Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (miscellaneous) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (miscellaneous). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Absent user

User:Phaedriel has been one of our most valued editors. But she's not edited since taking a wiki-break in September. Does anyone know if she's formally left the project or is just busy with real life? Mbisanz (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

She's probably taking a full-internet break after she was constantly targetted over the summer by a sockpuppeteer. Will (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Geez... Let her have her time with her kid. If she comes back, great! if not, more power to her. Good luck and great wishes to her & her child. --Storkk (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for seeming insensitive, that would be a good reason to take a wiki-break. Mbisanz (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Productive places to assist the project?

At this late date I have become interested in wikipedia. Are there places or projects where new editors can be of particular assistance, while still having limited experience with policies and best practices? Pastepotpete (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Late date"? Why, no - wikipedia is just getting started! The best way to participate is to find articles on topics that you have knowledge about and improve them. Start small, gather experience, keep going as long as you want; there's no royalroad to wikipediadom. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
And there is a huge amount of maintenance to be done; if you pick a particular type, it's relatively easy to come up to speed on that fairly quickly. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Random sample

I just thought I'd share this. I hit "Random article" 100(+) times in a row today and made a tally of the kinds of pages that appeared. I have been copyediting random articles lately, and I thought I was seeing a disproportionate number of certain types, so I made up categories and sampled, throwing out disambigs until I reached 100:

Pop Culture 24, Sports 11, Corporate 3, Computer software 2, Political 2, Towns nobody ever heard of before 11, and Other 47.

"Other" was all regular encyclopedia stuff. I think the "Sports" count is low. Who knew there were so many cricketers? --Milkbreath (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Image:Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png. :) Splash - tk 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are there Mods here?

Or is everything edited and reedited by anyone? Why I ask is because it seems everytime you turn around, some jerk reverts an edit they may not agree with when the edit or addition is a factual entry that any moron would or should know. They seem God-like and have their own little community and it makes me wonder if a bunch of nerds are sitting around the world behind their fancy little computers changing things and discussing the newest episode of 'Heroes'.

It really needs to stop and needs to be a limit to their antics or most protential contributors will simply leave and go elsewhere. This site is suppose to be open to everyone and NOT controlled by a select few.

Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.75.40 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody answered this, so .... Yes, everything can be edited and re-edited by anyone. Yes, any "jerk" can revert, etc., etc. However, significant articles do attract a group of editors who watch it for changes, and vandalism and nonsense edits, in that case, disappear quickly; further, when there is serious contention about how an article is to stand, there are processes for dispute resolution. I don't know if the anonymous editor who wrote the above will ever see this, because watchlists, which would normally be the way that I'd learn that a comment of mine attracted a response, aren't very useful for anonymous editors unless they have fixed IP. (Not sure if they work even then.) If you really want to get serious about Wikipedia, register an account and use it, and watch any article you edit. The default setting, I think, is that when you edit an article, it's added to your watchlist.

So you could just put back what that "jerk" deleted. But watch out. If you are thinking of the other editor as a "jerk," you just might run afoul of the community disfavor. By itself, fine, but if you get into an edit war over a content dispute, and you have acted rudely as a result of the way you are thinking, it can bounce back to you. I'd suggest reading over the information accessible about Wikipedia, the guidelines about how to edit. I'd start with Wikipedia:About, which is accessible as a link from any page, plus from this very sentence, and read it all, plus follow the links.

Let me take the image presented above of this "little community," and let the writer consider if someone else might look at his or her community in the same way, as having some deficient way of being, thinking, or whatever. Definitely, there are problems with the way Wikipedia is organized, or not organized, but it is a community building itself and the process takes time. There are no moderators, period. There is no a priori censorship. There are administrators who have the power to do things like block users for vandalism, and a few other tasks that aren't given to everyone. But administrators, themselves, aren't supposed to use their administrative powers beyond necessity, and not on behalf of their own point of view or personal opinions.

It's an experiment, a very interesting one, even an historic one, if you look around. --Abd (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about my Masters project

Hi, my name is Thor Polukoshko. I am an English Masters student at Simon Fraser University (in British Columbia, Canada), and I am currently writing a research paper on reliability, truth, consensus, and Wikipedia. The main objective of my paper is to find a definition of "truth" as it applies to an online, collaborative project. I will be working mostly from what Jurgen Habermas defines as the "consensus theory of truth," focusing on Wikipedia’s hope that consensus will eventually lead to a higher level of reliability.

