User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jimbo Wales. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 140

←

Archive 144

→

I call upon the Wikimedia Foundation to issue clear rules to ensure that transgender people are treated with dignity

Wikipedia's article on Chelsea Manning has finally been moved to the name that Manning has stated is her name and the name that is used by most mainstream English language sources. This happened after much wrangling and resistance, which included moving the article back to Bradley, locking it there for 5 weeks, before finally moving it for the third time back to Chelsea. The process has provoked highly negative reactions in the real world. The case has demonstrated that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't have policies in place that ensure that all living subjects of articles are treated with basic dignity and respect. The predominant view among those knowledgeable on the issue is that the refusal to recognise someone's gender identity and self-concept is immensely harmful to transgender people.

I call upon the Wikimedia Foundation as site owners to issue clear rules, as the foundation has done before, to ensure that transgender people are treated with dignity, in the spirit of its policy on biographies of living persons. The sooner this happens, the better. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

My god, just go away. You have done more to shoot in the foot the pro-Chelsea side of this whole affair than any of the other editors combined, and it is high time that the Arbcom case wraps up so you can be removed from this topic area permanently. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's high time the Wikimedia Foundation stops editors like you from making these kind of comments. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go back and actually read my comment you reverted from your talk page, genius. Tarc (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, your conduct in this matter has been reprehensible. Adding yet another personal attack (the sarcastic remark 'genius') is not helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think given what happened, the subsequent ArbCom case and the imposed discretionary and general sanctions, this particular topic won't be a problem. Just like the climate change articles were no longer conflict areas after the ArbCom case on that subject. But you will still have similar issues on other topics. Count Iblis (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a problem in that it doesn't have rules that ensure that transgender people are treated with basic human dignity and not misgendered in article titles. For many years, it was believed Wikipedia had a policy mandating that articles respect a person's latest expressed gender self-identification. But the Manning debate ended that policy. Therefore it is necessary that the Wikimedia Foundation, as publishers of Wikipedia, take the necessary steps to ensure that the principles contained in the biographies on living persons policy also apply to transgender people. Josh Gorand (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be a start if the WMF took the necessary steps to ensure that the principles contained in the biographies on living persons policy applied to people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sakes, ArbCom just wasted 1.5 million bytes of the community's prose on this very issue and the activist fringe still isn't satisfied. Then again, time is of the essence, since a topic ban is looming... Link Carrite (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a mistake to read this as simply a transgender issue - the principle that should have governed this and other unrelated BLP cases exists only as a disregarded footnote (about something the WMF board once said) in WP:BLP. The policy itself once said Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects, but this was deleted in 2009 after a discussion involving four editors.

Timeline

2 July 2007 In the Badlydrawnjeff case, ArbCom enunciated the "Basic human dignity" principle: Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
24 July 2007 the principle was added to WP:BLP and reverted 11 minutes later with the edit summary, rv excess/redundant text ... Platitudes aside, what actual effect is that supposed to have on articles that is not already incorporated into this policy? and a brief talk page discussion among four editors.
9 January 2008 the principle was added back with edit summary, Inserting arcomm decision verbatim. See talk. If admins are supposed to enforce it, it should be in the publicly stated policy, and talk page comment, I've inserted the text of this Arbcom ruling into a new subsection. The Arbcom ruling made this de facto Wikipedia policy. For this reason, I believe it should be in the publicly-visible policy and available for community comment.
18 February 2009 Deleted with edit summary, merg Basic human dignity back into privacy section Reverted with edit summary, Undiscussed significant change of meaning; see talk page followed by a brief talk page discussion involving four editors, and final deletion.
15 June 2009 Talk page comments: Sorry to see that section has been removed. That seemed like a core principle to me. Dlohcierekim 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I heartily agree and think it was improperly removed by a single editor without much discussion - mostly opposing the removal. Smallbones (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In April 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation published its resolution on BLPs that in part says we should take human dignity into account when adding or removing information. While most of that resolution is now unambiguously embodied in en.Wikipedia's policy, this point about human dignity is not. The nearest we come to it is "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." In the Manning naming dispute it was clear that a lot of editors exclude insulting or offending a person from their definition of "harm."

I think the current wording of WP:BLP deals well with blatant attacks but it doesn't cover demeaning, humiliating, insulting or other treatment that disregards our subjects' basic dignity. Though many editors here read into the policy (or the "spirit" of the policy) an obligation to take into account the dignity of the person concerned, without a clear expression of that obligation in the BLP policy those editors must, as was seen in this recent case, submit to editors who argue that we don't care about the feelings of our subjects and so trivial style regulations must always trump the dignity of our subjects.

This community needs to make an unambiguous statement as to whether it agrees with or repudiates the Arbitration Committee and WMF position that the dignity of our subjects should be taken into account in our editorial decision-making. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That decision, which marked the precise moment at which Wikipedia editing began to decline, involved admonishing User:Badlydrawnjeff for attempting to create articles like Robyn Dawkins. The case is still described in our Babies switched at birth article, though I don't know how much was lost. It marked the beginning of an era of "BLP trumps everything", in which power shifted from those interested in putting things in to those interested in keeping things out - a perspective that makes politics wars and PR infiltration inevitable, because NPOV is stable when people share an ethos of including all the facts, but metastable when the situation is inverted.

What does "human dignity" mean? I think it must mean whatever you want it to. It's not a violation of human dignity, say, to propose Westgate shopping mall shooting for deletion because Wikipedia people think that major acts of terrorism aren't actually important if they're in Africa. But propose an edit or a fact that conflicts with somebody's politics... that's another matter. Wnt (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, editors who don't know what it means to take into account the dignity of our subjects should not involve themselves in such discussions. Editors who are confident they can recognise insulting, demeaning, humiliating or disrespectful treatment of a subject can decide on a case by case basis whether that treatment is justified by an overriding benefit to the encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that the crux of the issue is: how big is actually the harm/insult/humiliation/disrespect in calling someone by a name they didn't choose? After all, one could say, 99% of us didn't choose their own name. I understand it is a much different case in the case of transgender people, where tuning of their public identity with their inner, real gender identity is the issue -however I think this is blown a bit out of proportion. I personally highly doubt that Chelsea Manning is irremediably humiliated and damaged every time she's called "Bradley" by news and websites. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "case by case" is that it is not a collaborative rule. Case by case decisions can be made only by some individual in authority, someone with the self-confidence to declare that he can judge the degree of disrespect to be tolerated based on the circumstances as no one else can. Indeed, if that is the route we would like to pursue we ought to grant such personages formal copyright ownership of the work of the army of nobodies under their command, to ensure that its derivatives are not reworked in a way that might be unethical. I should assure you, to those of us who lack this degree of confidence in our work, it is quite a mystery why using a name used by many media outlets would be a concern for the policy, yet posting a big red banner over the article describing a recent massacre saying that it is being considered for deletion is not. (I actually lean slightly in favor of "Chelsea Manning", but I feel the BLP policy has added much heat and no light to what should be a dispassionate conversation) Wnt (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We make collaborative decisions on judgment calls all the time here. If it isn't really clear to you that using Bradley is insulting, or if you think that reasonable people can't agree on the degree of insult and the degree of confusion the rename may cause readers and whether the latter justifies the former, then you aren't qualified to join the conversation, frankly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What is interesting is that this is the exact same controversy as we have had before involving the rating of "explicit" images. You think it is possible for a collaboration like Wikipedia to make subjective decisions balancing content against other priorities, as long as they're not made by the wrong people. Who are the wrong people? The ones who disagree with you... Wnt (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your position, that we can't involve ourselves in judgments of whether content is insulting or offensive - to our subjects or readers - is based on the assumption that we all lack the necessary discernment. We don't. I know a good number here are completely lacking in such social sensitivity - far more than I encounter offline - but it is a mistake to assume that we all share that deficit. And it is a mistake to design our fundamental engagement with our readership and our subjects on the basis that "Oh, sorry, but no one here can judge offensiveness," and especially misguided to base anything on the premise that "We don't care if we offend our readers or subjects," (something many here trumpet without the lease hint of embarrassment). The former is autistic, and the latter is callous/psychopathic. I know we have a lot of those here - I'm praying it's not the majority and that the majority won't let the highly-dysfunctional basement-denizens set our tone when it comes to something as important as respectful dealing with our readers, subjects and each other - so far, though, the social misfits have the upper hand. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion such decisions everyone should be able to make. Social misfits are a small minority, and I'm sure that people can use their common sense when dealing with these issues. Respect and dignity is universal, although that doesn't seem to be the case here. Perhaps people on Wikipedia ought to think of what they would feel if someone, for example doesn't respect their gender. KonveyorBelt 23:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

And we should all be creative geniuses and look like movie stars. Sadly, life's not fair. The sense you're wanting people to exercise isn't universal. You ask people to imagine a feeling: It is really true that some people just can't feel how others would be affected by an insult, and more troubling, some can imagine it but think it's irrelevant. Really. And they brag about it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Life's not fair, and neither is Wikipedia, apparently. Look up Robert Clark Young and half the article, including the lead, is made up of stuff about his Wikipedia editing that is of very little interest outside Wikipedia... but because editors use their discretion, case by case, you get the smell of whether Wikipedia muckety-mucks are ticked off at somebody or not. Meanwhile, it's been like pulling teeth to get in even widely publicized negative information about politicians. The way we should make these decisions is to follow the sources, faithfully going wherever they lead, stuffing our articles with all relevant information. Wnt (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You can cite bad articles all day on every noticeboard the wiki has to offer but nothing will happen of it. It still requires some anonymous volunteer to clean it up. From the short time I've been at Wikipedia so far, I've gathered that most editors are involved with process than actually improving the article, and the chief place I've noticed it is at the Chelsea manning RM. Over 100 editors participated but yet after it was moved and unprotected only a few actually edited it. KonveyorBelt 02:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We have thousands of active editors and many more who make occasional contributions. Far more than get involved in process matters such as this requested move. Yes the small number of articles that are involved in contentious things such as this requested move are going to get a lot of extra attention, but this is a site with around 200,000 edits per day - mostly in article space. The whole renaming saga will have been a tiny fraction of a percent of this quarters edits, and an extreme outlier rather than evidence that most editors are involved with process than actually improving the article. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well stated, Anthonyhcole. I like the way you framed the issue as a matter of BLP guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's also a fallacy to assume that the neutral point of view is in the middle, especially when sentiments calling for trans people to be put in concentration camps are often expressed. Academic and medical consensus is completely in favour of the recognition of transgender individuals and their identity, and that should be what we follow, not a press which public inquiries have found to have flaws (on the same lines, would we believe the Daily Express on immigration, for example?) Sceptre ^(talk) 14:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. It just makes it worse

In response to Jimbo and "reprehensible"

I'll forgive you for being a bit behind the times as you're a busy man and all, but when you have a moment, peruse User:Tarc/Manning statement. I'm fully supportive of a transgender person's life choices, and of naming a Wikipedia article in-kind, but I was curious to see how arbcom would deal with a polite yet prejudicial argument against transgender recognition. They, un-surprisingly, dropped the ball. After years of keeping the lunatics at bay in the Obama articles, arguing in favor of dropping the misogynistic "wife of" from Sarah Jane Brown, or opposing (ultimately unsuccessfully) the depopulation of women authors from the novelists category, people around here shoulda caught on quicker.

Mr. Gorand though did a great, great disservice to the Chelsea-supporting side; his miserable, combative, shrill tone was one of the primary reasons that it all had to go to Arbitration at all. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you really think this trolling scheme makes you look a better person ? Iselilja (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Or that it's at all believable? Formerip (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I look like a rather great person actually, my sense of self-worth has always been rather stratospheric. And FormerIP, what would I have to gain by that ? My section of the Arbcom stood at 2-7 against any sanction at all, so it wasn't like it an 11th hour punishment evasion or anything. I may even be in more hot water now by revealing it. Seriously, think before making such an absurd comment. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

When I was in primary school, a common way out of having said something embarrassing was to claim you had said it as a joke. Even then, it didn't really work, it just made you seem even more ridiculous. Formerip (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, if the arbcom case was crashing around my ears and I was on the edge of imminent sanction, then you'd have a point. Or if it was close like the Muhammad case where I skated off by the skin of my teeth, you'd have a point. If I'd not said any of this, no one would be the wiser, and then its off to the next big wiki-drama. Trust me bro; neither "shame" nor "embarrassment" are in my dictionary. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that for a second. Maybe your dictionary is lacking an entry for "moderation", which would explain why, having made the miscalculation of backing team moron at the outset, you went in far too stridently to subtly shift your position as the debate progressed, like everyone else did. And why you were left feeling like a prize dick when the dust settled. Formerip (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm What part of "I had already won" are you confused by? Tarc (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The part where your nose started to grow longer. Formerip (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, Tarc. Here’s a crystal ball for you. FormerIP naturally knew all the all (as did we all) that you weren’t really conservative. He is just pretending he doesn’t, to make you drink your own troll medicine. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if all FormerIP meant was "I am a WP:DICK", that could have been accomplished in 4 words. Brevity is the soul of wit and the essence of lingerie, after all. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Write your own joke or pay Dorothy Parker a nickel. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If the Tea Party were to embrace ObamaCare, that would not make their past behavior leading to the government shutdown any better. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I and a couple of other editors who stood firmly against extremely discriminatory anti-trans speech a month ago (that was met with no sanctions at all) and continued to argue against wrong decisions, and who navigated Chelsea Manning's article safely back to Chelsea despite harsh resistance and attacks against ourselves, are the ones who might just have saved Wikipedia's honour. Whether editors like Tarc were serious or whether they were just perpetrating the biggest case of disruptive WP:POINT ever perpetrated on Wikipedia, as he now claims, when they made comments like these, doesn't matter. They lost, and they look bad. Immensely bad. And they are now taking it out on me, it seems. (I should also note that Tarc was one of the main culprits in creating an aggressively discriminatory atmosphere and a hostile climate in that discussion, and baiting good faith editors into getting enraged over comments comparing trans people to pigs doesn't make him look more agreeable, if his claims here are even true) Josh Gorand (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh, I didn't "lose" a thing. The move of the article back to "Bradley Manning" for a month was perhaps morally wrong but per policy of Wikipedia was sound, and that move (and the 30 day moratorium) were upheld by the Arbitration Committee. Tariqabjotu was not sanctioned for any of his actions, but Gerard received an admonishment. You are thankfully being removed from the topic area permanently. You were right about what the project should have done w.r.t. Chelsea vs. Bradley; the unfortunate side is that your ego and self-righteous grandstanding did far more harm to the entire affair than good. You're like what the Earth Liberation Front is to the conservation movement (and that isn't a compliment). Tarc (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The #1 rule of trolls is, don't feed the trolls. I'd suggest everyone just ignore Tarc and his rather epic trollfest, he's just relishing the attention even more and it makes him even more smug.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Coming from the editor who tried to hijack the Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham move requests with misogynist antics a few months ago, we can safely conclude that your opinion is valued somewhere south of zero. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks (on Jimbo's talk page, no less). Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no attack, just an assessment of what this user did in previous gender-oriented pagemove discussions. Obiwan's actions are well-documented in the talk page archives of Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham Clinton, respectively. The latter he even tried to close himself, despite a) being a non-admin and b) having a clear conflict-of-interest. Fun times. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said Konveyor, Tarc is an admitted troll, so you can safely ignore whatever he says, in whichever forum. He delights in riling people up and then watching their reactions. The fact that he doesn't even know what Misogyny or conflict of interest means, nor did (or could) he ever articulate how these terms might apply to my carefully considered close of Hillary Clinton, is evidence enough that he's not worth the time or the energy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Both words were explained to you quite exhaustively in each discussion. Your lack of comprehension is not a concern of mine, and it sounds simply like someone's still a bit bitter after going 0-for-2, despite your spirited harassment admins involved in those closes. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't win Tarc. If you strike him down, he shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tarc should stop using the dark side of the Force. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But who can resist the Dark Side? Especially when it has cookies ? Tarc (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy is ever a possibility, while flat stupidity is quite ever a greater probability. What trumps the cold examination of facts is that conspiracy leads more than often to a better looking story: se non è vero, è ben trovato. Rewrite Josh Gorand as a right-wing troll trying to depict some advocacy group with a deprecative brush and you obtain a far more convincing story. Another example is the process that expelled the self-made woman Sarah Brown from her birth name, renamed her --2007/05/26-- as Sarah Brown (actress) and ended --2013/06/21-- into Sarah Joy Brown. Look at it as a troll and everything finds its place. Even now the main picture of the Sarah_Brown_(wife_of_Gordon_Brown) article is croped from a "Sarah and Gordon picture at the 10's door" (featuring George and Laura), and the other picture is "Charity Brown Nursing the Poor BLP Minister". Moreover, the infobox teach us that Charity Brown has been fired and replaced by Charity Samantha Cameron (don't tell she may be David's wife!). A question remains: what was/what is the target of the Brown's troll? The BLP as a whole? The Charity Brown's advocacy group? The WMUK Charity? The infamous infoboxes' advocacy group? Could it be a multi-card troll? Pldx1 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Google Trends

