User talk:Wllm/Archive 3

Orphaned non-free image File:Zend-framework.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zend-framework.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind if this is deleted, but there are some ZF logos that are licensed CC -wʃʃʍ- 07:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please remove link to Offwiki

Wil, while I have no interest in whether Offwiki lives or dies, I suggest that at this time you remove your link to there from your talk page. Offwiki has been taken over by someone who is decidedly banned from Wikipedia. What is being posted is more than disturbing. You may remember how I feel about glorifying suicidal ideation. Your call. You have been notified. (Perhaps you should lock it down for now, as it appears unattended by others than the fringe). Fylbecatulous talk 18:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Fylbecatulous. That page has been removed, and Jim has been blocked until further notice. Also, whether intentional or not, thanks for the reminder to get my butt in gear on Offwiki 2.0. The link won't be going anywhere, and I won't be either. -wʃʃʍ- 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Way cool, then. All the best. Fylbecatulous talk 12:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

MediaViewer controversy

Hi William. I don't know if you're aware of this, but it seems something you might be interested in/concerned with. Λυδαcιτγ 07:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of some of the MediaViewer concerns. Let me just double check my assumptions:

• The community largely didn't buy in to the new Media Viewer.
• Volunteer members of the community have edit privs on common.js and common.css, and one or more community members on one or more sites tried to make the new Media Viewer off by default.
• Superprotect was established to prevent edits on some sites' common.js to prevent this.

Do I have that right?

As a technologist, I see the WMF's position on this; I would never take responsibility for maintaining a web app/domain without full control over all HTML, CSS, and especially Javascript. I have also been in the position of deciding to roll out releases that were poorly put together under another leader's watch. I've never rolled back software myself under these circumstances for a list of reasons that I could enumerate here if you're interested. On the other hand, it seems like many in the community don't consider the WMF competent stewards for the future development of MediaWiki and related software. Perhaps many community members are questioning whether it will simply be more of the same going forward. I might be in a relatively unique position to reconcile the two perspectives, however.

Like I've said before, I don't talk to Lila about her work, because I'd like to remain free to express my own- invariably strong and critical- views in the community. But given some of the rookie mistakes I saw in this rollout and Lila's solid track record over many projects and releases, I can assure you that everyone can look forward to some huge improvements on both quality of software and setting expectations going forward. IIRC, that's one of the biggest things the board was after in their search for the new ED. It's something that needs to be built in to a project cycle from the beginning, however, so the community shouldn't assume this is par for course under the new ED. When the WMF gets its engineering groove on, the community should notice the change and begin to trust the foundation to take the badly outdated software in the best direction. More importantly, it should feel that its concerns are being met without resorting to editing javascript files, which is an increasingly larger part of web apps like MediaWiki and really must be left to those who are getting paid to guarantee all those 9's that keep Wikipedia among the top 5 internet destinations reliably serving up the fruits of the community's efforts. I find it somewhat funny that facebook users seem to trust a completely opaque commercial organization to present their data than Wikipedians trust the WMF, although we seem to be a population of more cynical folk than the average teenage FB junkie. :) If we could find an answer to how we can all rebuild trust that may have compromised in the past, I think that this issue + a lot of IMO much more important issues will be put in to perspective next to a renewed sense of purpose and teamwork. For its part, I think the WMF has a lot to do and may now have the leadership they need to serve the community better. In the meantime, I advise concerned community members to remind themselves that they've gotten a new and, by all accounts including mine, extraordinary leader at the WMF; so get to know her, give all of them a little time, and never forget that the WMF needs the community to be successful and vice versa. Moreover, the entire WP teams needs to be ready to welcome that success when it comes. -wʃʃʍ- 09:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Your Facebook analogy is interesting, but I think the difference in views isn't just due to the greater cynicism of Wikipedians. Unlike at Facebook, Reddit, and even Everything2, here, there's a feeling that as editors, we're not just writing each page (article) - we're also determining what the whole website will look like. From the main page to the font styles, everything is built by community consensus. And that community is precisely what attracted a lot of people to Wikipedia in the first place.

So, although Facebook pisses off a lot of people every time they redesign the Timeline, and some refuse to quit, most people end up getting used the changes and continuing to use the site, and probably enjoying it more in the end. But if you start forcing change on Wikipedia, you'll break the community. Just take a look at meta:Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer, or at User:Scott for someone who's already left. Λυδαcιτγ 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Scott and I have been in touch before, but his retirement is news to me. I hope he finds more satisfaction doing whatever he goes on to do next.

I find one of your statements very interesting: "But if you start forcing change on Wikipedia, you'll break the community." Help me out with this one. What specific groups of people make up what you're calling "Wikipedia" here? Also, what do you mean by "break"? I haven't talked to a single Wikipedian who believes that nothing is broken in the project, and that's to be expected. But I've been very surprised by how many Wikipedians from all walks of wikilife believe the status quo is broken. What do you think?

