User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 237

Archive 230

←

Archive 235

Archive 236

Archive 237

Archive 238

Archive 239

Archive 240

Encouraging More People to Edit Wikipedia

This is for Jimmy, or anyone else who might be interested. I think that Wikipedia is great, and that more people should be editing it, so I spent a bunch of time writing a four page article (entitled "Ask Mr. Wikipedia Person") which covers the basic logistics of editing as well as issues of conflict resolution. It is intended to be succinct, thorough, readable, and accurate (YMMV, and please let me know if anything is *factually incorrect*). The article is available at http://sfinney.com/images/mwp01.pdf, and is covered by a Creative Commons license.Finney1234 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't revdelete it without removing the link altogether which would spoil the point of your post, but posting your real name and email address is a really really bad idea unless you understand just what you're getting yourself into. Does this not just duplicate Wikipedia:About which is already linked on every single page on the wiki? ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Iridescent. I think my article is shorter and much more readable than Wikipedia:About (and more focused on practical issues), so I think it's potentially a valuable contribution. Thanks for the warning about publicizing real name and email, but they're at least a little bit buried (the sfwiki email address is in fact specific to the article). Posting my website here is nowhere near as bad as posting it on Facebook, which I also just did for the first time :-). Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might want to look at Help:Introduction and its many subpages. Remember, we've been doing this for 18 years now (or 20 if you include Nupedia), and a lot of this stuff has already been written following detailed discussion and literally years of feedback regarding what new editors do and don't find useful. ‑ Iridescent 21:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

As a newish (a few years) editor, I have often found it difficult to navigate online Wikipedia documentation with its extensive links (that's just a personal observation, not a criticism). My personal opinion is that this article might be a useful, interesting, stand-alone *succinct* introduction that could get people started on Wikipedia, with significant links pointing to online documentation. I posted it here in case anyone else thinks that it might be useful; if not, it will disappear into the abyss and that's OK.Finney1234 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

One last statement about why I think this article is useful and different, and then I'll shut up unless someone shows interest.

I have a lot of intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable, and polite friends who look up stuff in Wikipedia but have never thought of editing it. They may notice punctuation or grammatical errors, they may know that something is factually incorrect, they may wonder how far to trust Wikipedia content, but they just move on and don't even think about fixing something, or looking up WP:About, Help:Introduction, etc.

This article is intended to target that audience, to show (quickly, and hopefully clearly) how easy it is to do basic edits on an article, while also describing (quickly) aspects of how content gets developed, and how conflicts are addressed (User and Article Talk pages, Consensus,etc.). According to some people I've shown it to, it's fairly successful at that goal.

So: Skip the first two paragraphs (which are more formal and more redundant with existing Wikipedia documentation) and jump to Q1, and pretend you've looked up stuff in Wikipedia but know nothing about how Wikipedia works. You may or may not like my approach here, but I think you'll have to agree it's different than the online Wikipedia docs that Iridescent referred me to. (Please note that Mr Wikipedia Person is not my true self (nor is the questioner); it is a simply a constructed facade (intended to be slightly humorous) for the conveyance of information in this article only.)

-----------------------------------------

Again, in case anyone is interested: "Ask Mr Wikipedia Person" is an unofficial 4-page CC-licensed intro to Wikipedia, available at http://sfinney.com/images/mwp01.pdf. You can probably figure out where the LaTeX source is if you want it; ask me if not.Finney1234 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded".

"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded".
"The idea of encyclopedic knowledge feels problematic".

Source: The Wikimedia Foundation
Source: Szymon Grabarczuk, Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation [1]

Please comment at Meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2. Give them fair warning that the shit will hit the fan if they try to impose this on the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I think it highly contentious and misleading to label that link "The Wikimedia Foundation" as if this is some official statement of the WMF. It clearly is not. It's a recommendation by a community working group.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I have stricken "Source: The Wikimedia Foundation" and replaced it with "Source: Szymon Grabarczuk, Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation [2]".

Please advise as to whether you find this to be misleading as well. Might I suggest a disclaimer on pages that are signed by somebody with "(WMF)" in their user name but who does not speak for the foundation? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to be correct. After all, his upload comment explicitly disclaims personal authorship. I would ask Szymon if I were you - are these words his, or was he simply tasked with uploading the group's final document, written elsewhere, as he clearly indicates in his edit comment? In general, I do not think it reasonable to take every statement by an employee as an official statement of an organization, even when that employee is acting in an official capacity. The employee could be mistaken. I recently rented a car and the Avis person at the counter told me that the rental car didn't have it's own GPS and so I rented on - only to discover that the car actually had one. Avis refunded my money. I would think it unfair for me to characterize the employee's statement as an official statement of Avis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see also Seraphimblade's comments on the Diversity Working Group Recommendations, based on a Code of Conduct everyone including project contributors will be "required to sign", and the Community Health rules and regulations to be incorporated into the Terms of Service. The most anyone (including me) asked for were small changes covering specific objectionable behavior, not a carte blanche laundry list of whatever ToS additions a few small groups of people hand-picked by a few Foundation insiders imagine might help -- presumably giving the Foundation a huge list of transgressions for more unreviewable bans on secret evidence.

Plus, every single working group kicked the can down to further documents equivalent to those they were asked for. The 2016 Strategy Process recommendations are far better, and only took one part-time contractor. EllenCT (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There’s this gem too: “The focus on mainstream, Western-idea of academic-based knowledge limits the inclusion of other ways of knowing or presenting knowledge.” I don’t know what “other ways of knowing” even means but discarding the very basis of reliable sourcing will turn WP into fringe infested Wikia. Capeo (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This just gets worse and worse.

"Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?

Some editors might not agree on the need of content diversity and continue deleting articles based on notability reasoning and tensions might emerge."

Source: The Wikimedia Foundation

Source: Szymon Grabarczuk, Movement Strategy Process Meta Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation [3]

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. I was on the fence about the first statement, but this one... Jimmy, I know I'm hardly a regular on your talkpage, just an ordinary editor who's semi-active at best, and you don't know me from squat, but this is something that I'd say we need to have you step in and step on before there's any chance of it going live; if that "Recommendation" is forced upon Wikipedia by the WMF, we might as well just strip the bits from all our advanced permissions users, shut down all our anti-abuse tools and bots, and let WMF banninate anyone who tries to enforce policy, because this will mean that there will no longer be any standards as to what is included in the encyclopedia beyond the current flavor of the month at the WMF.

Given that the Working Groups have, thus far, rebuffed any attempts at pointing out that there might be any sort of problem with any of their proposals by outside voices coming from en-wiki and other projects, I think the only way that we have a chance of getting them to remember that the whole point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia is a top-down mandate from above, preferably punctuated with much sturm und drang to drive the point home... rdfox 76 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This plan shows a fundamental misunderstanding within the WMF of what made Wikipedia as popular as it is. Following this plan might gain us some new "editors", but we will loose readers by the thousands (or millions) once it becomes clear our overall quality is slipping. They call our method "Western" (which they use as a pejorative term, against a culture and group of people, in an official document), but if we measure quality by how well our records match reality and objective and verifiable facts, there is only higher and lower quality, not "Western" and whatever.

What blithering idiot wrote that manifesto? Guy (Help!) 07:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Tell the WMF they'll loose a lot less money if they just start another side project with this idea (similar things have already be done, Everipedia, for example) compared to how much they'll loose disrupting Wikipedia with this transient pseudophilosophical nonsense. When it doesn't work, at least they'll still have Wikipedia, and maybe by field-testing the idea we can glean some useful information that will actually help Wikipedia. 2601:194:300:130:E9BC:5EB6:4C25:282A (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Jimmy, I think you need to be aware of the discussions at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded". and Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#"...tensions might emerge...". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Jimbo should look at it. But, imho, this is not something that Jimbo is equipped to deal with. The WMF, even though they may not realize it, have become an existential threat to the usefulness of this encyclopedia to anyone who reads it. The current WMF must now be recognised as a mortal enemy which has declared systematic war "to the death" against this encyclopedia. Others must go to the link above and discuss next steps from an "at war" perspective. This is a Category 5 that most everyone thinks is just another whirling dervish. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are speaking utter nonsense. Perhaps you were taken in by the false claim that this is somehow an official statement by the WMF! It is not. It is a recommendation by a community working group with very little staff involvement. The idea that we are going to discard the classic notion of an encyclopedia and universal knowledge is ludicrous. Never going to happen. The WMF is not supporting such an idea. We are a diverse and open community, and a group of people (largely community members) got together and talked among themselves and came up with some ideas that simply aren't going to fly. Blaming the WMF for this is backwards - they have merely facilitated a strategy process which has come up with many recommendations, many of which aren't ever going to happen (for better or worse - better in this case).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! I appreciate that very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo! As one of the people who's spent a vast amount of their time over the last year working as a volunteer on the strategy process, which you as a WMF Board member set up, I would be delighted if you could tell me which of the "most" of the recommendations you already know are never going to happen, so I can stop wasting my time on them. Thanks :) The Land (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for phrasing it that way. I have changed it to 'many'. There are literally hundreds of recommendations, many of which are uncontroversial and will be pursued I'm sure. Many will be controversial and some of those will make it through and be pursued. Some will be controversial and won't move forward. The Movement Strategy process is a huge and wide ranging thing. The main thing I wanted to object to is the idea that these are somehow dictats from the WMF. They are ideas that many many people have worked hard on, and that work needs to be appreciated!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Anything that in any way offloads content decisions onto the WMF. Which is a lot of the recommendations. They are complete non starters for obvious reasons and I am surprised they even got proposed. But then I remembered the point of advocacy is not to provide neutral information, it is to promote one view above another. In which context said recommendations make sense. And so will never be adopted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that a recommendation phrased as "we should do X" does not necessarily mean "the Wikimedia Foundation should force all Wikimedia projects to do X". I mean, I think it's unlikely that a community that exists to write an encyclopedia is ever going to commit to scrapping the concept of an encyclopedia, but also I can imagine a future where there are some Wikimedia projects (perhaps dedicated ones) that exist to preserve and distribute forms of knowledge that don't currently fit on Wikipedias. And I'd much rather people engaged with the details of the strategy recommendations rather than making sweeping statements about how most of it's never going to happen. The Land (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, we are still in the middle of the WMF attempting to control one thing that the community has been handing since the start (blocking disruptive users) and the proposals do talk about things like changing the Terms of Use to give the WMF control of other aspects that the community has been handing since the start. Add to this certain past issues (Superprotect, Knowledge Engine, discriminating against blind people) and the lack of trust many of us have doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Where I differ from the more (cough) aggressive editors who have commented on this is that I see the WMF as being basically trustworthy and usually doing the right thing, but with occasional lapses into unacceptable behavior which they stick to until there is a huge outcry, editors and admins start going on strike, and the situation ends up in The New York Times.

As for "engaging with the details of the strategy recommendations", I made a small suggestion at meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2#Please don't use punctuation this way.([4]) It was ignored. Go ahead and read the entire page at meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2 Have any of the efforts on that page by English Wikipedia editors to "engage with the details of the strategy recommendations" resulted in any substantive back and forth discussion that includes a single member of the working group? You appear to be telling us to do more of what isn't working. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the motivations of WMF; I'm only interested in the results of what it does; "you can tell a tree by its fruit" kind of thing. Your list above:(blocking disruptive users, Superprotect, Knowledge Engine) is enough to establish a downward trend in its net effect upon the project; just look at all the time and administrators the Fram thing has chewed up. Yes, you can keep spending huge amounts of time monitoring (trying to) and fighting/correcting their screw ups, but since they are the ones with the money and they are getting paid, even when they screw up, the downward trend is likely to continue as long as the WMF are who they are, have the level of competence that they have and have the modus operandi that they have. I think they should all be replaced asap...we need an entirely new crew of down to earth, level headed critical thinkers who come in knowing that constant and clear communication with the editing communities is job 1. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• You do all realize that a list of notes made during an open brainstorming session is not the same thing as policy, right? Nothing has changed about Wikipedia because people had ideas and wrote them down somewhere. There are other molehills that need to be made into mountains somewhere else, aren't there? --Jayron32 14:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm very interested to learn more about what problems the working group thought this would solve. What immediately comes to my mind is not that our licensing policy or the idea of an encyclopedia are a problem (they obviously aren't) but that there are problems that our current arrangements do not solve. The first little idea that popped into my head is that the WMF, which is reasonably well funded these days, might want to fund the creation of a relevant peer-reviewed academic/professional journal where things could be published under whatever license makes sense for that, leaving the encyclopedia free to cite that material in the usual way. I do think there are some interesting questions around knowledge that is not written down in traditional "reliable source" ways but that does form a legitimate part of "the sum of all human knowledge" in the encyclopedic sense. The answer, it seems obvious to me, is not to give up on the encyclopedia, but to bridge that gap.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy, you do know that those WMF-run journals already exist? ‑ Iridescent 15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, cool! But to be clear, that isn't "WMF-run". It is a community effort!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The proposals do include ones to preserve spoken knowledge/oral history, and to digitize often-neglected material. Both of those are excellent ideas, and I would love to see more initiatives like that with WMF support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've been taking the time to identify how these proposals which so many people find noxious came to be included in the draft recommendations. I'll admit that there is a lot to read, & I have only read a sample of that mass, however I'm not seeing where these proposals came from. For example, I've focused on the meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/2019 Community Conversations/Strategy Salons most of which took place outside Western Europe & North America, & in none of them is there any mention that "the classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded" or "some editors might not agree on the need of content diversity and continue deleting articles based on notability reasoning". If anything, their suggestions are much more in line of those who object to the proposals under "Diversity". In the Egyptian & Spanish strategy salons, they ask for more communication from the Foundation. In the Ghana strategy salon, while acknowledging the need for a code of conduct, it is also noted that any such code must conform to local laws; they explicitly mention that homosexuality is against the law in Ghana, & thus LBGTQ Wiki[p|m]edians there must hide their sexual orientation.
  Based on what I've read so far, I suspect that the ideas & suggestions from these brainstorming sessions have been rewritten &/or reframed to fit someone's agenda -- which is not necessarily shared by even a majority of the volunteer community. This revision is what has angered so many people. And it is unfair to the hundreds of volunteers who gave of their time to offer feedback & suggest ideas. -- llywrch (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. A good example where it is very clear that our policies based on WP:RS systematically leads to extremely biased results is in the field of lifestyle where we stick to WP:MEDRS. What our articles write about diets amounts to propaganda for the extremely unhealthy Western diet that causes atherosclerosis in almost 100% of the population with about 25% dying from the consequences of that (heart attacks and strokes). It is well known that populations that eat a natural diet, mostly plant based supplemented with small amounts of meat and fish don't get cardiovascular disease, and recently it has been shown that this is because of the extremely low levels of atherosclerosis. This is all published in reliable sources, e.g. the Lancet. The problem is that WP:MEDRS ends up demanding sources that will be based on large scale blinded tests, and that biases us in favor of research results where variants of the Western diets type are investigated. So, we end up saying that the Mediterranean diet is a healthy diet that reduces cardiovascular disease, when it only reduces the probability of getting heart disease by 30%.

Wikipedia won't mention this result nor will it mention this result: "...the Tsimane, a forager-horticulturalist population of the Bolivian Amazon with few coronary artery disease risk factors, have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population recorded to date." as that would violate WP:MEDRS. People can write articles on notable diets that have been proposed on the basis of such research results, but all these articles mention that these diets are "fad diets", credible scientific arguments from reliable peer reviewed articles such as The Lancet are countered by blog postings by dietitians who stick to the "official" Western POV on diet. It's WP:MEDRS that is invoked to justify doing that, as the Western dogma on diet is supposedly extremely well supported by tertiary sources and all the scientific results showing that the Western diet is extremely unhealthy are mostly all primary articles. That these results are routinely replicated doesn't matter, that the results on Western diet often are not replicated and are subject to frequent revision, doesn't seem to matter. The top researchers in the field of diet only cite these results and write review articles on the diets Western people are willing to eat, and Wikipedia will swallow what they write as gospel. The result: a quarter of the World population unnecessarily destined to die from cardiovascular disease. Count Iblis (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: how can we modify policy to address such problems? Have any such proposals ever been attempted? EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

We need to base our policies more on rigorous scientific methods, which means that we'll cover the hard sciences in the same way as we're doing now, the most valued tertiary sources would still be valued in the same was as they are now. In the medical sciences such sources would need to be depreciated in favor of secondary sources. The problem in the medical sciences is that the tertiary reviews are done to get to policies for medical practitioners, and for that the science is not weighed in a neutral way. Usually the tertiary report will make that clear explicitly, they justify that by invoking the precautionary principle. That's good and well to get to instructions for doctors, but we're not doctors. We need to edit Wikipedia according to what is the most likely truth according to the scientific literature. This means that if we were to use tertiary review articles, we would need to re-evaluate the conclusions based on our own criteria.

