User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 107

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Can Jimbo (or anyone) do this?

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He does not consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing.

I am skeptical about this statement. Surely canvassing doesn't cease to be canvassing because the person being canvassed denies that it is? Otherwise I could go to Wikipedia Review, say "hey I need some votes", but add "if you vote, be sure to send me a disclaimer that says that you don't consider this to be canvassing", and be immune to accusations of canvassing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo considers himself to be a special case, I think. Looie496 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The critical phrase is "alerting him to any topic." It means he's interested in participating in discussions on ANY subject whatsoever. It doesn't mean he's going to come down on your side, and it doesn't mean it's impossible to canvass him. If you say "Hey, Jimbo, there's a discussion about WP:FOONOTABILITY going on at Talk:Notability/Foo," he's interested and will throw in his dollar (he has more than 2 cents). If you say "Hey, Jimbo, come help me win this RfC at Talk:Notability/Foo," that's still canvassing, and battleground, and whatever else you might have said. What he's saying is that asking Jimbo to look in is not canvassing just because it's Jimbo; it's still canvassing if asking someone else that would be canvassing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken, I think Jimbo's right on this one. He's asserting that he maintains an open door policy, which is primarily for boosting morale. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think what Jimbo is basically saying is that he would like to be treated like an adult who can make his own decisions, and not have people worry that just because someone says "Jimbo please look at this", he is automatically going to agree with their position. (He's not, necessarily. Sometimes he agrees, and sometimes he disagrees, which is what one would expect.) To a degree, the anti-canvassing policy does not really treat Wikipedia users like adults with free will. And actually it's not a policy, it's a guideline, which supports the idea that potential "victims" of it should be allowed to "opt out". Neutron (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the real point the bit in the parentheses: "(or anyone)"? I suspect that the dislclaimer wouldn't cut much ice for canvassing accusations on the talk pages of mere mortals. DeCausa (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes and no. You can SAY this. If your behavior supports it - if everyone who canvasses you gets an insightful response but no guarantee of support - then people might even believe it. It's on Jimbo's page because his name has so much power that even a neutral alert might be considered canvassing by some. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He can claim it, and we can (and should) ignore it. He is not above policies and guidelines. Many of his powers have been restricted (voluntarily or otherwise) here and elsewhere (Commons) because his judgment and actions didn't always correspond with normal procedures. He has known points of views on some issues, and some people try to get his support because they believe that a) he will agree with them and b) his opinion carries more weight. That neither a) nor b) always work out as wanted by the canbasser doesn't mean that the canvassing isn't attempted, and the disclaimer at the top of this talk page doesn't indicate that people are free to attempt this. As for the canvassing policy treating people as children: many people seem to ignore that the problematic editor in a canvassing situation is not the receiver of the message, but the sender. Although experienced editors could be expected to remove cnavassing posts and to ask the cnavasser to stop, not to encourage them and declare their talk page a policy-free zone... Fram (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I demur. This page has historically been used as a noticeboard - if the post is off-base, Jimbo can and will hat the topic - and I daresay we have seen some lively colloquy which would susceptible to someone shouting "CANVASS" as though they were shouting "Fire" in a theatre. By saying "do not shout 'CANVASS'" here, Jimbo has opened the door to many fruitful discussions. Because so many people follow this page (more than follow most of the regular noticeboards) there is no "net CANVASS" for any "side" of any issue. As a result, CANVASS would seem inapplicable both historically, and pragmatically. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, "canvass" doesn't depend on the result, but on the intention. That canvassing at WP:ANI would be rather stupid doesn't mean that it is suddenly allowed, and we have no such disclaimer at that page or other similar ones. "By saying "do not shout 'CANVASS'" here," he has mainly given a "get out of jail" card to people intent on forumshopping and seeking his support in things like porn images or BLP issues, where he has a tendency to jump in before really checking the facts. Fram (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, it is not "CANVASS" you are concerned with - it is a belief that Jimbo does not actually concern himself with facts. For that charge, I suggest you file an RFC/U on Jimbo -- as it is just an attack when made on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"when made on this page"? So it would be better if I made my comments behind his back? Strange ethics you have. And of course I didn't say that he doesn't concern himself with facts, just that he sometimes takes what is presented to him as fact before really checking it first. Fram (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) (@Fram) Let's say that's 100% correct, then the description of a get out of jail free card is apt. You won't get consensus for sanctioning someone for posting here. You won't be able to close and remove posts here. The only theoretical action you could hope for would be in an individual thread suggesting the closer weight !votes that were a result of a thread here.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather a sweeping statement for something that needs to be seen on a case-by-case basis. Fram (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It becomes rather tedious to include the perfunctory "In my opinion..." before every post, if it makes you feel better feel free to insert it before most things I type. There could be a time when you'll prove me wrong, however my opinion is as I wrote. Cube lurker (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that in addition to me being a special case, another reason I have set this policy for this page is that I think that WP:CANVASS is overused. In many (but not all) cases where I see it cited, it's cited in an effort to suppress discussion of a point of view that someone doesn't like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Which part of

  An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:

  The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion.

  A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.

  On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).

  On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

  Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Do not use a bot to send messages to multiple pages.

   ---wp:CANVASSING

  --seems not to have been read here (or possibly was read but not fully understood)?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the only one, but I can't tell if you've posted that quote because you think posting here does or does not violate that guideline.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks, Cube lurker. IAC, I don't think anybody truly thinks that Jimbo would/could be unduly swayed by over-the-top rhetoric (non-neutrally worded advocacies blah blah). I wasn't referring to that so much. What I'm referencing is that CANVASSING clearly allows notification of concerned editors on their talkpages....... And the longstanding policy of Dr. (honorary, Stevenson; Knox; et al) Wales is to allow all comers free rein (reign?) W only occasional recourse to hats for scrolling up under a banner stuff reallly off the charts, I spose. --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. One reason I have so often emphasized that I don't like people moaning about canvassing when people post here is that I have found that in most cases (though not all) the complaint is a spurious attempt to squash legitimate discussion and editor involvement. I suspect that is the case more generally, i.e. that most cases of people screaming about WP:CANVASS aren't legitimate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of people from all sides of every issue watching this page, it is hard to see how any type of a notification on this page could in any way be a hope to bring only those of a particular perspective to the announced discussion. hence, in all practical terms, posting here cannot be canvassing.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Placing all articles of living people under stabilization

Dear Sir,

There is an intense (but fully polite) discussion currently on Russian Wikipedia policies forum (Стабилизация статей о современниках). One participant suggesting to put all articles of living people under stabilization. That means than no edits will shown to visitors until they are checked and confirmed by one of patrollers. Some other participants (including myself) are strictly opposing this idea. From my personal point of view, that breaks the core idea of a «encyclopedia that anyone can edit» by introducing some mid-term stage of «encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but not everyone can see». And that would be not particular oftenly vandalized articles, but a large set of articles of a specific thematic. Secondly, if I understand the US law properly, the fact of a technical possibility to place a libel at a Internet resource doesn't constitute a crime charges for the resources. The libel's author holds the responsibility. The recent Florida case (the student is charged but not the Facebook) suggests that I am right and that here the US law is the same as in Russia. Still the participant proposing this policy change insist that this is «a J. Wales direct recomendation». Is it really what you recommend and support?

Respectfully, --NeoLexx (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I am not Jimbo, but I think it is a fantastic idea. I don't think people realize the harm that a negative or poorly-sourced/written article can do to a living person, and it would be far, far better to put such articles into a holding pen until they have been reviewed by established editors. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

By established editors you presumably mean registered-only established editors? --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting BLPs under a "pending changes" rule was discussed at length in multiple places. As only about 2/3 of the editors backed it, it was not implemented. Collect (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Jimbo either, but I agree with reservations - it's a good idea, but it's got potential for abuse. My personal reccomendation is to give it a trial period. It's not about the law, it's about not hurting people. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Also not Jimbo... In my opinion Level-1 pending changes protection would be a fantastic idea for many of our BLP articles, but I don't think I'd be entirely comfortable with a wiki-wide policy saying that BLP's should automatically be protected). It seems too much like the hatchet approach I suppose. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It already had a trial period. It failed. Edit: We're also each talking about different polls. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As for me, I love Collect's comment. We don't agree on everything, not even close. But "as only about 2/3 of the editors backed it, it was not implemented" is quite insightful in terms of identifying where our real problems are as a community. As the closest thing we have to a "constitutional monarch" I remain deeply concerned about how our traditions of accomodation (which are awesome, don't get me wrong) have left us in some ways captive to minority viewpoints. This is a complex and really interesting governance issue - how to respect minority viewpoints while at the same time allowing majority viewpoints to generally prevail. We are at our healthiest when we do both.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo highlights a very important aspect of the problem. 2/3 is enough to override a filibuster in the US Senate, yet, somehow, on Wikipedia it's a "only". I do disagree with the view that this is "complex and interesting" however - it's quite simple actually. Since when did Wikipedia adopt the Liberum veto as its model of governance? Or to put it another way, why are we letting a disruptive vocal minority derail good ideas and hold us hostage to some ill conceived immature agenda?VolunteerMarek 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, re-read Jimbo's post, above, at the part "how to respect minority viewpoints" (emphasis on "respect"). What we ultimately want is "consensus" as a buy-in from everyone (acting in good faith), rather than the majority railroading the "vocal minority"; plus another "complex and interesting" issue is to get "due process" in debating the topics. I favor the famous Delphi Technique, which everyone knows, to vote multiple times, with debates at each iteration, until reaching a specific iteration or supermajority vote. It is important that people prepare, planning multiple votes in advance, until the debate has answered all opposing issues, and then the group re-votes, but we need a "quorum" of how many people constitute a "representative sample" of Wikipedians to make a decision. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel the "all or nothing" misnomer is the largest factor derailing trust. PC ought to be an available tool! It should never be forced upon an entire category or class of article. Imagine this sites demise if every page was fully protected. Also imagine if full protection didn't exist because the weeds of collective fear had choked all of the flowers. Yes sir, veto powers exist for good reason and you estrange logic for sheathing your own. IMO My76Strat (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to VolunteerMarek, vocal minorities on the Wikimedia projects can get their way through a mixture of knowing the right arguments and out-and-out filibustering (particularly the old strategem of wikilawyering on every single opposing viewpoint, generating the appearance of non-consensus). It's to the point where a some editors expect to get their own way all the time. For example, the democratic decision to hold that SOPA blackout was virulently condemned by many who opposed it, despite the fact that the vast majority were in favour - apparently some animals consider themselves more equal than others. Your liberum veto analogy is an excellent one. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Neolexx raises a point which concerns me. Wikipedia enjoys safe harbor protection because it acts as a "mere conduit". If all BLP changes are to be vetted, what does that do to the protection? Also, what does that mean for the editor who approved the change? Right now, if I see a controversial fact that has a cite to a book or other source that I don't have access to, I'm going to aasume good faith and let the edit stand (i.e., not revert). However, if I have to perform an action to make the edit live, I'm probably not going to stick my neck out if I can't access the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Neil. It seems likewise you would act upon the same reservations prior to appending a protected edit request? Yet I presume you agree with their need; and can observe their functionality amidst these identical concerns. Additionally, when you append an edit request, the entire attribution is recorded as your credit. Under PC, the original editor retains attribution while you are shown as the reviewer. If anything, this provides a buffer that exceeds the current practice. My76Strat (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Pending-Changes approved edits quickly but safely: During the trial period(s?), there were so many people running to allow pending changes that I had trouble finding changes to approve. The vast majority of changes have been harmless, and easy to allow. However, the great benefit is to stop the whoppers which some pranksters submit, such as "BREAKING NEWS: WP has an exclusive source that So-n-So, depressed by the scandal, has committed suicide this past hour, but news agencies are not allowed to report until police leave the scene". Yes, you heard it here first, pranksters often murder the Truth, using Wikipedia as their WP:SOAPBOX, and it has upset many people with close ties to those subjects. Of course, if we had more content-filters on edits, then words such as "breaking news" or "suicide" could trigger a "Pending alarms" interface, so that the most-alarming phrases would require special authorization. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

^{I took the liberty of moving the pending changes history discussion to a separate section. The Russian Wikipedia issue is an important one and I don't want to distract from it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)}

Wow... I assume I pushed a sensitive point here. As the topic starter let me provide some details on that and to draw some point that seem to be in a consensus: I am ready to stay corrected at any point. Needless to say I am sorry for any of my English mistakes.

As I recall and understand properly, enWiki (English Wikipedia) problems arose with the «The two senators' incident» back to 2009 and it was followed by some policy changes. Respectively the intense of current discussion in ruWiki (Russian Wikipedia) is largely connected with the recent «Chernov incident». The night of May 04 someone vandalized (added a libel) the Russian article about the Penza mayor Roman Chernov. Next morning the changes were rolled back and the page stabilized yet some screenshots of the vandalized page already were published by some Russian online sources. So the next day the city administration filed a lawsuit for the fact of «distributing a defamation and a libel on the Wikipedia site». Within the frame of so-called «pre-investigation checkout» (not sure what is it in English or even if exists) the Russian «K» police department contacted the Wikimedia RU for details. The Russian «K» police department is the anti-cyber crimes department. And why do they always call to the Russian local charted in such cases is a good question I cannot answer. I guess because they are in Moscow under real names and speak Russian — which is much more easy than to be sent to hell in English from someone in the US :-) It is just my guess, anyway. I am neither a Wikimedia RU nor «K» department member. ::So that is the background of the current Russian thread.

Now for some consensus summary. Would it be correct to say that:

1. As per Terms of Use: Our Services Wikimedia Foundation will be not held legally responsible for a defamation or a libel added by an editor. The editor holds the responsibility. Respectively an extra care or stabilization of articles of living people is about the image and the human feelings to not be hurt, not about legally protecting the project or Jimbo Wales personally.
2. Jimbo Wales personally and many other participant would strongly prefer to have all articles of living people stabilized yet in enWiki there is a strong opposition to that.
3. There is a project on the go to try semi-protection (stabilization) of articles of living people for two weeks with something to do after that period. The exact actions are not fully clear but no need to explain it here — enough to drop a link(s).
4. As per Terms of Use: Our Services Wikipedia Foundation doesn't have a specifically designated department or a person to be contacted by law representatives by request of someone who prefers to stay insulted rather than to rall changes back by him/herself; or (Chernov incident) gets insulted by the very fact that something was on Wikipedia even for a very short period of time. --NeoLexx (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes and Lessons Learned

Was there ever actually a decision on the recent RFC? That page indicates that the discussion is closed but that the coordinating admins are working on the "close" (meaning the decision), and that note is dated May 24. I looked on the talk page but didn't see an answer. Was a decision announced somewhere else? Or am I missing something? On the unresolved "constitutional" issue, I agree with Jimbo. This subject has been debated and discussed from all sides, and all viewpoints have been listened to, for a period of years. Now the majority should prevail. Neutron (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestion that it can or should take two weeks or over to close a wikipedia RFC, is a bit amusing imo.- Youreallycan 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's review, shall we?

There was a consensus for a two-month trial with a fixed ending date. Those who supported the trial trusted those who were to run the trial to do what they said they would do and end it on that date. The ending date was ignored.

In response to this, there was a new discussion and a new consensus for a "we really mean it this time" drop-dead date. This consensus was also completely ignored.

Then Yet Another RfC was closed with an overwhelming consensus for a firm two week deadline for removal from all articles -- which was ignored.

Then an admin get blocked for following the clear consensus and removing pending changes from articles. As far as I can tell this block had no negative repercussions for the blocker.

Finally, after the villagers stormed the castle with pitchforks and torches trying to Kill the Undead Thing, Pending Changes was, at long last, removed from all articles with a call for a future RfC on the issue.

Since then, calls for a firm and clear published policy that promising to try something for a limited amount of time and then breaking that promise is not allowed on Wikipedia have resulted in ... no policy.

And now we are two weeks in to closing the new RfC despite a clear 178 to 308 to 17 (35.4% to 61.2% to 3.4%) result. The odd thing is that the 35.4% was "Never!", the 3.3% was "Not Now" and the 61.2% was "Turn it back on and keep it on." --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a highly POV history to the point of blatant disregard for the truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To an uninvolved editor, Guy's summary seems plausible. What parts am I missing? -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, while I got my facts right, some of my language ("The villagers stormed the castle with pitchforks and torches trying to Kill the Undead Thing") was over the top. So I plead guilty to POV, but not guilty to blatant disregard for the truth. Everything I wrote was completely true, but what I wrote does show that I have a strong POV, which is that no lesson was learned from this. That, of course is just my personal opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon's summary, and sentiments, look accurate to me. Wnt (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to hear the specifics if I got any of the facts wrong, missed any mitigating circumstances, or misinterpreted the events in any way. As for my opinion that no lesson was learned, I don't see how anyone can read this (especially the comments section) and not come to the same conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How to make Wikipedia NNPOV

In ideological fields particularly, a means has been discovered and widely adopted by which single-issue editors achieve unfettered, uncritical presentation of their views. This is done by titling articles in such a way as to limit the information that can be presented. Examples in the field of religious studies are Love of God (Christianity), Rebirth (Buddhism), Islamic view of Moses. The isolation of such articles is reinforced by including them in a template such as "Articles on Buddhism" etc. This is seldom necessary purely for reducing the size of the given main article, and such articles may be aggressively resurrected even when their content is fully integrated into a main article. Alternatively, there may be a POV split, maintained by opposing camps. Such articles are not aimed at the ready appraisal of thought on a given topic, but the exclusion of opposing views to the detriment of such appraisal. Wikipedia could be greatly improved were there a means of forestalling such tactics. Thx for everything. Redheylin (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that Love of God (Christianity) article is horrendous. Reads like a sermon: fantastic opportunity for the proselytizer to use Wikipedia as a platform! DeCausa (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making a bit of a mistake here. NNPOV does not mean that the people holding the beliefs must exercise NNPOV. It means our reporting must satisfy it. Are you really trying to tell me you think love of God in Christianity is not a notable topic? Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Anon - just one article, chosen purely at random out of a thousand. Dear Dmcq, I am "trying to tell you" that "love of God" is here an object of critical study, and that its manifestation in Christianity is best studied in the context of "love of God" in general and in comparison with "love of God" in other particular religions. Redheylin (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yetch, bleagh, I feel like I just ate some soap. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Mormon theology articles have similar issues, all in a big Wikipedia:Walled garden. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Redheylin's basic point here in that overspecialization runs into POV and FORK problems. This is similar to the reasons for why I wrote WP:Conceptualization, in that people were starting to write these specialized articles with specialized terms attributed to particular sources, and all the while forgetting to look at the big picture. That said, on the other hand, while "Love of God" is a univeralist concept, its not altogether a general concept, one that for example is supported by the Dharmic religions, which don't typically deal with a monotheistic concept of God to begin with (though monotheism has had some influence). It would make sense to contain "Love of God" to the Abrahamic religions, but even then its not clear - Christian texts refer to God and love many times in the same breath - is it the same for Islam, or Judaism? Both of whom have different conceptions of God, and accordingly develop different ways of relating to God. Or do they? Its a fundamental principle in the Abrahamic religions that God is the universal god, hence everyone is equal. Note there is a general Love of God article, so the real issue here is bringing the Love of God (Christianity) article up to some standard. So, anyway, theres two sides to this debate - the problem of overspecialization versus the necessity to contextualize articles according to the ways they best make sense. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the nub of it - and the cleverness of POVers who use this strategy. It's very difficult to argue for deletion of articles such as Love of God (Christianity) because it will tick the boxes on notability etc etc. At the same time once the "walled garden" is created it's equally difficult, because of the essence of the topic, to bring it back to "normal" WP standards. I suppose a key question is: is this a trend? DeCausa (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, we have to WP:AGF. We can't impart ill-will to anyone, and even the most POV editors can be good contributors, provided some balance is maintained. Articles develop in varied and different ways, sometimes top-down, sometimes down-up, sometimes both at the same time. So we don't always know how things are going to develop (Being an eventualist helps). In the case of the Love of God and Love of God (Christianity) articles, the question is whether these are properly inter-linked with each other, such that the hierarchy is understood. From there it makes sense that higher-order articles be better developed than lower-order articles (though sometimes the reverse happens), so the key there is to look at both articles and see what they each need in terms of development. If you can't do the actual edits, you can comment on the talk - giving a list of specific suggestions. Usually regular editors will respond in a reasonable timeframe, and they will typically be responsive to any suggestions.

