User talk:Jimbo Wales

Biographical Index of the Middle Ages

Two things:

1. The requested page move here was rejected. I had no strong feelings, but on balance felt that 'John Dun Scotus' was more appropriate, as that is how we see Scotus's name in the title of articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Companion to the Middle Ages and many others. The problem was that the other people voting were clearly not specialists. An IP comments "He's better known as "Duns Scotus" – on what basis? user:Mutt Lunker writes "John Duns Scotus is a lesser-used amalgam of the two" again on what basis? I had asked some academic colleagues to participate, but none of them did. One wrote to me privately "I've never been that thrilled with Wikipedia even though there are some good things on it. The complete levelling of the notion of expertise makes no sense to me; thus, Scotus's alleged premature burial gets to be a fact right along with individuating difference." Right.
2. Connected with this, a colleague just drew my attention to this excellent work. A Biographical Index of the Middle Ages that contains "short biographical information on approx. 95,000 persons from Europe and the Middle East who shaped the cultural development and the religious life during one thousand years". That's a great resource, the problem is that it costs $1,175.00. It's the weird academic business model again. The less demand for the product, the more it costs. Only an economist could explain that. The author is unlikely to have received any payment. Now Wikipedia relies ultimately on sources like these, once, after a long time, they become public domain. Why can't Wikipedia build on its crowd sourcing model to produce a similar work? But then we come back to point 1 above. Scholars generally refuse to participate in Wikipedia, witness my colleague's reaction. "The complete levelling of the notion of expertise makes no sense to me". Someone is now bound to mention 'Nupedia'. I reply, Wikipedia has nothing like Biographical Index of the Middle Ages, moreover it depends ultimately on such publications for reliable sources. Why is it not possible to develop a mixed model where specialist volunteers can work in parallel with non-specialists, or with them in some more controlled way than at present?

Peter Damian (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter, there was actually an interesting moment in one of the presentations at WikiCon that was buried in the torrent of verbiage that might get you thinking. The argument was made that rather than fruitlessly trying to get scholars and academic subject-experts to write, it might be far more productive to get them to critique. To sit down and (in person, by email, by Skype, whatever) go line by line over what is good and bad, right and wrong, in one or a series of articles on their "topic" and then to have the actual changes made by a Wikipedian who knows the site and the software. No soiling of hands, very easy means of contribution, and a mediative barrier between expertise and the sometimes rough and rowdy and rude community. Think outside the box. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See my point 1 above. I had asked a number of colleagues simply to comment, not to write anything. Peter Damian (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The consensus model doesn't scale down to small discussions where a few people are basically talking out of their ass. The closer should have disregarded the !votes made without reference to evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm but isn't Wikipedia just a very large collection of such small discussions? Peter Damian (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw Peter's contribution to the Scotus discussion, found it interesting and, assuming he is indeed an academic specialising in the subject, which I'm perfectly willing to believe, potentially persuasive regarding the discussion (it is not of course a "vote"). However the post was very equivocal, stating prominently that he had "no strong feelings" and that the nomination was "fussing around on details" and that "it hardly matters". As the only rigorous support(ish) comment, it was sufficiently lukewarm that can you blame myself and the other opposing participants (one of whom is also a declared history academic) to not feel sufficiently moved to withdraw or qualify our opposition; likewise the closing admin? My post was in response to the lame "no reason not to" nomination and I probably should have listed the various modern, mainstream, non-specialist and possibly less-notable-than-yours texts that form my experience in regard to the topic but I'm open to persuasion and you didn't seem at all inclined to persuade me/us. What's more, if you regard the article as a mess, I'd encourage you to tackle it, and your cryptic remark about spotting "a remarkable piece of vandalism" without specifying what it was and asking us to note that you "never correct crude vandalism" for some reason was less than helpful regarding the issue being located and addressed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"I just noticed a remarkable piece of vandalism, still uncorrected. Please note I never correct crude vandalism" is the quote from Mr Damian (italics in the original). If the reason was lack of time and interest, preferring to focus on other tasks, that could be marginally acceptable, I guess, although not very Wikipedian, since we're talking about taking a moment to correct "crude vandalism" which is really pretty much incumbent on us if we happen to run into it.