FWIW, "Bradley Manning" is still the most commonly name used name.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What that shows it that it's the more commonly searched-for string on Google. Which is interesting but not very. Formerip (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and did you know COMMONNAME doesn't have to be the MOST common name? I was just reading that. And then reading this. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion moving "Bradley Manning" to "Chelsea Manning" is as absurd as the new California law that allows transgender schoolkids to choose which restroom and locker room they use. I mean it's OK to allow a biological boy who underwent sex reassignment therapy to use girls restroom, but it is not how the law is going to work. According to the law a child will be allowed to use the facilities of his/her choice "Once a discussion among the student, the family and school officials takes place". The same with Chelsea Manning, why not to wait until Bradley Manning will physically become Chelsea Manning and then rename the article? After all Bradley Manning could still change his (her?) mind. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing your gender is a monumentous decision, and not really one which you can "change your mind". Give Manning her dignity and accept she wants to be a woman. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 18:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a neutral information, Konveyor Belt, you indeed can change your mind on gender reassignment, sometimes with tragic consequences: [2]: According to studies in America and Holland, around one in 20 post-operative transsexuals changes his or her mind after surgery, and around one in ten never adjusts and often becomes deeply depressed. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that article's from 1993. Even with more recent numbers, I've read that of the less than five percent who have trouble, it's not all strictly regret issues: some have it for non-satisfaction with the quality of medical care, rather than the the surgery itself (those are sometimes quite tragic stories), or also from continued stigma issues, which are socially-, not surgery-caused. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is considered an invasion of privacy (medical) to demand medical evidence of sex changes. -Wikid77 18:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Where is Kate Middleton now: In many places, the name "Kate Middleton" is well-known, but I imagine there are few who could state the new formal name as "Catherine,..." and yet the article was renamed immediately. I think that is the major point, when a person has an attorney make a formal statement of name change. -Wikid77 18:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

AQFK is well-aware that if "but google!" is a failed argument in deletion discussions when determining a subject's notability. it fares no better here when discussing what an article title should be. A superficial, lazy argument. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you do a Google news search, "Bradley Manning"[3] outnumbers "Chelsea Manning"[4] by roughly 3-to-1. So no matter how you slice or dice it, "Bradley Manning" is still the most commonly used name. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that this situation clearly isn't just a numbers game. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This situation is no different from any other situation. We should use the most commonly used name. How do you think we should determine the most commonly used name? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, drop the stick. There have been arguments about this since August 22nd, ARBCOM is finishing up their proposed decisions, the article was moved to Chelsea Manning yesterday...in other words, this dispute is winding down. Now is not the time to continue to argue. By and large, the matter has been settled. I think 8 weeks of discussion (and blood-letting) about this is enough. Time to put in place procedures to address future cases like this when they arise so this won't all have been for naught. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The dead horse has been by far beaten quite to smithereens. Just drop the issue. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys, in a civil debate, explaining why you disagree with someone is fine. Telling someone you disagree with to "shut up" as one or more of you are effectively doing above is insensitive, demeaning, and insulting. Please don't do it. There is no room for it on Wikipedia. Just politely say why you disagree and please leave it at that. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure if you had to listen to the same argument 20 times over you'd feel the same way. KonveyorBelt 15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I guess I'm just sensitive to the need to honor diversity, including diversity of opinion, and us being careful not to "other" editors with different opinions. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is perhaps telling that KonveyorBelt doesn't have a response. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, egotistical much? Some people have better things to do with their day than camp out on Jimbo's talk page furiously slamming F5 to see what latest wiki-morsel has dropped from your fingers. The absence of a retort is does not validate your opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "diversity of opinion". Google hits are not an appropriate reason for a !vote, and especially not when the same editor has pushed them around in most of the discussions. KonveyorBelt 16:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised by the number of people who opposed the name change to Chelsea... and more so by their logic. (Not surprised by Tarc's trolling btw, that was the one thing constant with the rest of Wikipedia's function and my world-view on things around here). Clearly the entire conversation should have been ruled by WP:BLP, which ultimately exists for us to not get in legal hot water about with libel laws, and secondarily so we don't "hurt feelings". Clearly if someone changes their gender, and especially if they change their legal name... calling them by a different name gets very close to a gray area, and BLP has existed in a manner to keep us WELL AWAY from any gray areas; in my opinion- this, especially when in combination with a change in gender, got us waaaaaaaaay to close to the gray area of legality. Individual editors can not "like" California law regarding transgender or other specific laws regarding gender identity, but Wikipedia doesn't get involved with what laws we like and don't like. As an employer I know in my state I can not go around referring to one person as a certain gender when they identify as a different gender, that would be sexual harassment. We must realize that Chelsea serves in a male prison only because laws identify for incarceration purposes gender is determined by "penis or no penis" regardless of anything else, including genetics and secondary sex characteristics such as breasts, hermaphrodites even go to male prisons (at least in Colorado they do for now, Jose Ruiz/Jasmine Martinez is suing to change that), but as far a I know we don't classify all hermaphrodites as males on Wikipedia (perhaps a guideline on this issue?). I'm disappointed in Wikipedians who thought it would not be a BLP violation to determine for someone what their gender identity is... especially since we are extremely careful on religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality not to call someone as something other than strictly what that person themselves identify as.Camelbinky (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@KonveyorBelt: Why do you say that a Google News search isn't appropriate in determining the most most common name? How do you recommend that we determine the most common name for an article's topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any remaining evidence of the deceased equine, beyond a slight stain in the ground? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Commoname strictly says reliable sources. If you think Google hits is a reliable source you really need to read the policy again. KonveyorBelt 17:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

To give you a taste of your own bitter medicine, it is telling that AQFK has not responded or backed up his own stance with policy. KonveyorBelt 02:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Konveyor: It's important to distinguish between a Google search and a Google News search. A Google search indexes all of the Internet but Google News only indexes news sources. There used to be a time where Google News searches indexed non-reliable sources such as prisonplanet.com, but Google fixed that problem a couple years ago. So, my "stance" (as you put it - I don't really have a "stance", I try to answer these types of issues objectively without letting person opinion get in the way) is to determine the most commonly used name using reliable sources. This is policy. In any case, you didn't answer my second question: how do you recommend that we determine the most common name for an article's topic? AQFK (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Wikipedia:Google test. "Google News used to be less susceptible to manipulation by self-promoters, but with the advent of pseudo-news sites designed to collect ad revenues or to promote specific agendas, this test is often no more reliable than others in areas of popular interest, and indexes many "news" sources that reflect specific points of view." Etc. Etc. Etc. Google can point to sources, but sources must be examined individually. Google News collects sources that we would consider reliable and sources we would consider not reliable. Sometimes it adds more than one hit from the same originating source. You can't point to "totals of good and bad sources of an unknown ratio" and claim it shows a knowable total of reliable sources. Google obviously hasn't fixed the problem of having non-reliable sites show up in their searches, as your searches indicate. A favorite sample hit from your linked Google News search for "Bradley Manning" is a non-english Norwegian site that still refers to her as "Chelsea (tidligere Bradley) Manning". I think that's Språkstriden for "You are mistaken to rely on Google to judge whether a source is reliable or that it said what you thought it did".) __Elaqueate (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME says reliable sources. Google is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are only provided by Google. It is up to editors to examine whether Google is giving them a reliable source or not. This is the purpose of that massive discussion at the bottom of the RM examining reliable sources at Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request#Older discussion on the sources only. KonveyorBelt 20:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What does WP's configuration control/content board say on the issue since they have ultimate authority on content questions? Cla68 (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Elaqueate:Wikipedia:Google test is out of date. The text that was quoted was added way back in 2006.[5] Google changed its News Search algorithm a couple years ago and now does a much better job indexing only news sites. But you are quite correct that we should only be looking at reliable sources and reliability needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. The Norwegian source can be ignored since the WP:COMMONNAME policy says that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: "The Norwegian source can be ignored..." But you're not ignoring it if you're comparing totals including it, and many other non-useful results like it. That's the point. (You'll also note that it quotes results in the ten thousands range, but if you click through to the last page of results, it shows results only in the hundreds range.) The unreliability of a Google News total is a current issue, known for years. Comparing bogus search total numbers significantly comprised of unusable non-English sources is not objective or accurate. __Elaqueate (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: In the past, one methodology that I've used is to examine the first X numbers of sources and judge on a individual basis whether each source meets Wikipedia's definition of reliable. So, for example, if the sample size was 20 and 13 sources used A and 7 sources said B, then you would go with A. Of course, it's difficult to determine exactly what the sample size should be. Perhaps 30 or 40 would be better. And, of course, the larger the sample size, the more time consuming a task this becomes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the statistical term is "eyeballing". I'll consider your methodology the next time I'm in a rush. __Elaqueate (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC){od}

Please stop trying to fit 10 pounds of shiat into a 2 pound box. It's obvious it's not her "common name" when every article has to introduce her with her common name so they know wtf the article is talking about. Julia Serano is a common name. No one has to publish "previously known as XXX Serano." We don't even have her birth name in the article, though it's widely available. Heck, I wouldn't even attempt to add it to Serano because of the irrational response it would receive even if it mimicked the Manning article. "Chelsea Manning" is listed there for only a few reasons: one of which is that listing it there causes less disruption and harm than any other pace. It's not her legal name in any common, statutory or administrative law sense. It's not her common name in any rationale way when articles about her have to include "Bradley" and articles not about her omit "Chelsea" completely. We respect her self-identification out of the belief that it is least harmful. It should only extend to her bio and accounts of fact after her conviction. Trying to make ludicrous claims about who she is doesn't make it easier to decide what follows. --DHeyward (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC) @AQFK, Elaqueate, and Konveyor belt- this has nothing to do with COMMONNAME... that's a red herring and your back and forth private conversation in a public place is a bit annoying. It has always, and rightfully so, been a BLP issue. If you really want to convince people of your POV from either side of the aisle, then address the BLP issue. Otherwise go to your talk pages and have your discussion truly privately by yourselves.Camelbinky (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a good biography article should always give the other names used for any significant period of time; this is not meant as an insult to the subject but should happen regardless of whether some people are minded to take it as such. (I argued this position in regard to Touré, whose birth name is now given at the start of the article, long before these trans issues took off) However, we should also be hesitant to accept the "legal" version as definitive, especially as by policy we are specifically prohibited from giving legal advice. If an American government decides tomorrow to rename Snowden as "Infamous Cowardly Traitor" unless and until he shows up in person to contest it (oh lord I just gave them an idea...), we wouldn't follow that. According to a prison spokesman [6], Marcec added that Manning will be addressed as Bradley, not Chelsea, unless a court approves a legal name change. “The Army doesn’t let you be called by whatever you want to be called,” he said. While I understand that a prison could be mocked by unrestricted legal name changes, the bottom line is that there's really very little conceptual difference between the ridiculous hypothetical case and the reality. What we need to do is put aside all emotion and just ask ourselves - what does the majority of reliable sources consider to be Manning's current name? Without the slightest concern for what side of the issue that puts us on or who is offended by it. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hey I just had this question in my mind and couldn't think of another person to ask. How is that all of you choose the location for Wikimania? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

...and how can we get one in Sacramento? :-)--Mark Miller (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Check out this page at meta. Actually I think San Francisco might not be a bad place to have it. (IMHO) the WMF's location there would have plusses and minuses, but be a net plus. It is an expensive city though, just like London will be in 2014. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if Wikimania is not planned for a particular city, there can still be a osmaller event. See Wikipedia:Meetup.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Sacramento would be a better venue than San Francisco. The foundations HQ there would be absolutely no benefit for Wikimania. It's a rather small building with no admittance without an appointment, ID etc. Just a private foundation office. Nothing spectacular, although of enough interest that I photographed it on my last trip to SF. LOL!. Sacramento, on the other hand, has an international airport with light rail to downtown. A major transportation plus! (even though Sac's RT is one of the most expensive in the nation). We have a very large convention center in the heart of the city with excellent accommodations and hotels of almost every level, from decent, clean motels, to a high quality luxury (if your into that) hotels near our state's capitol and seat of state government. The fact that I live near by is my own poor, pennyless reasoning....but Sacramento is indeed an excellent choice for a US Wikimania! Sac is just an hour and a half away from SF so foundation members could easily drive to it!--Mark Miller (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It need not be at headquarters. San Francisco has better transport connections by road and rail, has a greater population, population density, and richer nightlife, and has the Moscone Center, where Wikimania could be held. All the while, travel expenditures would be reduced for Wikimedia employees. I think that San Francisco would be a good place for next year, and would allow the Foundation to reverse its recent tendencies of globe-trotting decadence. Wer900 • talk 23:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of decadence, I've always wanted to go to San Francisco, though I have little hair to put flowers in. Jonathunder (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

San Fran would be an excellent location. It would actually be a better international location than Sac....but you'd miss the one hundred plus weather of a Sacramento summer. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is a wiki. If you are willing to help organize a bid for SF or any other feasible place, create a subpage for it. Jonathunder (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

One hundred plus, eh? People were already looking a little flushed in Hong Kong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well then...San Fran would be a great change. Even in August, one should bring a sweater......and a lot of money as it ain't cheap there. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

West Coast USA would be swell. Portland, Oregon might be a good locale also. Carrite (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Although that would be the third US location. So much for wmf:Resolution:Wikimedia Foundation Guiding Principles#Internationalism... -- Ypnypn (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Didn't realize that we counted the number of times Wikimedia has its convention in the actual country of its origin. How stupid of me and others to suggest California as a location. Seems the state and country is only good enough for a laugh and the foundation's actual office but not its Wikimedia conventions. Sorry for suggesting such a ridiculous location for Wikimania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 October 2013‎ (UTC)

@Ypnypn: It has been rotating: USA-Asia-Europe-USA-Asia-Europe... I suppose one could make an argument for Toronto, but West Coast USA seems more logical. Carrite (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be great to see a Canadian bid: Toronto, or perhaps Vancouver. In fact, it would be good to see any bids at all develop from this discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2015 should definitely be in San Francisco. The Wikimedia Foundation's traveling circus should stop living so fat, as a punishment for its utter failure in the rollout of VE and the general insufficiency of the encyclopedia. There are more pressing issues facing the foundation than faux "internationalism"; it's time to bring Louis XVI back to the Tuileries Palace. Wer900 • talk 05:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As I live roughly halfway between San Francisco and Sacramento, I would be pleased with either. The advantages of Sacramento are many: much cheaper hotel rooms, more quirky, excellent and reasonably priced museums, much closer to the Sierra Nevada and Lake Tahoe, and just different for international visitors. Anyone who wants to visit San Francisco can be there in 90 minutes or so. And several of California's wine regions are close by. Yes, Sacramento can be hot in the summer, but it is dry heat and rarely oppressive. I like Sacramento, and had a wonderful visit to its historic Old Town and spectacular Railroad Museum just this past Saturday. Count me in for either location, as I could sing San Francisco's praises as well. I went to college in that wonderful town, lived and worked there for many years, and know it well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wellington, Somerset would be most convenient for me. According to our article, it boasts not only a range of cultural, sporting and religious sites, but also now an aerosol factory and bed manufacturers. Public transport links and prevailing weather are both dreadful. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

San Fransisco is not safe, if the Big One were to strike, it would wipe out most of the Wikipedia intelligentsia. Count Iblis (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

By that standard of risk-aversity, you probably don't want to have it anywhere else on Earth either, you never know when the Big One is going to hit all of us. Neutron (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Impacts are rare, and the probability of a disaster doesn't depend that much on the choice of the venuet. In contrast, the probability of a catastrophic earthquake during a Wikimania meeting in San Fransisco are not extremely small, about 1/2000.