The question that comes to mind at this point is 'how deep is Wikipedia going to be' in terms of its coverage of ever-more specific subjects. I don't know the answer to that question. I think there is some kind of WP:Concept limit, but on the other hand we just don't know, and we aren't there yet. We generally welcome new articles provided they add more detail to a subject, but implicit in the definition of "encyclopedia" is some kind of limitation on depth, even though we are immense in scope. So these are issues we may have to deal with in an abstract way at some point. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest - and the general agreement. Thanks to the user who mentioned the idea of the Wikipedia:Walled garden. I'd like to say once more that the 3 articles I mentioned were chosen randomly from hundreds. I do not think the questions of depth and volume are problematic, since many such articles are so prolix and duplicative that merging saves a lot of space. I did not mean to suggest bad faith, yet it is clear that many editors have personal views and neglect areas outside their interest - the undue weight often given, for examples, to Sunni views as against Shia, or to Vaishnava (often Hare Krishna) views against other aspects of Hinduism, demonstrates this. Here again a more integrative and comparative approach can only help, and might reduce edit-warring too. Articles that integrate several views of the same matter are automatically more self-balancing. In fact, I do not want to centre only on religion: politics, philosophy and nationalism, even art-genres also often breed the same. I agree that proper cross-linking helps, but it is not a full solution. I believe a clearly-stated policy solution is needed. I want Wikipedia to be an easy-to-use educative resource, not a fragmented set of advertisements, manifestos and catechisms. Redheylin (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hiya Jimbo

There's a strong possiblity I'm going to be restricted further on English Wikipedia, but whatever that restriction will be? I'll accept it. It's just become unbearible, putting up with the ever growing usage of diacritics on article titles, intro etc etc. As a layman editor & english-only reader, I weep for my fellow english-only readers, as they have to put up with the continued PoV pushing of multi-lingual editors. Multi-lingual editors who appear to be driven by 'mother tongue' pride. Gnoming seems the safest way to go, on this ever increasing Multiple language Wikipedia. I'm just so discouraged with the direction the project has taken. PS: I hope you don't mind me crying on your shoulder. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now you know how the ancient Romans felt: Every few decades, the Romans would notice the Germanic runes kept creeping back into the written language, and they would have to again "force" use of the Latin alphabet, until finally it settled out as Fraktur font (Alt-deutsch). I think the Soviet Union just standardized as having "11 official languages" (or such) for all documents. Maybe that is why they went bankrupt, trying to document "larger mega-death thermonuclears" in every language. Perhaps keep reminding troublesome editors that the other-language Wikipedias are available for endless use of accented-letters and other diacritical marks in text. -Wikid77 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, way to go Get rid of all foreign nonsense like Conservapedia did. They have fallen back in a dreadful way, they now allow silly spellings like 'colour' in articles specifically about England. We can do better though. Move London to London, England. Also remove CE/BCE and replace it with AD/BC. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this type of sarcasm is helpful in what should otherwise be a real discussion of a real and complex issue. The question of when to use foreign spellings and foreign characters is a complex one, and a sneer like yours is an insult to those who both hold reasonable positions (as I do) which hold that we can err too far in either direction. I can say that I think that we overuse diacritics while at the same time not being an idiot. I suggest you treat others more respectfully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a serious issue, and I do not mean to joke while User:GoodDay faces Arbcom for trying to fend off une avalanche of non-English text raining into enwiki, such as articles with French-language footnotes, noted below. -Wikid77 04:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely no need to go around spelling Zoë Baird without the diaeresis, that's how she spells it, nor the rest they've been at.Dmcq (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, then redirect "London" to the correct spelling as "Londón" which would be the new name for London, Texas Tejas. Then let's get a bot to replace all "email" as "émäille" because the new spelling uses only the Latin alphabet as well. We really need a new Template:Diacriticize which would display every word with added diacritics, so people would not need to edit all articles to add them. I miss seeing: Aloha nui, pehea 'oe? Maika'i no au, mahalo? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The ones I mentioned were all suggestions people have made seriously. Dmcq (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Articles with non-English footnote text: The liberal use of diacritics is an undeniable "slippery slope" where many of the "pro-diacritics" editors are allowing non-English text into enwiki articles. For example, see article "Thélus Léro" with the footnote tag (added 12 May 2012) written entirely in French, stating the literal text of an entry from a French book. I know it is dangerous to generalize, but in general, editors who use a lot of diacritics are likely to be adding or allowing non-English text into enwiki articles. I myself, and many others, have added numerous sections from German text, while including the conjunction "und" (German for "and") as if it were an English word, likewise with "et" and such. It is understandable that some editors would be highly opposed to non-English text, to offset the influx of French, German, Italian text (etc.) being added into enwiki. Speaking as a copy-editor, when we see non-English text, then the editing typically shuts down, and an article is likely to be re-tagged with Template:Rough_translation. It is just too much work to verify grammar, punctuation, context, coherence, and footnotes, when the language turns non-English. -Wikid77 04:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  The French in the footnote is not wrong but not complete. It should be followed by a translation accourding to WP:NONENG. Agathoclea (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the issue with a "slippery slope" – the result of falling down the slope is not really "wrong" but rather, just an "incomplete" stop, all the way down. Once diacritical marks are allowed to flow into articles, then the non-English text increases, and the English text gets considered next month, or somewhat later. -Wikid77 13:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal of paid editing sockpuppeteer

Hi Jimmy, hope you enjoyed the long weekend. You may wish to see this discussion. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• You also have an e-mail about something else. WilliamH (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ukraine and Ukrainian Wikipedia

Now for something completely different Ukrainian (the other "uk"). Currently, Category:Ukraine has grown to include over 420 subcategories, with "Category:Economy of Ukraine" such as noting Ukraine has been trying to lead Europe in production of beeswax/honey. Also, the Ukrainian Wikipedia (aka "Вікіпедія") has expanded to over 387,000 articles (many stubs), where their category "uk:Категорія:Україна" has over 2,200 subcategories. Many articles there seem to have a similar tone to English WP, as far as Wikipedian culture is reflected, such as bottom navboxes. See equivalent of article "Vladimir Lenin" as "uk:Ленін Володимир Ілліч" (most of their bio-pages are titled as last-name first, hence "Ленін ..."). As usual with many other-language wikipedias, some of the most notable subjects for Ukraine have no article on enwiki. The concept that some major subjects, for the world, are covered in only a few languages, not English, is an interesting aspect of Wikipedia hosting 262+ languages. Obviously, it would be great if the English WP could be improved to have articles on all the major Ukrainian topics. Here is a reminder of the navigation buttons there:

• Random articles there: click "Довідка" (Dobidka) - here click uk:Special:Random
• Edit: click "Редагувати" (Redahybate)
• History: click "Перегляд історії" (Istoriї)

Perhaps some other editors might want to help cross-update the articles with Ukrainian Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

These pages may be helpful: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine and Category:User uk.

Incidentally, the ISO two-letter country code for Ukraine is ua. (See ISO 3166-1.)

—Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is Category:Articles needing translation from Ukrainian Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad images

So the Muhammad images case has concluded, with a fistful of images of Muhammad smeared over Muhammad with Wikipedia's middle finger and locked in there for several years. Tarc offers his enlightened commentary here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's all over but the crying, I suppose... Resolute 16:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And maybe a bit of crowing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I mostly walked away from the article after the arb case, trusting the community would do the right thing. And it did. I wasn't going to comment on the result at all, but I'm not really sure what your purpose was in posting this thread. Resolute 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I, too, mostly kept my distance from the RfC, as ArbCom had suggested we leave it to previously uninvolved editors. The result was a shame. And shameful. Why would we host images that add nothing of relevance to the article and are profoundly offensive to many of our readers? I understand the free speech point, but would prefer we didn't alienate millions of our readers from an article that matters very much to them by gratuitously including pretty (to non-Muslims) images just to make a point. Of course, I'm not arguing we should remove all images of Muhammad from the article, just those that add little other than decoration (in the eyes of non-Muslims) and offensiveness (to our millions of Muslim readers).

I raised this here to see if Jimbo had any thoughts on the result. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the editors that contributed to the discussion made a consensus and that is that - users need to just accept that moving forwards - (at least for the foreseeable, consensus can and does change) however, as in real life, this consensus can also be wrong, and your opinion that,... I mostly walked away from the article after the arb case, trusting the community would do the right thing "And it did" is just that, your opinion, right or wrong users need to accept it for the foreseeable. Your comment , "It's all over but the crying" was imo , not beneficial to collaborative contributions and was more likely to divide than conquer - Youreallycan 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks goodness, religious censorship has been defeated :) GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What is "censurship"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Everybody, please play nice in the sandbox. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Anythonycole is the only one remaining of the Three Amigos (Ludwigs2 blocked for a year, Hans Adler retiring in a huff) at the Muhammad RfC that tried to see me go down with that ship, and is apparently still a bit bitter that I did not. I have no problems with what I said, though yes, it did begin to veer a bit off-topic from the article discussion. Christianity has been chased off the stage in Western society, particularly in America. I have always found it to be quite hypocritical that we deny respect to one religion in many aspects but bend over backwards to show deference and tolerance to another. Tarc (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No offense intended, Tarc. I appreciate your candor. For the record, as I've said before, I don't want you to leave the project: you're a valuable asset. I just want you to stop being rude and insulting to others who have the temerity to disagree with you. I think I've noticed a moderation in that lately. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Christianity has been chased off the stage in Western society, particularly in America". ROFL! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Christmas in the U.S. has been canceled this year, out of respect for Mayan religious views, which end the world 4 days earlier, and so the U.S. plans to End the World on 21 December 2012, in observance of Mayan beliefs, while re-creation of the World will occur on 22 December for other religions (just kidding). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think America is one of the most overtly christian countries in the western world. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Is Tarc nipping at the sauce this evening or something? That's a really bizarre thing to say. I can't walk down the street in Hawaii without running into at least six different denominations of Christianity. We've got churches on every street corner here. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

While Tarc's comment is clearly wrong as stated, it is true that sometimes we fail to put hard-learned lessons about Christianity into practice for other religions. In the USA it is relatively accepted by this point that people have a constitutional right to deface Bibles and crosses for art and politics, yet Koran burning still leads to a remarkable variety of legal and financial censorship actions. I think it is very important, whether we're speaking of a nation or of Wikipedia, for us to hold clear bedrock principles that say we can't censor content, period. Because once people perceive that we have a choice to do this or not to do it, it becomes a personal insult when we refuse to censor something. People are meant to be free and have the flexibility to do what they want - but governments are best kept chained to their oars. Wnt (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, no one is arguing we should do what we're told by Muslims. No one is arguing we are in any way compelled to remove images of Muhammad from this encyclopedia. That is, no one is arguing for censorship here. And I take issue with your claim that we, the community, don't have the right to choose whether a gratuitously offensive image belongs in an article. We do. That's not censorship. That's sentient humans exercising judgement and freedom. Our repudiation of censorship is not also a repudiation of our common sense and sensibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not just an American thing, same applies this side of the pond. The reason that Koran burning and so on is so contentious in the West is because it can quite often seem like a racist action. Of course it absolutely doesn't have to be and I certainly think spitting on the Koran (or at least what it represents) is too good for it, like all the Abrahamic holy books that can VERY easily be misinterpreted as an attack probably on Pakistanis here and Arabs on your side of the Atlantic. Knee-jerk offendarati are hardly known for giving the benefit of the doubt in this sort of instance, so that's why we're in this position... It's not "fair" to Christians in a sense but it's hardly as if Christians are discriminated against in the US (you could make a bit more of an argument that they are in the UK, but it wouldn't be much of one... about all you could say is people laugh at them - well, they do... but if you're going to believe that sort of thing you have to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth) Egg Centric 22:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not wrong in the slightest, Wnt. If you do not understand something I have said, I am more than happy to explain further. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your statement about religion in America is so off the mark I thought you were trying to be funny. As others have said, the United States is one of the most religious countries in the world. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The world would be better off, if we were all atheists. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Communists tried that; it didn't turn out so well for the religious and irreligious alike. There's this funny thing about protecting the rights of people you disagree with; in the end, you're really protecting your own freedom. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

People are bastards with or without religion. Religion is just one manifestation of man's propensity to put himself in a group and view with suspicion those outside of the group. If we were all atheists then people would find some other group to join, probably nationalistic, and still do all the stupid things they do now. In other words, you don't need Jesus to be a piece of crap, he's just the Western raison de jure. . SÆdon^talk 01:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The irony is that the purpose of the prohibition against depicting Muhammad is to prevent idol worship. Some serious dark-ages doublethink going on there. There is no chance of non-moslems idolizing Muhammad. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's say "almost no chance. Dahn (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the correction. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 20:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the problem. It's clear from the RfC outcome, and the article as it stands, that Wikipedia is doing its best not to needlessly offend anybody's religious beliefs, but at the same time will not bow before anyone's self-professed righteous cause. The article, clearly, is avoiding depictions of the prophet. At the same time, it is also clearly not avoiding them entirely. The religious ban on idol worship has deep roots, there is something similar in Judaism as well. But the extreme version, by which violations by unbelievers of an abstract philosophical principle becomes an excuse among a historically marginalized group for channeling their rage and xenophobia, is not something we can reasonably deal with. Just like those in the west who wanted to re-invent the language to be gender-neutral, or something (and if you didn't do exactly what they said, you must be one of the oppressors), we can't jump and do cartwheels every time somebody with a cause wants to control what gets said in public. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I see that. I supported putting a button at the top so readers could hide images easily if they wanted to. I'm sorry that was a step too far for the anti censorship crowd. It looks to me that the only real way round the whole business and yet make Wikipedia available even to people with strong convictions or the children of same is to have a general way for people to do things like that where the editors do not make any explicit selection and where the main encyclopaedia is not affected in any substantial way. I really would like to cater to some extent for people with strong views about sex or killing or religion or taboos or phobias. If some Scientologist is happy to let their child only view pages in Wikipedia which have no relation to Scientology I say let them if it is no great bother to us. rather than we must pry their eyes open with toothpicks attitude. Dmcq (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken on at least one point, Wikidemon. You say that it is clear from the RfC outcome that Wikipedia is doing its best not to needlessly offend anybody's religious beliefs. You, and not only you, have missed the point of the RfC. This RfC found that it is OK to needlessly offend Muslims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it seems to come down to the basic question of what we're doing here... Editing an encyclopedia? Or trying to score cultural points? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, if you are addressing me, I didn't understand that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, sorry... I thought that was clear from the context. More specifically: Are we focused on making good, pertinent articles with the ingredients needed within their scope? Or do we, as a publication, feel the need to inject non-essential material simply because we can, even though we know that a proportion of our readership are going to find it offensive? Judging from the present conversation, there may be a variety of triggers for the latter mechanism, ranging from perceived persecution of Christians in the USA to occupying the moral high ground of atheism and demonstrating our liberation from all forms of censorship. That sort of stuff looks to me like cultural point scoring. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. You were quite clear, I was being dense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say that! —MistyMorn (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are valuing a strongly held belief by editors of Wikipedia lower than strongly held beliefs of some religion. I would like to cater for both of them and a lot more besides rather than go on about how bad one crowd or another are. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Acid test: Do the figurative portrayals substantially contribute to the understanding of the main topic of the page? If they do, then there's a genuine issue. But if they don't, what's the problem? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERTINENCE is the appropriate guideline. It says things like "Efforts should be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal" and "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." The images are pertinent and and as the guideline says mages are an important part of any article's presentation. Removing them for religious reasons would directly conflict with WP:NOTCENSORED. As I said you are valuing some deeply held religious beliefs over and above the thought out and agreed beliefs of editors of Wikipedia that have been put into the policies and guidelines by consensus. That's why you see no problem.. Dmcq (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the figure/caption in WP:PERTINENCE illustrates why I see no genuine problem. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are only saying remove the images because of their beliefs, you would have no objection otherwise. Therefore your objection comes under WP:CENSOR. That's really all there is to it. Dmcq (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are only saying... That's really all there is to it.
I seem to have heard that sort of argument somewhere before. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One last clarification attempt at my comments above. Yes, the US is a Christian-centered nation, I do not argue against that. However, in the past where it was very rigid and very exclusionary of non-Christians is a thing of the past. Prayer in public schools, nativity scenes on the town square and the like have been largely removed as a more multicultural approach becomes ingrained in society. I am supportive of all that...hell, I'd like to get "under God" out of the Pledge, even. My issue with the Muhammad and depictions though is that deferring to their religious beliefs is taking a step backwards into the old days when we were more deferential to Christianity. We (non-Muslims) should not have to censor ourselves just because us looking at images of their prophet makes them uncomfortable, any more that I should have to worry about Catholics and blasphemy if I say "goddamnit" in public. Being unoffended is not a right. And Anthony, the "needlessly offend" argument was thoroughly squashed in the RfC. Please drop it. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Only, it's not censorship we're discussing. Censorship is mandatory, imposed, enforced. Self-censorship is what Soviet journalists did to save time: they would not include copy that they knew would be removed by the state censor. There is no censorship of any kind being contemplated here. What I've been arguing for is our right to exercise discernment. It's very different. It's an act of free will exercised by editors unconstrained by anything but a commitment to the foundation's mission. Gratuitously alienating millions of readers from an article just because we can, and for no educational benefit, works against the foundation's mission.

