Jump to content

User talk:Zugzwangerone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request for a pilot program for change control - The current process at Wikipedia does not work and needs reform

[edit]

Implementation of a Pilot Revision Process on Wikipedia

target pages of Wikipedia should be locked from edits
target pages should be prioritized in terms revision urgency
discussion should occur in talk pages
consensus should be reached in a sandbox
the draft article should be reviewed independently
there should be a commit to a new revision

Vs

Edits are made and then reversed by long time participants, without even being read or considered. Zugzwangerone (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Interest in the Classic Structure of essays; Main Points described in an Introduction, a Body, and a factual Conclusion.

[edit]

I think many Wikipedia articles can be improved through the structuring of the initial paragraph to contain a cursory introduction of the subject, a body containing a few important contextual points, and a conclusion. Some articles can be improved by relocating an existing "main point" from within the body of the entry to the first paragraph, specifically positioned to either the first or last sentence within the first paragraph.

Modern writing online tends to be structured with a long narrative supporting a bias or opinion, a conclusion confirming that bias, and then a call to action.

I think Wikipedia readers will derive the most benefit from concise articles that are classically structured.

I am looking forward to driving that effort. Zugzwangerone (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Zugzwangerone[reply]

==My Interest in Fact - A huge percentage of Wikipedia entries are fatally wrong to fact

==My Interest in Tracing Linked Citations - Linked Citations frequently don't align with the body text - Citations seem to be thrown like spaghettis on a wall. The first thing to check in an article is the first sentence, first three paragraphs, and attached citations. Zugzwangerone (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures

[edit]

I have removed your comments at Talk:Wikipedia because they are too hard to follow. That page is for discussion about improving the article Wikipedia. If you have a comment about the article, make a new section with a meaningful heading ("Gender bias"?) and start by quoting the text that you think should be changed. Do not use capitals. Do not express your feelings. Say what you think is wrong about the quoted text and what it should be why. Articles are based on reliable sources so it would help to give a couple of sources to support your proposal. Keep it short because other people have limited time and that should not be wasted. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main page (Wikipedia) page is not NPOV

[edit]

"Gender Bias" Reads (Readability Issue) as the Primary Criticism of Wikipedia I am outlining a structural concern within the article (Wikipedia) as written.

Third Paragraph Line One acknowledges criticism of Wikipedia but it does so incorrectly and therefore a change is needed

Wikipedia has been criticized for its uneven accuracy and exhibiting systemic and gender bias What the above sentence is saying, in its placement and context, is that gender bias is second only to accuracy. This differs from The highly referenced Article "Criticism of Wikipedia" [1]

Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political and national lines. In addition conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven application of policies. The main point of that article as written; Most criticism of Wikipedia has been directed towards its content, its community of established users, and its processes. Gender Bias is not mentioned until the third sentence, as placed it is of minor importance. Its importance is further diluted because other concerns are mentioned. The main point may be in the second sentence of the paragraph, The principal criticism it receives concerns the online encyclopedia's factual reliability, the readability and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its exposure to political and biased editing. Conclusion Recommendation - Request for Comments

A contra-view of the topic in the form of criticism should be and is included in the third paragraph. Wikipedia should maintain a NPOV when it talks about itself The first sentence of the third paragraph should be changed as to be consistent with (the more accurate) "Criticism of Wikipedia Page" Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia
I am not sure what the NPOV (neutral point of view) issue is, so I hope I am not missing the gist of your message. You have highlighted a potential issue with consistency, but not necessarily neutrality, as far as I can tell. The information in Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what other Wikipedia articles say. In other words, if you'd like to change the information in Wikipedia, it's best to evaluate the reliable sources, not the Criticism of Wikipedia article. I hope this helps. Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Yes, that is what started me editing Wikipedia.Zugzwangerone (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All your 110 contributions are shown in this link. Your first edit was at Mantal which seems to be a unit of measurement—I don't see any kind of pornography. Please be precise when making claims—what is the name of the article that had a link to pornography? That can happen when an article has a valid external link, but years later, the owner of the website does not renew their DNS entry, and a scammer then takes over the URL. The scammer can put anything on their website which an article might still link to. That problem affects all websites, not just Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing under an IP address. Yes there was a link which led to Child Pornography. What was worse was the lack of process to work through the issue within Wikipedia. Terrance Duffy may have been an earlier edit which was owned by his in house pr dept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8chan#Inclusion_of_the_link_to_8chan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_A._Duffy

Look, my conclusion is that it takes tons of work to stop Wikipedia from disappearing or being hijacked by whoever wants to edit it. It's an unwinnable battle. Administrators are stuck protecting Wikipedia content because it was designed to be open. The operating culture is opposite of open, it is a closed culture by necessity.