I believe that the medium of communication is an integral part in the reception of any work that criticizes or discusses a specific medium—this is in part simply because of the fact that the work draws attention to the notion of “medium” as a possible subject for discourse. Thus, my project will take the form of a Wikipedia article, not only in the form of the finished product, but also in the process of its conception. By using only articles and other information found on public-access websites, I will be working within the realm of the “unreliable” media which I discuss. I believe that citing non-academic and other “unreliable” sources as my primary and secondary texts enables me to better develop my own guidelines for truth and reliability, and allows me to, in the process of compiling my notes, come to my own definitions of the two terms. Not only does this process help me, as a writer, to develop my own notions of reliability, but it also allows my readers to do the same. Because I will display the project online, and because it uses only internet sources, the employment of hypertext and hyperlinks will grant, to anyone who reads the essay, the same access to the sources I use. This means that my readers may easily check and evaluate the sources for themselves.

The reason I am posting this here is because I would like to post my essay on my Wikipedia user page when it is completed in the next week or two. This way, it will be open to improvement (or vandalism), and will introduce a collaborative element, and a degree of consensus, to the project.

Is posting an entire 15-20 page essay on my user page an acceptable Wikipedia practice? Or is there a better place for me to do this? If it is acceptable, is there any possible way for me to enlist a few volunteer Wikipedians to make changes/deletions/additions to my project? Since the essay is about consensus I want the methodology to involve some degree of consensus, and I’m afraid that if I just post the essay on my user page nobody will even touch it.

If anyone has any suggestions or comments about my proposal, I would be very grateful. Thorblood (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: verifiability, not truth. See also Category:Rouge admins. Suggest you post your proposal in user space. DurovaCharge! 23:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
For use in Wikipedia articles, as this is a research paper Wikipedia:No original research would be an issue. Text such as background material and description of a topic could be used in Wikipedia (probably one to two thirds of such a paper). Putting it in user space reduces the risk of being deleted due to WP:NOR violations although using WP services for an unrelated collaborative project is a taking of service. However, you might preface your paper with a reminder that the text is under the GFDL and can be copied over to relevant articles, as that is the case and donating text to the project makes your text be not unrelated. -- SEWilco 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
if you do post it on user space, please be aware of the usual attention span here, and considered posting a summary with a link elsewhere. You might also ask your advisor if it is by any chance good enough to be publishable as a peer-reviewed article. DGG (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The essay is now up on my user page. If you're interested in the topic, take a look. A few people have suggested that I shouldn't promote the editing of a non-Wikipedia project (so only edit it if you feel the urge to...), but as I do discuss Wikipedia policies, please feel free comment on the discussion page of the essay.Thorblood (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with Jimbo Wales' assertion that Wikipedia should be used as a source by students

This is a rather ignorant thing to say, considering that Wikipedia itself does not even meet WP:RS. Jtrainor (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Jimbo's talk page is over there. >Radiant< 22:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is used as a source by many of my research colleagues. I have heard it cited at talks and see it referred to on professional mailing lists of the highest scholarly caliber. None of these researchers would cite Wikipedia in a paper, but that does not mean that they refuse to use it as a source. Students who are taught to evaluate sources critically will have no difficulty using Wikipedia for what it is. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I first took it seriously, when a person in my field known for an extremely rigorous attitude, quoted a WP definition in a peer-reviewed article. DGG (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, we are aware of the fragile nature of the sources on some articles, but are they any more fragile than 'reliable sources'. I now find myself wanting to write [- citation needed -] in all respectable newspapers- and in every text I read. Better the student, gains experience with sources here, where everything is hotly debated, than starts with dogmatic certainty. IMHO. ClemRutter (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

With regards to commenting on his talk page, he stated it publically, to a news organization, therefore, I feel it reasonable to respond to it publically. Jtrainor (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't allow my students to use Wikipedia as a source. Yes, some articles are great, but many are bloody awful, and even the good ones get assaulted by vandals and POV pushers. A student who has not already mastered the relevant field may not be able to tell the wheat from the chaff. Grad students and professionals -- who have more finely-tuned BS detectors -- may be able to make effective use of Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between using WP as a source and citing WP as a source. The latter it much more problematic in theory, but ordinarily encyclopedias aren't cited anyway. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
the point is that the best use of WP is to find sources. if one does use at as a source, one had better cite it, anything else is academic dishonesty. But Raymond, why don't teach your students how to distinguish the good from the bad articles? and then how to make the bad ones better? In the rest of the world there's also a lot of junk to recognize--with WP they have a chance to do something about it. DGG (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Distinguishing good from bad sources is something I spend a lot of time on (see e.g., this, which I'd welcome comments on via email). Evaluating WP articles is different from evaluating other kinds of sources, and I don't think I can justify focusing specifically on Wikipedia. There's only so much that one can fit into a semester. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This may be a little tangential, but a company I am consulting for, doing QA work reviewing an IT system, is using a saved copy of a Wikipedia article as documentation in a test script to verify the values for ISO 3166-1 numeric in a lookup table. Certainly made me do a double-take. older ≠ wiser 04:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in further discussion, Jimbo already addressed this concern (before this thread was posted here on the Pump) on his talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Disgusting. He has stated that some, shall we say, overzealous editing on the part of the BBC has left some of the important context from his comments. His full position is stated on his talk page; he has also asked the BBC to run a correction. Further discussion and comment belongs on Jimbo's talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a source in a serious academic setting any more than any other encyclopedia. If you are doing research, Wikipedia should be used as a bibliography. Any article is only as good as its sources, and if you are doing research, why not go to the horse's mouth, as it were. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
He would have been correct to add 2 letters and say "Wikipedia should be used as a REsource by students" Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

