Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 191

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185←Archive 189Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192Archive 193→Archive 195

Man the lifeboats! Bad press on the horizon!

The Arbitration Committee just arbitrated itself into a hole. The female victim of nasty offsite harassment? Banned. The male perpetrator of that harrassment? Not banned. Not blocked. Not warned. Not admonished. Not sanctioned in any way. Lightbreather would have been banned either way, but to allow her harasser to get off without any kind of sanction seems like a decision that will come back to bite them in the ass. Curried Soul (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A male person identified as sending harassing material was site banned weeks ago. A second person was also alleged to be involved, but despite exhaustive examination there was no consensus on the strength of the evidence against them. The female victim of the harassment was not banned because they were harassed, they were banned on the strength of evidence that they consistently refused to follow WP policy, as submitted by the community on the Evidence page, and predating the off-wiki harassment you refer to. But you already know all this, as you've clearly been following the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, she earned her ban fair and square before the off-wiki harassment happened. One accused harasser has a "retired" banner on their user page and can be dealt with swiftly if they return disruptively. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that unnamed accused harrasser retired "due to on- and off-wiki WP:Harassment and WP:Outing". Hmm. They are free to return whenever they wish. They are free to start another account and have a "clean start" (if they have not already). Euryalus says that an editor was site banned for sending harassing material, but does not identify the account. The community deserves to know who this was and it should be recorded as part of the case enforecement just as the interaction ban between Lightbreather and Scalhotrod was recorded. Curried Soul (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, for shit's sakes, Single Purpose Account, stop hyping this commonly-known fact into a big "mystery": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Two_kinds_of_pork Carrite (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This information is included in the proposed decision: [1]. Yunshui 雲水 14:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom couldn't even find that a user had a disruptive COI despite said user proudly admitting it on their user page. My confidence in their abilities is, understandably, low. Just reading the proposed decision, though, shows either incredible inconsistency or slavish admiration of [certain] editors///removed personal attack. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)///. Sceptre (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WMF has no policy on non-discrimination towards women for its online volunteers

There is no consensus on the English Wikipedia regarding what constitutes "civility," and the lengthy arguments full of vulgar sexual terms about women on this website will continue indefinitely unless a consensus is reached. (I have just "hatted", i.e., "closed down" one on this page.)

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided that non-discrimination is not included in its terms of use. Hence the English Wikipedia is perfectly free, as a social group run by consensus, to discriminate against women if it so chooses.

Interestingly enough, the Wikimedia Foundation applies the non-discrimination policies required by US law to its own staffers, even though it doesn't apply non-discrimination policies to its online volunteers.

We can "imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge," but as long as the price of freely sharing that knowledge remains sexual harassment and death threats, about half the population, especially the female half, isn't going to want to participate.

I am certain it must be frustrating for law enforcement when organizations like this one do not live up to their responsibilities for self-policing their own online communities.

It remains to be seen whether educational and cultural institutions continue to endorse an organization that refuses to prohibit discrimination against women, and whether negative publicity has any effect. --Djembayz (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You "closed down" a series of posts by three British editors (me included) pointing out the differences in the use of the English language in the UK and the US. In your hatting of the posts you used insulting language which I take to be directed at our national origin. Your vision of "civility" appears to be one dimensional and deeply unpleasant. You're right, there is no consensus on "civility" with the meaning you think it should have. May it long remain that way. DeCausa (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors who engage in discrimnatory conduct are very likely to get blocked for one of a number of reasons, because Wikipedia is (at least notionally) a cluocracy, not a bureaucracy. I see on glaring exception in James Cantor, who remains able to promote his deeply offensive beliefs on transgender issues despite the glaring COI. For the most part, though, bigots don't last long. In the matter of hatting comments for excessive Britishness, I reverted that as the comment was offensive and Jimbo is an honorary Brit these days. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
British people and British culture are actually highly respected in this US city, which has two free television broadcast channels of BBC. The British-style "pubs" here, known for conviviality, are considered more respectable than "bars." I truly regret that we can not create an intact social fabric in DC like the one in Britain, which has made an exemplary effort to provide health care and housing for its citizens. The difficult social conditions in this city, which have produced many angry, desperate people, are a contributing factor for several of the women on this site who are being grouchy about the subject of respect. Quite possibly the reason you can joke around more freely with terms like the one in question in Britain is that Britain is a relatively civilized place, with large numbers of well-behaved people, that has been much more successful in implementing the rule of law.
I am open to the possibility that the posters above feel what they have been saying is innocent enough, that they view their piece of these conflicts as being more about national identity than about gender relations, and that they are serious in advocating against applying the BBC guidelines on strong language on this site. Clearly you don't want amateurs like me (who can come across as offensive and insulting even when it's not my intention) handling sensitive cultural matters, but I also note that my suggestion that it is time to bring in the more experienced cultural relations professionals who are officially designated to handle this task has been rejected.
It has been a year of back and forth on this topic, with no resolution in sight. It is increasingly clear that some people participating on Wikipedia are not in a strong enough personal position to withstand the rough-and-tumble atmosphere on the site. And while I guess we could start organizing groups in the volunteer community to support editors who run into problems with the rough-and-tumble atmosphere, who really wants to spend their free time on the phone listening to people complain about a situation that the organization has no intention of changing? --Djembayz (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Who's against the BBC guidelines? Did you read them? "The BBC does not ban words or phrases. However, it is the responsibility of all content makers to ensure strong language is used only where it is editorially justified. The acceptability of language to intended audiences should be judged with care." (My added emphasis.) That seems a very sound guideline. The decision-making process to ban or not ban words or phrases because of the offence they give (or the lack of offence) would be invidious because of the global nature of WP. It would be quite wrong to impose the standards of Washington DC or of Britain. Why ban the c-word but fail to prohibit mentioning Muhammad without PBUH? If you're going by the the greatest offence to the greatest number, the latter has it. Civility in a global arena is a complex question and there will never be a solution based on the narrowness of "what offends me is uncivil, what offends you is WP:NOTCENSORED", which is what so much of this boils down to. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
To use another example that works in the other direction, what about the word spaz? As an American that is completely innocuous, so it would be ridiculous to ban it because some people are more familiar with its other meaning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I haven't heard that word in many years, but, yes, in Britain these days that's completely unacceptable. Out of interest, presumably in the US it has a different origin/meaning i.e. it's an abbreviation of a different word? DeCausa (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to worry I've just read our article on the word. Amazingly, it appears to have the same ultimate derivation. DeCausa (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much!

Oeoi (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you can put kittens on the Internet? Why did nobody tell me? Guy (Help!) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, reports of children expressing their appreciation for turtles. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Archive 185←Archive 189Archive 190Archive 191Archive 192Archive 193→Archive 195

Important Issue!

There is no article about importance on Wikipedia. Hasn't there never been anything extensive published about what what we mean when we say something is important? I'm not being facetious. What a strange omission, for mankind never to publish anything at length on importance. Chrisrus (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia's policy on notability is essentially the same as a policy on importance. How do they differ? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Is this a question about why we don't have an article on 'importance', or a policy on the subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, @AndyTheGrump: Not a policy, an article on the concept of "importance".
We have things like WP:MEDORDER which specify that symptoms of human medical conditions, for example, are more important than descriptions of the conditions in other animals. But I think you want something more like [2]. Both of which, by the way, if applied together to Wikipedia editing in general, might tell you that [3] is the most important information to add, once it makes it into a WP:MEDRS source, of course. But since importance is very situationally dependent, it makes sense that the encyclopedia has no article on it. I like the pointer to Wiktionary. EllenCT (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@EllenCT; Good and Evil are situationally dependent, but we have an article about them because the major minds wrote about that concept. If none have done that about importance, then there's not much Wikipedia can do but wait or cajole, because it's the most important referent not to have an article. Chrisrus (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlike Wiktionary, Wikipedia has articles on words only when the words themselves have been the subject of notable discussions or controversies, as illustrated by one of the discussions above. Wikipedia normally has articles on concepts. When the same word can refer to different concepts we usually have a disambiguation page linking to the articles about the different concepts. I have therefore created a disambiguation page, linking to the meanings of importance that I can think of and that I can imagine a reader to be thinking of.--Boson (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
@Boson, am I to understand that nothing on the topic of importance per se has ever been published anywhere WP:RS? If so, philosophers should get on it right away, because it might be important. Chrisrus (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
What I am saying is that "importance" is a word that is used for different concepts and that we have articles on, at least, some of those concepts. When talking about VIPs, the concept referred to is probably social status. When talking about whether something is important enough to be included in Wikipedia, we are talking about something like notability, and there is an article on that. When talking about what is important to a person, we are talking about personal values, and there is an article on that. The word may have other meanings that should be added to the disambiguation page. Perhaps we also need to link to an article on decision making models that discusses relative importance. "Importance" may be important in cognition, so it might be appropriate to link to an article that discusses the importamce of importance in that context. Once we know what concept the article is about, we can decide if we think that is the primary meaning of the word "importance", in which case we might want to rename the article to reflect that. Are you thinking of a particular concept? In other words, what do you mean by "importance per se"? --Boson (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree we should have one. Importance is important. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
I'm not so sure. Value (personal and cultural) seems a little undersupported to me. I still like [4] a little better, but maybe not forever. EllenCT (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If I understand the question correctly, the issue of importance in the context of Wikipedia, is discussed as Wikipedia:Notability. Over the years there has been extensive discussion concerning that is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Kwork2 (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
We are missing an article on the concept of "importance". Chrisrus (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
We have a disambiguation article on importance, as you have linked to it. It in fact links to notability. You haven't explained how we need a separate article in article space on importance, or how we need a separate policy or guideline in Wikipedia space on importance. If you think that there should be more content in article space on importance, be bold and write the article. If you are asking for a Wikipedia policy or guideline, maybe the Idea Lab would be a good place to discuss it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
We evidently had an article on the subject at one time - see the AfD discussion: [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Robert, once again, this has has nothing to do with any policy or guideline or whatnot. We're talking about not having an article on the subject of importance. If you would, scroll up and let me know how I can make that any clearer.
Since this thread was started, the redirect Importance has been changed. Whereas it had been linking to the dictionary, it now links to th article notablity. I guess this has been done in response to this thread, but I'm not so sure it's an improvement. Examples such as "Charles Atlas believed in the about the importance of exercise," or "It's important to follow the rules" seem to demonstrate that it's not the same as Notability Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted the following here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Importance yesterday:

This is an improvement of merely sending the user to the dictionary.

However, ideally, there would be an article here summarizing the published facts and theories of philosophy and science about this referent per se: the concept of importance.

Unfortunately, however, it seems there are none.

If that's true, then there's nothing we can do beyond this disambiguation page with a dictionary redirect, except maybe complain to for example the philosophy department of our local universities to fix this gaping lacuna in human knowledge and understanding by publishing something on it as soon as possible so we'd have something to cite for an article here.

It's hard to believe, however, that neither Plato nor Hume nor Marx nor Nietzsche nor Aristotle nor anyone else like that has ever talked about it.

You'd think that science, maybe neurology, should have a paper or two published by now, given the known fact that some autistic people that don't have the concept.

For example, There's a case of an otherwise healthy and intelligent man who spends all his time riding his bike to different places on the map and crossing them off. When asked why he does this, he doesn't seem to understand the question. He says "So that I will have ridden my bike to all the places on my map." This is not unusual with autism and other disorders. This shows that importance is a place or system or something in the brain in addition to whatever else it may be.

It also shows that not everyone already knows what importance is so such an article would help them.

But if it's not true that there are no WP:RSes on this topic per se, then we should use them to cite an article here in this space in addition to these links and redirect.

I've tried to find them with my own research skills and tools, but have failed. Chrisrus (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a shot at it and more so to provide some conceptual direction. I doubt that the subject is not unpublished, but it seems to be that the defining of what is "important" will drown out the defining of "important" itself. The only issue with redirecting "Important" to "Value (ethics)" is the fact that "value" itself is less subjective, but ill defined. Two people's concept of "values" will be different, but not necessarily what they identify as "important". Though "Importance" is deemed to combine types of "values" into a singular whole value through a perspective lens. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ARCA discussion

I am sharing this link to an ARCA discussion since i have mentioned you in this discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


You included the statement:

"However i would like Arb to compare my reaction when i lost my cool with when Bishonen had earlier lost her cool and was subsequently blocked by Jimbo Wales. Bishonen, as an Admin, had written to an editor:

Yes, I do, you little shit. Don't interfere with Giano's page. Now get lost. Shoo!

for which Jimbo Wales had blocked her as per this diff: diff1

Bishonen had subsequently successfully appealed against the block. I am mentioning this because in any quasi-legal or quasi-judicial decision making it is valid to show precedence."

Which is not going to work well, you are making too much of the legal aspect of ArbCom. If it were a strictly 100% legal system then you could raise that point, but anything less than that, is going to make this statement counterproductive. There is no concept of "legal precedent" except in cases where ArbCom thinks that would be helpful and lead to things working in a more efficient way. This naturally leads to more power to Admins, but there is then little tolerance for conflicts between Admins and that explains why Jimbo was rebuked. But this also means that Admins can get away with a lot more than other editors. Once blocked then even if that block is unjust, e.g. due to a misunderstanding, you usually cannot get anywhere to explain your point and get the block undone. Usually you must plead guilty to the charge to get parole.

At ArbCom you have a bit more room to argue your case. However, the quasi legal aspects of ArbCom may then hurt you more. As you can read here in a case where ArbCom reached a compromise decision to topic ban someone for a while, motivated more to calm down the situation from what it used to be a new Arbitrator who didn't bother to read the details on how that decision was arrived at, just assumed that this decision implied that the most damning accusations against this editor must have been correct. That was not the case, at least the original Arbitrators never agreed on the topic ban based on accepting the accusations, it was only much later in the ArbCom case when the Arbs changed their minds on what the best remedies would be to improve the editing climate. So, obviously, the editor ion question would not accept guilt, but he still got the topic ban reversed as that Arb was alone in insisting pleading guilty. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

SOS!

My ip address has been banned Chinese Wikipedia, and request re-opened! 119.129.208.198 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC) SOS!

My ip address has been banned Chinese Wikipedia, and request re-opened. 阳春雨打芭蕉 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Before this topic gets closed, let me remind the others that this user's contributions had been detected of copyright infringement.[6] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
That's all Chinese to me... Count Iblis (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

234

Can we have a list of the "234 governmental requests to remove content from Wikipedia"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

Eh? That page shows a handful of governmental requests, almost all of the 234 would not be governmental at all (and most of them, fomr my own experience of answering emails at OTRS, would be frivolous). Guy (Help!) 10:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks like only 9 of them were actually governmental, and even of those some may be from "candidates" - which isn't exactly the same as a request from the government themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet Brands

Article has a "Controversies" section cited almost exclusively to primary sources. Some of the sources may say "Reuters", but are actually press release reposts. Despite our interest in the Wikimedia movement, I don't think a section cited almost completely to Wikimedia.org is an appropriate application of WP:WPNOTRS, which says that articles should be "based mainly on reliable secondary sources". WP:CRITICISM is also relevant in regards to a dedicated Controversies section. And it's common sense that losing one customer does not warrant a large devoted section.

I have raised the issue at COIN and it was archived without response. It was suggested that RSN may be more appropriate, so I went there and still no dice. It's especially frustrating because on the very same day I complained at BLPN about a dedicated controversy section on a BLP page on a topic where there was substantial secondary coverage and it was fixed in under 24 hours. This situation on a company page is much worse, given that the Controversy section is much larger and made up of primary sources, and I've been chasing it for weeks.

There has long been discussions about whether and to what extent BLP should apply to companies, but shouldn't we remove poorly sourced contentious material anywhere on any article, regardless of whether special policies exist or not? In a case like this, should a company post at BLPN and argue it falls under BLPGROUP? Why is it so hard for someone to get this kind of thing removed on company pages, but so much easier on BLPs?