A good example is a recent report by the WHO that recommends that we take care with using cellphones in order to prevent brain cancer, even though the report itself says that there is zero credible evidence for any effect of cellphone use on the probability of developing brain cancer. Given that tertiary medical review articles routinely act in this way, we should allow Wiki editors to do some OR in the form of their own literature review to eliminate scientifically unwarranted conclusions. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: are there tertiary sources which provide the more accurate perspective on diet? I just don't see how those specific proposals would solve the problem you pointed out. EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources where we can read about how the dietary guidelines are arrived at. We can read here: ""Whilst consuming more than five portions of fruit and vegetables a day may be desirable... adding pressure to consume more fruit and vegetables creates an unrealistic expectation."" So, we're not going to tell it like it is because that may cause people to get get discourage to make any changes at all! This causes the reliable information from scientific research about what a healthy diet is to get shifted toward the way most people eat. And that fact can be distilled from reliable sources. Count Iblis (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please allow me a note on phrasing and framing. It might not be perfect to call the body that made the proposals "a community working group". Better terms might be "official WMF working groups" or "WMF panels with staff selected community members".

The proposals or recommendations or documents have been published with the information that they are "key tools" and will be "implemented" after October. So, this gave me the impression that they are very seriously meant proposals that are summing up the strategy process so far, and that they are the basis for the WMF board decisions in a few weeks time.

In parliamentary terms, the recommendations appear to me as the "third reading". The last chance to make your protest been heard. Or, what would be a better way for me to understand the status of these documents? Ziko (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ziko: In a sense, yes. As a member of one of the working groups, my understanding is that this is the main round of community feedback that will be available before the recommendations are finalised. So if anyone sees anything fundamentally unworkable, this is indeed the right time to say so. I'm pretty sure that feedback is being heard [to be honest, I don't think that the recommendations were ever intended to mean "the WMF will rewrite the ToU so all Wikimedia projects are forced to take -NC and -ND content" and I see roughly 0 chance of such a thing happening - though there may be other ways to implement such a recommendation, e.g. creating a new project for the purpose, maybe there are other creative ideas as well].

Equally though, the analogy with a 'third reading' where people are voting for or against a finished product is not really right. I think it's pretty clear to the working groups that there is a long way to go with most of the recommendations. Of the WG members I've spoken to, I don't think anyone feels they have presented a set of ideas that are fully fleshed-out with clear rationales and a full consensus within each group on every recommendation - let alone a set of recommendations across groups that are fully coherent and mutually complementary. There is clearly a lot of work still to do. The community feedback is really valuable in that - I am sure it is all being read, even if it's not being responded to (for various reasons: desire to only give answers people are confident their groups will agree with, shortage of time fitting in strategy work alongside day jobs and other commitments, in some cases worries about a crowd of angry people descending on anyone who puts their head above the parapet).

Also, it's worth noting that the 'implementation' phase of some recommendations may well involve further consultation, and further conversation. Certainly within Roles and Responsibilities we have quite a lot of awareness that recommendations that mainly affect the 'organised part' of the movement have a much clearer and easier path to implementation than recommendations that mainly affect project communities.

(In passing: It's actually hard for me to imagine a Wikimedia strategy process less controlled by the WMF. The working groups maybe have a couple of WMF people on. The people running/facilitating the process are funded (but not necessarily employed) by the WMF but I don't think of them had previously been involved with the WMF. )

Hope this helps! The Land (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Chris, thanks for the effort. I am looking forward to what "may well" happen after the "recommendations" leave alpha status. Ziko (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Elgafar, Quotiel or Situla?

Okay, Jimbo, which one of these do you like best and least?

• 
  Elgafar (closest to status quo)
• 
  Quotiel
• 
  Situla

I like Situla because it elevates ombuds to highest echelon status, far better than disparate line worker community liaisons. I don't like Quotiel because it doesn't and therefore isn't worth the re-org. EllenCT (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It would take me a great deal of study to form a reasonable view. If I had to guess, having reviewed each of them briefly, I think all of them have some merits and some limitations. I think in many cases in something as radically non-hierarchical as the Wikimedia movement, the "structure" depends very much on the subject matter under discussion. To give a simple example, funding decisions are decided differently, and should be decided differently, to content decisions and day-to-day community governance matters (details about most blocks, who is on ArbCom, etc).

Does it make sense for editing communities to vote to decide on a partnership with museums that the relevant chapter is pursuing? No. Does it make sense for the chapter to try to rewrite and enforce policy on reliable sources? No. Different people, and different groups of people, have different skills and different traditional and legal authorities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. What if the choices were diffs against the status quo instead of redesigns from the ground up? Would you support, for example, the WMF as it exists today but with a fully transparent funds dissemination process and a team of ombuds in the C-suite? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

These models should be read in conjunction with the recommendations from the Roles & Responsibilities working group. (Disclosure: I am a member of that working group.) The three models are what we see as three possible outcomes by 2030 based on our recommendations. There are also links for you to fill out a survey for each of the three models and add in comments; I know a lot of people don't like to go off-wiki, but that survey collates the data more completely and effectively for the working group to understand and give proper weight to the feedback. I really encourage people to participate, because this feedback will determine which of the three models goes forward to the final recommendations. Risker (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the surveys?[5][6][7] They are comprised of the many propositions copied verbatim from the proposal descriptions, each presented as a Agree/Disagree/Other question. Who thought that would work? How are respondents supposed to determine whether an aspirational component which may or may not exist in the future satisfies specific operational constraints? You need better surveys. EllenCT (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It is a fair critique; it's difficult and takes a lot more time than we had to develop a survey that is both easily utilized and granular enough to provide useful feedback. Given we only finalized the models on Thursday afternoon and had to have the surveys ready by 9 a.m. Saturday, we did the best we could. It isn't perfect, but it is already producing some actionable feedback, so we're remaining hopeful. Risker (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Further comment: Elgafar is not "status quo": it essentially splits the WMF in two, leaving only the tech side as WMF, and the rest of the WMF as roughly a new entity with a series of committees similar to the FDC with plenty of staff support to carry out the decisions made at the committee level. Risker (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I feel like the stock Mediawiki development organization is already effectively segregated from the rest of the WMF, so please forgive my misunderstanding. EllenCT (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a fair comment, EllenCT, and perhaps one you might want to include at some point. It is the one closest to the current structure, certainly. Risker (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please pardon a superficial question (and I'm sure this isn't really the right place for it anyway), but where do the terms Elgafar, Quotiel, and Situla come from? Are they just arbitrary made-up code-words in lieu of referring to Models 1, 2, and 3, or do the words have some inherent meaning that I am missing? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, Newyorkbrad. It sounds like made-up Dungeons and Dragons verbiage to me, but perhaps there is a rational underpinning known to those with deeper insight than I possess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

They are names of stars. When we first created them, we used names of animals, but decided that those original names didn't sound quite neutral enough. Risker (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see how discussing which animal the WMF is modeled on could become a distraction. :) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hedgehog. Definitely a hedgehog. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly and obviously a duck-billed platypus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I had been guessing they were IKEA product names because of Wikimania in Sweden. EllenCT (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. I'm not sure what kind of names others would have come up with that wouldn't have implied some sort of hierarchy or geographic link or something like that. Even Ikea names would have suggested that we thought of one as a throw pillow, another as a chair, and a third as a wall unit or something like that. There are always opportunities for people to find new ways to assume ulterior motives. I didn't come up with the idea of stars, but I think it's better than animals or A/B/C or something else that implies a hierarchy or preference or association with something else. It's just unfortunate that there's more discussion about the names than the models, and I'm not sure how we could have got around that. Risker (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

(nodding) I apologized in advance for the distraction of asking about the names—but if I hadn't asked, someone else soon would have, so I figured let's get that out of the way. (And in passing, noting the oddity that if our wiki-search function is to be trusted, Quotiel is so obscure a star that it's not mentioned by that name anywhere in the entire mainspace.) I'll take a look at the substance of the models next ... if I find myself with anything useful to say, where is the best place to participate in that conversation? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

meta:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Roles & Responsibilities/Recommendations EllenCT (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

[Spanish Wikipedia] Discussion about misuse of "Original research" term (and other maintenance templates)

Dear Jimbo,

I'm User:Amitie 10g, an active member of the Spanish Wikipedia, active in terms on contributing by translating, and participating in discussions.

Now, there is a little issue at the Spanish Wikipedia about the misuse of maintenance templates, namely the "Original research" term, where a "Bibliotecario" is also involved.

Let me tell you the history of a concrete case:

• The user Ollomol (a recently registered user) tagged with the {{Fuente primaria}} ({{Original research}}) tag several articles, including Mike Parson and XIII legislatura de El Salvador.

• JJFM PS (who created the article) removed the tag, considering as incorrect (and almost everyone agree with him, except someone...)

• Marcelo (a "Bibliotecario") undone that and other similar editions, restoring the {{Fuente primaria}} tag, based on policies he applied.

• Ezarate opened a Deletion request, where, as you can see, several users (including me) disagree the deletion, and became a Snowball clause case. Despite that, Marcelo insist in applying the policies in his way, ignoring the common sense.

• Marcelo opened this thread at the Café, in an attempt to reach some consensus, but I'm not seeing any assumption of responsibilities about his little mistake.

Please notice I'm not accusing Marcelo for disruptive actions; I'm just telling the history of a case of misuse of maintenance tags, and in specific, the misunderstanding of some policies. As this is not the first time I'm opened a thread about that issue, I invite you to comment. I know the verifiability is important, so, do you thing the extreme application of that policy negatively impacts the project? And being more specific, do you thing the "No original research" policy is not a valid reason for deletion articles that are actually not an Original research (and where the references can be easily found)? Thanks in advance. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact

Fun fact: The modern Wikipedia hosts 11–12 times as many pages as it did in 2005, but the WMF is spending 33 times as much on hosting, has about 300 times as many employees, and is spending 1,250 times as much overall. I just updated WP:CANCER with WMF financials from 2017-2018. Enjoy! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this fact is really fun. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

- and still only funds the same number of scholarships to Wikimania as it did 8 years ago... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

But supports a lot more community conferences, meetups, and activities other than Wikimania than 8 years ago. (I agree, by the way, that it would be good to have more scholarships to Wikimania.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a list somewhere showing exactly what they spend the money on and how much their employees get paid? Dream Focus 03:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Here is a question that I have been asking since 2015. I started asking it after hearing complaints that asking the WMF to explain how they spend our donations was too much work, so I asked about one tiny detail just to see if they will ever reveal any details.

Extended content

Some here have, quite reasonably, asked "where does the money I donate to the Wikipedia Foundation go?" Well, about two and a half million a year goes to buy computer equipment and office furniture.[8] That's roughly twelve thousand dollars per employee. The report says "The estimated useful life of furniture is five years, while the estimated useful lives of computer equipment and software are three years." so multiply that twelve thousand by three or more -- and we all know that at least some employees will be able to keep using a PC or a desk longer than that. I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely. If I can't get an itemized list of where the money was spent, could I at the very least get a breakdown as to how much was spent on computer equipment and how much was spent on office furniture? It wouldn't be an actual answer to my question, but it would at least allow me to either ask a question about computer equipment or ask a question about office furniture instead of repeatedly asking the same question about computer equipment and office furniture. A little bit of financial transparency would go a long way here. -- Guy Macon Also see: User talk:Guy Macon#WMF Financial Transparency.

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a pretty ridiculous set of claims. The cost of hosting is not determined by "how many pages". Servers cost less now, bandwidth costs less now, but there's a WHOLE LOT MORE of things like that needed now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I consider the claim that the WMF is doing 1,250 times more work than they were in 2005 to be "a pretty ridiculous set of claims". It may very well be that I am counting the wrong thing. Feel free to provide at least a rough estimate of what I should be counting instead. Have the number of lawsuits we have to defend against gone up by a factor of 1,200, requiring us to spend 1,200 times more on lawyers? Did the introduction of redundant data centers (an excellent use of donations) end up costing us 1,200 times what we were paying before? Did inflation make every dollar buy 1,200 times less? Did our airfare costs go up by a factor of 1,200?

I would love to replace that "11–12 times as many pages" number with something you think is more representative. Just pick a metric and I will use that. Just tell me how much more "a WHOLE LOT MORE" is and point me to where I can verify the numbers. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's look at this another way. Instead of going back to 2005, let's go back ten years to 2007-2008 when we spent $5,032,981 USD to do everything. In 2017-2018 we spent $104,505,783 USD.

In 2008 Wikipedia had over 5 million registered editors, 250 language editions, and 7.5 million articles. wikipedia.org was the 10th-busiest website in the world. The number of regularly active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 and has since been declining.

Is anyone here willing to make the claim that we are doing twenty times more than we were doing 10 years ago and thus need to spend twenty times as much money? I was here in 2015. I did not notice any evidence of pressing needs that were not funded because we were spending 5% of what we are spending now. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

From your own figures the spend is $81,442,265 - it's the income that's $104,505,783. The spend is less than double that of 4 years before: $45,900,745 in 2013/14. All the same.... Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the silly mistake. Grabbed the numbers from the wrong column.

From 2007-2008 to 2017-2018 donations went from $5,032,981 to $104,505,783 USD -- 20.76 times higher.

Spending went from $3,540,724 to $81,442,265 USD -- 23 times higher.

Is anyone here willing to make the claim that we are doing twenty three times more than we were doing 10 years ago and thus need to spend twenty three times as much money? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

and 40 times more employees to do it. The enigma is why every time the Community needs the software improving or repairing, the high-ups in charge tell us that there is not enough money and not enough staff. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I just updated WP:CANCER last night. For those who haven't read it recently, you might want to look at the latest version. For those who are convinced that I am full of shit, I welcome you to explain here why you believe that that we are doing 23X more than we were doing 10 years ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, isn't there a detailed record of expenses somewhere? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Do the records exist? Of course they do. Like every other organization larger than someone working off his kitchen table the WMF has an accounting department that has a record of every single cent spent. I absolutely guarantee you that if someone needed the information they could, in a matter of a minute or two, print out the first toilet paper purchase of July of 2009, how much they spent, what brand they got, when it was delivered, who signed for it, etc. Everybody keeps those sort of records, because otherwise someone could generate fake toilet paper purchases and pocket the money, leaving the WMF staff with a TP shortage.

Can we see any detailed financial records? That depends on what you mean by "detailed". The records the WMF published show us that in 2012 they spent $2,690,659.00 USD on "computer equipment and office furniture". How much of that was furniture? That's a secret. How many chairs did they buy? That's a secret. How much did they pay per chair? That's a secret. Clearly the only thing that makes Wikipedia more successful than Britannica is our closely-guarded trade secrets regarding furniture purchases in 2013. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy, we are supposed to say "private," because "secret" is hopelessly biased. EllenCT (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: It looks like the Finance team finally split the "computer equipment and office furniture" category for the more recent financial statements. Apparently $112,417 was spent on furniture in the 2017 period, and $214,498 for 2018, and $1,572,855 on computer equipment for 2017 and $2,468,880 for 2018. --Yair rand (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Great! I am going to ignore computers because I don't know whether that number includes servers. So let's look at the furniture numbers:

Under the 2017 "cash flows from investing activities" they list "purchase of office furniture" at (112,417). So they spent $112,417.00 USD on new furniture in 2017, and less than that in 2018.

(Elsewhere they list the total furniture assets as $1,186,756.00. I am not interested in the totals -- don't want to get into age and depreciation issues -- but yearly furniture purchases at roughly 10% of total furniture assets (depreciation is straight line over a useful life of five years) seems completely normal.)

It looks like they had around 280 employees and contractors in 2017. Should we assume that they bought furniture to handle that many, or could it be that some of them work from home and don't make any demands on the furniture budget? If anyone has insight on this, please discuss on my talk page.

That comes out to $401.00 per employees per year, and assuming that furniture gets replaced every five years, That's $2007.00 per employee for everything -- desk, chair bookcase, etc. Again, completely reasonable.

