention rate, etc. (At Wikia, experience across wikis with different policies suggests that forcing login has beneficial effects.)

My overall point here is that I think we all agree on the goals: privacy good, identifying bad actors good. So "hide IP" or "not hide IP" may be too narrow a way to look at the question - perhaps we can (imperfectly) improve both.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any cryptographic hash function that can't be cracked. Hiding IPs may inconvenience us considerably without ensuring privacy. Jehochman ^Talk 10:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of lapsing into hyperbole, "Internet privacy" is an oxymoron. The structure of the Internet makes privacy effectively unachievable. Sure we could replace the display of an IP address with a generated hash. We could even replace each IP address with a random account name (so all edits from 83.12.156.32 appear as "Guest Editor Number 12345678") so that we maintain the link between one IP and all its edits but let's not kid ourselves that this ensures privacy. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are both making a common error - perfect privacy isn't possible, but improvements in privacy are very much possible. No encryption is truly "uncrackable" of course - but it can be good enough to deter virtually every reasonably likely attack vector, no? QuiteUnusual's is one example of something that could only be cracked by stealing our database - that's very possible, even our database of encrypted passwords could be stolen - but it's a hell of a lot better than publishing ip addresses in the clear.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny we can make it better, which is why I gave an example, but what I really meant was we cannot guarantee anybody's privacy (and therefore shouldn't pretend we can) because privacy on the Internet requires significant effort from the individual to avoid technical and behavioural pitfalls and even then is still vulnerable. This includes the obvious like avoiding social engineering (phising, spearphising, etc.), malware of all kinds, server side attacks (e.g., man-in-the-middle) but also the less obvious but equally exploitable. These exploits may require government level skills and funding, but tracking an individual down is not overly taxing. People use the same username on multiple sites; they write the same text in different places (e.g., on Twitter, on another forum, on a blog). Even for you and me with Google it is often dead easy to link an IP editor here to content elsewhere on the Internet because of the reuse of common phrases. Identifying these patterns is a trivial activity for anybody with a big data analytics capability. In combination, the technical and behavioural challenges of avoiding being traced are huge. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was once involved in a long-standing dispute that was rekindled by an IP (I forget the topic), and the IP pursued the issue vigorously at an admin noticeboard. One of the issues must have been related to whether the IP was a good-faith editor or a sock of one of the many topic-banned users. The IP was undone when another IP posted an explanation that the first IP was from a VPN service that hid the location of the user, and the second IP posted various links to confirm their statement. In other words, it was the fact that the first IP's address was visible on a noticeboard which allowed someone in-the-know to reveal that the user behind the IP was paying to use a VPN service to hide their location, when that user claimed to be a good-faith user from the location shown by geo-locating the IP, and not a sock of a banned user known to be from another continent. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This one is a bit tougher than it looks. Certainly User:AndyTheGrump's argument about false security from the NSA is wrong, because that would imply we ought to post IP addresses of logged-in users. It should be clear that we want to allow the logged-in user a measure of privacy, and it is at least conceivable we could give the NSA a headache with sufficiently well-padded encrypted code (though if they don't have instant backdoor access I'd be stunned). More to the point, there's the issue that the NSA and friends continue to pretend they're never really going to use its database to harass, prosecute or otherwise attack random civilians in friendly countries, which hampers at least any short-term use of the data against editors. By contrast, the random MPs, cops, corrections officers, and corporate employees who get caught up in teapot tempests over their silly editing... they're not facing the NSA, but some usually internal investigative process. Then there are people like some Kashmir/Jammu editors who saw a TV broadcast that Syed Ali Shah Geelani was dead, indicated that on Wikipedia, and then were threatened with some kind of consequence, not necessarily "legal" in nature, for doing so. The NSA wouldn't have given them that data, but there might be local spies of some sort who would do as much.

What deeply bothers me about "hashing" IP addresses is that it reifies absolute core bedrock principles of the surveillance society, namely (1) Thou Shalt Never Actually Make It Harder To Track Somebody, and (2) Only The Elite Shall Be Allowed To Do The Spying. It's clear that a lot of NSA wannabes take great pleasure going through Wikipedia IP edits and trying to embarrass some entity they can be linked with. It's hard not to feel like it's a bad thing, but is purifying the monopoly, making it clearer to ordinary people that spying is always done to you, never by you ... is that really something we should welcome?

On the other hand, we really don't want our editors harmed, and they ought to have more control over privacy.

A truer, fairer way to do this is not merely to "hash" the IP data, but to find a pair of big iron cojones and actually delete a portion of the IP data outright. I understand the administrative arguments for keeping track, but ... IPs can jump from one address to the other anyway. The last part of the address can change readily. So would it really hurt vandal-fighting operations that much if we never recorded what the last number was, and chopped out a few bits from the first three numbers, until the address on record was the same for a few tens of thousands of possible computers? We'd have to abandon the use of individual IP blocks, of course; we'd need to have more people checking potentially bad edits from known problematic shortened-IPs instead. My feeling is that the vandal fighters nowadays are vastly more efficient than in the past and that this wouldn't be beyond their capabilities. Also, the IP data would have to be shortened on every single record kept on every single machine - even one notation of the full IP and governments would be parading through your offices threatening to take all your records unless you give them total access without making them ask for a warrant.

But if we don't do that, I'm having a hard time seeing clear to accepting a proposal that would set up yet another difference in power between the People In Charge and the Mere Editors on Wikipedia. Not just because the NYPD is embarrassed, or whoever it is. We keep seeing this gap growing between the information haves and have-nots, between the people who are supposed to discuss and decide everything in private and the people who just see gray lines in the edit history. That's a cancer that already seems out of control. Wnt (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The more basic solution is simply to make registration mandatory, as I am not sure if masking the only means of identification we have for non logged-in users would satisfy the licensing requirements. Honestly though, if you care about your privacy in that regard, register an account. Reso lute 14:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who edits while logged out sees MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, which looks like this:

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 user name, among other benefits.