But that's not the reason. It has something to do with head games, not sure of the point, maybe something along the lines of "the Wikipedia is a bad thing, since anyone can write anything in it, and deliberately leaving examples of this lying about helps prove my point", which is close enough to a breaching experiment to make no difference IMO. At any rate, TL;DR: don't feed the trolls. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said, no strong feelings. The crux of it was that I couldn't persuade two people I emailed, one of whom has written a book about Scotus, the other of whom is a noted expert, to contribute to the debate. And no, I don't correct crude vandalism. Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That seems extremely petty to essentially say 'hey there is vandalism here but you are to ignorant to see it and I will not do anything about it' In fact I can not think of one productive reason anyone would do that. If you are not going to fix it do not mention it. Do not make it an Easter-egg hunt for others. See meta:Don't be a jerk.

If anyone needs to check something in Biographical Index of the Middle Ages ping me, I have a copy. Jbh^Talk 19:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Amazon to take legal action against sockpuppets

In the Sunday Times this morning, report about how Amazon plans to sue people who write fake reviews. According to the report:

• They will force them to pay 'treble' damages and legal fees
• They will use the courts to force sockpuppets to hand over details of their clients
• Abuse will be identified via the payment systems. "Just follow the money" says Yair Cohen, a lawyer specialising in internet law.

Peter Damian (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's very interesting.Here's the link. Seems that Amazon was targeted by a paid editing mill. How ridiculous to sue. Sounds like they've got a bunch of paid editing fanatics over there. Don't they realize Amazon has more important problems! I understand that unpaid reviewers from Kazakhstan skew many reviews. Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Is trivialising the cover up of human rights abuses in Kazakhstan really necessary, when advocating for a tougher stance on paid editing? Brustopher (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm shocked by how flippantly you admit to trivialising the torture of prisoners, press censorship and the killing of protesters. Please try to show a little empathy and common human decency. Consider that some users may have at times felt the dangerous consequences of government tyranny and consider you scum as a result of it. If you feel that making light of tyranny and injustice is required in the fight against corporate shills then you are a truly twisted person. You ought to be ashamed of yourself Brustopher (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll make a note of it. The complaint department is closed at the moment. That's what we get for outsourcing important functions to Kazakhstan. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. 56 *pounds* for writing shill book reviews, and doing it so sloppily that they didn't even have to start a new account once per 450 reviews? That's something close to $50,000 to just write stupid little snippets about books nobody heard of in a transparently obvious fashion. I obviously don't know a thing about how to make money by writing. I wonder what getting a best-selling video game featured at the top of the Main Page is worth? Wnt (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The 12 pound fee for the Sunday Times stops me from reading the whole article, but here's the Bloomberg and Guardian pieces.

If Amazon can sue John Does for ruining their reputation, I'd think that the WMF could do the same thing, especially when some of our paid editors engage in racketeering and extortion. What's stopping us? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @GeoffBrigham (WMF): just to make sure he knows about the case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