The community loses none of its options by giving Lila a chance to do what she has done time and time again: build great services that their consumers fall in love with. But if it turns to the nuclear option now, it certainly loses an opportunity to work with her to build a WMF that meets and exceeds the community's expectations. In the meantime, the nuclear options aren't going anywhere. I've seen what she can do, but even if I didn't know what I do about her track record of turning software projects and entire organizations around, I'd still say it stands to reason that the community serves itself best with a little patience. -wʃʃʍ- 06:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I too have noticed that many people think the status quo is broken. I'm more optimistic. I think the reason for my optimism is actually the nature of the Wikipedia community, and specifically, its being founded upon the idea of consensus. Consensus requires compromise, which will always make some people angry. But from what I've seen in my time here, I'd say we generally end up at a reasonable compromise on things. So I'm happy.

But if someone can just step in from "above" and mess with the consensus, then I have no basis for faith in the system. It's frustrating to be holding onto a belief in consensus and then have that belief undermined. Patience is fine, and I'm glad you think Ms. Tretikov will do a good job, but I think it needs to be said that this is not a good first step. Λυδαcιτγ 15:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons I urge patience is that I don't believe we've seen Lila's first full step. Development on MediaViewer began long before she took the helm, and the escalation we've seen seems to have been a result of how MediaViewer was developed WRT the community in the context of many similar disputes in the past. I can attest to the fact that it is extremely hard to catch up on years of all-too-often dysfunctional relations between the WMF and vocal critics of their actions in the community. I can also attest to the fact that anyone with Lila's background- that is, a technology executive tasked with running an organization that provides high availability services- would consider the idea of supporting an application that is serving JavaScript over which that organization has no control an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

If the community insists on having such control, the solution to this problem lies in the WMF working with the community and providing technology leadership that the community can trust. That won't happen overnight, and it can't be tacked on to the end of a flawed software development cycle with questionable release quality. This is where the community can do its part. Keep in mind that Lila is rapidly learning about community dynamics that no one fully understands, that she hasn't had a chance to fix community relations with regards to software development starting from the very beginnings of a project when it needs to happen, and that she and the WMF require some guarded trust from the community going forward so that they have a chance to fix the root causes. This is a matter of trust, and, just like it took years of missteps to get us to the point where admins openly defy the WMF's desires on software it is charged with supporting, it will take years of the WMF demonstrating to the community that it can find a capable technology partner in the WMF. Drastic actions at this point in time will sink the first good chance at establishing such a relationship that the WMF and the community have had for several years.

BTW, this discussion has prompted a post on my blog which you might be interested in. -wʃʃʍ- 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Greatly enjoyed the blog post. Hope you're right about your SO! Cheers, Λυδαcιτγ 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

wllm.com I cannot post?

Hello,

I've tried 3 times (twice with Wordpress and once with no login) to reply to the wllm.com blog, but none of the replies have shown up. Am I doing something wrong? - The non-appearing posts were calm, non-insulting, perhaps even boring, but I didn't save them before posting and I don't want to type them again and have them not show up.

We have not conversed before anywhere - I did sign up on Wikipediocracy a while ago to post a picture of Gordon Ramsey choking Greg Kohs, but by the time I finished signing up, the discussion had moved on and I never did post the photo there or post at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entlebucherdoodle (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Entlebucherdoodle.

I'll check it out. Sometimes they go to a spam folder for various reasons. -wʃʃʍ- 05:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I can't remember the exact text, but I think there was a < B > and a < /B > in there somewhere. Entlebucherdoodle (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I was able to post on wllm.com - I think that when I remember/find my Wikipediocracy login information, that I will finally post the photo of Gordon Ramsey choking Greg Kohs on Wikipediocracy, I don't know where else to post it. It is tasteful and not violent - Greg is smiling. Entlebucherdoodle (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a pretty funny pic. I started a thread a while back while I was getting data points on whether Greg posing a threat at WikiConference 2014 was credible. Coincidentally, it was where I found out about the infamous boldfacing. He had apologized for it by that time. Then he unfortunately voided that apology as far as I'm concerned with his referring back to it an unapologetic way, although I did not- and still don't- believe he poses any physical threat whatsoever. In any case, I called it "The Roast of Greg Kohs," and it was pretty tame but for that one instance. He posted a picture of him posing next to a roast chicken. I suggest posting it on that thread. -wʃʃʍ- 08:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The roast chicken thread was where I was going to post the Gordon Ramsey Choking Greg Kohs photo (an actual non-photoshopped image) but by the time I had my Wikipediocracy account set up, the thread had moved on. Did you ask Greg Kohs for his side of the "he got" text before you made the "Greg Kohs and Bigotry" blog post? I frequently see text on legitimate journalism sites and newspapers such as "xxxx did not reply to requests for comments before this issue went to print." I understand that blogs don't have to have the same ethics as mainstream journalists, so that may be the reason. It would be a lot of work if all the blogs on the internet were required try to get both sides of any post they made and they would be less popular. I tried to read Donald Rumsfeld's autobiography some time ago and it was somewhat boring to read because on all of the major issues he would explain both sides of each argument to be made for actions that he took. It would have been a much more "enjoyable" read if he discussed only the reasons "for" his actions and had left out the "against" arguments. So, I can understand why on your own blog you would present your own views on issues without trying to contact the subject of a defamatory blog post to get their side prior to publishing the post - if anyone wants to present their own side, they can set up their own blog". All the best, and keep trying to do what's right especially after you fall short. Entlebucherdoodle (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