This also - correctly - advises a person to create a named user account if they consider this to be a problem. I think that the current system is broadly OK, as governments already have all the tools they need to monitor a person's use of the web.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a start. Here's my preferred wording... "You are not logged in... Would you like to start editing Wikipedia? It's easy to register an account at the following link..." Carrite (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how IP has anything to do with "licensing requirements". Attribution to an IP isn't much of an attribution, and the CC wording allows for any degree of anonymity. What's the difference between saying "since you didn't specify a username your edit will be attributed to [your-IP]" and "since you didn't specify a username your edit will be attributed to [your-shortened-IP]"? Wnt (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that it doesn't identify you with anything that can be externally connected with anything at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between connecting a user with a shared IP that might be anybody at the cable company and connecting him with a shared shortened-IP that might be anybody at a number of cable companies? You sound as if you forget the CC license is supposed to be protecting the writer - it doesn't actually have provisions written into it demanding that someone looking to subpoena or prosecute him be able to do it, when nobody else can. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The CC license is there to protect the copyright of the contributor - it has precisely nothing to do with protecting their identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Which means it has nothing to do with exposing it. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some situations where knowing anonymous editor's IP addresses are a clear benefit to protecting Wikipedia. Tracking abusive behavior by IP-hopping anonymous editors is commonplace - not just in situations where the IP addresses are similar, but where very different IP addresses can be associated with the same local ISP or geolocated to identical places. There are also situations where clear COI edits have been identified because, for example, a company's IP address was used to whitewash the company's Wikipedia page or where Senate Office IPs were used to make edits to senators' biographies. We offer anonymity/privacy for those who wish to make use of it by registering for an account. It's there for those who want it, so why go out of our way, and to our detriment, to impose it on those who don't care? Deli nk (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If an IP address was masked in the public logs, it would become difficult to track routine IP vandalism without a checkuser request. It is important to keep track of which IP address made which edit. The only other option would be to make registration compulsory, which is a separate debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: Do you think it would be much harder for you to track an IP doing routine vandalism if we removed the last number of the IP and, say, the 5th and 8th bits of each of the first three numbers? (i.e. logical OR with 9.9.9.255) Wnt (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends, as some of the suggestions here would make it hard to track IP vandals. I still believe that the current system is workable, as anyone concerned about privacy can and should register an account.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If the publication of IP addresses is really all so scary, the fix is obvious: make it so everyone must register an account. Of course, many or most of the casual vandals wouldn't bother to do that and would go away... Carrite (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very unusual in allowing non-logged in edits. The vast majority of newspaper comment sections, forums etc require a user account to be created, which takes only a few seconds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Schools are responsible for a lot of our vandalism, and after a certain point they often receive long blocks. We can only identify schools through their IP addresses. We are forbidden to block certain IP addresses, at least not without notifying the WMF, because they fall into certain sensitive categories, eg government, the Foundation, etc. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Jimmy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Requiring people to log in may be a viable discussion, but I'd like to put a damper on the hash proposals. There's a poor cost / genuine_benefit relationship if there's a real risk of some motivated geek to single-handledly break the system, offering a public the hash->IP converter. A large hash-salt would be difficult to brute force break, but there's no need to brute force attack the back door when the front door is wide open. The Wikipedia server itself allows for an Oracle attack by converting IP addresses into hashes, letting you build a hash->IP dictionary. We would most likely be hashing only the first three bytes of the address (so we can follow an IP hopping 123.45.67.XXX addresses). Hashing a three byte value only gives you 16 million possible hash results. However I'd bet that over 90% of our edits come from less than a hundred thousand internet address blocks. Compiling modest size hash dictionary would obliterate any hash protection. Alsee (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

You made some pretty bold claims here in response to a BLP's request for help, suggesting that Ronz was engaging in tenuous editing. I've spent quite a bit of time on the page since then after seeing it on your Talk page. From what I can tell, the page containing a substantial amount of critical material was actually representative of the total body of literature and therefore NPOV.

For example, in-depth profiles in Inc. Magazine and The Seattle Times focus mostly on allegations of lying to investors, cheating employees out of stock options, etc., whereas no sources of similar quality have been identified to suggest he is notable for other, most positive acheivements. It is a bit more balanced now though - focusing both on the rise and fall of InfoSpace.

If you have counter-arguments supported by sources, they would be welcomed. The accusation of tenuous editing wasn't very specific and it's not clear what in the actual article you felt was unfair to the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 04:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I'll review next week and respond with specifics - or apologize to Ronz. My past experience is that he's worked very hard to fight against positive statements and very hard to dig up negative statements.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I don't know anything about the history between you two, but he's been reasonable as far as I can tell and not OWNed the page at all, even as I completely re-wrote it. Meanwhile, the COI that solicited you for input has been blocked repeatedly for edit-warring, says there's consensus for edits that have not even been discussed and keeps providing conflicting narratives as to the nature of their COI.

I think a topic-ban of the COI is more likely than one for Ronz.

I had a similar reaction of assuming the article-subject was treated unfairly, but came to a different conclusion after investigating the sources. It's possible Ronz just focuses on BLPs with a contentious reputation. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 18:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever unblocked anyone that's been indefinitely blocked?