somebody anybody needs to contact spartan-james (a user) and tell him to check his talk page i really really need his help. really --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Be patient. He will check it when he logs in. - FISDOF9 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

ok..Just a little spooked thats all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOMALY-117 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A hint. If you really want to reach more users with such a request, putting the name of the person in question in the section heading, as well as in the edit summary, will allow it to be seen by *far* more editors. A headline like "Important, read this" or "Help" or "!!!!!!" doesn't attract much notice, after all, some of us get hundreds of spam mails with subject headers like that every day. If I'm watching changes to this page, I'll only see what is in the subject header, maybe, and definitely what is in the edit summary. If I want to look at this page, I'll also see the section title in the page index at the beginning. "!!!!!" will *not* attract me at all. But if I knew spartan-james, I'd look.
--Abd (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Another hint: his "Email this user" link is functional. Most people check their email at least once a day. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

problem soloved ANOMALY-117 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The GA "one reviewer" system violates "anyone can edit"?

A GA review does not prevent anyone else from reviewing (or editing) an article. This seems to be an unfamiliarity with the GA process: like FA, having an article under review does not prevent the article in question from being edited. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Unfamiliarity??? :-) No, I'm not referring to the GA system preventing editing the article; I'm suggesting that it should explicitly allow nay encourage nay beg for multiple reviewers to examine and review an article. The current system discourages the practice. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, isn't this just the opposite of the last GA proposal you were making back in September? That GA reviewers would not have the ability to remove stuff from the articles they review? You wanted a strict limitation placed on GA reviewers: they couldn't touch the citations in the article, and were excluded from the "anyone can edit" motto. That proposal wasn't popular. Now the proposal has gone in the opposite direction, invoking WP:OWN to include even talk page discussions. I think there's too much bureaucracy already, and would prefer to avoid instruction creep. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Good granny, obfuscation runs rampant. The cases are unrelated; this is sophistry. The prior was regarding citations. Come up with a substantive reply, please. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I won't bother. Your use of the term "sophisty" indicates that I am willfully deceiving someone with the question above, and your "Come up with a substantive reply, please." is dismissive and uncalled for. I am not interested in having this sort of conversation as I don't find your comments remotely civil, and feel personally attacked. I will not reply to you again, as you clearly want. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgive me if my reply comes across a confused but this seems like a very odd question. A GA review is just that...a review. It is not really an edit but more of an observation and assessment. While I suppose everyone has ownership of their own opinions, no one person's opinions (even a GA reviewer's) is the sole and final word on a subject. If someone wanted to do their own review or disagreed with another editors reviews they can always take it on the talk page, WP:GA/R or with the original reviewer. So in short, no it doesn't violate the spirit of being the encyclopedia "any can edit" and I really can't see how it could be construed as such. AgneCheese/Wine 13:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You are not confused. Practice runs counter to explicit text (or lack thereof, in this case) in the GA pages. nothing forbids multiple reviewers, AFAIK. However, there is nothing at all to even suggest the possibility of multiple reviewers. The practice is "one article, one reviewer." This thread started as a fork of a thread in which I suggested TfD for a template which is put on WP:GAN to say that a particular reviewer is reviewing a page. The template now has explicit verbiage inviting comment; at the time it did not. It was an implicit statement of ownership of a review. All I'm looking for, at present, is explicit text across all GA-related pages inviting nay entreating multiple reviewers to look at the same article. We are discussing an unwritten rule backed up by a simple lack of text counteracting the rule, so arguments about the exisiting page verbiage are off the mark. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Even though I did try, Ling.Nut still does not understand the difference between implication and inference. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The great thing about the GA system is it's simplicity. People have been trying to add bureaucracy to GA forever, but it actually works very well. Having one GA reviewer is fine; if people are unsure about an article they can ask for a second opinion (this happens frequently), and if someone completely disgrees with a GA review it can be taken to GA Reassessment. If we change this to make multiple reviewers necessary then eventually we may as well scrap it and merge it with FAC. Firsfron has tried to explain that a reviewer doesn't own an article, and that this is not implied by {{GAReview}}, but to no avail. - Shudde talk 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. First of all, "reviewing" isn't "editing", so the heading of this section is completely in error. Second, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; if a bunch of editors set up a system that works for them, offering to review articles, then the rest of the community has no right to tell them how to do it, unless the process violates a specific policy (voting, officers), which isn't the case here. Third, no one owns an article, so no one has the right to complain to the community at large if a particular article isn't given the GA designation. And fourth, if the problem is with internal contradictions or lack of documentation of the GA process, it's up to the editors in that process to fix it, not editors at the village pump.
Why don't we all disperse now, and go about our business, accept any advice that others are willing to give with appreciation, and take intrinsic satisfaction in editing work well done? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) At no point did I say a reviewer owns an article. It's you that doesn't understand. I was talking about limiting reviews to one (and crucially, only one reviewer). But having said that, I abandon this useless non-conversation. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