Just for fun, the most expensive chair on amazon.com is this $6,300 monster: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VMMMJ29/

Moving on to more reasonable choices, a good Steelcase chair like this one https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0077DTUFY/ will run you around $1,500.00. An if you have ever bought office furniture you know that cheap chairs are no bargain -- they simply do not last. You end up paying less in the long run with Steelcase.

My conclusion: The 2017 spending on furniture was completely normal, with zero evidence that the WMF is wasting money.

This leads me to believe that if the WMF ever decides to address the problems identified at meta:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap#Budget transparency and in particular follows the advice I gave at WP:CANCER ("We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details.") I would be able to look at the numbers for ten randomly chosen areas of spending and find no evidence of overspending on any of them. I would very much like to do that.

If you are part of the WMF and are reading this, can you please try to make that happen? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, thank you for keeping track of this. I am also curious about it. If you ever do manage to get some kind of answer, please ping me, because I'd like to know as well. Jimbo, I do hope you will consider this seriously. Benjamin (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Related: meta:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I thank you as well. I will put some time into this...: So here in Canada we may have something; Charity name: wikimedia Charity status: Registered

[9],[10],[11],[12] ??? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, that shows its not registered in Canada, I'll try looking in the USA rules etc. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I bet the details of the financial statements are available in California. [[13]] Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

[its interesting]. Lots of info. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow and Guy Macon: N-now - I don't think that level of detail is anything new. Perhaps a lot of the questions raised here could be answered by people just looking, or by the WMF putting more prominent links to the pages.

Guy, I've been wondering where you are going with this. I mean toilet paper and office furniture spending just don't grab anybody except for you. What you need to specify in your requests is what level of detail do you really want and think could be useful to the community. It seems now that you are comfortable with $100,000 details. Ok, please think about what this would entail before making a request on what should be posted. We've got an organization that spends about $80 million per year, almost half of that is in salaries. So if the WMF posts every non-salary $100,000 detail, it could (very approximately) come out to 400 lines of text and numbers (name of expenditure, amount, maybe add in a vendor or short reason for the spending). That's about 10 pages of finely-spaced text (40 lines per page). Is that what you want? What good would that do for the community? Would anybody other than you read it? If it cost, say $10,000, to produce this text would you consider that to be a reasonable expenditure? BTW, doing something similar for salaries would be pretty controversial. SF is a pretty expensive place, and a lot of mid-level people don't like to have their salaries publicly posted. We might lose quite a few good people just because of that.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just asking what you would be satisfied with. Unfortunately, I won't be able to respond to any questions from you for a few days, so please keep your response direct and to the point. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not "comfortable with $100,000 details". I apologize for commenting on the tiny bit of non-detailed information I was able to figure out and for concluding that those non-detailed numbers look reasonable to me. I won't make that mistake again.

Also I have been crystal clear what I want. I picked ONE SMALL financial detail chosen pretty much at random to see if the WMF will ever reveal any financial details on anything. Please don't set up a straw man of consisting some Imaginary Guy Macon asking some imaginary question about "everything the WMF spends requiring 10 pages of finely-spaced text", then criticizing me for asking a question I never asked. The reason I picked a small, easy to answer question was to show that the WMF refuses to answer any actual "what was spent on X" question other than giving broad generalities like "$2,475,158 spend on computer equipment in 2013".

Here, once again is my actual question:

"I would really like to see an itemized list of exactly what computer equipment and office furniture was purchased with the $2,690,659 spent in 2012 and the $2,475,158 spent in 2013. Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely. How about one purchase? Could you at least tell me how much you paid for the very first chair purchased in 2013, and what kind of chair you bought? If I can't get any details on where the money was spent, could I at the very least get a breakdown as to how much was spent on computer equipment and how much was spent on office furniture?"

What say the WMF either give me at least a partial answer to my question or just be straight with me and admit that the WMF considers that to be none of my business and that my question will never be answered? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm obviously not speaking for the WMF, but I think I can give you a direct answer. Absent any direct connection with the "owner", CEO, or largest contributor, no organization - for-profit or non-profit - is going to give you the detail you are requesting. Just try it with another organization that you trust. Say you contact the International Red Cross via e-mail and ask them how much they spent on office furniture in 2017, what would happen? They'll likely send you a polite email giving you links to accounting documents similar in format to the ones the WMF publish and maybe say that making detailed disclosures at the level you requested would not be cost effective. Then they'd go have a good laugh. If the IRC (or anybody else) won't give you such info, why would you expect the WMF to?

There is one question that is suggested by this that I consider to be important, but I think I have the answer. If somebody within the WMF was fraudulently ordering toilet paper that was not being delivered, how would that be caught, or more generally, how is is embezzlement and similar fraud detected?

There are internal controls that are generally not published (for obvious reasons), but their existence is checked by external auditors every year. One measure that public auditors must use is a statistically rigorous random sample check of individual accounting entries, so that any insider can never be sure that they will never be caught. So your toilet paper example could show up there.

Have a good weekend. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Self-identified trolling

I cannot imagine any organization that would devote staff time to answering obviously bad-faith "questions" such as this rant. --JBL (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Please don't accuse me of bad faith without evidence. It is possible to disagree without being a jerk, you know. And just because you can't imagine something doesn't meant that is does not exist. See: Radical transparency Radical transparency: Let me be Frank with you Charities are underestimating the importance of trust. That’s a problem. Why foundations should embrace radical transparency Foundations Need to Be More Transparent Foundation Takes Radical Approach to Transparency in Grant Making Radical transparency is the only thing that will salvage public trust in charities --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC) The evidence is that you question explicitly specifies the ways in which it is asked in bad faith. In particular, you spell out in gory detail the fact that you have no interest whatsoever in the actual content of the answer. If someone else made such a comment, you would immediately point them to WP:POINT; if any of that wording were put into an RfC question, it would immediately be shut down as not properly formulated. You would be more likely to get a positive response if you (1) had a reasonable story to tell about what data you want and why (this is Smallbones point, roughly) and (2) acted like an adult instead of a petulant child (this is my point). --JBL (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Bullshit. I never said or implied any such thing. Please don't stuff your words in my mouth. I was crystal clear about why I am interested in the content of the answer. What part of "Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely" are you having trouble understanding? I don't know how I could have made that any clearer. Also, RFCs are not binding on the WMF, and they usually don't even read them. Regarding your personal attack above, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Guy, listen, I admire all the work you do for Wikipedia. You clearly make it a better place. But the phrase you've bolded is an explicit declaration that you don't care at all about the content of the answer. Which is what I said. --JBL (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Please explain, in detail, each step you took to convert "Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely" to "I admit that I am asking in bad faith". I will make popcorn. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC) [14] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC) I'm afraid that my interest in this is not deep enough to pursue it any further. You could learn a lot from Smallbones's comments, if you ever want to do something productive along these lines. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC) What people here appear to be misunderstanding (or pretending not to understand) is that Guy is not in the slightest bit interested in how much is spent on bog rolls or swivel chairs with adjustable back rests. "Verifying that those purchases were reasonable and fiscally prudent would go a long way towards giving me confidence that the rest of the money was also spent wisely" hits the nail on the head. What he is making are perfectly legitimate analogies for the lack of transparency and/or waste of funds that non-profits are notorious for. They see it as easy-come-easy-go money in violation of the voluntary work that is put in by content contributors and cleaners. It's the Communities' efforts that generate the money and the WMF plays around with it on their salaries, excessive staff, and junkets. The actual factory workers don't see a penny of compensation - my claims for some support for the outreach I do here in Thailand, even if it's just for petrol money, have been thrown down the steps, and those who work hardest are even expected to cough up nearly $2,000 for a 4-day trip to Wikimania if they want to discuss their work properly round a table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Thank you. I really do appreciate someone who doesn't tell me what my concerns are, but instead accurately describes what I have repeatedly said are my concerns. I would hope that even those who disagree with me would disagree with what I actually write instead of making stuff up. For the record, here once again are my recommendations. to my critics, please argue against my actual recommendations instead of stuffing words in my mouth and criticizing them: [1] Limit spending. [2] Make spending much more transparent [3] Build up our endowment [4] structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot legally dip into the principle and spend it. ...and I really do think all four are important. Why would I lie about such a thing? Do you think I LIKE being savagely attacked for daring to suggest such things? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Ok, I can't help myself; one final comment. Kudpung's first two sentences (which Guy enthusiastically endorses) describe a request made in bad faith, in particular, a request for which the requester is not actually interested in the requested information. Assuming I am one of the "people" mentioned in Kudpung's the first sentence, I understand perfectly well what Guy is trying to do; I just think that asking pointy, bad-faith questions is a spectacularly dumb way to accomplish it. FWIW: I have no opinion whatsoever about the WMF, non-profit funding in general, or the principle of radical transparency; I'm here because sometimes it's cathartic to have a quick go-round with someone being ridiculous on the internet, and this page is a convenient and reliable place to find such. --JBL (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "I'm here because sometimes it's cathartic to have a quick go-round with someone being ridiculous on the internet, and this page is a convenient and reliable place to find such." --JBL Got it. You are WP:TROLLING and purposely violating WP:AGF and WP:POINT. Troll O Meter 1-----2-----3-----4-----5-----6-----7-----8-----9-----10 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Casablanca Serenity Tremors Gigli JBL Battlefield Earth --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, shouldn't a troll like this be blocked? He wasted a lot of time for not just us but the readers too. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, is "we should block people who constantly waste other people's time by posting disruptive and pointless comments" really a precedent you want to be setting? ‑ Iridescent 08:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I never come here to have "a quick go-round" with anybody. Intent is always important, imo. And just because you don't get a point doesn't mean there isn't one. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Fram Arb Case Result

Hi Jimbo. The Fram Arb Case Workshop period is ending today. As you can see, none of the community put forth proposals that indicate the Fram ban or desysop is justified, and many have commented about the overall weakness of the submitted evidence. Thinking ahead, in the event that Arb determines Fram should be unbanned and/or resysoped, will the WMF / T&S accept this? To date, I believe the only comments that say this come from you - [15], [16]. Now while I personally believe you, it would be good to get a statement from T&S or the WMF saying that they also support this course of action. Do you think this is necessary? One thing I should say is that we don't have any idea if Arb will base any of the actual decision on the T&S dossier, the contents of which we in the community have no knowledge about. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I am confident that T&S will accept whatever result that ArbCom decides. I am also sure that ArbCom will take appropriate note of the T&S dossier and that they will also not release any private information inappropriately. I will trust their judgment and back them, and I very much recommend that the community do the same.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your clear statement, Jimbo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Transparency and accountability of the Wikimedia Foundation

From 2008 to 2014, the WMF gave public monthly reports on their activities. Every team gave a fairly detailed account of what they did that month. In 2015 these were replaced with quarterly reports, PDFs summarizing each team's activities. These were then replaced with (intermittently and then frequently missed) "Quarterly check-ins", which were replaced with nothing. Not one WMF team or department has, afaict, produced a single public check-in in seven months.

In 2012, following a lengthy process, the community, board, and WMF created the community-elected FDC and its associated processes, bringing accountability and transparency to funds dissemination. The WMF frequently did not participate in the process, and when it did, it repeatedly ignored the FDC's recommendations on the WMF's internal spending and activities. Finally, this year the FDC appears to have been dissolved entirely. The members' terms have all expired and no new elections have been called. The WMF staff appear to have taken over the process in what they're calling a "simplified format", quietly eliminating board approval and community involvement, leaving the funds dissemination process lacking accountability or community oversight.

The WMF continues to act in general in a non-transparent and unaccountable manner. The m:Wikimedia Foundation transparency gap is larger than ever. They've been creating groups with secret membership, scope, and activities, such as the (undocumented) Security Council and (ironically) "On-wiki Documentation working group". They've been quietly shutting down every means of seeing what goes on inside, and moving things from wikis to WordPress sites without public logs, history pages, contribs lists, or author info.

Many members of the Board of Trustees frequently talk about transparency and accountability. User:Esh77, who will be joining you on the Board this Wikimania, opened her candidate statement with a commitment to accountability, transparency, and FDC compliance in particular. The WMF itself talks about transparency and accountability, and yet, the state of transparency does not look good. Can you and the board try to work on this at Wikimania? --Yair rand (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Pandit, the board liaison to FDC (and Doc James). ∯WBG^converse 08:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pundit: with a "u." EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My own humble contribution towards encouraging Wikimedia Foundation transparency (Quote: "We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details.") is at WP:CANCER. I need a bit of help with that page. The table has been updated for 2017-2018 but the image only goes to 2016-2017. Could someone with SVG editing skills please update the image? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the problem on my page by using a table instead of the image, but the image still needs to be updated; it it used on multiple pages on multiple Wikipedias in different languages. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It is the middle of Wikimania. I am sure we will discuss some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Being on a pleasurable junket is not a good excuse for a slow response, Doc James. If anything, the time spent in hotel rooms ought to be reflective. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO it's perfectly reasonable for those at Wikimania to be slower than usual in responding. (Or anyone, really. We're all volunteers.) --Yair rand (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yair rand: where is the new FDC "simplified format" described? EllenCT (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I have not been able to find an actual description of the new format anywhere. All the relevant pages just say things like "a simplified process", "processes will be simplified", "a lightweight process", etc, without any real explanation. One of the involved staffers posted this page, in the place where the Board decision would normally be: "A lightweight process that does not involve a board decision has been used this year." The most recent proposal forms still make regular reference to the FDC (through remaining template language?), and the pages are filled with redlink-transclusions of non-existent templates like "Template:FDC date/FDC recommendation deadline/2018-2019 round 2", the FDC calendar is giving errors for anything from the past year, and there are no FDC recommendation pages from the past year. There was supposed to be an election this May, which just didn't happen. There are still redlinks to it around. Stranger still, two days ago the Board appointed User:Pundit and Esra'a Al Shafei as liaisons to the FDC, despite its apparent non-existence? I'm very confused by the whole thing. Some of the users elected in 2017 such as User:Leela0808, User:Aegis Maelstrom, and User:Wittylama still have userpages here or on Meta saying they're FDC members. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to updating them, or maybe their terms were extended somehow without this information being publicized? --Yair rand (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yair rand: it's absolutely bizarre. You would think the many grant recipients would be clamoring for clarity and stability for this, wouldn't you? Maybe they are all on a secret mailing list? Did you notice that meta:User:Pundit says, "My initial priorities (June 2015) included: ... simplifying funding schemes (proven and good programs should get standard default funding from the FDC without the need to write detailed proposals) In progress," where all the other priorities on that list are marked either done, on hold, or not done. EllenCT (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I'm not sure what to make of that. It mentions the FDC, so it looks like the FDC is intended to at least exist in some form? Are there plans to reconstitute it, perhaps?

I would like to know if anyone has any information regarding plans for the future of public reports, the FDC, transparency of WMF activities. Was any progress made on any of these at Wikimania? --Yair rand (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pundit:?

[17] EllenCT (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my belated weighing in, I only returned from Wikimania and had a chance to make up for the lack of sleep and jetlag. My understanding is that the FDC process is frozen now, as the strategic discussions are carried over and a new collaborative funding scheme emerges from the community discussions there. This solutions has some pros (like a smaller burden of just carrying over the same budget from last year, when compared to the need to apply), but also obvious cons (less oversight, no growth possibility). Nevertheless, this is how we are rolling. As a former chair of the FDC for three terms, I am certainly hugely biased in favor of this process and I believe that the FDC has proven tremendously useful. It is a paragon of community-driven funding. Nevertheless, there naturally are some areas for improvement, such as e.g. the possibility to apply for multi-year grants, for a much easier fast track for common sense and standardized projects (like GLAM or editathons). It is also reinforcing the existing organizational structures, which inhibits our growth in the most rapidly developing regions. I know that the new Chief of Community Engagement, Valerie D’Costa, is following the strategic discussions closely and also working on a sensible model. Pundit|utter 11:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pundit: thank you. By the process being frozen, do you mean that the FDC no longer meets but the recipients and their award amounts from the last time they met are being carried forward from quarter to the next, or something else? Are the Board's new "FDC liaisons," you and Esra'a Al Shafei, liaising with anyone in the Foundation such that the Board might be able to perform oversight of the grants? EllenCT (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT:You're correct, the amounts from last time are carried forward, according to my understanding, for the time of the strategic exercise. FDC liaisons are connecting with the FDC members (who, even though not deciding about funding, are engaged in discussions and exchanging ideas on the movement resources). Pundit|utter 13:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pundit: So there still are FDC members? Are they the same ones whose terms were set to end in June 2019, or were new members appointed? --Yair rand (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yair rand:Technically, I guess *there are no FDC members*, but the mailing list is active, the *former* members participate in the strategic discussions, and also are engaged in some conceptualizing on how to move forward. I agree it would be a better process if e.g. there was a clear extension of the committee's and tasking them with working on the ideas. I think that organizing the FDC elections when it is not certain how the whole process of community's control is going to be organized, and also for a year when there are no APG applications makes no practical sense. I believe that our strategic exercise basically has taken longer than anticipated. Pundit|utter 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

(More confusion on the FDC: wmf:Resolution:Funds Dissemination Committee membership 2018 says that the four appointed members had their terms extended?)