MediaViewer controversy

Hi William. I don't know if you're aware of this, but it seems something you might be interested in/concerned with. Λυδαcιτγ 07:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of some of the MediaViewer concerns. Let me just double check my assumptions:

• The community largely didn't buy in to the new Media Viewer.
• Volunteer members of the community have edit privs on common.js and common.css, and one or more community members on one or more sites tried to make the new Media Viewer off by default.
• Superprotect was established to prevent edits on some sites' common.js to prevent this.

Do I have that right?

As a technologist, I see the WMF's position on this; I would never take responsibility for maintaining a web app/domain without full control over all HTML, CSS, and especially Javascript. I have also been in the position of deciding to roll out releases that were poorly put together under another leader's watch. I've never rolled back software myself under these circumstances for a list of reasons that I could enumerate here if you're interested. On the other hand, it seems like many in the community don't consider the WMF competent stewards for the future development of MediaWiki and related software. Perhaps many community members are questioning whether it will simply be more of the same going forward. I might be in a relatively unique position to reconcile the two perspectives, however.

Like I've said before, I don't talk to Lila about her work, because I'd like to remain free to express my own- invariably strong and critical- views in the community. But given some of the rookie mistakes I saw in this rollout and Lila's solid track record over many projects and releases, I can assure you that everyone can look forward to some huge improvements on both quality of software and setting expectations going forward. IIRC, that's one of the biggest things the board was after in their search for the new ED. It's something that needs to be built in to a project cycle from the beginning, however, so the community shouldn't assume this is par for course under the new ED. When the WMF gets its engineering groove on, the community should notice the change and begin to trust the foundation to take the badly outdated software in the best direction. More importantly, it should feel that its concerns are being met without resorting to editing javascript files, which is an increasingly larger part of web apps like MediaWiki and really must be left to those who are getting paid to guarantee all those 9's that keep Wikipedia among the top 5 internet destinations reliably serving up the fruits of the community's efforts. I find it somewhat funny that facebook users seem to trust a completely opaque commercial organization to present their data than Wikipedians trust the WMF, although we seem to be a population of more cynical folk than the average teenage FB junkie. :) If we could find an answer to how we can all rebuild trust that may have compromised in the past, I think that this issue + a lot of IMO much more important issues will be put in to perspective next to a renewed sense of purpose and teamwork. For its part, I think the WMF has a lot to do and may now have the leadership they need to serve the community better. In the meantime, I advise concerned community members to remind themselves that they've gotten a new and, by all accounts including mine, extraordinary leader at the WMF; so get to know her, give all of them a little time, and never forget that the WMF needs the community to be successful and vice versa. Moreover, the entire WP teams needs to be ready to welcome that success when it comes. -wʃʃʍ- 09:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Your Facebook analogy is interesting, but I think the difference in views isn't just due to the greater cynicism of Wikipedians. Unlike at Facebook, Reddit, and even Everything2, here, there's a feeling that as editors, we're not just writing each page (article) - we're also determining what the whole website will look like. From the main page to the font styles, everything is built by community consensus. And that community is precisely what attracted a lot of people to Wikipedia in the first place.

So, although Facebook pisses off a lot of people every time they redesign the Timeline, and some refuse to quit, most people end up getting used the changes and continuing to use the site, and probably enjoying it more in the end. But if you start forcing change on Wikipedia, you'll break the community. Just take a look at meta:Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer, or at User:Scott for someone who's already left. Λυδαcιτγ 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Scott and I have been in touch before, but his retirement is news to me. I hope he finds more satisfaction doing whatever he goes on to do next.

I find one of your statements very interesting: "But if you start forcing change on Wikipedia, you'll break the community." Help me out with this one. What specific groups of people make up what you're calling "Wikipedia" here? Also, what do you mean by "break"? I haven't talked to a single Wikipedian who believes that nothing is broken in the project, and that's to be expected. But I've been very surprised by how many Wikipedians from all walks of wikilife believe the status quo is broken. What do you think?