Perhaps Barrow, Alaska would be a good place. It's pretty much equally convenient for most Wikipedians to visit. It's also an interesting place to visit, but few people would visit that place were it not for a meeting like this. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This place is even better. The airport is nearby and it has good accomodation. Count Iblis (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, I just wanted to know the process for the selection of the places where Wimimania is held. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd love a pointer to the latest information on that as well. Traditionally a committee (somewhat self-selecting) considered bids from various cities, looking at a variety of factors. I heard (but just from one person) that going forward the process is changing, I think because the old way had too many hurt feelings and wasted work by volunteers putting together bids (venue, sponsorship packages, etc). But I do not know what is official at this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, thanks for answering Miss Bono's question directly. And I feel I should apologize to Miss Bono if anything I did was part of the frustration you expressed. I am showing my frustrations in real life here and that is just wrong and I need to remember I am frustrated with outside situations and not Wikipedia in this regards. I would love to attend a Wikimania, as I am sure you would and if such a convention can be held in Cuba....I would so support that. Seriously.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales, you are TEH SOLE FOUNDER, God-King, and Constitutional Monarch of Wikipedia. Please use your reserve powers when appropriate, and realize that it is the role of the Foundation, ultimately, to decide the location and provide the funding for Wikimania. Your comment reminds me of Gandhi's declaration of war in Civilization V: "I have just recieved reports that my troops have crossed your borders." If this comment was intended as a joke, then humor has its place, but it doesn't seem like it. Wer900 • talk 01:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I guess it's a bit tricky that one, then. Thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, m:Wikimania 2015 bids#Timeline is probably the best source of information currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

After HongKong and London there would be a pretty good case for going back to the americas in 2015, Sacramento would be longhaul from the two preceding venues which is good. But a problem with the US is that visas will be almost as difficult as in London. That excludes people from quite a large chunk of the world. I suspect that Mexico, South Africa or maybe somewhere in South America would be easier to get everyone too as well as being in parts of the world we've never been to or not been to for years. We had a number of people excluded from DC last year because they couldn't get visas to enter the US, and presumably wikimania on the US West coast would have the same problem. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh...after reading Cullen328 wonderful and accurate description of Sacramento....I think I will actually look into the process and see how a bid is made. You see Sacramento has a few other advantages for those coming outside the US. We are only a three hour drive to Yosemite, about a 2 hour drive to Carmel, Monterey, Santa Cruz etc. and as was mentioned a few times....as a metropolitan city it may be the least expensive location you could in California. As the capitol of the State of California we actually have many, many museums. The Crocker Art Museum just expand and there are plans to build a new museum close by and create a small museum district. We have entertainment in many forms, Opera, ballet, symphony (I think the symphony is still around) and live theatre that includes many professional and semi professional venues. One other thing...by 2015, Sacramento may well have its new downtown arena for the Sacramento Kings. If 2015 is not a good fit for Sac, perhaps 2016. If the arena is finished it may be a perfect venue for Wikimania.

Also...sorry for the sarcasm in my post a little way up. Got a little put off by a response I wasn't prepared for.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere poor and hence cheap would both help counter systemic bias and make it more accessible to those who arent rich (or their parents when thinking of younger ppl), Hong Kong and London are extremely expensive as are suggested options of San Francisco and Sacramento, making this event NOT open to everyone♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course...we are not actually deciding on the next venue here, but....any locvation chosen would mean someone would not be able to attend. Sacramento...is still the least expensive suggestion yet made. I for one....would fight very hard for that venue. Sacramento is probably the least expensive venue ever suggested. Although, I am all ears to anyone that would suggest otherwise.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly it should be in Montgomery, Alabama. The weather is sometimes great, the BBQ is excellent, we have at least two hotels downtown, and we are both the Cradle of the Confederacy and the birthplace of the Civil Rights Movement. Plus, I have a pool. Cullen, pack your swimmies for you and Mrs. Cullen. As it happens I just ordered four bags of grits so I can feed a couple of people, and I'll get some extra Conecuh sausage for Beeblebrox. Jimbo can stay with us, in "grandma's bedroom", and Moonriddengirl can finally meet her illegitimate son. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I spent three days in Alabama working a business deal a quarter of a century ago, Drmies, and resolved to visit again at least once each 27 years, so I'm ready. Please be aware that Sacramento has plenty of Motel 6, McDonald's and a centrally located Greyhound Bus depot. But I guess that Montgomery also enjoys such amenities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Screw Sacramento and SF. I'll go where the BBQ is best! ;)--Mark Miller (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Montgomery and Sacramento both sound like interesting places. You need good transport links, ideally including many international routes to a nearby airport, and ideally in walking distance of each other, you need: Accommodation for circa 1,000 people with a range from dorm style for most editors to very high end for WMF staff and trustees; One auditorium that can fit everyone (though you only need that in the mornings - in Buenos Aires they used a cinema that was normally empty in the day; A conference venue with several rooms that can take a couple of hundred people each; and Party venues. One way to deal with the visa issue would be to alternate between open and closed countries so anyone excluded by visas one year could attend the following year. As the UK is about as closed as the US that would mean a 2016 bid for Montgomery or Sacramento with 2015 somewhere open like Cape Town, Bali or Tbilisi. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Well. That all sounds a bit fancy. Plus, we don't do "walking distance" in the South...but WSC, you're also always welcome around the pool, at cocktail time. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, that's really nice of you. Mrs WSC and I don't have a pool here in London, but we can certainly rustle up cocktails if you are ever in town (I do have a pond though and I've just realised we should make a video of the tadpoles next spring). Ϣere SpielChequers 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it's Bali, I won't have to beg WMF on my knees for a scholarship next time. Heck, if I took the bus I'd be able to cover travel for less than $50. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my thinking for SF and Sac as I am not involved at the same level as others to be accepted when I last applied. So I didn't for the last Wikimania, but anything within driving distance...I'm there. Still thinking that Sacramento needs a serious look.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

- Wikimania in Northern California would be wonderful. I live in the southernmost part of the Napa Valley, so Sacramento is a great location for me, being an hour away from home. I would consider San Francisco for the location to be somewhat of a conflict of interest (please do not throw tomatoes at me). The airport in Sacramento is most excellent. FYI I may not be a prolific editor or recognized by many, but I am totally dedicated to Wikipedia and I have met many of the SF staff and respect them greatly. ChesPal (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Systematic use of Wikipedia to further Hindu nationalist propaganda

Dear Mr. Wales,

Good day to you!

My name is Andrew Cabral and I’m writing to you from India.

I wish to bring to your notice (in case it hasn’t already, that is) the fact that Wikipedia is being systematically used by a certain very well-defined community of users to propagate misinformation (often downright lies). There is an extreme right-wing Hindu political propagandist organization in India called the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) whose sole agenda is to distort history to accommodate their view of India as the cradle of civilization, Sanskrit as the mother of all languages, and to glorify India and simultaneously undermine other civilizations, nations and cultures. Needless to say, their views are not accepted by any mainstream scholarship, aside from a few crackpots, who will naturally always be there. Nonetheless, their influence in India itself is considerable. They exploit the relatively uneducated Indian by preaching to him that India was always at the forefront of civilization and that barbaric outsiders plundered her and stole all her secrets. Partially true, no doubt, but definitely not the way they tell it. They instill a sense of xenophobia in the average Indian and play upon his victim complex. They make them believe that Indians are the only truly religious, pious, peace-loving, tolerant (and what have you) people around. They instill a sense of false superiority in these people and purposefully glorify India by either making sweeping claims about it and its history or shrewdly manipulating any historical ambiguity into something which “conclusively” proves their point. When confronted by those who know better, these people use one of two escape routes, namely, talk sheer circumlocuting rubbish or directly attack the other as racist and biased.

A point in fact is the Talk page of the Wikipedia article on “Man”. I request you (actually strongly urge you) to read what is on that page itself. I had made an edit request on the 12th of February this year which was accepted almost immediately. It is only recently that I got to know what had transpired since then. I have just left a long communication on that page to the principal involved. Kindly do read it and decide for yourself the merits of my bringing this to your notice. Also please be rest assured that I can give you many other instances of the orthodox Hindu mind at work on Wikipedia, should you wish me to do so. Please understand that this is NOT an isolated incident. As one editor on the Talk page of Indian Mathematics put it, “Sadly, mathematics is far from the only topic on Wikipedia which suffers from this artificial inflation of India's role.” When you do have the time, you can read that rather lengthy page and see for yourself what regular editors have had to face. Also, please be clear that although these people represent a huge percentage of Indians, they do not represent India in general. I have personally known two Indians who were regular contributors to Wikipedia and whose integrity was beyond question. Even the editor Saddhiyama who kept his cool on the Man talk page is probably Indian.

Inasmuch as it is one thing to point out a problem area and quite another to propose a means which could even start approaching its rectification, I am at a loss as to how to suggest a method to check or even contain the progress of these people. Nonetheless, even if you were aware of this problem before, I felt that it merited my presenting it. The closed, bigoted and uneducated mind is cancerous, and, as we all know, if there is one thing that cancer does well, that thing is spreading itself.

Thank you for reading this. I trust that you will take due cognizance of the matter.

Sincerely yours,

Andrew Cabral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.200.54 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Boosterism is a problem worldwide: It can be frustrating when trying to provide a balanced view of subjects, but even many published sources have a "systemic bias" to overly focus on the positive aspects of a subject. Jimbo has mentioned the problem of boosterism with people writing the glowing, wp:PEACOCK praise of local towns or schools. Although the excessive superlatives are often seen in articles about India, there has been equivalent text in other articles as well. The world tends to present awards for merit, with few awards given for earning shame. Jimbo even caught a highly experienced admin deleting negative sourced text about police investigations of a person, which had the effect of whitewashing police activities where police corruption could be concealed by admins deleting sourced text about police actions. The solution seems to be to get more people to help with screening of articles to (re-)add the sourced negative text to provide overall wp:NPOV balance, and try to limit the boosterism everywhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The pernicious influence of Hindutva ideology on English Wikipedia is fairly well known among those who contribute in the India-Pakistan-Hindu-Muslim related area and by those who do not but who are familiar with the many problems relating to it that have been raised at WP:ANI over the years. Doing something about it is an entirely different matter: there seems often to be a reluctance to take action until a problematic editor has been doing their thing for quite some time. These people tend to work in teams and are usually good at spouting the various policy acronyms even if they are less well-versed in the application of those policies. The key is often to find the cheerleader and indeed there is one example at present who is serving a ban and whose absence is almost certainly connected with the voluntary withdrawal of a couple of others who have demonstrated a similar tendency. That person's ban ends soon and there are people watching to see whether the others return at that time. A similar situation happened a year or so ago, although the probability in that instance is that the troublesome elements have returned under different identities. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikid77, "boosterism" is a common trait. The awkward point with Hindutva is that too few people outside India are familiar with it and thus the ability to spot the POV is constrained. The number of people willing to dip their toes into the Indic-related sphere is woefully small. In some ways, given what I and some others have to face, I don't blame them! - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right about. If I never get involved in another indic related dispute it will be a day too soon.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Wikid77! I’m afraid you don’t appreciate the gravity of the situation. This isn’t a matter of boosting a particular individual or organization; it’s a whole race of people. Need I remind you what fraction of the world’s population is Indian and even if you take that a quarter of the country’s population is influenced by Hindutva (a modest estimate, in my opinion), then you have a sizeable proportion of the globe to deal with. As Sitush and Spartaz know, these are not people with whom you can deal in a rational manner. They have monolithic mindsets and manipulative tendencies. I’ll give you an example. I recently had occasion to disprove on a Yahoo page a pet claim of theirs: that the Vedas, etc. accurately predicted the age of the universe. I quoted from the Vishnu Puran and did the arithmetic, so to speak. The response (at least I wasn’t abused, but then I was very straightforward): “Mathematics does not prove anything. You have to be truly spiritual to be able to understand the depth of our scriptures. Hinduism is based on natural principles. Our rishis and munnis developed great time-scales for the benefit of all humanity. Blah, blah, blah!” I trust you get the point. Another thing you might not be aware of is the fact that the RSS were always great admirers of the Nazis. Of course, they don’t have the balls (unlike the Nazis did) to openly state that they want a “pure” “Aryan” India free from “foreigners”, but that is their basic desire. I’m very sure that “boosterism” (a term I wasn’t aware of but immediately understood) exists in other spheres as well, but I am even more sure that it doesn’t to even half the extent to which it does here. I knew exactly what I was saying when I compared it to a cancer. It’s far more than just superlatives. I’m telling you there are both downright lies and ambiguities which are tweaked in their favour, superlatively, of course. There are also convenient omissions, either of the type which could water down their claims or which could show that others (non-Indian cultures, nations, civilizations, even individuals) had more rights to those claims. We live in an information age which is as much a misinformation age. A site like Wikipedia loses its credibility among those who know better. Even those who don’t and who have no reason to be inclined towards Hindutva start getting suspicious after a point and stop trusting what they find here. Those who are of the “Oh my Gawd, this is so coooool!” disposition get taken for a ride, literally. And those who desperately want to believe get their ideas reinforced. The proportion of people in India who actually read books is less than in most other countries. Their source of information is invariably the net. So, you don’t realize it, but Wikipedia is not only catering to their need to portray India and its history in a superlative light to the rest of the world, but it is also actually contributing towards increasing the strength of their own fold.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.204.30 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Andrew, see below: "#Slanting most school, team or town pages". -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush! I fully understand what you, Spartaz and others have to go through on an almost daily basis. I first started doubting things related to the History of Indian Mathematics pages (particularly Bhaskara II), but after reading in one of those “Fact of the Matter” boxes in the Times of India newspaper that “the English word Navigation comes from Sanskrit Navigutha” and finding exactly that on Wikipedia, I started doubting everything related to India on Wikipedia. It is one of Hindutva’s cherished dreams to prove that English derives from Sanskrit (the colonial hangover). Forget the fact that navigation derives from the Latin “navigare”, to them even Latin and Greek come from Sanskrit. The early philologists like William Jones’ waxing eloquent over Sanskrit in comparison to Latin and Greek is always quoted as “proof”. I once went to great pains on the comments section of a page on YouTube to explain that English was one language that was influenced by more languages than most for it to be traced to even one “original” source, leave alone one as far away as Sanskrit. In reply, I was given a list of English words with similar phonetics and meanings in Sanskrit. Most of them were root words and all were what we know as Latin- or Greek-based. I was told that if I wanted, there were “thousands” of more words which could be posted. I didn’t bother replying. Maybe I will one of these days. Proto-Indo-European doesn’t exist for them. Forgive me for boring you, but I’m purposely writing these things down so that others can read of concrete, real incidents which have taken place and so understand the situation better.

Regarding the problematic editors, why, may I ask, is there often a reluctance to take action earlier on? It only gets worse the longer one waits and they thrive on the extra time granted them. In fact, it bolsters their confidence. It is quite possible that the particular editor of whom you were talking is the same Archetypex07 who made a scene on the Man Talk page. After giving it some thought last night, I have a suggestion which might not go down well with Jimmy Wales or even the editors of Wikipedia, but I do believe that it’s worth due consideration. Along the lines of what PayPal does to verify a new member’s credit card number, namely, charging him a token refundable fee which appears on his credit card statement along with a special code which has to be inputted by the member on the PayPal site, Wikipedia could try a similar thing with actual identification documents, with the promise that the editor’s identity won’t be revealed to the community at large, etc. One who wants to become a regular editor would have to upload scans of TWO acceptable identification documents AND pay the token fee via PayPal or any other medium (Wikipedia would have to hook up with these). Someone who is honest and has good intentions shouldn’t have a problem with this. Once the prospective editor verifies his identity via the code on the Wikipedia site, he can become a regular full-time editor. Wikipedia stores his ID info in its database. If he is banned, then he cannot become an editor again unless he falsifies his identity. This would actually lower the number of cranks out there in general, not just the “Indian” ones. The way things are, it’s too easy for them. Once it gets stricter, they’ll at least think twice. And if one is caught falsifying his ID the second time, it becomes a legal matter. Some desperate idiot might try falsifying his ID the very first time itself. In that case, he’d be very careful not to come under any suspicion whatsoever, like doing something which could get him banned. The point is that even though he might use someone else’s credit card at different times without sweating, he would have to upload his own ID each time. And anyway, how many people could one ask to use their card and then expect them to give him the code they want? One could even think about faxing signatures for verification. I don’t think it would cost Wikipedia too much in terms of investment. One could try a similar thing even at the level of those who edit protected pages (assuming that not every full-time editor can). This way, Wikipedia would even know how many editors are from India at a given time, etc. Think about it!

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.193.14 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationalism is a problem for articles on nearly every country on Wikipedia. It is not unique to India although there might be fewer Editors and Admins watching over sensitive articles. But it is a pernicious problem that experienced Editors look out for.

I do find it ironic that you make this suggestion about validating accounts as you are editing anonymously as an IP and you aren't taking the time to register and create an account. But you propose other people need to show two forms of identification (how?) in order to edit? I can guarantee you that the chances of that happening are zero.