{redact per BANREVERT}

The usual banned editor - who was banned about 7 years ago for paid editing. He made a point of identifying himself by editing the article about his business a hour before editing here. I've reverted that edit, but please leave this comment in to show his extreme hypocrisy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why did you feel the need to revert a broken link back into the article exactly? Brustopher (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-insanity it must be.--TMCk (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Observe All Rules (OAR) is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It says, "if a rule damages the encyclopedia, be sure to follow it." Or something like that. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BANREVERT. It says that anybody can revert a banned editor and they do not need to state a reason. They result of this is that a banned editors edits won't stay in the encyclopedia. Of course some misguided person (e.g. User:Brustopher) might come along a say something like "allowing a banned editor to update the link to his own press release improves the encyclopedia" but I would say that this violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Fortunately, the reference is not needed in any case, the referenced fact is also referenced in the following (non-PR) ref. Please don't reinsert PR placed there by a banned editor. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You reverted to a broken "PR" link and now you're making up an excuse.--TMCk (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to draw attention to your bad edit?--TMCk (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:BANREVERT. I just don't understand people who adhere to a sort of BANREVERT dogmatism. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I remember a recent case, where this same banned editor openly reverted a load of vandalism he'd previously added into articles. One user actually thought it would be a wise idea to revert the vandalism back into the articles! While you later came to the conclusion that the material shouldn't be there in the first place, it clearly wasn't what you thought when you reverted the link fix. If it was you would have removed the reference at the time. Brustopher (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of putting vandalism back into articles, you are wrong. I am accusing you of enabling a banned user. You want him to be able to update his links to his press releases. Why? Truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for my vague wording. I was not trying to accuse you of being a vandal. I was just referring to a rather extreme example of BANREVERT dogmatism that happened a few months ago, where the battle against a banned editor was placed above article quality. As it stands I'm glad to know that you genuinely believed the fixing of the dead link somehow reduced the quality of the article, and were not just blindly reverting. I do however, consider it inappropriate that you've reverted all his comments on this talk page except for the one that you believe makes him look bad and hypocritical. As such I have reverted that comment. As for your last question, I think it's important to block this editor whenever his socks are discovered. He is a banned after all and shouldn't just be allowed to roam around the site. But once he's made an unambiguous improvement to an article, I think it's absurd to revert it just to punish him or something. Brustopher (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: The WMF's role should never be to help private parties go after and prosecute editors for writing the wrong thing. The WMF's role could be to help make racketeering and extortion impossible, by fighting back the arbitrary and political aspect of deletion, by working to develop convenient tools to open the process to pools of randomly selected volunteers to reduce the role of the self-selected career voters.

Allowing companies to sue posters for "damaging their reputation" by speaking is extremely dangerous. Who damages a company's reputation? If a rater who doesn't read the book can be punished, why not someone who posts to a Playboy forum and tells people where to find the best nudes, or people who tell jokes that aren't funny on Reddit? Allowing companies to financially punish every Terms and Conditions violation (if not more) would make the Internet too dangerous to use at all; freedom of speech would be nothing but an ugly joke. Wnt (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I don't think that the WMF should help private companies sue folks who disparage them here (or at least I've never considered the matter). What I am trying to say is that the WMF should sue paid editors *and* the businesses who pay them for damaging Wikipedia's reputation by putting in advertisements here. Readers should be able to trust that our articles are not written by the subjects of the article (the companies written about). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this article is of interest to the discussion:

• I created a fake business and bought it an amazing online reputation" by Kashmir Hill, September 15, 2015: "Yelp was the only company that caught us, hiding both of the reviews I bought behind their “not recommended” click wall and not counting them in F.A.K.E.’s rating. It has software that screens out suspicious reviews, not including them in a company’s star-rating. If they see too many of them, they will penalize a business’s page, putting a “consumer alert” on the profile for 90 days warning visitors that they think the business is buying fake reviews. People on Fiverr who were selling reviews would often say “No Yelp” in their descriptions, saying it was hard to make those “stick.”"

--Atlasowa (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Re Amazon: Amazon Mechanical Turk gives businesses access to an on-demand, scalable workforce, i.a. to Curate and Create Content: "The community of Workers on Mechanical Turk can write, edit, and curate original content to help you jumpstart your site experience so that visitors see a relevant and interesting website. Example Tasks: * Summarize content or write abstracts of third-party articles. * Write articles about specific subjects based on web research." I wonder how Amazon makes sure that they are not procuring fake reviews ("content creation") themselves? --Atlasowa (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Amazon have a much bigger problem. I reported a large number of fake reviews of Kevin Trudeau's books, a bunch were removed but they are still selling, and showing large numbers of positive reviews for, his book on the fraudulent HCG diet. Trudeau is in jail because of this scam, and Amazon are still handing him money for it. There are also "Hulda Clark Zapper" toys on sale, books promoting Miracle Mineral Solution, and even homeopathic first aid kits. I'd love it if Amazon began to give a fuck about consumer protection, but I don't think it's happening yet. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Heh, I found Amazon selling through third-party but fulfilled-by-amazon "attention supplements" that contained a deceptively labelled ingredient close enough to straight up amphetamine that if some USA really wanted, it would probably be prosecutable under the Federal Analogue Act. It took 3 calls, 3 emails, and a bunch of tweets to Amazon to even get them to look at it. Even when escalated to their safety people, it took forever to get them to understand why it wasn't a good thing to be selling a direct amphetamine analogue that had already been called out by the FDA like a year ago... Their practices are not where we should be looking for much of anything. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• False advertising has already been used to prosecute a Wikipedia editor, if I remember correctly. Conversely none have been prosecuted for racketeering, blackmail or extortion.
• One would have to consider the chilling effect of WMF suing people for editing Wikipedia - even those clearly in violation of ToS.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC).