scarface:the world is yours

can someone provide me with a map for the game scarface:the workd is yours. maybe a web site, or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.201.83 (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GameFAQs - http://www.gamefaqs.com - is loads better for that sort of thing. Neil ☎ 11:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Missed by Recent Changes patrol

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mo%C3%AFse_Katumbi_Chapwe&diff=prev&oldid=176924437

Interesting but not appropriate for the article mainspace page. If this person knows of reliable sources, this would be good. I am trying to improve the article of the province of which this man (the article) is governor.

I'm sharing this link because it is the most unusual edit that I have ever seen. This person probably means well. He's a newbie. And he knows about the man from first hand experience. If only WP would allow this!Congolese (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If only this WAS the only edit I have seen like this. Any RC patroller has seen personal commentary like this a lot. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I also see a number of edits like this. Because the ones I see tend to be on topics about which it can be difficult to find information (e.g., towns & persons in Ethiopia), sometimes I'll move them to the talk page. That way another editor who has access to better information than me has a starting point to research the topic. -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Secret mailing lists

Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia The Guardian has published an article about the recent Durova mess, it's an interesting outside perspective on internal drama. --arkalochori |talk| 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite The Guardian: The Register, an online news publishing. The website is pretty consistent in the nature of its criticism of Wikipedia. Which, if useful for nothing else, must get them a nice number of page views. It's food for thought, and as such, tastes better with a grain of salt. GracenotesT § 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but note that so many Wikipedians and Wikipedia admins think that any and all criticism of Wikipedia has no merit and therefore we should "consider the source" and that's the end of it. That's just a tad elitist and narrow-minded wouldn't you say? I suppose all the criticism Wikipedia has received over the past week from the readers of Slashdot (in three separate articles) has no merit (because of course it's critical of Wikipedia). Am I correct? --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, I'd copied a citation template and had gotten confused. Thanks for pointing that out. --arkalochori |talk| 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd comment, but I'm too scared I'll end up The List and be banhammered next time I mess up a vandalism revert or accidentally use strong language. Slashdot hat picked up the story too. There is no Cabal. Yeah, right. CharonX/talk 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If that were to actually happen, you can always drop me a line :-) Go ahead ans say what you want to say. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Or otherwise, send it per e-mail
Wow, what a stretch. - Rjd0060 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After talking with Durova, Slimvirgin, and also briefly with Jimbo Wales:

  • Durova was acting on her own and made a mistake, and compounded it by defending it in the wrong way (by referring to evidence off-wiki). Most admins do this once, early on, and learn the lesson. Poor Durova learnt it more spectacularly than most.
  • The list in question is not secret, it's a support-list for people who are being stalked. There wasn't much discussion about the matter on that particular list in the first place. This is not a secret list for admins at all, though there are some admins and other folks who apparently want to help in wikistalking practice. The list is not run by wikipedia or the foundation, it is an independant list of a couple of editors, hence it is not run on foundation servers.
  • Since either way, investigations were not what that list was for, a new list had recently been created for folks cooperating on sockpuppet investigations. The investigations list is very new, and hasn't seen much activity yet. If this had happened a little later, perhaps Durova would have referred to that list instead. As it stands, this new list actually has nothing to do with anything. Even so, it's a good idea to mention it here because some people have referred to a "2nd list", and this is the list that is meant.
  • To atone, Durova has requested to be de-adminned. This has been granted.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim, I know this will make me unpopular (and possibly the subject of retaliation), but I have to comment. I will be brief:
  • Durova, SlimVirgin and Jimbo are all interested parties, each for different reasons. I cannot accept their judgement as unbiased or definitive.
  • Durova now claims she acted on her own, but she said the opposite before. This has never been resolved.
  • There's really no evidence Durova has learned anything. She might have, but it's not obvious. I could point to reasons to question this, but that would make me a bad person, I guess.
  • The lists were effectively secret, in that no one talked about them and one couldn't know they existed unless invited to participate. Just because people didn't call them secret doesn't mean they weren't.
  • Durova only requested deadminning as the least distasteful recourse, after it had been made clear to her that she was out of better options. Add to this the mantra that "the tools" are no big deal, and it's unclear how much weight this atonement should be afforded.
I'm sure that she does feel bad, but I don't see how that's actually relevant to the issues at hand.
Comments and criticism are welcome, at least by me! No offense to Kim, I appreciate his/her efforts. Thanks, sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your first point, whose word exactly would you accept? If you have already decided anyone who is in a position to give you an informed answer is untrustworthy, then there is absolutely nothing anyone can tell you that will change your mind. Is there is little point in discussing it further? Rockpocket 07:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's an ugly misinterpretation of what I actually said. If you don't see how a reasonable person (or even me) could question the impartial value of basing a narrative on the accounts of three people, all of whom are on the "same side" and share vested interests in a similar outcome, then yes, there's little point in further discussion. Are you really unable to see my point? sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked a question: whose account - among those who are in a position to provide information about what happened on that list - would you believe? If you could come up with someone perhaps that person would provide you with the information that would put your mind at rest. Rockpocket 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked a question too, and you answered with another one, but actually I think you did answer, since we're continuing to have a conversation. So now I will answer you, but it's hard because the question is wrong. There's no ONE person whose word I would accept, that's not how I roll. If we're going to just summarize a few interviews, then I supposed I'd like to see fair representation, so perhaps also ask Giano, or Cla68, or poor cuestix. At least give us more than one "side". But what I'd really like is to be able to answer questions and question answers, calmly and in one place. Not ten. Not some fragmented chain of sound and fury, scattered among the archives, RfCs, RfArbs, talk pages, etc (please see my helpful but rudimentary list, compiled per request). I already know what I saw, or think I saw, and I want to know what I didn't see, and I shouldn't be asked to take any one person's word for it. AGF is a noble (a priori) presumption, but it's no substitute for an open accounting.
To the second part of your question: the people who might ease my mind include Durova, the "roughly five" and other recipients of the "evidence" (if they exist), and Jimbo himself. Now, how optimistic are you that their concern for my mental well-being will compel them to step forward and provide the information which has so far eluded us? By all means, if you think you can be of some service, I'll be in your debt!!! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then. I was in receipt of that evidence and I can confirm that what Kim Bruning comments are correct (at least in regards to the involvement of the list, I can't comment on Durova's motivation). Does that make me an interested party too, and therefore unreliable? I do have experience with harassment, true, but I have zero interest in "sleuthing" or WR or launching investigations to find "ripened socks"; a review of my editing history will demonstrate that. As for asking "Giano, or Cla68, or poor cuestix", as far as I am aware those three have had no access to the list (the single email Giano leaked is from a difference source), therefore asking them them about it is entirely uninformative. There are no "sides", there are simply individuals that are in a position to know, and individuals that are not. If you wish to get an accurate answer, you should ask those that have access to the information, not those that don't. If you do that, but then dismiss their answers as unreliable, then there is little anyone can do to better inform you. If you wish to know more, feel free to ask, but in all likelihood you are going to get the same answers as you have from Jimbo and SlimVirgin, not because there is some grand conspiracy, but because that is what happened. Rockpocket 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with someone else. I only mentioned the lists once, to Kim B, and only asserted that they were effectively secret. I still do. You've ignored everything else I've said to focus on that one small side point. You also seem to take this quite personally, and believe it's somehow about you. Please be assured, I consider you almost completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. You keep insisting that I'm unreasonable and can't be helped, which given how much time I've invested in trying to honestly engage with you, is a little insulting. Didn't I make it sufficiently clear that I'm not happy to take ANY one person's word? How many people do you think you are? Do you believe that italics will somehow be more convincing to someone of my limited comprehension?
Perhaps someone with more patience for my intellectual deficits can assist me to understand. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm perfectly aware its not about me, after all I'm not the one whose entire history edit has been to prolong the drama around this incident. Your edit contributions appear to tell a rather different story. I have no idea if you are reasonable or not, but it is unreasonable to expect someone that has no access to information be that one that provide a "fair representation". Draw you own conclusion from that. There is one of me, which means i'm not in a position to offer you anything other than my own word. However if you don't wish to accept my offer of information about the list then that is just fine, i'll leave you to your conspiracy theorizing. Good day. Rockpocket 07:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