Wikipedia is closed to new editors, introspection, correction, and critical thinking. The content is flawed even on the main page.

My perception, bottom line, is that Wikipidia functions as a social network for folks who have been involved with it for years. If you want to spend years of your life on Wikipedia that is totally ok.

There is no mechanism for fixing the unfixable. Zugzwangerone (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This entire section, excepting my remark, and the OP's comments originally posted here, is a copyright violation. You cannot copy material within Wikipedia without proper attribution. You should remove this. 174.212.222.125 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave Wikipedia to you guys - my conclusion is that this is your Social Network

[edit]

I will leave Wikipedia to you guys. I made the mistake of participating by removing a link that pointed to Child Pornography, editing a page owned by a public relations department, added a quote in a Science Fiction entry (Rollerball) and tuned a biased entry on an Islamic sect that failed to mention it ties to terrorism and murder.

My conclusion after this experiment-experience is that Wikipidia is a Social Network for its longtime participants.

The process of Wikipedia being unworkable, "protecting" the established body of content has become the main priority and has driven a defensive culture (by necessity). The content itself does not seem to be examined or bench checked via critical thinking.

Lots of people rely on Wikipedia because its melded into the Google Search engine. I was Irked when e everything I was looking at on Wikipedia was blatantly wrong. (or worse link to child porn, and an inability in process to quickly correct the problem.)

I will leave your Social Network to you. In closing: 

Zero, "finds things, and loses them, and confuses itself." Jonathan's goal is to find out how the corporations make their decisions, instead of finding an explanation he encounters doubletalk, exposing the fragility, imperfections, and impermanence of volatile memory, electronic records, and digitized encyclopedic knowledge.[13]



In terms of product, almost every article I have looked at is materially incorrect. This even includes the main page where it describes itself. Zugzwangerone (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Chronology

As a user I wanted to find out about Qanon
Click on the link child porn
Edit war
Two emails to the Wikipedia Foundation

There was no process. eg Report link to illegal content?

Below is what it takes to remove a link to child porn? Is this acceptable or reasonable?