I needed to vent/soapbox for a bit. Thanks for letting me use your Talk page for it ;-) PS - I am not affiliated with this company. CorporateM (Talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning at the end that you aren't affiliated with the company. I was about to ask. :)
I am not sure from what you wrote why you raised the issue at COIN - do you have a COI of some kind? I think you are saying no. So then, why don't you just make the edit?
In this particular case there is a good argument for WP:NAVEL as relevant. We often put too much information in when Wikipedia is in some small way involved, and we have to consciously counterbalance that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like a WP:COATRACK and I am far from convinced that the article should exist at all. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Internet Brands is a well known and pretty important Internet company. Unlike companies that are direct brands themselves, they are an "aggregator" or "rollup" of many brands. So - not that famous, but I think important enough to have an article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Prior discussion (and lack of response for some of these) at:
  1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Internet Brands
  2. Talk:Beneful#Controversy section
  3. Wikipedia talk:Criticism#Dedicated section for a lawsuit
  4. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193#Internet Brands
(that's for the ones I know of)
In the last of these listed prior discussions CorporateM declared to have "a very remote potential COI" (while prior to that I had thought his WP:COIN listing of the topic would have been inspired by all WP editors having some sort of COI w.r.t. the first subtopic of Internet Brands#Controversies, i.e. "... Wikimedia").
I think CorporateM has some legitimate concerns, but as for the Internet Brands "Controversies" section most Wikipedians (myself included) would probably not have many clues as to what this is about (to which I may add, the feeling that crept on me when reading the article's "Controversies" section was: pfui, IANAL, let's keep out of this... which I don't say in my defense). On the other hand, CorporateM's vagueness regarding their potential COI leaves me wondering who is defending what? So my first suggestion to that editor would be to give a bit more info as to the nature of the very remote potential COI, imho would make it much more likely other Wikipedia editors would respond to their requests.
A second recommendation involves the WP:RSN listing: the request was far from formatted in the "Source–Article–Content" scheme suggested on top of that page. Only the "Article" was clearly mentioned in the request, the rest was in the "here are some links, find out for yourself" format. There's no obligation to make a request clearer, but from my experience with that noticeboard, requests that aren't explicit on the suggested format more easily lead to non-response, and certainly when containing vagueties like "some possible COI but not really disclosed". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
It's difficult to say whether I should have edited myself or not, or if I should have even disclosed, when the COI is remote. However, I deeply protest to this idea that so much information is needed about the exact nature of my COI. Are you planning on making different edits depending on what it is?
Lets say in one example scenario (a), I use to work there many years ago and in another case (b) a close friend works there and brought the page to my attention. What is the relevance to whether this is case (a) or case (b)? What use does the community have for this information? The only use of this information discussed is "curiosity".CorporateM (Talk) 15:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. "this idea that so much information is needed about the exact nature" – none of the info is "needed", I was merely trying to explain lack of response (including my own), replying to your question "Why is it so hard for someone to get this kind of thing removed on company pages, but so much easier on BLPs?": I think that at least part of the answer to that question is that unclear situations may have kind of a natural "let's stay out of this" response. But, thanks for the additional info.
I'm convinced that the RSN posting would have had a more effective response when listing (quite dryly): "I have a problem with using <named source X>, <named source Y> for <content Abc>". There also, as already indicated, nothing of this is obligatory, just ups the chance on an adequate response, speaking from my experience with that noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM - I went to make the edit myself but realized that there is one reliable source (Noam Cohen, New York Times) and so it probably merits a sentence or two. I went to the talk page to read what you might be suggesting, and noticed that you haven't posted on the talk page. Wouldn't that be the right place to start? I am at Wikimania and thus quite short on time, so I don't have time to read Noam Cohen's piece and work out the wording of a shorter mention. If you'll do that, I am happy to read and confirm that your proposal is good and NPOV and make the edit. Before I do so, though, I'll also ask for review as to whether the community feels that I have a conflict of interest. (As I am trying to *reduce* the amount of negative information about this company, I think it's hard to make the case that there is a problem with that, but if anyone feels so, then I'll bow out and help you find another editor to make the edit.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's something fishy been going on here. I see there's one sentence about all the different websites this company owns, and they all have links; many of these were worked on by User:LoveWikis (now blocked for promotion/advertising) and User:LuvWikis (also blocked for the same). I don't really have the inclination for user investigations but I wouldn't be surprised if more can be deduced. Going forward, it might be best to merge many if not all of the sites back into the main article; you can then make the sections of that article be the different websites, and you can put stuff like the Wikitravel controversy under a ==Wikitravel== header instead of a ==Controversies== header. Wnt (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I see it. There is one good source in all that mess. NYT, which is one of the best press sources around. I've taken a quick shot at summarizing it below.
Summary of NYT source

"Internet Brands acquired Wikitravel in 2005 for $1.7 million. After it introduced advertising, the following year many volunteer contributors left, because they didn't want to donate their time to a commercial website. The Wikimedia Foundation introduced a competing website, and lawfully began the site using thousands of articles from Wiki-travel that were under a Creative Commons license. This led to a legal dispute when Internet Brands alleged Wikipedia users were encouraging WikiTravel users to shift to the Wikimedia-owned competitor. Internet Brands said this was an unfair business practice, among other things. The Wikimedia Foundation filed a counter-claim calling the lawsuit intimidation and saying that forking is lawful. Internet Brands said Wikimedia made a copy of its own Wiki-travel website. The two organizations attempted to reach a compromise unsuccessfully."

I didn't participate on the article Talk page, because I would prefer they not know I was involved in their page. (though as a side-note, nobody has participated there in more than 2 years as well). Regarding the potential COI, I am not concerned about it personally and won't scream foul, so that depends on what you're comfortable with and if anyone else wants to raise a red flag. Making obvious counter-COI edits use to be one of the exceptions in WP:COI and it's not as if avoiding certain situations will result in you not being trolled - you will be trolled no matter what you do. CorporateM (Talk) 07:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Re. Wikitravel as a separate article or not: I have no opinion, but if it isn't merged as Wnt proposes, a similar attention might go to Wikitravel#Community fork in 2012 (and its references). The boilerplate notice of the Wikitravel article (linking to Wikivoyage) is maybe also a bit blatant?
The Community fork section of the Wikitravel article ends with a settlement in February 2013, sourced to C|Net – if there was a settlement, that might be useful to inlude in the Wikitravel section of the Internet Brands article too, of course referenced to the best available sources.
Further, for sourcing (general remark), I don't know whether it is needed to use this exception, but a section of WP:V, WP:CIRCULAR, second paragraph, allows to source information about Wikipedia, in article namespace, to Wikipedia and its sister projects (with caution etc...). Maybe this doesn't apply to the Wikimedia Foundation. Was just thinking about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
& more to be looked at: Wikivoyage, particularly Wikivoyage#History, and the boilerplate notice with a cross-namespace link to Wikipedia:Wikivoyage (and not linking to the non-Wikimedia related project). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The WikiTravel page seems to have the same problems and is probably where this originated. "In 2012, after a lengthy history of dissatisfaction with Wikitravel's host and owner Internet Brands" That is not quite a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, but it's a pretty strong one that requires a very good source, but instead it's cited to broken links to primary sources from WikiVoyage. "The dissatisfaction related to long standing discontent at poor hosting, poor site updates" again cited to WikiVoyage itself. One of the sources is literally a mailing list. I think this is difficult to fix, because Wikipedians tend to defend content that suits their interests and POV.
My take would be to mention it on the Internet Brands page and let it stand as a section, as it is now, on any sub-pages where more detail is appropriate. Internet Brands has about $100 million in revenues and they bought WikiTravel for $1.5 million. It's a tiny blip in their business history. CorporateM (Talk) 09:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This is pretty shameful; in comparison we have a very respectful article on Britannica even if we do compete with them. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Forward

  • I've posted links to this talk page section at the talk pages of Internet Brands, Wikitravel and Wikivoyage (each of them had a discussion section relating to this where I could append).
  • I'm not particularly fond of having this discussion here, but per concerns expressed above this may be the best way forward (also, it's about three pages with similar problems on the same content, so best to centralize the discussion anyway, so why not here)
  • @CorporateM: (and whoever else is interested) I'd propose you post concrete rewrite proposals, with their references, and indicating which sections/paragraphs/sentences they could replace. If there's agreement here, and nobody else has done so yet, I'll update the articles accordingly (sorry for still not being interested enough in travel type websites to propose some rewrites myself, but I see the problems in these articles). Would that work as an action plan? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I am also not interested in engaging in a large project to research and re-write all this material. What I would suggest is the following:
  • The Wikivoyage page is basically neutral and would be fine if we delete the first paragraph of the "Additional languages and migration" section, which has a bunch of criticisms cited to primary sources, and replace it with the NYT source with something like "After Internet Brands introduced advertising, many of its volunteer contributors started leaving, because they didn't want to be a part of a commercial site."
  • On Wikitravel delete up to citation 29 in that section (all primary/crowdsourced), and replace it with the NYT content I wrote above (minus the lawsuits, which are covered by the one proper source in that section, CNET)
  • On Internet Brands I think we can just summarize it in a sentence or two. They acquired the entire site for just over 1% of their annual revenue - it's a blip for them that is covered in greater depth in sub-articles. Something like "It acquired a travel-content Wiki WikiTravel in 2006. After advertising was introduced to the site, many of its volunteer contributors left the next year and forked to WikiVoyage, a similar website run by the non-profit, the Wikimedia Foundation. WikiTravel is now defunct." Also, the additional minor lawsuit in the section following it can probably just be removed.
CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, can work with that. Will implement when this section gets archived in a day or so, unless there are further comments and/or actions by others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikitravel is not "defunct" (sadly).
The proposed re-write for the Wikivoyage article is misleading, as it implies that the exodus was gradual and uncoordinated.
Oh and neither Wikitravel nor Wikivoyage uses CamelCase.
-- Powers T 00:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. The Wikitravel article was referring to something called Wikitravel Press, that is now defunct, not the main site. Of course anyone can make refinements using strong secondary sources, if there are other sources that indicate it was more coordinated than depicted in the NYT source. CorporateM (Talk) 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the NYT depicted it as uncoordinated at all. It clearly calls it a fork, which is almost by definition coordinated and organized. Powers T 00:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed that the source uses the word "forked" (not familiar with the term). It says Italian and German editors left in 2006. The article is dated for 2012 and indicates the WMF forking was ongoing at that time. At the time of reporting it says 38 out of 48 of their best editors had moved over. I don't have an interest in debating the finer points though - feel free to edit away. CorporateM (Talk) 07:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: See Fork (software development). Wnt (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. There was a bit of a blowup a few years back and you said something that reminded me of the "no big deal" concept. We've promoted a total of 146 administrators between 2011 and 2015. In comparison, we promoted 121 in 2009 alone and 408 in 2007. I think one of the major reasons is that we've moved away from the "no big deal" concept. By making the administrator user-right "easy come, easy go", however, we can move back towards "no big deal". That will in turn lead to more thoughtful, kind and welcoming administrators. At the same time, we must do so in a way that does not humiliate those who have put so much work into the encyclopedia. I believe that this proposal strikes the balance well, making it easier to remove the sysop bit, but in a "humane" fashion - while focussing on the tenets of the Wikipedia, such as it being community driven, open and transparent. I'd love to hear your thoughts. WormTT(talk) 07:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem has always been coming up with a process that does not encourage grudges, mob mentality and offsite solicitation. It would be better to have a subgroup of ArbCom like WP:BASC who can quickly say desysop, no action or confirmation RfC. I have an abhorrence of committees and structures in Wikipedia, they encourage bureaucracy. We already have ArbCom, they can already do this, and the number of cases where it's likely to be legitimately required are absolutely tiny. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have one process that encourages grudges and mob mentality. Its called WP:RfA. We don't need another. I am very sympathetic to the concept of "stage one, decide whether we want to do this, stage two, work out the details" but I think that there are a bunch of people who will answer "should we do this? It depends on the details." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The process would stand on its own as it is, there is enough information to see what the process will look like roughly, it's just not the best it can be. Working out the details and improvements is only going to work if people are actually invested in the process in the first place. In this case, it appears people are seeing it that way. WormTT(talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Guy, having served on Arbcom, I believe that as a committee, it has its fingers in too many pies. You cite BASC like it's a formal decent process, well it wasn't when I was on there. It was whichever Arbitrator had time to deal with the torrent of emails and highlight the less frivolous to the rest of the committee. There was no structure to that. WormTT(talk) 16:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
But that's why they formed subcomitees like BASC and AUSC. If ArbCom is so overworked they can delegate. It's as simple as that. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has a rapid, regularly-used, functional desysopping process as an alternative to drawn-out ArbCom proceedings: ArbCom. In 2014 we had at least two admins swiftly desysopped by ArbCom motion. We had another one in May of this year.
  • Secret, which took 15 days from the misuse of RevDel to posting of the final motion to desysop.
  • Toddst1, which took 5 days from the first request on the ArbCom case page to the posting of the final motion to desysop.
  • AntonioMartin, which took about 7 days from the first posted complaint on AN/I to the posting of the final motion to desysop.
At least four admins resigned "under a cloud" in 2014: Eloquence, Nikkimaria, Kaldari, Hahc21. Presumably they were capable of reading the writing on the wall during the various noticeboard processes, and could see the likely outcome of a likely, imminent, requested, or (in the case of Eloquence) in-progress Arbitration case.
Indeed, in 2014 only three admins were desysopped through a full ArbCom case (Kafziel, Nightscream, DangerousPanda) and closure. Time-consuming Arbitration cases represent a minority of desysoppings, and have for some time. Cases tend to only be opened where there are complex issues involving multiple editors, and/or where the consensus of the community is decidedly murky—the sort of situations where any 'streamlined' process would be unable to function fairly and effectively anyway. I'll even suggest that the ArbCom doesn't like to open unnecessary cases, and generally prefers to dispense with as much business via motion as is reasonably possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm only familiar with the AntonioMartin situation, but in that case the admin was found to be socking at ANI. So I really was let off easy, as any ordinary user would have been blocked. I think you may recall the discussion that we had at the time, how ordinary users get blocks for 3RR and here we had an admin not be blocked for something far more serious. Were it not for the socking, the consensus was that he would not have been desysopped purely on the competence issues raised. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to dig out and examine the old discussion(s), but I would ponder whether or not the 'consensus' of the random passers-by (and axe-grinders) at AN/I actually reflects what would have happened had the issue been brought to ArbCom. It also occurs to me to wonder how, in case the consensus of the community genuinely was that desysopping was unnecessary, having an additional desysopping process would be beneficial.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Here it is, the bizarre story of an admin repeatedly adding unsourced information to BLPs, and the general feeling that his tools were not in danger - until he was found socking. An extremely good example of why the new proposed process, or some other process with a similar aim, is needed. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't understand your argument. I'm not going to slog through the discussion(s), but I'm going to (arguendo) presume that you're accurately reporting the community consensus that desysopping was not warranted. And neither you nor anyone else requested an Arbitration case or motion. And on the basis of one discussion that purportedly reached a consensus against desysopping, and a failure to even try the existing process, you're arguing that we need a new process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. It's an example where an editing restriction was warranted, and in any ArbCom case leading to such a restriction the question of the compatibility between that and adminship would have been raised. Something happened once that you think was not dealt with well, so you want an entire new process, of a kind that has been repeatedly rejected in the past? I am unconvinced. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll make it simple for you two folks: that situation was a good example of why there needs to be a better way to remove admins. Adminship would not have been removed, clearly, because the issue was competence and not misuse of tools. It took egregious conduct (socking) to get his tools removed. Sure, if an admin socks, he will be desyssoped. I'll grant you that. The idea here is to lower the bar. Yes, that has discomfitted admins. Some of my best friends are admins, to use the old saw. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So what you're actually looking for is not a new desysopping process (though again, neither you nor anyone else actually tried the existing process), but rather a different set of criteria to be applied for determining whether or not an admin should be desysopped. That just takes a consensus-based revision to WP:ADMIN. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that when there's something particularly egregious, it'll frequently absorb all other grounds for desysopping. It's simply a matter of efficiency... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Eh look, I'm not going to waste my time in dialogue with you guys. You like the status quo. Fine. No amount of discussion is going to change that, and if it was up to admins alone there obviously would be no change in the status quo and obviously no community de-sysopping process. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Not being too familiar with admin/arbcom-type issues, I would be concerned that the number of disruptive editors an admin blocks could quickly out-number the number of disinterested participants in a discussion and result in a very poor "consensus". Adding it as an arbcom power seems more sensible. CorporateM (Talk) 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
That's largely why it's been rejected multiple times before. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting David Rumsey Historical Maps collection to donate their maps

I will be doing the soliciting, but I wonder whether we have enough space on our discs. They will have to donate in jpeg though if we don't support the native MrSID files.

Thanks, Logos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logos112 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly you meant this as a question solely for Jimbo, but I will just jump in here to opine that the Wikimedia Foundation has more than enough disc space for anything that might be required. So that should never be a concern. I know nothing about the MrSID format other than what I just read in the Wikipedia article about it, so possibly someone else can comment on whether and how it is supported. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I had meant to respond in a similar vein to Arthur goes shopping, after looking at their site. If you need help uploading the content contact me, or USer:Fae, or ask on Commons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

Wikimania video

Are there any plans for the Wikimedia-Mexico copyright owners to put up video of Wikimania keynote speeches this year, or are they going to limit themselves to clips of ethnic dancing and demonstrations of translation software without audio? (It's phrased sarcastically but it's an honest question. The better question is how WMF let this unacceptable situation develop...) Carrite (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder... Perhaps it's a conspiracy to stop those of us who did not attend from knowing the cabalistic machinations of the undecennial caravansary based event. (I had thought it was going to be held in the Biblioteca Vasconcelos so I suppose I would have been disappointed.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Looks more like basic incompetence, but your mileage may vary. I see that Andrew Lih has a couple videos that he apparently produced up on Archive.org. Where was WMF??? Carrite (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Mexico city??? I would worry more about the air pollution there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Rush to Judgment

There's a disgraceful thread over at ANI[7]. Many editors were blocked for sockpuppetry just on the basis of them being welcomed to Wikipedia by a now blocked or banned editor. A CU was done and revealed that some of the accounts were unrelated but not before these editors, some of who have no edit history, were blocked. The blocks were removed but they are all still on these new editor's block histories. Welcome to Wikipedia, you're blocked for doing nothing at all....William 15:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's difficult to see this as anything more than an honest mistake. It did appear that a sockmaster had welcomed newly formed socks, but it turned out that it was a red herring, and the sockmaster was welcoming mostly random accounts taken from a log. The most that can be done now is for the accounts to be unblocked, and this seems to be taking place.
The moral of the story is that CU confirmation is needed before blocking with this kind of occurrence. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Man Up: The GamerGate Controversy Article