I was wondering if at any point in Wikipedia's history Mr. Wales has ever unblocked or unbanned someone akin to a presidential pardon. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

For the technical acts of unblocking, you can view Jimbo's blocking log just like anyone else. I'll leave it to other to go over non-technical details of your question. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I should have clarified in the title; hope you don't mind a quick correction, but I was wondering specifically about sock puppets of banned users who are indefinitely blocked. An indefinite block seems sort of like saying that someone is completely beyond redemption regardless of anything they might ever do to make up for it. Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It depends on why they are blocked and how much they are willing to grovel to come back. Indefinite doesn't necessarily mean forever, but once someone is indeffed, they may as well just create a new persona because they are marked for life in Wikipedia. As for the direct question, Jimbo has blocked and unblocked people in the past but he isn't really involved in the project anymore so its unlikely he would do it now. He technically has the ability, but its mostly in spirit only. Other than leaving a few comments he has mostly stopped supporting this project and has moved on with his life as all editors do eventually. So although a very small few indefinitely banned/blocked users do come back, they are never the same because they will always be viewed as having been indeffed and its best to just create a new persona. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

He supposedly has that authority, and claims it, but I don't see in that blocking/unblocking log where he was ever brave enough to test it. I WP:CLEANSTARTed for privacy and was falsely blocked as a sock. Jimbo assured me twice via emails he would help me if I confided him the prior account. I was starstruck and did so. After that he ignored me. He finally told me, after I tried and tried over a month and an half to get an answer, that now I had to tell Arbcom, which is known for threatening Kumioko's employment and the psychotic Anvil Email and subsequent destruction of Poetlister's career. I agree with Eric Corbett's assessment of Jimmy Wales, which has appeared at this page. Colton Cosmic.

It should also be clarified that Jimbo also advocated threats against Kumioko as well because Kumioko refused to accept what they felt was an unfair and abusive block. In fact the community also determined the block was unfair and manipulative of process and Kumioko remains blocked only because admins he has criticized continue to find reasons to justify continuing the block eventhough the community stated for the block to be overturned in February. I personally haven't seen Jimbo do or say anything in years that makes me think they even care about this project anymore outside allowing their talkpage to be used as a community forum. Personally if Jimbo is going to maintain that he can be contacted to overturn a case then he should do it at least occasionally. Otherwise he should remove himself from the process and turn in his admin tools so people will quite telling people to contact Jimbo. If he is afraid of the community or making a decision then he is of no use to the project IMO and should just go and spend time with his family. Jimbo has been and could continue to be a great asset to the project, but if he doesn't want to participate, then he should just stop acting like he is a part of the process. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A report on economic growth and goals for you and your editors!

Ad-hoc Working Paper Series Group

Hi! You have been awarded this "Literature review on fundamental concepts and definitions, objectives and policy goals as well as instruments relevant for socio-ecological transition". There will be a take-home, open-book test administered in the form of reality. I suggest reviewing pp. 55-58, in particular the first sentence of the paragraph citing Baumol (2007) at the bottom of page 55, and consider a transition from means-tested benefits which remove incentive to work more than universal basic income, universal health care, and housing first assistance which would not be lost if the recipient finds a job, unlike typical welfare which is lost upon employment. The rapidly declining cost of energy is likely to offset what would otherwise be inflationary effects. EllenCT (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

February En-WP volunteer numbers stable

The February 2015 numbers are up at the usual place. As happens every year, the count of Very Active Editors (100+) in the 28-day month of February has tailed off from the 31-day month of January — this time by 7.9%, with the total for the month sitting at 3062.

The meaningful comparison — to the same month of the previous year — shows an increase of 95 people (3.2%). The February 2015 total is almost exactly the same as the count in February 2013. Put simply: the number of core volunteers at English Wikipedia continues a three year trend of stability, following five or six years of steady decline.

The other key metric, New Articles per Day, shows the same sort of decline we saw in January, with an average of 880 per day — down 9.9% from the previous year. My theory is that the increasingly backlogged and dysfunctional Articles for Creation system continues to kill a significant percentage of starts in the crib.

Nothing to fret about… Carrite (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to be careful about that "decline" figure as it is based on raw edit figures. Since 2009 our edit filters have prevented more and more vandalism from going live as edits, so the 2009 - 2012 raw edit figures omitted an increasing amount of the vandalism that would otherwise now occur and with it many of our 5 edit newbies, but we also "lost" the associated vandalism reversions, warnings and block messages and many of those would have been done by active editors. I suspect that some of the drop in raw edits from 2007-2009 was because of cluebot and hugglers reverting, warning and blocking vandals more quickly, it still usually takes 5 vandalisms to get a block but some people were doing far more than that in the past. We have no reliable measure of the number of volunteer hours going into the project, and several of the measures of community health that we have are deeply flawed. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago the Articles for Creation backlog was drifting up and down between about 1500 and 3000 items in the backlog, and had been doing this for more than a year. That meant large numbers of submissions waiting well over a month for a review. But, for the last month or two, it has instead been drifting up and down between about 350 and 750 items in the backlog, with, as of right now, all submissions waiting less than two weeks and most waiting less than a week. So I don't think "increasingly backlogged" is an accurate description. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That is interesting, good to hear the backlog has lessened. It does logically follow that Articles For Creation acts as a damper on the total number of new starts by rejecting or discouraging a significant percentage though, yes? When did AFC go live for the first time? Carrite (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

One could also argue that it logically follows that, in a world without Articles for Creation, a significant percentage of new starts would be discouraged by being speedily deleted without any discussion, advice, or opportunities to improve them first.

The date and time to look at is apparently 19:00 UTC on 5 December 2005. That's when the WMF turned off the ability for unregistered editors to create new articles. Articles for Creation came along later, in an attempt to provide an alternative route for those editors.

There are certainly Drafts that never reach mainspace because they are rejected at Articles for Creation, but, based on my experience of seeing over ten thousand Drafts, I believe that the majority of these are not the sort of thing we want in the encyclopedia anyway. This is why most of those with experience of the process had difficulty accepting the findings of the WMF's own research into this... their criterion for whether an article was good quality or not, was simply whether it got deleted or not. And we all know that there are many, many very bad quality articles in the encyclopedia that happen not to have been deleted yet. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

[Yikes! The infanticide metaphor used above really gives pause. Howabout substituting some alternative language that promotes a safe and legal atmosphere for volunteers?] --Djembayz (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Awww, I don't think anyone is gonna be motivated to illegal real world action by an aggressive metaphor. Real life is not a friendly space, after all... Carrite (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. You're the one that provided a wikilink to infanticide for a figure of speech... Yikes! Carrite (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A desperate scream from outside of the echo chamber

"The main source of [Wikipedia's decline] is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today...operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." - The Decline of Wikipedia.

Is anything seriously being done about this by **you** today Mr. Wales? Any widespread structural change initiatives?