The community loses none of its options by giving Lila a chance to do what she has done time and time again: build great services that their consumers fall in love with. But if it turns to the nuclear option now, it certainly loses an opportunity to work with her to build a WMF that meets and exceeds the community's expectations. In the meantime, the nuclear options aren't going anywhere. I've seen what she can do, but even if I didn't know what I do about her track record of turning software projects and entire organizations around, I'd still say it stands to reason that the community serves itself best with a little patience. -wʃʃʍ- 06:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I too have noticed that many people think the status quo is broken. I'm more optimistic. I think the reason for my optimism is actually the nature of the Wikipedia community, and specifically, its being founded upon the idea of consensus. Consensus requires compromise, which will always make some people angry. But from what I've seen in my time here, I'd say we generally end up at a reasonable compromise on things. So I'm happy.

But if someone can just step in from "above" and mess with the consensus, then I have no basis for faith in the system. It's frustrating to be holding onto a belief in consensus and then have that belief undermined. Patience is fine, and I'm glad you think Ms. Tretikov will do a good job, but I think it needs to be said that this is not a good first step. Λυδαcιτγ 15:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons I urge patience is that I don't believe we've seen Lila's first full step. Development on MediaViewer began long before she took the helm, and the escalation we've seen seems to have been a result of how MediaViewer was developed WRT the community in the context of many similar disputes in the past. I can attest to the fact that it is extremely hard to catch up on years of all-too-often dysfunctional relations between the WMF and vocal critics of their actions in the community. I can also attest to the fact that anyone with Lila's background- that is, a technology executive tasked with running an organization that provides high availability services- would consider the idea of supporting an application that is serving JavaScript over which that organization has no control an absolutely ridiculous proposition.

If the community insists on having such control, the solution to this problem lies in the WMF working with the community and providing technology leadership that the community can trust. That won't happen overnight, and it can't be tacked on to the end of a flawed software development cycle with questionable release quality. This is where the community can do its part. Keep in mind that Lila is rapidly learning about community dynamics that no one fully understands, that she hasn't had a chance to fix community relations with regards to software development starting from the very beginnings of a project when it needs to happen, and that she and the WMF require some guarded trust from the community going forward so that they have a chance to fix the root causes. This is a matter of trust, and, just like it took years of missteps to get us to the point where admins openly defy the WMF's desires on software it is charged with supporting, it will take years of the WMF demonstrating to the community that it can find a capable technology partner in the WMF. Drastic actions at this point in time will sink the first good chance at establishing such a relationship that the WMF and the community have had for several years.

BTW, this discussion has prompted a post on my blog which you might be interested in. -wʃʃʍ- 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Greatly enjoyed the blog post. Hope you're right about your SO! Cheers, Λυδαcιτγ 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A project page you may be interested in

Directing your attention to Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors, in the event you had not seen it yet. Perhaps you will find it interesting. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I confess that I didn't get around to reading this until today. My loss. It's a very interesting perspective. I've heard many A-spectrum folks describe a feeling of "otherness" and general rejection by society. ADHDers often describe similar feelings. There is some overlap of symptoms between ADHD and A-spectrum folks- and many people are surprised when they learn that they can be co-morbid- but its hard to untangle natural behaviors from (often dysfunctional) learned behaviors for both of these disorders. One similarity of some significance is that, unlike many people who have bi-polar disorder (onset in the early teens) or schizophrenia (onset can happen as late as mid twenties), ADHDers and A-spectrum folk don't know what it's like to be asymptomatic; behavioral differences can be seen in infants. There are some pretty big differences that may not be obvious to someone who is more neurotypical. ADHDers have behavioral problems that are caused by their impulsivity and quickly changing moods, whereas A-spectrum kids have behavioral problems for being too focused and unable to cope with change well.

One frustration that I have experienced as an ADHDer is watching the gifts that it brings to the table go entirely unappreciated by others, while the challenges are responded to with strongly negative reinforcement by those who believe that ADHDers simply lack discipline. That's understandable; the great stuff about ADHD, like creativity, big-picture thinking, and infectious drive/passion, aren't easily quantified. Add to that a society that puts ever more emphasis on focus and specialization. Now layer on "conventional wisdom" in popular culture that is the result of disproven theories, reactions to the treatment options, and sheer ignorance. Its hardly surprised that many ADHDers feel judged, and never more so than when they mention their diagnosis. It sounds like that's one more thing we share with those on the A-spectrum, our diagnoses are more often than not taken as excuses for behavior that we are unwilling to control. And, in all honesty, sometimes diagnoses are used as excuses when they should be models for coping. At the end of the day, ADHDers serve themselves best by demonstrating their gifts empirically through overwhelming success. That's just one of the reasons why it is so common among startup CEOs in Silicon Valley.

I'd be interested in an A-spectrum perspective on some of these issues. Certainly some of the gifts that are associated with Autism and AS can be measured, such as focus and abstract deduction. But I know better than to assume that they have it easier. One thing that comes to mind is the much more effective pharmaceutical therapies for ADHD; I can literally take a pill to bring many of my symptoms under control immediately. That, combined with behavioral therapy, usually leaves us in a good place. And, with the symptoms that undermine social interactions under control, ADHDers are natural entertainers and excel in social situations. It's no wonder that an ADHD diagnosis can be the best news an ADHDer ever receives. I'd love to hear from an diagnosed person on the A-spectrum who has diagnosed well in to adulthood. Is it good news because of the explanations and behavior models it provides, or something like a mental death sentence because the underlying biochemistry and brain structure can't be directly altered?