Back to the issue of transparency, here's some questions:

• How many people does the WMF employ? Well, their corporate website says "more than 350", and then lists 370. But there are also numerous active staff who are only listed on their teams' pages, and not in the WMF's list. And also 70 more who aren't listed anywhere. Plus however many unlisted staff don't have accounts. If the WMF actually employs over 450 people, "over 350" would still technically be correct, but it would be quite misleading.
• How many fundraising emails do they send out each year? Previous years of fundraising reports give a good picture: The number goes up pretty much every year, 685,371 in 2010, 1,332,184 in 2011, and then 5,710,299 in 2014-15, 14,598,979 in 2015-16, 19,289,697 in 2016-17, and then, in 2017-18, the only number available is "over 7 million" sent. Now, if the actual number is, say, 27 million, that would technically be "over 7 million", but...

There could be perfectly innocent explanations of both of these. Perhaps some staff don't want to be listed on a public page, and the WMF just hasn't updated the numbers, or perhaps the extra names don't all correspond to current staff for whatever reason. Maybe the WMF decided to drastically reduce the number of emails sent last year. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But even so, we'd have a lot less to worry about if the WMF would just be a little more transparent. --Yair rand (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yair rand: Thanks for this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

• News and notes: Documenting Wikimania and our beginnings

• In focus: Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff

• In the media: Many layers of fake news: Fake fiction and fake news vandalism

• Discussion report: Meta proposals on partial bans and IP users

• Traffic report: Once upon a time in Greenland with Boris and cornflakes

• Op-Ed: We couldn't have told you this, but Wikipedia was censored

• Opinion: The Curious Case of Croatian Wikipedia

• Community view: Chinese Wikipedia and the battle against extradition from Hong Kong

• News from the WMF: Meet Emna Mizouni, the newly minted 2019 Wikimedian of the Year

• Recent research: Special issue on gender gap and gender bias research

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Croatian Wikipedia

Jimmy, have you read this Signpost article? The situation on the Croatian Wikipedia seems pretty dire. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Two significant issues in one

Aside from the dubious economics and malign environmental impact of flying in handpicked confreres from around the world instead of handling these discussions online, why is WMF hosting a "harmonization sprint" in Tunisia, of all places, from Sept. 20 to 22? Carrite (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite, WTF is a "harmonization sprint"? Google is no help, since (almost uniquely) meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Advocacy/Minutes seems to be the only time in history the phrase has ever been used, and that sheds no light at all. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Somehow I suspect that Carrite himself (?) isn't actually certain of what that means. My own reading is that it's a meeting to harmonize the efforts of all these working groups, but that's just my interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Carrite's user page includes "my name is Tim Davenport" so you can assume it's a "him". That's my reading as well, but it doesn't make any sense; harmonising the proposals of the working groups is a perfect example of something that should be done entirely in writing, to ensure that there's a documented trail of how decisions were reached and exactly what those decisions were, and avoid accusations of backroom deals in future. It's certainly not something worth flying anyone halfway around the world for. ‑ Iridescent 08:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, see this mail for some details on harmonisation sprint.... ∯WBG^converse 09:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfuckinbelievable. The jet set on steroids AND acid. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why on Earth, Tunisia?

I am personally acquainted with two reporters who have covered the ISIS battles out of there and the entire bordering area with Libya (incl. many prominent towns) seemed to be a damn dangerous territory, from their descriptions.

The entire country is often declared to be in a state of emergency courtesy persistent terrorist attacks on civilians and security forces (incl. in Tunis).

FCO advises:-

Terrorists are still very likely to try to carry out attacks in Tunisia, including against UK and Western interests. Security forces remain on a high state of alert in Tunis and other places. You should be vigilant at all times, including around religious sites and festivals. Crowded areas, government installations, transportation networks, businesses with Western interests, and areas where foreign nationals and tourists are known to gather may be at higher risk of attack. You should be particularly vigilant in these areas and follow any specific advice of the local security authorities.

which is not very heartwarming, to be mild.

The DoS (USA) advisory has floated between level 2 and level 3, over the past few years which is not any nice, either. ∯WBG^converse 08:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't over-think State Department warnings. They operate on the precautionary principle, and "exercise increased caution" (yellow) and "contains areas with high security risk" (striped overlay) are their default for most of the world (Tunisia has the same risk level as India, Israel or Brazil). If you really want to persuade me that you're at more risk visiting Denmark or Germany than you are in Argentina or Liberia—or that Turkey is so dangerous that anyone with a trip there booked should reconsider travel—or that the Terrorist Menace is lower in Turkmenistan than in Antarctica—feel free. ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah; DoS warnings are often overblown and can be weirdly perceived, if compared to other countries.

But, I still find little reason to travel to a country which every now and then moves into a state of emergency after some terror-attack, declaring random curfews in the process and all that ..... ∯WBG^converse 09:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Tunis has the same State Department rating as London. I think I'll probably be fine. The Land (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I want the same rose-tinted glasses that makes Exercise Increased Caution - Contains Areas with Higher Security Risk read the same as—err—just Exercise Increased Caution :D Anyway, I think the criticism of Tunisia for the WMF's works' outing isn't whether they'll bump into the Ajnad al-Khilafah, but rather that an organisation that prides itself on inclusivity should go somewhere...infamous for how it "accepts" non-traditional lifestyles. ——SerialNumber54129 09:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I imagine it was selected on a balance of cost, travel time, and visa accessibility. I think there was a strong preference for a venue outside of Europe, as well, in part on principle (almost every strategy meeting has been in Europe) and in part because of visa practicalities. The Land (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The land of the free in particular might be completely inaccessible to large parts of our community. Super inclusive. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the point the OP was trying obliquely to make is that it's wilfully perverse of the WMF to be holding a meeting on inclusivity in a country which still locks people up for "homosexual seduction". ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Correct. The two issues are: (1) Why is WMF spending tens of thousands of dollars (hundreds?) flying in people to have a discussion that could have been handled over the internet? and (2) Why is this gathering ostensibly over expanding inclusion of underrepresented or threatened groups being held in a country with a malignant track record on the issue of gay rights? Carrite (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe consult this map and this map, and then pick a venue for the inclusiveness conference. Why would WMF book a conference in a country that has "low levels of physical security" for women, and "moderate discrimination is codified in law, and practice discriminates even more than law." [18] Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Studying those two maps, I found that the best country for such a meeting that is not in a First World country (i.e., North America, Europe, or Industrialized Asia/Oceana) would be... Paraguay. Wunderbar. -- llywrch (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• What Carrite is dancing around (probably because he is generally a nice person) is that it would be trivial for someone of a vindictive bent to find out which of the attendees are LGBT and drop an anonymous report to the local police giving their names and hotels (which would also be trivial to locate). If you think people on short term holiday/working wont be persecuted by the local security, you havnt travelled much. In a lot of countries they would make an *extra* effort to embarress foreigners and organisations they are affiliated with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and particularly foreigners from countries whose foreign policies have not, perhaps, made those countries universally popular. ——SerialNumber54129 20:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It should be cancelled immediately. WMF is insane and risking lives with this newest daredevil stunt. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• FFS the WMF has meta:User:NNair (WMF) whose bio at Trust & Safety says she is "counter-terrorism/countering violent extremism professional with more than eight years of experience working with governments, law enforcement, and corporate firms". One would hope, nay expect, that she has been consulted and provided a minimal threat assessment, special circumstances assessment and a 'how to avoid becoming a target and what to do if you do' training session/document for the attendees. Any competent CT practitioner should be able to put such a briefing together. If she does not want to take on the professional liability -- probably wise -- then contact some reputable firm like Control Risks or Business Risks International. (Disclaimer: I have no association with either company beyond having some of their people as instructors in a class 30 yrs ago. I am not a practicing CT professional.) I am glad their safety is not my responsibility but it is the Foundation's. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's too bad we don't have some sort of online platform that facilitates collaboration... Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  +1 — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

  I've heard the Foundation is experimenting with WordPress. Maybe they'll let us know how it compares to the alternatives. -- llywrch (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

https://space.wmflabs.org/2019/06/25/introducing-wikimedia-space-a-platform-for-movement-news-and-conversations/ sigh. EllenCT (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, it would be reasonable for the Wikimedia Foundation to follow common practice in selecting its communications methods, I would think. If other organizations are largely forgoing large in-person conferences for the purpose of global planning, and replacing them with something else, then maybe we should too. If not, maybe not. I don't know the answer to this, maybe somebody else can shed some light on current practice and trends here.

As for the venue, yeah, interesting question. On the one hand, the Wikipedia is an enlightenment entity, so naturally science, liberty, and liberalism is how we roll. Why spend time in places where these are small beer, since there're a lot of other places to go, and also if it makes people feel unhappy to be there.

On the other hand, I don't know how actuarially dangerous it is; I'm pretty sure you're safer from being shot at, at any rate, than you are in a shopping mall in Omaha say. And Tunisia is really nice. It's very pretty there I understand. The people are amazing, I have heard. You want to avoid otherizing it as if going there is a dangerous safari into savage Africa. Our article says

Tunisia is a unitary semi-presidential representative democratic republic. It is considered to be the only fully democratic sovereign state in the Arab world. It has a high human development index... and has obtained the status of major non-NATO ally of the United States... Close relations with Europe, in particular with France and with Italy, have been forged through economic cooperation, privatisation and industrial modernization... The Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet won the 2015 Nobel Peace Prize for its work in building a peaceful, pluralistic political order in Tunisia.

So either our article needs to be updated, or maybe its not so bad after all. Herostratus (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps Emna Mizouni and those like her? Usually, such conferences have local involvement, promote local involvement, and are wanted by locals, so all are not Swedish or Londoners, etc., right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Assange

Seeing the "Wikipedia" category at The Guardian here, just a heads up, you might want to get them to remove the Assange one! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

But the cartoon listed there is hilarious. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the issue? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Did Trump's wiki page mention that he had a "bigly education"?

We can see this here at 31 seconds into the video. So, who made that edit? Count Iblis (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

1st I have to say that the video by Randy Rainbow is absolutely hilarious, but "(Trump) has a bigly education" has no place in the article on Trump. The video was released on YouTube on July 16, 2018. Theoretically, we should be able to find the editor or editors who inserted that and how long the edit lasted, but that's too much work for me. There's even the possibility that "bigly education" never was in the Wikipedia article. Look closely at the video. There are 2 shots of "the Wikipedia article". The first does not have "bigly education" in it that I can see, the 2nd doesn't have "Wikipedia" in it.

But, if you want to track down whether Rainbow or his friends/producers inserted "bigly education" the easiest way might be to just send him an email and ask. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Or just use Blame to find out that the word "bigly" was indeed never in the real page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with "Blame". The interface seems to suggest that it only works with the version on one date and then tracks the text of interest (e.g. "bigly") back to where it was first inserted. But since I can't find "bigly" in any text, I wouldn't have expected this to work. Any info from folks who have used "Blame" a lot would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I was confused about what exactly it does - you first need some version where it occurs. Still, it should be possible to automate the search. Sorry for being misinformed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of love for Team Red or Team Blue, but it is pretty clear to me that Trump's enemies are confusing "Big League" spoken with a New York accent with "Bigly". See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meNOKSyDFRk --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The BBC had a good article on this about the first times Trump was understood to have said "bigly." It seems that the word has been used by others before - though is somewhat archaic and the meaning doesn't strike me (BBC didn't comment on this) as being apt in Trump's sentences. Quoting the BBC ' "Bigly" can mean "with great force", she says. Thomas Hardy uses it in Far From the Madding Crowd to mean "proudly, haughtily, pompously," McPherson adds. The OED lists an adjectival definition: "Habitable, fit to dwell in; (hence) pleasant."' Others heard "big league", but again the meaning of this idiom doesn't strike me as making much sense in Trump's sentences. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz and Smallbones: "Blame" should work in linear mode (until you hit the rate limiter); I'm on my mobile, so I don't want to try it. "Obviously", if an offensive word is only there for a few revisions, a binary search is unlikely to find it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the information. For the record I did send an e-mail to Rainbow's press agent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Notably the "bigly" text in the screen shot at 0:31 of that video is absent from the screen shot at 0:30 of that video; also the letter weight on that line seems to be slightly lighter then on the prior and subsequent lines, so this may not have been a live edit at all. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Naming" perpetrators

Jimbo, would it be better if Wikipedia never included the names John Wiles Booth, or Benedict Arnold, or Hitler, or Stalin? I know it sounds crazy, but there is a "movement" in the USA by media personalities and law enforcement and some Wikipedians following in lockstep to with hold the names of mass killers.

• I know you are wondering "why", Jimbo. And I know the reasoning is absolutely insane, but the idea is to "not give any recognition to this bastard", as if, even after death, the bastard is seeking and would know about any "recognition" he might get. Another, less insane, but still Orwellian in its effect, reason is not to "encourage" any copycats.

Selective Encyclopedic Information Sharing is what I see as a HUGE problem for Wikipedia. With this latest event, for the first time, the name was delayed for longer than ever by all the Main Stream Media celebrities and law enforcement people and their buddies and everybody in west Texas knew the name of the bastard killer, but they treated like stupid subservient lower class slaves the general public, who were kept in the dark. purely because of some bizarre and self righteous made up, pseudo psychiatric theory that just in the last year is becoming a "big brother" tool. I think this is a very slippery slope. How can we stop this insane "depriving the dead (killers) of fame" mentality from fucking up our encyclopedia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would agree with you, if there were any indication that the withholding were intended to be long term. I see no threat here to naming the historical persons you mention; yet I also see no problem in withholding a name for a period after an incident like the recent Texas shooting occurs. In essence, I am taking a "wait and see" approach here and would suggest considering that it might yet be okay. But I am wrong plenty, so there's that too. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

If that worked, we would not know Herostratus' name. Or have an article about him. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct, but delaying news to the general public just because a public official does not feel like allowing the general public the same access at the same time as a limited public is not a free press. That's a simple fact. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not a fact, simple or otherwise. It is an assertion you are making based on your own preconceived notions of how the world works. Identification of both victims and perpetrators may be delayed because of the time needed to confirm identity or notify relatives. I am sure that in some cases identities of perpetrators are withheld so as not to compromise efforts to serve search warrants or track down accomplices. It isn't unreasonable to expect to find out the name of the person who committed a crime. It is unreasonable to expect to find out as soon as the police know it. Bitter Oil (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

So, we have reached the position that any time there is something the press don't know, it is "unfree?" All non-omniscient press is a violation of the first amendment? I feel that this leads, ineluctably, to finding out that John Peter Zenger had supremely powerful psychic powers. I'd pay to see that movie. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Those are strawman distractions. In the specific matter in Odessa the police spokesman specifically said he simply did not wish to speak the name of the killer, even though many people knew the name. It was nothing to do with the other type of withholding names that you are bringing up as ditractions. Yes, its a free press issue whenever public officials decide as individuals to delay revealing to the general public a name simply beause they do not feel like speaking it. Next time it might be a week delay instead of one day. Of course its an unnecessary restriction upon the freedom of the press if you believe that freedom means freedom to publish as soon as reasonably possible, not after some public official decides enough time has elapsed before putting out a facebook post. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a major difference between withholding information and the sort of prior restraint forbidden by the first amendment. Consider the text of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . ." Now, we know that thanks to the doctrine of incorporation, the Amendment applies not only to Congress, but to all levels of government. Also, we know thanks to court decisions that it applies not only to laws, but to all exercises of government authority. But you are saying not that it should be used as a shield here--preventing an action--but as a sword, compelling the government to do something. I would agree with you that transparency is generally a good idea, but not that this is a fundamental violation of any sort of right, especially to a free press. Consider your argument in a Second Amendment context. The Amendment gives me a right to have a gun. Let's say I don't have one. The government has guns. Therefore it is a violation of my second amendment rights if the government doesn't give me a gun? Similarly, here, we are talking about the government not giving something, and on your time frame. If the press had independently discovered the shooter's name (which I note is now widely known) and the government had coerced the press into NOT printing it, you would have a point. But that's not the case here, and it seems the evil that you predicted has not come to pass, as the information has been divulged, one way or another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Its the slippery slope concept, Dumuzid. I'll think of important examples if you wish like National Security Letters'