Everyday there are more warnings to change. Namecheapblues (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Namecheapblues: You realize that report is from 2013 and was discussed here and on other pages, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about what NCB feels should be done about the "loose collective" which operates a "crushing bureaucracy" with an "often abrasive atmosphere." One would thing that someone with a 99%er user box on their page would be in love with the "loose collective" part and not seeking to impose some sort of military or corporate command structure based in San Francisco as a cure for what ails us. So, what in particular do you think needs to be changed to streamline our "crushing bureaucracy?" And how exactly is JW in a position to advance such a program? Carrite (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- A big step in the right direction would be disbanding the Admins. Make all ArbCom cases evidence based. And repeal the absurd rule that "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator".MOMENTO (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Exactly right - if the direction is anarchy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    - This is a structural problem that starts at the top. Disbanding the admins and arbcom still keeps the board (who Mr. Wales is a prominent member) in control. I am just interested in what Mr. Wales personally is doing to address this. I have texted some of the other members of the board the same question. Do you think an actual old fashioned letter may get a better response? Namecheapblues (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      - You truly have no clue what admins do around here. You'd have better luck getting people to listen to you if you showed some understanding of how Wikipedia actually worked instead of deriving your views from "Wikipedia is dying!" articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      - You're welcome to send any letter you want, in any format you want, to whoever you want. But if it's going to start with "disbanding the admins", I don't think you'll get much traction. Put WP:AIV on your watchlist for a day or so, and see what wouldn't be stopped without any admins around. That's quite aside from everything else admins deal with, but just there, you should get an idea of where your proposal leads. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Just so we are on the same page, the only person suggesting the admins and arbcom be disbanded is Momento. I am just interested in what Mr. Wales personally is doing to address this. Namecheapblues (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- @NeilN I have had enough experience with Admins and ArbCom to qualify as an expert witness.
- @Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} You epitomise the problem. A group of "Editors intervention against vandalism" would be just as effective. Even a humble banned editor can safely remove vandalism.
- @Namecheapblues (talk) You won't get much joy from Mr.Wales. He likes things the way they are.MOMENTO (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Yes, I looked at your talk page and contribution history and am not surprised you've run into obstacles - probably a good thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  - i'll ask you they same question I ask everyone who makes the same superficial judgement you just made - "Please show me five bad edits from my edit history". With all the blocks and bans you should be able to find a hundred.MOMENTO (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    - Thanks for giving me the task, but no. If editors are clever enough, they can edit here tendentiously for years without crossing the line (see the Wifone section above). Those who lack self-control usually get dinged for edit warring once in a while. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Momento - As you have made a grand total of 153 edits to mainspace in the last 7 years combined, I think your challenge to find "a hundred" bad edits in your edit history smacks of hyperbole. Carrite (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Carrite - One of the pleasures of editing Wikipedia is seeing my critics demonstrate their bias. Carrite provides two examples in one sentence. One, I didn't say "in the last 7 years combined", I said "in my edit history". In which case the number of mainspace edits is 2,118. Two, I didn't challenge NeilN to find "a hundred bad edits" in my edit history, I challenged him to "show me five bad edits from my edit history". In which case I have asked him to "show me five bad edits" from 8,724 edits. Or .057% of my edits. Like NeilN, Carrite is another of the bureaucrats that rule Wikipedia . Unable to accept my challenge to back up their opinion with facts they rely on other bureaucrats for their truth. And like all good bureaucrats they stick together, cover up each others failures and gang up on any editor who has the temerity to exclaim "But the Emperor isn't wearing clothes". In conclusion, Carrite owes me an apology for misrepresenting my very clear challenge, for not assuming good faith and mischaracterising my very clear and fair challenge as "hyperbole". I therefore sentence him to finding "six bad edits from my edit history".MOMENTO (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got no interest in digging through your editing of eight and nine years ago to try to find 5 or 100 bad edits. Perhaps you are right and your series of blocks were a bunch of mean people taking out their aggressions on you for no good reason. That is one possibility, certainly. Best regards. Carrite (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're in great company. It took years for Timid Guy to be vindicated and Will Beback to be exposed for (and this is from Arb Com) "persistently dwelling on editors' affiliations" and using the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views"and "for participation that is suggestive of battleground conduct and/or harassment" leading to being "desysopped and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship and indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed" and "indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia". Not so much "a bunch of mean people taking out their aggressions on me for no good reason" but rather an systemic campaign of harassment and vilification that reaches all the way to Jimbo Wales who banned Timid Guy without a shred of evidence and refused to urban him.[17]MOMENTO (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