When we take in to account that, with percentages of people affected by learning "disorders" running in to the double digits and distinct benefits associated with almost all of them, we're really talking about what have historically been called differences and tolerated as such. I don't know about the motivations of others, but I use the in-vogue words "neurodiverse" and "neurotypical" because they happen to sound cool in a sci-fi sorta way. But they capture the most important and impactful takeaway for everyone: everyone's mind works differently, and some more so than others. People who self-identify as "neurodiverse" are doing as best they can in a world that wasn't built for them. Neurotypicals who are especially kind enough to make their small part of the world inviting for us may end up with a very rare and mind-expanding opportunity: an invitation to ours.

Hmmm. I didn't plan to write an essay of my own in response to the one you sent, but this might be worth tidying up to gather some reactions from other WPers. We'll see if I ever get around to it. ;) Thanks for the link! -wʃʃʍ- 16:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Weird and Wonderful on Wikipedia

This section is reserved for articles on the strangest and most unbelievable subjects Wikipedia has covered.

• Lincos_(artificial_language)
• Folly
• Spite_house
• Mill_Ends_Park
• Raising_of_Chicago
• Cardrona_Bra_Fence
• Colletto_Fava
• Ferdinand Cheval
• Icelandic_Phallological_Museum
• Sedlec_Ossuary
• Great_Stink

You're aware that an insanely exhaustive list has already been compliled?80.43.176.157 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I was just hoping it had. :) I'll add what seems funniest from this list here. Right now I'm just trying to come up with the content for the first humor/curiosity newsletter. Thanks! -wʃʃʍ- 00:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

wllm.com I cannot post?

Hello,

I've tried 3 times (twice with Wordpress and once with no login) to reply to the wllm.com blog, but none of the replies have shown up. Am I doing something wrong? - The non-appearing posts were calm, non-insulting, perhaps even boring, but I didn't save them before posting and I don't want to type them again and have them not show up.

We have not conversed before anywhere - I did sign up on Wikipediocracy a while ago to post a picture of Gordon Ramsey choking Greg Kohs, but by the time I finished signing up, the discussion had moved on and I never did post the photo there or post at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entlebucherdoodle (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Entlebucherdoodle.

I'll check it out. Sometimes they go to a spam folder for various reasons. -wʃʃʍ- 05:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I can't remember the exact text, but I think there was a < B > and a < /B > in there somewhere. Entlebucherdoodle (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I was able to post on wllm.com - I think that when I remember/find my Wikipediocracy login information, that I will finally post the photo of Gordon Ramsey choking Greg Kohs on Wikipediocracy, I don't know where else to post it. It is tasteful and not violent - Greg is smiling. Entlebucherdoodle (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a pretty funny pic. I started a thread a while back while I was getting data points on whether Greg posing a threat at WikiConference 2014 was credible. Coincidentally, it was where I found out about the infamous boldfacing. He had apologized for it by that time. Then he unfortunately voided that apology as far as I'm concerned with his referring back to it an unapologetic way, although I did not- and still don't- believe he poses any physical threat whatsoever. In any case, I called it "The Roast of Greg Kohs," and it was pretty tame but for that one instance. He posted a picture of him posing next to a roast chicken. I suggest posting it on that thread. -wʃʃʍ- 08:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The roast chicken thread was where I was going to post the Gordon Ramsey Choking Greg Kohs photo (an actual non-photoshopped image) but by the time I had my Wikipediocracy account set up, the thread had moved on. Did you ask Greg Kohs for his side of the "he got" text before you made the "Greg Kohs and Bigotry" blog post? I frequently see text on legitimate journalism sites and newspapers such as "xxxx did not reply to requests for comments before this issue went to print." I understand that blogs don't have to have the same ethics as mainstream journalists, so that may be the reason. It would be a lot of work if all the blogs on the internet were required try to get both sides of any post they made and they would be less popular. I tried to read Donald Rumsfeld's autobiography some time ago and it was somewhat boring to read because on all of the major issues he would explain both sides of each argument to be made for actions that he took. It would have been a much more "enjoyable" read if he discussed only the reasons "for" his actions and had left out the "against" arguments. So, I can understand why on your own blog you would present your own views on issues without trying to contact the subject of a defamatory blog post to get their side prior to publishing the post - if anyone wants to present their own side, they can set up their own blog". All the best, and keep trying to do what's right especially after you fall short. Entlebucherdoodle (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Meetup?

Hi. I an admirer. I'll be in San Francisco from 30th October till 6th November. Would you like to meet up?