• Wnt is no longer editing and I blame Bitter Oil and other similar mean-spirited and scornful attacks by many others more later toward him for making it reaaaly difficult for editors like me, and maybe WNT to bring out anything outside of the box. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to go if one seeks adulation, and indeed, perhaps if one is not in a positive state of mind (no judgment intended--this often describes me). Sadly, I'm afraid that's simply a fact of life, though you have my understanding and empathy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No understanding or empathy asked for nor even relevant??? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: I'm going to give you a chance to completely withdraw that accusation and apologize. I suggest you take, because I don't think this will end well for you otherwise. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT noticed back when Bitter Oil first appeared on Wikipedia this April and soon tried to silence my contributions how suspicious your activity was. Since then you scorned and bullied Wnt and done the same with me, including particularly personal and nasty attack you put here on Jimbo's page a few days ago which I removed and you knew enough not to evenmentin that removal. Now you are threatening me. I rely on administrators to deal with you and can only hope they will. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not dependent on interpersonal relationships. If you want to inquire about an editor's welfare, post a note on their user talk page or send them an email if they allow it. Castigating other editors here only adds negativity and is pure speculation on your part, Nocturnalnow. There is already a tendency for the discussions on this page to ramble on into tangents that are irrelevant to the work of the project, so please try to at least keep things civil in your discussion threads. And maybe, just maybe, try to spend 50% of your time on Wikipedia improving articles and doing some productive work here and not discussing the state of the world on user talk pages. Just a suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The appearance of impropriety

Jimbo, as I am generally in agreement with Newyorkbrad's comments on the Fram proposed decision but doubt that the Committee will be able to refrain from imposing a sanction against Fram on the basis of private evidence, I no longer believe that Raystorm can serve as the Chair of the Board of Trustees without bringing the Foundation further into disrepute. Are there any reasons to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am unaware of any relevant evidence having anything to do with Raystorm. My understanding is that she has appropriately recused herself from this matter from the beginning. If you are aware of evidence to suggest such a strong judgment, my talk page is not the appropriate venue to bring that forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning at meta:User talk:Fram#Opabinia knows better.

Is it appropriate to ask your opinion of the evidence that Laura Hale was being paid to edit by the subjects of articles she was authoring? EllenCT (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Commenting on the issue of Raystorm-Laura COI and it's non-disclosure.

One of the trustee (supposedly) feels that sometimes it may be necessary for individuals in higher positions of authority to not disclose their COIs publicly, lest the subjects at the other end of the conflict (which may be some article or user or anything else) be subject to more-than-normal scrutiny. In case of conflicted-users, such over-scrutiny can be harmful and prohibit maturing as one of the many normal 'pedians. He/She is inclined to refract and reason the absence of public COI disclosures in this part. case through such a view-port.

I am yet to get an answer on whether he/she feels that the aforementioned view-port also allows for such persons-in-higher-positions to actively engage for their conflicted subjects over ANI threads or other venues where their editorial actions are scrutinized, in the garbs of a neutral bystander.

@JW:-Feel free to move this to a venue, that you deem appropriate. But, COI related issues of Trustees are quite vital issues and they need to be discussed. ∯WBG^converse 18:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I see zero evidence that Raystorm did anything wrong or was even aware of any of this before T&S banned Fram. One might argue that it is possible that certain people who work for Raystorm did certain things because they assumed without asking that she would have wanted them to do those things, but that isn't evidence.

EllenCT, you are way out of line calling for Raystorm's resignation without providing a shred of evidence that Raystorm did anything wrong. You should either apologize and retract or post some actual evidence.

Jimbo, have we reached to point where EllenCT should be asked to stay off of your talk page? Would it be helpful if I were to put together an annotated list of diffs showing EllenCT's contibutions to this page? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have not called for anyone's resignation, but I don't believe anyone married (and therefore by law the same financial entity with concurrent liabilities and obligations) as a contributor paid to edit on articles about their clientele can can serve as the Chair instead of merely a member of the Board of Trustees without clearly bringing the Foundation further into disrepute. EllenCT (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So you are calling for Raystorm to be fired instead of calling for Raystorm to resign? Or do you think that somehow Raystorm will go from being chair to not being chair without resigning or being fired -- perhaps by magic? And I am still waiting for evidence that Raystorm did anything wrong at all, much less doing anything that "brings the Foundation into disrepute".

I don't care if someone working for the WMF has a group marriage with Alex Jones and Harvey Weinstein as long as they don't edit pages or make decisions related to their spouses. It's none of our damn business who marries who. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What's wrong with being married? I'm married, and I feel fine about serving on a board and even being a chair (though I'd rather be a chaise lounge). Jehochman ^Talk 22:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have edited my previous comment by inserting the italicized portion to clarify. EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Who’s married and who’s getting paid to edit by clients? This is all sonunclear. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the pseudo-legalistic response to my request for Arbcom being allowed to view the fully unredacted complaints, I no longer could care less whether they are married. EllenCT (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Who cares who’s married? Good for them. My concern is that users who donate a lot of time should be treated fairly. This means no process surprises. Jehochman ^Talk 23:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, if you don’t know who is married or who was getting paid to edit you may want to actually investigate the history of the subjects in question. This isn’t very hard and, I would think this should be obvious, such COI’s interfere with fair treatment.Capeo (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you just recently posted on Fram’s meta TP about how you’d make an effort to get this COI front and center if Fram had to go to RFA, yet you’re now attacking EllenCT for doing what you’d claim you’d do? Capeo (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Only in your imagination am I "attacking EllenCT for doing what I would claim that I would do." If EllenCT (who I agree with on many things, but not all) wants to get this COI front and center I say go for it. If she wants anyone to examine the behavior of T&S, Fram, Hale, or anyone else who has actually done something that's fine with me. However, attacking someone who has done absolutely nothing -- on wiki or off wiki -- without a shred of evidence of wrongdoing is despicable, and EllenCT should apologize for doing it. Please note that I just wrote "who has done nothing" not "who has done nothing wrong". The person she attacked has literally done nothing having anything to do with Fram. Nothing right. Nothing wrong. Nothing at all. Even when the board made decisions, this person recused themselves. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT, the response by a member of a minority group who is also a student at Southern Cal. when asked about the cheating by rich celebrities to buy their kids admittance to the "school" is a classic reality check for the present, past, and apparently the future...the student smiled, kindof shrugged as if saying "so what else is new", and then spoke these 3 profound words which tear the pretense of equal opportunity and avoidance of conflict of interest to shreds...she simply said: "This is America." EllenCT, 99 % of the people you are reaching with this information simply do not get it. 9% get it but will not do anything about it, and the other .1% get it and benefit from it. That's the situation in America. And WMF is as Americanized as apple pie. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is all nonsense. The crux of the matter is that a weird, experimental process was tried out on a live person without his permission. This was wrong and unethical. ArbCom must vacate the T&S experimental remedy, and apply their standard methodology. Any on-wiki evidence that wasn't presented on-wiki is disregarded. There's no such thing as a secret report of on-wiki behavior. It's long been our tradition to be transparent, and we need to take a stand. Hopefully ArbCom will do the right thing in the end, after trying everything else first. Jimmy, it would really help if you spoke up one more time in support of the Wikipedia community and our tradition of transparency and fair treatment of volunteers. Yes, we have lots of room to improve, and we should! But improvement should not use a live human person as a means to get to an end. Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not that it was weird and experimental; rather, it was intrinsically wrong and antithetical to human dignity and basic fairness. The fundamental basis of the wikipedia movement is our individual and group cooperation, where everyone is welcome, and hierarchical authority is non-existent. We are not fundamentally here just to build an encyclopedia, important though that is -- we are here to show that a project as extensive as a truly universal free encyclopedia can be built without authoritative structure, as a preliminary step for extending this to human interactions and work more generally. I certainly understood, Jimbo, that this was your personal vision also, and you should not countenance those who would destroy it. None of us should. For some purposes we need background support from a formal legal entity, and even paid staff, but they must know to not interfere with the actual project, which is not their work, but the work done by the volunteers. They may have the legal responsibility , in terms of the formal and amoral legal organization of the world, but they have it only for the purpose of isolating the project from that conventional world. If someone wants to run things, if someone think they ought to supervise the volunteers, they have no place here. I do not know if the WMF staff involved were influenced by personal considerations, such as deference to those in formal authority. But to the extent they think they know better than the volunteers, or have the right to tell us how to do things, they should not be here. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DGG states things in slightly more "anarchist" rhetoric than I might choose, but as always, he offers some words of wisdom. I endorse them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think DGG has adopted the absolute correct tone. His comments are spot on. It's the kind of thing I would say perhaps less eloquently, but I'm known for having a big mouth. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hiw hide content

Find hidden content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbylee99 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lightbylee99: you need to be an administrator to see deleted pages and revisions that have been deleted, and an oversighter can see oversighted content, but they must be at least 18 years old and they must sign the WMF access to nonpublic information agreement. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 03:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Books

This seems to be the only place left where I might get a lead on Wikipedia Books. Does anybody care any more? There is now a proposal to start shutting down en.wikipedia user interface hooks to it. Does this impact our business/legal relationships (if any) with PediaPress? A couple of years ago I gave a prod here as efforts continued to replace the old OCG. They failed, the WMF totally gave up trying and an offer by PediaPress has also stalled, but an independent developer stepped forward with MediaWiki2LaTeX which also does PDF and wmflabs now hosts it. Both this and the longstanding Print-on-Demand upload agreed with PediaPress are now under attack in the discussion accompanying the proposal. But nobody from the WMF, especially anybody with knowledge of our relationship with PediaPress, seems to be watching. So, two points arise:

1. If anybody reading this feels able to join in the voting and/or discussion, that would be welcome.
2. As I said last time, this eternal fiasco is embarrassing. Can we all please agree either to make it happen or to terminate the PediaPress arrangement and the Book: namespace with all its content? The old argument was that nobody was using books so why bother. FFS! The OCG was never fully functional and had been deteriorating for a couple of years by the time that study was done. Yet folks wonder why it was not used overmuch!

Sorry to bring it up again here, but where else? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: please see WP:SIV. Might we interest you in a MicroSD WP:DUMP? EllenCT (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Are we talking about the same thing here? See Wikipedia:Books - and perhaps I might interest you in wp:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

How do your static documents render [hide] and [show]? Always in the default state, or always expanded? EllenCT (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot see the relevance of your question to the issue I have raised here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Paid editing

Jimbo if paid editing gets approved are you going to set up the general bug bounty-style awards ceremony? EllenCT (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please reference just what exactly you are talking about? My opposition to paid COI editing is well known, I'll never condone it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Update added "COI" above to clarify.

She’s accusing Laura Hale of paid editing. I believe Laura Hale received some grant money to support her work. It looked like the normal thing we do uncontroversially, but maybe she’s talking about something else. A link would definitely help. Jehochman ^Talk 09:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, but I mean people might be a little leery of providing links which might imply that (for instance) an actual person and a Wikipedia account are connected, since you can get banned for that without recourse or warning if you're not super careful and have proof, or maybe even if you are and do. Plus of course sometimes it is not kind to do so. But I do believe that what she is talking about is it maybe, while not anything terrible, is still a little bit more than the the normal thing we do uncontroversially. Herostratus (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you I have clarified my comment. I'm opposed to paid COI editing. Some types of editing which are paid do not constitute COI and should be subject to strict scrutiny but are nevertheless not something I'm absolutely against in all cases. I don't know anything really about what is being alleged here, and it's actually better if I only speak to principles rather than attempt to judge a specific case without a requisite degree of study and understanding of what all sides have to say about it. That's not for me to do, generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

[19] EllenCT (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Then Jimbo Wales I strongly suggest that you spend the time to get up to speed on this so you can comment on it because the potential fallout from what appears to be misuse of Foundation processes and resources for personal gain is something that the public will care about. As opposed to the inside baseball that is FRAMGATE, even though it is set to fundamentally change how English Wikipedia is managed and governed, things get more real when one starts talking about financial controls, actual conflict on interest and money. Just say'n wiki-scandal is a far different beast from the potential of scandal-scandal. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

When you are talking, in general, not specific to the Fram case, about "bounties" and COI editing, you can tread into outing issues which have taken down several otherwise well-respected editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

WAIT, WHAT?

So... in the area of "paid editing" there are many subtleties. "Taking money from ExxonMobile to put lies in their article, without telling anyone" is 0% OK. Taking money from the British Museum to upload some of their public domain holdings is 100% OK. Working "on the clock" as a professor to add some NPOV material in your field of study, 100% OK.

In between, there a lot of grey areas. Of course there are. One of them is "Well, I genuinely love adding this kind of content. I'd do it for nothing! But thanks to my benefactor, I don't have to! But that's nothing you guys need to know about". There's no bad intent here. But things can slip away... it's better to disclose, is all. If you don't, you can end up starting down a wrong path.

But so anyway, according to Jbhunley (my own memory and records support some of this) we have a situation where:

1. This Fram person had an issue with someone who he thinks was editing, for pay, without disclosing. With plenty evidence.
2. And he said so.
3. And then he got fired.

I really can't add more than that, at least not here. It could all be an amazing coincidence? But it probably sounds awfully close to "Wikipedia is firing whistleblowers who are trying to uncover corruption". Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedians in Residence are supposed to edit for pay, but not about the organization paying them to edit. In practice, they find people on talk pages to review, sometimes on an expidited basis, I'm sure. Doing it blatantly without seeking review, and then balking at critique, is as far as I know a unique situation among WiRs. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A modern form of self-inflicted slavery?

IMO, allmost all forms of paid editing are antithetical to the principles of Wikipedia whether they are promotional edits/articles or not. They all exploit one thing for personal or corporate gain: the unpaid work of the volunteers who build and maintain the encyclopedia for free. This is one aspect of the project that is conveniently ignored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow under attack and block threat at ANI for postings here

Hi, Jimbo, The attacks are led by someone who made his first Wikipedia edit 4 months ago and quickly challenged my postings here on your talk page. I am not asking for anything at all from you about this and if blocked I doubt I will appeal. I hesitated about even mentioning it but decided that if I were you I would want to be alerted about this situation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Best to stay away from this page, is a drama filled time suck. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Perhaps the best thing to say is that it's time to move on. If you remember when you first started editing this page I tried to encourage you. Different viewpoints are certainly welcome here, even if they sometimes seem a bit bizarre. But for a long time now, I've just been able to tolerate what often seems like pure nonsense and occasional personal attacks. I've mostly moved now to trying to ignore you. Please take this as friendly advice, I just think that it's time to move on. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

At the top of the edit notice of this page it states:

This is the user talk page of Jimbo Wales.

It is not a place to publicize arbitrary on-wiki disputes.

There are literally millions of other pages you can contribute to if you end up being prevented from posting here. Millions. And their talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Liz ^{Read! and Smallbones, I take your point as good, friendly advice which I will follow 100%. Thank you for being nice to me:) Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)}

@Nocturnalnow: The suggestion that you be blocked did not come from me. It came from other users who are frustrated with your comments here. And some admins agree with them. You seem to believe that you are being censored. You aren't. You are just being reminded that this isn't the place to talk about the things you like to talk about. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Epilogue

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Solution, I think. I am taking the friendly advice of Smallbones and Liz and will be 100% staying off of Jimbo's talk page going forward. Best wishes to all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 12:26 pm, 7 September 2019, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7) Well, honestly, Nocturnalnow, I wasn't considering "100% staying off" any one page (which amounts to a strict topic ban) which means that some editor might try to bring you here if you fall back into old habits. I was thinking about just limiting your activity there to ~10% of your editing which still amounts to some participation and allows you to also spend most of your time working on the encyclopedia. I think it was the imbalance of editing time that got people's attention. SPAs (single purpose accounts) are a red flag to many people and it is clear that you do have some interests beyond Jimbo's talk page. Of course, other admins might have different opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 12:45 pm, 7 September 2019, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7) link

Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Indian Science Ministry to Edit Wikipedia articles

• Science Ministry to go on a Hindi Wikipedia blitz.It will be done via a combination of artificial intelligence-based software,government translators and scientists .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

WMF Ombudsman commission

I had occasion to write a letter to the Ombudsman to address some inconsistencies between the plain reading and current interpretation and application of the WMF's meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy; specifically how meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is being interpenetrated to apply to information which, on its face, is either not covered by or explicitly excluded from the definition of non-public personal information (being the only information germane to the agreement) Since dealing with that policy and agreement is within the purview of meta:Ombudsman commission I figured I'd write them a letter. I mean this is what an Ombudsman is for, right?