I don't know any Muslims that particularly care whether you look at images of Muhammad. I know a number that would rather not look at such images themselves, though. And having unnecessary depictions of Muhammad on Muhammad effectively alienates them from the article. It's a bit like images of vaginas. I don't mind you looking at images of vaginas but I'm not going to bother with an article that is plastered with them for no good reason, neither would many people.

You and Wikipedia have the right to offend, but doing so when it could be avoided without diminishing the encyclopedia is puerile. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're begging the question. Others disagree that the images are "gratuitously offensive", provide "no educational benefit" and could be removed "without diminishing the encyclopedia". In fact, it's explicitly noted in the RfC's closing statement that images shouldn't be added "without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so". —David Levy 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know others disagree with me. They're wrong. Just because there are a number of people who disagree with me doesn't mean they're right. (Argumentum ad populum.) This image adds nothing relevant to the section it's illustrating. It's gratuitous and offensive to many of our readers. Indeed, it gets Muhammad's hair length wrong, according to Ali's description of the prophet. It is pretty and breaks up the text nicely. It may be an aid to memory. But it adds nothing to the reader's understanding, and alienates millions of readers. Great. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even expressing agreement with the prevailing opinion, let alone asserting that its popularity makes it correct. I'm addressing your misrepresentation of the RfC's outcome and the underlying rationales.

You're treating the images' superfluousness as a given and asserting that they've been included "just to make a point", because editors have decided that it's "OK to needlessly offend Muslims". That's false. The images' inclusion reflects consensus that they hold significant educational value. It's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree, but it isn't reasonable for you to distort others' motives by pretending that they share your opinion that the images are extraneous and want to use them anyway. —David Levy 19:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of people share my view that most of the images on Muhammad are superfluous. What WP:DUE information does this image add to the reader's understanding of Muhammad? (It's bedtime here.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You've disregarded my comments and responded with something that I'd describe as a "straw man" if it appeared remotely relevant to my argument. —David Levy 19:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I apologise. It's very late here and I'm not paying due attention. I'll make an effort now, and revisit this once I've had some sleep.

I'm asserting, and I have every right to assert because it is true, that this image adds nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad, and so is unnecessary to the article. Its presence in that article offends many Muslims. Ergo, it needlessly offends Muslims. I am not pretending this is the conclusion of the RfC. It is, however the view of many, though not the majority, of the editors engaged in this debate.

Given the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate, and Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment, it is reasonable to assert that most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. And now you are repeating the same lies and slander from the past discussions, the Arbcom, and the RfC, that those who wished to retain the image did so out of spite or to make a point. That argument was categorically rejected by the hundred-odd participants of the rfC. That you refuse to acknowledge that, that you STILL seek to attack the character of those who feel different about the matter than you to speaks VOLUME of your character, or lack thereof. I wash my hands of this, and you, and am quite happy that this subject matter will not have to be re-opened again in the foreseeable future. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I did feel it was a little unfair singling you out, but your comments were such a clear expression of spite and WP:POINT that I couldn't help myself. Put it down to tiredness. Good night. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm asserting, and I have every right to assert because it is true, that this image adds nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad, and so is unnecessary to the article. Its presence in that article offends many Muslims. Ergo, it needlessly offends Muslims.

I've explicitly acknowledged that it's perfectly reasonable for you to hold and express such an opinion.

What's unreasonable is your claim that the other side believes the same things and is acting out of malice and spite.

I am not pretending this is the conclusion of the RfC.

Your exact words were "This RfC found that it is OK to needlessly offend Muslims."

It is, however the view of many, though not the majority, of the editors engaged in this debate.

...but not the ones supporting the images' inclusion.

Given the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate,

That's indicative of an acknowledgment that the images offend people, not that they do so "needlessly".

and Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment, it is reasonable to assert that most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article.

That's a gross violation of WP:AGF. —David Levy 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's morning. I'm refreshed. On the first point, you were right to criticise my fairly vague hyperbole. The RfC found that using figurative images to illustrate important events in the subject’s life is necessary. This is, of course, nonsense. By declaring that images adding nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad are necessary, the RfC is declaring that black is white. Forgive me if I don't play along. The effect of the majority position is to endorse unnecessary offense by declaring unnecessary images necessary. The closing admins have accurately captured the mood of the RfC, and I congratulate them. I'm criticising the majority position, not their summary of it.

I stand by my assertion about the motivations of most of the keep !voters. As for Tarc's good faith, I am certain Tarc is motivated by good intentions, the truth is I have a lot of respect for him. However it is clear from his comments I referred to at the beginning of this thread that he is also motivated by resentment. No assumptions necessary there. It's quite explicit. I have to go out now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC found that using figurative images to illustrate important events in the subject’s life is necessary. This is, of course, nonsense.

Your position on the issue is abundantly clear. There's no need to reiterate it in each and every reply, particularly given the fact that I'm neither criticising nor contradicting this opinion.

By declaring that images adding nothing of due relevance to the reader's understanding of Muhammad are necessary, the RfC is declaring that black is white.

You're still begging the question.

The above statement contributes nothing to the proceedings beyond "I'm right and they're wrong." You're entitled to believe (and assert) that, but even if I assume it to be true, it doesn't address my concerns.

Forgive me if I don't play along.

No one is asking you to agree with the decision.

I stand by my assertion about the motivations of most of the keep !voters.

Do you routinely apply such logic? Is everyone who edits articles in a manner with which you disagree "wrong"? And not merely wrong, mind you, but so blatantly wrong that they can't possibly believe otherwise (and therefore are obviously sabotaging the encyclopedia)? —David Levy 05:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. If I repeat myself, it is in an effort to outline my logic. Regarding begging the question

1. The example image (like others in the article) adds nothing WP:DUE to the reader's understanding of Muhammad. I base this on the fact that, so far, no one has managed to present anything due and relevant that it conveys. It has been said that the example image conveys something about Islamic depictions of Muhammad. This is true, but that is not the topic of the article in question, or the section in which it appears. Loading the article up with six or more such images gives undue weight to a minor aspect of the subject, art history, just as loading the article with campaign maps would be giving undue weight to the prophet's military strategy.
2. In the face of this inability of anyone to point to anything duly relevant the image adds to the reader's understanding of the topic, I conclude that it has little due relevance; that it is unimportant to the article. That conclusion seems inevitable to me.

I hope I have addressed the question: Do all the depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad add significant relevant value, in proportion to the prominence they enjoy? which I think is the question I left begging.

Regarding the motivations of others: I began my engagement with this topic assuming everybody was here to make the article as good and accessible as possible. My view has evolved over time. When an image conveys little relevant information, but is offensive to those for whom Muhammad is one of our most important articles, I simply fail to imagine any constructive motivation for including that image in that article. I understand this may upset some people, and I readily concede there are probably exceptions but, on the whole, it is my view, based on the statements of many hundreds of editors over the last six months, one that I don't expect you to share, that some combination of bigotry, ideological extremism and a failure of perspective-taking and empathy underlies the encyclopedia's puerile stance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So the people who disagreed with your take on it are bigoted ideologues with a failure of perspective and lacking in empathy. Hmmm, well now you've got that off your chest perhaps we can agree that a lot of the people in the debate got very polarized? Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

:) Not all of them will have each shortcoming, for sure, and there will be exceptions, but enough have demonstrated at least one trait for me to feel comfortable with that generalisation (only in this debate). And yes, that was cathartic. "Polarised" may imply bi-polarity; the debate was more complex than that with many persuasive rationales and many preferred outcomes. Sorry Jimbo. I'd still be interested if you have any thoughts on the issue but fully appreciate you may not want to touch this thing with a barge pole. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your argument, which you've again reiterated, can be summarized as follows:

"Many editors have opined that the images enhance the article's educational value, but that's nonsense; they clearly don't, as anyone can plainly see. Surely, even they must realize that I'm obviously right, so they can't possibly believe what they're saying. Most of them must be lying about wanting to improve the encyclopedia. They're acting out of spite and malice. It's the only logical explanation for their supposed disagreement with my patently correct assessment."

And I fully expect you to respond to this message by restating the argument yet again. I hope that I'm wrong. (You're the arbiter of that, of course.) —David Levy 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly my position. I concede that I was imputing a view to the RfC that the closers of the RfC did not enunciate. I was referring to the effect of the RfC, rather than the closing statement. The effect is that it is OK to gratuitously offend Muslims.

These depictions of Muhammad are confections out of different cultures hundreds of years and thousands of miles away from the events they depict. They add no historical or cultural information regarding the man Muhammad. Their value lies in what they tell us about the later depiction of Muhammad, and as narrative images they aid in conceptualisation and memory.

Does their relative educational value and pertinence justify any negative effect these images will have on our readership?

When I arrived at the article, there wasn't even a mention of the depiction of Muhammad. There had been a section, but an editor had removed it a couple of years earlier. I added a section with an image. That tells you something about the relative value Tarc, Johnbod and others assigned to the topic, depictions of Muhammad, in Muhammad. Alongside his career, Islam, the succession and other topics, depiction of Muhammad is a relatively minor sub-topic of a biography of Muhammad.

The section Muhammad#Islamic depictions of Muhammad and the text dealing with Western reception may be best illustrated with figurative depictions of Muhammad, but the remainder of the article doesn't need to be illustrated with figurative depictions of Muhammad. And doing so disaffects, probably repels millions of readers for whom this is a most important article.

When I weigh up the benefit and cost of including more than a couple of figurative depictions of Muhammad in the current version, I conclude that doing so harms the foundation's mission more than it helps. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly my position.

Which parts are inaccurate?

I concede that I was imputing a view to the RfC that the closers of the RfC did not enunciate. I was referring to the effect of the RfC, rather than the closing statement.

You've done far more than that. You've asserted that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

The effect is that it is OK to gratuitously offend Muslims.

That's an inaccurate statement. It's reasonable for you to opine that Muslims are being offended gratuitously, but no one asserts that such a thing is "OK".

The remainder of your reply again restates your argument as to why the images' inclusion is inappropriate. For convenience, I'll copy and paste an earlier response:

Your position on the issue is abundantly clear. There's no need to reiterate it in each and every reply, particularly given the fact that I'm neither criticising nor contradicting this opinion. —David Levy 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped the meaning of the term, "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion as a given in one's argument), David. My conclusion is that "the RfC is an imprimatur for needlessly offending our Muslim readers." The proposition I had taken as a given was "narrative images are unnecessary." I have taken the trouble to elaborate the argument behind the latter, and I believe my argument for the conclusion is now fairly complete and sound. I'm sorry if you found it tedious but I've been struggling with your idiosyncratic use of "begging the question."

This is all obfuscation, though. My argument against the majority at the RfC has been clear from early in this discussion. You have been picking at the threads of it but not addressing the point. That's OK. No one does. Because there is no answer to the question, "What do narrative images add to the reader's understanding that is sufficiently necessary to the topic to justify alienating millions of our readers?"

I have nothing to add to what I've already said about the character of the a person who would argue in favour of including such images. --Anthonyhcole (talk)

"...alienating millions of our readers" [cite needed] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've fully grasped the meaning of the term, "begging the question" (assuming the conclusion as a given in one's argument), David.

You contend that images have been inappropriately included in the article. As evidence, you state as fact that the images don't belong in the article.

You deem editors' rationales invalid and cite this as proof that no one has provided a valid rationale.

Your argument boils down to "I'm right because I'm right and they're wrong because they're wrong."

I have taken the trouble to elaborate the argument behind the latter, and I believe my argument for the conclusion is now fairly complete and sound.

Indeed, you've stated it over and over and over, ignoring my continual explanations that I'm not challenging that position.

My argument against the majority at the RfC has been clear from early in this discussion.

...as I've noted several times. That's why there's no need for the continual reiteration.

You have been picking at the threads of it but not addressing the point.

I'm addressing different points. As I said, if I assume that you're right about the images' (in)appropriateness, it has no bearing on my concerns. —David Levy 04:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"You contend that images have been inappropriately included in the article. As evidence, you state as fact that the images don't belong in the article."

I do more than that. I assert that

1. figurative depictions of Muhammad functioning purely as narrative illustrations adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad don't belong in the article, because inclusion would needlessly disaffect millions of our readers; and that
2. most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad function purely as such narrative illustrations, adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. But I support the latter assertion by
3. adducing as evidence the absence of any demonstration that images such as this add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. I can't prove the absence of such value, it is up to my opponents to demonstrate its presence, and none has. But I can point to their consistent failure to demonstrate such value, as evidence for the absence of such value.

So, this is more than a "contention" or "statement of fact". It is an argument, supported by evidence (the failure of my opponents to establish relevant value); one with which none of my opponents, including yourself, is able to engage. You can destroy my argument simply by demonstrating what necessary information such an image adds to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad. Please do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I assert that
1. figurative depictions of Muhammad functioning purely as narrative illustrations adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad don't belong in the article, because inclusion would needlessly disaffect millions of our readers

Even if the images didn't offend people, there would be no valid reason to include one that doesn't improve the article (as with any subject).

This is reflected in the RfC's outcome. Some "free speech"-related comments have been made, but the closers didn't determine that that there's consensus to indiscriminately include every available image as a matter of principle. "Editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so."

2. most of the figurative depictions of Muhammad in Muhammad function purely as such narrative illustrations, adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad.

Others assert that the images enhance the article's encyclopedic value. I'm not saying that you're wrong and they're right.

But I support the latter assertion by
3. adducing as evidence the absence of any demonstration that images such as this add anything necessary to the reader's understanding of the life of Muhammad.

Indeed, you cite your opponents' failure to present a rationale that you deem appropriate as evidence that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

I can't prove the absence of such value, it is up to my opponents to demonstrate its presence, and none has.

It's up to them to demonstrate that the community's standards — not yours — have been met.

This is not to say that your standards are less sensible than the community's are. Perhaps we'd be better off if we did things your way. Perhaps not. I'm not taking either position. I'm addressing your logic ("I assert that x harms the encyclopedia unless y. I assert that my opponents haven't demonstrated y. Therefore, my opponents clearly intend to harm the encyclopedia.").

So, this is more than a "contention" or "statement of fact". It is an argument, supported by evidence (the failure of my opponents to establish relevant value)

(the failure of your opponents, in your view, to establish value relevant in your view)

one with which none of my opponents, including yourself, is able to engage.

Again, I'm not asserting that the images improve the article. You keep replying to my comments with your argument that they don't, thereby ignoring (or not understanding) the fact that this isn't among my points of contention. —David Levy 15:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you cite your opponents' failure to present a rationale that you deem appropriate as evidence that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article."

I'm going to point out where you are misrepresenting me. It's a minor point but I'd appreciate it if you'd concede you made an error there. I cite (1) the number of times WP:NOTCENSORED is waved about in this debate and (2) Tarc's comments linked to in my opening comment as evidence that "most of the editors arguing for inclusion of these images are doing so to make a point, and have no real interest in improving the article." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. Users have cited WP:NOTCENSORED (and explained why they believe that the images are relevant to the article's content, a requirement noted in the policy) instead of presenting a rationale that you deem appropriate. —David Levy 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been nice talking with you, David. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly anyone shares your point of view, that is why the RfC closed when it did. I find it rather pathetic that first Veritycheck at Talk:Muhammad and now you both there and here see fit to piddle (figuratively) upon the outcome of the discussions because you disagree with it. Do you not see how shockingly immature that is? Tarc (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I came here, to another editor's talk page, in the hope of engaging him in a discussion about the outcome of a debate that I lost. He hasn't edited for a few days, so I may have to wait a bit for a response, if he chooses to respond at all. I'm happy to wait, and I'll fully understand if he doesn't want to discuss it. I don't see any harm in that. Calling me rather pathetic and immature is the kind of behaviour I was hoping you'd left behind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Anthony, read this part of the RfC close; "With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support." It has been determined by the Wikipedia community that there is nothing "unnecessary" about the images in the article, that they are there for a good reason, and that the removal would diminish the encyclopedia. Let me make this crystal-clear; your argument to the contrary has lost. That is why I said earlier to please drop it, as it is a failed argument. I have nothing else to say on the matter. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. I just came here to get Jimbo's view on the outcome. And you're right, the majority disagreed with my view. You seem to think that means I'm wrong. I don't follow your logic there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The public voted. Your side didn't get enough votes. "I'm right!" doesn't carry much weight when it comes from so few people. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess kids who like to oppose religion like to think they're the Che guevara Sussimen ballenota (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has dragged on for a long time, and actually I think that this RfC won't put an end to it. Udoubtedly Muslims will continue to protest and there will be a flare up from those that take the "no censorship doesn't mean right to offend" point of view. On the other side of the argument the "not censored" enthusiasts and the "we're not going to let muslims tell us what to do" brigade (together, the WP majority) will hold firm. Meanwhile, the real issues of relevance, encyclopedic benefit etc only get either a cursory look in or are only taken up in any depth to advance the aforementioned pre-existing POVs of either side. At least that's how the debate has gone in the last three years I've been following it. Pretty unedifying and no one involved on either side, IMHO, comes out of it with much credit. DeCausa (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm insulted by that comment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make it inaccurate.DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no one's arguing against our asserted right to offend. I'm arguing that it is stupid, and inimical to the foundation's mission, to do so for no good reason. WP:NOTCENSORED does assert the right to offend. It does not endorse gratuitous offense, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an insult to everyone involved in the debate, DeCausa. Think about it. "No one involved ... comes out of it with much credit." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what I wrote and I've thought it fairly consistently true for about 18 months. ...actually, you're right: I'm talking about the main protagonists. I can't possibly make that judgement about every single contributor. DeCausa (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa appears to have been giving a summation of the discussion, and in this case he saw little of substance or eloquence which stood out, from either side. Perhaps Anthony you could offer a different summation of the discussion? -Stevertigo (t | c) 00:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DeCausa is entitled to his view. I will think about your suggestion (a summary of the discussion) and if you'd like me to contrive something, ask me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lots of people have strong feelings about he issue. No way has been found yet to satisfy an appreciable amount of the concerns of one side whilst also satisfying the concerns of the other. I don't think the business reflects either shame or credit or whatever, people who have stood up for the right of Muslims not to be offended need not feel ashamed. People who have stood up for freedom from censorship of the encyclopaedia need not feel ashamed. Sometimes things are difficult to resolve in a mutually amicable way.