We've met on Wikipediocracy and here, and I like most of your ideas, but, mostly I admire your intelligence, boldness and frankness. I'd like to turn you into an evangelist for making Wikipedia a reliable source, if you can spare me the time. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Anthony, I remember you from several discussions. Thanks for the kind words; it's a nice change of pace from what I've gotten used to. ;) I'm very interested in making Wikipedia more reliable, except when I'm actively making it less reliable by making stuff up like above. I don't plan that far in advance, but make sure you drop me a note about a week before you're in town. I'll make time. -wʃʃʍ- 07:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Will do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned your Missus at Jimbo's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey. I'm here until Thursday night. Can we meet up? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Essay

Hi Wil

Re your essay, I'd be interested too, if you're sharing.
Cheers
 pablo 08:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool. As is my wont, I'll be sharing it with anyone who is willing to listen. I'm writing up a first draft this weekend. I've never written one before, but Wikipedia:Wikipedia_essays should be enough + some to guide me though the process. I'll be creating the rough draft here, and I'd love any feedback and/or content. In particular, if anyone disagrees with my thesis that we don't need civility when enough of us expect respect and would like to do a point/counterpoint essay, please ping me. -wʃʃʍ- 23:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've met quite a number of Wikipedians over the last few weeks and although civility was never the main topic of discussion, when it came up there seemed to be a feeling among many of those I hold in highest regard that the civility problem will likely fade to nothing if/when we reach a critical mass of normal, respectful Wikipedians. The frequent toxicity of this milieu is probably down to the inordinate influence wielded by people who spend their whole lives on the internet - and that demographic is likely to include a disproportionate number of people who just can't get on with others.

This turns on its head the idea that we need to fix the civility problem before we can reverse editor attrition. Instead, if it is true, the solution to the civility problem is finding a way to increase the number of active editors from the general population - as opposed to those who spend their lives on the net due to social dysfunction.

No one thing will bring about that demographic shift. Unlike many here, I have faith that the visual editor, once completed, will help a lot. If we can inspire scholars and other experts to contribute, that will, too. A personal obsession with me: if we can create a class of article above WP:FA (WP:Reliable maybe) that has been certified by top scholars, it will lift the regard in which Wikipedia is held, and that, too, should make more people want to help. No doubt there are other incremental fixes I haven't thought of here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're spot-on here. In fact, civility is neither the solution nor the problem, as Jimmy rightly pointed out in his Wikimania speech. We shouldn't settle for anything less than true respect (Jimmy went as far as to suggest "love," but that concept a) isn't going to resonate with most Wikipedians I've encountered because b) it seems overly optimistic to most editors given where we are now). And we can't effectively ask others to be more respectful without starting with ourselves first. I think that's a good way that everyone who would like to see a more welcoming and ultimately rewarding environment in our community can immediately move us closer to the critical mass where, as I see it, the difference would be that we all start expecting respect instead of being resigned to the status quo. Your ideas to promote respect through attracting more respectful people sound like an effective way to help get us there, too, and I think that pointing out their effect on the environment, along with other, more obvious benefits like article quality, may get a lot of traction among those who see this meta problem as a showstopper for turning around those key metrics that aren't boding well for Wikipedia's future. The WMF, in particular, see the prevalent trends as a huge problem, for example, and my guess is that the powers that be there would be all-ears for ideas that have some potential for righting the boat.

But I'll give another shout out to Jimmy's assertion that some particularly nasty and incorrigible editors have to go to give respect a chance to make a difference. I'll go a lot further, in fact, when I assert that critical mass won't be an absolute number, but a weighted ratio of editors who expect respect and practice it themselves, and that we need to be ready to see a lot more than 10 editors leave the project. That is, I think we can move closer toward that critical mass, not only by gaining more respectful editors, but losing potentially hundreds of our least respectful editors who have no interest in changing their ways. We won't need to show the vast majority of these editors the door; we simply need to persevere in building a respectful environment in which disrespectful behavior isn't tolerated. If unapologetically calling people a "cunt" is not tolerated, as I feel it shouldn't be, it sends a message to both the new contributor that this is not what Wikipedia is about and experienced editors who derive a lot, if not all, of their pleasure in our community from doing things that are injurious to our long term success and who have no interest in changing. The former will be more likely to stay and the latter to leave, moving us closer to critical mass on both the sides of the ratio. A lot of these editors will have a lot of solid content contributions under their belts, and many will have advanced privs and, in some cases, have been very active in governing the community and/or their local chapter. If they can't get with respect, then IMO we have to be ready to watch these editors walk away. We have to take a strong stand for respect.