I think looking at the traffic stats, Wikipedia can estimate how many readers there are from India, if not Editors. I'm sure this information exists but I can't point you in the right direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I've already acknowledged that "boosterism" would definitely exist in other areas, but tell me, how experienced are you with not just what happens in India (on the ground, so to speak), but even on the India-related pages of Wikipedia? Read my comments again and try and understand what I'm saying, even if you instinctively wish to take me as some kind of crank. I don't doubt the abilities of experienced and honest editors. I'm saying that you have quite a few dishonest ones who are gaining even more experience at being so and that, furthermore, there'll be more to come if steps aren't taken to check them now. You seem to have taken my suggestion as some kind of attack on the general editor on Wikipedia. It was not. That should have been amply clear to anyone who reads my comments. I had even acknowledged that my idea would most probably not be entertained, but I think its a reasonably valid suggestion. The "validation" of accounts procedure which I had explained is supposed to be only in the beginning so as to ensure that people like Archetypex07 (the bad pennies) can't come back. The editor's anonymity is assured otherwise. This was suggested for full-time editors, the ones who edit protected pages. And what is the problem with filling in an online proforma and uploading some corroborating ID? Don't you do the same thing when you apply for a credit card, etc., fully believing in the assurance of the company concerned that your data is safe with them because it is secured with some SSL encryption or the other? Also, what is so ironic about my stance in the matter? I'm far from being anonymous over here. I'm certainly signing with my own name and I can't help it if my internet service provider keeps changing IP addresses. (I just clicked on the Talk button of my previous response and found some edit on Hindu College which I had certainly never done. Never even visited that page.) As far as my taking the time to register and create an account is concerned, I did once and for some reason (probably my connection), it failed. (That's why I compose these messages in Word first and then paste them here.) So what if I didn't try again? I'm still a member of the global community at large which accesses Wikipedia and I have the right to bring something to the site's notice if I feel it's important (I most certainly do and have given what I believe to be convincing arguments in support of it) and suggest something towards its resolution. I repeat, my suggestion is not intended to offend any honest editor or even threaten his/her anonymity, but only to bring in more accountability, which should not trouble the editors at Wikipedia unduly. Lastly, aside from my desire to see that misinformation is not disseminated in general, I have made it clear that Wikipedia's reputation is itself at stake in the long run. What long run? If I'm not mistaken, you'll have had problems with the dependability of the information on your pages for quite some time now.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.146.146 (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, Liz, these people are not just from India. They're all over the world. Whereas, if you have ID, the Wikipedia database knows exactly who is who, even if he's a Russian in Afghanistan or a Englishman in New York. (Strange how sometimes when you're searching for an example to illustrate your point, some old tunes come to the rescue almost immediately.) And, as I've taken the pains to point out, not all Indians are like them. So, knowing the traffic from India does not help in any way.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.146.146 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Cabral: I'm not sure that the problems of bias on India-related pages are all related to Hindutva, which is a particular brand of Hindu nationalism. It's not even all Hindu nationalism. Sometimes it is linguistic- or ethnic-subnationalism (in which people from one language speaking group) promote their POV. Some times it is Casteism in which people from one caste or one level in the hierarchy of castes, promote their POV. Sometimes it is a need for riding shotgun in history (indulged in, for example, by the father in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding") in which editors push the POV that everything noble or useful had its beginnings in (Greece or) India. Other times it is irredentisim or an Indian version of Manifest destiny in which editors dream about the what ifs of history as reality. Like any other form of bias, it needs vigilance. The better patrolled pages, such as India, have little bias. The caste-related pages, the movies-related pages, history-related pages, ex-royalty-related pages, unfortunately do. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

PS A group of editors are attempting to clean up Maratha-related history pages. Join the fray at Talk:Melgiri Pandit. Never heard of him? Not to worry, neither had I until a couple of days ago. But please register first; otherwise, you won't be taken seriously. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Slanting most school, team or town pages

Well, Andrew, let me emphasize this isn't a matter of boosting just a "whole race of people" but rather putting a spin to slant every school, sports arena, or town as "George Washington Slept Here the longest" while omitting the negative aspects of a topic. For example, while the article "French Quarter" (about the origin of New Orleans) does mention being "Spanish" architecture, it should also quickly mention the Spanish balconies and courtyards, the fires which destroyed most French buildings, emphasize there are few outdoor cafes as in France, and note the lack of shade trees so the street temperature can exceed 110 °F (43 °C), unlike many French towns with park squares and trees. Similarly, a seaside town, while noting the view along the shoreline or beaches should also note the common undertow or rip tides, sea nettles, seaweed around swimmers (Mombasa, Kenya), sand blown into food, or the cold-water season. More than just claiming an ancient connection between English words and Sanskrit cognates, the boosterism in town pages has omitted the negative issues for most aspects of town life. That is why some other editors have been trying to explain the rampant extent of the problem which also slants the non-India topics. People should read the page "French Quarter" and come away knowing there are few French buildings, few outdoor cafes, few French shade trees, and unbearable heat/humidity most of the year (not to mention graffiti which says, "9th ward 4EVER"). -Wikid77 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikid77, for giving me some other examples of boosterism which I wasn't aware of. I have noticed such things on some non-India pages, but not the ones which you've mentioned. I'll read up on "slanting" schools/towns.

Andrew

Fowler&fowler, this isn't exactly the place to get into a debate which we could very well end up having some other time. Nonetheless, I'll start it. I'm very well aware of the regional sub-nationalism which exists in India (basically linguistic), two prime examples being the Marathis and the Tamilians. But if you go by sheer numbers, they are beaten hands down by the "North", which anyway has always tried (generally with success) to dominate these regional identities. Furthermore, three of the four religions which were born in India were basically from that same northern region. So, those who exhibit the regional variety often do exhibit the global one as well. The RSS hardly has a following in the south. (It might grow though.) But they are thick in the north and always have been. And they are extremely casteist. You would have lower caste POVs, but they'd be minuscule compared to the higher ones. I'm sure that you'd agree that much with me. If irredentism is counterfactual history, like what the Latin American writers love to churn out, I'm not so sure. I think something of a slightly different nature applies here. Indians love historicizing their mythology and do so all the time. (You are doubtless aware of that.) There can be no question of counterfactuals there because they don't wish to explore any alternatives to what happened the way they believe it. (Don't you know that the Mahabharat war ended on the 18th of February, 3102 BC? Such precision!) The only what-if's which they dwell upon are "What if the Arabs and, later, the Europeans hadn't invaded us?" Some of those dreams which you've written about have largely crystallized into "irrefutable facts" for them. The potential was always there, but it takes an organization like the RSS to exploit it fully and carry on the catalysis till what you're left with is a rigid, frog-in-a-deep-well mindset. Even the "riding shotgun" example you've given is quintessential RSS, where the Greeks were the Yavans (as in what became the accepted meaning, namely, barbaric/demonic foreigner, as opposed to the original, namely, the Sanskritic cognate of Ionian) while the Vedic Indians did "the stuff that dreams are made of". Literally, like flying "vimanas"! Even some of their "top scientists" are right there in the thick of things. Ever heard of a pompous ass named CK Raju? Check out his I-Me-and-Myself blog, which "proves", among other things, that infinitesimals and the idea of heliocentrism came from India. People like him are quoted as "experts". (You know how gurus are revered in India.) He does have the credentials, but he's misusing them. To summarize, I believe that most of the examples which you've cited are indeed all very much part of Hindutva, some right at its core and some more peripherally located.

At any rate, Jimmy Wales isn't interested in reading what either you or I believe on his page. His interest would be in whether what I'd written to him was legit or not. I haven't really bothered with the pages on Indian cinema or royalty. But thank you for confirming that the history-related pages are highly susceptible. I'll add the Indian mathematics and science pages to that. While we're at it, let's just treat the Indian philosophy ones as the tusker in the room!

Andrew

General statement: The idea which I'd written about (to ensure that certain editors don't get the chance to come back) is NOT the important thing to me. It was just a corollary to Sitush's reply. I have every respect for the honest editors at Wikipedia and appreciate the time and effort which they put in. I have no wish to disrupt the flow of their functioning. But I do wish that they realize that Hindutva and the RSS are in all probability more dangerous than any other religio-nationalistic tendencies from across the globe and, furthermore, that Wikipedia is especially susceptible to them, inasmuch as they are using it to further their agenda and will continue to do so.

Andrew Cabral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.52.16 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct in certain points, but what I see is that you are just trying a RSS/Hindutiva bashing. Problems you mention are general problems with editors from India or maybe to promote one's regional belief is a general problem. I don't reckon RSS is as big a force as you are making it out to be or they are in some way trying to influence wikipedia. Have you read WP:TLDR. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: I owe you an apology for my last reply. In retrospect, it appears to me that it could very easily be construed as my not respecting your views, which was not my intention. Aside from the fact that I think that you’re among the more senior editors who has replied to me (I might be wrong though), there is the undeniable fact that other than Sitush, you’ve been the only one who has tried to talk about the matter itself. I’m more clear-headed today than I was yesterday at this time and some things which I should have said then I’ll be stating in my reply to Vigyani below (the second half, which is liberally sprinkled with NOTs). Also thank you kindly for the offer to join the "Maratha Wars". I just might, even though Indian history of the post-Mughal period was always something which I avoided.

Andrew

Vigyani: I did check out the “Too Long, Didn’t Read” link but I’m afraid that not everything can be condensed into five or six sentences. In fact some of the best things in life, like the Russian writers, absolutely cannot. Anyway, even if it’s long, I write simpler than both Joyce and Pynchon, so there’s no question of my “prose” being too difficult to follow. I’ve been fully aware that I sound like I have a bee in my bonnet, but then every once in a while one feels strongly enough about something to act precisely in that manner. I’m also acutely aware that it’s considered bad form to continue dominating a discussion, but circumstances have dictated terms here. People haven’t exactly taken me seriously. So don’t worry, your reckoning places you among the clear majority. About the RSS/Hindutva “bashing”, you are in the extreme right (pun most intended). I’ve made no bones about the fact that I am anti both. Unlike most “bashers” though, I think that I’ve given enough cogent arguments for my “bashing”. The examples that I’ve given might bore one to death, but they all hold true. Since such matters are exceedingly sensitive, let me make it amply clear than I am anti-RSS/Hindutva, not anti-Hinduism. Hindutva is NOT synonymous with Hinduism and the RSS does NOT represent Hinduism, though it of course claims to be its guardian. There are many Hindus who outrightly reject both. I’ve read a decent bit about Hinduism and there are some things that I actually like about it. I’ve also not only read about but encountered facets of the RSS/Hindutva and there is absolutely nothing that I like about them. In fact, the very opposite holds: I loathe them. They are, after all, an organization which preaches intolerance to other faiths and cultures (unlike Hinduism itself), which supports defrauders like NS Rajaram (of reading Sanskrit in the Indus Valley script and fabricated Indus Valley horse seal fame) and nuts like David Frawley, which promotes the bogus, twentieth century Vedic Mathematics and Vymanika Shastra as “ancient”, and which in general propagates falsities as knowledge. If your name really is Vigyani, then you’re Indian and you definitely know what they teach in their school texts. The following link, which substantiates some of the things which I’ve written in my comments above, shows how they tried to introduce their textbooks into American schools some eight years ago:

http://www.panthic.org/articles/2209

If you feel that I have lied or misrepresented anything in my comments above, do feel free to point them out to me. Regarding Wikipedia, the problems which I’ve mentioned are NOT general problems with editors from India. Neither are they regional-minded editor problems. General/regional-minded editors would NOT be the ones who either wrongly or forcibly trace many English language word origins to Sanskrit. They would NOT be the ones who conveniently push dubious dates in Ancient India a few hundred years backwards. They would NOT be the ones who try to show that certain ideas developed in India before Greece. (Need I remind you that while Ancient Greek history is very well documented, the exact opposite holds for Ancient India?) They would NOT be the ones who try to place India before other nations on pages which trace the historical development of a discipline. (See the last substantial edit on the talk page of Historian, finally verified by Hillabear10 sometime last year. That was me. The edit, not Hillabear10. In fact, it has been a mistake on my part to have been harping on about India-related pages alone. The problem is there even in the general pages which have the potential to mention India.) They would NOT make the India mathematics and astronomy pages the caricature that they are, with convenient omissions (like Brahmagupta’s indebtedness to Diophantus), sensational lies (the calculus was "invented" in India; Madhava’s derivation of the Maclaurin series for the sine, cosine and inverse tangent was geometric and did NOT make use of any notion of a derivative or even a general function; Bhaskara II did NOT formulate the Mean Value Theorem; he gave a numerical approximation for the difference between the sine values of two “close” angles in terms of the cosine function and the difference between the angles) and a lot of gloss. (I can afford to talk here. My two degrees are in Mathematics.) They would NOT give either downright erroneous citations or citations which are as obscure and undependable as Suruchi Publishers, Allahabad. That makes six main NOTs which my rationale CANNOT ascribe to the general editor from India or the regional-minded one.

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.8.226 (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The disgraceful state of Wikipedia

I full expect for some admin or even Jimbo to delete this because they just don't want to hear it. But I am going to say it anyway for those that actually care about the future of the project.

For some time now it has been apparent that Wikipedia has fallen into a disreputable state. When the project first started and for several years after people participated in a meaningful project and they felt happy to volunteer their time. Today however things are much different. Editors and admins leave in droves. New editors are run off or don't bother with the project at all. The WMF themselves don't trust the editors here and that was evidenced by the Visual Editor release and followon discussions. The community doesn't trust the WMF for the same reasons. Editors who attempt to help are told to go away in one way or another and that their help isn't wanted or appreciated. That includes active long term editors.

Jimbo, its time for you and the WMF to get your act together and fix this place. Stop ignoring all the problems, start enforcing the rules fairly and stop playing favorites. Stop allowing the admins to do whatever they want without impunity. Put an end to the us and them mentality between editors and admins, the abuses and the croniism and protectionism. Stop protecting all the content and blocking every IP and start trusting editors again. Stop the WMF from releasing broken, unreliable and untested software on the community and forcing the community to clean up the mess. If you do even some of these things, Wikipedia editing will pick back up again. Not right away, but they will. People will enjoy editing again. As it is the project is doomed to failure because the community can't fix it and you and the WMF refuse to admit there is even a problem. Act now before Wikipedia becomes the next MySpace and is nothing more than a memory. There is a lot more but since this will just be deleted or closed by someone I'll leave it there. --Just another worthless IP editor! 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

See new: wp:Template editors, a massive improvement which allows dozens of users to make widespread improvements in hundreds of templates. -Wikid77 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Just about every group I've been involved with has members who pine for the "good ol' days". In just about every case, they identify a problem, such as editors leaving, which is in fact, a problem, but they leave the impression that it is a recent problem, as opposed to a perennial one, and spout vague generalities on how to solve it. Do you honestly think Jimbo is sitting around twiddling his thumbs, thinking to himself "I know exactly how to solve all problems, but will no one urge me to do something? That's all I ask, can someone please tell me it is time to fix the problems?" --SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think if Jimbo or the WMF wanted to do something and believed it was a problem, they would do something. However, they give the impression that they can't be bothered by the petty problems of the community and couldn't possibly get involved. Yes they can and should, given that the community has repeatedly failed to fix any of these problems. Admins continue to abuse their tools and no one does anything. Sometimes even justifying the abuse. The WMF routinely releases broken software without doing even basic testing in a proper test environment. Editor assholery is on the rise all around the project as edits, editors and collaboration are in steep decline. Editors that do offer to help are told to go away, or told they can't be trusted, or etc., etc. There are serious problems throughout the project and those that notice and try and fix it are accused of trolling, told they are just being dramatic or being DIVA's. Some are even blocked. And we wonder why editing is down and the editing environment here is so miserable? Jimbo himself has acknowledged several of these are problems in the past and has stated he would look into them or do something about them. We are still waiting. So either he doesn't care, or he is simply too busy to get involved and doesn't really care what happens. Much the way many of us feel these days. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Every attempt at top-down problem-solving on Wikipedia is immediately shot down by "the community" as a usurpation of its authority. Then, when the problem persists, "the community" complains about the lack of top-down problem-solving. This pattern existed back in the notional "good old days", although it's worse now because we've waged a gradual war of attrition against our sane, clueful subset of contributors. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Attempts at top-down problem-solving on Wikipedia are not 'immediately shot down by "the community" as a usurpation of its authority'. They are shot down by the admins and admin wannabees that habituate the drama boards as a usurpation of admin authority. It is the admins and drama board inhabitants that control the scope and powers assigned to the admins. The result now is hundreds of admins, including some thoroughly unsuitable admins, wielding draconic powers over the people who try to build the encyclopaedia. Bizarrely, these people are appointed for life. Admins are desopped only if they do something that offends other admins. No admin, in the history of Wikipedia, has been desopped for uncivil behaviour towards content editors. That fact alone highlights the miserable status of the people who actually write Wikipedia. No change that is not in the direction of tightening the admin stranglehold is now possible, and most admins seem very happy with the situation. Wikipedia is slowly grinding to dust in the blaze of admins mutually preening each other. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"No admin, in the history of Wikipedia, has been desopped for uncivil behaviour towards content editors." User:Ironholds was desysopped for that exact reason as recently as this August in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies. 07:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's the closest case there is. But Ironholds was desopped for vandalising Wikipedia and making personal attacks from IP addresses. He would not have been desopped if he was merely being uncivil to content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's partly true. Its also true, though unfortunate, that the community is incapable of changing it themselves. Nearly countless discussions and RFC's are a testemant to that failure. Its also true that allowing the WMF to act is bad, but the community is all but forcing that outcome by its ongoing incompetence and failure to act. These problems need to be addressed. So IMO, the community can either take action on these problems and begin fixing them or they can sit down and shut up when the WMF steps in and does it for them. Which IMO should include some WMF oversight of the Admin cadre running around here. There are a lot of good admins, most in fact, but its a handful of strong armed A-holes that are giving the other 1380 a bad image. People turn down RFA's for the very same reasons they allow these admins to get away with. If they aren't going to take the tools away from an admin that does the same things, then they shouldn't tell a user they can't have access to the tools for that reason. Its really just common sense. Of course there is a very long list of problems here in the project and nothing will fix them all. But if someone doesn't do something, a future article is going to be on The history of Wikipedia (past tense). I don't doubt a lot of people just think I am full of shit writing this and don't think there is a problem. But I don't agree and I felt it was time to be vocal about fixing it.....again. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

138.162.8.59, I agree that there are problems at Wikipedia. But I spent a fair amount of the summer going back into archives and reading old ARBCOM cases and archived Talk Pages and noticeboards and, you know what? Editors were always complaining that WP wasn't as good as it used to be...I saw it in comments and remarks from 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011 and now 2013. And I kind of doubt that the years from 2001-2004 were perfect either. The real WP is always going to be far less than the ideal WP and conditions are never as exciting as when a user first starts seriously editing articles.