- @ NeilN - Straight out of "1984". Innocent behaviour is a clever ruse of the guilty..MOMENTO (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Since I have some sympathy for those who have been involved in Arbitration cases I took a look. These three [18], [19], [20] edits seem bad. They are the first three of eleven examples given. (Like NewYorkBrad and FayssalF I didn't agree there was sufficient justification given for the "battleground" finding.) However I am not inclined to waste more time looking at the other eight, I am pretty sure that more than one of them will be a bad edit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
  - Thanks for your interest RF. Let's start with the last edit first. 1) The edit I reverted was inserted without discussion. 2) The source (Worshipping the absurd) was criticised "as methodologically flawed and theoretically misfocussed. It has therefore failed to understand the basic significance of the DLM, and, more seriously, misrepresented it".[21] 3) There are several other reliable sources that describe the "extra-terrestrial" comment as a joke. 4) It has never appeared in the article since. I will address the others tomorrow.MOMENTO (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  - Here's another editor's comment on the above edit - This was a revert by Momento of this edit by Msalt. The resulting talk page discussion is here. After several paragraphs of discussion, Msalt said, at 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC), "Good points all around. Until we see clear evidence that Rawat himself discussed extraterrestrials, I think the wise move (given BLP) is to leave it out." Jayen 466 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)MOMENTO (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  - The first edit presented by RF above is from a disgraceful hatchet job article deleted in May 2008 (Criticism of Prem Rawat).[22]At the time I explained on the talk page "This may simplify things - Wiki policy on Verifiability - "When the original material is in a language other than English: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. Since Haan, Kranenborg, Van der Lans and Schnabel quotations are not provided with independent published translations or even the Dutch original I am removing their "quotes" until these are provided. And since Andries, is a poster on an anti- Prem Rawat website, his translation will not be acceptable".Momento 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC) In addition to the lack of independent translation is the inherent bias of these sources. Haan was a member of a critical movement within the Roman Catholic Church and wrote his piece for University Magazine that was not peer reviewed. Kranenborg was a Christian minister. And van der Lans wrote his piece for KSGV, a Christian-inspired Dutch association. To them Rawat was going straight to hell and had no redeeming features.MOMENTO (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  - The second edit presented by RF above is to revert two insertions by Will Beback.[23] The first insertion is factually incorrect - the property was purchased by DLM not Prem Rawat. The second insertion contains a quote from an unnamed source that the property was "a palatial, wallled estate". The picture that accompanies the article shows a building site with a temporary fence and scaffolding.MOMENTO (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  - So three edits that were either necessary or reasonable or in another editor's opinion "Each time I drill down into one of these situations the result seems to be a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" type of situation, and I find myself unable to judge that Momento's action was either intentionally disruptive or taking the article away from a version that was clearly good and neutral encyclopedic writing. Jayen466 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I recommend that you look at Will Beback's editing during this period.[24] I was topic banned for a year, Will Beback was admonished.MOMENTO (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    - Aren't you indefinitely topic banned on this subject? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    - Not on Jimbo's talk page.MOMENTO (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

A lot of our community, city, county, etc articles lack photos and probably won't get photos any time soon, as the vast part of the rural small town America doesn't have a Wikipedian with a camera nearby, and this isn't even counting the numerous places around the entire world lacking photos for our articles either from Wikipedians themselves or creative commons licences that we can use (by pulling from Flickr for instance). So, I was wondering, what are the legal copyright statuses of the millions (or billions?) of photos hanging out on Facebook (and other social media et al) pages and profiles that people have taken while on vacation or about their home town? I've heard rumors that whatever you post as far as photos on Facebook are not your own copyright, but I was wondering what the reality was. Is this a resource we can use? And if we can, the question is- should we? And no this is not a way to talk further about monkey photos and all that crap, so please don't go delving into that.Camelbinky (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

They are copyrighted and unusable to us unless specifically released, or fall into one of the NFCC criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

According to Facebook terms and conditions when you post a photo or status you give them "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [IP] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook"... wouldn't that mean that Wikimedia Foundation could simply ask Facebook "can we have access to your database" and if they said yes, then Wikipedia has the right to use them? Theoretically speaking of course, I doubt anyone (including myself) would say this is a good idea to go forward with. But if this is something that theoretically it is legal maybe it can job someone's imagination on how to get more photos without being so Big Brother-like and invade privacy.Camelbinky (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Camelbinky 1) Facebook has that license so that they have the right to redistribute them on facebook (or less charitably, to use in ads). No way facebook would say "ok." 2) You think taking peoples pics from facebook without their express consent would be less big brother-like? 3) There are tons of pics on Flickr that are CC licensed. google also has a CC search. Any town that you cannot find a CC pic of you probably can't find a non-CC pic of either. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Gaijin43 1) Actually they have said yes to other corporations and I never said we SHOULD. 2) You should read my comments a bit slower to understand exactly what my position and what I really said because obviously you're commenting without knowing what I said. 3) You're totally wrong, there are PLENTY of non-CC pics out there of places we don't have a CC pic of. So basically thanks for totally being unhelpful on this completely theoretical discussion that I had hoped would spur a way to find CC pics for the thousands of articles missing ones. Next time listen to momma, if you have nothing nice or helpful to contribute, best not to say anything at all.Camelbinky (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity the US doesn't have something like Geograph. William Avery (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I created a template to be used for such photos, but it was deleted. Not because it wasn't legally valid, but because of a fear it would be misused. :-( There's a copy in userspace. See User:Elvey/Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook , Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_28#Template:Free--PublicOnFacebook --Elvey^(t•c) 04:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Because part of Wikipedia's goal is to create free content, we intentionally stop short of using the maximum amount of fair dealings that we could (and it makes it easier to cover an international audience/presence). So the standard ends up being roughly "if it's implausible that we could hope to get a free image". For almost anywhere in the United States, that's not going to be the case. Wily D 09:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

‎Is that English? Seems more like word salad to me. I created a legally valid template for use on any images legally posted to facebook by users. Camelbinky, if you want to upload such images, feel free to mimic what I did with the image at right. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things are legal, but if you're undermining the goal of the project, what you're doing is going to get deleted. It's legal to sell pop, but you can't use your userpage to do it. This is no different. Wily D 09:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Daughters

I wanted to ask you, Jimbo, if you would have a problem if I added the names of your daughters to your Wikipedia article, or if you would prefer that this information not be included. If I did include it I would source it to this Guardian story. Everymorning talk 00:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding stuff (favorite color, names of children, hobbies) to infoboxes is yet another contentious issue at Wikipedia. WP:BLPNAME includes "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." See BLPN discussion where a long argument concluded nothing that I can see, yet the articles appear to not include the names of children. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no encyclopedic value in including the names of children (particularly minors), unless for example there has been widespread discussion in third party sources about the reasons that someone named their child Applebox4 or that a celebrity's naming of their child Gertrude is believed to be responsible for the fact that Gertrude jumped from #1104939029 most common name to #4. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that unless the minor is notable in their own right, they should be kept anonymous other than the mention of their existence by count and gender or better yet the genderless collective children. Nyth 63 01:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I certainly share the belief that names of the minor offspring of most living people are not of great encyclopaedic interest - especially if that is substantially all the information that would be given. However it is sometimes the case that the contrary is true, where the child is of significance other than simply as a child - for example they have published a notable book, acted in a notable film or are otherwise significant (they do not need to rise to the level of notability). Only Jimbologists can decide in this case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