My user page begins with the sentence: "I was never much of a wikipedian...", but perhaps you overlooked that on the way to my contributions, thank you for pointing them out anyway. I can't quite say I get the connection, but I'm sure that's my fault. I am happy to accept any relevant information you may possess, please feel free to post it here with my thanks. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Dead horse is dead, and it's apparently a slow news day at The Register. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that so? Please, prove us wrong by releasing whatever archived mails from this gestapo list you have. A campaign is underway for this to happen, it would be good to see some transparency by this being an official act and not something done by a Freedom Ninja. Sukiari (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Making references to the Gestapo is extremely poor taste, and I ask that you refrain from doing so in the future. Please express your concerns and displeasure in a civil manner without using real-life emotive metaphors. Daniel 07:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You can campaign until the cows come home, if there is not any archives of the list (and there ain't) then its not going to do much good except create more drama. Rockpocket 07:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You can ask me to refrain from whatever you want, but I am not going to comply. Perhaps you don't realize how damaging this incident is to the reputation of all Administrators involved with secret activities that may not be in the best interest of the Wikipedia, and this kind of crap certainly flout the policy of openness that is claimed around here. So, ask away but don't expect me to change my verbeage until there is a change in openness on the part of the secret rulers around here. ♥, Sukiari (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to refrain, I was but pointing out the utter pointlessness of campaigning for something that does not exist. Rockpocket 08:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that archives do exist, and suspect they are damaging to some or perhaps most of the participants. Additionally, I was responding to Daniel's 'request' that I refrain from strong language. An interesting point is raised by Snikrsnee, though. We are assured that this is "no big deal" by people who may well be interested parties, but have been offered no proof. The ONLY 'proof' is the archive of this mailing list, which should be released in its entirety, with names and emails perhaps scrubbed but leaving Wikipedia handles in. Otherwise the proof is no proof at all, but a mere claim and one coming from folks who are not well trusted at this time. As I said, I believe that there is much more going on here than we are being told. I doubt this secret gang of Lords will give up their games easily, though. One can always start afresh and be invited into a new secret list, Adminified, and just resume the fun, no?
So, to those who think this is no big deal, and assume that no damage has been done here, you are wrong. Please stop the dismissive hand waving and look at the shockwaves that have rippled across the intertubes. Openness is the only solution I see.Sukiari (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, the list is not archived, and thus you cannot be "sure that archives do exist". They do not. So my advice to you is to stop wasting your time campaigning for them to be released publicly. You are asking for the impossible. Rockpocket 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, this mailing list isn't even controlled by the Wikipedia community, so even if it were to exist, this is the wrong place to ask for such copies. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Prove you wrong that a dead horse is not dead? What? And as far as I understand, there's nothing "official" about the mailing list, no more so than one any other small group of Wikipedians could set up, on their own, to discuss whatever they want to discuss. With a massive userbase, it's not unreasonable for people to use plain old e-mail to discuss some things, as well as other means of communication.
People are also missing the point in all of this. The existence of a small, private list was never the issue, rather it was about taking action based on things that were not discussed in the open. Because of all of this, the community is a little wiser, and the next time someone wants to take action, they will have to be more open about it. There's no reason to tar and feather anyone. -- Ned Scott 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand that this is a big deal. And it is unreasonable to coordinate certain activities in secret, when the point of this whole thing is openness and transparency. Yeah, you called the horse dead. I am not sure it is. The list is hosted by Wikia, and people do download mail via POP3, and certainly the mail isn't deleted every 24 hours whether or not people have read theirs. I'm afraid that what we have here is akin to a cop saying "Move along, nothing to see here" in front of a big flaming crater with a UFO in it. There is no cabal, and there are no UFOs, and this is really no big deal, right? WRONG! As I said above, the dismissive hand waving isn't fooling anybody here. Sukiari (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
So what you are really demanding, is not the (non-existent) archive of the list, but that someone provide you access to their email inbox so you can publish its contents. Good luck with that. To lead the way, why don't you - and everyone who supports your "campaign" - publish every email you have ever received from another Wikipedian. Then we can talk. Rockpocket 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but private mailing lists have been used on Wikipedia ever since the very start. There's one for admins, there's even one for the arbcom, and those are official mailing lists to boot. Have you ever heard of Wikipedia:OTRS? There is a whole group of editors that help deal with private messages concerning copyrights, complaints, and much more. Sometimes content will be blanked from Wikipedia because of an OTRS issue, and the "public" never gets to know what that issue is. This isn't a bad thing, and it's rather necessary. Many of these complaints deal with personal information, legal issues, even death threats.
Wikipedia also has a several anti-vandalism resources that are all hosted off-wiki. We have anti-vandal bots where only a select few are allowed to see their programming code.
Private discussions have always been an essential part to running Wikipedia, and again, that is not the problem. The problem in the !! situation was that a block was made, an action was taken, based on information that could not be reviewed. Some functions of Wikipedia have, are, and will be discussed in private, but blocks of this nature should not be. Believe me, we know that, and even those who stick up for Durova will tell you that we thought the block was bad. We can't control how people will communicate with each other, but we can have a say on what things are actionable based on private evidence.
And rather than this being a cop at a UFO crash saying "move along, nothing to see", this is more like us telling you that you're way late to the party, and people have already started going home. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Seth Finkelstein was the only reporter who contacted me. The others neither checked the facts with me before running the story nor responded to my query afterward. I didn't attempt to contact the Register editors because that publication has a long history of negative articles about Wikipedia. I am very sorry for the ruckus and have no other comment to make at this time. DurovaCharge! 20:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information there. My view is that Wikipedia, as a community, needs to be more aware that when it goes into one of these tailspins and dramafests, that it is likely to lead to coverage like this. In that sense the community's bears some responsibility for the media attention because of the level of "heat" with which the community responded to this. If there had been a calm independent inquiry, followed by a report, and most of the community had restrained themselves, there would have been less of a ruckus. But trying to control or calm the Wikipedia community is like, well, like trying to stem the flood through the dyke, or to use the more common analogy, like trying to put out a forest fire. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, just because Finkelstein writes a column for The Guardian, it doesn't make him a fair and unbiased assessor of Wikipedia. Seth is has a history of conflict with representatives of the Foundation .(Refactored per request Rockpocket 00:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)) Rockpocket 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of that history can, I think, be found by digging behind the red-link Seth Finkelstein. Carcharoth (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lady and gentlemen, there was a time for the community to protect !!, he is a great contributor and got an absolutely undeserved blow by a stupid block, there was a time to protect Giano, he is a great contributor and was threaten with undeserved sanctions for his whistleblowing. I believe it is now time for the community to protect Durova. She also is a great contributor as an editor, mediator and former admin. I do not know if she has learned her lesson (I would if I were in here shoes) but whatever her misunderstandings of WP:SOCK are they are not dangerous since she retired from her admin buttons. I think it is time to stop kicking her while she is down and protect her against unfair criticism in the media (or maybe do something useful like e.g. writing encyclopedia). IMHO she deserves some community protection for all her work she put in this project.