Jimbo, when is Wikimedia foundation going to man up and intervene on the entirely toxic nonsense that is the GamerGate controversy article, which still persists upon being nothing more than a squatted soapbox for a single point of view and a forum for certain individuals to discuss their individual viewpoints on the topic? It's time that those with some degree of authority to get to grips with this persistent problem. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sadly Jimbo and Wikimedia's hands are tied on this. They play a dangerous game any time they wield their authority to settle content disputes. It is indeed appalling for just how long that article has stood as little more than a propaganda piece for people opposed to the movement. We’ll be soon approaching an entire year now of Wikipedia being abused to libel tens of thousands of people in a movement as serial misogynists, harassers, and general scumbags. The core problem with it seems to stem from heavy administrative bias against editors on one "side" of the controversy. If you have a look at the list of sanctions applied around the topic area maybe 90% or more of them have been against so-called “pro-GG” editors. Until the administration corps grows a spine and learns to deal with bad actors impartially (and those with a bone to pick in this conflict step down and let truly uninvolved admins take over), this site's credibility will just continue to be tarnished by that joke of an article. Already this past year I have noticed a marked shift in attitude towards linking to Wikipedia articles in many of the online communities I visit. People like to pretend that video game enthusiasts exist in a vacuum and can just be bullied and pushed around as they please, but the game generation is all grown up now and many see no reason to trust Wikipedia in other areas when what has happened on that article has been happening for so long in spite of huge amounts of attention.
Here's my analysis of the situation. It has always been apparent to me that video game articles on Wikipedia (and perhaps some other entertainment industry topics) occupy a bit of a separate article space with lower standards than other articles. After all, it’s just something people do in their free time to have fun... Does it really matter? Surely not as much as sociopolitical, historical, or science topics? Ultimately I think what's happened on the GamerGate article is an intersection of two cultures that don't normally come together: people who don't really care for video games much or get their culture vs. video game enthusiasts. And as neither of the two groups together respects the medium much when it comes to writing articles on Wikipedia specifically, the former (which writes articles on more "prestigious" topics than video games) has managed to dominate the latter.
So I think the site’s users need to earnestly ask themselves a question now: What place should video games have on Wikipedia? Should they be relegated to a dark corner of the site--a set of trivial articles of no consequence that nobody really respects and few really care about except the hardcore enthusiasts? Or is it time to give video game topics the respect and professionalism that most other topics on Wikipedia are already afforded? 174.45.178.216 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think there are three main issues:
  1. Lack of traditional reliable sources on the GG side - largely because many of the targets were the gaming media
  2. Some significant number of established editors who appeared to take an anti-GG stance
  3. A bunch of not very clever pro-GG editors who stomped on everything with size 10 boots and
I am not minded to contribute much to this area, because the cost-benefit ratio is pretty bad. When the history of the event is written and there are more and better RS to quote I suspect the article will evolve in a manner less likely to rile random GGers.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
A very reasonable take... Carrite (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This is about the only take. ArbCom did as much as they could. Admins that didn't toe the anti-GG line have been driven off, even site-banned and there are no uninvolved administrators willing to curb the vitriole. GamerGate is where a number of various social factions coalesced into two factions: pro and anti GamerGate. While we cover the various aspects of anti-GamerGate including the harassment of game developers, tropes in gaming and various other progressive views, we treat pro-GamerGate aspects as a mob of faceless misogynists. Even when sources are available they are dismissed. This is, of course, not reality but the current climate precludes any other viewpoints. --DHeyward (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What precludes other viewpoints is that the "other viewpoins" are delusional or just plain wrong, which is why they don't get coverage in reliable sources. There isn't any "anti-GamerGate" -- there's a bunch of individuals and small groups that mostly don't even like each other but happen to have the decency and good sense to share a common disgust with Gamergate. Just as there is no such thing as "anti-Westboro Baptist Church" or "anti-Stormfront", or "anti-KKK", there is no "anti-Gamergate." 4.15.65.27 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The Gamergate article today follows the consensus of reliable sources. That consensus is unfavorable to Gamergate because Gamergate’s chief notable accomplishments to date are (a) its widely reported efforts to harass female software developers by threatening to maim, rape, or murder them, and (b) its also widely-reported efforts to use Wikipedia to improve its public reputation and to further harass its targets by using Wikipedia to discuss their sex lives. This is the way the sources now stand, and Wikipedia will continue to reflect the sources; in many respects, the current article errs by extending Gamergate too many benefits of too many doubts. This excess of charity had led to many evasions and much weaseling to satisfy Gamergate and the many new and zombie accounts it recruited in order to take over the page and to drive its opponents off wikipedia -- an effort that, to wikipedia's shame, has been largely successful. Were Wikipedia to actually deviate substantially from the consensus of the sources, the public outcry would surely provoke a swift return to good sense. If Gamergate desires more favorable coverage in Wikipedia, they first need to accomplish praiseworthy things and seek praise in reliable sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

.............and you should be off the article. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The simple truth is that the article reflects the reliable independent sources, and those sources which fall outside the gaming industry tend to take a dim view of the atrocious behaviour of GamerGate activists. Harassment, doxing and threats of physical violence are completely out of proportion to the trivial supposed wrong inflicted by their targets. As time passes, I think it is unlikely that the consensus of reliable sources will view the GamerGate activists any more sympathetically, and it is extremely unlikely that any article that passes Wikipedia's foundational policies will ever be to their liking.
I could be wrong about this, of course, but somehow I doubt it. Much of what the GamerGate activists try to insert into Wikipedia is essentially revisionism, trying to retrospectively excuse vile behaviour by reference to high principles which somehow never stand up to independent scrutiny.
In short, this is going to be like homeopathy or intelligent design: any article that is neutral and complies with core policies, will be despised by a small group of activists and will remain under relentless attack in perpetuity. The best they can hope for is a neutral description of their beliefs, alongside the documentary evidence that they are wrong. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In really short, the only named GG supporters are not harassing anyone. The allegations of harassment are against an amorphous, nameless group even though there are named GG supporters. This cognitive dissonance of "gamergate is all about harassment" and "all the known gamergate supporters are not harassing anyone" is why it's problematic. the main difference of your example is we can identify adherents of homeopathy and intelligent design. The article on GamerGate borders on BLP violations as the main focus is harassment yet the named supporters are not. It's a bogeyman article. --DHeyward (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's fairly obvious to everyone that Wikipedia has its own homeopathy and intelligent design advocates. You need look no further than those squatting the #Gamergate Controversy article to identify them. It has became nothing more than a bad bank of biased editing and citogenesis. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it is ill advised to compare gamergate with pseudoscience since one is refuted by the scientific method and the other is a Multi-faceted controversy, unless of course someone can prove via scientific method, that gamergate is predominantly designed to harass people. (e.g a thorough survey to find out what gamergate movement is actually about, gathering objective facts and stuff.) Until then, all we have are opinions of people mostly involved in the controversy, and a mainstream media that is more interested in the shocking and despicable threats, and not so interested in the somewhat legitimate concerns of gamers. WP article is far from descriptive of the controversy, it's confusing to anyone who is not already immersed in it and painting anyone supporting gamergate side as misogynists and harassers. More than that, the article itself is disruptive to Wikipedia. Draconian measures taken because of this article are disturbing to me, and I'm sure to many others as well. Currently the article is being treated as a battleground, and until that changes it will keep disrupting the WP and perhaps should be terminated. Darwinian Ape talk 12:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
"Confusing to anyone who is not already immersed in it". Absolutely. I had zero knowledge of the subject (other than seeing the drama boards fuss) and read the article for the first time a few days ago. It's so poorly written it's largely incomprehensible. I set myself the limited objective of sorting out the confused and unexplained usage of the word "Gamergate" in the article. It's title use is as a "controversy" but in the main body of the article it's also used as a grouping of people as well as an abstract noun seemingly referring to a set of views or a campaign. I eventually got it after a lot of confusion and reading the unholy mess 3 times. I tried to get the "regulars" to sort it out with a very simple explanatory sentence in the lead, but seem to have failed. (Lots of "look at the archive", "it's too complicated" or, worse, "it's unnecesary".) I'm not going to bother going back. It seems to me that the problem is that most of the regulars are drawn from the narrow world where Gamergate and things associated with it are the biggest thing and they assume either consciously or unconsciously that everyone knows the background, jargon, personalities involved etc. Actually, for the vast majority of our readership it either doesn't exist as a topic or is incredibly peripheral. DeCausa (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: - re "most of the regulars are drawn from the narrow world where Gamergate and things associated with it are the biggest thing and they assume either consciously or unconsciously that everyone knows the background, jargon, personalities involved etc." - Yes, yes and yes again. GamerGate is really one of the worst examples of navel-gazing nonsense I've ever seen. These folks are pretty much why WP:LAME was written.
I'd strongly urge the community to simply shrink and/or delete all articles generated as a result of the so-called "GamerGate" controversy. NickCT (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
As a Wikipedian who has stared into this particular abyss, I could not support this proposal more strongly. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The only reason there is a disconnect between the harassment and named individuals, as far as I can see, is that anybody who even looks at it gets doxed, which is something of a disincentive to getting involved. I have had to go to court for a Norwich Pharmacal order myself, it is an unpleasant and expensive process even if you do it as a litigant-in-person, as I did. As soon as the stalker was identified, he stopped. I am of the opinion that most online trolls of this nature are only prepared to do what they do as long as they can be assured of no consequences. Have you had death fantasies about you posted online? If not, I venture to suggest you STFU about the "imagined" harassment.
The idea that this is a "multi-faceted controversy" is pure revisionism. The sources outside the bubble world of GamerGate activists are pretty much unanimous: women were attacked, quite viciously, and largely on the basis of their gender, by a group who cam over as a bunch of over-entitled basement-dwellers with no sense of perspective who were probably jealous that someone else was getting some sack action.
I fully understand that this outside view of what they did must hurt them right in the feels. The solution right from the outset was for them to show a little class, and they have consistently refused to do this. Like, you know, saying "shit, I'm sorry, that was a dick move, how can I make it up to you?".
And in the end the biggest reason for the dim view the real world takes of this is that such horrible things were done over something that is of absolutely no objective importance whatsoever. NickCT is absolutely bang on the money here. Navel-gazing nonsense. If every videogame in the world ceased to exist tonight, nobody would die. I can understand people who get passionate about Israel-Palestine, with centuries of bloodshed behind it, but GamerGate? Really? People need to grow up. I ahve two young adult sons, smack in the GamerGate demographic (a mathematician and an engineer, no less) and there is no way they would behave like this. The refusal to acknowledge that what was done was inexcusable, is the root of the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
As one (or perhaps the primary one) that has been arguing against the tone of the article since the start, it is not that I (or others that I think are aligned in my thoughts) want to ignore the horrible harassment and other attacks that have happened. It clearly happened, that's actually one of the few factual things we can state about the events because it was all visible on public social media.
However, the problem is that if you look carefully at the high level sources, as well as explore the situation on the centralized forums used by proGG, it is clear that none of those people (albeit broadly anonymous) support the use of harassment or other threats and some even go as far to say they are trying to find the parties that are doing the harassment to try to stop them, with a further postulate that there's third-party trolls doing the harassment "for the lulz". Further, we have absolutely no idea from any source (reliable or not) of any specific individual doing the harassment and their connection to the proGG side. This is not denying that everyone may be getting dupped here, that proGG'ers secretly harass via other accounts, etc, but we don't that.
If proGG was a group of named individuals with a clear membership list and all other factors equal, BLP would be all over this to nuke away any connotation that the proGG side wholly was engaging in harassment, even if the press wanted to make that claim without any evidence. BLP does not apply to nameless groups but the same logic should apply, particularly knowing that the press is implicitly biased against GG (the combination of young male gamers, 4chan mentality, sexist and misogynistic attitudes, and harassment against females is never going to get favorable coverage in the bulk of most reliable sources). Claims made about a group that have no clear evidence to back them up should be left as claims, and not treated as facts to write the rest of the article around that. We still have to document the harassment, we still have to document the contempt that mainstream media has for the proGG's other aspects (their ethics campaign "conspiracy theories", their use of aggressive email drives, their dehumanization of those harassed, their inability to organize and unwillingness to move away from the toxic GG label), and we can still include the claims that suspect that the ethics angle is all a front for a harassment campaign. But at the end of the day, it is clear no one has a firm understanding of what is happening inside GG, and while the press want to push forward a theory based on clear patterns of evidence, we at WP should be treating all of that as contentious statements and make sure they remain claims.
That's been my take from the start, in that the press clearly are marginalizing any respectful coverage of the proGG, which we as a high level , academic, impartial tertiary source, should be able to work around, separating the condemnations and criticism of the coverage from mainstream media from the actual facts. It is not about making the article a pro-GG propaganda vehicle, and it is not about trying to get even close to equal balance (90/10 anti/pro would even be pushing it based on sources). But simply, my stance is about not accepting the press's tone and attitude as the "right" answer without question, and writing for an objective, impartial documentation of the controversy. The bulk of the information and sources are already present to do this, its pretty much a matter of restructuring and rewording a few phrases, and this has been meet with resistance from editors that want to take the press's word as the Bible and not deviate from that, despite NPOV policy saying one should to stay impartial and objective. GG presents a situation that is not well covered by existing policy (either way!), in where there is a clear strong media bias (even if it is unintentional or part of the status quo for reporting), and how to deal with reading past that bias but without sacrificing UNDUE. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
They started a mob. They stoked the mob. And then they stand back and say "oh what terrible things the mob did". This has happened many times in history. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There is good chance that GG was engineered to start a reaction, and it might be proven out that way. But it is presumption to assume this was the case with what we know (or more specifically, what little we know) now. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's presuming anything, as far as I can see. The mob existed, they organised in the ways described, the originators of the memes were as identified. To conclude anything other than what the sources describe would tax even Mary Poppins' willingness to assume good faith. As to their reluctance to be identified with the awful things done in their name, well, that just seems like buyer's remorse. They started it, and I am far from convinced they were anything other than delighted with how it played out right up tot he point that they were identified as weapons-grade asshats. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

If anyone wants an actual no-bullshit rundown of the toxicity of Gamergate, just go read Rationalwiki's article. Rationalwiki is unabashedly biased in favor of facts and against crankery, which tends to shut down anyone whining about how the article isn't "neutral" because it doesn't treat the subject with kid gloves. (Granted, having much lower traffic than en.wp probably also helps.) --108.38.204.15 (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