In general, infoboxes have too many fields, which leads to obsessive sorts filling them all in, which leads to massive infoboxes which clog page layout and scrunch out actually useful graphics. "Children" and "Spouses" and "Religion" are excellent examples of fields that should not be. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

We should follow the same policy for me as we follow for everyone. But I think we are remarkably inconsistent about this. In general, I think infoboxes versus article is not the most important issue - it's inclusion or non-inclusion. And my view is that in most cases, we should not include. An incidental mention in a profile piece is not enough. I think Rich Farmbrough has it right: the rule that the child must be notable in their own right (i.e. capable of supporting an independent Wikipedia entry) is probably too strict. But if the child hasn't done ANYTHING encyclopedia-worthy, then what's the point?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough I had a similar conversation off-Wiki recently about this. My opinion is that they should not be included unless the child is notable in their own right. Otherwise it's just unnecessary clutter to the infobox. --5 albert square (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, put your money where your mouth is, and get to work. Save Jimbo's for last, so that it doesn't look like you're coddling. - 69.57.233.20 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You have new messages at User talk:The Herald/Talkback.
Message added 05:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Self unblock

Is it technically possible for an administrator to unblock themselves? PennJilletteFan (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Wily D 09:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if they don't have a good reason for lifting a block on their own account (usually because they blocked themselves for testing purposes or for some obscure technical reason), they are generally expected not to, and should generally expect to be in serious trouble if they do it anyway. (That is, the mere technical capability to do something doesn't necessarily equate to permission to do that thing. My car can technically go faster than the speed limit, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to put my foot to the floor driving through a school zone.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Technically, in that the Mediawiki software will let them do that, yes, they can. However, absent very specific circumstances (such as, they blocked themself as a test or by accident and are unblocking that), self-unblocking is grounds for an immediate desysop. An administrator blocked by another admin is expected to either wait out the block or request it be lifted through the standard appeals process, just as anyone else would be expected to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible on The Test Wiki, which also uses MediaWiki software. I once blocked myself for a week and couldn't get through it. SD0001 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data

In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

Traffic report: All over the place

News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia and its editor base

Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

April 1st stuff

Extended content

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Jimbo Wales, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to continue to edit under this username, but we ask the following:

Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
Please send an e-mail to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy April fool's day! :-) — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

YAAAAAAAAWN.--ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Before Coffee takes it all! :) DivineAlpha (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have this funny feeling that when I take a sip, it will turn out to be tea instead. (April Fool's Day and all!) :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

In which case it would be pretty tasty. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 13:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

... feed it to the birds? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SD0001 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

April Fool's Day. Ho hum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's pathetic isn't it.--ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Who cares though? Let them have fun, it isn't killing me inside. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Someone would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact them to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Lame...--ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Guess what? I don't care. He's becoming an admin and I will make sure he does. If he doesn't, I will block him a thousand times. Epic Genius (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Now really, no one can take a joke? Nyth 63 19:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not when we see the same lame "jokes" every year...--ukexpat (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you please comment on something?

Hello. I almost never read this page, and never post here, but I think it's important for the sake of Wikipedia for you to read and comment on this AN/I thread "The intentional insertion of a falsehood on yesterday's main page". Thank you, BMK (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April Fools day is over. Amp down the drama. A baby misgendered as a boy might have been dressed like a boy instead of a girl is the bee in your bonnet? --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Facebook

Just for the record, can you confirm that this is a mistimed April Fool? BethNaught (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering it's tagged with "Wikipedia hoaxes".... Mdann52 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Make me look stupid, why don't you? I hadn't seen that. BethNaught (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Spokesperson for the country of Wales?

This says that the Welsh Tourist Board has chosen you to be the new "Face of Wales", presumably because of your last name. Is this an April Fool's joke? It seems awfully like one. Everymorning talk 12:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a joke. I love the idea though, why not. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Their name is Visit Wales. All we need is a home address and we can make you the "Face of Wales" and a tourist attraction. "Come for the face, stay for the hospitality (please register at the front desk with a username)." Sounds spiffy. --DHeyward (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy

I was wondering if you got my email or it went to the Spam Folder again? You don't have to reply, but please, let me know if you got it. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How often do you do appearances?

I was just curious what your preference was on appearances and public speaking, especially when it comes to the United States. I'm not talking about the news appearances, but more like local communities and groups wanting to hear from you on subjects you seem knowledgeable on, such as privacy and the internet, education, access to technology and the internet, and other subjects tangential to Wikipedia's mission that people might therefore assume you would have insight on those topics. I ask because I believe it would be a great boon to my local community if you ever find you're way to Mid-Missouri (that fly-over country between St Louis and Kansas City) several of us would love for you to stop in to Fulton, Missouri and do as big or small a speech or community event as you deem appropriate. You'd be in good company of people who have flown from the UK to speak in Fulton- Sir Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, and Edwina Sandys among the most famous. I believe just visiting the National Churchill Museum would be worth flying out here to see.Camelbinky (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data

In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

Traffic report: All over the place

News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia and its editor base

Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

A cupcake for you!

Cupcake Jimbo Bettifm (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nooo, we're going to kill poor old Jimbo by feeding him all these unhealthy foods full of fat and sugar :( . Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	You have created a truly the best thing on planet. I love using it. Dormantos (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, keep getting new entry about a scientific book deleted. Can you help at all? I am just attempting to write about a very well written book about sociology. It has been reviewed in the New York Times and many journals, and two of the people continue to delete it. They appear to be very well established here and they are very very hostile and rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.24 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015

Did you know?

With Citoid in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:

Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:

After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 11:00 (noon) PDT (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal.

Recent improvements

VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and network speed by almost 40%.

The Editing team is slowly adding auto-fill features for citations. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.

Citoid requires good TemplateData for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

The special character inserter has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the Phase 5 list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh.

Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use input method editors ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.

The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the "packed" mode in image galleries. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.

You can now drag and drop categories to re-arrange their order of appearance on the page.