Some IP editors have recently begun edit warring over the inclusion of the external link to 8chan, so I figured I'd start a discussion here. I'm inclined to agree with them that we should not be linking to a website where we know child porn is hosted; while Wikipedia is not censored, we also don't want to be directing our readers towards viewing content that could put them into legal trouble (not to mention the personal moral implications of viewing such content). GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, 8chan does have a bit of a reputation in this area. Due to the nature of image boards, it is hard to say if and when child porn is hosted, but 8chan may not always be careful or prompt about removing it. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, 8chan is best known for the controversies over its links to mass shooters. 8chan is not a dark web site requiring a special browser, so anyone can click on the link to access the site with a standard browser.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Well it's certainly easy to say that child porn has been posted there, as we do say so in-article. Whether or not there is currently any there, I have no idea and certainly no intention of going to find out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Disagree. While indecent images have been hosted there it's worth mentioning that they are actively removed by moderators given that it's against the site's rules. Yes, it gets posted too often and sometimes the moderators are too slow to remove them, but calling the site explicitly a host for child porn is inaccurate. Furthermore, I think this an issue of the past rather than one of the present. Keep in mind that 8chan isn't the only site that has been guilty of this: 4chan itself has also been known to have CP posted and be slow to act on it, and yet we still link to them. — Czello 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I'm not an expert on the stuff posted on 8chan either. The moderators at 4chan are very strict about child porn and will remove it quickly. The problem is that the content on image boards is changing constantly, so you never know exactly what you will get.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC) They're certainly more strict than they used to be -- at one point 4chan suffered similarly to 8chan. The content still is being removed on 8chan, however. I suppose the best comparison I can make is to say that 8chan isn't 12chan -- the later of which was explicitly there for child porn, whereas with 8chan it's an imageboard with slow-to-act moderators. — Czello 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Czello: Do you have a source for that? If that's the case we may need to update the article text. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: Sorry, a source for which part specifically? — Czello 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC) @Czello: All of it; that moderators actively remove it, that the site is not a host of child porn, and that it's a past issue rather than one of the present. The article currently says The site is also known for hosting child pornography and your comments suggest we should mention that that impression is based on a past version of the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, I'm afraid not. The only thing I can say in their "defence" is that illegal content is against the site's rules. Everything I've said is what I've heard anecdotally about the site (which I realise isn't proof of anything). I suppose what I'd be interested in is knowing whether it's an active distributor of CP. — Czello 16:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Got it, thanks for clarifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC) A link to 8chan should definitely not be included and there really isn't any legitimate reason to do so. That site (and its offshoots) is actively monitored and surveilled by multiple law enforcement agencies around the world that most likely log each and every visitor. Whatever the mods there do or don't do is irrelevant. 8chan is viewed by international law enforcement on the same level as ISIS/ISIL and other terrorism sites. This shouldn't even be an issue as a simple Google search will reveal the extent of international law enforcement surveillance and monitoring of sites like 8chan. Laval (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, considering the nature of 8chan, I'm surprised this article isn't locked to prevent IP editing. Laval (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Query: is there actually any Wikipedia policy that would forbid linking to 8chan? — Czello 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC) WP:ELNO includes "Sites containing ... content that is illegal to access in the United States". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Fair enough; if the site is still prone to hosting illegal content then it's appropriate to remove the link. — Czello 17:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) @Czello and GorillaWarfare: WP:ELOFFICIAL explicitly overrides ELNO so I don't see anything that would forbid linking to it. There have been plenty of other discussions about legally questionable sites e.g. pirate bay, sci-hub, silk road which have concluded that we should include links to the sites. In this case, there's probably even less reason to not link, as I imagine that CP would only constitute a small portion of the content there. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC) This is an excellent point; I didn't realise that WP:ELOFFICIAL takes priority here. In which case I'd like to reiterate my belief the link should be included. — Czello 17:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC) User:Czello, there is no harm in leaving the link out while we are discussing things--and next time, please do not revert without an explanation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC) My reversion was to undoing edit warring; the IPs had been instructed to discuss this on the talk page and had clearly refused, so my actions were appropriate. — Czello 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Sure, but "reversion to undo edit warring" is a Contradictio in terminis, and all I am asking is that you EXPLAIN what you are doing. In an edit summary. That's not too much to ask. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Dude, relax. When there's an edit war going on it's pretty standard to revert to the status quo as per WP:BRD; and I think it's fairly self evident that's what the edit was (especially given that the IP had already been asked to take it to the talk page). It's not a big deal. — Czello 18:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC) I have semi-protected the article for now. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC) This is one of those "err on the side of caution" debates for me. What hurts the project more: Removing the link, or leaving it? in this case, leaving it does open the can of worms slightly, as even Google will not return a link to 8chan when searched. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The reason why they are currently on the somewhat weird .top domain is because they were having difficulty finding any domain and web host that would have them after the various mass shooter controversies. The site is controversial to the point where even search engines are reluctant to tell you where it is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC) This is a very interesting conversation, however I'm having an issue with the line of reasoning here. We are arguing that because the site hosts illegal content, we should not provide a link. However, has anybody here presented evidence that the website itself still endorses the distribution of illegal content? As far as I can tell, the 8chan moderation team has cracked down on the distribution of illegal content and made it against site rules to distribute said content. If we are talking about removing a link to a site because users, against the wishes of the site's administration, break the rules and upload illegal content, then would that standard not be applicable to sites such as YouTube, Twitter, 4chan, Pornhub, etc...? Even though those sites clearly outlaw the posting of certain types of illegal content, illegal content is still often posted and sometimes it takes a very long time for moderators to remove said content. What makes 8chan different? Somebody above also mentioned sites like thepiratebay, which actively takes part in what many censors would call illegal, yet we still keep the site link active. Overall, I would argue that it doesn't make sense to remove links to sites like 8chan, and, frankly, it would also send a bad precedent. If Twitter says it does not allow for minors to post nudes on it's website, yet somebody finds a minor's nudes on the website, does that mean Twitter is complicit in the distribution of Child Pornography and should have it's link removed? Or does it mean that Twitter moderators were not alerted of that minor's nudes quickly enough? I think that we must determine that 8chan is STILL endorsing the distribution of child pornography before we remove their link on the basis that they endorse the distribution of child pornography. Sixfish11 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC) Agree completely, and articulated better than I did previously. — Czello 19:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) @Sixfish11: (I have a COI.) Let me try to explain. Here on Wikipedia, we ban open WP:PROXYs. m:No open proxies notes that paid proxies are included on this. Admins, bureaucrats and stewards make a concerted attempt to enforce this, regularly updating the list of IP blocks to cover newly allocated/reassigned IPs, as IPs are constantly in flux. WP:SCHOOLBLOCK makes it simpler to block a range from a school or university with a disruptive student, and historically reports were even made to network admins in a concerted effort, and are still often done by admins acitng on their own. This means that to be able to edit Wikipedia anonymously, you pretty much need to use a consumer ISP. IP's can't upload images, either. So, through many years of trial and effort, Wikipedia has clamped down on abuse despite allowing anonymous editing. As far as other social networks go, it's verification galore: phone number, email address, and IP blocks as well because every site has long-term abusers, not just Wikipedia. 4chan, also, requires Google CAPTCHA and blocks almost every VPN in existence, sometimes I've found them to be even stricter than Wikipedia. Now let's consider 8chan. No perceptual hash database, no PhotoDNA, no machine learning attempting to even identify child sexual abuse content (CSAM), all VPNs are pretty much allowed, there are barely any moderators, and a proud display of CDA 230 which allows doing the absolute minimum. Owned by Jim Watkins, who registered domains containing terms as suggestive as xxxpreteen going back to the 90's, according to Mother Jones.([3]) So, yes, are the rules technically against it? Sure. Do they act and delete specific images when asked by a quasi-governmental agency like NCMEC? Yes. But do they do anything substantive and proactive to actually stop this content? No, not to my knowledge. I had many ideas for improving these processes that Watkins all shut down as "not legally required", "too expensive", "why bother" etc. Etc. Deleting CSAM isn't enough when they do next to nothing to actually control who is using the website, and when they have no interest in placing any automated filter! Read his Congressional testimony for yourself:([4]) Moderation is mostly done by volunteers. There are no algorithms for content moderation in place. All 8chan moderation relies on human volunteers and one automated “bot” account (called botmod) to remove illegal content and spam, automated or human, based only on keywords. They are proud of this! When a user can just repost it, and NCMEC or whoever has to file another report, ad infinitum, for us to close our eyes and say, "oh well that Jim sure is smart with his legal loopholes that allow his users to run rampant nonstop", and not consider the actual effect of what his administration has wrought, which is non-stop CSAM and every other sort of illegal content, including a user who has flagrantly and unlawfully impersonated a federal agent since 2018 with no ban in sight, is unconscionable. 8chan is not Twitter, YouTube, or PornHub. Watkins does the bare legal minimum and is proud of that. The link removal was the right decision. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 02:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC) There is a difference between "Free Speech" which is constitutionally protected and "Unprotected Speech" which is not constitutionally protected. Unprotected speech is expressly forbidden under law.