Now can we just put that behind us and work with the situation as it is. The core principle of no censorship has been affirmed but the problem of people taking offence for whatever reason remains and it can drive them away from using Wikipedia - and there's an awful lot of people out there of various ilk ready to be offended not just Muslims. The RfC on the images has outlined the boundaries for any method for dealing with the problem and they are fairly strict, but I do not believe they preclude a solution. So can we just go on and try and figure out a solution within those confines please rather than raking over things that have been well and truly decided. Perhaps some decisions will have changed appreciably in a couple of years but they most certainly will not have done so in any substantial way yet. Dmcq (talk) 06:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the 'core principle' that seems to have been affirmed is that Wikipedia is a badly-run amateur-bureaucratic cult more obsessed with its own policies than with producing a half-credible encyclopaedia. There are no images of Mohammed, any more than there are images of the Holy Ghost, or of the footprints of the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll. This whole debate was never about Islam, or the prophet Mohammed. Instead it has been about how far Wikipedia should go in portraying Islam as some sort of medieval throwback, because it suits the agendas of the majority of the contributors - far too many of whom would be seen as lacking in knowledge, even in the middle ages. Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like, and anyone who thinks it matters is an idiot. Still, if the idiots want to write their own encyclopaedia, why should we stop them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it's all over but the crying. And my god are some of the pro-censorship people ever crying. Resolute 04:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm arguing for intelligence not censorship. (*sniff*) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. Your aim may be noble, but how many times must your "intelligent" viewpoint be rejected by other "intelligent" viewpoints in RFCs before this ends? Seriously, there's been at least four or five since Ludwigs began this idiotic round of bickering, and the status quo was upheld every single time. A lot of productive editing time is being wasted by continuing to beat this dead horse. Except for Andy's time, of course. He quit Wikipedia in a huff a couple weeks ago, and yet, his ghost still here. Resolute 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I was half-way to the shops and came back to correct this but was too late, you'd already responded. I should have said "social intelligence". Most of the people involved in this dispute have no IQ problems that I can see. Umm. I just came here to have a chat with Jimbo, if he was up for it. That's all. Chewing the fat. A bit of meta-discussion. I'm frankly getting a bit annoyed with other editors telling me to shut up when I'm addressing a third party. It's, at the very least, rude. It's also a bit inconsistent, coming from a group that invokes free speech to justify disaffecting millions of our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A meta-discussion, that sounds good. Is this a meta-meta discussion? Oh... isn't that recursive, would this then be an omega-meta discussion? Or does it never go up levels like that so there is no higher type of discussion than a meta discussion? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If all you want is a conversation with Jimbo then use the convenient "Email this user" link. You've been around way longer than long enough to know that this talk page is watched by many people and you couldn't have expected this conversation to have included only the two of you. The fact that you keep responding while claiming that you only wanted to talk with Jimbo is a bit contradictory. But if that's what you want, then just email him and stop responding. SÆdon^talk 11:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The hat says, Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. Please don't consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in this case Wikipedia had the good fortune that the world's top Muhammad images scholar was prepared to provide background information and advice (which was ignored). I see no sign that contributors to the RfC generally understood these subtleties, or were even interested in them. The main preoccupation of many seems to have been free speech (or demonstrating the freedom to do something that it is known some people do not want us to do – regardless of the merits of doing it), and the debate, if one may call it that, was largely on an intellectual level south of South Park. Ignorant and proud of it. Yay! Still, at least there was a sufficient consensus to have calligraphy in the info box. It could have been worse. But I question the usefulness of a mass RfC on issues like that. An FAC drive might have been a better route to go. JN466 10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, you nailed us anti-intellectual mob-rule types good and exposed our master plan to everyone now. Jamming images into the Muhammad article was only Phase 1 of Operation IDGAF. Phase 2 will be to pants the Pope during his next homily, Phase 3 to open a hamburger cookout stand in downtown Delhi. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • IDGAF Phase 3, implimented. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Mcdonald's India doesn't serve hamburgers (or other beef products for that matter). They'll still have to wait for Tarc to implement phase 3. SÆdon^talk 04:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This issue is settled. Debating it now is not very useful. What could be useful would be a careful review of the existing article to check on neglected finer details. Are we being careful enough to make clear that we show no "depictions of Muhammad", but rather, visual artwork representing events in which he was involved? We should not think of a flame or a person with a blank face as a picture of Muhammad, but merely an artist's chosen way of dealing with what he does not wish to portray. We should consider very, very carefully about how we describe such images. And Christiane Gruber did provide good background and advice - do we make all these facts as clear in the article as she did in her e-mail? Does the reader really understand why Muslims object to the images, or whether they objected the same way a century or five ago that they do now, and if not, what has changed? You can accomplish a better thing for the sake of tolerance and understanding by adding the right text than you could by removing the pictures. I think it should be clear that many of us, especially here in America where the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" was actually opposed by a two-thirds of citizens in a poll, that Islamophobia is a real problem and very likely does taint some of our decision making on Wikipedia. (Though in the current Fae ArbCom case, merely suggesting such a thing is being presented as somehow improper, an "extraordinary claim" that, some say, puts the person making it at risk of administrative action) I won't claim not to be affected by some anti-Islamic sentiments myself. But if we stick to our purpose - providing all the relevant information, leaving nothing out, sticking to the sources and presenting all points of view - we can make it so our purpose of learning and our sense of fairness and freedom dominate over any bias we have, rather than the other way around. Wnt (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the RfC showed we should not be doing anything too specific about that article but trying to deal with the general problem of people being offended by various things. We should provide a way that allows them to filter easily but is not article or image specific as far as Wikipedia is concerned and where the filtering criteria are based on stuff we'd do anyway. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just in case anyone is coming new to this issue, it may be as well to make the points, which you would never guess from the above, that our biography of Muhammad is illustrated with six images including a depiction of Muhammad, five of which are historic Islamic miniatures, both Sunni and Shia, made to illustrate biographical accounts of his life, and also that the Farsi (Persian language) Wikipedia biography of Muhammad has also long had six images of Muhammad, without any controversy. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Modern Iran, 14th century Ilkhan miniatures and an Ottoman manuscript is sooo typical of global Islam over 1500 years. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, great thread, AHC. Good to know that POV Warrior blood is still pumping and that there are people willing to still squander tens of thousands of words and hundreds of hours of volunteer time squabbling over an issue which was decided by consensus long ago. And again. And again. And again. "I Didn't Hear That." Carrite (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• POV Warrier. How offensive you are. Well, I've been responding to others, mostly others addressing me directly. But it's terribly tedious so I think I'll stop at this point. I didn't come here to have an argument, I just wanted to hear Jimbo's view, if he felt like offering it. He's away. And I hope he's having a ball. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There are depictions of Jesus as a woman. But it would be stupid to add one of those to our Jesus article, because Jesus is not typically depicted that way. Adding an unusual depiction would be undue weight.

In the Muhammed case, adding any picture at all would be undue weight, for the same reason: Muhammed is rarely depicted, so adding one puts undue weight on something that isn't common.

I think what is happening here is that this is pushback against anything that smells of censorship, that goes too far in the other direction. We shouldn't remove the pictures solely because they cause offense, but normal undue weight considerations do require removing them. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Let there be fundamentalist Christians raging against pictures of Christ as a woman (there are such pictures ...), and within no time Wikipedia will have five of them. Sad. --JN466 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason this argument has found so little purchase is that there are very few depictions of any individuals that lived 1400 years ago. But those that exist are found in their Wikipedia biographies. That, and although there is common consensus on what NPOV means with text (summarizing in text reliable sources), such does not transfer to images; as to summarize an image is generally not even possible in common sense.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing the greater point

Having silently read the debate about the issue of Mohammed pictures, I am struck by the absence of representation for a more strategic view about an encyclopaedic endeavour. The whole contemporary idea of concentrating knowledge in a central repository is linked to the Western Enlightenment which specifically rejected deference to any sensibility in preference to rationality and science.

Being sensitive to anyone's desire to stifle publication of anything was never part of the rational pursuit of knowledge, Wikipedia rules or not. In fact, the existence of Islamic depictions of Mohammed implies a contradiction: the change in attitudes inside Islam to depicting their prophet. Why is it now deemed offensive when in the past it was not? But I guess that question is too academic and non-bureaucratic for Wikipedia editors.

Another fundamental question that ought to be addressed is why it is that we in the West have become so ashamed of our culture and civilization that we lack the confidence to say that this is who we are, 'warts and all'? A technology spawned in the West, hosting an encyclopaedia in the Western mode, ought not to be subject to having to endlessly apologise for representing information the way it is discussed and presented inside our highest institutes of learning, petulant threats or not. If Wikipedia bows to sectarian pressure of any denomination, it ceases to be an encyclopaedia (there are also secular denominations, like the politically correct crowd who seek to garble language, ideologues from right and left, and fantasists who seek to give credibility to conspiracy theories and pseudo-sciences).

In that respect the comments by AndyTheGrump about the anally retentive, smart-arse, 'how many angels on the point of a needle' interpretation and manipulation of rules here by people clearly too beholden to their own self-importance undermines examination of the real issue at stake: if the Mohammed page were not about religion, would this debate exist at all, and if not, there was never any ground to engage in it. What if today the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster launched a campaign to protest against any 'graven image' of any pop or film star? Would we seriously debate that too? And yet, would the CFSM demand be any more or less rational than those of Islamist hardliners?

Perhaps it's good that this debate has been conducted, as an exercise in democracy if nothing else, but it does betray a narrowly fearful and provincial North American conception of the world, the West, and of what an encylopaedia should be. Perhaps this is who we really are now: fearful and bureaucratic. All the best. Peter S Strempel | Talk 00:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that I've missed a great game of "smear the queer" My76Strat (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to be entirely ignorant of the actual role and significance of images in Islam. The fact that there is a particular type of content that is offensive to members of a group should never be a reason to include more of that content than it warrants from a strictly source-based and neutral encyclopedic perspective. Sorry, anti-religionism can be as much a point of view pushed as any religious point of view. JN466 16:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This debate might well be the worlds largest merry-go-round. Resolute 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Image culture: a different view?

We're told here that
The representation of the race of Jesus has been influenced by cultural settings.^{389, 390} A Chinese illustration, Beijing, 1879.
Oh really? From the page illustrations I was guessing he was pretty obviously white Caucasian and European.
—MistyMorn (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your point is what? The "race" issue is wholly unrelated to the reasons why images of Mohammed are under dispute (no one is arging that the prophet was actually a Comanche, say). Since Jesus pretty obviously was not Chinese, I fail to understand your point. Debate about what he actually looked like, is different from the art-historical issue of how he has been depicted in art around the world. What you call "Caucasian" images were the norm throughout the Christian period of the Roman empire, including the Middle East. No one seems to have thought them to be "European" as opposed to...what? Paul B (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

To me it's pretty obvious he wasn't Tuscan, say, either. My point relates to the underlying editorial question, imo, of how to consider the encyclopedic pertinence of illustrations. Many parts of the page where the illustrations occur have nothing directly to do with "the art-historical issue of how he has been depicted in art around the world", but rather with the subject's life story as chronicled in earlier periods. I question whether a "story book" approach to illustration has an encyclopedic role (irrespective of illustration quality per se).

My skittish reference to white Caucasian race was in response to the image caption, but was unhelpful - I've struck it. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You clearly failed to understand my point that the issue of how he has been depicted is different from debate about what he actuia;lly looked like. Tuscan artists portray him using local models, of course. The paintings I was referring to in the last sentence were ones from the late Roman empire, including the area where Jesus actually lived, not Renaissance Italy. Paul B (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but many of the illustrations in this section are local, contemporary representations, often with a local backdrop. Pace Elen and her work, I question the editorial wisdom of considering those image collections pertinent within the specific encyclopedic context of that part of the page. I realise I'm probably in a tiny minority, but imo such a "broadly illustrative" approach (if I can call it that) may exacerbate certain thorny issues on Wikipedia, such as the Muhammad images dispute. It's easier to invoke WP:NOTCENSORED if images don't have to be directly relevant within their editorial context. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who put a lot of the images of Jesus with a cultural slant into the Jesus article - I see someone made them into a nice composite. What you have are depictions of Jesus as semitic, arabic, chinese asian, black ethiopian, African-american,southern european and Nordic. Quite a mixture. That article also has a picture of Muhammad in it - prize for the first person to spot it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus#Islamic views. What do I get? That's a good article. And that figurative depiction of Muhammad is beautiful, and perfectly apt for the section it's in. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually we've a good description of what Muhammad looked like but none for Jesus that I know of. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Well I certainly applaud this image change. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, re the "History of Art" rationale for art gallery style presentations: Why not extend the concept to History of Music by adding in alongside the image collections a bunch of audio files with some well chosen illustrative excerpts from, say, Bach Passions, Berlioz's Enfance du Christ etc? I don't think that analogous editorial line would enhance encyclopedic quality here either. My 2 flacs, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

• Frederick William Sanderson (AfD discussion)
• User:Uncle G/Frederick William Sanderson

I've started a rewrite from scratch. If any proof were needed that this is not copied from anywhere, it's the fact that, as I've just noticed, I wrote Peter and Joan rather than Joan and Peter. Gah! ☺

By the way, you've uncovered what appears at first blush to be another "writer" who substitutes copying and pasting for writing. Drink driving (United Kingdom) was initially filched, word for word except for pronoun changes, from the WWW pages that it cited. I'm concerned about Paul Randolph because of this. Wolterton Hall looks like it came from a predecessor of the 2012 blurb for the Hall. Your talk page stalkers may care to investigate Boyle Farm, which I haven't been able to trace but whose first paragraphs set off alarm bells.

Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't checked the work of the original contributor yet, but I hope that others will launch a full investigation, as he appears to be fairly active.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A full investigation is certainly needed. I've reviewed article creation edits, and a only a few non-creating edits, from Special:Contributions/Thegn, and I've found the above and more. I've noted on User talk:Moonriddengirl#Plagiarism, for example, that this edit to Drink driving (United Kingdom) adds the text "you should contact us for expert professional advice" and "Again you should seek our help when you go to court" to a Wikipedia article; and clearly the content was blagged wholesale from a law practice's advertising blurb somewhere. The pilfered text from the creation and later edits has been turned into a derivative work, and forms the bulk of the article even now. It looks like Drink driving (United Kingdom) has to go, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have opened a CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Thegn. I have also indefinitely blocked him, pending some indication that he has read and intends to comply with copyright policies. He has been receiving notices that his articles were copyright problems since 2006 and has removed these without evidently taking them on board. His most recent creation, in 2011, also copy-pastes from a fully reserved source. I generally do not like to start with indefinite blocks, but his contributions are too sporadic to trust that a limited block will catch his attention and get him to stop pasting content onto Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• The copyvio-detection tool stopped working and people ignore copies: There was once a tool which compared an article to source websites, and suggested when the paraphrasing seemed too similar to the original text, but the tool broke, and I have not found another. In the above articles, there was almost no paraphrasing, just blatant copying, so I remove such text as fast as I can. In the massive dashboard WP:BACKLOG, there is a list of copyvio candidates, where text must be removed or rewritten. However, some people show a habitual pattern of inserting copyvio text in "every article" and hence behavior modification is the suggested option for them. With other articles, I have just rewritten the text, quickly, but some text has remained for several months, and just wondering if the original author approved the copying. We see would-be resumes with copyvio text, and many editors lack the energy to update or delete them. Again, the complexities of "copyright calculus" lead some editors to wonder if there is a copyright loophole which allows the text to appear unaltered. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean in some points, but the copyvio-detection tool stopped working when the browser (can't recall at the moment which one) modified its terms of use and the tool could no longer crawl the web looking for text matches. The same thing affected the new article copyright bots, but these have been repaired with some funding from the Wikimedia Foundation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Some things that may amuse or appall: We already know that Thegn plagiarized Richard Dawkins wholesale. At Karl Popper, Thegn plagiarized Melvyn Bragg. At Oakley Court, the ganked text apparently came from Oakley Court's Sunday lunch menu. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

English WP reaching 4 million articles July 2012

This is just FYI that enwiki will exceed 4 million articles by mid-July (next month). The current active editors (not leaving by the thousands) are still creating over 1,000 new articles per day. I realize your preference is to focus on article quality, rather than count, but in past years, some people predicted enwiki would never reach 4 million articles, due to some notion that "most notable subjects were already covered" and the rest was AfD and redirect to prior articles. Instead, the slowly-declining growth shows English Wikipedia still could reach 8-10 million articles in future years, before the point where daily deletions would offset daily creations of new articles. -Wikid77 13:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right that WP could hit 8-10 million articles someday. Considering the following facts I think thats a very reasonable assumption. Most articles in WP still directly or indirectly relate to the US which by most standards is a fairly new country and culture, that India and China comprise 2/5ths of the worlds population, have much older civilizations that the US and are still under represented in Wikipedia. To say nothing of the fact that there are still tens of thousands of US related articles alone that warrant an article. On the other hand I think we are doing a lot of things to ourselves and our enviornment in Wikipedia that is making it very hard and hinder that and the number of edits and editors here. Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like User:WereSpielChequers is going to win the pool. Robofish (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair

Dear Mr Wales, This article is an attack page. It has been created to smear an incumbent Australian Federal politician by agents and party members of his political adversaries. Please note that the subject of the article began defamation proceedings against one of the major Australian news media empires, and those sources are being repeatedly used as "reliable sources" in the article at issue. I have requested intervention of experienced Wikipedia editors and administrators, and have had very limited success. The sting and gist of the article is that he is guilty of some crime or tort; however, no legal proceedings have been filed against the article's subject. Further, the article's subject is basically facing "trial by media" and it appears to me that the article at issue in Wikipedia is furthering that process. One editor in particular is manipulating the rules and processes of Wikipedia in order to allow him to continue the smear campaign unimpeded. For those of us out here who only use Wikipedia as a casual reference and not as editors, the processes and procedures one must pursue are time-consuming and complex for those of us who see a blatant wrong in front of us and have a simple wish to put it right. I respectfully ask that you, or someone suitable, look into this matter. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Australian "silly season" article - reduced to showing the allegations and sources - all the "timeline" business was plain silly, as were allegations and claims which bore no obvious relevance to the person in any WP:BLP complaint article. Collect (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear WP:COATRACK to me. I'm going to AfD it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin canditur

So when does your next admin canditur start? Master Katarn (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such word as "canditur". Looie496 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a synonym for kanditur - of course, you have to recognize that there are other languages in the world (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Master Katarn! Admin candidacies are independent of each other, they are not run in tranches. See this guide to the wonderful, wacky, and often painful world of the RfA.→StaniStani^{COI: Wikipediocracy}  23:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Potential candidates should consider running. It's pretty disappointing when you appoint one admin but desysop 13 others. WilliamH (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

Hello,could you please desysop and block Beeblebrox? He/she vandalised the Wikipedia:Admin coaching page with a inactive tag. This is tag abuse. 96.50.22.205 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As the page does appear inactive, that would appear to be an overreaction. Even if it was active, that would still be an overreaction, actually.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism: An edit that someone else disagrees with. --MuZemike 03:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I also smell socking...--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that this farcical request actually merits a reply, but for the record there was a two year long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching regarding whether to mark it as historical. Don't have a clue who the IP is or why they didn't bring it up with me first. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

lol ya think? Egg Centric 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on Beebs, you're clearly unfit to be an admin because you probably rightly blocked someone but they got mad about it; and of course, tagging a wholly unused page - you're trouble from the start, buddy! Go to your room! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been a strong supporter of Beebs since his RfA, though we haven't always agreed and seeing his name here, I felt flippancy was the best way to handle it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How many categories at commons?