• There would also be the question as to whether the edits involved actually were in any real way damaging to the reputation of wikipedia. That would have to be demonstrated for a suit to have any merit. That may not always be possible. And, in fact, in maybe at least some cases, it might be argued that some instances of paid editing would actually maybe help the reputation by developing what might be otherwise clearly notable but underdeveloped or missing content. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Echo

The other day I mentioned User:Biosthmors in a discussion. After signing the note I decided it would be nice to have his input, so I wikilinked his user name and signed the post again (with a new date stamp) - I'd heard that doing this will send a "ping" to him and draw his attention to the discussion. He didn't respond and I assumed he had nothing to add to the topic. A few days later he discovered the conversation and very much did have an important contribution to make. He hadn't gotten the "ping".

Biosthmors left a query at Wikipedia talk:Notifications#Why didn't it work?, and a volunteer left an explanation that I had trouble understanding. I left a ping for Biosthmors there, following (I think) the volunteer's instructions but he hasn't responded.

Then another volunteer on the Notifications Talk Page pointed me to a phabricator bug report from over a year ago that had been relegated to "unimportant" status. The request was when you successfully send a notification, something tells you you succeeded.

User:Quiddity has subsequently upgraded its importance to "not completely useless" or something. Wouldn't you think this was pretty fundamental to an effective notifications system?

I decided to add some encouragement to the phabricator page so clicked on "Register with LDAP" whatever that is and was told to expect a confirmation email. I opened the email and followed the link in it to a page that says "Login or register with LDAP", which I can't do because at no point in this process have I been asked to create a user name and password. Now, when I go to phabricator I can't even read or navigate through the site. I'm confronted with a page that says

"You must verify your email address to login. You should have a new email message from Phabricator with verification instructions in your inbox. If you did not receive an email, you can click the button below to try sending another one."

The new email has the same link as the first email, so now I'm effectively locked out of phabricator. Just a whine. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T68078

And the first line in this phabricator task is:

"This is a request from another user on hewiki who does not do bugzilla."

I don't "do phabricator" either (i don't want to give WMF my email address). And Anthonyhcole can't "do" it. If WMF were actually interested in what the community thinks about the importance of bugs/tasks, they would ...

*create a ping-back for phabricator mentions on-wiki*

a little like (deprecated) meta:Template:Bug, which produces:

T68078 (links from mw m w)

Click on the links to phab-linksearch in different wikis! You mention a phab task in english or german wikipedia and you automatically get links to pages that discuss the same phab task in other language wikis. Why doesn't phabricator provide those "mentions" too? --Atlasowa (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Atlasowa: As for logging in to Phabricator, you do not have to give the WMF your email address. That was required by the previous bug tracker, Bugzilla. @Anthonyhcole: and Atlasowa, when you go to Phabricator's login screen you'll see that it has a box that says "Login or Register - MediaWiki." Click on that and sign in with your Wikimedia username and password just like any other Wikimedia wiki, it's tied into SUL and CentralAuth. No need for LDAP. Hope that helps you participate better there, at least. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Keegan, after CentralAuth it says "Phabricator Registration: Email is required." Can you create a phabricator task for my request of on-wiki tracking of phab-tasks? --Atlasowa (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, my apologies, I didn't realize you had to have email confirmed. Anyway, I can probably do that, but let me make sure I have the right idea of what you're getting it, because I see two possibilities of what you're saying: 1. integrate the features of the deprecated m:Template:Bug to make {{tracked}} have a link to pages that link to the task on-wiki or 2. receive an on-wiki notification when pinged by @username on Phabricator. No. 1 I would think a competent template writer (read, not me) could do. No. 2 I think would be quite complicated and not likely to work, at least not anytime soon. Are you asking for either of those, or something that I'm missing? In writing this up I also found MediaWiki:Gadget-BugStatusUpdate.js, which I had completely forgotten about. You might find the gadget useful if you haven't found it yet, it allows you to query the status of a task and return the result (open, resolved, stalled, etc.). Keegan (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I just clicked on the little button above that says "Tracked in phabricator task T68078" and it takes me to a page that says