A link to Child Pornography has the unwitting effect of making Wikipedia Editors, Users, and Administrators Law Breakers. Law Breakers in the worst sense because a single Cached image from an unintentional viewing of Child Pornography meets the standard for prosecution.

There is an obligation on the part of Administrators and Wikipedia to remove Child Pornography and other unprotected speech immediately on receiving notice. Notice was given when I made edits to the page (which were ignored by administrators) and in the talk pages. This was a process failure on the part of Wikipedia.

If you are linking to Child Pornography: why are you doing so? Why are you doing so here? Are you aware of the potential ramifications to yourself and others?

This is a very complex issue in law v freedom. There is enough depth on the 8Chan Wikipedia page to provide a reasonable overview of the topic. A link to unprotected speech in the form of Child Pornography does not add to an overview; instead it creates law breakers. (some intentional and other unintentionally)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative group process but for this kind of issue takedown has to occur swiftly from the point of notice. without discussion or time lag. There really is no ambiguity whatsoever in removing a link to Child Pornography. I tried to remove the link several times and was ultimately locked from Wikipedia edits on my cell phone. I was obligated to report this matter to the US DOJ and I copied the Wikimedia Foundation.

At issue is a Wikipedia process failure, with the correct end result. Suggest administrators speak to in house counsel who should develop a policy that can be followed regarding the reporting finding and removing of links directing to Child Pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.10.104 (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(I have a COI.) Absolutely the link should be gone and stay gone. For one thing, all the related domains are totally blackholed from Google search. So, Wikipedia was one of the top referrers. For another thing, 8chan, since being absorbed into the Watkins empire, always has been absolutely dogshit at removing child sexual abuse materials. As I told Mother Jones, Watkins didn't and doesn't care. I had many ideas for improving the situation and they were all put off or rejected. The site is anonymous and allows VPNs to post... Without some kind of machine learning to classify images, and a database of perceptual hashes, as is used on all the major social networking sites today, it's going to be absolutely flooded constantly. What they do over there is the absolute minimum: per Watkins, as long as you comply with everything NCMEC sends your way, you never get shut down. That, at least, seems true. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: But if Twitter doesn't remove their page, which has an indirect link to 8kun, why would Wikipedia have to? Is it because it's okay to show the indirect link? Alexiscoutinho (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC) There are many reasons that links should not be in the article. We're trying to be decent humans first, keep users legally safe second, and improve the article third. Is the discussion now about whether or not we should include the site's Twitter as a WP:PRIMARY source? That's a good question. Otherwise Twitter is absolutely not the standard-bearer for ethical behavior, but this talk page is not the place to discuss that website's many, many problems. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Just want to strengthen the consensus against inclusion of the link here with an argument from WP:IAR (to override WP:ELOFFICIAL): we are first and foremost an encyclopedia and it is not meaningful factual information to provide a link to a site with sporadic, varying content that includes child pornography, incitement to domestic terrorism, and content which degrades too many demographics to list here. It is no service to our readers to link to the website. There is no requirement for us to do so. — Bilorv (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC) The site is meaningful factual information to support and serve as evidence for what the article is talking about. I think it is enough reason to not show the direct link just because it is marginally harmful, not because it is meaningless/useless. In other words, I would accept removing 8kun.top by some other previous arguments. However, as I suggested previously, our concerns don't directly apply to their Twitter page, which is kinda clean by itself. It would be the closest possible to a primary source. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC) To clarify, being a primary source is usually a bad thing. Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources in almost all cases. We are not obligated to include information which is only supported by unreliable primary sources. Nothing which comes from 8chan (including 8chan's twitter account) can be assumed to be factual. Even for anodyne companies, we don't give promotional sources the benefit of the doubt. 8chan's Twitter account is primary, unreliable, and involved, so it is a very, very poor source. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Fair enough. Alexiscoutinho (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Alexiscoutinho: (I have a COI.) I'm not saying we have a legal requirement not to link to them, just a moral requirement and a strong case that not linking to them increases user trust and safety. The case of Twitter is in any case different for two reasons: (1) on Twitter, they're writing about themselves, not us about them; (2) that Twitter account can't really be updated to be about 8kun without giving the game away that 8chan == 8kun, so they have essentially abandoned it. It's likely that if they were still using it a lot Twitter would have banned it by now, I think. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC) @Psiĥedelisto: My layman's understanding of the issue leads me to question that we have a moral duty to avoid linking to the site; at the same time, I can't justify disagreeing with you about the telos of 8chan. Given that there is probably no person in the universe better qualified to speak on the history of the site, I am going to second your claims here (for those readers not paying close attention: Psiĥedelisto definitely knows more than you about this and should be given the benefit of the doubt on it). jp×g 15:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Zugzwangerone (talk) 03:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zugzwangerone&oldid=995577537"