Many have contacted me privately that they are disappointed with my "new" position emphasizing community and somehow devaluing content. Let me make it clear, promoting respect within the community doesn't indicate that one sees less value in the content. Even if one couldn't do of these virtues justice at the same time- if there were some tradeoff there that I don't see- you present an argument that great content and respect aren't just complementary; they form a virtuous circle that will ensure Wikipedia improves immediately as well as in the long term. I really hope the community and the WMF are taking note of what you're saying. -wʃʃʍ- 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. I'm getting a good hearing - though I'm not here to discuss editor retention, 3 out of the 4 WMF people I met raised it, so it's obviously front of mind there. So, can you get out for a coffee tomorrow? (I fly out of SF International at 10:00 pm, and I'm staying in the business district, but I can travel wherever public transport reaches.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have time, but I'm currently in the south bay. Email me at wllm@wllm.com if you'd like to figure out how to make it work for tomorrow. -wʃʃʍ- 08:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be in Australia tomorrow. Maybe next time? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious

talk
Thank you, Wil, for quality contibutions to articles such as Zend Framework and CSS, for adding you voice to discussions, including "material that is ... humorous" and "the Wikibounty has no end", for the bounty of your edit summaries, for occasionally feeling "humbled and proud", and for contemplating civility vs. respect, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Tho I should disclose once again that I was working for Zend Technologies running the Zend Framework project back in 2007. All the same, it's nice to know that someone appreciates my presence here. -wʃʃʍ- 08:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 1011th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

user talk:Jimbo Wales

Hi Will. Sorry to step on your toes, but I've redacted and suppressed part of your most recent comment to Jimbo's talk page, as it was potentially libelous. I know you didn't mean harm, but please keep in mind that even on talk pages, we have an obligation to not harm living people with our commentary, especially when it comes to alleging things that sound like crimes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the redaction. That generalization wasn't fair to Greg or the reader. I have several specific examples of Greg's bad behavior in his private communications with me that I can share, but I'll let the redaction stand as is unless anyone cares to ask why I believe Greg behaves underhandedly in most- if not all- of his affairs. For the record, I also believe that Greg is a good guy who hasn't always gotten a fair shake. Unfortunately, I find the online persona he has adopted repugnant. -wʃʃʍ- 05:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Greg Kohs; I missed that discussion on Jimbo's talk page. The suggestion that he "behaves underhandedly in most- if not all- of his affairs" is a serious allegation. So yes, I'd like to know why you believe that. Do you still feel that he should be allowed to attend Wikiconference USA, if that event is held again? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be happy to elaborate. At first, Greg was pretty straightforward in his communication with me, and I believe he had- and still has- some sincere and valid points around PAE and COI. Moreover, I think he has been sincerely hurt by what he considers unjust treatment, and I'd be far more empathetic towards him on that score if he treated others more justly. As with every other member of the immediate and extended Wikipedia family- in-good-standing and the banninated alike- I was very forthcoming with him. I am who I am, I'm hardly perfect, and anyone can see that I'm more than happy to tell anyone who's interested anything about myself. He asked me privately for a comment on a page I created called "Yew Chung Parents for Answers", and I told him about the group I started with some other parents at my son's school after I and others had issues a principal who had a tendency to do wildly inappropriate things when parents disagreed with him. For example, he once asked his secretary to call 911 after we disagreed over his handling of a situation WRT my son, which she refused to do. He was let go after 2 years on the job for this and many similar incidents. This stuff happens; I'm an opinionated guy who doesn't hesitate to question authority when I believe authority has been used questionably, and some people really don't like that. One need look no further than some of the choice posts on wikimedia-l to see that this principal wasn't alone in his discomfort at this kind of candor. But getting back to Greg- I told him all the details and said it was A-OK by me if he decided to tell others about it. He replied that he didn't want to, which was all the same to me. I forgot about the whole thing.

Then I upset Greg. It started when I called him out for hate-speech in his comments about a gay man on Wikipediocracy. While he maintained to me that he had never called anyone a "faggot", I'm not such a stickler for details that I draw distinctions between calling someone a "faggot" and referring to the actions of a gay man named Fae by boldfacing "Fae got" to start a sentence about him. And neither is Greg, according to what seemed like a sincere apology that he later made on Wikipediocracy that clearly acknowledged the intended "joke". He considered my telling him that this was seriously fucked up as "excessive hand wringing" and quite pointedly speculated that I wouldn't want anyone to know about the story with my son's principal. It was really gross and- most telling for me- underhanded. Frankly I had to take a long shower after reading that mail.

Since then his behavior has been even worse IMO in both public and private, including unapologetically revisiting his comment about Fae and accusing me of libel on my blog. He reposted that I hadn't actually committed libel on my blog by quoting what he had said publicly after what the cynic in me points out would be about the amount of time it would take someone to call their lawyer and get set straight. And I haven't even touched on what he's said both publicly and privately when he saw offwiki.org as a threat to Wikipediocracy (more news on that front coming soon, FWIW). I'll just say that I'm glad I don't feel obliged to avoid stepping on Wikipediocracy's toes this time around.