I believe I asked this some time ago, but I don't remember the answer nor how to find the answer. Hopefully someone can help. How many categories are there on commons?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2068627. --Yair rand (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As of 00:28 UTC. Data from commons:Commons:Database reports/Page count by namespace, which is updated by BernsteinBot by MZMcBride. --Yair rand (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You asked this in a discussion now archived at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#How can I find this out? from March 2012.

The heading of that section makes searches for it more difficult. I might have considered revising it at that time, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 ("Section headings").

Please see Microcontent: Headlines and Subject Lines (Alertbox).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Geez Jimbo, I can't believe you weren't aware of TPOC point 13. I mean that's like first day stuff these days... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

:-) Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Status of upcoming large RfC related to “verifiability, not truth”

Jimbo, Here is the page that contains the present version of the draft for the RfC that will be about the lead of WP:V and “verifiability, not truth”.[1]

FWIW, my expectation is that the result will be the reinstatement of a previous version of the lead that is a classic “verifiability, not truth” version, for example a version like the one of 00:47, 15 December 2011, when the previous large RfC was closed.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed new term "Verifispeak": As part of the "silent" majority who favor the concept of "Verifiability and truth", I have coined the term "verifispeak" to describe the "Verifiability not truth" concept, such as perhaps, "Accurate not correct" or "workable not working" or "incorrect not wrong" or similar phrases which sound like Yoda-speak ("Do or do not; there is no try"). Perhaps the ultimate verifispeak collary would be, "Refutable not false". Things to ponder or not ponder, there is no whatever. -12.78.83.120 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • See Newspeak. Dru of Id (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Linux/Wikipedia parallels

Hi Jimbo. It strikes me that there are a number of interesting parallels and lessons we could draw from this interview. Perhaps you've already discussed it with Linus? --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Community consensus on PR editing?

Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a lot of shouting?

I ask because next Wednesday I will be the Wikipedian at an episode of the CIPR TV webcast. (A past episode.) Basically a podcast with a camera. I have my own fairly strong opinions - but I'll be there to say something reasonably representative of what the community actually thinks. So is there any place to get a feel for that?

They're also interested in this document, which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of course that's descriptive and not normative.

So, is anything actually worked out or do I just have to equivocate my way through this one? How to be NPOV on the fly ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is PR editing the same as editor compensation for work done? If so, you may want to seek another forum, I"m uncertain that Jimbo's views are ... representative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

CIPR stands for Chartered Institute of Public Relations, so in this context we're talking about the professional body of PR representatives who are actually interested in doing something like the right thing by Wikipedia and their clients - occasionally infuriating, but useful discussion may well be possible, and I've no doubt the webcast is a sincere effort. I have a fair idea of Jimbo's opinion, I'm asking him and others for pointers to anything that shows what the state of discussion is at present, e.g. did someone ever set up a PR issues noticeboard, that sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think my views are pretty mainstream within the community. There are a handful of people who noisily claim otherwise, but such is life. I'll write you with more details of my views tomorrow, but my first piece of advice is to speak primarily of "best practices". There are people who are more lenient and less lenient on various things, but I think there is little disagreement about best practices.

For example, don't directly edit article space unless it proves to be absolutely necessary after a failure of the community to deal with something (which I argue won't happen, but others are less sure, hence the lenience some give. For another example, identify yourself honestly and openly, which I think ought to be mandatory but others are less sure, but again - I think there is little disagreement that it is best practices. CIPR is not looking to learn "what's the maximum bullshit I can get away with" but rather "what is the best thing to do". Some people are more tolerant of bullshit than I am, but they don't generally tend to disagree with me on best practices.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

CIPR is a pretty good outfit, in my experience; have you had any dealings with them yourself, Jimbo? If so what have you said to them? Prioryman (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

IME the hardest point is to get across that we're being descriptive, not prescriptive. Even the relatively good PRs fall into the trap of assuming any given Wikipedian has prescriptive powers, e.g. the cursed study (and I'm trying to work out something nice to say if they ask about it). It's a little annoying no-one set up a noticeboard, but then I didn't either and wasn't prepared to monitor one so can't really complain - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrator CBM censorship

Administrator CBM censorship of the work of Professor Hewitt on computation (see [3], [4] [5]) and logic (see [6], [7]) is highly unethical because CBM is trying to deprive credit for published work.75.144.241.166 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC) — 75.144.241.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you mean this Professor Hewitt? Dmcq (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with the link below instead from 50.136.164.104 though I don't think it actually changes the message. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, it is this Professor Hewitt, the author of "Corrupution of Wikipedia." ;-) 50.136.164.104 (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I gotta support CBM on this one. Good catch. I just looked at every link provided and I don't see anything of value in any of them. Mostly blog entries, uncredible self promoted sites and self promotion in the case of the last one. Kumioko (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Professor Hewitt is an acknowledged world-class expert who has just spoken at the Stanford CS Colloquim whereas CBM seems to be an anonymous troll who should be banned from editing on the subject matter of these articles because of the manifest animus that he has shown to Professor Hewitt.75.144.241.166 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the professor is a world class mathematician but in order to use the information that the good professor has written it must also be found in secondary sources and be verifyable or its considered original research. Good or bad Wikipedia does not allow original research to be used, especially on Biographies of living persons. Additionally, the good professor has unfortunately not conducted himself appropriately on this site and was banned from editing due to his editing practices over a period of time spanning several years. I for one would very much love for more academics such as the professor to find interest in Wikipedia and pass on their knowledge to the rest of us but I find his behavior in the past appalling and unnaceptable particularly for someone of his stature. If you can find sources that are credible outside blog posts and video chats then I would be happy to look and consider using them. But, we cannot use the links provided above nor the information, much of which was copied directly, without rephrasing it. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko: You are just quibbling. The results that have been censored by CBM have been published by numerous reputable publishers including the following:

* SRI: April 24, 2012

* Stanford CS Colloquium: June 6, 2012

* numerous ArXiv papers: [8]

* book chapters, e.g., “What is computation? Actor Model versus Turing’s Model” in A Computable Universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.219.6 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a colloquium at Stanford or SRI is not a publication, and arXiv is a valuable resource, but also has essentially no quality control and is not a reliable publisher. If you don't understand that, I have some doubt that you can evaluate Hewitt's work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The video of Hewitt's Stanford lecture is an extremely prestigous publication. (Just try and get an invitation to speak!)

ArXiv is accepted as a reference in most other parts of Wikipedia. Some of the most prestigous papers in physics and mathematics have been published only in ArXiv. Have your read (or watched) Hewitt's publications?50.136.164.104 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Did Jimbo not say that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit? That means that we don't restrict editing on particular subjects to experts on those subjects.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, just because we don't restrict editing on particular subjects to experts on those subjects does not (contrary to certain widespread misunderstandings) mean that we don't encourage editing on particular subjects by experts on those subjects as long as they follow the same rules as the rest of us. Alas, in the past Hewitt has not done so; and I suspect that the IP may be him. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes some arXiv papers get recognized by being referred to in other places. However when I looked at the very first of the ones above arxiv 1008.1459v23 with Google Scholar and I found it was referred to in a Masters and that seemed to be about it. There seemed to be no reliable sources referring to it. I didn't look at the rest but I really can't see that this one for instance has won a place into Wikipedia. So I;ve tried out the first and I was very much unconvinced. Dmcq (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Google Scholar is very much a trailing indicator. You might try sampling some real senior experts, such as those on the Board of the International Society of Inconsistency Robustness.50.136.164.104 (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I happened to look here due to a separate thread. I do not usually look here. But now that I am here:

• I have only met Carl Hewitt once and have had no major interaction with him, ever. I really have no COI with Hewitt, but know his work, and those of his students. I am fully familiar with the subject area.

• I view the indef block of Hewitt and the actions of user:CBM as totally justified, as I had stated here. I see user:CBM as a "major asset" to Wikipedia and the articles CBM has written have been always high quality in my view. I do not know who CBM is. That matters not. His edit record speaks for itself. It is always high quality. I see user:CBM (along with user:David Eppstein and User:Jorge Stolfi) as three key contributors to the math/computing area, and wish we had 30 more like them.

• From what I have seen, the main trend in the edits by Hewitt have been "self promotion". I said elsewhere that I know of no tag called "illusions of grandeur", else I would have applied it to Carl Hewitt's page.

But if we step back for a moment, Hewitt is but a symptom of a larger problem. As I commented here before this thread started, "One of the main threats I see is WP:COI. On many technical articles, I have seen wannabe researchers inserting their own papers, and performing self-promotions that go unnoticed. It is happening everywhere now, given the high exposure of Wikipedia." Hewitt may be one of the most noticeable of the self-promoters, but there are hundreds and hundreds more. I have mentioned this on WP:VP before. Unless something is done, in 3 years it will be just impossible to unscramble the egg and remove all the low level technical self-promotion that is taking place across Wikipedia, jeopardizing the integrity of the technical content. Wikipedia should not become the Craigslist of technology. Hewitt is just a symptom of a much larger, mostly unnoticed problem. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymously accusing Hewitt of "illusions of grandeur" is a cheap shot :-(

The current alienation between Wikipedia and academics is tragic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.212.164 (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, the poor attitude of the prestigious academics involved here is tragic. --MuZemike 02:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't in Hewitt's brilliance its in his social skills and bearing. He was blocked for a reason. Not because Wikipedia or its editors are trying to keep him from editing or to with hold his mathematical breakthroughs from the world, because he violated our policies and banned for his troubles. Not because we didn't like him, but because he didn't behave himself and follow the rules. Kumioko (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Never before has so much storm being rolling in so many teacups! This is as far from 'censorship' as spell checking is! I think Kumioko has summed up this entire "issue" in one post doktorb _words^deeds 03:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues seem to be:

1. Wikipedia and academia oprate using very different principles.
2. The tatterted state of Wikipedia's reputaton in academia.

50.136.164.104 (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that Wikipedia and academia operate on different principles is an obvious statement. And yes, due to Wikipedia being a "work in progress" many academics do have serious reservations about relying on it. However, Wikipedia does include many pockets of high quality scholarly content and the article in question, namely Gödel's incompleteness theorems happens to be one of those. I would have no reservation in recommending that article to any grad student. That article is edited by Travatore and CBM, and they both know the topic well. I have seen no need to edit that article myself. It is in good shape, and a credit to Wikipedia.

The key issues here are:

• Wikipedia can/should not lead the academic world but must follow it. Per policy, Wikipedia should reflect the state of current scholarship, no push the envelope. Let Hewitt submit his work on that topic to the Journal of Symbolic Logic next week. Let it be published there, and let there be academic discussion for a year or two. After that enough WP:RS sources will have been generated that per WP:V the material can be included. At that point, I will include it myself.

• There are many other articles that need help and this persistent push by Hewitt is distracting, and less than constructive. I suggest that if Hewitt wants to be "rehabilitated", he should begin to do some work - like the rest of us. Let him start by cleaning up the page on message passing - a topic close to his main field, not push the envelope on Gödel's theorem. The entire set of articles on message passing and parallelism need help, and the way to improve Wikipedia is to spend effort on those, not present new research.

However, as stated above, this brouhaha involving Hewitt can/should be used to make the community aware of the underlying WP:COI problems that persist in many technical articles. A more general solution needs to be crafted. History2007 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly unsettled by one specific aspect of this - leaving aside the broader points about self-promotion, academia v. WP etc. Forgive me but I don't edit in science areas, so this is not an issue I come accross and may be off beam or missed the point here: the first diff at the head of this thread seems to show the removal of the self-pub/non-RS source but leave behind the "cited" statement without a citation. Is it disputed that the statement is derived from this guy Hewitt one way or another? If not, isn't this simply plagiarism? Doesn't he have a genuine complaint if that's the case? I suppose the editors on that article should take it out because it is unsourced, but if they don't ("not everything has to have an inline citation") then is that an acceptable position? cake...eating? Is there/should there be a policy (may be there is, I don't know, I'm not much of a policy wonk) that says plagiarized material has to come out even if taken from a non-RS source. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly not every statement needs to be cited, they just need verifiability and the lead in particular summarizes an article. Secondly there is a citation there already on the next sentence which covers it. Thirdly just because there isn't a citation does not mean we have to grub around and accept bad citations. The person is a recognised expert and as such we could use some of his writing without them being peer reviewed but what's the point of doing that in the lead? And Wikipedia is not an entire bibliography for people, it is an encyclopaedia and should summarize. There is already more coverage of the Actor model in different articles that I can see than Newton's Laws of Motion. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your first and third points are irrelevant to my question. If the second point is true - then that answers this specific case. But I'd still like a comment on the general cake/eating proposition. DeCausa (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not explained the relationship of cake and eating and plagiarism to the current business. Why do you expect me to understand your allusions?Dmcq (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What's with the belligerence? I thought you'd understand the allusion because I wikilinked it to an article explaining it in my first post. My question, put another way: is there a policy assurance that there is no loop-hole allowing plagiarism simply because a concept is taken from a source which is not WP:RS. DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And just to be clear: the cake is taking the material and eating is not acknowledging the source because of policy. If you can't acknowledge the source, the material shouldn't be used. DeCausa (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand the relevance and I still don't. That is not belligerence, it is a request for a better explanation. The material is all well cited. That arXiv document is dated to 2011, long after the concepts in the article were described. There is no plagiarism that I can see. I can see no relevance of the cake and eating article. I am quite intelligent enough to be a reasonable subject for seeing if someone has got their point across in a general discussion like this and I don't believe you have got your point across. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not see a problem there. That statement is in the lede of the article and per WP:LEDE does not necessarily need a reference, but can be a summary of the content in the body. In any case, there is an IJCAI 1973 reference soon thereafter in that section that points to a published conference proceeding whose title describes that it is about the Actor Model. The arxive link really did not buy anything there, except make readers aware of more recent ideas by Hewitt. The published IJCAI reference by Hewit, Bishop and Steiger is quite sufficient there. History2007 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I've already said that the point in this case is answered. I've explained the broader question I was asking twice so I'll just wait to see if anyone else has an answer. If no one...so be it! DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened was that Hewitt wrote almost the entirety of the current Wikipedia article Actor model based on his arXiv aricle the reference to which was censored by CBM. Consequently, the reference to the arXiv article is most crucial. 75.144.241.166 (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow you. If Hewitt wrote the Actor model article, then he has released copyright. He's credited in the history. If he wrote it based on his arXiv article, any plagiarism is his own. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From the dates, it looks like Professor Hewitt wrote the Wikipedia article contemporaneously with the arXiv article and they co-evolved over the years. The point is that the appropriate reference to the published literature is the arXiv aricle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.241.166 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The self-published literature? However, back to your point....what would you like to see in Wikipedia related to this. It would be inappropriate to use the arXiv article as a reference, even though Hewitt is an expert. An external link? An acknowledgement that parts of the article were taken (with permission) from versions of the arXiv article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Like many of his contemporaries, Hewitt doesn't seem to publish much any more in journals composed of ground-up trees. Maybe the article Actor model should follow the practice of other articles of Wikipedia and reference the arXiv aricle. Otherwise, Wikipedia has a severe ethics issue and a lot of explaining to do.75.144.241.166 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Hewitt wrote the Wikipedia article contemporaneously with the arXiv article" indicates that IP 75.144.241.166 is either omniscient or is Carl Hewitt - or perhaps both. In any case, this is a minor issue abut one computing article, not an international incident, and only deserves to be discussed on the article talk page. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We know that the writing was contemporaneous because of the publication dates. It seems highly likely that the article Actor model was written by Professor Hewitt because it is written at a very high level of expertise and probably no one else is capable. Last time I looked, CBM had locked the article talk page against editing.75.144.241.166 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(to anon) It's not the trees, it's the absence of peer-review. You (Hewitt) have apparently not written a peer-reviewed article in the past few years. (At least, you haven't attempted to add references to one of his peer-reviewed article. I haven't attempted a full literature search.)