As a reminder of how easily one can be inured to harassment, Guy (with whom I largely agree) writes above that "Harassment, doxing and threats of physical violence are completely out of proportion to the trivial supposed wrong inflicted by their targets." But what "supposed wrong" that Gamergate targets might have done, precisely, would justify threatening to rape them? What supposed violation of journalistic ethics would these software developers be accused of that would justify threatening to murder them? The reason that no named individuals support the only notable accomplishments of Gamergate is that no named individuals are willing to say they support these crimes. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"The idea that this is a "multi-faceted controversy" is pure revisionism." I don't think so, anyone who is following the drama would notice that it is "multi-faceted." It's true that the mainstream media is only interested in the harassment aspect. The other stuff in that controversy is not newsworthy for them. But that doesn't mean other stuff did not exist. There was a controversy of the gate variety few years back in the Atheist circles called elevatorgate. It was a huge drama in the atheist community much like gamergate was to gamers, but so few mainstream sources picked it up, we don't even have enough to write an article about. GG is pretty much the same except for the ample media coverage focused on the harassment.(Why? Because only nerds care about the other stuff.) Now we have a garden variety internet drama, but not enough RS to write a neutral article.(though it can be much better than the current one if not for the overzealous editors) but I also agree this is a pretty minor topic overall, and it's ruining the WP.
PS: Raitonalwiki is rational like Conservapedia is trustworthy. Darwinian Ape talk 15:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the GG situation has highlighted that WP is not well prepared to deal with present-day controversies where part of the issue is media coverage, and compounded by one side of the controversy savvy enough to use Wikipedia (beyond the odd edit or two) as to be able to try to swing discussion on Wikipedia's coverage on that point. While page protection works some of the time, I think it is fair to say measures like 1RR and the 30 days/500 edits restriction helps to keep most of groups like this away to avoid disruption. But we also have to recognize that in some controversies, there will be well-established editors that are very passionate about one side of the topic, and we have to make sure that WP maintains a more well-balanced (not necessarily equal) perspective of such controversies, not letting media to swing the tone and presentation, and making sure editors keep civil heads during such discussions. If we can catch these situations early, learning from the GG situation and implimenting such restrictions sooner than later that would make for a much saner situation across all of WP. But these again should be restricted only to the most potentially virulent controversies. Something like dressgate isn't something to pull that trigger on. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Responding to vicious off-wiki attacks and harassment of editors in a manner other than "topic-ban victims of harassment" might also help Wikipedia's reputation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: - Are you seriously proposing a victim of harassment has been topic-banned here? Or are you just fabricating shenanigans to exaggerate an already exaggerated issue? NickCT (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@NickCT: Yes, I am stating such, and your ignorant response tells me that you have no clue what you're talking about here. I have been viciously harassed and attacked on- and off-wiki by Gamergate thugs after I stood up to prevent them from using Wikipedia pages to attack, libel, out and smear their opponents, and the Arbitration Committee's response to this harassment was to topic-ban me. If you would like to catch up on the issue, this article discusses it in detail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Those topic-banned were not topic-banned because they were harassed, they were topic-banned for creating a battleground atmosphere to all editors on the talk page (not just the SPAs and IPs), refusing to engage in collaborative discussions, engaging in personal attacks, and not editing in a consensus-based manner. There are other ways to deal with harassment, SPAs and IPs, including those coordinating off-site, without violating the basic principles of a civil, collaborative environment with other editors (that is what the recently-concluded LB case has further established). --MASEM (t) 20:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That's complete bullshit, Masem. I put my own personal safety and sanity at risk to defend living people from vicious abuse, libel and calumny spewed by anonymous troll armies and Wikipedia did not lift a finger to help. The lesson here is clear: anonymous troll armies that can raise endless streams of throwaway accounts to game the system are rewarded by the encyclopedia's fundamentally-broken proceses, whereas longtime editors who stand up to protect living people's good names, the encyclopedia's reputation and core editorial policies are shoved aside and thrown away. Intervene to stop attacks and you become the target. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a separate issue. It is a harsh unfortunate truth that with a situation like GG where you have one side that uses harassment and intimidation to silence opponents, they will take to anyone that might get in their way, and that has included in this case admins and editors have been proactive in dealing with SPA and IPs in the GG situation. That's something we all would love to try and stop or prevent, but unless we disable the open nature of Wiki, it impossible to prevent, and certainly would not stop the offsite behavior. We need to figure out if there's a way that we can have admins discretely handle BLP issues that arise from situations like GG without revealing their identity publicly, for example, so that we can keep a clean house without triggering a wave of harassment. The GG situation is just that toxic, no question, and it's terrible that it exists in this manner, and there needs to be a mass sea change of the Internet at large to deter and eliminate harassment as a tactic to silence those that disagree with you.
However, for how ever bad it is, the amount of harassment one gets does not give anyone the right to ditch all consensus-based editing and discussion standards, and lash out and treat existing, non-SPA editors with disrespect and hostility, and that was a central issue in both the GG and LB cases. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Those topic-banned were indeed not topic-banned because they were harassed: In many cases, they were topic banned because intolerable harassment drove them to be impolite on-wiki to people who were threatening their lives, health, careers, and honor elsewhere. Sanctimoniously to demand ideal deportment at all times from persons placed in such circumstances is to expect too much, which is precisely the reason Gamergate adopted these tactics in its attack on Wikipedia. The project’s survival may well depend on our finding a solution to this threat, about which a thoughtful discussion is urgently required. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This is my advice for those people. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
IOW, "snitches get stitches," eh? That's the "ethics" of a sociopath. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
IOW, "if you are unable to handle being harassed, how can you help someone else handle being harassed?" I don't appreciate the immediate assumption of bad faith here. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
If anyone on-wiki is threatening another editor's life or engaging in such behavior, or forcing obvious BLP and falsehoods into an article, we have clear and almost non-negotiable policies to eliminate that which are handled on boards like ANI, and that should be funneled there. Otherwise, you're dealing in good faith with other editors and civility is one of our highest requirements. That doesn't get thrown out just because there are external circumstances, even harassment, as ArbCom has just pointed out in the LB case. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So what you're saying, Masem, is that it's a perfectly acceptable tactic on Wikipedia for an anonymous troll army to use a sustained, vicious, unrelenting and unapologetic harassment and smear campaign to drive opposing established editors over the edge and into endless bureaucratic nonsense so that their endless stream of throwaway accounts can take over the topic area, thus demonstrating to any and all who may try to oppose them what will happen if they dare to stand up to the abuse? You have handed this and any other troll army a blueprint to dominate any article on Wikipedia that they please. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I am saying that it is up to an editor that is easily angered to recognize where their behavior towards all other editors becomes a problem. It's clear that a number of the harassers in GG did it to eke a reaction out of specific editors, knowing that these editors were angered easily and hoping they would slip up against WP policy and be removed from participating in the article. Calming down and not giving what the harassers want may cause them to get bored and go away (not an assured tactic but can't hurt to try), and always serves to maintain a civil environment for discussion with other editors. But editing while angry/upset is a recipe for disaster if one cannot keep their emotions in check during civil discussions. Note this doesn't mean one can't have the occasional outburst (everyone's human) but prolonged behavior fueled by anger is what is the problem. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you would be singing a different tune if you had been the one endlessly reverting the libelous attacks on living people. But then you wouldn't have received the dubious honor of becoming "Based Masem," would you? Probably not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been in the situation of being harassed and bullied long before GG and learned my lesson then not to take my anger out on others that aren't part of the problem. Part of what I learned then is if I am about to lash out at others, I take 5, collect my thoughts and then figure out the right course of action. I don't blame anyone for getting upset and angry at those SPAs that were trying to push libelous material into these articles, but anyone else beyond that, cool heads are required, and if one is quick to jump at others, maybe taking a few minutes to rethink that might be needed. And I do consider that I have been mocked and criticized too in the current situation, though off-site and by the anti-GG crowd (despite being anti-GG myself) because I'm not anti-GG-enough. I just don't let it get to me on WP unless it is used as a personal attack against me on-wiki.
And the other piece that has to be brought up (and there's no way to put this gently) is that those topic-banned were also vocally critical of GG on the article's talk page. I would never wish harassment on anyone and deplore its use as a tool to try to silence critics, but at the same time, it would seem one should use caution when speaking strongly out against a group on a very public website like WP against a situation where those that have been critical of it in the past have used harassment to silence their opponents, as to be ready for the type of reaction that one might get. Doubly-so in that WP is not meant to be used as a soapbox or a personal blog (and again, that works both for the proGG and antiGG side); discussions should be about improving articles, not discussing the topic itself, even in an offhanded way in trying to discuss article improvements. Continuing to insert personal feelings about GG were further entrenching the battleground atmosphere, and drawing attention from those that would use harassment to silence opponents. It's terrible that this type of situation exists on the Internet in that speaking one's mind can draw this type of ire, but it's also unavoidable with how the Internet is set up today and is going to take far more effort than just WP can offer to solve. That's a good reason that when editing this type of contentious article to leave one's personal feelings at the door and focus only on the topic and sources. I cannot say that would have prevented any harassment (presuming those were still engaged in removing BLP violations/etc.) but it would have certainly avoided making those people obvious targets. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I guess that means Vous n'êtes pas Charlie Hebdo, eh Masem? I mean, they should have known better than to say mean things about people known to get violent. Far better everyone should just shut up, right? PuceGoose (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, Masem and company are placing a very high bar on participating on Wikipedia without Gamergate’s blessing. Those who Gamergate likes can go about their business; those who Gamergate targets must face whatever Gamergate does to them and respond by keeping "their emotions in check." (Note that, even here, we're skirting the precipice: after all, what group is notoriously emotional? Insufficiently "calm"? Haven’t we been urged here to "man up"? Good grief.) Gamergate's targets see their sex lives spread over talk pages, rehashed every two weeks while faked nudes and despicable innuendos are broadcast far and wide. They receive neither support nor aid. When we demand their perfect civility toward the very people who are discussing their targets’ sex lives and distributing the filth, we demand too much. That's the point. Gamergate targeted editors who stood in their way, and their targets were topic-banned. They have new targets and new goals, now. And of course every shady PR agency and intelligence service is studying their gameplan and adapting it for use by an organization with deep pockets and without patently despicable goals. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Again, I point out that the reason the editors were removed was that they were disruptive on the talk page towards other editors, which appears to be based on allowing their anger against the topic and the harassment their were receiving to spill over to treat other editors poorly. It seems like common sense if one is prone to such is either to back away from the topic for a bit or learn to manage that anger, regardless of where the source for that is coming from. We do have to figure a way that we can limit harassment and off-site manipulation so that this type of anger spill-over doesn't happen as much or removing a reason why it might happen, but civility is still something that every editor is expected to handle themselves regardless of the situation behind it (give or take the occasional lapse). So I strongly disagree with the idea that this is a gameplan for any other agency to swing WP, because the responsibility to stay civil is in the hands of editors, not these agencies. I'd also say that the one thing that has come out of the GG situation that would further help is the idea of the 30/500 topic block, because that has been working to minimize attempts to force BLP into the article , even better than just the semi-prot aspect, so that's a tool that can further foil any attempt of a off-site manipulation drive. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: In addition to NorthBySouthBaranof, whose harassment has been prolonged and vicious, there's no question at all that Lightbreather was harassed and topic-banned in the recent ARBCOM case: ARBCOM itself acknowledged this and offered a last-minute compromise because of it. I think it's fairly clear that CarolMooreDC was also harassed and then topic-banned. Ryulong was hounded and his sexual orientation ridiculed. I myself get plenty of anti-semitic abuse off-wiki, most notably from a Gamergater whose user name just happens to be a tribute to a Nazi warplane famous for exterminating civilians. Wikipedia does little or nothing to assist people who are targeted -- it's not even clear that Wikipedia has a policy against using off-wiki sexual harassment to pursue on-wiki goals-- and if some of them at times have reacted in haste, fear or anger, I think haste, fear or anger is entirely understandable. Note, too, that the targets you see here are those who are difficult to harass -- people, for example, with no boss or with extremely secure employment. Gamergate drove its vulnerable targets off-wiki months ago. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)



  • @108.38.204.15: Neither RationalWiki nor Wikipedia trace this 'controversy' back to its true roots -- as a reality TV show. See this editorial from March 2014. RationalWiki says it all started in August. I tried to get something about this added back in Archive 14, but was shot down with the dubious argument that if most sources miss something we should miss it too. But as tempers get hot let's try to remember that there are pros out there who are making a living out of messing with our heads. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean exactly. Yes, for years a bunch of troglodytes have been trying to drive Quinn out of the gaming industry and to suicide, along with other people they consider members of the cultural Marxist SJW feminist cabal that in their minds is trying to destroy video games. This is touched on in the RationalWiki article. The thing that started in August was Eron Gjoni whipping up the Internet mob to harass Quinn after their breakup, which led to the mob getting the false idea that Quinn traded sex for a good review of her game, hence the original name the Gamergate mob used, "Quinnspiracy". This is a pretty frequent trope among anti-feminists and reactionaries, who make up the core of Gamergate: women use sex to extort things from men and get ahead in life, which is why they need to be kept "in their place" for the good of society. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
But that's not the narrative given in the editorial I cited, or in [8]. Those sources talk about the game developers all being pretty much on one side, and the TV people on the other. It even says that Quinn had some difference of opinion with someone named "JonTron" and they tried to settle it off camera, but then the cameras came in, and later on Lesham asked some awkward questions to hype up the feminist controversy. This doesn't sound like a game designer controversy, at least at that stage; Lesham was just trying to make good professional television, which according to those sources seemed to consist of a lot of product placement leavened with some manufactured drama. But at some point, the phenomenon metastasized out of reality TV into some kind of reality Internet. I wish I knew who is actually making fame and fortune out of the 'Gamergate controversy', because if you can find him you'll know the cause of all the trouble. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to accept that the Wikipedia model is not going to work under all circumstances. The main problem being with criticisms of journalistic behavior: making those very journals reliable sources, and making critical sources unreliable, means that the article is never going to be very fair and balanced. On the whole the WP system of reliable sources works very well, but we shouldn't expect it to work every time. I don't think any sensible editor would want to get involved, as there are almost intractable problems, which isn't the case on the majority of articles.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no issue with the Wikipedia model here. The idea that journalists reflexively protect journalists is 100% incorrect -- no one loves to attack journalists more than other journalists, but only when they catch their rivals out in actual errors or misdeeds. There were NO journalistic misdeeds here. Everything that Gamergate pointed to as a "journalistic ethics" issue was bunk, a cover story for their harassment campaign, as per the Columbia Journalism Review (see the article for the citation). Gamergate's idea of "ethics in journalism" was "Reviewers shouldn't be allowed to call a game sexist!" which is laughably wrong, and advocating censorship to boot. Gamergate's thesis that, for example, the New York Times would "close ranks" to protect Kotaku is, frankly, delusional, like the rest of their ideas about "ethics." That's why they have to go to places like Breitbart, which could care less about facts, to get their story pushed. That's why Gamergate can't find any reliable sources to back their story -- reliable sources do research and check facts, like Jesse Singal of New York Magazine did, and they find that Gamergate is nonsense with a heaping helping of vile chan-distilled syrup poured over it and a generous sprinkle of MRA nuts. They then report that, and Gamergate acts like this is some huge conspiracy to destroy their beloved vidya, when it's just reporters doing their jobs. Aspirae (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Who are you Single Purpose Account? I don't think there is much point in arguing with you, except to say I respectably disagree. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
God, is everyone here this hostile to new contributors? First Pink Ampersand and now you. Random Gamergaters can show up and post long screeds about how Wikipedia isn't fair to them, but I'm not allowed to take two minutes and start an account to disagree? Real nice. This place really is welcoming toward the GG hordes, isn't it? Amazing, after the way they continue to try to organize attacks on the encyclopedia, that you people would rather have them around than people who think they're full of garbage. Aspirae (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
You act as if they're the only ones that get any hospitality? 97.125.135.34 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that Mrjulesd refused to engage with the points I made at all, and instead flounced, claiming I wasn't worth talking to. (I take that as an admission he doesn't have any sensible refutations to make so flouncing is all that's left to him.) I bothered to engage with his points and bring up counterarguments backed with citations, and he just whined. It's atrocious behavior for someone working on an encyclopedia. Where's his evidence that the Wikipedia model has failed in this case? Meanwhile random Gamergaters spout nonsense from IPs and he says not a word about them showing up, because I guess he thinks they have a place here, but I don't? Or something? Aspirae (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) (Sorry for the signature mess up, that's my housemate's account, I found this discussion because of her.)
I can't speak for Mrjulesd, but your argument had some passionate language (i.e. "laughably wrong"). So it looks like your mind is already set on this issue. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to second Aspirae’s vexation here. For months on end, we had a constant procession of freshly-brigaded and zombie accounts that appeared at the Gamergate page, and each one was greeted, guided, cosseted, and supported by Gamergate’s experienced fans. To allude to the phenomenon, even indirectly, on the talk page became grounds for an instant block. This particular charade finally ended with the institution of the 30/500 rule -- and also, perhaps, with the exhaustion of Gamergate's file of zombie accounts; the recent increase in Gamergate socks is suggestive as well. Meanwhile, a simple undertaking to patrol the area for blatant BLP violations required a tremendous investment of time because so many editors were so very eager to discuss the sex lives of female software developers, because experienced editors invariably rushed to defend their right to use Wikipedia to discuss the sex lives of female software developers, and -- alas -- because Jimbo briefly lent Gamergate encouragement with remarks like "Wikipedia neither supports nor opposes Zoe Quinn," suggesting that Wikipedia should treat a target of harassment and her harassers as equally worthy. Wikipedia's hospitality to IPs and newcomers is very unevenly distributed, and remains uneven long after we have known that Gamergate is systematically recruiting “supporters” to flood Wikipedia and convert the project to further its own ends. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
MarkBernstein, are you connected to this "Aspirae" account at all? You seem to be tag-teaming with almost identical rhetoric, on this thread plus at WP:AN. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
That...that makes no sense at all. You have croggled me. Congratulations. I'm still waiting to find out why you think it makes sense that journalists are "colluding" about Gamergate. I've freelanced and really, this just defies reason. Come on, you must have SOMETHING, right? Aspirae (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Beats me! for all I know, Aspirae might be one of my sisters, or one of my cousins, or one of my colleagues. I doubt it, but anything's possible. For crying out loud, Mrjulesd, are you paying attention? I wrote an Arbcom defense in alliterative verse! It's not like my rhetorical style here on Wikipedia -- a pastiche of Milton and the metaphysicals-- would be hard for a literate person to emulate. If you want my normal style, read my research papers or my book. We're not JoeGod or some zombie account; that's the other folks. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, what a response. I did not ask for dialogue with any of the editors above, I asked explicitly for action on the part of Jimmy Wales and the Wikimedia foundation. But, I should also be thankful as you have made my point for me, the whole discussion is littered with admissions that the article is a mess and that it is not being edited in the interest of impartiality or truth, but rather based upon political lines and to serve demagoguery. Thank you for displaying that Wikipedia is being abused in this instance. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what you want is for Wikipedia to reflect the world as you see it, rather than as reliable independent sources see it. We don't. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is just from my experience but this discussion will continue until it is archived. GamerGate discussions are truly an endless abyss that is bottomless even though the opinions expressed about it rarely change. I actually thought the subject would be over after a couple of months (what hot topic on the internet lasts longer than that?) but, a year on, it still seems to be going on, despite GamerGate suffering from inevitable attrition. I think that the article is gradually getting better and as we acquire more thoughtful and less newsy secondary sources, the article will become more balanced. And, for what it's worth, GamerGate doxed me, too, although I was spared the death threats. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • That's because the 'new' editors and anon ips that are so concerned are trolling this site. Off-site coordinated harassment and attacks have went virtually unpunished, with only the harassed targets having to pay with their accounts. The editors still here making excuses for the GG trolls are the main problem. If they didn't exist, the issue could be dealt with swiftly. As it should be anyway. I've never heard of any place of business that would allow coordinated attacks directed at their volunteer staff by people like the ones that come over here from 8chan/4chan and Reddit. It's unbelievable to me that we can ban users almost immediately for legal threats, but have a several month ArbCom case with bullshit results for obvious and extreme harassment. The members of the committee should be ashamed, as should Jimbo. What company would allow this? .....Dave Dial (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I was doxed by anti-GamerGate, and I wasn't spared the threats. 174.61.202.126 (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Prove it. You forget that with the Five Horsement, and now Mark Bernstein, we can SEE what the Gamergate trolls are up to, because there have been no less than four Reddit subreddits dedicated setting this stuff up (Handpolk's, Vordrak's, "WikiInAction", and of course the motherlode, KiA.) And of course the documented "Ops" out of 8chan and so on. They aren't exactly subtle. Where do you see similar organized efforts targeted at Masem, DHeyward, and so on? Nowhere. 4.15.65.27 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Does this count? Mark has been posting this in quite a few places here. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any doxxing there -- can you be more specific? The site's kind of hard to follow. PuceGoose (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, the comparison I meant to get across was that the site had a roughly similar purpose to the reddit boards (to criticize Wikipedia and the actions of some editors). AFAIK, neither that site nor the reddit boards doxxed anyone. But they certainly have mocked and ridiculed many people. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I've personally seen doxxing on Reddit of multiple parties seen as "anti-" Gamergate. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've said it before but (a) we don;t have to have articles on everything; (b) we're not a news website; (c) articles that mostly present journalistic etc opinions as fact are inappropriate; (d) there are too many effectively single-purpose accounts involved; (e) MarkBernstein and some others should be topic banned for repeated soapboxing and for pseudo-meatpuppetry via off-wiki campaigns that are really no better from an "improve the encyclopaedia" perspective than those of their off-wiki opponents. Of the article itself, I agree with the likes of DeCausa above and, yes, I too see little point is continuing my involvement in such a cesspit of poor writing. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Having now also read some of the sources, I competely agree with NickCT: the article should be deleted (or, at least, cut to a couple of lines). DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite my worries on its tone and neutrality, I disagree the article should be deleted or trimmed. The topic is clearly notable and more than just a couple of lines are needed. A lot of the second half, the analysis of the situation, is fairly reasonable stuff, something that has been a necessary eye-opening situation for the VG industry and to a broader audience, and going to be in the headset of the industry for years. It just needs more eyes that are new to the article and without opinions on the situation, either way, to help review for neutrality and other tone and language choices. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You are not going to get those eyes for anything more than a brief period so long as those with entrenched opinions, such as MarkBernstein and ForbiddenRocky, continue to be involved. The former, in particular, is an incredibly disruptive presence but somehow seems to skirt round the edges of things that might cause him to be sanctioned - clever, but not necessarily productive. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair Masem is obviously as entrenched in his opinion as MarkBernstein, he only looks more sympathetic because he's more civil about it and right now is on the "losing side" of the content. Seems impossible for anyone to discuss anything on the talk space without Masem bringing out the same dead horse about wanting to rephrase it to be more sympathetic to GG, despite what the overwhelming amount of reliable source say. Though Sitush you've been pretty intolerable on the article talk page yourself. You showed up like a bull in a china shop declaring it all nonsense with an arrogance of tone that practically seems intended to wind people up. Every time anyone questions you you're needlessly hostile about it. It's no surprise to me you've quickly turned this into a personal feud with MarkBernstein because he dared stand up against your posturing. This whole "I'm a no nonsense guy" shtick doesn't really hold water when you've managed to become as embroiled in the page's politics as everyone else in record time. But let's be honest bringing this discussion here is a waste of time, Jimbo doesn't want to get involved in this. Why would here, you're all acting like children. 31.53.238.230 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Any discussion of "entrenched" at the Gamergate article that doesn't bring up Masem is incontrovertible proof that the speaker is pushing an agenda and pushing it hard. Looking at the revision stats for the main page, we see Masem far in the lead with nearly 400 edits (8.5% of the total) versus 80 for Mark Bernstein and 37 for ForbiddenRocky (why is he even a part of this discussion?) Masem is one of 393 editors who have worked on the main page, with an average of 11 edits each -- Masem has nearly FORTY TIMES that. On the talk page, he is responsible for almost exactly 10% of the edits -- one editor out of 655! -- most of them on the theme of "Let's source the article by what anonymous Gamergaters say on Reddit and 8chan instead of the New York Times and CNN because NYT and CNN are biased!" Rhoark also argues that the article should not be sourced on the New York Times because they don't care enough about video games to be unbiased in their reporting. If these editors had their way, the article would ignore some of the most prominent reliable sources in the world to focus instead on anonymous Redditors, Youtube demagogues, and, of course, Breitbart! And yet Sitush claims it's Mark Bernstein and ForbiddenRocky who are "entrenched"? The thing that's really entrenched here is Sitush's cranium in his nether regions. 4.15.65.27 (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately, I couldn't care less what anons think about me or this topic. Go log in or create an account and I might pay some attention. The sooner WP as a whole realises that allowing anon edits anywhere is no longer productive, the better. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately, I couldn't care less what you think about what I've said. My comment was more aimed at a wider audience of anyone reading who might think perhaps you have a point about the "entrenched" editors ruining the article. It was obvious from the moment you arrived on the talk page you weren't really trying resolve the problems with the article by building any kind of consensus or compromise amongst the various editors. You came in with a shotgun of uncivil crituque and proceeded to put your fingers in your ears when anyone tried to explain the problems that have led to the article reaching it's current state. The articles definitely needs new editors, but it needs people who are less quick to take a sides or make enemies. You walked into a warzone and instead of looking for a peaceful resolution you figured what was needed was more bombs and tanks. Though I don't think MarkBernstein's long sermons on the issue are always helpful, I think your open disdain and hostility towards anyone who doesn't agree with you is even less productive. The current approach of banning people involved in the article one by one when tensions fray to the point where they cross the line is never going to resolve what's happening. So your petty dispute with MarkBenstein because he hurt your fragile ego is a total waste of everyone's time. 31.53.238.230 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
💯Protonk (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
"Pseudo-meatpuppetry"? Is that a thing now? If Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to express any opinions about article subjects off-wiki, we should probably officially state that somewhere. Somehow I doubt this will encourage anyone in academia to involve themselves in Wikipedia, when the widespread feeling in academia already is that doing so is a waste of time, partly because of the likelihood of falling afoul of the myriad rules. Also, "we don't need to have articles on everything" is to me an exceedingly poor argument for pretty much anything. I'd like to see someone give that in response the next time someone raises the issue of poor coverage of topics like women in science or less-developed nations. "Hey, what do you want us to do? No one really needs articles on African politicians. The world won't stop spinning if we don't have them." To follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, let's just pull the plug on the projects, because no one really needs them anyway and sometimes writing good articles is hard. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it is not pseudo-meatpuppetry. It is a concerted campaign orchestrated off-wiki, and thus is actual meatpuppetry. Glad we've cleared that up. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to clear up that Mark Bernsteins personal blog post which incorrectly labelled the removal of certain disruptive editors at from the page via. Arbcom a 'war on feminism' which the Guardian (a reliable source in this instance? no.) repeated verbatim was by the same qualification meatpuppetry. I'm comfortable that Guy will be running of to AI as soon as possible to demand Mark is removed from Wikipedia based upon his 'understanding' and surely unbiased interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear on this, my essays seem to have met the standards of a bunch of editors at publications including The Guardian, Der Standard, de Volkskrant, Think Progress, Heise, Der Verdieping Trouw, Neues Deutschland, Social Text, El Fichero, Neues Deutschland, and Vice. I stand by them. I have no connection with the satirical site "Sea Lions of Wikipedia" other than finding it occasionally insightful and frequently hilarious; it does sometimes make fun of Wikipedians, and has gone so far as to talk about their "antics" or, in especially egregious cases, to suggest feeding them fish. The Gamergate sites to which people are drawing comparisons routinely feature racist and anti-Semitic cartoons and violent threats against specific Wikipedians. On-wiki, voices sympathetic to Gamergate have repeatedly called Gamergate’s targets prostitutes, claimed their police reports were fraudulent, cataloged their sex lives and dismissed their fears, pontificating (for example) that "one static image cannot readily imply rape" or that "I know other other allegations [about a specific living woman’s sex life] exist but will not state what those on Wikipedia are because that would be a violation at the current time." So, on the one hand, we have essays which a bunch newspapers and magazines found worth quoting, essays reporting events which those newspapers and magazines then reported themselves. On the other hand, we have people using Wikipedia to threaten women in the software industry (and now to threaten Wikipedians) with professional and personal harm.
Next time she shows up at a conference we... give her a crippling injury that's never going to fully heal... a good solid injury to the knees. I'd say a brain damage, but we don't want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.
Note, too, the influx of socks in this discussion, presumably the ghosts of banned editors eager to whitewash the Gamergate page or delete it, as either outcome would be a (minor, pointless) PR victory for the conspirators. The equivalence is striking! MarkBernstein (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Since those are my direct quotes you are using, you are including me in on "voices sympathetic to Gamergate" which you state are "called Gamergate’s targets prostitutes, claimed their police reports were fraudulent, cataloged their sex lives and dismissed their fears" which I have absolutely never done and consider this a personal attack. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, MarkBernstein, and Liz: - Well misogynistic and/or racist behavior and death threats/doxing are always wrong. Always. That said, it's pretty clear to me that at least some of the alleged "trolling" around this issue is really more imagined than real. WP allowed a few vandals on a couple barely notable BLPs to set off some perverse and misguided crusade. We fed the trolls...... Perhaps it's time just to dump this mess. @DeCausa, JzG, and Ryk72: I'd propose putting several articles created as a result of the GamerGate shenanigans up for deletion. Recognizing the deletions might not be successful, at least the discussion might present an opportunity for us to heal. Anyone with me? NickCT (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. If there is more than one article's worth of real substantive content, I'd be moderately surprised. The number of words exceeds that for the Watergate scandal, and I think the relative significance of the two speaks for itself. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, go for it. That the article is longer than Watergate's ... as telling as it is ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi NickCT, I find myself reminded of a similar, more ancient, proposal, and am inclined to agree that this is an appropriate course of action. Guy's comparison with the article on the original -gate illustrates the problem nicely; and I thank them for it. There are a few reasons in the WP:Deletion policy that look like they might be relevant. I would also like to see if we could include a stub option in the !votes. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: The Last Remark by Bernstein; here we have a blatant example of WP:NPOV being breached. Some editors are openly present in the article not for making a quality balanced article, but rather there are two sides and they are interested in squatting to avoid a 'PR victory' for their opponents. There are some serious questions around the control systems of Wikipedia which have allowed this situation to perpetuate. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough is right, the problem is biased sources first and biased editors only secondarily:
  1. Sources The reader must be told that the sources are party to the controversy or rely on sources party to the controversy. We must make a good faith effort to tease out and seek out the GG side of the controversy as much as possible given this fact.
  2. Bias on our part Established editors who don't want the GG's side included are a problem to be overcome if the article is to be balanced, but are merely secondary to the problem of biased sources.
  3. Editors who suck at Wikipedia Editors trying to tell GG's side are too often inexperienced and ineffective. We should help them, not treat them like the enemy. On the other hand, they must be made to understand that until their side of the story is published somewhere WP:RS, there is little we can do, so let that be a main goal of their movement at this point. Chrisrus (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Chrisrus, might I respectfully suggest that the Gamergate Meta talk page was created for conversations such as this, and it might be better carried on there? Just a thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Dumuzid Not sure if you are aware, but the Gamergate Meta talk page has a 30/500 restriction, limiting discussion of the topic. Perhaps this restriction could be lifted on just the Meta talk page, thereby allowing a reasoned discussion with some new perspectives. Cavalierman (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a lovely thought, but I've yet to see a new perspective in this discussion, so I don't feel the Meta page limitations have managed to stifle anything. 216.221.84.237 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)216.221.84.237