The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.

Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.

Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead (T90734).

Looking ahead

The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted at mediawiki.org.

The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon.

Let's work together

Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check this list to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. Contact us to get an account if you want to help!
The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

-Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your succession plan

Hello. In summer 2009 you declared that in case of your untimely incapacitation, "the Arbcom is authorized to figure out what to do, subject to ratification with a 50+1 vote of the community" and that you would "amend that succession plan from time to time upon recommendation of the Arbcom and Community". Could you say when you amended it last? 54.152.112.11 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Known by the tabloid name, "the foreign SS nurses"

See WP:AN/I#User:Habilemonkac_and_Foreign_volunteers_for_nursing_for_the_German_Red_Cross_during_World_War_II

Nowiki has an artikle about Frontsøster. There might be a question what should be the name of an article on Wikipedia in English: The Norwegian and Danish imprecise term ("Frontsøster"), or the "Foreign volunteers for nursing for the German Red Cross during World War II" or "Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germanic SS". To my knowledge there has not been any wikipedia article yet that has translated to English, the title of the cited article "the human repression", written by a a Danish scholar. Here is a copy of text that might belong in such an article:

"Foreign women volunteered for nursing for Germany during World War II. They were employed by the Navy, the Heer, Luftwaffe or the German Red Cross (DRK) as nursing assistants or nurses.^[1] (In addition, foreign unemployed registered nurses were involuntarily deployed to work—without ties to the armed forces—at civilian hospitals in Germany; this included 100^[2] Danish nurses. 73 Norwegian women volunteered directly as nursing assistants for Luftwaffe, without being members of Red Cross.^[1]^[3] Some volunteers worked for Wehrmacht or Kriegsmarine.^[1] Wehrmachtshelferinnen numbered around 450,000 [including Germans], whereof around 148,000 had ties to the armed forces.^[4] Some of these were foreign volunteers, and some of these worked at Erholungsheimen (or convalescence homes) in occupied countries.^[4])

Foreign volunteers in the German Red Cross:

The number of these volunteers from various European^[5] nations included: Belgium, cirka 730; Norway, around 500;^[5] Denmark around 180—225, or 150;^[6] in addition there were those from [Germany^[7]], France, Finland, Sweden and the Baltic states^[8] and the Netherlands. These volunteers were deployed in pairs.^[9]^[10]

Many^[11] of these SS physicians "served at KZ camps, others in Lebensborn institutions. For the many foreign nursing personnel, these physicians became their day-to-day superiors", according to Gogstad. (One dissertation for Master's degree claims that foreign volunteers in the German Red Cross (DRK) [also] worked in "SS-units and institutions - either at the front as part of combat units of Waffen-SS, or behind the combat zones in SS hospitals".^[12])

"Germanic" volunteers:

From 1942 the DRK was allowed to "accept Germanic volunteers from occupied areas", according to Gogstad.^[13]

From 20 January 1944 the SS Sanitätsamt took over all responsibility «the Germanic volunteers» after arrival in Germany, and "first and foremost one wished for nursing assistants—Sanitätshelferinnen—or volunteers without medical education", of whom the SS Sanitätsamt took upon itself to educate, also in regards to ideology and Weltanschauung, according to Anders Christian Gogstad (Dr.med.^[14] and an author).^[15]

They worked in field hospitals as far East as Kislovodsk in Kaukasus.^[12]

Recruiting, education and training:

From autumn 1942, recruiting of frontline nursing personnel in [at least] one nation, was done by Germanische Leitstelle Nord; requirements included a : "«clean» pedigree, political trustworthiness, and healtwise- and moral flawlessness".^[16]^[17] In 1943 in Sweden, the newspaper Göteborg Handels- och Sjöfartstidning ironically^[18] commented on the DRK's advertisements for recruiting of "Germanic race-correct women" in another country, while the advertisements in Sweden omitted the term "Germanic race-correct".

Applicants received a physical examination by SS physicians.^[18]

Trainees swore an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler.^[7]

100 hours of mandatory training in Weltanschauliche Schulung, arvelære and raselære, was later reduced to 40 hours.^[19] (One dissertation for Master's degree claims that "The SS was responsible for both the recruitment and training of the these volunteers, whose substantial education contained elements of military skills and discipline, co-training with the Wehrmacht and ideological education in the Nazi Weltanschauung".^[5])

During a half year training course, under SS leadership, one would be educated as a «Schwesterhelferinne»—specialized nursing assistant.^[13] DRK-nurses^[20] would receive additional education by the SS, and would thereafter become Wehrmachtsschwester.

Around 9.7 percent of the Norwegian volunteers were fully trained nurses when they joined the DRK.^[4]

Participation in euthanasia and genocide:

A 2015 Aftenposten article said "[T]here are sources that indicate that Norwegian volunteers were participants in what one could characterize as systematic killings of civilians in occupied areas"^[21] (In 2014 that article's author said that one Norwegian has said that as a nursing volunteer in a Waffen-SS unit [she] was ordered to gas handicapped children in Ukraine.^[22])

In 2010 Der Spiegel quoted a German Frontschwester "deployed by DRK to the Eastern Front. According to her, all the Frontschwesters knew about massmurders of Jews. She wrote that: "Everyone behind the frontlines, and in particular those who had been there for a while, knew about that... One day I rode on a lorry, and the driver started telling me about the village Kasatin. There they let the Jews starve for two days, before they were shot, because the unit that was supposed to shoot, was busy in other locations... It did not take me long, to figure out that i was amongst criminals", according to Hans Christian Davidsen(kulturredaktør at Flensborg Avis^[23]).^[7]

Marie Aakre (author and Senior Advisor of Ethics at Norwegian Nurses' Organisation) says that "Nurses had central roles regarding systematic torture and killings for example in the so-called euthanasia program in Nazi Germany. The most vulnerable, developmentally challenged and sick children; [the] psychiatric ill and eventually adults were forcible killed with methods that cause considerable suffering, and it is clear that nurses had central roles in Holocaust (...) How can we understand that nurses were active participants that actually killed more than 10 000 people" [as a part] of Nazi operations.^[24]