Check Your Email

You must verify your email address to login. You should have a new email message from Phabricator with verification instructions in your inbox. If you did not receive an email, you can click the button below to try sending another one. Send Another Email.

When I follow the link in the email it takes me to

Login or Register with LDAP

LDAP Username

LDAP Password

I don't have an LDAP username or password, so now I can't even read, let alone contribute to, phabricator.

User:Keegan, would you mind just adding a comment on my behalf to the relevant bug report along the lines of "Anthony thinks this really needs to be a high priority task"? Cheers. (Did you get this ping?) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Last time i mentioned that i can't contribute to phabricator because i don't want to give WMF my email address, i was advised to "just use a throw-away email", what's your problem? Had i done that i would probably be in the same predicament as Anthonyhcole now and not even be able to read phab tasks... Great trap. --Atlasowa (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No trap is intended at all, @AKlapper (WMF): Andre, any idea on how to get Anthonyhcole unstuck from LDAP signup? Keegan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, to ping, try using this format: {{u|Keegan}} or {{Ping|Keegan}}. I think the format you're using just displays the username. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Checkingfax the 2 templates that you propose might work (=notify), or maybe not, how do you know without a "mention confirmation"? And do those templates even exist in meta, or mediawiki, or dewiki etc? This is just adding complexity, not fixing the issue. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

{{ping}} in some form or another has been ported to many wikis, 107 to be exact. Keegan (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Total number of active users

The number of users who have made at least one action in the last 30 days, seems to have risen significantly in recent weeks, topping 120,000 some time last month (as far as I can remember) and now 125,000. It'd be interesting to know if this is a new record, how many of these users are former Wikipedians returning to editing, and how significant this figure is overall. Are there any estimates as to what proportion are vandalism-only accounts at any one time? Is there also a similar figure for the number of IPs who have edited Wikipedia in the past 30 days, and a way of showing this? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to your source of these numbers? I can't remember, off the top of my head, where these stats are kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be here. Everymorning (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Re unregistered user stats, some information about the number of unregistered users and the number of edits they've made in a given week can be found at Weeklypedia. Graham87 11:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the links. I think some editors make statements about the decline of Wikipedia that is not supported by the statistics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: @Everymorning: @Graham87: I was talking about the figures at Special:Statistics. Thanks Graham87 for letting me know. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• We used to have a phrase for this :) Wnt (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, There is a direct template for Active Editors. I put some dynamic numbers on my Userpage:
Total pages on Wikipedia: [[6,910,624]]
Total Wikipedia edit count: 1,252,696,760
Total active Wikipedia editors: 121,930

Here is the wikicode I used:

Total pages on Wikipedia: [[[[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]]]]<br>
Total Wikipedia edit count: {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}<br>
Total active Wikipedia editors: {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}}<br>

By making the NUMBEROFARTICLES template a wikilink using Special:Statistics as the wikilink target the NUMBEROFARTICLES template links to that nice Special:Statistics table which lists a lot of other helpful data. All the templates in ALL CAPS used above update dynamically when the page is refreshed. There are many such templates available for LOCALTIME, etc. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Thanks! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Complaint regarding editing of Schizoaffective Disorder page