Bruce Lee

Hello Jimbo & others! Nobody wants develop this article, as I see (Bruce Lee). How to place information that Bruce Lee was a personal hero of .... Mao Zedong? Kind Regards! Fighter Lion (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Being the "personal hero" of someone doesn't mean the subject of that idolation has to be included in the biography. With such a figure as Mao - it seems that this is more or less a bad idea for obvious reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
In your view. Which you could demonstrate by providing reliable independent sources discussing this as significant to Lee's life and work. Otherwise it's just indiscriminate information, and Wikipedia is not a collection of that. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The People's Operator logos

Jimbo, are you okay with the following logos appearing on Commons?

It appears that User:Coentor has submitted them as his "Own work". Can you confirm that Coentor is entitled to claim these logos as his own, and/or confirm that these are even associated in any way with The People's Operator? - 173.30.19.16 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Own work or not, they are too simple to be copyrighted so what's the issue?--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
So, a simple copy of a corporate logo can legally be released into the public domain, as these logos were? I didn't know that! - 173.30.19.16 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it's more complicated than that. The logo has to match this condition: "This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain." --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that even if a logo doesn't meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, it is still protected by trademarks. I don't think any logos can be hosted on Commons for this reason. @Justlettersandnumbers: does a lot of work on copyrights and might be able to confirm. CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM, you can check this yourself. Go to a company article and it's likely the logo is hosted on Commons. --NeilN talk to me 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
See, e.g., commons:Category:Logos of companies. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Awww, yes. Poking around at a few of them seems to confirm that they are trademark-protected, but also that Commons allows trademark-protected images. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The rationale being that uploading trademarked logos to Commons isn't a trademark infringement, whereas uploading a copyright logo can be a copyright infringement.--ukexpat (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I would,have to agree, A picture of the Honda logo on the Honda article is in no way interfering with their business or ability to profit so the image being on commons is in no way a trademark violation.--67.68.31.200 (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources for sale

I have a question about the recent revelation that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) proposed an anti-Google campaign involving segments on the Today show and an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Assume for a moment that Google had not been able to obtain the smoking gun email and that the MPAA proceeded as planned; the Mississippi Attorney General buying fake IDs and stolen credit card data through Google, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show, followed by a large Google investor (paid by the MPAA) demanding reform, then finally an editorial in the Wall Street Journal claiming that Google's stock will lose value unless they do what the MPAA wants them to do.

Had that happened, what would Wikipedia's articles on the topic say? Would we dutifully reported the entire incident, backed up by reliable sources? Without the email and the media reports of same, would anyone who disputed the Today Show / Wall Street Journal version be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist? I can't see any way that our policies on verifiability and reliable sources would have allowed us to do otherwise, and I can't imagine any changes to those policies that wouldn't totally screw up the 99.9+% of articles that aren't based on a real conspiracy that involved multiple reliable sources.

So, is there anything Wikipedia can do about situations like this, or do we just have to accept them as a necessary consequence of being an encyclopedia? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead". In practical terms, we're not in a position to do anything else. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that most people would have assumed that the Wall Street Journal and the Today Show are reliable sources. Without evidence to the contrary, it certainly looked that way. But of course, if they publish editorials as directed by a company, they are in fact no more reliable than a press release by the NewsCorp board of directors. People wouldn't have perceived that before... now, of course, it appears it is time for a rethink. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I am hoping that the discovery phase of this particular lawsuit ends up revealing more publications (and government officials; remember. the Mississippi Attorney General was in on this) that we consider reliable that were willing to take the MPAA's money. I am also hoping that it reveals publications that told the MPAA to pound sand. I think that the real lesson for Wikipedia is to take extra care whenever there is a lot of money to be made or lost by somebody, on the theory that those particular topics are the ones that are most likely to have "reliable sources for sale". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as a "reliable source." There are only true facts and untrue assertions of fact; some sources have more of the former and less of the latter than others. It is up to Wikipedians to sift out diligently which are which. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday are notoriously unreliable sources for "news" stories about celebrities. I believe they also have similar News of the World type stories on their website, which are familiarly referred to as "The sidebar of shame". Conversely, news reports which appear in the Daily Telegraph are likely to be accurate. 82.3.169.164 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
...to the best of our knowledge. If someone had asked me last week I would have said that the Mississippi Attorney General, the Today Show and the Wall Street Journal were reliable sources. Now I know that if you have the kind of money major movie studios have all three of those "reliable" sources can be bought. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Carrite is correct. There is no blanket "reliable source" designation for any publication or source - I've seen Wordpress blogs be more credible and concrete than NRHP listings. Always consider the source's credibility and motives. WP:OTTO exists to underscore the problems of such cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
They are all in general reliable sources. We know that "big comms" cannot be wholly trusted, any more than "big" anything (even "Big Wiki"?) and that is a problem across the board. We also know, for example, that most reputable publications will play ball with government when they perceive that there is some overriding public interest.
Certainly the American system of electing state attorneys general does lead to problems of populist prosecutions, and politicians in public service office.
So, while it is hypothetical speculation, I don't think we would have dismissed such allegations in the same way that, for example, we might dismiss the conspiracy theory 9/11 was effected with the US Government's secret anti-gravity weapons. Nor do I think we would have been at fault going with the received wisdom if there were no credible grounds to think otherwise.
It does seem to me very unlikely that the plot as outlined above would have been successfully kept secret.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC).
In general, many historians and academics are much better and more neutral sources than the press, but they are less likely to cover current events, less accessible and less abundant. As far as the influence of money on sources, there is a long history of mainstream media covering speculation, gossip and rumor in order to sell more newspapers to a populace that's attracted to that kind of thing. On the flip side, trade press tend to write promotional articles that are supportive of businesses that are current or potential advertisers. There is only so much we can do. Certainly even the Wall Street Journal will get it wrong sometimes and we will get it wrong even more often than they do. I am more concerned about the over-use of primary sources, op-eds and political advocacy pieces written by special interest groups, or articles written in a very negative or positive manner on subjects that are not even really notable and not enough sources exist to evaluate NPOV. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you just block an IP address

Hi, just want to know a question, can anyone block an IP address of a person that doesn't have a Wikipedia account? Dylan Keane (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Admins can.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, admins can block IP addresses, and entire ranges, and can choose whether the block also affects logged-in users using that address. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be fun to block everyone on April 1 :) . Count Iblis (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Define fun. Define April 1. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC).
Don't worry, it will take a while before ET can edit Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
yes, and for example Montgomery County, Maryland schools and library ip is blocked until 2017. it's an amusing form of collective punishment. apparently escalating blocks don't work against proxies; perhaps a rethink is in order. 98.163.68.171 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not punishment. It is merely protecting Wikipedia from damage. If a certain IP address is used persistently to vandalize Wikipedia, it makes perfect sense to soft-block that IP - it protects Wikipedia while still allowing constructive registered users to contribute. Deli nk (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To elaborate for anyone reading this who is not a Wiki(m|p)edia insider, shared IP addresses, such as those used by schools, if they are blocked, are typically "soft-blocked", which only prevents edits from that address by users not logged into an account. Sometimes you can still create an account while using the address. If account creation is disabled, and you don't have access to any other IP address, you can request that an account be created for you. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There is some ghastly vandalism comes from Maryland (see for example 75.127.167.98) but that was only blocked for a week last month. Compare that with Hackney borough, Hackney schools and library ip 156.61.250.250 where administrators are claiming that, however good the edits, if the editors are unaware of the talk page then they're not going to let them edit. I don't know what part of London you live in, Jimbo, or how much you know about Hackney, but shouldn't the people who live there have the same editing opportunities as those who live beyond the borough boundary?
Incidentally, I just received a message from one JoeSperrazza dated Monday saying

This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.

Actually, it's been blocked twice, so what is this JoeSperrazza talking about? He provides a link to WP:AIV but that's a page you never tell a vandal about. The IP has only three edits, one pointing out that the borough was blocked without reason given. How is this "repeat vandalism" as claimed in JoeSperrazza's edit summary? 82.3.169.164 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We could also contact that school and ask them to install some special WMF malware on their computers that will redirect from the real Wikipedia to a fake Wikipedia copy. They can then edit that copy of Wikipedia all they like, all we need to do here is reset that page to the current page every hour or so using some bot, to prevent the schoolchildren from getting suspicious. Count Iblis (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note the IP is banned user Vote (X) for Change --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The removal of MathJax

Hi,

I would like to let you (and the WMF) know about the recent discussion regarding math rendering issue at #Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Future of MathJax on wiki. It seems to me that, at heart, the issue is how the whole development process is framed currently (more precisely the lack of any process at all). The math editors, myself included, has a trouble with the WMF's attitude that the math rendering not only has less priority than some other "big" stuff like Visual Editor, but in fact that the WMF has "essentially no plan." Right now, some "volunteers" maintain and develop the math rendering support; there is nothing wrong with that. But this setup has a consequence that he tends to work on what he likes not what is being asked. This consequence is unfortunate in two ways: (1) it sends messages that the WMF doesn't care about math editors, and (2) the math support in Wikipedia is not keeping up with the standard practice; this sends messages to the readers that Wikipedia is not hip anymore.