Regarding the "secret mailing lists" there was and is all sorts of closed and semi-closed communication between 5 millions of registered members. The difference with this list that it was hosted on wikia and so is somehow semi-affilated with the foundation. I am not a member of the list (and in fact is surprised that nobody invited me there). Still I can reasonably guess that was there and do not think it was sinister enough to warrant investigation. Anyway the list is obviously have private info on their recipients who are exactly the same people who are targets of stalkers and are very conscious about their privacy. Thus, obviously only people with checkuser access can have an access to the uncensored version of the list. I do not think it is unreasonable to request somebody with a checkuser access who the whistleblowers trust to review the maillist content of the mail lists. It is the only real thing I could think of Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

About protecting Durova, I couldn't agree more. That is why the discussion is taking place here, and not on Durova's talk page or the RfC, and that is why the discussion here should be primarily about the media coverage and corrections of inaccuracies in that coverage, rather than about Durova. The point here is that the media coverage led to people visiting Durova's talk page and seeing people reverting the addition of questions. Naturally, they were worried about cover-ups, and links were provided here to allow those following up the media stories to have a place to discuss things and ask questions, in an open manner, as befits Wikipedia. When the media interest dies down, this discussion should die a natural death and will then only be available from the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova has been consistently one of the most powerful fighters against true cases of major spam and sockpuppetry. Her activity in convincing businesses and even SEOs to contribute usefully has been a major advance in the improvement of Wikipedia in a positive sense. We have everything to gain in encouraging her to continue her activity. Considering the amount she has done correctly, she has been remarkably accurate at it, and has always been willing to rapidly reverse herself the extremely rare times she has been in error (including this one). We must now learn from her work how to do it right ourselves--there is great need of it. DGG (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(per request, am providing links to appropriate references. Please feel free to reposition or reformat for maximum clarity).

(please note that top-posted "Comment from Jimbo" is out of chronological order, which begins under "Indefinite block of an established user")
(please also see accompanying "talk page", on the "Discussion" tab)
(please also see subpages named "/Evidence", "/Workshop", and "/Proposed decision", along with associated talk pages)
(several questions and answers are directly related to this issue)
-- sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 07:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other off-wiki fair and helpful links in understanding Durova's personality and style:

--Laughitup2 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Q&A

Since there is a consensus that questions about this issue should NOT be directed to Durova's talk page, there needs to be a proper place for them. Some people seem to think this is the right place (and who am I to disagree?); but it's not properly structured. I'm adding this heading to provide a clear place for people to ask their questions under.—Random832 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a new request for comments focused away from Durova and onto general aspects of COI investigations and sock-hunting. Durova is not the only editor to engage in these investigations, and when done on reasonable grounds of suspicion it is a valuable role. The questions about Wikipedia secrecy and cover-ups should probably be answered by a short FAQ - not sure where it would be put though. What was done after the Essjay incident? Carcharoth (talk) 10:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
After Essjay there was a long discussion about factual verification of credentials. FWIW I've always been honest about mine. I have a B.A. in history from Columbia College of Columbia University and pursued M.F.A. studies in the writing division of the University of Southern California School of Cinema-Television. Left the latter very shortly before graduation due to health problems. DurovaCharge! 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Rethinking the term "policy"