(to History2007) This dispute is not restricted to Actor model, but to all articles in fields to which it is alleged that Hewitt has made contributions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The obvious point from that is that the article was not based on the preexisting arXiv paper. Before putting in a reference it would be good to see some other places referencing the paper first, that might give it some weight even if not peer reviewed. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The important point is that almost all of the current Wikipedia article Actor model is based directly on the current arXiv aricle (which is on the first Google search page for "Actor model" and "Hewitt"). It turns out that there are a lot of other "actor models" in Hollywood :-) 75.144.241.166 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You said the article and the arXiv article were developed at the same time. That means the article was not based on it. Also the topic should have been established before it was written about. The only way it would have been okay is if it had been around and recognised as notable before the topic was written around. It still has zilch weight. I am not particularly familiar with this logic by Hewitt in which something and its opposite are true at the same but I get the feeling I might have to read up to it and be convinced before I can count the arXiv article as being essential to the article by the arguments you gave. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Actor model there were dozens of articles published before the Wikipedia article started was started by Hewitt. 75.144.241.166 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I think I have had enough of Hewitt and the actor Model for now. As you recall Arthur, we went through another one of these WP:COI issues with an arXiv link on Bell's Theorem a few days ago where someone else claimed that the nature of publishing has changed, and reviews are not needed. This probably needs to end the same way, a block on the passionate IP 75.144.241.166 if it is identified as Hewitt. This is taking up time that could be used for improvements elsewhere. I will therefore sign off here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Does Jimbo approve of the kind of censorship that CBM has exercised against Professor Hewitt? 75.144.241.166 (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and academics?

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Post-case clarification (rebutting Hewitt's claim through a sockpuppet account)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Carl Hewitt
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#Proposed community ban for Carl Hewitt

All of the IP addresses here geolocate either to Stanford University or to places surrounding it. People conversing with the IP addresses should read the aforelinked if they are not already familiar with them, and note from the contributions that Carl Hewitt has been talking about himself in the third person and using wireless Internet hotspots in the area for nigh on six years now. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) ]]

This looks like classic scientific censorship in which authorities attempt to put down guerrillas proseltizing the populace. People are the key base to be secured and defended rather than territory won or enemy bodies counted.64.134.233.28 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks more like article ownership to me. --MuZemike 20:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The "guerrillas" probably would be happy to have the article Actor model deleted. 64.134.145.219 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not compromise and put arXiv references in the Wikipedia actor and logic articles? 75.144.241.166 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Peersonally I think we should just close this discussion as the waste of time it is. Assuming that the IP's are the professor, which they likely are, then he's just insulting us insinuating were all a bunch of idiots. He had his chance and continues to this day to prove that the Arbcom ban was justified and worthwhile. If and its a big if at this point he decides to contribute positively and within the rules then I would support letting him contribute again. But this IP challenge that he continues to present does not help his cause and only makes him look like the fool. My suggestion is we close this discussion. Its clearly going no where and the starter is clearly just trying to Troll the conversation. Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So this guy is using the internet at his place of employment, possibly whilst he's supposed to be working, in order to textually abuse those who quite correctly curtailed his highly-unprofessional (especially for a so-called academic) actions? I guess he's never heard of a boomerang. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately in the long run, attempting suppression will go badly for Wikipedia as it will alienate one academic group after another. 50.136.164.104 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised there hasn't been any fallout, especially in academia, regarding your unethical and unprofessional conduct here. Is this seriously how you act in public, as well? --MuZemike 03:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In academia being obsessive and having an inflated opinion of ones own abilities can be a route towards getting over difficulties and succeeding. That means exactly the same as tenacious and confident. Dmcq (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately knowing your right doesn't always equal being right either in the end result or the pursuit of it. That can be seen throughout history. Einstein "knew" he was right and so did Hitler. Just because we think we are right, doesn't make it true and no I am not comparing anyone to Hitler just using it to illustrate a point. Kumioko (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I rather hope it wasn't Professor Hewitt himself saying "It seems highly likely that the article Actor model was written by Professor Hewitt because it is written at a very high level of expertise and probably no one else is capable"! I can't imagine Einstein having said anything like that and about the closest I've seen to him 'knowing' he was right was the bit about God doesn't play dice with the world which expressed his belief that Quantum mechanics probably had some deterministic basis. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Focus on addressing concerns of academics: This thread could be switched to discuss the related concerns of academics, such as fears that some activists will distort academic articles via anonymous sock-puppets, or new published ideas will be shunned due to excessive enthusiasm viewed as "advocacy" or whatever other fears which academics have often expressed. Meanwhile, "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones", and so we need to reconcile disagreements with people, as much as possible, to reduce the need for tedious proxy IP sockpuppets. If we have professors willing to work on Wikipedia, then perhaps ask them to help with unfinished expert-needed articles. POV-pushing, or WP:SOAPBOXing, will typically abate after they get their "15 minutes of fame" and there are thousands of articles where readers would be impressed with professors who helped to answer questions and expand articles. Hence, "Hate the sin not the sinner" and turn a liability into an asset, here. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like anons on both sides have played amateur detective on the basis of very slight evidence.

Academics care deeply about accurate credit assignment. It offends them when Wikipedia gets it wrong. And they typically feel it just as much when someone else doesn't get their proper due. For example, some of the Wikipedia material on Paul Krugman and the climate researchers has been deeply offensive.

Also academics cannot garner fame from their colleagues (the ones who count) by material from Wikipedia. However, academics don't want Wikipedia to be inaccurate because many civilians believe Wikipedia.

Maybe Jimbo can figure out how to arrange detente with academics. For example, he could arrange a small workshop with principals from UCSC, Stanford, UCSF, and UC Berkeley. Stanford might be neutral meeting site.64.134.239.8 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this one, but please do respect WP:BLP in regard to Hewitt - there's nothing approaching evidence that he is responsible for the edits mentioned, and their characterization may be controversial. (It could be a student) If the IP's edits are against policy, that can be addressed regardless of its identity. Wnt (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I think some people are seeing a WP:DUCK. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but what kind of a duck is Jimbo? ;-) 50.136.164.104 (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's not a duck, he just weighs the same as one. :D - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile back at the duck ranch, what if anything should be done about academics? 64.134.228.72 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no academics on wikipedia, only encyclopaedists. Academics may need initial training to realise that this is a general purpose encyclopaedia with strict editorial rules (how such academics meet the standards of required papers in other strict publishing forms is a curiosity). Academics who are unable to behave as encyclopaedists should leave the project. Academics who are unable to behave as encyclopaedists and continue attempting to disrupt the project should be restrained from doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What should we do with academics? I've been told that some are half-baked ... should we finish the baking process?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, How do you Solve a Problem like Maria? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"There are no [ ... ] on wikipedia, only encyclopaedists." What attitude! As a medical writer and researcher I sometimes struggled to communicate methodological and reporting concepts that not all physicians and biologists are familiar with. But I never thought of weighing in with pleasantries like "there are no doctors, transplant surgeons, molecular biologists etc here, only writers/researchers." That might have been mixing it some... —MistyMorn (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. Could you explain it better please? I fully agree that editors should contribute to Wikipedia as encyclopaedists not as specialists informing other people from a position of authority. The authorities are the cited sources. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My point (unconnected to the case which sparked this thread) was merely that academics may be valuable contributors to Wikipedia, and that encouraging the impression that their experience is not valued in wikitopia is unhelpful. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My view on the matter, personally, is that my sole experience with a subject matter expert on Wikipedia has put me and another editor off working on Gilded Age articles, where we have about a dozen FAs between us, including one conom. People have opinions, including academics, and if your article doesn't fit what they've been spending thirty years forcing on the academic community and helpless students  ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is old ground, and has been rehashed in some form or another ad nauseum at least as long as I've been here. Wikipedia's culture of hostility and disdain toward editors with any form of IRL academic qualification is legendary and has, if anything, worsened in the years I've been here. The official rationale for that hostility is along the lines expressed by Wehwalt - that academics are arrogant and entitled.

In my experience, that's not actually the case. Most academics don't come here expecting deference, but they do come here expecting some sort of semi-functional mechanism for ensuring that sane people and ideas triumph over outright lunacy. We don't have any such mechanism. Any dispute that can be marginalized as a "content issue" has no realistic hope of solution. In fact, existing processes favor pathological obsessives over rational editors, because the former are more committed and less likely to become exhausted or move on to another area of interest.

Academics, as a rule, get frustrated by that, and sometimes they turn testy and frustrated and even obnoxious, a process famously outlined in WP:RANDY. But whenever an academic behaves in a difficult way, their behavior is used to buttress this site's fundamental hostility toward academic participation in general. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, academics also have standards and norms that they expect Wikipedia to support. 50.136.164.104 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Prime objective

To point people to when they need to understand our basic mission. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 09:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Since it has not been used all that much to refer disambiguation concept of "primary topic" I'd like to appropriate WP:PRIME for use with this page, since it seems like a concise and essential summary of our mission. Ive gone ahead and de-linked most of prior usages of WP:PRIME, perhaps only 50 pages in number. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Parity of notability criteria for people - discrimination against academics?

I've just created an article on a Yale professor and have discovered what I consider a disparity here which discriminates against academics. For sports people, playing in one match in a major league is enough. It appears that virtually any general qualifies. But for academics, being a full professor at Yale, Oxford, MIT, etc, isn't enough - how is that less notable than playing in one football game? I don't want to even think about boy bands. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff exists? Let the sports editors bury the sports editors. Achieving tenure at a particular institution isn't inherently notable. Achieving Reader / Associate Professor or Professor status at a British-style University isn't inherently notable. Even named chairs are suspect. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been unfortunate enough to be affected by the all spreading Mixed Martial Arts dispute and I really do not think we need their standards of notability used elsewhere. Academics have more enduring interest than sports in their achievements but they don't excite much general interest normally. I think the inclusion standards applied for them are about right. We can't start writing about people who aren't written about. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

His works appear to be highly cited, chasing some of those books down might indicate notability, if they give more than a passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an important point. You just have to find grounds for notability, not start with that they are academics and just check those grounds. Whatever brought the person to your notice is probably the best grounds for notability. Dmcq (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned with the article I started, it's a general issue for me. Our guidelines for notability should not be as unbalanced as I believe they are. I cannot see how someone playing in one major league game for a few minutes is automatically notable, while someone who is a full professor at a major university is not automatically notable. Otherstuff exists is for articles, it shouldn't be an excuse for different strokes for different folks. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you play in a major league then you're going to be known to a significantly larger section of the public than most academics. That's not to say I agree; in general when people turn around and say "there is no in-depth coverage of this person" because most of it is citation of his work (plus, say, an academic biography) almost the exact same thing exists for X sportsman. The only difference is that a Wikiproject has established a separate notability benchmark - there seems nothing wrong with doing that for academics. Probably tied to how widely their work is cited. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There already is, in WP:AUTHOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the 'verifiability not truth' of the previous section applies here. If people are not verifiably notable by people writing about them that's it really whatever one thinks about how notable they really should be. Actually our standards are a bit relaxed for academics because we know they should be more notable compared to the reams written about footballers and their wives and mistresses and drunken orgies and weddings and car crashes and sightings on the beach and their tattoos etc etc etc. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It all boils down to the fact that getting a bio on Wikipedia is basically just an exercise in popularity. Any rapper or DJ with a couple of thousand hits to his YouTube channel gets a page, just as any paid footballer who has kicked a ball once in his 'professional' life in a third division or college team. A lifelong researcher who has seriously contributed to the genuine pool of human knowledge is often just not 'famous' enough outside academic circles and cannot win against our criteria. What pains me most since I wrote point 3 of my deletion policy on my user page years ago, is that since I became an admin, I have to keep the kickers and PROD the professors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent question (though, perhaps, not in the right forum). While I agree that the vast majority of tenured academics are not notable (at most schools, tenure is not really that hard), there is the question of top notch professors who are respected by their communities but don't make it into the popular press. Should we have a different notability criterion for them? My feeling is that there is no hurry. If a professor is significant in his or her community, they'll sooner or later get a chair at their, presumably well known, university and that, for us, is a sufficient condition for inclusion. As with everything else, we need some reliable indicator of notability and these indicators exist in academia so we shouldn't get into the business of trying to determine notability ourselves. --regentspark (comment) 11:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have one notability guideline, WP:GNG, with a slight tweak that you can complete a notable category of things if most of its members are notable, even if a few aren't quite up to that standard. And delete the rest. Wnt (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR etc should be required in addition to WP:GNG. What's the point of having an article on something if there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I found and looked at the article and its references regarding Dimitri Gutas, that was referred to in the beginning message of this section as an example. (To find it, I looked through Dougweller's contribs and found this.) It appears to be an article about the work of Gutas, rather than Gutas himself. There doesn't appear to be enough information in reliable sources about Gutas himself to justify an article about him. Ironically, this may be an example of when not to make an article about someone because of not being sufficiently notable, as determined by an insufficient amount of information about the person himself in reliable sources. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you not looking at the current version? Are you actually saying that because he is only considered an expert for his work, and that a book was published in his honor but because of his work, he may not be notable? If that's what you mean (and you do imply that you looked for reliable sources), then it's worse than I thought. Our criteria for sports people is about their work (one major league match for instance) not the person him/herself Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My remarks were based on the current version of Dimitri Gutas, which I read before making my comments. In Wikipedia, what counts is how much information there is in reliable sources about Gutas himself.

Also, an article about an allegedly non-notable topic should not be used as justification for an article on another possibly non-notable topic, which seems to be the basis of your argument regarding athletes and academics. If there is an article about an athlete that does not meet the notability requirement, then it should be deleted instead of being used as a model for other Wikipedia articles about non-notable subjects. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression you haven't read the guideline, academic notability is "measured by their academic achievements." Sports people are measured by participation in one game. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume the guideline you are referring to is Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I checked the criteria section and Gutas didn't seem to fit. Perhaps you could find something about Gutas that fits any of the criteria there. At first I thought that Gutas might fit #2 with "the book Islamic philosophy, science, culture, and religion; studies in honor of Dimitri Gutas was published by Brill Publishers with articles by friends, colleagues and students.", but on second thought it didn't seem to fit "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." Don't misunderstand me. I'd like to see that the article complies with the guideline. If you can figure out how it does, then I would support you in that regard. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am not defending my article as I don't think it needs defending. It was simply that after I made it I realised that there seems to be a disparity in our guidelines. I am NOT trying to compare articles, I am saying that our guidelines need to be even. Guidelines for sports people do not require reliable sources for anything other than their participation in one game. That's all, nothing else at all so far as I read it. If I've misread it, apologies, but if I'm right, there might be little to no mention of an athlete other than to note that he/she played in a game. Is that what we want? And I don't know what you mean by 'Gutas himself' or how that is relevant. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't trying to pick on your article but just following up on your original comment and using it as a concrete example for discussion. No offense, and I hope you can find enough info in reliable sources so that it becomes an article that complies with Wikipedia's notability guideline. I can also sympathize that it's no fun to have someone suggest deleting something that you worked hard to create. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I did that this morning, have a book written in your honor plus other statements in reliable sources saying that one is an expert in their field seems to comply with "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Dougweller (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a good way to go. One might quibble that being honored by a book of articles by one's students, colleagues, and friends, or a book review, are not "independent" reliable sources, but it's enough for me. As far as making a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline", you might be able to show for the purpose of notability, that Gutas's works have been cited in a large number of other authors' works in his scholarly discipline. Best wishes for your article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We need to have some external validation of notability and, apparently, that's easier in the case of a sports person. For professors who are only known within their own speciality in academia, there is no way of figuring out their notability independently. In the case of Gutas, there seems to be reasonable corroboration since he's mentioned frequently in the NY Times. (Add: Actually, only once so perhaps not.) --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The only mention of Gutas in that NY Times article is an in-text attribution for his comment regarding the topic of the NY Times article. That's how news articles reference their information, in lieu of footnotes. The only info about Gutas there is that he is "a professor of Arabic at Yale University". --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why I added the comment above. The search pulled up several NYT articles but they all turned out to be the same. I know this is not about Gutas as DW points out, but it is a good example. He is a professor at Yale, apparently a full professor but doesn't have a chair and has not received significant coverage outside his speciality. Our criteria say he's probably not notable and, I think, that is a fairly accurate assessment. Perhaps notability of professors is the only area on Wikipedia that actually works well! --regentspark (comment) 17:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• For as much as people like to cry and bitch about the notability of athletes, the fact is, they receive a high level of coverage. GNG is very easy to satisfy in most cases. The "discrimination" with regards to academics is not Wikipedia's problem, but society's in general. When academics begin to receive the same level of RS coverage, then you will have a legitimate case for similar notability criteria. It isnt Wikipedia's fault that we care so much about our sportspeople and celebrities. Wikipedia merely reflects that interest. Resolute 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is participation in one match the same as satisfying the GNG? Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Dougweller, I'm surprised an experienced Wikipedian like you is asking this question. WP:N couldn't be clearer on this: sports players get press coverage, professors don't. You are suggesting a major paradigm shift here. Yopienso (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. But I don't see it in our guidelines for sportspeople, eg for American/Canadian footballers, "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues:" - zilch about press coverage. And press coverage isn't necessary for academics either. And "has not received significant coverage outside his speciality. Our criteria say he's probably not notable" is just plain wrong as you can see if you read WP:ACADEMIC. Significant recognition with a speciality is sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is how do you measure 'significant recognition'. Merely being a professor at Yale and/or having published a couple of books is no indication of that. That's why we look for independent sources. No comment about sports because I don't know what goes on there but merely being a professor is hardly an indication of notability just like being a senior manager at a Fortune 500 company is not. --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the sports thing, our criteria generally say that you have to appear in a regular season or post season game in a league that is at the highest national or international level of that sport. In baseball in the US, for instance, a player has to either reach the major leagues or has to represent the US in an international competition like the Olympics. Minor league players don't get notability. In soccer, only a country's premier league players get articles; people in lower divisions don't. The comparable idea, then, would be to speak at a major conference, or have your work given non-routine coverage outside of academia. Being a professor doesn't make you notable. Publishing a little doesn't make you notable - professors generally must publish - although if it's peer-reviewed, it's probably an RS. Publishing something that gets significant coverage in the press, not just in peer-reviewed journals, makes you notable. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempting to knock down strawmen does not lend strength to your argument. If you think the notability bar for academics is incorrectly placed, that's one thing. Relying on apples and oranges comparisons to aspects of society that receives massive coverage neither makes your case, nor proves the existence of discrimination. However, to answer your question as it relates to NHL hockey players, I have two sources that provide biographies on every player who ever played a single NHL game. Nevermind other coverage related to junior or minor league play. So yes, I can claim in my case that a single game is enough to generate coverage sufficient to pass GNG. Resolute 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like you are saying that the guideline about playing in a match is a proxy for 'gets enough coverage in reliable sources" or something like that. I can see that argument although I'd refer it if it was made in the guideline. I'm not sure that the same argument, two sources that would provide biographies for every full Oxford or Yale professor, would fly, but I can see the argument you are making here for sportspeople. Dougweller (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