That doesn't undermine your real assessments that there are problems that are being ignored that WMF needs to look at. But it puts into perspective, that there will always be Editors leaving (for a variety of reasons) and, remarkably, every day, new people create accounts. It may not be at the same levels at 2005-2007 but it still happens.

But like any organization, especially one with over 200 wiki projects, the problems and answers are never simple, there is no magic pill. But, I agree with you that a starting point is one of mutual respect and to treat Editors with questions as being part of the solution, not part of the problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A possible way out could be to create a copy of Wikipedia that would initially have the same content but which operates according to different rules, basically a beta version of Wikipedia. The community then decides the rules for the beta version, but they are then more likely to approve suggestions to be tested in the beta version rather than implemented right away. Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree there is "no magic pill". Put the top 10-12 content editors in charge (elected by the community). Of maintenance, policy, growth. Then watch all these problems melt away as if by magic. (The top 10-12 writer-editors already know what the problems are, and what the solutions are. Their vast combined experience and investments in time & heart would disallow them from doing anything other than what's best for articles, readers, editors. That group would be too intelligent to let egotistic battles interfere with their responsibility due to an over-riding love of the encyclopedia. Given time they'd work out best possible ways forward.) They're an untapped resource. Put 'em in charge and watch the WP reach its true great potential. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Another comment on so-called "golden ages." I wasn't around when Wikipedia started, but it always surprises me when people talk this way because I seriously doubt these ages were actually perfect or ideal in any real sense of the term. They were certainly different, and had different challenges. Editors were certainly signing up left and right, and I'm sure many were enthusiastic about participating, but that doesn't mean the problems went away. If we look back at the RfCs about Wikipedia in 2005, what I see are accusations about ArbCom failing to do their job, edit-warring over WP:IAR and WP:BEBOLD, and complaining about anonymous editors. Does that sound like any kind of "golden age" to anyone? There certainly isn't any way to make the current community and structure of Wikipedia more like it was before (I'm not even sure what this would even mean). I'm still happy to volunteer my time here because I think this project, even with its current challenges and flaws, is a net positive for the world, and I'm sure many would agree with me. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. To argue by analogy: Among National Hockey League fans of a certain age, there is a common group complaint about how poor the game has become relative to the "golden age" of the 1980s. Most often, they complain about how the modern NHL is much less offensively-minded than the 1980s league was. There are many arguments put forward as to why, but a dilution of talent is most often blamed. The irony is that in truth, the talent level has massively increased. But so has systems play. Coaching has improved. Training regimens are light years beyond that of 25 years ago. New styles have been adopted. Cumulatively, this has resulted in an NHL that is quite likely at its all-time peak for overall skill. And yet, people reminisce about the "good old days" because hockey is a game of mistakes. Better players make fewer mistakes and that means fewer goals. I grew up on teh 0s NHL, but looking back, the product simply can't stand up to today. I find that Wikipedia is much the same. The free-for-all days of 2005 are gone. Time and necessity have simply made editing more difficult because we needed to become less tolerant of vandalism and unreferenced content. Because there are fewer unexplored topics to mass create articles in. Because of increased requirements on sourcing. As a result, the average editor today has to be more skilled than in the past. And that, naturally, will force out those who could not keep up, or those who aren't patient enough to learn and adapt. Reso lute 22:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't place content limits on you, you chose to do that by narrowing the topics you're willing to create content in. 'Because there are fewer unexplored topics to mass create articles in'. Take your preferred topic, go back to the early 1900s or 1800s, where opportunities and (oddly enough, because of online newspaper archive programs) sources a plenty, and new creation options, are there. You don't have to do it. But that isn't a limit of Wikipedia. AnonNep (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I love the irony of this, because one of my more common editing areas has been early hockey history topics, researched by and large through news archives. You have no idea how many hours I spent in front of microfilm readers to research what may well be the most comprehensive history of the Calgary Tigers in the world. ;) As to your central point, I will continue with my NHL analogy. When I started here, less than half of the players in NHL history had articles. Today, every one does, right back to the league's 1917 founding. I created our structure for team-season articles. As a group, we spun out a well defined structure of lists for each NHL team. Man, it really was the glory days. Creation is easy, but in terms of editing articles related to the NHL, that low hanging fruit has been picked. I've created over 300 articles in my time, but probably less than a dozen in the last three years because editing in my topic area has come to require a higher level of skill. I've moved from being a page creator to a featured content writer. Look to your own advice, and consider that you are telling me to go look to the obscure. I don't disagree with your suggestion on its face, because you are right that Wikipedia itself is still missing several mass topic areas. However, those topics are likewise growing increasingly obscure. They often require esoteric interests and a heightened desire and willingness to research. Reso lute 23:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Where's the LOL!? Did you expect me to stalk you before I replied or take you on face value? The idea that Wikipedia is near complete and is only missing 'several mass topic areas' with the rest being 'increasingly obscure'. Well, I'd leave that to uninvolved observers to decide. But I certainly don't believe that inclusion has been achieved, in terms of notability guidelines, outside of the broader age-range of editors, or in high-interest topic areas. Or is this just another way of saying 'Go away, stop causing trouble, it works for us, we've got this, we don't need you here'? AnonNep (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to stalk my edits. Your assumptions were fair and logical. I simply am one of the few people who already routinely do that sort of research. I meant no offence, was just enjoying that aspect of it. Also, I never said Wikipedia was "near complete". I said there are fewer avenues to mass create articles. Expansion and improvement are entirely different stories. And your conclusion is rather bizarre to me, because I don't see how that is a logical reading of my arguments. My point is that a confluence of factors, only one of which you seem to have focused on, has made it more difficult to edit Wikipedia. An average editor in 2013 requires more skills than an average editor in 2005 did. Reso lute 00:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not too sure what's 'bizarre'. The most obvious articles may be developed but there's a huge backlog, that meets notability, that hasn't been touched. One example: the (non BLP) Australian Dictionary of Biography]. The same skills that were needed in 2005 are needed, en mass, to complete these, (and its not the only similar project to-do list). That's probably where we'll disagree. AnonNep (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Renaissance of interest, empowered by template-editors and Lua: I noted months ago, there has been a strange phenomenon this year: several editors are re-asking for crucial improvements which were requested and abandoned years ago, such as adjusting the size of some over-large nation flag icons, which were finally fixed this year. It seems the problem has been the prior tedious workload to debug and test templates, Javascript wp:gadgets or wp:user scripts, and now Lua script modules. A handful of dedicated tech-admins have been installing or updating hundreds of technical changes to templates, or tools, but hundreds more updates were needed. Now, finally, with the new authorization of wp:Template editors and resetting protection levels on templates which they can edit, there has been a massive offering of support to fix templates, which can free extra time for the tech-admins to work on more Javascript gadgets or more Lua modules. Even while the RfC proposal to create the new template-editor right was being debated, the "renaissance" editors have continued to re-ask for even more improvements which were suggested years ago. Also remember, the Lua-based wp:CS1 cite templates and Lua-based infoboxes have allowed users to edit-preview (or reformat) major articles 3x-4x times faster than during the prior 3 years (I can personally confirm the massive 300% speed improvement from updating the Lua Module:Citation/CS1 to run 13x faster). A huge door has finally opened to fixing major bugs, and writing clever new tools to help users improve the articles much faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
'Clever new tools' are sometimes the problem. While I support Template editors being given 'Admin tools' for protected templates, the changes can ripple on. For example, a decision to remove 'Influences/Influenced by' in the Author 'infobox' means that every article that footnoted the 'Influences/Influenced by' as the first named link showed an error in the reflist and was included in Category:Pages with broken reference names. Tools and bots serve their purpose but have nothing on human editing and so much of the automated edits seems to result in a delete of wiki content rather taking that extra time to check sources and re-phrase as needed. Those 'tools', in the hands of Admins, or as autos for editors, or bots, bring their own problems and aren't the magic way forward. AnonNep (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

NB. Should add - its a general problem for infoboxes. Because that's where the first source is often added, and named, when a category is removed from an info box, not only is the content lost but anything using that name="" as a source is read as an error and has to be corrected. Not just specific to 'author' infoboxes. AnonNep (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the tools can be misused: a hammer can bend a nail or wire snips can cut a wire too short, but try to build a fence without a hammer or wire cutters. Too many people forgot which tools are needed to simplify work. An automobile in need of repairs needs more than a paintbrush to visually-edit the surface of the car, much more. -Wikid77 22:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

But without that initial content all the tools in the world won't help you. That's why so many appear so negative - they're about editing (deleting) what's already there not about the hard grind of building the car in the first place. AnonNep (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Be careful with such generalizations. Many users, like myself, are more comfortable with organizing, expanding, improving, and fine-tuning what is already out there than creating new articles all the time (not to say that I don't do the latter, it's just not that often). The former requires collaboration, which is what we should be about. --MuZemike 23:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It was responding to the analogy (& generalisation) of the previous poster. AnonNep (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, not too sure where you got the idea content creation isn't about collaboration. That's certainly not my view. AnonNep (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify that content creation doesn't imply lack of collaboration. You certainly can invite additional collaboration by creating new content or expanding on old content. The point I'm trying to make is that all content can be modified by others – that's part of our CC-BY-SA license! There are also some common sense and community norms that we're expected to follow. Some people are inclined to create, others are inclined to maintain and edit, etc. --MuZemike 00:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Going back to the original topic, I feel that a balance between adding content (creation/collaboration/expanding/editing) seems to losing a battle against a negative culture of deletion of articles, auto patrol (usually for delete) & bot-based deletion, editor blocks and bans. I don't like the later, accept it is often justified, but feel the balance is increasingly tipping towards that negative with little in the way of change/proposed-change to stop that occurring. AnonNep (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Kumioko. Are you retired or aren't you? And if you are, why don't you go out and enjoy life? Reso lute 22:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And that is the way to cooperate and discuss in WP: tell them to shut up and go away! No sir, nothing wrong in here, nothing at all... - Nabla (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Resolute, believe it or not, not every IP that posts about Wikipedia being a cesspool and it needing to be changed is me in disguise. I realize that I am just an untrustworthy loser in the eyes of many and that AGF is all but a memory these days but I didn't know or care about this discussion until I got an email notification that you had mentioned me here. With that said, I do agree with the IP in most respects. As for my retirement, that was due largely to the actions of the WMF with Visual editor (so until they can unscrew that disgrace I wouldn't want them to touch a thing), the communities desire to destroy WikiProject United States rather than help build it as a collaboration and due to the communities desire for me to not participate. I would also note that as much as you despise me we actually have a lot in common. We are both experienced Wikipedians with a lot of knowledge about the project, we can both by DICKs and we have both pissed off a lot of editors. What differs between us though is that you are an admin and have been since they gave it out to anyone who asked whereas I waited too long when they were getting more strict. If you reran in today's environment (along with a good number of other admins BTW) you probably wouldn't pass either. That's part of the problem here adn why admin abuse is so rampant. We can get rid of the buggers once they build a nest. Another area where we differ is that where you see things are wrong with the site you do nothing and I speak up...fervently. You can say I am a dick, but you can't say I didn't try to make things better. In real life I am the person that makes things happen, I take charge. You strike me as the kind of person I lead in real life. Smart,educated and experienced but no drive and no desire to change things and make them better. Just a hider and slider. I say that so that you know, when you start talking trash about me retiring or trying to actively change this shitty editing environment, that it irritates me and at the same time I know that IRL I would probably be your boss. But here, your king shit. What's also funny is that it used to bother me. But somewhere along the way I realized that I am extremely successful IRL. I have a good job, a nice house, nice things and cars and a great family. Whereas a lot of the "leadership" admins here are jobless, homeless and/or worthless IRL. So that is why it doesn't interest me to be here anymore. I really enjoy a lot of the friends I have made on here and there are a lot of great people, but unfortunately the not so great ones are leading things here. Here you can't get promoted unless you hide and slide. If they can't succeed in life what makes people think they will lead this place to be anything other than a disaster? Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, the best advice I can give you at this point is to stop pretending that your repetitive complaints are socially redeeming, go write some articles for six months or so, and apply for the template editor user right. Whether or not you're willing to admit it in public, you know you can't stay from here for more than a week or so. Why not do something that will make editing here more pleasant for you in the long term, rather than the little junkie-like fixes of pleasure you get from attacking the people you don't like? I think many people who wouldn't necessarily support you as an admin would support you as a template editor, which is what you really want to do, especially if you'd been doing something concrete to improve the encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

'socially redeeming', 'little junkie-like fixes of pleasure' ... has there has been a secret committee that has decided its o.k. to stick the knife into this editor? AnonNep (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