I get the "If there is a problem, fix it yourself" principle. This is not my problem; the math rendering is fast and looks good on my screen and personally I don't need any fix. But the aforementioned problem that is clearly relevant to the WMF does exist; it's not something for "me" to fix it. I think it is important that there is someone in payroll that works on this specific problem and is held accountable. That would send the messages in the reverse: the WMF does care about the editors and can still produce something "hip" that can attracts new contributors and the editors. -- Taku (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Plans. For me, the interaction is very disturbing. I hope it is a simple mistake on the WMF's part to hire a "liaison" of that type; someone whose mission is drive the editors away. -- Taku (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did you put volunteer in scare quotes? Legoktm (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
That interaction is disturbing to me, too. But mainly because you are communicating like an asshole. Questioning WhatAmIDoing's competence is your first "go to" comment? I'm glad you're not a diplomat.--Jorm (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@Legoktm: I used the quote to suggest the volunteers are doing the job that is supported to be done by the WMF. Volunteers write and edit Wikipedia articles, of course, but, as I understand and I think you would agree, maintaining the website and the software powers it should be the responsibility of the WMF; I mean, otherwise, why does it exist in the first place? It is a gross negligence of the WMF's part not to allocate any engineering resources to the software support for the math. -- Taku (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jorm: The interaction reflects the history between her and the math editor community. Nothing personal really, but she has been too ineffective; the job ("liaison") requires some competence and a tiny bit of expertise. For years, the WMF has simply been either unable or unwilling to understand the math rendering problem. A part of blame must go to her (either she is unable or unwilling to do the job) . -- Taku (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DBpedia and wikipedia

I wonder whether we could implement the capabilities of DBpedia right here in Wikipedia. It will allow us to explore the information in Wikipedia as a collection of related data, and not just articles and data disconnected. Although DBpedia works with infoboxes, I do not know whether they work with templates (boxes that usually follows articles at the bottom).

Thanks,

Logos112 (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So like.... Wikidata? Legoktm (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It works like this: See 2.3 and 2.4 http://wiki.dbpedia.org/OnlineAccess#1%20Querying%20DBpedia Logos112 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Logos112, if you haven't seen it already, m:Wikidata/Notes/DBpedia and Wikidata might be helpful. Search wikidata itself for more. (That's all I know on the matter :) HTH Quiddity (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Co-op Mentorship Space

Hi everyone. Back in March–April of this year, a small team of us ran a pilot for a mentorship space for newer editors called the the Co-op. The work for the space was funded by an IEG grant from the WMF. The space was designed to make finding a mentor easier, and also to lessen the burden on mentors by shaping mentorship toward a specific goal or task. Here are some of our more prominent findings from our final report:

  1. Editors who engaged with a mentor remained active longer, edited more articles, and made substantially more edits overall than editors who were not mentored.
  2. Editors waited far less time for a mentor thanks to our matching system. Getting matched with a mentor takes less than five minutes, thanks to the use of HostBot. Waiting times for a mentor to actually contact an editor took less than a day, but was as low as an hour or two. By comparison, it took about 4 days for editors to begin adoption through WP:Adopt-a-user in 2011.
  3. A minority of experienced editors sought out mentorship despite not receiving an invitation during our pilot. These editors may have gotten the most out of mentorship, as they interacted more frequently with their mentor and in more complex topics compared to newer editors.

Based on our results, the Co-op appears to be a sensible way to support fellow editors, but the project won't go anywhere without mentors to provide guidance. Mentoring is necessarily more time-intensive, but we've designed the process to be lightweight. and like many tasks that we take on as editors, our most thorough work is often our best. I also invite the community to help me operate and provide suggestions to improve the Co-op whether it's in terms of how we match editors together, how we should mentor, or how we can better engage newer editors. Questions and comments are welcome here or at Wikipedia talk:Co-op. If you enjoy helping new editors get started on Wikipedia, I invite you to join us. Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, for those of you who want a middle-of-the-road option for detail about the project compared to our grant report and the above post, a short report I prepared on the Co-op was just published on the WMF Blog. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Waterloo Campaign

There was the expected rise in the numbers of view about the Waterloo Campaign in June 2015 to mark the 200th anniversary. But the article with the second highest spike might be useful as a conversation piece:

-- PBS (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I uploaded some images of the floorplan of the house in question some time ago. Let me see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
Hm, must be still on my other computer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

Implied Jimmy Wales threat: is this acceptable?

Our apologies, but this sketch has become entirely too silly... Carrite (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On Drmies' talk page tough end of spectrum discussion on Cecil the lion, the pronoun "him" wikilinks to Jimbo in the context of shooting him with a crossbow. The posting editor is supposedly taking a wikibreak following an incident in which he essentially engineered the lynching of an editor involved in an old news controversy, albeit of the most distasteful kind. I suggest an immediate ban of all involved. This kind of diva bullying must stop.

While I am at it, I would like the user page of the editor Hafspajen, mentored by Drmies, edited to remove the narcissistic parody of the famous "Je suis Charlie" meme. It is grossly offensive. 128.90.61.164 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC) (Miep at the embassy)

Hmm, I just that edit, and does indeed read as a threat. The editor is writing about shooting Jimmy Wales with a cross-bow. Certainly seems inappropriate to me, but perhaps this would be better addressed at ANI? Unless some admin wants to step up right now and get the inevitable ban taken care of...
(seeing as it's on Drmies talk page, I'm surprised it's still there, with no action taken) - theWOLFchild 22:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
"Threat"? Are you two serious? I don't think it's an exceptionally clever or successful metaphor, but it's in no way a threat. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am serious. I suspect Jimmy Wales would also have some serious views about the matter as well. To call it merely a "metaphor" is absurd (are you serious?) If the editor had come out straightforwardly with " I can see Jimmy Wales now ... padding majestically across the savannah ..." then we could dismiss it as a tasteless personal attack. But that's not what he did. By concealing it in this way he was indulging what is quite plainly a threat. Whether fantasy or not it is still represents what everyone in real life would recognize as a threat, as a means of making a threat. I believe you are a member of Wikipedia's arbitration committee and that you find it acceptable. I hope you you will allow me to remind you should I ever feel moved to make you the subject of a tasteless metaphor. Miep at the embassy (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
And researching this I easily find a rather similar "metaphor" by a noted critic of Jimmy Wales which Jimmy Wales took very seriously indeed. It concerned a Facebook post in which the individual posted a photo of himself at target practice and joked he was practicing shooting Jimmy Wales. Not difficult to find on the net and Jimmy Wales was, rightly in my view, not amused. The parallel is similar. The admin here may not be an overt critic of Jimmy Wales that I know of, but he champions an editor who is and moreover an offensive critic at that, infamously calling Jimmy Wales a "stupid cunt". This is a threat alright. I don't think it's acceptable and I don't see why Jimmy Wales should be be obliged to turn a blind eye to it. There are editors on Wikipedia who think they are above the norms of the community and it is high time they were brought down to earth. Miep at the embassy (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

I'm a troll? Not obvious to me my friend. People in the public eye have a right to a private life and not to have to endure these kind of threats. This was a threat. A veiled threat if you like, but a threat all the same designed to conceal both the target and the targeter. But talk pages are not locker rooms, they are not privies, they are not fuggy blankets under which privileged users can pleasure themselves cozily in the company of their diva minions without fear of comeuppance. If that comment was made on-line these days it would be deleted by moderators. And the instigator, as I pointed out, had just engineered yet another of these infernal You-Know-Who dramahs only a week before. What do you call that? Obvious I think. Are you in the public eye? I think not. Troll me not. It trolls for thee. Doe-doei. До свидания. Oh, and cheers, let me not be discourteous. Miep at the embassy (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I started the original thread on Drmies' talk page which ended with the passage in question, and I agree with Newyorkbrad. This is not a threat. It is a simply a strange and mostly unsuccessful attempt at humor. I also agree with Rich Farmbrough about the motivation for the complaint here. Trolls be trollin'. It is what they do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It was not an attempt at humour, any more than his go at another editor the week before. Troll the troll off. In conclusion troll off. You think the little folk have no convictions? Miep at the embassy (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a lot of time on your hands? DeCausa (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that a few, probably non-British, Commons editors or even administrators, have been selectively disapplying copyright law on dubious grounds, essentially claiming, falsely, that, amongst other things, current British passports, apart from the British Royal Coat-of-Arms (roughly equivalent to the closest thing to a British national seal or a British national emblem) (which they claim to be out of copyright, which is true), are also not protected by copyright, when in fact they are. They had claimed, falsely, that the British OGL (Open Government Licence) [17] somehow essentially allowed them to copy anything and everything from the British Government onto the Commons, when in fact it (unless explicitly stated as being released under the OGL) only applies to otherwise-unpublished documents released automatically or on application by the National Archives of the United Kingdom (TNA) (incorporating the Public Records Office of the United Kingdom (PRO)) which would otherwise subject to the usual terms of British Crown copyright, unless . They seem to not understand the fact that British (and British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories), Irish (Republic of Ireland), Canadian, Australian and New Zealand works of Government are by default protected by Crown (or Government) copyright for a period of time. I think that this is more likely more of a more deliberate, more systematic kind of an abuse. British passports, moreover, are protected in the United Kingdom explicitly by special Crown copyright. [18] -- Urquhartnite (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you are talking about, but I'd love to see if there is another side to the argument. Can you point me (and others who watch this page) to the discussion elsewhere?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
[19] Personally, I think, that there is probably this one (probably a French expatriate) Commons administrator, who I think is probably some kind of a "Copyleft" activist, who probably doesn't believe that Governments should be able to assert any copyright on their works (such as the case in the United States of America, as I understand it; I cannot speak for South Africa or Hong Kong, but all I know is, that by default, Government works in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the British Crown Dependencies, and the British, Australian and New Zealand Overseas Territories do not automatically go into "public domain", but are instead subject to copyright (almost) as if the Government were just like any other author); which is all very well; but the trouble is, what would happen when businesses start making use of the non-free Government-owned images on the Commons, and then start getting fined or getting into some other legal trouble for it? -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Stick to the subject of the copyright of British passports, I think that the people on the Commons probably mistake the British Open Government Licence (OGL) as some kind of an "everything-goes free-for-all" on ALL works of the British Government currently under British Crown copyright. It certainly does not cover unexpired British passports and expired British passports younger than a certain number of years. It is a misinterpretation of the OGL by non-British administrators on the Commons. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you on the two images that have gone to FFD over there. However, just as a note - unless Commons' speedy deletion process deviates from EN's (and it is possible), declining a speedy deletion tag means you should go to the applicable files for deletion step rather than simply restoring the speedy tag. The latter would be seen as edit warring and will only set people square against you, regardless of the accuracy of your arguments. Resolute 13:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

Nice wig, but wrong attitude

Since 2012, the article of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy was deleted three times already and is now nominated for deletion for the a fourth time. It would be most helpful to get your personal advice on this important issue.(Diplomaciacultural (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC))

This article is notable for producing a legal threat against User:Benjamin Mako Hill in March 2013.[20] Not exactly how to win friends and influence people.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue was previously discussed on Jimbo's talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_129#Lawsuit_against_a_Wikipedian.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Article deleted and salted to prevent recreation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Have requested deletion of the other language versions and blockage of their account in other languages by a Steward [21]. Not sure if we need Spanish and French admins to do it? I guess the question is does this count as an "emergency"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The consensus in 2013 was that it was legal huffing and puffing rather than a credible threat. What particularly annoyed people is that the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy had tracked down a Wikipedian because he used his real name on the site. There is some more detail here, but no indication that the threat/possibility of legal action has been lifted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
User now blocked globally. We now just need to remove the content on Es and Fr Wikipedias. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I have not received any communication of any kind for the organizations or its representatives since 2013. In addition to what I've put online, there was one vaguely worded threatening letter from a lawyer representing the organization sent after I blogged about the whole debacle but when I replied with contact information for my own pro bono representation (the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic), I never heard anything back. The current situation is just a recreated version of the article (in four languages) by another enthusiastic WP:SPA. I don't see an emergency. —mako๛ 17:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James:  Done on fr.wp and thanks for flagging it. Regards, Benoit Rochon (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory account creation

When was the last time this was opened up for discussion, debate and consensus for possible implementation? - theWOLFchild 21:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the situation that regardless of what we think on en.Wikipedia, the WMF are against it, so it isn't going to happen? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be an issue for me, unless of course pointing out the threat above is construed as a violation of terms of service. Miep at the embassy (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
WMF was against even an experimental non-confirmed cannot create articles. Both this and registration required are, however, ultimately in the community's hands. For example we can block, or simply revert all IPs. Of course we know that historically the WMF has reacted with al the subtlety of "superprotect"... But if we make up our minds, there's no reason the en:wp community shouldn't run en:wp as it is supposed to. Alternatively the WMF can drop its "common carrier" protection and take over. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
This is one of the perennial proposals. The paragraph at 2.1 offers a good explanation of why banning IP edits would not be a cure-all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Personally I have a philosophical objection to requiring registration. But the Aaron Swartz blog entry shouldn't be an evidential basis for anything. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
I know of no evidence whatsoever that "the WMF are against it". I believe quite the opposite based on the general philosophical approach put forward by Lila and other senior executives: we must be bold in testing new ideas. This is a perennial proposal, but one for which we have never tested. My own view is that we should build a proper A/B testing framework (using cookies that last longer than one session) and randomly test different approaches on appropriately sized subsets of traffic. (For example: 1% of accounts who are not logged in and attempt to edit for the first time, they are offered a login first. Results are tracked over the course of a month.)
"Alternatively the WMF can drop its "common carrier" protection" - this is a very bad legal misunderstanding. Nothing about forcing logins or not would have any impact whatsoever on Section 230 protection.
We are, on the whole, a data-driven community. I think we need to be supporting and encouraging the WMF to develop tools for best-practice testing so that we can finally make these decisions based on something more than faith and anecdotal evidence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's be clear. The community manages (in particular) EN:Wikipedia. If the community stops or is forced to stop managing it by such steps as "superprotect" and arbitrary de-bitting of those who support the community, but go against the foundation, then either the project will crumble or the foundation will have to step into the breach. At this point the arms-length relationship evaporates. Claims like those in Cubby V. Compuserve that the publisher cannot feasibly inspect everything it published, evaporate because the community has demonstrated that it is feasible. In the EU the requirement "acts in question are neutral intermediary acts of a mere technical, automatic and passive capacity" also evaporate. In terms of § 230 (c) 1 dangerous legal ground is trodden by insisting in this scenario that the foundation is not the information content provider, they would need to establish who fills the role of "another provider". Indeed even relying on comforting precedent is dangerous, the US Supreme Court has shown itself quite willing to reverse overbroad interpretations of lower courts, and even statute where it conflicts with the constitution, other provisions of the CDA being a case in point.
Away from the hypothetical, you must have been on holiday when consensus on English Wikipedia was established (by User:Scottywong, User:Kudpung and others - after an enormous amount of preparatory work) for a limited test of restriction of article creation to registered accounts, which was turned down by the developers, apparently by WMF fiat.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
Not exactly. WP:ACTRIAL proposed limiting creation to autoconfirmed editors, not registered users (you have to be registered to create an article, anyways). As for rejection by WMF fiat, I've looked at the discussion a number of times over the years and I'm not sure that is completely accurate. There seemed to be a tendency in the past for some developers to "speak for the WMF" without any indication they were authorized to do so. Things might have improved after Lila took over but I'm not convinced of that. --NeilN talk to me 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, you are correct. The point still stands, though, I was careful to say "apparently" and there were other discussions which said "well we have page curation coming up, so you won't need this", etc. which IIRC came from people with a bit more of a strategic overview.
Hershberger was I thought recruited to resolve some of this disconnect between the community at large and the devs (especially the gatekeeper paid devs) but to no apparent avail. There are still very old fundamental bugs knocking around, which we have more or less given up on. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
Protections for ISPs from legal proceedings associated with users are typically credited not to common carrier status but (ironically!) to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that ridiculous piece of legislation that tried to ban 'swear words' on the Internet but ended up getting a redemption at the hands of the Supreme Court.
Also ironic is that "anonymous" login is actually deanonymizing, making IP information public that can be used to track down users, including the most crucial first step of allowing a national regime to pick out which users are in its jurisdiction before they file papers.
So I presume the WMF by allowing 'anonymous' contributions substantially reduces the number of lawyers and process servers interested in seeing who logged on from where when, since they already know. My impression is anonymity on the internet seems to be a favorite spook cause celebre since it's always bull; the techies always seem to take time out from their libertarian patter to make sure everything is logged. And there are periodic proposals here to somehow make IP addresses not traceable from the 'anonymous' contributions, but somehow they never seem to amount to anything. Wnt (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with anonymising IPs, from my point of view, turns largely on dealing with IP hopping vandals. I had a lot of trouble trying to get the WMF to agree to protect named accounts from having their IPs disclosed by autoblock messages, indeed I doubt if anything was ever done on that front, there seemed to be real difficulty grasping the nature of the problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

When the English Wikipedia ell worth 5 million entries

kis foltos (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC) @Kis foltos: It is unclear what you are saying. Please elaborate. Rubbish computer 13:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I bet they wanted an estimate of when we'll have 5 million entries. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, the count is at 4,935,981 articles so I'd say it would probably be in the next 6 months (a total guesstimate). I'm sure there are editors who track these stats and can give a more accurate forecast. Liz Read! Talk! — Preceding undated comment added 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this graph is helpful to extrapolate from. Everymorning talk 15:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
And 841 articles per day in June. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
And my google chrome browser says (5000000-4,935,981)/841 leaves 76 days. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
You know, I was originally going to say 3 months but I thought that was overly optimistic. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll bet that if everyone involved at AfD took a break, we could hit that number in no time! Of course, the number might go back down after the break is over.  Etamni | ✉  23:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Hi Jimbo

Hi JimboKanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Hope you are having a great day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, in a version of "It's 5 O'Clock somewhere" it is "my birthday somewhere". :) I'm in Seattle with my daughter and visiting my sister. Good times.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I was going to sing "♫Happy Birthday to You♫", but it was removed on copyright grounds.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Happy birthday. Rubbish computer 14:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthday Wikicake

Rubbish computer has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Happy Birthday! Thank you for helping to create this ingenious website.

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Happy brithday, Jimbo! Yes, some many cakes can affect your health, take this strawberry instead ;) Ochilov (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!

Happy Birthday!!
Have a great day!! 5 albert square (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

HBD

Happy Birthday Jimbo! Hope you enjoy your day :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

COI and the ToS

Morning Jimmy. There's a question over COI and the ToS terms and I'd like your steer on how it should be interpreted please.