True, publishing something that that gets significant coverage in the press, not just in peer-reviewed journals, makes you notable, but so will publishing something that will get noticed in other peer review journals. What counts is either case is articles discussing not the dat to day life, but your work. Any number of article on the home like of an academic or an athlete amount to notability. And similarly for any profession. Professional are only notable in terms of their profession. People who have a more general social role without a particular profession or reason they should be notable can be notable also, but it needs pretty strong evidence if it is only their day to daily life, not their work which is being covered., There was a time where the special academic factors were not accepted--I found I could show the importance of very minor academics by using just the gng in the literal sense, and showing that for any on paper of theirs; two or more other papers discussed the work in a significant way This would cause a much broader range of people to be included--many graduate students could meet it. With the current interpretation of AUTHOR, and NBOOK, I could similarly find two substantial reviews for the work of any serious author, and then they'd be notable also--this again, is a veery broader section. You mention a professor at yale with only two books and no other information. If the two books are serious academic books from a unviersity press or equivalent, they will be reviewed in substantial reviews. , and he will be notable as an author. It does not happen that people of such rank do not get their books reviewed, and it does not happen that people get in the humanities such rank at such universities without such books. Here's cases where the GNG yields nonsensical overcoverage, and is better ignored altogether. If we counted local courses, we could include a great many high school and college athletes. Again, there's a decision made that the result in nonsense and we don't do this by the artificiality of not considering local sources. So you see we have two disparate fields, where almost anyone of any significance at all can be shown notable, if we use the rules as written. In both cases we don't , because we feel that ordinary Wikipedians would not accept this as ammounting to the common sense meaning of notability. I'd like to expand our coverage in science to that extent, but the other science people don't press it (some don't feel it meets their own initiative definition; it meets mine, but I don't prress it for if i did artificial rule would be rerected to require more than the gng. The sports people sometimes do press it , and you'll keep them out only by making similar special artificial distinctions. For popular music, I think the rules , both the special rules and the gng, show that everyone of any significance at all counts as notability, and it does include people who I would not consider notable by any ordinary standard. I would greatly tighten the rules, except that most WPedians , having a great interest in this field, would probably not agree with me. So I by and large accept the system. I regard it greatly skewed in favor of parts of life I think of the most minor real significance. , but I accept the status quo which at least moderately serves my own interests. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

the name of the software used to split the wikipedia dump

Hello, First I thank you for Wikipedia. I would be happy if you can answer my next question. I use BzReader to read Wikipedia offline, the problem is that the size of the English dumps is very big (7.5 GB) and BzReader don't succeed to create the index. On the site we can download the dumps in parts, but as there are many parts (28) the search became very slow. I search the name of the software you use to split the dump, so I will split it just in two parts. Thank you and sorry for my English. Rabah201130 (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to this question. But this is a good place to ask. Someone will surely answer soon.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to use one of the file-splitting programs in softonic, they have an option to join files. One of them should allow you to join all the parts together and then split the result in two parts. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Frederick William Sanderson

Further information: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 107 § Plagiarism

There you go. It's a good stub, now. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent! Not many people want to rewrite (or even contest) the copyvio text found within an article, so re-creating a large article from scratch is a huge effort. Beyond his notability, I found the quoted excerpts (in "Frederick William Sanderson") provided keen insight into working with students a hundred years ago. At a time when few people had contact with engineering concepts, the challenge was to shift the view from physical strength and athletics to science and logic. One grade-school teacher, with whom I worked, had a tactic of banging his heavy signet ring against the tabletop, to command attention from young students, and it worked. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Quality of brand pages low on Wikipedia"

"An analysis of brand Wikipedia pages claims that 85 per cent are poorly represented on the site." And more of the same to be found at [9].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• One possibly significant problem is that editors who "have an axe to grind" for any reason about any company (including political "silly season" reasons) are not affected by any current COI rules at all. Editors seeking NPOV are generally barred from any company-provided material. which basically rules out any awards the company has received as coming from a "self published source." Even where the claim properly sources the company. Thus there is, or can be, an intrinsic anti-company tilt which the company has zero recourse over. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, 85% is not perfect, but it could be worse. Sure, we'd like to get that number up to 100% of course (considering that, after all, the source is CorpComms, "The Magazine for the Corporate Communicator" and that their criteria for failure is "insufficient whitewashing of malfeasance, excessive truthfulness, failure to promote the brand, and overemphasis on corporations as actors in society rather than as purely benign provider of goodies". (That's the English translation; for those who can read PR-speak, the original says "bias".).) So 15% of our brand articles have a problem. This is, I think, solvable if we roll up our sleeves. Herostratus (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Your editorial commentary is noted <g> but hardly what anyone seeking full NPOV would agree with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that behind Herostratus' sarcasm is a key point. The quality of brand pages is low according to corporate PR consultants. Our goals are not the same as corporate-PR goals. The fact that we've failed by their standards doesn't mean that we've failed by ours. Arguably, a truly neutral encyclopedia article about a corporation is unlikely to make corporate-PR people entirely happy. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • On the other hand, reading the article reveals that the methodology was to look at the cleanup tags and talk page article assessments assigned by Wikipedia editors. So the goals not met actually were our goals. The article gives good advice, too, both in suggesting that what people with corporate knowledge can do is point to any good quality sources that they know of and in noting that our focus as encyclopaedia writers is on things like corporate histories rather than latest product lineups.

          The sky isn't falling; this is stuff that our cleanup categories (should) already be telling us; and this article isn't really an excuse to leap back into the paid advocacy debate.

          Uncle G (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

          • For some of us, any excuse to bash paid/COI spamitors is a good one (at least until the last Brand Image Manager is choked to death with the tweets of the last Social and Viral Marketing Specialist). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• You can find news of the study on PRWeek, CorpComms and Ragans. The data is based on the Wikipedia community's own assessments, though there are caveats. For example, the report specifies that 40 percent of company articles aren't assessed. Additionally, many assessments are outdated and the article may have been improved without an updated assessment.

I think the low quality and low priority of many company articles should be an area everyone can agree and the numbers are merely pointing out the obvious. However, where I intended to focus on wasn't to point out Wikipedia's flaws, but the concept that Wikipedia is content marketing. In other words, Wikipedia is hungry for good-quality, neutral content and our job is to provide content that's an asset rather than a burden.

Or, in a nutshell, from the press release: “The report is based on our belief that companies have missed an opportunity for long term value through ethical Wikipedia engagement, but capturing that opportunity requires better alignment with Wikipedia’s content needs... Companies can respect Wikipedia’s autonomy by offering content of value to the Wikipedia community transparently, without directly editing articles they have an affiliation with."

I'm curious regarding the community's response to such a thesis. You can also download the report itself here, which gives a less critical tone than the media's interpretation. User:King4057 20:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Owner, EthicalWiki and report author)

• Many corporate articles = marketspeak + odd reports: After having copy-edited thousands of articles, I have to agree that numerous company articles still have the maintenance-tags, with many no longer 100% valid, and often a major issue has been "WP:Peacock" for the glowing, flowery wording about the company, rather than a nuts-and-bolts summary of company activities and products. The marketspeak (use of glowing marketing term) has been so obvious that there is even a WP essay "WP:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else" which apparently refers to marketspeak such as, "We offer solutions to a wide range of customer needs". There is progress, however, as we have article "Vaporware" about selling software which does not exist yet. Perhaps many editors see those company articles and think, "I do not want to spend time writing about a company's activities, market share, and notable product lines". For whatever reasons, many company articles remain the neutered marketspeak plus a few odd reports tacked along with sources about some unusual news events for the company. Perhaps we could give special barnstars for editors who expanded company articles to balance company activities, market share, and historical product lines in a neutral manner. -Wikid77 00:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • IWP:SOLUTION refers to any sentence which includes phrases like "CRAPco is the leading seller of customer relationship solutions in the marmot-breeding industry". CRAPco may sell software, or equipment, or training, or consultancy services; but unless they are selling solutes dissolved in solvents (or answers to equations) they are not selling solutions. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • The core issue behind this language is that marketing literally defines their products by its benefits. If I were to ask a company "what is it" they would say "a solution to a problem." Ask marketing "how does it work" and you get information more appropriate for Wikipedia. User:King4057 01:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Further proof (as if it was needed) that marketing contributes to the degeneration and degradation of meaning in the English language (and, I'm sure, to that of any of the myriad other languages in which marketing is committed). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's just remember that, as noted above, Wikipedia too engages in marketing. JN466 02:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In some ways Wikipedia offers leverage to push companies over organizational obstacles for neutral writing, because their success on Wikipedia mandates it. User:King4057 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

it's not just companies--I do not think it is even primarily companies. Non-profit organization and advocacy groups have things to promote, and they tend in my experience to be even more troublesome. At least with a corporation there is a defined product of some sort that is being sold, it usually has some distinctive characteristics, and they can be described. (This is considerable harder to specify with such services as legal representation or medical treatment or for that matter the provision of advertising--and articles on such firms are correspondingly more difficult than those on manufacturing companies. For many non-profit organization , they are providing benefits of some sort in a way that is often not particularly distinctive, except for the geographic area. It can be very hard to write such articles without vague generalities. For advocacy groups, whose very existence depends on presenting some problem in a way slanted towards their position, it is extremely difficult to disentangle a NPOV presentation about their views from an attempted message about them. Straightforward marketing of a physical product is trivial to deal with in comparison to this.

and the need to update information is true throughout Wikipedia. Nothing is static, though the rate of change and the availability of new information varies. I doubt very much that 11 years ago there was much concern beyond that of making an encyclopedia that would be accurate when written. Again, at least a company will have a regular source of updated information to be found--many other organization are much more elusive, and with general topics can be even harder to know when there is sufficient information to update an article. I doubt that any aspect of the encyclopedia is updated adequately except that dealing with popular entertainment and sports and news events, where the new events or releases are obvious. Printed encyclopedias of course had this problem, but there were usually annual updates and new editions every 10 or 20 years. But wsince more is possible online, more is expected. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I got a call from a pigeon racer, who thought PETA was attacking his sport on Wikipedia. (see my comments here) On the other hand, I think an organization like PETA could make great contributions to Wikipedia, following the same COI guidelines as companies. User:King4057 05:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism in German Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo. I wish I had a happier reason for my first post on your talk page. But this is to inform you that you have a heavy antisemitism problem on your hands in the German Wikipedia, which the German Wikipedia probably won't be able to handle. Please do me, as the victim of the antisemitic attacks, Wikipedia and yourself the favor and look into it, or appoint somebody to do so, if you think that your German is not yet up to it. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's peculiar. Germans have no history of antisemitism... Egg Centric 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the humour, but I am still a bit shaky from the message I had on my talk page in the German Wikipedia. But there, they do not block the antisemites, they block the victims, well only if they don't accept the antisemitism in silence. Which is an improvement, of course. Ajnem (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest what is the English transalation of the message you were given? And also, who was it who sent you the message? Not that I am able to do anything but I expect you'll be asked. Egg Centric 16:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation, especially given the present laws in Germany regarding such things. Care to provide some diffs so that people who speak good German can look them over?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a link to the user's German talk page. I notice on the history page only one 52-bit recent deletion, but I read no German, so cannot help beyond this. Bielle (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic correction by Egg Centric - 52 bytes or 52 characters - definitely not 52 bits anyway

I can't give you the English translation here, nor the German text, of course, as in many countries, including mine, Switzerland, it is punishable to spread that kind of hate messages. But it is as bad as it gets, really really bad. And as far as the question of who sent it is concerned, they were so quick in deleting it from my talk page, that I didn't have the time to copy the IP, but any admin can check that. It is in a specific context, and I am pretty sure I know what circle of users it comes from, but I would not want to put the finger on somebody. Thanks for letting me chat with somebody, as they have blocked me in the German Wikipedia, and I'm pretty sure that they will think that they don't have to do something about it. That's why I left the post for Jimbo. I would not want to have to go public, which i have to, if Wikipedia is not dealing with it. But I agree with your first post, it is a German problem. I'll be off for the day in a few minutes, I'll deal with it tomorrow, you'll have as many Difflinks as you want, trust me. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm off, it's evening where I live, but I was not joking, when I wrote that in the German Wikipedia they block the victims. Bielle has given you the difflink to my talk page, if you can see the message and you know German, you know that I'm not overreacting. I've been blocked time and again because I would not accept to be called antisemitic names, now they have the result from not dealing with it properly. Thanks for taking an interest, Ajnem (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP was this one. It's only other edit was talk page vandalism. It was blocked for six hours. JN466 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you say nothing has been done. The offensive message was deleted and hidden. Blocking the IP would be useless, as it is a dynamic Deutsche Telekom IP. It has only one other contrib, a talk page message that translates as "Osama is kooool!!!". What are you asking for? Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that the WMF have asked a certain admin here to look into anti-Semitic problems on de.wiki (I know which admin it is, but I don't think I should disclose it), so I don't think this is coming completely out of left field. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the attack by an IP was reverted within one minute. Anjem kept re-posting the attack text on various noticeboards amid claims of antisemitism against "the surroundings" of another user he was in a content conflict with. He was blocked for two hours to stop the proliferation of the attack. I see no antisemitism (except probably in the original IP attack, which is rev-deleted so I cannot check it). I certainly don't see an obvious or systematic problem on the side of the German Wikipedia. The victim seems to suffer from a strong case of WP:TRUTH and has repeatedly accused editors who don't share this view as antisemitic. While it is highly regrettable and indeed detestable that Ajnem was the victim of an antisemitic attack, that does not excuse his broad-brush accusations against everybody who disagrees with him or his behavior. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Would love to hear what it said, although if it is offensive, email is probably better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dilemma of repeating a slur to explain it: Apparently, this situation was a form of the "Streisand effect" where repeating the slur violated policies about not proliferating the wording, not unlike creating articles about neologism-campaigns where the neologism is repeated, in detail, or plastered into the title of the article, rather than mentioned as an indirect description, to thus shutdown the repetition of the name slur. Unfortunately, the victim, by continually repeating the slur in every venue, was judged as more harmful, as if continually showing pornographic pictures daily to all children in the neighborhood to "prove how pornographic" they appear to children, every day of the year. At some point, the admins must have reached a "Catch 22" when the protection of the community, from repeating the slur against the victim, was another form of victimizing the victim. All we can do is sympathize about the suffering, but remind the victim why repeating details, or neologisms, is worse than the original problem. Perhaps it would help to remind that "Streisand" is also in Jewish culture, so he is not alone in this. -Wikid77 05:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Nice try, Stephan Schulz, but you seem to be unfamiliar with current laws in countries such as France, Germany, Switzerland and others. What's happened yesterday (June 13) in the German Wikipedia is beyond what you “see [as] antisemitism” or as “an obvious or systematic problem on the side of the German Wikipedia”. Incidently, I was not referring to yesterday's block, when I wrote that the German Wikipedia blocks the victim, not the perpetrator. But Jimbo is of course right, this has to be dealt with by e-mail. Thanks for taking an interest, and my special thanks to Egg Centric, your very much to the point reaction did me no end of good. You have to know, yesterday's hate message was the first I ever got, even though it didn't come as a surprise, as I've mentioned, this has been going on for quite a while. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

According to your block log you use the term "antisemitism" and it's variations quite often to attack other users which disagree with your opinion. You have now been blocked about ten times for the same issue. The blocks were definitely not against well sourced changes in articles, but against your sometimes overly rude behavior. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 08:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ignorant of these matters, but it looks like Germany has laws against denying the Holocaust or approving Nazi actions in a way that "disturbs the peace", but not "anti-Semitism" broadly drawn.^[10] I don't know whether German prosecutors are this unreasonable, but I know in the U.S. they have actually prosecuted children for making "child pornography" of themselves ... if the comment actually is illegal to make there, I'm not sure it is safe even for a victim to keep reposting it. But Wikipedia itself should not be eager to gather up censorship laws from around the world.

It's too hard for me to puzzle through all the German text relevant to this case (which Google Translate handles far more poorly than Chinese or Arabic, alas). But I think as we're seeing in the present Fae ArbCom case, there's a huge divide in perceptions of bias between those who are members of an ethnic group, and those who are outside of it. Is it anti-gay to say that marriage should be between one man and one woman, or anti-Semitic to say that the U.S. should end all foreign aid to Israel? Or to keep a street named after a historical figure with a notable animosity to either group? Your answer depends on who you are. If we are to continue to have one Wikipedia for every nation and background, we'll have to be willing to accommodate that terms like "homophobic" and "anti-Semitic" mean very different things to very different people, and not punish anyone for using them the way they personally perceive them. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I to understand that you think that the German Wikipedia should allow Nazi Antisemitism, because the German Wikipedians, being the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Nazis, not to be too subtle, have another perception of what's Antisemitic than other people? Well, the German Wikipedia is also the Swiss-German Wikipedia, and in Switzerland we do have a law against Antisemitism, not only Holocaust denial. Ajnem (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any line that would suggest that someone would deny the holocaust, neither do i see any German admin blocking you for article work with valid sources. You got blocked for accusations against other editors and edit warring without using the discussion pages; and that multiple times in the row. Thats the entire problem. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not saying that to condone or excuse anti-Semitic harassment. Though I don't understand the details (I assume it involves things like this), I was saying that I think you should have the academic freedom to suggest that anti-Semitic attitudes tinge how certain facts are presented, even when they are not obvious. Wikipedia should be especially considerate of your position, given the history and taunts that you have to deal with. In return, you should be considerate of fellow Wikipedians and try to explain clearly, but without emotion, precisely what anti-Semitic biases you believe you've encountered, as you encounter them. In cases like this, with such social significance to the morale of volunteers and readers, Wikipedia should go the extra mile to look for ways to reach out to minorities and avoid blocking, and try to get people to understand one another and work together constructively. Wnt (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Wnt, I owe you an apology. I misunderstood your first post by 180^o, not surprisingly, given the circumstances, and I mean the context here on Jimbo's talk page only. Your post came right after what I'm going to call ‘the German Wikipedia Attitude’ came marching in. It is amazing, the whole issue of what I called “a heavy antisemitism problem ... in the German Wikipedia” in my first post above, is actually spread out here. And this gives me the opportunity to thank Jimbo for allowing this discussion to take place, it is anything but self-evident, and I greatly appreciate it. When I posted my information to him, all I was hoping for was that he might see it, or be informed about it by somebody who had seen it, and not just ignore it. I did not expect it to remain on his talk page, because, as Wehwalt wrote early in the discussion, it's “a serious accusation” I'm making, not only in view of the laws in many European countries, but in general.