His RfAs are probably the best starting point to see that the knife wounds are self-inflicted; no committee required. You undoubtedly think I'm being a dick to Kumioko, probably out of pure cussedness. But in fact it's very sound advice, and if I'm delivering it roughly, it's because I don't have much confidence in a more subtle approach being heard. Right now, he's very bitter about Wikipedia, because he can't pass RfA and do what he really wants to, which is edit templates, and because of the implosion of the all-encompassing WikiProject United States. He's doubly unfortunate because he can't let go: he regularly announces that he's sick of Wikipedia (which I don't doubt) and is retiring...only to find that he can't resist the urge to come back, and a few days later he's posting as an IP, predicting that Wikipedia is doomed! because he's unhappy. If he can't quit, it seems to me the sensible thing to do is try to improve his long-term happiness as an editor. I think getting the template editor userright, now that it exists, is a realistic goal for him in a way that RfA isn't, but getting there means he would have to do something besides "raising awareness" of his grievances. I second Tim: I like Kumioko, and he could be an asset to the encyclopedia, but lately we've mostly gotten Kumioko's anger and grief posting. I miss the Kumioko who was interested in military history and liked experimenting with complex templates. But I don't know how to get him to look up from his own bitterness and do the things that might help him heal it. Choess (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I commented here at all is because of the notification of Resolute's shitty comment. I don't think you hate me and I am not the least bit bothered by your comments. What it does show me though is that you don't see or don't agree that there are serious problems with the culture and processes of Wikipedia. Where we have people who get the tools and are allowed to abuse other editors, violate policy and get to do whatever they want. But other editors like me, who try and change the bad processes are untrusted, unneeded editors. The only thing that irritates me is that you just think its an anger and grief posting. But that's ok, because after years of being told I am untrustworthy and that I am not wanted or needed, its time to move on like tens of thousands of other editors before me. Might I make an occasional change as an IP, sure, but I am done with this place. IRT the template editor user right. Its too little too late and frankly I think its unnecessary and was created because the community doesn't trust its editors. If it did, it would give them the tools not re-engineer the system and create a new user right so they can keep editors down. I don't think I have seen one editor apply for the template editor right I wouldn't trust with the admin tools, yet many have tried and failed, some multiple times. But the admin corps and the community would rather give the tools to someone who keeps quite, stays in their little corner and doesn't raise a fuss instead of giving it to those editors who are actively doing things, participating in controversial areas and trying to improve the project. So the only way to fix it is to unbundle things into smaller groups. Because trust is a rare thing here and that is one of the reasons this project is going to fail. Now you all can go ahead and minimize my comments as griefing or socking or whatever you want. In fact, why don't you block me. In fact, block all the IP's too. I don't really care and I do not plan to edit here and the reason is I am now editing at Wikia. In the last month three projects have made me an admin because of my work in those projects. They want the help and they are going to get it. You guys don't want the help, so fine, you won't get it. Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, please. Do you honestly expect that I, or anyone, should believe you really weren't this IP, even though the tone and style is a match for your frequent complaints? Or for the fact that you have a habit of pretending to retire, only to come back as an IP desperately seeking validation? Or for the fact that you are still doing a bunch of your WPUS tagging from this IP? I would also point out an incorrect assumption on your part. I never asked to be an admin, I was nominated. And you didn't "wait too long", you've shown repeatedly that you are completely unsuited for the role. There isn't a reasonable RFA process I can imagine that would see you pass at this point. And the fault for that is your own attitude, not anyone else's. Your comments here - both as IP and logged in - show your fatal flaw. You think you are smarter and better than everyone else, yet manage to fool nobody into believing it. And despite your attempt to convince yourself otherwise, it is quite obvious that it does bother you. Reso lute 16:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't care if you believe me or not and I'm not seeking validation. I've moved on. Wikipedia is not the only Wiki and if you would quite trying to provoke a response from me, I would quite responding. That is why I do not think you are a suitable admin. You are too prone to provocing other editors you disagree with and you are frequently a dick when talking to other "lesser" editors. But the admin tools are forever so you as with many of the other abusive ones remain and many editors like me leave because of it. I also agree that I will never pass RFA, but its not because of my attitude or suitability. Its because I have been adamantly trying to fix the broken admins system and the abuses of the admins. That will prevent me from ever getting the tools. The half million edits, technical abilities and other work I have done doesn't matter to anyone. That is the problem. A complete and utter lack of trust. AGF doesn't exist here anymore. I also don't think I am better than anyone. I think I am equally as good as anyone here and I am tired of being insulted and put down by people like you who want to keep the project down by keeping the status quo. Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope he's not. I like him and the project is better off having him than not having him. Enjoy life and edit WP!!! Carrite (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm old enough and jaded enough to realize that there really were no "good old days." This is universally true, Wikipedia not excepted. There have always been problems and there will always be problems. The thing is (and the haters at WPO howl when I say this) Wikipedia has improved over time. If you don't believe me, start hammering the RANDOM ARTICLE button and compare current state to the way the article sat in January 2010 or March 2008 or June 2005 or October 2003 or whatever "golden age of Wikipedia" you worship. No comparison — today's WP content is far, far better than the content of yesteryear. We know how the sausage is made, and that can cause one to lose one's taste for sausage — but there are tens of millions of people around the world who honestly like the sausage and whose lives are incrementally improved by being able to pick up a computer or a tablet or a smartphone anywhere, anytime and to obtain quick and accurate information about virtually any question they have. Wikipedia is a really good thing and it's getting better and better, even if it sometimes seems like the 3rd Godfather movie, with "The Family" getting smaller and smaller and constantly killing one another with lynch mobs at AN/I.

Moreover, "mass collaboration" per se has never been the source of excellent articles. Good content is the work of one or two or sometimes a few people working over time. The vaunted "crowdsourcing" might have powered Sangerpedia2001 (and let there be no mistake, that content sucked), but it has precious little to do with Wikipedia today. Wikipedia is the product of thousands of people who, independently and in isolation, care enough to write about something. If the drama is overwhelming, avoid the drama and just write something. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Seconding what Carrite said. Edison (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And a very strong third to that!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And a very strong fourth to that too! 24.4.37.209 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, things are improving (although slowly at times), and while we are out on tangent lines, let me note how the word "co-founder" can be used to claim Pontius Pilate as being the co-founder of Christianity. But meanwhile, back at the ranch, the ability to have more people authorized to perform {editprotected} requests will be more like the "golden age" where people could update pages faster, even asking others to quickly install an update within the hour. Agreed, many early pages had poor-quality content, but improvements were allowed in many pages very quickly, and that is a path to follow. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77, let me sat that I appreciate your excellent reporting on the technical aspects of the project. However, I find that you have unfounded optimism with regard to project governance. I urge you to examine the way in which the project is being run (off the rails), and use your technical updates to discuss political issues faced by the encyclopedia internally. Do not kowtow to the Official Party Line of many Wikipedia higher-ups that Wikipedia Is Always Improving And There Are No Deep Problems. Content-wise we are improving, but only incrementally; systemic reform is the only thing that can bring greater improvements to community order and editor retention, and these benefits will be reflected in an increased amount of good-quality content. Wer900 • talk 03:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been here for almost eleven years now. I remember the early days very clearly. We meant well, but the content was terrible. This is a Golden Age in comparison. If you showed me today's Wikipedia in 2002, it would have completely blown my mind. — Scott • talk 11:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrite's statements are true in almost every respect—however, as he knows (and acknowledges), Wikipedia has deep and grave systemic errors that are preventing it from anything more than incremental improvement over time. POV warriors are not dealt with expeditiously, and those who subvert the encyclopedia for their own aims are not adequately punished. Drama creators hold far more sway over AN/I than any administrator who feels the need to be an honest, diligent civil servant of the encyclopedia. Content is substandard in most articles, even to an extent in good and featured articles in non-academic areas, and there is no editorial board, governance structure, or judicial system to resolve disputes on the basis of a constitution. Thanks to the existence of the idiotic, unqualified ignore all rules policy, the spirit, not the letter, of the rules is undercut without justification by power users with cabals (note, I do not refer to a single Cabal, but multiple) built up around them, but the smallest procedural violation can send an ordinary user on course for a block. Capping all of this, AN/I dwellers, "power users", some of the members or ArbCom, and a good number of WMF employees covertly work against the aim of the encyclopedia for their own benefit. There is ample documentation of all of this on Wikipediocracy and in the press; rather than simply using the "bad site" non-argument, it would serve Jimmy Wales and the Foundation well to understand why some people oppose the direction of this community's governance. Paying lip service by saying "there are problems, but a committee must constitute a committee in order to promulgate the regulation (subject to community ratification) that will initiate the creation of a separate standing committee to oversee the review of Wikipedia policies and appoint a steering committee to holistically examine the ways in which policy modifications can be made, with conditions for a time limit created by the promulgating regulations and a final time limit created pursuant to these conditions by the standing committee." Wer900 • talk 03:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

@WER. A dose of ultra-realism here. Wikipedia's decision-making system does not allow it to correct some of its systemic problems and that's not going to change anytime soon, if ever. At a certain point, it becomes necessary to make one's peace with the fact that this is an imperfect environment, with a certain number of not nice people doing not nice things from time to time; recognizing that the value of The Project makes the negative aspects endurable. Change can happen and does happen, but it is a slow process. Stalemate and inertia is a common outcome of the supermajority RFC system of decision-making so with respect to Wikipedia, what you see is what you get. Learn to live with what you see, but never stop trying to chip away at the sharp edges of the bad parts. (By the way, WP:IAR is one of the very good things, but that's another story.) Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, Carrite, but this assessment pertains to the English Wikipedia, which is the most developed of all the 200+ wiki projects and has the most safeguards. I imagine each wiki has their own serious issues they are dealing with, especially involving leadership and administration. I'd bet most of them are all trying to get WMF's attention to help with solutions to their problems. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please make no mistake, the WMF is concerned only about getting as much donations as they could, and then they misuse the money to write the programs that do not work. The WMF has even failed to explain why and how they ended up employing a racist. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wer900, how can you use the terms "documentation" and "Wikipediocracy" in the same sentence? ~~I have yet to see~~Until a few seconds ago, I had never seen a single link in all my time on the web to show any evidence that Wikipediocracy is anything but a hate site like Stormfront and FreeRepublic, filled with embittered thwarted spammers, shrill alarm-sounders ("The pedos are coming! The Pedos are coming!") and angry POV pushers slamming those still here. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Try this one and then redact, my friend... "The Good Old Days Weren't So Good." Carrite (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I only spent some time browsing there after seeing the mention above but I think comparison to 'Stormfront' is overly harsh. It seems to be more of what used to be called a 'snark' ('Some have feathers and bite, and some have whiskers and scratch.') forum than a 'hate site'.AnonNep (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I have been influenced by the false and nasty things said about me there over the years. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. You're a target there with some people there and that's probably very unpleasant. While you and I disagree about certain things (with respect to paid editing), we agree about many others. Keep up the good work. Carrite (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a satire site, like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Both have their place, but people citing them as serious sources should not be upset to find themselves mocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. Disagree with the editorial bias on the mainpage if you like, disagree vehemently with this poster or that, but don't liken WPO to the trolls and mean-spirited shitballs at ED. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While they continue to share the same staff, and act in the same manner, they will find it hard to pretend to a greater purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am also a user of the Wikipediocracy at times, you're quite right in this assessment. There's much legitimate content there, but it tends to be overshadowed when they allow <redacted personal attacks> to take up residence there, much the same as the Wikipedia Review was stained by letting the <redacted personal attacks> run free. They are quite like ED at times...I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing per se, as I support ED. But it'd be nice if they'd at least own up to it. Tarc (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, I know that you have been lampooned to a great extent on Wikipediocracy, for better or worse. However, you (and OrangeMike) must realize that the site presents a diversity of opinion, ranging from the pro-paid editing Gregory Kohs to Newyorkbrad himself. My own views are not nearly as extreme as those of most of the staff of that site, and I do not support the (often right-wing) trolls that we harbor on that site. Besides, Wikipediocracy is not a satire site; it is a legitimate site for serious discussion of the problems facing Wikipedia, and (for a plurality if not a majority of users) how to resolve that problem in the cleanest way possible. This is a far cry from the pornography-ridden, CloudFlare-run troll site that is the Encyclopædia Dramatica.

That said, I don't believe that there were every any "good old days"—problems with self-serving private bureaucracies, ArbCom and its inefficiency and unwillingness to take on power players, opaque governance (or lack thereof), and the covert dealings of insiders have plagued the project since time immemorial. It is time for a major revolution in Wikipedia governance, as I have suggested before; however, I do not plan on bringing Wikipedia back to the good old days, but into the future. Wer900 • talk 04:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Revolutions generally require at least some level of popular support. But the only person supporting your programme of "revolution" is you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are Carrite (talk · contribs), Kumioko (talk · contribs), Epipelagic (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs), among others, who support a reform program similar to mine. In fact, most content editors are supporters of a sweeping reform program for the benefits of the encyclopedia. The reason it seems that I have little support is only because people like you, Demiurge1000, who benefit from the system as its stands now to get away with trolling, subversion, paid editing and worse, do not want any reform so that they can continue their personal gain through the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is falling, and the cause is its ostensibly most patriotic, dedicated users. Wer900 • talk 16:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to tell who the dominating voices are on Wikipediocracy. They become the de facto spokespeople for all of you and given many of them are bitter trolls - a few of which are banned outright here - you shouldn't be surprised to find that few people outside your little circle take you seriously. Demiurge1000's comparison of your side to ED is perhaps a little unfair, but not as much as you would like to believe. Wikipediocracy is little more than a caricature of a criticism site. Also, I've read some of your rants. If you're leading the "revolution", count me out. Reso lute 16:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a message board, not a political party. The mainpage "blog" has a little circle of involved individuals of the "hasten the day [until Wikipedia's implosion]" frame of mind; there is a far wider range of views on the board itself, up to and including several active administrators and occasional visits from members of the current ArbCom. There is a relationship between WPO criticism and actual WP reform, I'm satisfied of that. With respect to the comments above about WPO being "like Stormfront" or "like Encyclopedia Dramatica," actually if you get right down to it the site it is the most similar to is..........wait for it......... Wikipedia. Substitute "Zoloft" for Jimmy Wales and a structured messageboard for the text on this page and there ya go. Both there and here there are both sensible and kooky people. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with Carrite's statements, except with the remarks about the blog. Although almost everyone who writes for it wants to "Hasten the Day™", I personally have written for the blog and have tried to make targeted criticism with the aim of reform. I have never outed anyone on that blog, even when I have had the opportunity to do so, and try to focus on policies, processes, and events more than on individuals.

We want a wide range of views represented on the encyclopedia. Resolute, if you would like to write a blog post on Wikipediocracy, you can email it to me and I can pass it on to Jayen466 (talk · contribs) (Andreas Kolbe), who I am sure is open to criticism of the site and has even offered Otto Placic, a doctor found advertising plastic-surgery services on Wikipedia, an opportunity to write his state of mind. If you, Jimmy Wales, or anyone else is brave enough, then write to me what you would like to put on Wikipediocracy's front page, supporting or opposing Wikipedia practices. Wer900 • talk 18:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. I posted at Wikipedia Review for a short time and have read discussions on Wikipediocracy. Neither are communities I particularly care to associate with. When I feel the need to ask, debate or support change to Wikipedia, I do it on Wikipedia. And without the sockpuppetry or hiding behind IPs. Reso lute 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrite's assessment is spot on. There is a terrific amount of useful discussion on WPO, and time and again it's resulted in direct change here, at a variety of scales. The difficulty with the site, if you can call it that, is that there's no "your side" to easily classify the posters on. There are as many varieties of opinion there as there are here, if not more, because it also includes some people who are banned here, and even some people who've never edited here at all. Which is completely acceptable for criticism of Wikipedia, because it insulates against being an echo chamber. If you have an ideological opposition to talking to people anywhere that have been banned from Wikipedia, you're not going to do very well. But if you can accept that you're going to encounter all sorts - because Wikipediocracy is a veritable Rick's Café Américain for this site - it will be a productive experience. You just have to spend enough time reading to get a feel for the different viewpoints on offer (often associated with particular users) and decide how much salt to take with any given post. There are some posters there who, for me, require none at all. Others require a truckload. That's just how it is. The moderators also do a very good job at excluding the worst of the worst; Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia Review at all, even if it shares some posters with that earlier site.

The forum format also lends itself well to discussion of this site; on here, things go into the archives after being dormant for a short time. That's led to a kind of institutional blindness on our part. We're in this project for the long haul; our ability to self-examine should support long-term asynchronous discussions. — Scott • talk 11:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, there's really room for a more "pro-WP" message board as well. Looser rules of discussion than there are on-Wiki but with less of a molotov cocktail-throwing/bring it down vibe. A "Wikipediocracy Review" forum would make for entertaining reading as part of it. This page is as close as WP gets to that (which is what makes it so appealing, by the way), but things get totally lost in long threads. Like this response I am writing now, for example. Food for thought though. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree, Tim. I find it interesting that after a while of disliking the idea of participating in discussion on this page, I began reading it, and then eventually found it interesting and useful enough to participate in, with a good balance of opinions to savor. Just like Wikipediocracy!

Unfortunately, I can't see how it would be possible to start a similar board with a more positive focus without a massive duplication of effort with WPO. I also don't know that it would catch on, especially with those who are already happy to use WPO for discussion. I can't help feeling that we need to cause an influx of less destructively-minded contributors over there, to allow for constructive criticism without becoming another hangout zone for True Believers and party line toers. It's difficult to know how, though, given that the impression of the site to outsiders is largely formed from its loudest voices. I try to do my best to represent it fairly, as above, but it's hard. — Scott • talk 13:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In a belated reply to the IP who started this whole thread.