We have an editor who is employed by a company in a marketing capacity, and is editing the company's article in a promotional way. This is a clear violation of the WP:COI guidelines, and they did not, at least initially, declare their COI, though it was pretty easy to check. The OTRS guidance I wrote for companies, which may have changed by now, advises people to declare their COI and propose changes on the Talk page, partly because this is how I understand the community prefers it to be done and partly because the PR fallout from promotional editing can be rather unpleasant.

We now have the Wikimedia ToS clause forbidding paid editing. It's my understanding - and I could very well be wrong - that this is designed to stop people picking up advertised tasks to write for pay. It is not, I think, designed to pick up the editor who happens to edit while at work, but the issue of where in the continuum between "I pay you to edit this article" and "You are permitted to edit in company time" we would place this specific case: a PR or marketing person employed by the company, attempting to edit the company article. And of course in many cases the COI is not openly disclosed at the outset (because newbies don't know our Byzantine rule structure) but can be trivially verified by Googling the username and the company. There's a difference between naive and evil, and most of these folks are, IMO, naive.

You know that I am very strongly opposed to undisclosed COI editing, but I do wonder if the ToS policy should be interpreted by admins as an absolute prohibition on undisclosed COI, so that if we find that someone is a PR working for a company, and has edited that company's article without declaring the COI, we should immediately banninate them. There was discussion of whether outing, in this instance, should be exempted from the normal prohibition on outing (IMO you don't need to explicitly out them, but that's a different question). Could you clarify the intent of the ToS term in this regard please? Also, what is your view on checking usernames via Google to probe for potential COI? Guy (Help!) 09:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:AGF is always worth reflecting on. Assuming good faith is almost always the right thing to do. If someone is doing something wrong, the most likely scenario is that they don't know that it is wrong, and being gentle and kind with them will resolve the problem better than setting up a narrative of a grand conflict. Like you, I'm very strongly opposed to undisclosed COI editing. Actually, I'll go a step further and say that I'm very strongly opposed to COI editing of article space even when disclosed. But also like you, I think that a great many violations are due to misunderstandings and frustration due to perceived lack of response.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Under the general banning framework where bans are preventative rather than punitive (Wikipedia:Banning policy), once someone's disclosed their status as a paid editor for instance, they're no longer violating any policies, so there's no cause for blocks/bans. Before disclosure, there's certainly cause to block them until they make a disclosure (just as you might with any other continuous violation - shared accounts, or problematic usernames, or whatever). WilyD 09:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the "bans are preventative rather than punitive" meme is a huge mistake, as a side note. Some people need to be punished, and examples need to be set.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
In practice blocks are already (selectively depending on which admin deals with it) used to punish rather than prevent. Even when no prospect of re-offending is likely. The 'bans are preventative rather than punitive' is one of the many policies Wikipedians like to tip their hat at but ignore. Much like the 5 pillars. When is the WMF going to pay some full time staff to take care of the civility problems and start making an example of the long term abusers? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Only in death: Then again, look at how the WMF's global bans have gone down with the community as the reason these are not being done more often (eg. Russavia). Yes, these may be different to what you are proposing, but there are people who don't want the WMF dealing with this. Personally, I agree with you, but can't see this happening unless some people change their views on this. Mdann52 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the only real gripes RE Russavia and his ilk are on commons and meta. And frankly my opinion of commons is that the admin corps there needs to be nuked from orbit and purified with fire - with WMF installed replacements. Sadly that wont happen anytime soon, but given the way some of the people there are behaving, I can see a future where the WMF does take action going by the escalated involvement in recent months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Promotional editing is something for which we can and should ban people. That is independent of disclosure, IMO - a disclosed promotional editor is still abusing Wikipedia for their own ends, it's just not a violation of that specific ToS item. Jimmy, what of the question of sniffing out COI via Google? Is this OK as long as it's not used to dramatically out them? Guy (Help!) 10:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear on "We now have the Wikimedia ToS clause forbidding paid editing." is not quite correct. It should be "We now have the Wikimedia ToS clause forbidding undisclosed paid editing, and this is Wikipedia policy" (despite what ArbCom says). Advertising, marketing, promotion and public relations content are also prohibited by the policy WP:NOT. This applies to anybody writing on Wikipedia, including folks who are part of a company's marketing department, or "editors-for-hire". The concept of "paid" is not difficult to understand and there is no reason to dissect its various parts. If anybody really has questions on what this means they can consult WP:COI.
I think we've done a terrible job getting the word out to the advertising-PR-business community that we have these policies. Much of this is the fault of the community. When people violate these policies, we often seem to be afraid to confront them directly. But part of the problem should be addressed by the WMF. Jimmy, can you bring it up in the proper places (e.g. at a board meeting) that we need to let businesses know our rules on this and that the WMF is the best source for much of this info?
As far as a basic investigation of who is the editor adding a specific piece of promotional material to an article: the easiest way is simply to ask them politely, which will never be against our rules. If they refuse to answer or give a bizarre answer, then I think we can draw our own conclusions. ArbCom seems to be against any simple investigation of material that's freely available on the open internet, claiming that this will be against our rules on outing. I don't see why that needs to be the case, and if we need a place other than ArbCom to do this type of investigation (or confirm the results of one), then I'm sure we can find the proper place to do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
You mention "adding a specific piece of promotional material", but what about "subtracting a specific piece of sensitive material"? For example, I think this edit may have been performed by someone with a COI related to The eXile, but did not disclose the COI to anyone. The easiest way is simply to ask Smallbones politely, do you have a COI with The eXile? Some people need to be punished, and examples need to be set. - Checking the checkers (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
People can get banned for engaging in promotional editing, of course. In general, people repeatedly violating WP:NPOV and the various WP:NOTs (ADVERTISING, here). But if someone's trying to co-opt Wikipedia to promote something, ban 'em even if they're not getting paid. Trying to out them is going to be a clusterfuck even if after an ArbCom case or two it's judge not ban-worthy. WilyD 12:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • bans are preventative rather than punitive - Well... no. Blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, there's nothing say bans are preventative. Further, preventative can mean "deter poor behaviour" and "encourage good behaviour", which is basically what a punishment is designed to do. WormTT(talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    This is a bit semantic. Blocks and bans aren't supposed to be retributive, lest we all go blind, but yes, they can "deter poor behaviour" or even "serve as an example to others" without being retributive. But, someone who's behaviour was genuinely in ignorance is almost certainly going to be unblocked once they understand, and someone who's behaviour was malicious is never going to have ~100% trust, so it's always preventative, at least in the "chance they're genuinely reformed" vs. "Effort and risk to assess that" calculus. WilyD 14:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Preventive and retributive are nto the only options, and are not really even mutually exclusive. Well, depending on how you define preventive: in the end every ban is preventive in that it prevents the user from using the site. Someone who engages in outing, will be banned. Even if they understand that they made a mistake, the ban will likely not be lifted. Even if the person they outed has already, themselves, let the cat out of the bag. That is as close to retributive as makes no odds, IMO. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • JzG the reason why I requested that the editor be indeffed at ANI was not for violating the ToU but rather for violations of several accepted content and behavioral policies - NPOV, edit warring, removing sourced content with no reason given, failing to talk and thus to even try to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Not for violating the ToU. The following is important - to the best of my knowledge, there has never been an ANI or Arbcom case where an editor was blocked specifically for violating the ToU. As far as I know, actions there have always focused on violations of accepted content or behavioral policies, e.g. Wifione was indeffed for violating SOCK and NPOV, and violating the trust we place in admins. Arbcom specifically steered clear of the ToU in that case, reflecting the current arbcom's discomfort with the tension between enforcing the ToU in light of OUTING and everything that goes with that, including legal liability for taking actions in WP based on claims about people's RW identities - a discomfort that I find a lot (but definitely not all) of the community shares.
Jimbo, as far as I can see, you have never dealt head-on with the tension between enforcing the ToU and OUTING. On the one hand you have written an editorial in the NY Times describing how essential anonymity is in WP and WMF is suing the NSA over that. On the other, you have described our failure to deal with undisclosed paid editing as a clear moral failure of the community. I would be interested in hearing what you say, with both of those boxes open at the same time. How do you hold together, the concern to protect the integrity of WP from undisclosed paid editors, with the concern to protect anonymity, in some way that supports action? (fwiw my way of dealing with that tension is described on my user page here.) But please do answer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll return to a comment I made along with others years ago: you can have a total ban of COI editing or you can have anonymous editing and anti-outing policies, but you can't have both. So far, for better or worse, the community has continued to hold the latter as a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. The choice is therefore made. Clarification of COI through mandatory disclosure has helped some, but as long as there are anti-COI fanatics allowed to harass those making appropriate COI declarations, this sort of less-than-optimum editing will continue to be driven underground. Realistically, there's nothing much that can be done about it anyway, given the state of outing rules and the absurd ease of new account creation. So we muddle along of necessity. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Anti-COI fanatics are as much of a problem as militant free-speechers. My view, and I need to check if this is still correct, is that anyone who wants to edit articles where they have a COI should follow the current guidance: declare the COI, make proposals ont he talk page. I think that is still correct. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
That is still correct, in my experience, JzG. Both in a description of where problems are and in the current implementation of the COI guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Carrite I agree, that is what it comes down to. But the "muddling along" can be done with both respect for everybody involved and with sustained effort. Namely, by watching for promotional content, approaching editors who do that consistently in a respectful manner, and talking with them about the importance of maintaining the integrity of WP through a clear COI management process. It just takes people caring about that and doing it well (as not ham-handedly as possible, I mean) Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, paid advocate editors should be blocked regardless of whether or not they disclose this: it's like allowing somebody to vandalise Wikipedia continuously, so long as they state why they are vandalizing it. I know they may not be aware of the rules, but in the end you can only tiptoe around somebody violating NPOV for so long. If they keep doing so after it has been explained that they should not be doing this, they should be banned indefinitely for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole. I am aware that this is not how it is done. --Rubbish computer 14:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
actually editors who edit promotionally or as advocates get caught out, based on their edits. The community does that all the time. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Fair enough, but I simply object to people being let off simply for declaring a conflict of interest. It's useful if they do so but if they are a paid advocate editor, I believe they should not be allowed to edit. --Rubbish computer 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
COI management in WP has two parts - disclosure and peer review - the latter of which happens two ways: by conflicted editors submitting new articles through AfC instead of creating them directly, and by conflicted editors submitting content proposals on talk instead of editing directly. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful way of looking at this is that the Terms of Use are imposed by the site owner, while community policies are imposed by the community (acknowledging that "the community" is not usually well-defined when policy is made or enforced). Therefore, enforcement of the ToU properly belongs with the Wikimedia Foundation as site owner, and community members should report to the WMF violations of the ToU that cannot be addressed by community volunteers due to practical or policy constraints. Willful COI editing falls in that category, in my opinion, because of the tension between allowing pseudonymity and detecting an editor's real-life COI. The WMF needs to provide organizational support for receiving COI complaints, investigating them privately, and taking action against offenders, from friendly tips on COI policy to stern warnings to office-initiated blocks and bans where necessary. alanyst 15:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I second this. --Rubbish computer 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A COI disclosure does make someone a target for ABFing, harassment, stalking, outing and other issues and getting too enthusiastic about the TOU could just turn the TOU into a bully-stick for POV pushers. Sometimes the COI editor is the victim of volunteer pov pushers, who can use the Bright Line to make it virtually impossible for them to correct overt BLP problems. I've even seen one case where a POV pusher removed Request Edits, reverted edits from others, and made it very difficult to remove noise complaints from an article. Once I removed it, they continued to edit-war and accuse me of having a covert COI. What's to stop him from getting me blocked for not disclosing a COI that doesn't actually exist? What happens when someone happens to - by chance - have a similar name as someone that works for the company? As Jimbo indicated, in almost all cases the article-subject doesn't know they are doing anything wrong and the issue can be addressed through education and communication without, without doing harm to Wikipedia's principles of anonymous editing, AGF, civility, etc..CorporateM (Talk) 18:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (an often paid editor)

@CorporateM: I was referring to people who, having been educated about it etc, continue to wilfully promote a subject: but such editors usually get blocked anyway, so never mind. Personally I don't think anyone needs to be outed. Rubbish computer 21:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Yup, they can be blocked on the basis of content and editing behavior. If there is compelling evidence of a COI, editors will typically have a stronger lean towards blocking than if they are volunteer and some subtle differences I think is warranted. I would rather make some sacrifices to privacy to improve sockpuppet detection, than COI detection. Most COIs are acting in good-faith, but almost all socks are not and most bad faith paid editors use socks, so this is a much more targeted approach. CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: You're right. Funnily enough, this page is under semi-protection due to sockpuppetry as well. I'm sure you're right but how do you know most bad faith paid editors use socks? Personal experience, statistics, etc. --Rubbish computer 22:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: A few things. I could be wrong, but I believe there are only two paid editing firms that are banned from Wikipedia and both make prolific use of socks/meats/etc. I have collected data on more than 100 assessments I provided to article-subjects over one year and the situations I believed to be bad-faith are the only ones that used socks. These real-world experiences also show a strong correlation to what I've seen on Wikipedia. Most non-disclosures are caused by ignorance, but most socks are caused by an intent to deceive. The ones that use socks are often the ones that engage in tendetious editing, that refuse to disclose a COI, that are most persistent in avoiding NPOV, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Thanks for letting me know. This makes sense: using sock accounts already means a user has something to hide. --Rubbish computer 23:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: When you said "most bad faith paid editors use socks", this could be wrong because I sometimes go through the account creation log looking to either welcome users or pick out unacceptable usernames, and I often find people editing to represent a company or organization, sometimes making an article or userpage eligible for speedy deletion. I just thought some of these might be people paid to promote the organization on a one-off basis. There are users who spam as well: somebody could pay them on a one-off basis. They could be acting in bad faith and simply give up soon. I know they probably wouldn't know, but I just think it seems unlear how many paid editors there are ultimately at any point, and how many of these are acting in bad faith relative to how many are using socks. Sorry if I sound like I'm rambling. --Rubbish computer 01:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer:Not rambling, but maybe I'm not quite 100% sure I know what you mean. Most spammers use socks too. If a username is created that is named after a company, that is an indication of good-faith intentions because they are disclosing. Many editors, such as COI editors or open-source fans, make extremely promotional edits without realizing how promotional their edits are. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM: I mean one off paid bad faith editors: it just seems hard to tell if that could be the case, but you're right, they would probably use socks if they were genuninely bad faith. Never mind, sorry. --Rubbish computer 01:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What more can we do about paid or COI editing and advertising on Wikipedia?

We don't need to throw up our hands and say "there's nothing we can do" so just let them do it. We should have an overall plan of what we need to do. I suggest:

  • let businesses know that undisclosed paid editing, much of COI editing, and all advertising on Wikipedia is against our rules. Both the community and the WMF need to pitch in on this. If we don't let businesses know that we don't want ads, every business in the world will try putting in a "free ad."
  • enforce our rules on no advertising, PR, marketing, or promotion. There's almost no wiggle room there. Almost anything a company's marketing department would want to do here, is against our rules. These are likely the easiest rules to enforce.
  • When there is a reasonable suspicion that somebody is an undisclosed paid editor, just ask him or her politely.
  • Understand that there is no reason to publicly out paid editors, we can judge any obvious information gathered from the open internet in private, similar to the way we handle sock puppet investigations. If Arbcom doesn't think they can do this, then the WMF will need to in at least a few caes. Probably the best option is for ArbCom and the WMF to work together on this. There's no reason to say that a public statement on Elance or similar service can't be considered when looking at an undisclosed paid editing case, but please submit this evidence in private.

We could also change a few rules to make it easier to stop undisclosed paid editing and advertising.

  • Tighten notability requirements for businesses
  • Make AfD's easier for businesses - those guys can argue forever.
  • Prohibit paid editing for BLPs (with the usual exceptions). you have to pay somebody to put in your bio here, you have a problem. Paid BLPs are often tied to business advertising here, they don't add to the encyclopedia, and they provide revenue to paid-editing businesses, most of which do not disclose their paid status.
  • Get the Bright-line rule into official policy, or at least into a guideline such as WP:COI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I thought the Bright Line was already implemented into WP:COI? Regarding notability, we already have tightened notability requirements for company articles much more than those on academics and reporters (for example), who often have much more promotional (volunteer written) pages than many companies. Regarding paid editing on BLP pages, I have both helped a PR person and been the PR person respectively on BLP pages about a politician, where in each cases a volunteer took control of the page and used it for their political platform. In both cases the problem would have been un-resolved if not for the PR rep. Another very similar case came up recently with a politically charged government agency, whose article was loaded with political attacks, until their intern brought it to the attention of myself and others.
What I will say about notability is that myself and others have had success using promotion as a rationale for deletion, regardless of notability. In many AfD discussions I do not even check for notability, but merely cite TNT for hopelessly promotional articles. This is less resource-intensive as doing notability checks. I also make a heavy presumption of non-notability for orgs of less than 100 people, though there are some exceptions. CorporateM (Talk) 03:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @CorporateM: - I don't see the Bright-line rule anywhere in WP:COI. Can you provide a link to the section or give a quotation? I would certainly support a "presumption of non-notability for orgs of less than 100 people, ... (with) some exceptions" put into the rules, but I haven't seen a tightening of notability requirements for businesses.
  • @WilyD: - I have no "quest to ban librarians and history professors" in fact I would especially encourage them to edit here. When I write "with the usual exceptions", I mean the usual exceptions for BLPs which include removing libel, and reporting BLP violations to WP:BLPN and use of the talk pages. In no way do I mean to weaken WP:BLP. I just think that paid editors editing BLP article pages (with the usual exceptions) don't add anything to the encyclopedia, insert bias, and otherwise cause problems. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Worry less about money and more about ideological, political, religious, fandom, dislike of music, attempt to rewrite history, and every other sort of COI editing which passes unchecked while everybody searches to see whether a dollar changed hands. Or go generate neutral content and leave less room for COI editing. Either option would be very productive.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding @Wehwalt:'s point, I have found that most paid editors are easy to establish consensus against at AFD and are less persistent (due to time-constraints in their day job) than similar volunteer POV pushers. Again, the ones that are disruptive and harder to establish consensus against are the ones using socks and we can get so much more results with smaller sacrifices to our principles by going after socks.
The areas that bother me the most are areas where our editor demographic is so supportive of a specific editing agenda, that POV pushers aren't even identified as such, because most of the participating editors are fanboys or critics or whatever on that particular subject. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think focusing on how neutral an article's tone, coverage, etc. is is more productive for this than tightening rules on notability. I agree with Wehwalt's sentiment to an extent. I think only paid advocate editors should be of concern here: BLPs shouldn't have different rules concerning paid editing to everything else. Users pushing POV on any articles should be stopped, if they are being paid for it this is of greater concern, but if what they are being paid for is not affecting NPOV I think this is of less concern than if they are pushing POV, but are not being paid. --Rubbish computer 13:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The only solution I can see is to let new edits to articles be checked by some bot for potential advertising edits. Then there must be a large number of volunteers each of whom will get a notification about one or more of such edits. The volunteers will then keep an eye on the activities of these users. If possible, the edits should not be immediately reverted, as that would betray that the editors in question are being watched. Then if the editors are indeed COI editors who are plugging for some company, they will end up getting caught. Count Iblis (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Smallbones: We already do this, actually, but reactively, not proactively. Doe the default editnotice point to WP:COI? It could be that simple. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #4—2015

Read this in another language • Local subscription list • Subscribe to the multilingual edition

Did you know?