I have tried several times to remove an image of a painting entitled "Yard with Lunatics" from the Schizoaffective Disorder wiki page. In my request to have it removed I stated that having such imagery from a 1790 painting perpetuates degrading archaic language and stigmatizes individuals with mental illness who might be seeking useful information on this page regarding a serious mental illness. For some reason there is one individual who insists that this painting be on this site ... I do not understand the point. It would seem to me that if there is any possibility that this could bring harm that it could be removed. I kindly ask for some assistance with this issue. 20 October 2015 2601:401:0:C800:74E9:B600:305F:6894 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)2601:401:0:C800:74E9:B600:305F:6894 (talk)

Although you might have achieved the result you want, in the future you might consider starting a discussion of a problem on the talk page of an article, rather than edit-warring and then running to Jimbo's talk page for help. If an attempt at discussion doesn't produce satisfactory results, then is the time to reach out for further input. It's hard to get people to behave cooperatively with somebody who doesn't make any effort to cooperate. Looie496 (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We should aim to collect information for educational purposes, not to minimize harm. We are not God: we do not know what knowledge incites people to harm, and when we imagine we do, we are imagining the reader as an inert object rather than as a creative entity. As it happens, the painting appears to be inappropriate, but this is because no clear connection seems to be made between this particular disorder and the painting or artist. And, alas, the same person who removed it went on to revert my plan to illustrate WP:consensus with a perfect example from 1676! Wnt (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Jimbo Wales user page states:

* Complaints: If you have a complaint, it's best to start with the help desk. Ask a short, friendly question, and fellow Wikipedians will be happy to help. Contacting me directly with a complaint should be reserved for after you have exhausted all other possible remedies.

If you have a complaint about article content, there are many avenues to pursue. The best and simplest way is to just fix it. You can also open a discussion on the article's talk page about the issues you want to address. Be sure that you are adding well-written text using legitimate information from credible, reliable sources. If your change is reverted, continue the [BRD]discussion on the talk page to get consensus. That is how Wikipedia works.

The talk page for Schizoaffective Disorder is [[Talk:Schizoaffective disorder]]. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women

Just posted this afternoon. Aside from a relatively minor error about user rights near the top, Paling does a pretty good job of summarizing and drawing attention to some of the more salient trends/problems/incidents. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is an interesting read, and highlights areas that need work. I'm sure we can all identify some items in that article that might deserve a more complete treatment of issues, but this is a minor point, and universally true in my experience whenever I read an article in the media about a subject where I have personal experience.

I am puzzled about the assertion that Nellie A. Brown was nominated for deletion immediately after creation. I don't see it in the edit history, nor did I find it in the AFD logs. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is not an administrator, as the article states incorrectly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just the normal press hyperbole. It makes for a better story if I'm an administrator, so that's what they describe me as. Eric Corbett 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And nothing indicating Lightbreather's ban was for their disruptive editing on gun control topics. It seems the reader is deliberately left to draw their own (wrong) conclusions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the author expressed (via Twitter) that she's trying to have that line (EC=admin) corrected. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair there's nothing in the actual Arbcom decision indicating that her ban was for disputive editing on gun control topics either. It simply states "Lightbreather is site-banned. They may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted." Not only that but 4 of the arbs who voted to support the ban cite her reaction to the porn pictures as what's pushed them over the edge. The words "gun control" are not mentioned once in the support section for the ban. Brustopher (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The findings of fact overwhelmingly refer to her gun control edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Paling’s argument remains devastating: calling a woman a cunt is permissible, but that woman’s feisty editing was intolerable, even after taking into account vicious and unremitting sexual harassment. Indeed, ArbCom initially urged future culprits faced with harassment to lower their profile -- an invidious recommendation that was reluctantly amended after community outcry.

In the big picture, petty procedural details have no impact outside Wikipedia, while Wikipedia's continuing embrace of harassment and protection of harassers remains the key story for the world outside the project’s back rooms. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No woman was called a cunt so far as I'm aware, and certainly not by me, admin or not. Eric Corbett 22:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent article. Another example the article could have mentioned is the awful way that women editors are generally treated in WP's science and alternative medicine articles by WP's "pro-science" editors. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)