Practices of ethnic discrimination:

In Peter Tudvad's 2011 book Sygeplejerske i Det Tredje Rige he says [about Danish volunteer Ebba Mikkelsen and the SS military hospital on Hohenzollernstrasse in Breslau: "reservelazaret IV"] The hospital "is not an exclusive SS-hospital, so one would have to expect, that also were admitted (...) Russians from the nearest front. That never happens, at least not at Ebba's [hospital] ward (...) where she never treats others than Germans or Germanic volunteers. (...) Some of the Russians definitely are in need of treatment, that one can not give them at field hospitals, so a matter of concern should be, that enemy soldiers are never brought to the auxiliary military hospital. (..) A lot of time to reflect about the relationship between principles and reality, is naturally not had at the hospital by Ebba".^[25]^[21]

Omer Bartov states^[26] that "the German Army, and also its contributors for medical services, where DRK was a main player, outright refused access to medical services to Russian prisoners of war. Only Russian physicians were permitted to treat their captive countrymen, and then only with minimal equipment (...) only Russian war material", according to Bay.^[27]

In 1990 Hanna Kvanmo, then a former member of Norway's parliament, said in her book Dommen about the prisoners of war that were camped at Bötzow: "In one of the barracks were the French POWs. She who was responsible for them, was Polish, with a complete nurse's education" (...) In a couple of the other barracks were prisoners from Yugoslavia. They were handled by the Ukranian" women.^[28]^[29]

Preferential treatment of ethnic groups within the volunteer corps:

"It appears that the SS leaders and physicians were somewhat overbearing with the Norwegian nursing volunteers; reportedly in regard to access to the Officers' Mess, invitations to parties (...) in all it seems that most of the Norwegians in the SS units were privileged. This lead to (...) considerable envy, and friction with the German nursing personnel, in particular the" brown (or NSDAP) personnel, according to Gogstad.^[19] (One dissertation for Master's degree says that [other] DRK-Schwesters did not have access to the Officers' messhall "like the Germanic volunteers had".^[30])

Links to SS:

In a 2009 Drammens Tidende article a Norwegian former nursing volunteer told about having her bloodtype tattooed on her arm because "Everyone who served in Waffen SS, had tattoed [their] bloodtype".^[31]

"[T]he Red Cross uniforms were switched with SS uniforms with Norwegian flags on the sleeve", according to Gogstad.^[10] (One dissertation for Master's degree claims that "In literature the women [foreign volunteers] are understood as (...) nurses in DRK. But at the same time, literature shows that they were separated from regular DRK nurses, both by privileges and their tight links to the SS".^[32])

At least two of the Norwegian nurses were to be in a "direct employment relationship with the SS" after a trial period in DRK Schwesterschaft, and their salaries were the same as those of Freie Schwester.^[19]

Punishment after World War II:

Volunteers were convicted—after the war—in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Norway.^[33]^[34] As late as 1998, one of the Norwegian convicts attempted to have the courts perform "a renewed evaluation due to changed contemporary attitudes".^[35] In 1999, a retrial was denied.^[35]

In one country the final verdicts of 154 "nursing personnel and others in the service of DRK" were: 61 received prison sentences—one year to one and a half year; 52 received prison sentences—2 to 10 months—"as a fine or prison sentence"^[36] [that can be served by paying a fine]; 21 received fines; 8 received prison sentences—2 years to 3.5 years; 5 received suspended sentences; 2 received prison sentences longer than 3.5 years; 2 were acquitted.

Research:

In a 2014 Master's degree dissertation, Eirik Gripp Bay (a lektor in History) states that the topic of these ["Germanic"] volunteers, as treated by authors and film directors, has had a "one-sided point of view that to a great degree has been based on the womens' own statements".^[37]^[21]

"The practice of sending foreign volunteers to front units gives little meaning viewing the experience, education and language skills with which they could contribute. But (...) reasons that the service was a vetting, a test of willpower and ideological persuasion, and a baptism of fire where the women were put in positions where they participated in the nationalsocialism's destined fight against the hereditary enemy in the East—then the service appears in a new, more nuanced light", according to Bay. Furthermore, the Germanic volunteers "became an integrated part of Nazi-Germany's Generalplan Ost thru what Himmler and the SS perceived as their inner Erbbild" [or genotype ]".^[38]

"The foreign nursing volunteers' stories and recollections are unclear "in such a way that they frankly admit to having been a part of this system. They received ideologic schooling as instructed by the SS; they were linked to military units that unquestionably have violated the civilian population, and they were present in geographic areas where we know that genocide took place. At the same time they have displayed the same innocence that the Wehrmacht and SS soldiers tried to [display], until research of History caught up with them", according to Bay.^[39]

Eirik Grippe Bay has been denied access—by film directors— to the filmed interview of a foreign volunteer admitting gassing children, and Bay says that "it is a serious flaw in a production of a documentary film, when one chooses to focus on the woman's role as a victim (...) when one sits on first-hand information of this caliber".^[40]

Other terms: At different times some of these volunteers have been called legionsøster and later frontsøster (in Norwegian and Danish. «Frontsøster» "has become a simplified term" meaning a woman "who reported to the DRK for the purpose of performing a humanitarian effort in German [military] Sanitätsdienst (...) The term also has been used about women who served in the DRK without having participated in combat", according to Gogstad.^[41])

Films:

Solace [Belgian title]^[42] (Original title: Sju kammers); 2011

Foreign nursing volunteers:

Hanna Kvanmo,^[43] [Scwesterhelferin or] nursing assistant; later Member of parliament^[44] in Norway and member of Norwegian Nobel Committee.
Frontschwester Anne-Gunhild Moxness received the Iron Cross, 2nd class.^[45]

Monuments:

"Far into the forest near Bamble"^[46] there is a 3 meter tall monument for deceased Norwegian [nursing personnel or] Frontsøsters and [male] Waffen-SS volunteers.