Turns out it seems that is not the case here. According to their authorizing board resolutions (foundation:Resolution:Ombudsperson checkuser and foundation:Resolution:Amending the Scope of the Ombudsman Commission) it is not even a real Organizational ombudsman. They are chartered to "investigat[e] cases of privacy policy breach or checkuser abuse for the board in an official manner"^{(emp. mine)} but only charged to "offer a sympathetic ear to those reporting an abuse of the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy on any of Wikimedia project" later amended to "mediate between the complainant and the respondent (e.g. CheckUser, ArbCom member, Bureaucrat, Oversighter or Sysop)". Not one mention about independently handling complaints or what to do when the WMF is the respondent. They are even tasked as agents of the Foundation "When legally appropriate, the Ombudsman Commission will assist Wikimedia Foundation..." That is not the description of an ombudsman function it is a description of a checkuser/oversight complaints window dressed up with a grand sounding name.

So, my question is: Is the WMF Ombudsman commission equipped and authorized to act as a neutral party with respect to questions relating to the behavior of Foundation staff and their apparently incorrect interpretation and application of this policy and the associated legal agreement which gives it substance and effect? If not, does the Foundation have someone with such a function, for instance by making use of their outside council to address the substance of my letter and more generally for matters relating to what a WMF ombudsman should deal with -- disputes where the WMF and its agents are party?

(Pinging the C-Suite because... why not? They are the one's who should know and might even answer: @Katherine (WMF) and TSebro (WMF): and the Community elected board members because addressing issues like this is the duty they were elected for and should answer: @Pundit and Doc James:)

Jbh ^Talk 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

interpenetrated !!! --JBL (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I wish to thank you for creating this platform. Gharouni Talk 06:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Turkey’s top court set to rescind Wikipedia ban - pro-govt journalist

Jimbo, any news on this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any news that I can talk about. But I hope that what that report says does come true!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This obviously requires a vigorous discussion about what news Jimmy Wales has that he can't talk about... ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing yet.[20] let's file for a BOOMERANG. EllenCT (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Small donations no longer accepted

Congratulations, Jimbo Wales! Despite your request for donations by the end of June, you have refunded all donations from a small donor. I am glad that Wikipedia is so successful. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Define "small donations" when you say they're no longer accepted? Looking at the "donate to us" page the minimum donation from a donor in Spain is €3, which is surely small enough (I imagine any lower than that and the transaction fees mean it's not worth the WMF's while to process). ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: could this be connected to this recent thread? They both seem as...less than competent as each other  :) ——SerialNumber54129 06:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Katherine (WMF) wrote: Renew your donation: €1 »

Jimbo Wales wrote: Renew my donation: €1 »

@Iridescent: From the page you have linked: Please select an amount (minimum 0.87 EUR)

84.120.0.236 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some less-intelligent trolls have proposed off-Wikipedia that the WMF can be crippled by making small donations and then indignantly demanding a refund. As if an organization with a $100 million budget could be damaged by people acting like fleas and gnats with their one Euro or two dollar claims. Logical thinking is not the trolls' strong point. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

And indeed once money is donated, the recipient is under no obligation to provide a refund anyway. Emails would got ot OTRS where they would get a template response, costing the Foundation precisely nothing. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, if no human is taking care of donation messages, could these refunds have been an automated decision? Certainly, the donation process reports an error caused by Wikimedia. After taking measures, Alice has decided to retry her donations. By the way, Bob was refunded Alice's donations. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

These refunds are not automated. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• It could foreseeably be disappointing if you donated your life savings to WP and they didn't bank the money, but otherwise, sitting on the money given in small donations and large philanthropic donations, will not go the way you expected. If they bank most of the money, taking it for granted, donations will dwindle. They will surely amount a few hundred millions into an egg that way, but these millions will slowly lose value without being replaced. What happens then is, to maintain the value, they are forced to invest in the sort of investment schemes which give capitalism a bad name among capitalists. You think Jimbo gets a lot of personal complaints about being a leader now... watch those complaints get injected with vile and venom when the foundation becomes involved with big banking, especially if the investments are successful. They are given the money to maintain, and improve, the sites, and they wisely spend it towards that purpose as currency, rather than taking it as a grant. What might cripple them is if they hold the money for some time, and then larger investors demand it bank. "They've still got it, Your Honour! We want some of it back, we want most of it back and then..." Then it's not for granted any more. Suspicion should definitely not be castigated, however it makes more sense than is immediately apparent to do as they are doing with it, so where your concern is best placed is in exactly how the money is spend rather than if it is spent at all. They are juggling small beans on a large stage in the reality. What is the figure... 16 billion edits a year now? The foundation is receiving what, under 0.01c towards each edit? (not sure if that is totally accurate...) ~ R.T.G 11:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, wrote on 10 September 2019: I'm asking you, sincerely: please take one minute to renew your €1 donation to Wikipedia.
I find this joke quite funny actually. 84.120.0.236 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If only they had kept the tens of thousands of donated Bitcoins when one Bitcoin was worth just a few cents... Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In my memory our first fundraising drive brought in roughly $30,000. I'm having trouble finding the exact date but it might be an amusing exercise to think about "What if we invested in Apple stock instead?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

According to this source "A mere $100 investment in Apple's stock at the beginning of 2002 would have grown to more than 95 times the original investment by mid-February 2019." This would have turned $30,000 into $2.85 million, but it is not the same as Bitcoin going from a few cents to $20,000. Maybe Laszlo Hanyecz was disappointed when he bought a pizza for 10,000 BTC in May 2010 (USD 100 million at today's prices).[21]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Amusing exercise indeed. Let me set out another one:
  "If everyone who uses Wikipedia gave today, we could keep it thriving for years to come."
  "If everyone who uses Wikipedia made one helpful edit today, ..."
  84.120.0.236 (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve but I am pretty sure its not working. Poveglia (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy talk like a pirate day!

[22] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You can also ask Cortana to talk like a pirate. She will say things like "Blow me down, you're a poxy scurvy dog". Ideal for bored Windows 10 users to try during a spare moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

...And your privacy is only a small price to pay for such hilarity. Poveglia (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Question returned

Ahoy there ya scurvy skallywag,

I be returnin' a riddle from the unplumbed barnacle-infested fathoms of yer archives. 'Twas if Davy Jones himself was calling out beggin' me to tell his dank pale ghost what you thought:

What if the choices were diffs against the status quo instead of redesigns from the ground up? Would you support, for example, the WMF as it exists today but with a fully transparent funds dissemination process and a team of ombuds in the C-suite? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[23]

So state your preferrin', matey! Those doubloons won't wait on your thumbtwiddlin'. We best be settin' sail 'fer the crew starts up their mutinies. Th' crew be tired o' mutinyin'. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You are talking to someone who spent 400 USD on a flashlight. [24] If the transparency you speak of would be retroactive a lot of heads would roll. Poveglia (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I endorse the return of this question but see no need for retroactive transparency. Jimbo? EllenCT (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Secret reports of WMF employees on office.wikimedia.org

Hello Jimbo (and not his talkpage stalkers this time)!

I just learned that the WMF employees write secret reports and post them on office.wikimedia.org.

I (and I can safely assume I speak for the community in this case) would like to have access to those reports. Can you use your special status as our co-founder to ensure we get access to those reports? We paid for them. Poveglia (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I can safely assume that you do not speak for the community. I'm not on office.wikimedia.org, as far as I know, but there are surely all kinds of internal documents about all kinds of internal things, that quite properly should not be made public. I'm sure there is some stuff on the office wiki that could be made public, but a great deal shouldn't, I'm also sure.

Let me give one example. Suppose staff are looking into the pricing of some product or service being considered for purchase. A proper internal analysis would go into some detail about what we are willing to pay, what we are currently paying, etc. Releasing that would be detrimental to a negotiating position to get a good deal.

If you have evidence that something untoward is going on, that's of course a different matter. But merely having internal documents is normal and routine.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have zero evidence that something untoward is going on with those reports and I do not believe there is some massive conspiracy that could be uncovered by reading them. I do not always agree with WMF staff but I am pretty sure they aren't evil reptilians sent to destroy us all. Just well-meaning but imperfect humans, like you or I. I am wearing a tin foil hat, but its more of a fashion accessory. I can safely assume I speak for both of us when I say it looks cute. I agree that having internal documents is not a bad thing an sich.

The reason for asking to be able to read them is a bit more boring; I am just curious what the WMF is doing.

It would probably be a lot of work to sort through everything and determine what could be made public and what should not.

That leads me to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to ask WMF staff to explain periodically to the community (e.g. once every three months) what they are working on.

Would that be a reasonable request? There are a lot of community members who have highly specific technical knowledge that could be used when the WMF is developing a tool.

I do not want a detailed diary of which type of coffee they drank; just a couple of paragraphs describing what they've done and what they are working on.

Poveglia (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense for all staff to write such reports about what every individual person is working on. Having said that, I'm always in favor of opening up better lines of communication generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, if someone's job is to answer the phone its a waste of time to report that every three months to the community. But I think it would be a good idea if developers who work on tools for the community would help the community understand what they're doing by writing such reports. I am not talking about something super official; just a quick note what they've been working on and what they are currently working on. And we don't need real-time updates, once every three months or so would be fine. I think this would help achieve the goal of improving communications between WMF and the community. What do you think? Poveglia (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reports from dev teams (not individuals) are mostly on MediaWiki.org, although the Community Tech team's home wiki has been at Meta. Start at mw:Wikimedia Product; the annual goals get translated into team goals and projects. Each significant project gets a mw:Project page, which is usually where the updates are posted. Contributors' teams tend to post updates somewhere between once a month and once a week, depending upon the current needs of each project. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Annual report

There's this thing called the Annual Report... – Levivich 03:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Its not exactly what I am asking for but it certainly is a step in the right direction. For some reason it is hosted on wikimediafoundation.org and I doubt many people have read it. I cannot edit it and I cannot comment on it. The site appears to be using Wordpress instead of MediaWiki... One of the advantages of more frequent and informal updates is that it allows the community to help the WMF and it allows the WMF to better help the community. This Annual Report seems to be a one way street; the community can't even comment on it. Meta wiki is intended for stuff like this; not wikimediafoundation.org. Poveglia (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The Annual Report is useful as an example of what not to do:

• don't make a report that contains many "soft" human interest stories
• don't make it look beautiful
• don't use too many words
• don't waste too much time on it
• don't use it as an ego-boosting opportunity
• don't let a PR/marketing person write it

Poveglia (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A lot of those "don't's" would apply fairly well to for-profit companies. People who seriously want to know what's going on with a for-profit just want to see the audited numbers and maybe see the CEO explaining what's going on with the company (knowing full well that the CEO will put a good spin on it). But since the WMF's objectives aren't defined in terms of money, just looking at the financial statements wouldn't be the main thing I'd look at.

One thing that did surprise me is that the financial statements presented in the above link are not audited. (Note that there is no auditor's statement and no statement of changes in financial position). I'd guess the reason for this is that the auditors haven't finalized the statements yet. Last year's audited report were signed on September 26, 2018.

As long as I'm here and have mentioned the statement of changes in financial position, one of my pet peeves is how accountants handle this. It is just a link explaining how the balance sheet (which shows stock variables, e.g. cash on hand at a specific date) with the income statement (which shows flow variables, e.g. how much cash and other inducements were "incurred" over the course of the full year for employees' services). "Incurred" is a key word here, because it includes accruals - those adjustments accountants make that are supposed to reflect the difference between cash spent (or received) and the supposed timing of the economic effects of the spending (or cash received). There's a lot that can be misinterpreted or even fudged by accountants in the accruals.

Cutting to the chase - there are 2 ways accountants can present the statement of changes in financial position (aka the statement of cash flows). Accountants love the indirect method - which only accountants can understand. The direct method is a true statement of cash flows - just where the cash came from and where the cash went. Conceptually this is the simplest accounting statement, though proponents of the indirect method will tell you that they give "equivalent numbers" and in a formal sense, they are correct. A 5th grader can understand the direct method, only CPAs can fully understand the indirect method. My request, Jimbo, is that you ask the board to use the direct method - a simple statement of what happened to the cash - over the nearly impenetrable indirect method. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"The direct method of preparing a cash flow statement results in a more easily understood report. The indirect method is almost universally used, because Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statement No. 95 (FAS 95) requires a supplementary report similar to the indirect method if a company chooses to use the direct method."

"Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (United States) (US GAAP) requires that when the direct method is used to present the operating activities of the cash flow statement, a supplemental schedule must also present a cash flow statement using the indirect method. The International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC) strongly recommends the direct method but allows either method. The IASC considers the indirect method less clear to users of financial statements."

Source: Wikipedia:Cash flow statement (acronyms such as FASB, GAAP, and IASC expanded).

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the required supplementary report needed if a company uses the direct method - mostly because very few companies do it. My guess is that it can't be any more confusing than all the footnotes required by using the indirect method. The advantage of the direct method is that at least you'll have one statement that is understandable. The direct method is especially good for non-profits without a lot of investment in fixed capital (and the depreciation that goes with it}. Many non-profits are essentially "cash businesses", so a simple (direct) cash flow statement will work just fine.

We had a discussion about a month ago on this page about how to best disclose WMF spending. The typical income statement might give 10-20 "adjusted" categories of spending. An indirect method statement of cash flows might give 10 categories of spending then another 10 "reverse adjustments" which won't make sense to most people (try reading the footnotes if you disagree). A direct method statement of cash flows would have space for at least 20 categories of spending on a 1 page document (assuming 30-40 lines on a page). Want more categories? - just add more pages! 40 or 60 categories might work pretty well, but 600 probably wouldn't. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Visual Editor progress

Hola Jimbo and his army of talkpage stalkers!

I was wondering if the Visual Editor is still being worked on and what the status of it is. Is there a phabricator ticket with recent improvements somewhere? When will it be finished? Having a WYSIWYG editor would be useful for non-nerdy people so I am hoping that people are still working on it. If it is not being worked on then I'd be in favor of getting rid of it because it is quite confusing for newcomers to use a tool that isn't finished and has quite a few serious limitations. Poveglia (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's any help, I had an answer (unofficial, but from the person in Community Relations who fields all VE-related queries) a couple of days ago: The (desktop) visual editor is not exactly in active development right now. The team spent last year working on the mobile visual editor. They're spending the next year working on the m:Talk pages project. VisualEditor on desktop (both visual and wikitext modes) gets a few updates in conjunction with some of this work, so it's not technically in maintenance mode, but it's not really in active development, either. It's in that liminal space between maintenance and development, and likely to trend towards pure maintenance. ‑ Iridescent 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Poveglia: So, the VisualEditor is maintained by the mw:Editing team, which seems to be mostly focused right now on making VisualEditor work well for mobile, and working on the mw:Talk pages project. The team, like all other WMF teams, stopped giving regular public quarterly reports a while ago (though the WMF said that they intend to start doing those again soon). (Getting off-topic, but did you know that all WMF teams have been making weekly reports for a long time, but just not letting anyone outside the WMF see them? So frustrating.) There is a regular VisualEditor Newsletter (see the most recent edition). You can monitor some of the current activities on the VisualEditor on Phabricator. See also "Current work" on Phabricator. --Yair rand (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Iridescent: and @Yair rand:! That is bad news. If it is not being worked on then there is no point in keeping it enabled and confusing newcomers with broken and incomplete software. There are a few follow-up questions: 1) how do we uninstall VisualEditor? 2) Where can I, as a non-WMF member, find these weekly reports? They must report to someone; we just have to figure out who that person is and tell them to post those reports onwiki. Poveglia (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The newsletters are already on-wiki and no secret; Yair rand has literally just given you the link above. If you want to disable VE, just go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and check "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta". ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to uninstall VE. Remove and delete the extension. For all users; not just for me. How can I do that? I don't think they'll give me FTP access to the PHP files so we'd have to have a big discussion in the community and consensus and all that jazz. I think the newsletters and the reports are not the same thing. Poveglia (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The weekly reports are posted to the WMF's internal office wiki, which is only accessible to WMF staff and the board. Getting rid of VisualEditor would require community consensus followed by either a request on Phabricator or simply removing the links via site CSS. However, based on the community's previously expressed opinions, I don't think it would be likely for the community to decide to remove VisualEditor. --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Poveglia, 95% of all our software is not being actively worked on. The simple reason being that this is not Facebook with the 10000 employees required to continuously work on all the software that we use and want to use. Just because something is not actively worked on right now, does not mean that will never happen again. Just that there are other things with a higher priority that get precedence. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Don't be fooled by stereotypical assumptions based on my rugged good looks and quick wit; deep down I love prime numbers and I have written quite a bit of code, even though I suck at it. The difference is of course that VE's imperfections are far more serious (and cause far more problems) than that of most of the software. Much of the software here has evolved over time. The desktop version of VE is relatively new and it is already abandoned while its not even close to feature complete. Maybe we should just demote it to a beta and make it opt-in? That way, in the unlikely event someone wants to restart the VE project, they could do that without hindering others. I think the WMF should spent a ton of resources on getting VE to work properly on desktops and I wish they would, but they don't and having VE in its current incomplete and broken form as the default editor is clearly not an improvement over the old editor. Poveglia (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Poveglia, maybe you should apply for a job at WMF —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheDJ: I'd honestly love to; are they hiring court jesters? I am not a good coder, but my bullshit-detector is second-to-none and my blunt communication style could be refreshing. I am sure I'd make a couple of good friends there, but my tendency to call shit shit will get me into trouble with the incompetent minority. Poveglia (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Depiction of the Wikimedia Foundation trying to integrate Visual Editor, Flow, and Mobile App into the existing fragile Wikipedia editing system.