When the project first started and for several years after people participated in a meaningful project and they felt happy to volunteer their time. Today however things are much different. Editors and admins leave in droves. New editors are run off or don't bother with the project at all. The WMF themselves don't trust the editors here and that was evidenced by the Visual Editor release and followon discussions. The community doesn't trust the WMF for the same reasons. Editors who attempt to help are told to go away in one way or another and that their help isn't wanted or appreciated. That includes active long term editors. This is a volunteer project, people come and go in large numbers, many of those who go come back. This is normal for a volunteer community, and only becomes a problem if people you want are being driven away, you fail to recruit or you lose more people than you gain. We don't lose droves of our admins, we lose around 1% a month. But we are promoting far fewer than we lose, and as a result numbers are falling. Also the wikigeneration divide is growing between the admin corps, most of whom have been admins for more than five years and the editors many of whom have been active for less than five years. But while the decline in our number of admins is clear and fairly easy to measure, we honestly don't know if the community is otherwise in decline. Take for example the size of our volunteer community and its level of activity. We can easily get raw but misleading figures such as number of edits or number of editors, but to meaningfully compare them with previous years we need to allow for some of the changes here. Doing so is difficult. Unpicking the effect of V/E from the migration of some editors to wikidata and the huge but entirely cosmetic loss of bot edits because of the change in the way we handle intrawiki links is complex. I'm not aware that anyone has cracked that yet. As one of the people who tested V/E in the spring I'm well aware that it was released too soon, and that it was going to bite newbies and do more harm than good. But quantifying that is difficult, more difficult I expect even than working out the effect of the edit filters. The Edit Filters were introduced in 2009 when they were called abuse filters, they now deal with a large proportion of the vandalism that we used to get, and they do so brilliantly, the nearest thing to a downside of them is that they have reduced our edit count by losing us millions of vandalism edits and millions of vandalism reversion edits. As far as I'm aware no-one who has come up with a formulae to show what would have happened if those edit filters had instead been coded as anti vandal bots and we'd allowed the vandalism to take place and then seconds later reverted it. So no-one actually knows if the community today is larger or smaller than it was in 2009. In my opinion it is too soon to quantify the damage of the overly hasty release of V/E, it is just very sad that it was released before fixing the bugs that I and others had reported, and I hope that doesn't ultimately lead to its abandonment.

Jimbo, its time for you and the WMF to get your act together and fix this place. Stop ignoring all the problems, start enforcing the rules fairly and stop playing favorites. Stop allowing the admins to do whatever they want without impunity. Put an end to the us and them mentality between editors and admins, the abuses and the croniism and protectionism. Stop protecting all the content and blocking every IP and start trusting editors again. Stop the WMF from releasing broken, unreliable and untested software on the community and forcing the community to clean up the mess. If you do even some of these things, Wikipedia editing will pick back up again. Yes admins can do "whatever they want without impunity" as Arbcom desysops after the event not before. You probably meant to say that admins can do "whatever they want with impunity" but that simply isn't true. Arbcom has the power to desysop admins and has used that this year. Your argument is undermined by exaggeration. If you'd made the case that we block too many IPs then I'd agree with you, if you made a case for too many articles being protected then I'd have been sufficiently intrigued to ask for examples. But you know as well as I do that we don't block every IP, or even anything close to that, nor do we protect more than a tiny proportion of articles. Some of your other points may have been good ones, but if so you undermined them by such exaggerations. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself but I disagree with you because part of the admin abused I have been talking about for years are the over protection of articles and templates. The over eager blocking of new editors and IP's, especially range blocks. The frequency that admins show article ownership, the frequency with which they enforce their own POV and more. I don't expect admins to admit there is a problem, I never did and that itself is part of the problem. Three is little desire to make things better and that will eventually be the projects undoing. That is also why the WMF doesn't ask the community before it implements changes, because we don't want, anticipate and are generally unwillng to accept, change. On the admin leaving issue. We desysopp about 5 a month, we promote 1 or 2 and a huge amount more don't edit. Some even voluntarily give up their tools. That on top of the fact that we increasingly protect and block. All of which make more work for the few remaining. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is going to be a problem in the not so distant future. Add to that the toxic editing environment that keeps people from editing and makes them leave. Then the ones that do stay and want to participate are told they aren't wanted or needed. People say I can't be trusted which is complete bullshit. I've been trying to improve the project, so arguments to the contrary are misrepresentative of the facts. I would argue few are more dedicated to the project and I have gotten to the point where I have basically left because of the problems. Several of the top editors have left in the past few months myself included. Its fairly easy to replace an editor that does ten edits a month. Its a lot harder to replace one that does 10, 000. But its becoming more clear to me that no one really cares. Jimbo certainly doesn't, he hasn't even taken the time to comment. As for Arbcom desysoppings. Its easy to pick one or 2 outliers and say the system works, but it doesn't. There are a lot more admins who are abusive and should lose the tools and you know it. All you have to do to see it is watch the logs for a couple weeks. See the comments made to editors when they block, when the delete content, when they interact with other users. Watch the comments made by admins here, at AN and ANI and on the Wikiprojects. Anyway, I'm done. Done with this project and done with this discussion. Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are. At any rate, predictions of doom and gloom have existed since the time I started editing. The same predictions of doom and gloom will continue long after I inevitably move on. People see one or two long-time wikifriends retire or leave - or become frustrated themselves - and start assuming that the entire house of cards is about to collapse. Meanwhile, many thousand editors outside of their scope of vision happily improve articles every day. When you live at AN and ANI and Jimbo's talk page, it is easy to convince yourself the entire system is falling apart. When you live in article space though, the story tends to be different. Reso lute 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing that I've discovered is that if you spend all your time staring at AN/I or ArbCom or AfD, it can get depressing really fast. People need to be sure to keep in touch with the whole point of the exercise, which is contributing in whatever manner you contribute — researching and writing, copy editing, helping newcomers, etc. The other thing that can help stave off unhappiness is visiting the new articles queue regularly — Special:NewPages. Sure, there's a vast wave of crap coming in — but there are also scores of good new contributions every single day of the year, written by editors you've never heard of and may never hear of again. We worry about algae in the swimming pool, and needing to replace the water that inevitably evaporates away, when there's a whole big ocean out there. The little cloistered bunch of drama-following navel-gazers like me and you and you and you are just a small part of what Wikipedia actually is. Draw inspiration from the ocean... Carrite (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So true, Carrite. While it's important for Editors to communicate with each other and participate in discussions about administrative actions and policy changes, I try to have at least 50% of my edits in the article space. It's easy to get drawn into discussions and forget about creating and maintaining the main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrite is exactly right. I think this extract (#61) from User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior should be permanently posted at the top of this talk page:

"When Wikipedians spend too much time on the noticeboards, in Arbcom cases, and on talk pages of contentious articles, they have a high probability of concluding that Wikipedia is dysfunctional, incompetent, and doomed to fail. Once a Wikipedian has reached this realization, expect that person's user page to boast an essay announcing the imminent failure of the project. The best cure for this condition is to leave those places, and instead read a few articles on genuinely encyclopedic topics, noticing just how good they actually are. Similarly, if you were to look at a table at a subatomic level, you would see that it consists mainly of empty space, with innumerable minuscule particles whizzing about angrily, each having an arbitrary and undefinable position; indeed, if you look at them too closely, they will change just to spite you: but back away, the whole becomes visibly a table again. We're a pretty good encyclopedia, and you will notice it once you back away from the conflict zones."

JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Antandrus wrote that more than five years ago: cries that the project is "dysfunctional, incompetent, and doomed to fail" are nothing new, but somehow it keeps going. His whole list is worth reading, and shows that things have not changed much; check out #40 on "retired" editors. JohnCD (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DOOMED — Scott • talk 13:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this page at all since April, but it seems eerily similar to a conversation then. Much as Anthony Burgess later disowned his seminal work, I think he had it right that any large group of people is going to have a lot of roughness in its functioning. Unless any of us have the capacity to change human nature that's not changing. As for me, I've done essentially nothing but edit one article (and its split) for 10 months now, and the number of "ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!" cries that have permeated my work there is zero. It also helps that the nature of the subject I'm editing also makes it rather difficult to feel too bad about anything happening on a website. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

So just to make sure I understand here. An IP makes a comment and its assumed to be the work of another editor. One that is highly active and has a lot of experience based on the comments of several here. That editor is accused of being disgruntled and angry and then the user responds to several comments essentially confirming what I started the discussion about. Several of those comments being from admins BTW and were IMO unnecessarily negative and provocative. So basically, this discussion confirms, without a doubt and in public what I said in the beginning whether you want to admit it or not. There is a lot of community infighting just as I stated in the beginning; the editing environment is poisoning the well of editors willing to edit here; the community does have a major rift between their admins and their editors; Jimbo doesn't seem to be interested in dealing with the problem (which is strange because he has admitted in the past he agrees there is a problem) and a lot of users think there is no problem, because the system seemed to have worked well for them so far. I have to tell you none of these things makes me want to edit and I pretty well understand why others don't want to either. Also, I do not think I sound anything like Kumioko. They are very angry, I am indifferent. The community doesn't care about me and I don't care about it. I do however use Wikipedia and it would be a shame if it shut down because the community that edits it or the company that runs it cannot see the writing on the wall. The site is dying, faster now than in the past and the pace is increasing. It will probably take a few more years (about 3 I'm guessing) but the end is coming unless things are done to change that. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not fooling anyone, Kumioko. I personally find it hilarious after proclaiming that you are "done with Wikipedia and done with this conversation", you couldn't make it two days before returning. And since you obviously can't stay away - and that's cool, man - all I can suggest is to pick an article and improve it. That's where the joy of this place lies and it seems like it would be more fulfilling than periodically pretending to retire. Reso lute 22:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

First let me say that's a pretty neat app. I didn't know about that. The last one I saw like that stopped working a couple years ago. I think it was one of Magnus's tools. Anyway, yep you caught me. Guess that also mean your a clone of me too! According to this at least. And Binksternet too. Wow, I really get around. No, that IP is a proxy used by the navy (that's a few hundred thousand people). So is 138.162.8.58 and 138.162.8.59 and a number of others. It doesn't mean every edit done from them is me. For soeone who doesn't even like me you are giving me too much credit. But if it would make you feel better go ahead and block those 2 users as potential socks and the 138 series with a range block. Not sure how any of that would be a benefit to the 'pedia but it doesn't hurt me anymore. Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into the whole "community infighting" thing, or even whether or not Jimbo might be able to resolve any of the issues presented, but I will give my two cents, for what its worth.

One of my basic problems with Wikipedia is that it is self-contradictory.

Wikipedia thrives on the "many hands make light work" principle. Unfortunately the "too many cooks spoil the broth" idea conflicts with this principle. Every single edit here is guided or consumed by the threat of a "policy" being enforced on it, which if you looked hard enough you would find an equal but opposite policy contradicting it, e.g. Policies and guidelines of Wikipedia versus Ignore All Rules, or Be bold versus Be civil, or my favorite is that Wikipedia claims not to be a democracy yet it clearly requires voting in order to gain consensus on an issue. Wikipedia also claims to present a neutral point of view, which of course as anyone who understands the English language knows that this phrase is itself a contradiction. A thing is either neutral (i.e. NO point of view or not taking sides), or has a point of view. It can't be both. As a result of this confusing mass of contradictions, the majority of editors (I should say content-creators) here don't know whether they're coming or going. Its no wonder many of them get disenchanted.

This project sets a premium on its ever expanding policies that may eventually cause Wikipedia to ROT from the inside out. There is a huge repsonsibility for all admins to enforce these wisely. In my limited experience of disputes here I do not believe that all admins adhere to that. One solution is to remove all bureaucracy from Wikipedia, but of course this can't be done because Wikipedia already claims it is not a bureacracy.

Because I am at a loss to reconcile myself with these things I will probably stop editing here sooner than I would have, had these problems not existed, which is a shame, because I still believe in Jimbo's original motivation behind this project. -- Jodon | Talk 16:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone once said:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way...

... so, it goes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Aaah, fuck it, smiles all round. Everyone give everyone a big wikihug. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's high time Wikipedia governance was reformed

I am a content editor and rarely post in project space, by the standards of most Wikipedia power players. However, even with my content work I have had negative experiences with Wikipedia's failed governance model. Fringe theorists can edit articles with relative impunity because administrators are busy fighting on drama-based articles, there are not enough good writers remaining to cover for the massive pollution of poorly presented content by individuals who are completely uninformed, and those who are merely here for the drama and POV-pushing are held in higher esteem than a common vandal who modifies Barack Obama to state that "John is gay". Why is it that the very people who do the most damage to the encyclopedia, its supposed "patriots", are in positions of power? Although they may appear to have demurred from demanding Wikipedia governance reform, stating that most of the problems occur on the drama boards, in reality the impetus for a sweeping and complete revision of the Wikipedia power structure is stronger than ever. The massive investment of resources and power in the drama boards have diverted that attention from where it is needed most; namely, the 6,908,979 articles that constitute this encyclopedia.

It is about time this stopped forever, that order was reimposed to end the flow of good content editors out from the encyclopedia and ensure the expedient removal of those who cause it harm. To these ends and more, I will propose here a governance model. This, or anything like this, has been rejected by "the community"—a group that is not in reality the civil body politic of all active Wikipedia editors in good standing, but rather a self-selected subset of those users who do nothing but battle on the drama boards and robotically fix grammar and remove vandalism. This is a threat to their power, their integral status in the existing Wikipedia hierarchy. These users will cite policies stating that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, not realizing (or at least pretending not to acknowledge) that they are members of a private, self-imposed bureaucracies operating for the benefit of a few, and that Wikipedia is based on a consensus model of governance, not realizing that whatever "consensus" exists on almost any issue is a sham, obtained through poorly publicized requests for comments attended primarily by the same inbred group of users. Nor, for that matter, do these users want to publicly accept that the above two policies are anything less than scripture, when in reality the policies are created through the same sham consensus process mentioned earlier—that is to say, the small, self-selected cohort that repeatedly cites these policies is the same one that imposed them illegitimately to begin with.

Let's move forward. In order to do so, I suggest the following changes:

The entire administrator corps should be placed on a probationary status and should be forbidden from exercising its powers, save for a skeleton crew of about 200 admins to revert vandalism, enact page deletions, and perform other uncontroversial functions related to the enforcement of policy. All administrators who possess additional powers (checkuser, oversighter, et cetera) or have a particular position (arbitrator, subcommittee member, etc.) may resume their duties uninterrupted. All administrators who are inactive should be stripped of their powers immediately, but may regain their powers as prescribed below. All active administrators shall be thoroughly reviewed by the Arbitration Committee (split into three Working Groups) and its subcommittees for compliance with policy and competence. Once there are 300 administrators approved through this process, the members of the skeleton crew will be placed on the same probationary status that previously approved administrators were on, in tranches of 50 administrators. After 50 administrators, from within the tranche or not, are reviewed, another tranche will be placed on probation, and so on until all administrators have been reviewed. Probation proceedings should be public unless the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation decides to keep the information private; however, all probation proceedings must have been received and retained by Wikimedia in order to remain valid.
A Constituent Assembly of 100 Wikipedia users should be convoked, with 90 members elected by the community (supervised by ArbCom) and 10 appointed by the Foundation. It shall be tasked with producing a Constitution for the English Wikipedia, which should include:
- The creation of a Wikipedia Assembly, with 20 members elected by the Wikipedia community for terms of two years (five members in a tranche). This body shall have the power to craft the specific policies and guidelines required for the implementation of policy requests for comment and discussions at the Village Pump and elsewhere on Wikipedia. As an aside, all policy-based RfCs should be supervised by administrators who have been vetted by the Electoral Commission for the purpose (details on that later). In addition, the Wikipedia Assembly may create policies to supervise the functioning of the rest of the Wikipedia governance apparatus, except as prohibited by RfCs or the Constitution. The Assembly may, by a two-thirds vote, also approve judges except in the situations defined below.
- A series of English Wikipedia Editorial Boards based on subject matter will be elected by the community, whose job it is to supervise all article content. Each editorial board will designate a Representative Editor to serve on a larger English Wikipedia Editorial Board, a post which shall rotate every six months; this board shall then elect an Editor-in-Chief of the English Wikipedia, who shall have no additional powers but should be an ex officio member of the Wikipedia Editorial Board for a year. Overall, there should be about 30 members of editorial boards and 200 additional staff belonging to them. These staff shall also be organized into squads and led by the Editor-in-Chief.
  - All content cases, if not immediately resolvable on the talk page by discussion to the mutual satisfaction of the involved parties, may be appealed to the relevant Wikipedia Editorial Board; should the dispute continue, or be referred to it by the relevant editorial board, then the English Wikipedia Editorial Board shall take the case and its decisions shall be final. The only exception to this shall be if a question arises as to whether the decision itself was made negligently, or if its creation violated some Wikipedia policy; in that case, the Arbitration Committee may serve as a court of final appeal. Although the Editorial Board is not necessarily bound by precedent, any cases whose decisions are still standing may be enforced in the Wikipedia legal tract, which I will discuss shortly.
  - Deletion proceedings of any sort, except for speedy deletions and proposed deletions, may only be closed by content staff or Editorial Board members, some of whom will have administrator powers as necessary to implement decisions. All content proceedings, again excluding snow closes, must also be closed by content staff. Content staff may only sanction users provisionally for reasons directly related to inappropriate creation of content, and must hand over all cases to the Wikipedia Administrative Service at the earliest opportunity.
  - Content staff may be selected either by each individual Editorial Committee, the representative Wikipedia Editorial Committee, or through a formal request for office (similar to RfAs, although the request will be for a specific post); however, the results of both processes are nullified in the event of two-thirds of the Wikipedia Assembly voting in favor of nullification, or if a Wikipedia judicial decision effects a nullification on the basis of policy.
- The administrator corps as we know it shall be transformed into the Wikipedia Administrative Service, organized into squads in order to improve its efficiency and to allow it to work in small groups as necessary; the exact structure should be defined in policy. Posts in the Wikipedia Administrative Service may be given by a five-member Posts Committee, selected by lot among Wikipedians with two years of experience and with a one-year term, or through a formal request for office; however, the results of both processes are nullified in the event of two-thirds of the Wikipedia Assembly voting in favor of nullification, or if a Wikipedia judicial decision effects a nullification on the basis of policy.
- Except as permitted by policy or by pre-existing judicial or content cases decided by ArbCom or the English Wikipedia Editorial Board, all editors who have been provisionally sanctioned by the Wikipedia Administrative Service are entitled to a fair and impartial judicial hearing. All decisions must be made by at least three judges, and the Wikipedia Assembly shall, by a two-thirds vote, have the power to appoint these judges, create new courts, and dissolve old ones.
  - An Electoral and Posts Court should be created in order to supervise requests for office and elections, and may strike down the results of any such proceeding by a two-thirds vote. Decisions may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.
  - The Arbitration Committee should become a court of appeal, and shall only have original jurisdiction over cases involving the creation or removal of courts; it is obliged to strike down a removal of a court if it reduces access to Wikipedia's justice, and may order new courts created as necessary.
  - The Arbitration Committee election process should be the same as before, though it should be supervised by the Electoral and Post Selection Court.
  - Judicial staff may be selected by a Posts Committee composed of five members, chosen by lot for a year. They may only be removed through a decision of the Electoral and Post Selection Court or the Arbitration Committee.
  - No individual, having been appointed to a post on Wikipedia, may be placed on probation, suspended, removed (except provisionally) from a post in their branch without judicial proceedings, starting in the lowest rung of the Wikipedia judicial service. Any decision, positive or negative, may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee by the wishes of the accused or by a petition of ten Wikipedia users (except, of course, if ArbCom declines).
- Community banning shall be forbidden, forever.