The whole point of a wiki is lots of people coming together to figure out what the right thing to do is in a particular circumstance. "Policy", then, is not prescriptive but rather descriptive--descriptive of what generally happens in certain types of situations. This means that an argument for a particular action should be justified on its own merits; simply saying "because policy says we must/must not" is not a valid argument, since it rests on a complete reversal of the concept of policy on Wikipedia. Actions should not follow policy; rather, policy follows actions. The right thing to do in a particular situation, whatever it may be, is totally independent of policy. Simply citing policy--even if such a citation is indeed correct and relevant--is not enough; what policy says is irrelevant since its purpose is not to dictate our actions, but rather to describe them after the fact.

Many people fail to grasp this basic distinction, and instead go around insisting that policy on Wikipedia is the exact opposite of what it actually is. They justify actions because "policy says to do it" (I, too, have been guilty of this at times) rather than justifying their actions on their own merits. There is now an entire generation of editors who can recite "policy" forwards and backwards, but don't get what it actually means, or how it applies to actually doing things on Wikipedia--or any other wiki, for that matter. This bureaucratic wonkery needs to stop.

I believe that the single biggest culprit for this is, quite simply, the unfortunate choice of the word "policy" as an appellation for what are in fact nothing more than observations made after the fact. The word "policy" should be reserved for the few "policies" we have that are indeed imperative in nature: copyright policy, maybe BLP, and whatever else is necessary to keep the Foundation and individual editors out of legal trouble; documents that describe a general process used for going about a task (adminship/bureaucratship, article deletion/undeletion, blocking, etc.) should be referred to as, simply, "processes" (the process for accomplishing something being separate from the reasons why it is done). The vast majority of what we now call "policies", including deletion and undeletion policy, blocking policy, notability, most user conduct policy, etc. should be explicitly renamed to "Observations", and make it clear that that their purpose is not to tell editors what they must or must not do but rather let them know what they can likely expect others to do in certain situations.

It may be tempting for some to respond that this is what IAR is for. Don't fall into that trap. The basic assumption of IAR is still that policy as it currently stands is primarily prescriptive in nature; it merely serves to emphasize this basic misunderstanding. When it becomes clear that most of what is now termed "policy" is in fact not, IAR will become useless--because actions, orthodox or not, will be justified on their own merits. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They justify actions because "policy says to do it" (I, too, have been guilty of this at times) rather than justifying their actions on their own merits. Sorry, I've got better things to do with my time than rehashing the logical underpinings of [[WP:NOT] and WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Saying "per policy" is a shorthand way of saying "that issue was decided a long time ago; the people who decided it were presumably right; read the policy; if you don't like it, then propose a change."
Sometimess people disagree on how to interpret a policy; then they can bring that to WP:RFC for discussion. But going back to the basics, and explaining the underpinnings of policies, each and every time, rather than just cite them. No thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The unfortunate choice of the word "policy" to describe these leads some people, including the above user, to believe that we must follow them. Nothing could be further than the truth. Despite the fact that they are called "policies", they are absolutely not prescriptive. All they are are descriptions of what people have done in the past, made after the fact, and they are absolutely not binding on future actions. There's no need to try and change "policy", because these non-"policies" are not a constraint on our actions. All that needs to be done is to decide what's right for the given situation. Prior actions are perhaps useful as an example, but at the end of the day a solution tailored to the situation is what's called for. Thus, the vast majority of what we call "policy" should be called something else instead, to prevent just these kinds of misunderstandings as John Broughton has unfortunately fallen victim to. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurt: What you are stating is basically how policies, guidelines and essays still (de-facto) operate. You'll find that many or most of the older wikipedians adhere to this view. People who don't understand this are sometimes confounded at how older wikipedians seem to get away with all kinds of things, and suspect the existence of a cabal where none exists. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) ps, where is the Real Kurt Weber, and what have you done to him? :-D --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, but the word "observation" isn't helpful as there are many, many pages that are observations in some fashion, and nearly none of them are as accurate or helpful as those we presently call "policy". The good thing about the term "policy" is that people unaware of how the wiki-structure functions will still be compelled to act in a productive fashion as suggested by past consensual decisions - in other words, the term isn't perfect because most people that read it aren't either. >Radiant< 22:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this debate beyond saying that the worshipping of undefinedness and undefinability of policy, as well as other kinds of wikimysticism, are childish and boring. Most stuff on Wikipedia gets done despite them, not because of them. Zocky | picture popups 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, exactly. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"The policy that you can define is not the real policy." -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You're just saying that to drive Zocky nuts, I'm sure ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_3&oldid=1136066392"