Re: "Maybe we should just demote it to a beta and make it opt-in?" as long as it remains impossible to seamlessly switch between editing Wikipedia the way we do now and editing Wikipedia the new way, it cannot be opt-in. You either decide that everyone edits a page the way we are doing it now or you decide that everybody edits a page the new way.

Ideally, you would also have semi-automated old-way-to-new-way conversion tools, and the ability to embed chunks of old-way-markup in a new-way page, but still you would have to shove the new way down people's throats.

Read this to see how well that worked last time they tried it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to be an oldskool court jester; the type that hits people with a stick.

IANAL but it seems likely that posting a link here to the Superprotect debacle is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Poveglia (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I think that we should throw a bunch of money at the problem, maybe even hire external companies, until we have a decent WYSIWYG editor that is also usable for those of us who hate WYSIWIG stuff. If that is completely impossible (or takes too long) then we should remove VE on enwiki and install it on something like test.wikipedia.org instead. Do you agree? Poveglia (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Poveglia, I doubt that it will be uninstalled, as even those of us who can type the wikitext codes for tables from memory find it a lot more convenient for some actions.

I took a look at your contributions, and I don't see any evidence that you've used it at all, which means that I can't find any diffs showing what you might have been trying to do. Would you like to tell me which features you're missing, or which bugs you're encountering?

As for making it possible to seamlessly switch between visual and wikitext modes, it sounds like you're looking for the "New wikitext mode" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Why do people want mobile apps instead of mobile-enabled web apps? EllenCT (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT, does it matter ? TRUE Wikipedians</sarcasm> want neither in my experience. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheDJ: Exhibit A: https://xkcd.com/1174/ Exhibit B: https://xkcd.com/1367/ EllenCT (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Bulgarian Wikinews

Tell me please, did the Board discuss the deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews. What is the Board decision? Where can we get to know this? --sasha (krassotkin) 09:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The board only had a brief discussion. The process is normally that the LangCom makes these recommendations and they are the real decider here. The board is informed and could intervene, but generally would not except in extraordinary cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is the first in the history complete deletion of a Wikimedia project with an active community and useful content. Now the constructive contribution of each of us is at stake. This is a catastrophic change in our principles and mission. I don't understand how we can continue to work in such new conditions. And I regret that the Board did not consider this case extraordinary. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading the Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews page you linked above, the case seems pretty open and shut.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like some of news reports were the subject of political manipulation. At least, that's the charge and it seems like several of the main Bulgarian editors agreed with the assessment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: It sounds like the Bulgarian Wikinews was being used to spread Russian propaganda. How do you prevent that from happening on the Russian Wikinews? It must be a constant problem. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's a lie. Many Bulgarian Wikinews articles are still available. You can read them yourself.
  There is no such problem in Russian Wikinews and never has been. You can also verify this yourself. --sasha (krassotkin) 21:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: Who is lying? And why would they want to get Bulgarian Wikinews deleted? Bitter Oil (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but I don't want to answer this question. This case is closed. Now these conversations do not make sense. --sasha (krassotkin) 22:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: Russia has a long and well-documented history of using propaganda. Including the more recent use of bots and "troll farms" on social media. It is frankly impossible for me to believe that there has been no attempt to use Russian Wikinews to spread propaganda. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no propaganda in the Bulgarian Wikinews, but they have closed it. --Stanqo (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

WMF orgchart questions

What if the choices were diffs against the status quo instead of redesigns from the ground up? Would you support, for example, the WMF as it exists today but with a fully transparent funds dissemination process and a team of ombuds in the C-suite? EllenCT (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC) EllenCT (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Dealing with historical controversial matters

Hello Jimbo, I need to call the atention of the community for a problem that may exist. I have been an active editor for over a decade now, I am quite familiarised with our rules and principles, and I am a major fan of the way you created this project. I grew up as an only child in a family of diplomats, my parents weren´t much of a computers fans, so I grew up surrounded by books and encyclopedias in numerous languages and editions. My main hobbie became to compare different encyclopedias, the way each described one same subject, the differences, and see each ones bias and understand the reasons behind. How, for instance, a Spanish royal encyclopedia would focus much less on Spanish crimes during their coloniaztion, than Mexican encyclopedia version. I was still a child when I became aware how "truth" was relative regarding the insterests of each side, and how knolledge and information were powerfull weaponds often greater then the military itself. I started imagining if people had access to all versions, how they could then get much closer to an objective view on all subjects, specially, controversial ones. I would overwrite, correct, or complete, articles, even if it was useless and was only for me to attempt to improve what was written there.

Comming from this background, it was no surprise I got fascinated as soon as I discovered Wikipedia. After seing it how it works I identified immediatelly with the rules and principles which were exactly as I would have idealised them. I was specially pleased with the clear effort of objectivity and neutrality. I was overwelmed that this project was open to everyone in the world without any discrimination, but valued not what one thinks ot believes, but what can one find a scholar on that matter says. We gather scholars claims on a subject and find the most appropriate wording to summarise in an objective and neutral way their claims, including the dissident ones, in case there are ones and are worth mention. It immediatelly became clear there were subjects that were pretty forward while there were others which would give editors space to manipulate content because ammong scholars there are different views. The second ones are the ones that fascinate me, the ones I believe are our biggest challenge. Because, obvious uncontroversial issues are easily going to have expanded and complete articles, it is just matter of subject´s popularity and dedication editors will provide, and we can safelly now say most of those are properly expanded and completed for most. However, even after two decades, there are some controversial issues which are far from being properly completed. Those are mostly subjects that include intense POV-pushing on behalve of often few but very commited editors. In name of stability, our community often responds by taking the issue under a carpet and backing the POV-pushers, instead of acknolledging the problem and dealing with it. Another problem, in my view, is the negative perception of the POV-pushers. Let me explain. As we stand now, we obligate editors into pretending to be neutral, so their views wouldn´t end up disregarded, while in my view, it would be much better if we favored openly admiting reasons for interest and possible bias, and being gratefull for that editor giving his time to make ourselves the case for his POV over some constroversial issue. What we have is usually a group of elder editors pretending to be objective and neutral while clearly editing Wikipedia with the clear purpose of spreading their POV, being unfairly favored over often newbies or isolated editors, regardless of the content. If the newbie, or isolated editor, bring enough evidence to put in danger their POV, they will provoke and do their best to take the issue to be reported and put emphasis on some technical issues counting with the familiarity and support of some admin they know. The problem is that this episodes, although not allways, do happend too much frequently, speacilly in more obscure and less popular areas, which are, in my view, the ones that in this advanced stage of Wikipedia, should progressivelly start to receve more attention now. We should acknolledge that it is a fact that now it is the more obscure issues that are still the ones needing most work, and it is them that, when controversial, usually have few editors usually involved because they are backing a particular POV in that matter. We should crate an atmosphere where this editors should not be forced to present themselves as neutral and objective to be taken seriously, but should rather be encoraged to openly assume the reasons for their involvement and assume their bias as positive for further solving of the neutrality issues in the articles. Now, that we have most of our main articles expanded and completed, it is our most obscure and controversial articles that need more attention and acknolledgment of their challenges. Lets admit it, while someone may spend hundreds of hours writting the article about American history without being personally involved into it, it is hard to believe someone would spend hundreds of hours writting about Austro-Hungarian anexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina if it is not related anyhow or if it doesn´t have a particular view he is interested in sharing about the subject.

What I am trying to do and say it is that our project may have been prepared to deal with the resolution of disputes over the main issues, which involve numerous editors, however, we lack mechanisms to properly solve more obscure ones which are controlled by usually few fierce editors. Being somewhat of a justice warrior, and due to my background, I experienced quite a few of those situations. The major issue that gives me concerns is that the existing mechanisms fail. I had a content dispute over one major European controversial subject, I opposed a POV that came up to include several editors backing it, and I believed, after many recomendations, a mediation was a proper mechansm to go trough. It was a mediation that lasted 2 years, included twosides which were active presenting sources for their cases, and after an exhaustive mediation which was even confronted by treats, reportings, and all desperate alternatives, concluded against the other side, the other side opted to just ignore its conclusion and go on with their POV-pushing as if nothing happened. The 2 years of efforts, intensive discussions, and major commitement, were left with a bitter taste of having been useless and that the force just wins regardless, while its goal was preciselly to come up with a neutral objective result that was to be respected regardless of the outcome by both parts. Needless to say, the other part counted they would convince the mediators and would impose then their will, but since the result didn´t came as they expected, they disregarded all agreements and basically made fun of Wikipedia dispute resolutions mechanisms. Seing they faced an agressive group of editors and no support from the community, the mediators were honest and brave to give their conclusion and retreated afterwords, not wanting to further participate in the drama, while I was left with their positive decition, but no backing up whatsoever. If I was outnumbered, with them agressivelly tretening and reporting the mediators for 2 years didn´t got them to agree with them, immagine how wrong they must be, and even so, they just decided afterwords to just agressivelly insert their POV into the articles and defend it by all means till today. It is one issue which is clearly ridiculously unbalanced in our articles, but I am not willing to spend time trying to fix it if we lack mechanisms for effective resolution dispute. I spent 2 years for nothing. What mechanisms do we have? Why some fail to be imposed? This is an area than needs more attention and improvement. FkpCascais (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be much more helpful if you furnished links to specific problematic articles, so that people can take a closer look? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with my friend Jim/Cullen here, FkpCascais... I completely understand the problem of aggressive POV editors "owning" particular articles, but you seem to be engaged in a specific situation and it is hard to do much more than nod one's head about the general problem if you don't provide really specific details.

For myself, I will say this, and you can take it or leave it: fighting over the wording in controversial topics is not worth your time. It is like building sandcastles next to the ocean — the sand is nice and wet, it sticks together good, but in 30 seconds or a minute or five minutes, a big wave will come along and wipe out everything. Find a place further up the beach and build your castles there. You'll have to work harder getting the sand to stick — sources might be harder to find. And maybe not as many people will see your work. But ultimately, what is done there, at the edges of Wikipedia, is the work that lasts. It is the time well-spent, it is the time not wasted. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I thank you very much Cullen328 and Carrite I feel so honoured for your atention. I have had some duties that didn´t allowed me to answer promtly, but also, I have been strugling to choose the best way to bring this issues up the best way possible. I wasn´t specific in my earlier comment intentionally, so I would try to point out a problem without wanting to influence any particular dispute. I want everyone reading me to know that I don´t care winning, or loosing, any particular dispute, but that what I want to point out is the bitter process many peripheric disputes end up taking place. Our project has been designed to solve disputes that involve enough editors for a reasonable conclusion to expect to come up, but, on the opposite side, disputes gathering only a handfull of partisan editors, most likelly end up in a war with winners and loosers, and with the article displaying the winners version only. Even bigger problem is the fact that often we have no hope of getting a neutrally written article at all, because the only options are two partisan versions. I became aware of this, but my process was rather different. I became aware that articles dealing with a subject I am remotelly related to started to be massivelly changed to display a rather particular POV. In my own sense of justice, I opposed them and I brought numerous sources and evidence explaining why they were wrong. The result was accusations of all kind towards me and atempts to discredit me and eliminate me by all means. My disapointment was to notece that by confronting POV-pushing, being neutral was as worste, or same, as just being the opposite POV-pusher. Since this happened to me in several occasions, I can sadly say that on obscure controversial issues, fairness is something that doesn´t exist, but rather POV-pushers will try to eliminate neutral editors just as same as opposite ones, all that matters for them is that you are opposing them, and it is naive to expect any different. What is even more annoying is this environment where we made POV-pushers knowing that they have to pretend to be neutral and are basically obligated into accusing anyone opposing them of being disruptive, regardless if they are trully neutral. I really must conclude that in obscure, controversial issues, involving just a hand-full of POV-pushers, expecting them to come out with an objective and neutral outcome is an absolute utopia. One can present duzens of reliable sources, and hearing the other side say "OK, yes, you are right" is something that never happend. POV-pushers will simply keep on making excuses and advocating, unfortunatelly seems humans are that way and don´t change. Sides never win fairly, for a real reason, but sides win because they outnumber the other side, because they are more experienced and get the other side reported and blocked, or even simply by persistence, and we know POV-pushers are the most persistent ones. In my view, it comes to be crucial to have some neutral input to decide and solve this matters. I was part of one dispute and believed a mediation was the solution, but after 2 years, once it ended and provided its result, seing it was ignored was really frustrating. It was not only the participants which lost time, but also the mediator, assigned from the mediation comeetee who basically ended up making himself a fool in all that time. I can tell which exact medition it was, that is not a problem, I actually really want to say 3 warrying events that recently happend and may be perfect for giving us light towards current and future challenges ahead, but first I would like to confirm if in these cases of content disputes, is the mediation a solution, or is it just a recomendation, are there any better mechanisms? Believe me, or not, my intention is not to spread any POV on our project, but I do get triggered when I see POV being unfairly spread, and I want to oppose it believing that is the way to go for our project so we can have as more neutrally and objectivelly expanded and complete articles, but I do not want to loose my time dedicating years, as I did, to see no meaning. I believe we should have clearly defined mechanisms of dispute resolution that will work and be respected. FkpCascais (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit count

Hey Jimbo, I have some good news, we are almost at a total of one billion total edits on the English Wikipedia, this includes talk pages, user pages, and so on! 99721829Max (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Wow!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I hope we get a bunch of editors trying for 1,000,000,000 like they did for 1,000,000. EllenCT (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If my back of the envelope calculation is right, given edit count from WP:STATS, we should get there in 19 months. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

We are 86,162,511 edits away from our 1,000,000,000th edit, and we are 994,061,552 articles away from our 1,000,000,000th article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bets on what the 1 billionth article will be? I'll put forward Celebrity Big Brother Season 4139, starring all your favorite has-been celebrity AI simulacra stuck in the same nanotube for a full two cycles! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories regarding the 1,276th Presidency of the cryogenically frozen head of Donald Trump. But eventually deleted as a POV fork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (also, 4,635,672 editors will be blocked for edit warring about whether "Presidency" should be capitalized in the article title. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Who could ever need more than 670K readers at a time?

"humanity spent about 672,349 years reading Wikipedia from November 2017 through October 2018."[25] EllenCT (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

• From the editors: Where do we go from here?

• Special report: Post-Framgate wrapup

• In the media: A net loss: Wikipedia attacked, closing off Russia? welcoming back Turkey?