The first reaction to my post was ironical and read “That's peculiar. Germans have no history of antisemitism...” which sort of sums up today's ‘World Attitude’, which ostracises antisemitism. (That's of course a simplification as in many parts of the world antisemitism is either no issue at all, or, basically in the Muslim and Arab parts of the world, antisemitism in its originally European variety has unfortunatly become quite widespread since the establishment of the state of Israel and its victories over the Arab armies.) The following posts all took it seriously, in view of the fact that, well, Germans do have a history when it comes to antisemitism, recent history in particular, and it is so monstrous that it still concerns every single German alive today, even though the events took place a generation earlier.

Which leads to what I called ‘the German Wikipedia Attitude’, as presented by users Stephan Schulz and Niabot, which deny that there is any antisemitism, at least in the German Wikipedia, and that I have been and still am just making it up, and this after a German Wikipedian, anonymously of course, posted a hate message on my talk page which is so blunt that even the most fervent Antisemitsm Denier cannot call it anything but antisemitic, and those two users know it, even if they haven't seen it, they know that otherwise it would not have been deleted within a minute, and redeleted, and redeleted. But does it make them or the German Wikipedia community think that maybe my former “unfounded accusations” may not have been as unfounded as all that and that they actually do have an antisemitism problem on their hands which they cannot solve by continuing to deny that it exists because there are virtually no Jewish users in the German Wikipedia? Nope, the only ‘improvement’ was that they only blocked me for two hours instead of several weeks, not for my reposting the hate message, by the way, but for putting the blame where it imo belongs, in the lap of the Antisemitism Deniers which have ‘hijacked’ the German Wikipedia. And make no mistake, no Antisemitism Denier is anything but an enemy of the Jewish people among other unpleasent things, regardless of what he pretends to be.

That, dear Wnt, is the issue, there is no question of “academic freedom” involved. I have e.g. repeatedly been called a “Oberjude” which is a Nazi term (see the German article Oberjude), by a user who is clearly and obviously ‘obsessed with Jews’, which defines the classical antisemite – one of the more useful definitions of antisemitism is: Antisemitism is the Obsession with (the) Jews. Not only has he not been blocked for his repeated antisemitic attacks against me, but I have been blocked because I dared call them anti-Jewish, which the German Wikipedia community denies it is. (I'm not giving any difflinks here for obvious reasons). That's what the problem is, Antisemitism Denial, and it's heavy, how are you going to explain to somebody that what he denies exits, exits? Ajnem (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

First, you misrepresent my quite explicit post. And secondly, you present a nice Catch-22. Either one admits to (significant, systematic, widespread) antisemitism, or one is antisemitic oneself, thus proving the point either way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So, in short, there is a serious problem of antisemitism in the German Wikipedia because some anon posted an antisemitic message on your talk page, which was immediately oversighted and the user was immediately blocked for it? If that's the case, I don't get it. On the other hand, I would be quite interested to see some diffs where someone calls you "Oberjude", as that seems to be a rather serious accusation and I'm having a hard time seeing no one acting on that. --Conti|✉ 11:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Conti, you just proved my point, you and Stephan Schulz both, actually. I have a very good reason for not putting any difflinks here, but I e-mailed it to Jimbo, so rest assured, it's not a case of “some anon posted an antisemitic message on your talk page”. Hard to believe, about the "Oberjude" isn't it? But it's not only that “no one act[ed] on that”, they blocked me for calling it openly anti-Jewish, I didn't even use the word antisemitic. That's the kind of stuff my blocks are about. But read the article Oberjude in the German Wikipedia, user Fossa started it after the incident I described above. Fossa by the way is virtually the only user in the German Wikipedia to take a pretty firm stand against antisemitism, but he is a fatalist. And if you read the Oberjude talk page too, you may learn a lot about what you don't get, it may even lead you to the difflink you would like to see. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I found the diff now, and I don't really see a reason not to post it here. I'll leave it up to you though, but it's hard to convince people here if you don't even want to provide any diffs. --Conti|✉ 12:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I think that Stephan Schulz is wrong about the Catch-22, because I think that it is inevitable that people will find anti-Semitic (or anti-anything) attitudes in Wikipedia or society at large if we look closely enough. But Ajnem, you are also wrong when you say that "And make no mistake, no Antisemitism Denier is anything but an enemy of the Jewish people among other unpleasent things, regardless of what he pretends to be." I think that most normal people, people who share the universal outrage against the Holocaust but deny anti-Semitism in the context of Wikipedia or other daily life, even where some signs of it exist, will in fact believe what they say, and will have no intention of being enemies of the Jews. We shouldn't try to stand on a knife's edge, always ready to condemn either the anti-Semitism denier or the anti-Semitism accuser; what we need is a dialogue that identifies the relevant underlying issues and considers them thoughtfully.

I still can't properly analyze your situation because of the language issues and my underlying ignorance of the history, but to give a simple example from the U.S., consider [11]. In a case like that, some people are going to say that "the Jews want special privileges nobody else has", and others are going to say that the police have very clearly and obviously set out to keep Hasidic Jews from being eligible for employment. I would say that a case like this illustrates the problem with maintaining a pseudo-religious tradition that, irrationally, favors a certain manner of appearance, which is so intrusive into personal affairs that it is incompatible with rival religions. Obviously these police should be free to express themselves as they wish; and that, indeed, has been the general outcome in the past when people have made the effort to reconcile contrary religions. If we fail to let them do that, then I would say that is indeed anti-Semitic, even though it is not reasoned anti-Semitism. We should not be astonished to find such an attitude - in truth, I think everyone has some attitudes which are, to some extent or other, anti-Semitic, and the same is true for any minority group, and indeed the majority also. Even members of a minority group generally reflect attitudes hostile to their own group, which can be very damaging to them. Nor can we readily shed all these attitudes, because sometimes one really does have to object to what a minority group wants (for example, there really is a limit as to how much support, financial or political, we should give to Israel); the question is, when is that reasonable to do, and when is it wrong? Wnt (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, you are addressing so many points, it's hard not to go into them all. But first to Conti and the difflink-question. I think that I owe it to Jimbo not to abuse of his hospitality. Putting difflinks on his talk page which would identify somebody I called “a classical antisemite” is imo out of the question. And I'm not trying to convince anybody here, what I would like to achieve is to show that a thorough investigation about what I perceive as structural antisemitism in the German Wikipedia is imperative. Structural because I think that it has a lot to do with how things are done in the German Wikipedia as opposed to how they are dealt with in the English Wikipedia. In the German Wikipedia, admins block without even checking, let alone understanding, what they block for. On more than one occasion, including the one I described above, the admin admitted to having had no idea about what it was he decided about, after I asked for an explanation. (Here is the difflink for those who read German). But admins do not overrule themselves, and they do not tell you how to go about it to have them overruled, and it takes time until a user knows all the ropes, if he stays that long, which he doesn't, if he gets that kind of treatment.
It's not a question of poor Ajnem being called antisemitic names, I can take care of myself. And being called a “Oberjude” by antisemites is a compliment, I'm in excellent company as you can see in the German article Oberjude. Wednesday's hate mail is a different matter, that hit home. But any sensible person will realise that users who do have a strong bias against Jews, particularly those who are not conscious of it, will put them into the articles they edit. I agree with Wnt that many if not most are totally unaware of what their real feelings about Jews are. And I know that some if not all of those who support the antisemitism in the German Wikipedia by denying it and having me blocked for calling a spade a spade, are convinced that they do not have one single fibre of antisemitism in them, but that's of no use.
In a society which ostracises antisemitism nobody – except declared neo Nazis – admits to being an antisemite, and everybody denies being one, not only in Germany. But one cannot let the antisemites decide what's antisemitic. Out of court, antisemitic is what the victims perceive as antisemitic, in court it's more complicated, but we are not in court. Of course there are Jews who abuse their privilege and call everybody an antisemite who does not share their views, particularly about Israel's policy towards Palestinians. But believe me, I'm not one of them. The same good Christian users who have me blocked for making false accusations about antisemitism and their right wing extremism they put into articles about Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, which they call Judea and Samaria and incorporate it into Israel, would have called me an antisemite long ago, were they not convinced that I'm Jewish and that they would make fools out of themselves. But they do of course accuse me of anti-Israel bias (see e.g. here).
And finally, I always thought that Joseph Heller is a much underestimated writer. I wouldn't be surprised if his Catch 22 became part of world-literature long after I'm gone. You see Wnt, the dialogue has brought some result, I do agree with Stephan Schulz on that point. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. As I was a little bit surprised to see that there was no comment to my last post here, I realise that I probably have not made myself clear. If I'm not mistaken, everybody, or at least Wnt, thinks that it is the usual thing: Ajnem, a pro-Israel biased Jew who calls those “antisemites” who do not share his pro-Israel bias but have a more NPOV-conform view of the issue, gets blocked for making personal attacks and POVpushing. But that is not the case here. In fact it's the other way round.

@Jimbo, as this is, after all, your talk page, and as you have bean bearing with me until now, let me address you personally. After the Yesha Council, the organisation representing the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and formerly Gaza Strip and another right-wing group had organised a course in 2010 about “Zionist editing on the Web-based encyclopedia [Wikipedia]” and had put up a “prize for the ‘Best Zionist Editor’” (see [12]), you were quoted in an article in the Israeli daily Haaretz of August 5, 2011 as saying: “I would say we saw absolutely no impact from that effort whatsoever. I don't think it ever – it was in the press but we never saw any impact... I don't think they ever showed up. I don't know what happened, but we didn't see any impact” ([13]). As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, you are right, as far as the German Wikipedia is concerned, you are technically right, but, with all due respect, only technically.

The German Wikipedia has IMO been literally hijacked by users who have been altering the articles about Israel, the West Bank and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank in particular, probably since 2008 or 2009, with the same extrem right-wing POV, even though they are not Jewish, without it being changed (see my summary here). Not having edited articles about Israel and the Middle East in the German Wikipedia but in the English Wikipedia, I accidently came upon it in November 2011, when I, I don't remember for what reason, checked the German article about the Israeli West Bank settlement Betar Illit, and came upon this (in English translation): Betar Illit (..) is an Israeli City in the District Judea and Samaria, southwest of Jerusalem and 8 km west of Gush Etzion. It extends over three hills of the Judean hills. With the infobox ‘location in Israel’, which shows State: Israel and the Israeli flag (see [14]). Checking the other settlement-articles, I saw that many, but oddly enough not all of them, had been trimmed in the same or similiar way (see e.g. Ariel; Kfar Adumim; Modi'in Illit). The Judea and Samaria article was accordingly, and the lead to the article Israel consisted in one single sentence reading (in English translation): “Israel (..) is a country in the Near East bordering with Libanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt”, thus integrating the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and of course the Golan, but that doesn't show, into Israel.

As it happens, (one of) the most aggressive of those users who put their extremist right wing apparently pro-Israel POV into those articles, and succeed, with the help of admins of course, in having them stay there with edit warring and getting other users blocked without getting blocked themselves, is also at the vanguard of those I call Antisemitism Deniers... So you see, Jimbo, it's even worse than what I stated in my first post: You actually have two problems on your hands in the German Wikipedia. But after getting the kind of anonymous message I recently got, I have a hunch that solving one will solve the other at the same time, but I may be mistaken. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor counts maybe higher for May 2012

This topic based on invalid editor-count data files 26-29% lower

The editor-count data for May has been posted, and again, there is might be a slight growth (not decline) beyond the April 2012 counts, when typically, April/May counts have fallen after March in past years. The inner core of highly active editors (>100 edits) is clearly increasing (April/May higher than in 2011), while the active editors (>5 edits) is also rising, but not yet higher than counts in 2011. Note: The whole data table has been recounted, using a different method, so the prior monthly counts of "3500" busy editors, now number around 2500, each month. See the whole table, recounted using new method:

• http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm

I have not found the reason for the new accounting methods, retro-counting as fewer active editors in prior years, but the new trend has shown:

• Monthly core of 25,000 active, 2500 highly active editors (formerly 34,000 & 3500).

Because the re-calculated, adjusted numbers have only been posted this week, there might still be a misunderstanding as to how to count an "active editor". Also, I have seen many examples of editors making "4 edits" per month and obviously omitted from the counts, but it was a shock to see all recent years retro-lowered from 34,000 active editors, to averaging 25,000 active editors per month for years. At least, the adjusted counts still show a strong core base of active editors, growing stronger each month. More later. -Wikid77 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I saw whizzing by on a mailing list the other day that Erik Zachte (who does those stats pages) says that something went wrong and nothing has changed in the definitions. This run is erroneous and needs to be fixed. I really enjoy your analysis and welcome it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that. I am not sure if the reduced recounts are even proportionally lower, so any monthly up/down changes might be misleading in this set of reduced-count numbers. Hence I changed the thread title to include "maybe higher". More later. -Wikid77 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's Erik's announcement on that. the wub "?!" 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm relieved to hear that, & thanks both for the info. I think these are very important figures & welcome Wikid's regular posts bringing attention to them. But he has a tendency to overplay tiny rises, that often reverse the next month. Contrary to what the doomsayers like to think, and over-reaction to small rises from other quarters (and now ignoring these latest figures completely), in broad terms this statistic has effectively been flat for some months. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Something big is there: Actually, the small rises, trending together in broad terms, show that the statistic is tending to rise in multi-month periods, where formerly the trend had shown seasonal declines, such as in November/December each year, then again in April/May each year. However, December 2011 ended near the level of December 2010, totally defying the trend where each December finished substantially lower than the prior year. As I joked earlier, "the result is so obviously shocking" but when viewing a large set of numbers, it takes some time to appreciate the "shocking news" that December counts are not far lower than the prior year, or perhaps in this year, that May 2012 counts are near January 2012 counts, which would be another major "shock". Perhaps, to clarify, the focus is to compare each month, of each year, to the prior year's months, then that reveals the shocking trends which I have noted. It is like watching the "7-wave" pattern of ocean waves crashing at the seashore, and then the multi-wave pattern changes totally, and the evidence reveals "something big is out there". A person might conclude, "There's nothing of note, because the wave statistic is essentially flat", but recall when the RMS Titanic entered a section where the sea was so calm that the stars reflected off the surface; that was an area completely surrounded by solid, frozen field ice and icebergs blocking the motion of waves. Something big was out there. -Wikid77 22:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, shockingly flat. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also enjoy the analysis. Does it treat bot edits the same as human ones? --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bots are in monthly totals but can be subtracted: Bots are included as "users", but also have separate counts which can be subtracted out: among "25,377" active users, subtract "113" bots, or among "2,449" highly active editors (>100 edits), subtract "67" bots. The actual numbers, from corrected data counts, are likely 38% higher, so among "35,020" active editors, subtract "156" bots, etc. See data file: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm, and search for 2nd table, under "bots per group of namespaces". -Wikid77 (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Johnbod- 'tiny rises, that often reverse the next month.' Is the statistical discrepancy of the 30/31/30 monthly cycle accounted for, or should only July/August & December/January pairs be considered as comparable? Re: '7-wave' pattern, it might be intesting if the Olympics wave, sporting events wave, major elections wave, and major catastrophes waves can be identified. Dru of Id (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well some of it is, and also the effect of weekly cycles, annual academic & holiday cycles, & the ones you mention. We aren't likely to be able to analyze any of the infrequent "wave" effects while we don't know the overall underlying trends and recurring patterns. Then you have to factor in unemployment trends .... Broadly "flat" will do for me, while it is. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Jimbo, founder of Wikipedia, I bestow this basket of strawberries for your excellent work. P.S. I like "EEL" sushi. Stewards, geddit? Ntos, Dsfpedlo 2 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

thanks for founding wikipedia, man. good job. Led8000 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Both at the same time

A 250ml bottle of strawberry-flavoured Früli.

Or what could be better than both at the same time! A bottle of Früli for you. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@ archiv: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_107#Antisemitism_in_German_Wikipedia

Hello Jimbo. Am I to understand that your putting above into your archiv not bothering to answer my post or my e-mail means that you don't think it necessary to take any action, and that you want me to take it to court? And if so, are you sure that that is in the best interest of Wikipedia? I'd appreciate an answer. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. I'd advise reading it all the way through carefully. If you want to engage in legal stuff like that then that is your business, but you should get in contact with the Wikimedia Foundation and not go on about it here and you should cease any editing on any relevant subject. Dmcq (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's no threat, and it's not a legal action against Wikipedia I'm referring to. And I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of the post. I do have an e-mail address, though. Ajnem (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"and that you want me to take it to court?" sounds like a legal threat to me. I have started WP:AN/I#Possible legal threat on Jimbo's talk page since you don't seem to be taking the message onboard. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ajnem has been blocked indefinitely or until such time as they can clarify on their talk page about that they are not thinking of legal action. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

are you thinking of a pink elephant right now ? or intending to later ;) Penyulap ☏ 08:22, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

In any event, I can barely read German and so I'm not the right person to ask about this. If legal action is contemplated, then a chat with Geoff Brigham may be useful, or someone at the German chapter may be able to provide some feedback. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

your opinion

please read this thread here, [15]. i would like your opinion on the last comment by user:frotz, [16].-- altetendekrabbe  15:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To the extent he's calling for reliable sources, I agree with him. To the extent he's personally editorializing, well, I have my private opinion but - like his - it isn't important for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors

No strong opinion--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors. 4 Points for consideration - Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Ha ! Penyulap ☏ 08:27, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)