You can add quotations marks before and after a title or phrase with a single click.

Select the relevant text. Find the correct quotations marks in the special character inserter tool (marked as Ω in the toolbar).

Screenshot showing the special character tool, selected text, and the special character that will be inserted


Click the button. VisualEditor will add the quotation marks on either side of the text you selected.

Screenshot showing the special character tool and the same text after the special character has been inserted


You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team have been working on mobile phone support. They have fixed many bugs and improved language support. They post weekly status reports on mediawiki.org. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving language support and functionality on mobile devices.

Wikimania

The team attended Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City. There they participated in the Hackathon and met with individuals and groups of users. They also made several presentations about VisualEditor and the future of editing.

Following Wikimania, we announced winners for the VisualEditor 2015 Translathon. Our thanks and congratulations to users Halan-tul, Renessaince, जनक राज भट्ट (Janak Bhatta), Vahe Gharakhanyan, Warrakkk, and Eduardogobi.

For interface messages (translated at translatewiki.net), we saw the initiative affecting 42 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 56.5% before the translathon, and 78.2% after (+21.7%). In particular, Sakha improved from 12.2% to 94.2%; Brazilian Portuguese went from 50.6% to 100%; Taraškievica went from 44.9% to 85.3%; Doteli went from 1.3% to 41.2%. Also, while 1.7% of the messages were outdated across all languages before the translathon, the percentage dropped to 0.8% afterwards (-0.9%).

For documentation messages (on mediawiki.org), we saw the initiative affecting 24 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 26.6% before translathon, and 46.9% after (+20.3%).  There were particularly notable achievements for three languages. Armenian improved from 1% to 99%; Swedish, from 21% to 99%, and Brazilian Portuguese, from 34% to 83%. Outdated translations across all languages were reduced from 8.4% before translathon to 4.8% afterwards (-3.6%).

We published some graphs showing the effect of the event on the Translathon page. Thank you to the translators for participating and the translatewiki.net staff for facilitating this initiative.

Recent improvements

Auto-fill features for citations can be enabled on each Wikipedia. The tool uses the citoid service to convert a URL or DOI into a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. You can see an animated GIF of the quick, simple process at mediawiki.org. So far, about a dozen Wikipedias have enabled the auto-citation tool. To enable it for your wiki, follow the instructions at mediawiki.org.

Your wiki can customize the first section of the special character inserter in VisualEditor. Please follow the instructions at mediawiki.org to put the characters you want at the top. 

In other changes, if you need to fill in a CAPTCHA and get it wrong, then you can click to get a new one to complete. VisualEditor can now display and edit Vega-based graphs. If you use the Monobook skin, VisualEditor's appearance is now more consistent with other software.  

Future changes

The team will be changing the appearance of selected links inside VisualEditor. The purpose is to make it easy to see whether your cursor is inside or outside the link. When you select a link, the link label (the words shown on the page) will be enclosed in a faint box. If you place your cursor inside the box, then your changes to the link label will be part of the link. If you place your cursor outside the box, then it will not. This will make it easy to know when new characters will be added to the link and when they will not.

On the English Wikipedia, 10% of newly created accounts are now offered both the visual and the wikitext editors. A recent controlled trial showed no significant difference in survival or productivity for new users in the short term. New users with access to VisualEditor were very slightly less likely to produce results that needed reverting. You can learn more about this by watching a video of the July 2015 Wikimedia Research Showcase. The proportion of new accounts with access to both editing environments will be gradually increased over time. Eventually all new users have the choice between the two editing environments.

Let's work together

  • Share your ideas and ask questions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.
  • Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help.
  • If your wiki would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace, you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.
  • Please file requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the styling menu in Phabricator.
  • The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
  • The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, usually on Tuesdays at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q1 blocker, though. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the main VisualEditor project with the bug.

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre directly, so that she can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WhitehallEdits in the news

I assumed this would be of interest; it's one year since Channel 4 set up the Twitter account @WhitehallEdits, which tweets edits from government computers: unless they have made accounts, which Channel 4 appear to not realise. The title is in my opinion over-the-top as many of the edits are just random. It's odd that this was created on Jimbo's birthday, unless this was intentional. They use the word 'adminstator' at the end, which is odd, because WP:Adminstator goes nowhere. Then on the graph they fail to understand the existence of plurals. I fort that as it woz a shortt artickle thay would at least nott mayk any typpos or copyedit thiz before thay prinnted it, but aparently not. --Rubbish computer 00:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a spectacular non-story to me, since presumably the entire British civil service is going to show as on "Whitehall servers". "Organisation which employs around 450,000 people includes some people who make minor edits to Wikipedia on their lunch break" is not exactly the Pentagon Papers. – iridescent 19:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Yep. --Rubbish computer 20:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin Evaluation

is there any forum on WP where an ordinary editor can leave feedback about the very best and also the very worst Admins one has encountered? Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably not such a good idea as it can easily turn into "worst is 'admins who have blocked me' and best is 'admins who have blocked my opponents'". --NeilN talk to me 18:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Best and worst in what way? If you just want to offer an opinion on whether an admin is doing a good or bad job, you can let them know on their talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there any forum on Wikipedia where people don't complain about the worst admins they believe they've encountered? MastCell Talk 20:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
My talk page is all wine and roses, MastCell, which is probably why you don't frequent so much anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Drmies is a drunk and a flower-killer.</complaint> Townlake (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm you're exaggerating a bit, just a bit, but you caught the gist of it. I only wish I was sober enough to find your block button. You can't mess with admins, you know. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, and you know that last sentence of yours is going to be taken out of context during some future "Drmies is abusing their power" complaint. --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and it might not be far off. I suppose you are aware that I am being charged with exactly that same crime, and I look forward to the desysopping procedure. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The admin corps as a group are not as consistent in their views and actions are the editing population would be led to believe. It's really going to be "best/worst interactions with these individuals who happen to be admins" most of the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaving feedback is not the same as evaluation. Evaluation is the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something, while what is being proposed here is just talking about it. Per Ricky81682, and what Soham321 originally said, this would focus only on extremes.--Rubbish computer 00:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
in this case, the feedback results in an evaluation because if an Admin is not classified, by consensus, as a 'Good' Admin or a 'Bad' Admin then we can assume that he/she is an 'Average' Admin--neither 'Good' nor 'Bad'. Secondly, there is a specific objective behind this kind of an evaluation, and that is that by identifying who the really Good Admins are, by consensus, some incentives can be given to retain them on WP. I am now talking about material incentives, not barnstars on their talk page. I know that there exist cliques of certain editors and certain Admins but such cliques will become redundant and irrelevant if an overall community wide consensus is taken to evaluate the Admins. Soham321 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
So basically you are suggesting something like ratemyprofessors.com, but even stupider? --JBL (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion has a direct objective: retaining good Admins by WP. My suggestion can be refined and modified further after putting some thought into it. For example, if it is thought wiser, the feedback may not be available for viewing by other editors--but only by other Admins. Or, the feedback may not be available for viewing by other Admins also--but only by WP bureaucrats. Also, if is thought wiser, IP editors will not be able to give the feedback being discussed. Further, if it is thought wise, every Admin can be given an annual grade of "Good", "Bad", and "Average" for their performance over the year by WP based on the feedback received. This can be done in such a way that only Admins can see the annual grade of other Admins. I think my suggestion has the potential to be considerably more utilitarian than ratemyprofessors.com.Soham321 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: I appreciate that you are trying to help but elaboration would be needed as to why a user held a positive or negative opinion about an admin, to ensure it wasn't just "They blocked me"/"They blocked my Wikienemy". Admins are already chosen through a consensus-based evaluation process at WP:Requests for adminship. An admin could be the only neutral editor in an issue with a large number of POV-pushers and be unjustifiably regarded negatively as a result. There is not an endless supply of admins and really they all need to be retained. --Rubbish computer 12:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
In Category:Wikipedia administrators there are currently 1,086 administrators. --Rubbish computer 12:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me give an example of why an ordinary editor could have a high opinion of an Admin. When i was a newbie to WP i edit warred on a particular page (not knowing the rules here). I was then topic banned by Kim Dent-Brown for one year from editing that page; he also offered to review my topic ban if i approached him after six months. He did this with so much grace and compassion that even though he was punishing me i developed a high respect for him. I recall another editor writing on Kim's page in response to my interaction with him that he too was impressed with the way Kim had dealt with me. Another related example:A new editor had recently made a legal threat because his female relative's murder was being unnecessarily mentioned in the page about her home town. He was immediately blocked. Subsequently, Drmies (who was not the blocking Admin) wrote on his talk page a compassionate note giving the reason why he was blocked, mentioning that the material he had wanted removed had already been removed, and that he could consider appealing the block.

Another reason why an editor could have a high opinion of an Admin could be because said Admin had tried to instill manners and etiquette on WP into said editor (probably because they saw potential in the editor) in a polite and cordial way.

As to why an editor could have a poor opinion of an Admin, it could be because said Admin is viewed as playing favorites, taking the sides of specific editors in a dispute in a consistent manner for various reasons (including the fact that they could be "buddies" with certain editors and even exchanging friendly emails with certain editors involved in a dispute where they are playing the role of a referee). Or because said Admin occasionally uses intemperate and nasty and/or abusive language when interacting with other editors.

In my opinion, WP should give material incentives to Admins who have been judged to be Good Admins, through community wide consensus, to encourage and motivate them to continue as Admins. Because Good Admins are worth their weight in gold as far as WP is concerned in my opinion. They are as important as the programmers, and in fact more important in my opinion.

Admins who have not been judged to be Good Admins through community wide consensus can, after viewing the feedback, do some self-analysis and strive to become Good Admins. This is particularly true for newbie Admins.

One other point: It can be considered whether Admins can be nominated for a three year term or a five year term, and not a life term as seems to be the case now. (The desysop procedure is cumbersome.) This will encourage compassionate behavior on the part of the Admins towards other editors.Soham321 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Soham321: Mentioning this at Wikipedia talk:Administrators could be relevant, I think. --Rubbish computer 13:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Featured pictures is screwed in one week, due to unannounced removal of SAJAX scripting language from Wikipedia.

I have accidentally stumbled into knowledge that sajax will be removed from Wikipedia on the 13th, and, checking a list made up by User:Mr. Stradivarius one of the tools in question is the script used to close feature picture candidacies, a process that, without script, is a fifteen minute process per candidate, minimum. Probably more as we're now all out of practice.

The sajax removal was hardly announced to users, only on tech mailing lists.

It seems that the coders have forgotten that communication is actually important, and that maybe one shouldn't cause things to break without giving some warning in advance to people who may not even realise they're affected. I never would have realised until I saw the list; I probably wouldn't have realised even then had I not made a small change to fix the closing script years ago, meaning a copy is in my userspace.

No, had it not been pure coincidence, this would have been learned about when everything broke on the 13th, sending the process into chaos.

This is completely unacceptable communication from the WMF. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dang, that would have been a good test for "Necessity is the mother of invention." I remember Y2K. Probably would have been better to just deal with it on Y2K+1 than all the hours or testing "just in case." I think I found more problems in the testing environment than in the software and still had glitches that couldn't be replicated prior. The workd didn't end that day either. My learning from that is Software Engineers adapt better under necessity than planning. Not to say planning isn't necessary but simply stopping SAJAX is probably better than weaning off it. The 13th would have been a bad day but the 14th would still arise and probably with a solution on a better platform. --DHeyward (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
See also:
Wnt (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, for founding Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Has anybody ever counted how many of these have been awarded to Jimbo now? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
There's some over here... CabbagePotato (talk) 05:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a nice list, but what I meant by "these" was how many Barnstars had been awarded specifically for creating Wikipedia? I guess I could count them myself, but is that page up to date? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Answering my own question, only two barnstars were added to the list since the end of 2011, yet I'm sure I've seen more here during that time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  06:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Released to public domain

Are our user pages into the public domain under a CC BY-SA 3.0, or only material I write in Wikipedia mainspace? The bottom of all pages has this: "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" but it doesn't say "this page" or "this text" specifically. So, are our user pages under the same license? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Nothing on Wikipedia is released into the public domain unless the editor actively makes such a declaration. All text written by Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia is automatically released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses (as stated at the bottom of the edit window). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Neither, unless you release it. You own the copyright to all your Wikipedia contributions with some exceptions (you don't own quotes as they are fair use of other's copyrighted material, and there are some other exceptions like material that does not pass threshold of originality; Scènes à faire material or that is subject to merger doctrine, etc.) but you automatically agree by contributing here that the copyright you hold to your contributions automatically is licensed by you under two free copyright licenses: co-licensed under the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)" (quoting from Wikipedia:Copyrights). This is not public domain at all. I repeat, you are the owner of your contributions, you own the copyright. What the free licenses do is allow others to use your copyrighted text extremely liberally--to take it, reuse it, modify it, even for commercial purposes. Essentially, a re-user of your work only needs to give appropriate attribution. You can, however, agree to release your contributions into the public domain, but otherwise the above licensing scheme is automatic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): please stop modifying the question after it has been answered to ([22]). If you want further precisions, add such additional questions after the answers, or at least indicate you updated your question.
As to the content of your question: in (any) edit window your question is answered by the text just above the Save page button, starting with "By clicking the "Save page" button... (etc)". --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Circular or rectangular photographs of U.S. presidential candidates?

At United States presidential election, 2016 a user altered the conventional appearance of the page by introducing circular head shots of the candidates, large political party logos, and tabulated information, etc. There was push-back. Now an RfC is under way at the article’s talk page. Additional views and opinions there, from peeps who know the relevant policies and guidelines, might be valuable. Given that Wales’s talk page is heavily watched, it seems as good a place as any for the notification. If there’s a better one, feel free to move it. Writegeist (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(non-political comment and I can not comment at the RfC) Someone really wants to have Wikipages produce poker chips? Collect (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for bringing it to wider attention. These pages get a lot of attention and should look nice. I hope we'll also make some special efforts to ensure on the neutrality of the articles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
That is basically the discussion. Changing to the new aesthetic look, of circle-pics, makes it just a bit harder to swap out an NPOV problem (grimace/crosseye/badhairday) alternative pic, because the generally available options are square-pics, and the generally-available-skillset doesn't include the capability of applying-a-circular-crop-with-a-transparent-background (for most editors at least). Even though they look cooler, and could conceivably make the WMF a lot of money if we begin minting our own coinage (or poker chips), there are some anybody-can-edit concerns, and not-so-hypothetically some NPOV concerns where the only viable libre-licensed headshot does not show the candidate at their best, to put it mildly. The issue for 2016 presidential candidates is not as crucial as the longer-term impact; if we switch to circle-pics, what will the state legislator races of 2018 look like, in terms of NPOV/accuracy/etc? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
"Cooler" is a matter of opinion. Some of us tend to resist the Facebookification of WP (not that Facebook is regarded as cool any more). And something that's cool today can soon seem desperately uncool, so IMO it's not a useful criterion for changing the look of encyclopedia entries. Writegeist (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

".music applicant caught using bogus Wikipedia page"

No need to respond. I am just sharing for you and/or any page watchers who may be interested. I've added a "POV" tag to the Music community article until editors can assess its integrity and tone. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It makes some naughty allegations against the good Dr. Blofeld, effectively implying paid editing, which, to be honest, I don't think likely. He's a very prolific creator of articles on all topics. Valenciano (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and my intention is merely to make sure the Music community article is compliant with Wikipedia's rules, not to make allegations against Dr. Blofeld. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like legal gobbledy gook that article about it, I have never heard of the name DotMusic Limited or a "new gTLD application", scouts honour, and it genuinely baffles me how a wikipedia article could make any difference to something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Obviously judging by my featured and good articles on my user page I get paid all the time to write articles on wikipedia ;-). In fact Osama Bin Laden's a good friend of mine and threw some dimes in the kitty for creating articles on his compounds Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad and Osama bin Laden's house in Khartoum. Oh yeah, I never, edit music articles. Music theory and background is one of my main interests actually, but I don't do as much work towards it as I like. The fact is I've contributed to a massive range of subjects and I'm sure once in a while somebody is going to complain about something or think something's suspicious. It's laughable that they would think I'd be in a such a position to have carried that off! Now, I must get back to Stanley Kubrick, Kubrick's wife sent a cheque in the post for £15000 to get it up to FA status by the end of the year!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, "Blowers", you still look lovely in that sexy off-the-shoulder $15,000 number that Donatella sent you back in 2011. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Haha ;-) BTW I think Commercialism of music is a valid encyclopedic subject and it might be best to refactor it and write a more encyclopedic, broader article on that instead. I think it's one of those cases where it has some relevance but needs to be refactored to a different page name with better (and more coherent) content to avoid seeming a bit OR or essay-like.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes the lads over at Warner Bros are having a bit of a whip-round to try and persuade you to move it to something more fitting. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We ought to have a series of articles on Template:Sociomusicology IMO, there'd be plenty of valid articles on the subject which explore the issues identified in this article at least.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_191&oldid=1139103976"