• Traffic report: Varied and intriguing entries, less Luck, and some retreads

• News from the WMF: How the Wikimedia Foundation is making efforts to go green

• Recent research: Wikipedia's role in assessing credibility of news sources; using wikis against procrastination; OpenSym 2019 report

• Gallery: Finding freely licensed photo collections

• On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

• In focus: Wikidata & Wikibase for national libraries: the inaugural meeting

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Lewoniewski et al. and the new website WikiRank.net that it describes are superb, spectacular, and profound. (Article.) EllenCT (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about EllenCT's link right above has to do with the Signpost list above it, so I'm putting it in it's own section. Please revert if there is a link. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It's one of the main selections in the Recent Research, reviewed by WMF Staff. I was not aware that the tool has been around since 2015, but the new features that impressed me were apparently added in April of this year. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

WMF question

Hi Jimbo - hope you and yours are well. I have a question regarding a current RfC on Meta As founder/co-founder (I'm not debating either side here), I'd like your thoughts as you were developing the WMF and Arbcom pretty much at the same time (as best as I can ascertain). Did you (or do you) intend for the WMF to be the/an administrative entity in the day to day operations of English Wikipedia? I've always thought that Arbcom was intended to be the group of folks who would decide behavior issues and various other user problems, and the community to decide content issues if possible ON WIKI. I thought the WMF was primarily to oversee the business/money/assets end of things, and only step in on other wiki projects which didn't have a self-sustaining organizational ability. I've tried to research all the Bomis, Nupedia, Wikipedia history etc. myself, but any clarification would be appreciated. I'm going to voice my own individual thoughts on those RfC questions, but if possible, I'd like your input before I do. Thanks. — Ched (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Is that the official meta:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019 or did someone start it early? Fine with me, as long as we can add the sub-questions, they said they would add. Arbcom asked that it be opened, anyway. EllenCT (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I also stood up for your right to hear appeals, Jimbo. Sure you're imperfect, but until we can scan your brain into the institutional memory-a-tron, you're likely to continue to make reasonable delegation decisions. Don't say I never said anything nice about you. EllenCT (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I also asked Katherine. EllenCT (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT, personally. I would be surprised if you get an answer. On what seems to be her own admission, reading and maintaining her en.Wiki talk page are tasks that she delegates to her entourage of secretaries and chiefs-of-staff. She apparently prefers to do her Wiki business on Twitter. You are probably more likely to get a comment from our more approachable founder. Ched has asked the kind of question Jimbo often responds to.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping he would Kudpung, it would help me determine just how I want to word my posts in the RfC. Not that I consider Jimbo any kind of "God King" or anything, but reading the words of history on a page doesn't really give me a feel for what his thoughts and hopes were as he (and others) set things up back in the 2001 - 2004 era. But since he has been here without reply, I won't hold my breath. I'm sure he's got other things to do. Maybe he saw the {{done}} emoji and figured I had received all the info I needed. No worries. — Ched (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Jimbo generally does make the right noises when he speaks up, unlike the WMF from the top down who always make the guarded, vague, and evasive comments one gets from politicians. The obvious problem today is that it was probably not in his wildest dreams that Wikipedia would become what it would be 20 years later, so many of the needed administrative things developed later organically, but not always for the best. So we are left with a totally disorganised corporate structure called the WMF, supposedly manged from 32,000ft, and a struggling self management of the projects with some de facto leaders, but no professionals in charge. Hence ad hoc groups like Arbcom which nowadays are thrown together once a year by a popularity contest, an ANI ruled largely by a resident gallery of peanuts, and the rest of Wikipedia being run by a bunch of hat collectors. Which is why we need Jimbo's occasional calls to sanityKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Who put the WMF in charge? — Preceding comment added by 2601:194:300:130:9DFE:E3A4:7E0C:96AA (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Anon. That thread is adequately answered by Jimbo and seems to say it all. Ched, do read it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both (2601 and Kudpung), that pretty gives me all the info I was looking for. I suspect that he could step in and make any changes he wanted, but Jimbo has always shown a "sort things out for yourselves" viewpoint (for most things). TY again. — Ched (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Concern/Question about Wikia's decision to put ads on Gamepedia sites

Since you are the president of Wikia, I'd like to know as to why was the decision made to have advertisements on Gamepedia sites. It seems really bizarre to put ads on a big website, littered around the place. On mobile sites, fixed to the bottom on the users screen, in between sections, etc etc.. Thank you. –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 14:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That's their only source of income for open, public, free wikis, most of which can't support independent funding. But if you think yours can, you can try a fundraiser and if you get enough, copy the content into a paid MediaWiki host. There are alternatives with various extents of less MediaWiki-like features, like Google Sites and GitHub. EllenCT (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom deficiencies

Hello Jimmy. I think we have run into some problems with the way ArbCom is working. As you were originally responsible for this group, I'd like your thoughts on whether there should be an RfC to improve things. Some of my concerns:

1. The Fram arbitration case was unfair because Fram was not unblocked to participate. We should agree that editors having a case heard by ArbCom should be unblocked so that they can participate in their own case. If an editor can't be trusted to participate in their own case, then there's no need for arbitration; just block them and be done with it.
2. Arbitrators are under intense stress, as evidenced by their high attrition rate. We should discuss whether each case should be heard by a smaller number of arbitrators. This might help ease the workload.
3. Arbitrators are being criticized for failing to engage with case parties and failing to sufficiently explain their reasoning (See IceWhiz appeal above). What can be done to improve communication? Even if an editor is in the wrong, they should feel that they have been heard. I've witnessed many times that ArbCom seems to decide cases on their private mailing list and then votes in a pro forma manner. (The Fram case was actually a good counter example of them not doing this.)
4. ArbCom's data security is questionable. They have an unlimited retention period for confidential data, which ensures that this data will eventually leak. There should be a more thoughtful data retention policy.

In general the community does not want to ruled. Instead, we want ArbCom to be functional to help resolve intractable disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this Jehochman, I hope you don't mind me responding in turn.

1. The board required that Fram would remain blocked while the review happened. We had the choice of accepting this requirement, or stamping our feet over this issue. I personally did turn up on Fram's meta talk page during the workshop as much as I could and I am aware that he pinged and discussed matters - I am not sure that having him on en.wp would have made a massive difference to the case. I agree that it would have been preferable to have him unblocked to participate - however there were a number of things I would have changed about the case if I had the option.
2. Of the five arbitrators who retired this year, three were for personal reasons unrelated to cases, and the arbitrators had not been particularly active up to that point. I can get you the statistics of how many emails were sent to the list if it helps. I am not convinced that smaller numbers of arbitrators on cases would reduce the stress - however this is something that should be discussed. Probably not at Jimmy's talk page though
3. The committee did not engage sufficiently on the Poland case. This is because the arbitrators who were working on the case included one who left for personal reasons, one who was less active than he hoped and one who focussed on co-ordinating the Fram case. This did not stop us reaching the correct decision (in my opinion). However, given that we will be electing 11 out of 15 of the new committee next year, can I suggest you raise your communication concerns as a candidate question at the next election? You do generally issue a voter's guide - perhaps include it in that.
4. I generally agree.

Overall, I very much doubt people feel ruled by the Arbitration Committee. We are here to deal with the stuff the community cannot or will not. Worm^TT(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your activity in the Fram case was quite good. ArbCom has lasted a long time. Really the reason I'm asking here is to see if it's worth revisiting the arbitration policy and having an RfC as a refresh. On point 1, I hear you that the Fram case was difficult, but we can try to learn from it and make things better for the next case. Other points we seem to agree. I don't usually issue a voter guide. We should think about ways to improve communication. As a party, it would be nice to have an area where one could direct questions to arbitrators and get answers. The talk pages seems to risk questions getting lost and going unanswered. Additionally, we should encourage discussion between disputants and arbitrators. Underneath the bureaucracy, arbitration is a negotiation. The best result is if the parties are introspective and try to find ways to resolve their dispute by agreement. That is most likely to happen when they can talk constructively. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you - of course I'm aware of ways my activity could have been better. The Fram case was a one off - out of jurisdiction, we didn't follow our own standard processes, but made something that looked like an Arbcom case so that we could follow it. I have not seen anyone suggest that there will be a next one. There will be an RfC run by Arbcom soon on these issues though - I encourage you to participate there. Worm^TT(talk) 13:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the scope is “dealing with harassment”. Can we expand it to include, “updating and strengthening arbitration policy”? These issues are inter-related. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"The board required that we do X" doesn't contradict "X makes the case unfair"; it just means that5 the board is dictating unfairness. Fram was given no reasonable chance to respond to the charges, and then was tried based on secret evidence, and stripped of his privileges based on secret evidence. And both Arbcom and the WMF know or should have been able to figure out that the de-facto requirements for making someone an admin and removing adminship are not mirror images of one another and that de-sysopping Fram and then requiring that he get another RFA is a sanction, not just being neutral and letting the community decide. If random admins were subject to RFAs in highly publicized situations I doubt most of them would be able to succeed.

(And it's amazing how many people dismiss the problems with secret evidence and not being able to respond to charges on the basis that since Fram obviously had some problems, it's not too bad a decision. Due process is *how you figure out* what the evidence means and whether it is good; when the process for dealing with evidence is tainted, you should not be concluding "it's okay because the evidence was good anyway".

Fram was still blatantly railroaded. The fact that Fram isn't quite as badly railroaded as he was before massive protests is damning with faint praise. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually the board did not require the committee to act, but the alternative would have been continued ban -- the board asked the committee to decide, and the committee decided what it decided according to its view of its procedures (and what they thought best for English Wikipedia). Anyone and everyone may disagree with what the committee decided but it is the foundational nature of an elected committee that only those elected to be on the committee are entrusted to decide.

But sure, everyone no doubt has there own opinion of how an RfA would have turned out, were it held in say, May. And also there own ideas on what level of process is "due" for a volunteer website permission. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if "Arbcom Deficiencies" is a general topic of discussion, here's my two cents as elections approach. (1) The biggest complaint I hear off-site on The Message Board That Will Not Be Named is that Arbcom does a terrible job of acknowledging receipt of communications. My suggestion there was that the committee should elect a Corresponding Secretary from within its ranks responsible for doing that for every non-spam communication. (2) I've begun to think over the last couple years that Arbcom should divide its members into two groups, who then sit out every other case to reduce workload and conserve energy, thereby reducing chance of burnout and resignations. This would also ensure smaller group organization for quicker decision-making. Exception to be made for giant cases such as the existential Fram case. Not positive this would work, but it's a thought. (3) Arbcom communication with the community has been consistently awful for years and years. Some kind of weekly, biweekly, or monthly summary report of activity needs to be officially issued. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  Carrite, I like ideas 1 and 3. I tried to manage communication in 2014, but really burned out doing so. Now, I help out but leave the heavy lifting to others. Putting in a requirement without someone who is willing to may well backfire. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) You're right that we have not done a good job of acknowledging receipt of communications; I've served on the Committee for a long time and there were times when we were, but this year has not been good. It's something I'm trying to be more cognizant of and active in doing. As for sitting out on cases, I'm not sure dictating who is active or inactive on a case in that way would be a good thing. Different arbitrators are stronger in different types of cases, and I think it's helpful for arbitrators to be active on cases that play to their strengths—requiring arbs to be inactive on cases where they would otherwise be an asset would be counterproductive, I think. The every-other-case model would also not work well if arbitrators needed to be away for a period of time for some reason. Perhaps it could be somewhat informal, in that arbitrators are encouraged to be active on some percentage of cases (less than 100%) and the choice of which cases they are inactive on is up to them. As for 3, what kinds of activity would you want to see reported? I assume you mean things like # of block appeals processed, etc.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Point taken on natural scheduling conflicts, illness, etc. potentially an insurmountable problem on splitting Arbcom into two "squads." Agreed it makes more sense developing a culture of specialization and an expectation that Arbs will sit out some significant percentage of cases on their own if it is outside their main strengths or primary interests. As for a regular communication vehicle, a simple 1000 to 2000 word statement every month: "These are the communications and appeals received (redacting names of complainants names as necessary), these are the arbs taking the lead on case 1, these are the arbs taking the lead on case 2. In weeks 1 and 2 the arb list mostly discussed case 1 and discussed appeals of indef blocks of party A and party B and we decided blahblahblah. In week 3 we did this and in week 4 we did that..." And so on and so forth. Yes, it would be more work, but it might go a long ways reducing the level of background noise from disaffected and unhappy people who feel like no progress is being made on anything or that their own situation is not being considered. Carrite (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Re. #3, weekly–monthly might be difficult, but ArbCom used to do annual reports and I've been compiling statistics with an eye to do something similar this year. – Joe (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think it plainly obvious that Fram was not "railroaded" by ArbCom. I've read their decision and looked at the evidence, and they acted in a balanced and thoughtful way. Fram, if our systems were working better, should have been desysopped a long time ago - his failed RfA shows why. His conduct was not appropriate for that position. Normally in disagreements around behavioral issues and what to do about them, there are two basic kinds of disagreements we might have. One kind of disagreement is around the facts of what the conduct actually was. The other is a more philosophical disagreement around what the principles may be. I believe, in this case, there is little disagreement about the facts - Fram's problematic behavior was pretty universally acknowledged, in some cases - and to his credit - even by him. And I think the RfA gives a strong indication of a lack of community consensus that his behavior as an admin was ok.

As to whether Fram should have been banned - I think that's a complex matter, but I would have equally supported the ArbCom had they made that decision. My view is that absent some kind of egregious abuse of a ArbCom gone mad, in which my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call a new election would be in play, it is extremely important that the community support strongly the principle of an independent, respected ArbCom. If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other. You can't have anarchy as that would lead to Wikipedia being overrun by trolls.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"I've read their decision and looked at the evidence, and they acted in a balanced and thoughtful way." Jimbo, that's exactly what I was complaining about. Bad evidence will often look good if the accused doesn't get a chance to see it or rebut it. You can't rely on your imagination to conclude "well, there's obviously nothing wrong with the evidence" just because you don't see any obvious flaws, when the one person who *would* be motivated and knowledgeable enough to find the flaws was not permitted to do so. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My ideas for improving ArbCom are only slightly related to Fram. The one takeaway from that case is we should have a standard to unblock people to participate in their own case. If they can’t be trusted that much then arbitration isn’t needed; just ban them. The other things I proposed aren’t related to any specific case. Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In most cases, I agree. This was a rather unique set of circumstances, obviously, one which I think we all hope will not be repeated. In many cases, I think people should be unblocked in order only to participate in their own case. In particular, it should be clear that the behavior under scrutiny in a case must cease immediately during the case, whatever that might be in any given case. I would say that admins under an ArbCom case for misuse of the tools should be required to abstain from using the tools.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just so. A final thing is that if a case has secret evidence I think a person at risk of being sanctioned should be allowed to chose a functionary they trust to review the evidence on their behalf and point out any discrepancies or mitigating circumstances. I understand the accused can’t always have access to all evidence, but at least they should be able to select somebody to represent their interests who can see the materials. Jehochman ^Talk 01:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: That is a fantastic idea, which you should pursue vigorously and I will support. One of the reasons that the Framban dragged on so long is that the love triangle aspect of Fram's accusers prevented the Foundation leadership from sharing what Arbcom needed to make a decent decision, and Fram lost his temper in the interim, costing him his bit. EllenCT (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think Arbs and admins just need some training. If you're going to engage in a quasi-legal proceeding, then you should have some training in law - that's how every other large organization does it, and there's no reason we should be any different. If we had some actual legal expertise then Policy might've been clearer and less convoluted, and ArbCom would've thought twice before holding "secret tribunals" with zero rights for defendants. François Robere (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if a stableful of clerks were elected rather than continuing to let people don the clerk-fez at will. If clerks did more investigating and less formal enforcement of section-cutting-word-count and maybe even less blocking-of-the-not-yet-guilty while waiting for a verdict, it would be no bad thing. There are legitimate complaints in my view about how this case got decided, but there's also limits to what you can say from the MobCar about a case (given AGF and all). AGF can be a difficult pillar to swallow, when you're just after digging up broken pieces of scattered pillars

fiafirmble-free neutrâle-nut civicyclolity!

at various ground-zeroes. More befezzed clerks, I say!🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

More technology. More fancy CSS. Clerks shouldn't be counting words and copying templates by hand. François Robere (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

SashiRolls, if they won’t speak to the mob, they certainly won’t let the mob elect members of the Royal Guard. – Levivich 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

We just need NewYorkBrad back. Guy (help!) 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please!!! Volunteer Marek 20:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)