All that said, I still don't think that anyone has credibly shown that Greg presents a threat to anyone attending an "open" Wikipedia conference, and I believe strongly that everyone should have as much of an opportunity to express themselves as I demand for myself. Ultimately, no one will ever know what Greg would have done with this opportunity, because he was shut down before he ever got a chance to speak. Although it should be noted that the conference organizers mentioned that other attendees felt threatened, which I personally found more plausible after getting a mail demanding a formal comment from me by some hokey timeline or Greg would 'reserve the right to indicate in my news story that you "declined to comment"'. This time I was rolling my eyes while I was taking that long shower. That said, if the organizers turn away attendees for undisclosed reasons, they clearly aren't putting on an "open" conference, as Wikiconference USA was billed. In any case, I will never advocate for Greg by name again, as I did during Wikiconference USA, because I don't want to be associated with the hate speech he first used, then apologized for, only to revisit.

Of course, there are plenty of other stories that I've heard others tell about his behavior. I'll let them tell their own stories, tho.

Most of my representations of what Greg has said can be verified publicly on Wikipediocracy and my blog, but if there is burning interest I will publish the emails in which he made these and other comments- assuming I didn't delete them in disgust. -wʃʃʍ- 23:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw an allusion by Greg to your child's principal somewhere on Wikipediocracy and wondered what that was. He's got a lot to learn about what's appropriate speech. But I agree he's no physical threat to anyone, and banning him from that conference was foolish. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Greg is actually a good guy who has had an overall positive affect on Wikipedia. I've said so before, and I stand by that. I suspect he gets caught up in the echo chamber that I saw on Wikipediocracy when I was following along, and I doubt it's news to anyone who has ever paid attention that people egg each other on there to wildly inappropriate, overheated rhetoric and the occasional incredibly uncool act that have brought the site such notoriety. I think this reputation doesn't serve anyone well and has a particularly compromising effect on the credibility of those who are active there but don't have a voice on-wiki. It may have gotten the site more attention in the short term, but in the long term I believe this stuff will turn off the constructive critics, leaving only those who are getting something I can't fully comprehend out of all the snark and Shadenfreude. That thought makes me sad, because Wikipedia really needs its' critics to stay relevant in an ever-growing sea of data published by all sorts of potentially more reliable and higher quality sources.

Ultimately, what I'm probably finding off-putting is an online persona Greg seems to have adopted in response to ill treatment that- it's worth calling out- has been verified to me privately by some very unlikely and credible sources. I wish he'd just drop it and be himself. I like to think that a more true-to-life Greg would never have made that homophobic comment about Fae. As far as the whole thing with that principal, I appreciate criticism of the stuff that I've said publicly- and what Lila has done/said for that matter- but I do hope that the peeps on WO have the decency to practice discretion around the details of my family life and the family lives of other prominent Wikipedians. Also, I suggest critics stick to things that are directly related to Wikipedia; from where I sit, it looks like bringing up unrelated stuff really takes a toll on some very solid critiques around the many issues facing Wikipedia and its community. But that's just my 2¢. -wʃʃʍ- 03:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The tone of the place seems to have improved over the last six months, though some of the best investigators there are still capable of saying very cruel, stupid things. Moderating it must be difficult. Something edgy/funny at midnight can look truly appalling in the next morning's cold light ... or vice versa. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You bring up something that is worth saying explicitly. I'd like to see a functioning, constructive community of Wikipedia critics, because I believe that it's necessary for the long-term success of Wikipedia. I don't care if this is Offwiki or another site- in fact, I'd prefer investing more time on-wiki to admining/moderating such a site myself- and if Offwiki 2.0 has the effect of making WO clean up its act by offering an alternative environment for constructive critics, then I will have succeeded in my goal of helping provide such a forum. At this point, however, WO has burnt a lot of bridges to the wider Wikipedia community with some very bad behavior; I've heard from many Wikipedians who want to tackle the issues discussed on WO in its most constructive moments but won't get anywhere near a site that has engaged in so many personal attacks, doxxing, and nonconstructive pettiness. We'll see soon enough how this all plays out once WO isn't the only critic message board game in town. -wʃʃʍ- 11:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How underhanded is the behavior of someone who engages in long, critical discussions of another human being, when that person is not allowed to respond to that discussion in the same space? Why should peeps on WO have the decency to practice discretion around a person who is so incapable of practicing discretion? - Behaves underhandedly (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Underhanded? Not at all. I've been entirely forthcoming in this discussion, just like I am in all of my discussions. I think you may be confusing underhandedness with fairness. If you are, then you have a point. But everyone should have the decency and discretion to keep families out of the discussion. For example, I never have and will never discuss Greg's family. To that extent, my discretion is as rock solid. To argue that families are somehow fair game would betray a complete lack of integrity, IMO. -wʃʃʍ- 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica has an article on you

https://encyclopediadramatica DOT se/Wil_Sinclair

I had nothing to do with it, but thought you should know. Guess who. Heads up Wil (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Awww. . . It's nice to know there's someone out there who cares enough to write an article about me. -wʃʃʍ- 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)