- As a matter of policy, not constitutional law: COI editors should be forced to disclose their COI on their user page and on the talk pages of the relative articles, and may not make substantive edits to articles where they have COIs except by edit request. On the flip side, administrators who mistreat COI editors, and any editors, may be put through judicial proceedings.

Wer900 • talk 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that people dig in at the two extremes: "The sky is falling" and "there are no big problems that need fixing". The reality is in between The sky isn't falling, but there ARE big problems that need fixing. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably an expectation issue. What is a general encyclopedia? Is it the beginning of knowledge or is it more? Is it reaching for the middle of the road, or is it reaching for the end of the road? Is it to be treated as merely useful, or as authority? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that 75 administrators be placed on probation at a time, not 50. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wer900 proposal is one of the most insane things I've ever read. But hey, if the aim of the proposal is to drive away even more contributors and make WP become a failure like Citizendium, that's indeed the way to go. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wer900, what exactly is the point of elections, if the 'constitution' has already been determined? Personally, when I vote, I do so in the hope of influencing future policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if Wer900 is leading the "revolution", I am not remotely interested. Reso lute 17:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you ignore the interesting introductory claims like "I am a content editor and rarely post in project space", and the identity of the author, you could still comment on the content (not the originator) of the rest of the proposal? A formerly notable person on Wikipediocracy said that it reminded them of the Committee of public safety. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Would there be any point? Taking this at face value, the number of "elected" groups, courts and trials that Wer900 proposes to create would kill the project. And having read some of his ravings in the past, I suspect that is probably the real goal. The only word I can come up with to describe this proposal is "delusional". Reso lute 18:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it just looks too cumbersome. Let's remember that one reason the citizens of nation states pay their governments taxes is to pay the salaries of the public servants, including those in the justice system.

A non-profit public interest entity like Wikipedia has to maintain a streamlined organizational profile to be viable. At the same time, however, it has to strive to provide an environment that is conducive to editing for people with the potential to contribute here. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no hope for the overall plan outlined above but there could be some value in Arbcom or someone reviewing the Admin pool periodically. Even if any problematic or underperforming admins were only placed on probation and monitoring, it could lead to some cleaning of the house. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

To all those who claim that my aim is to destroy the project: my only aim is to obliterate the drama boards, which the editors who inhabit them think is the entirety of the project. Cyclopia, the goal is not to eliminate editors and turn this into the next Citizendium—on the other hand, I am trying to strike a balance between the motionless nature of that site and the rapid motion off the rails that this site is undergoing.

Resolute, I have no wishes to destroy the project; why would I have written more articles than some of our administrators and Arbitrators if I wanted to do so? Why have I not made AN/I threads on every person I have ever disagreed with, as is so often seen there? Why haven't I voted in community-ban proceedings? Why haven't I participated in POV wars on hot topics like Barack Obama, India-Pakistan relations or Israel? There are extremely efficient ways of dealing damage to the project, and I have not partaken in them, not because I am stupid but because I care about this project and its future.

Ubikwit, we already have 1,400 administrators on Wikipedia, half of whom are inactive and the other half of whom work in private bureaucracies. I believe that you have proposed a "more streamlined" system only in good faith, but such a system, with its extreme decentralization, would, with all due respect, look like Somalia's Transitional Federal Government, which controls little outside the capital and a few areas in the south of the country. Private bureaucracies, operating for their own benefit but with (unofficially) full powers of a government, would take hold, much as extortion rackets and militias have taken root in Somalia.

AndyTheGrump: "should include" does not mean "this is the end-all, be-all of everything". What I wrote are guiding principles, nothing more, and the specific implementation of the above ideas can take any of an infinite quantity of forms. Please, no.

North8000: I am of the persuasion that the sky is falling, slowly enough that we can stop it and put it back in its place with the proper reforms, but not so slowly that we can merely ignore.

For the last time: I am NOT of the "Hasten the Day" persuasion. I am trying to help this encyclopedia and save it from its True Believers. Many of these true believers think that they have the best interests of the project at heart, and they often do, but the problem is that their unwillingness to compromise leads people to leave the project, in much the same way as a right-wing conservative Baptist upbringing is an extremely efficient way to push people to atheism. Many among said contingent of conservative Baptists would reject calls for moderation from liberal believers as a sign of excessive lack of faith, even though said liberals are the biggest hope that the religion has against atheism. You are shouting me out in the same fashion, and you are already paying dearly in the tens of thousands of once-active, now-disenchanted editors who no longer contribute. Wer900 • talk 19:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember what I said to you about perspective back in April? Maybe you should peruse that again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have pointed to a scenario in which there are substantial underutilized resources, but I'm not sure where the interests of those editors with admin status lie regarding their engagement here. I have no doubt that there is a need for some structural reforms, but since I've also seen others complain about being understaffed and overworked, with backlogs (e.g., AfC discussion below), there doesn't seem to be leeway to add any overhead to the equation.

Furthermore, I didn't say anything about decentralization, because I don't believe that is an overly redundant organizational structure is the correct configuration to adopt here. Moreover, hierarchical authority structure facilitates streamlining the organization, because there is better defined authorities and accountability. That is not to say you need an authoritarian organizational structure, just an efficient structure that is capable of handling matters such as dispute resolution in an agile manner. The problem would seem to lie in the need to fine tune various policies and strengthen their enforcement. I do think that some sort of appeals system should be implemented, too, but I see that as a suprastructure issue, whereas the infrastructure itself needs a bit of refurbishing. You can't implement an appeals system that would be immediately overburdened, because that would be pointless.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Especially with regards to the process side of the encyclopedia, I think that the judicial and appeals processes will avoid the overburdening that you described. Much of the drama of the encyclopedia is "meta-drama"—that is to say, it is not the result of a direct concern about a user, but is rather a reaction to an "uncivil" comment made on AN/I, an out-of-process "!vote", et cetera. Meta-drama would be virtually eliminated through a court system and a formal administrative structure by its very nature; decisions would not be made through canvassing but by judges chosen through a request for office. Appeals may only be accepted if there is a problem with the making of the decision itself with regard to the relevant Wikipedia policies, rather than because a user "feels like it" (for content cases, "large enough dispute" allows for appeals to the Wikipedia Editorial Board). Assuming that the total number of non-metadrama incidents remains the same, though, I would think that ArbCom would still take the same number of cases (hundreds of cases are rejected each year, and they may take some of those that are rejected for lack of jurisdiction). Wer900 • talk 22:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Excessive sitting impairing health

Thread retitled from "Don't spend more than two hours sitting in front of your television, computer or laptop per day".

This is a big problem for Wikipedians. Count Iblis (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Iblis, if you want to spend more time away from your PC then that would suit me just fine ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pedestal desk. Tim AFS (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My reply is in four parts.

(1) The proposed heading Excessive sitting impairing health is adequately brief and adequately informative.

Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines

(2) It is possible to stand while using a computer.

Ergonomics: Stand By Your Computer (Your Health May Depend on It) | Lateral Action

(3) A well-designed program of physical training can help an editor to edit efficiently and to participate calmly in discussions.

Wikipedia:Ergonomics (red link now)

(4) Many modern economies are very dependent on automation.

User:Wavelength/About society/Holistic economics

—Wavelength (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

My second reply has four parts.

(5) The United States National Library of Medicine has published information on measured sedentary time.

Amount of Time Spent in Sedentary Behaviors in the United States, 2003–2004

(6) Joseph Mercola has published information on how to be active in the office.

How to Stay Active in the Office | Working Tips

(7) Category:Ergonomics contains "Active sitting" and "Computer-induced medical problems" and "Kneeling chair" and "Riding-like sitting" and "Saddle chair".

(8) "Companies such as Google and Wikimedia have expressed serious concern and have since purchased the multi-award-winning Locus Workstation that was created by renowned designer Martin Keen, founder of Focal Upright Furniture." (underscore added)

Sitting for 8 - 10 Hours a Day? Does Your Life Insurance Cover Your Sedentary Lifestyle?

—Wavelength (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from Don't spend more than two hours sitting in front of your television, computer or laptop per day to Excessive sitting impairing health, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have started the page Wikipedia:Ergonomics. More can be added, about sleeping and napping and distractions and sounds and lighting and electromagnetic radiation.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I emailed this to a friend recently:

Wikipedia's article: Treadmill desk

general info: [7]

Most FAQs mention: Start off just standing, for a few days/weeks. Build up very slowly, otherwise you might get lower-back/knee problems.

New Yorker article (excerpt), and related NPR interview (audio and transcript): [8], [9]

homemade solution: [10]

other articles, and useful examples: [11], [12], [13], [14]

HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This reply has four parts.

("HTH" means "[I] hope this helps.") Yes, that helps, and I thank you.
YouTube reports about 22,200 results for treadmill desk.
I am interested in the effects on perspiration and body odor.
I am planning to post (at Wikipedia talk:Ergonomics) a link to the archive of this discussion, because I or someone else can use the links in this discussion to expand and improve Wikipedia:Ergonomics in the future.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Count Iblis, for alerting us to the problem of excessive sitting. Throughout many centuries of human history, there have been many occupations with presumably much time spent in sitting, even before the Industrial Revolution.

Recordkeeping occupations: the work of a scribe, author, poet, translator
Textile occupations: the work of a spinner, weaver, loomer, tailor
Visual-art occupations: the work of an artistic painter, potter, basket weaver
Animal-riding occupations: the work of a cavalryman, cowboy, mahout, camel driver

**Charioteer** was almost never a sedentary occupation --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Animal-drawn vehicle occupations: the work of a charioteer, stagecoach driver
Motor-vehicle driving occupations:
- Land-vehicle driving occupations: the work of a taxi driver, bus driver, truck driver, train engineer
- Air-vehicle driving occupations: the work of an airplane pilot, helicopter pilot
- Space-vehicle driving occupations: the work of an astronaut, cosmonaut, tychonaut
Water-vehicle occupations: the work of an oarsman
Musical occupations: the work of a pianist, organist, harpsichordist, most members of an orchestra (contrast a marching band)
Miscellaneous occupations: the work of a bicycle courier, babysitter

We can also think about students in classrooms, listeners at religious gatherings, diners in restaurants, and visitors at concerts (dancing requires more space and reduces attendance and revenue).

It seems to me that an effective strategy for solving the problem throughout society must involve a drastic redistribution of many tasks, so that no one has a workday with too much time spent in sitting.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

These pictures show a small part of how work has changed.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC) and 20:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

(This discussion began with a link to a report about a study at Maastricht University.) This other report is about a study conducted by researchers at the University of Chester, another study of the drawbacks of sitting and the benefits of standing.

BBC News - Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting? (16 October 2013)

—Wavelength (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC) and 16:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone may wish to make userboxes and categories for (1) Wikipedians who stand while editing Wikipedia and (2) Wikipedians who edit Wikipedia on a treadmill. I searched unsuccessfully for them in Category:Userboxes and Category:Wikipedians.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Organizers of Wikimania and Wikipedia Meetup events may wish to demonstrate one or more of the following: active sitting, kneeling chair, riding-like sitting, saddle chair, and treadmill desk.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Boyzone articles

Dear Jimbo Wales

Can you have a word with this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kww

He has deleted BZ20 and Love will save the day and in the past other boyzone tour articles. He is ruining boyzones information wikipedia. I understand he has authority on wikipedia and several people have contacted him but he seems to think he is above the law. A big problem he has is getting confused with a user who used to disrupt Boyzone articles called user 'pesf' and when people he doesn't recognise edit the boyzone articles he closes their accounts claiming them to be a sock puppet of pesf which is untrue. Please stop this user from disrupting the articles and make the BZ20 and Love will save the day articles on the Boyzone pages.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musictool (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to read WP:NCONCERT, as the tours cannot have pages unless they're documented by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Zappa O Mati 13:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that the other users are not "pesf"? Do you know many of those other users? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, User:Musictool, I think this situation can be resolved within a few days, and independent sources can be found to show the Boyzone topics have notability for the new BZ20 album, but the song "Love Will Save the Day" might need to be a redirect to the album, at first. We have found user Kww to be reasonable, and I think will allow recreation of those pages, but perhaps under wp:AFC due to the prior problems with a banned user. Please understand once a page is embroiled over controversies with blocked/banned users, then the writing of the article becomes a much slower, tedious process requiring days to write, where formerly a few hours would have made similar progress. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I am confused at all. The last two users I blocked, Boy2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Boy2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), were certainly illegitimate alternates of each other, and are about 99% certain to be Pesf. The Boyzone articles have been plagued by serial socking for a long time, and it's probable that Musictool is just another one of these socks.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You have over numerous times deleted boyzone articles for no good reason, you cannot delete peoples accounts who were not doing any damage. The least i would like to be done is for the Love will save the day and BZ20 albums to be made and in future block the user but don't delete the pages which has taken a long time to create. I have also noted that you KWW have deleted referenced information from the Boyzone article history. Musictool (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If a page has been created by a blocked user, I will invariably delete it. That's the point, Pesf: you are blocked. You have been blocked dozens of times. That's a way of telling you to go away. Is there some part of "go away" that you have failed to understand? I will note for the record that one of your more recent socks, Boy2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was not blocked by me: it was blocked by Kuru, who blocked you for disruptive editing and BLP violations. He didn't even recognise that it was just you again. Now please go away.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Kww, I suggest unless you present your evidence for this to be a sockpuppet that you cease and desist from referring to editors by another user name. Whereas Wikid has given you AGF for being a reasonable person, I will not given some questionable history of your own. And now- que personal attack about MY history as opposed to any mention of proof regarding "sockpuppetry", I hope you take the high road and prove me wrong, I'll apologize. However, I shouldn't have to goad you and trap you in this manner to force you to show evidence after the fact; you really should be more mature than using one editor name for another with no evidence shown.Camelbinky (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The contribution history is sufficient evidence, Camelbinky. It's not a sign of immaturity to recognize an obvious sock. Did you bother to examine Pesf's contribution history and writing style and compare it to Musictool, Boy2013, and Boy2014 before making a contribution here? Or maybe scan Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pesf/Archive to see if any obvious patterns become apparent to you?—Kww(talk) 18:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this about the visual editor again? John lilburne (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Kww, the last sock reported was on June 19, 2012. Shouldn't these accounts be reported to SPI rather than automatically blocked indefinitely? The process exists for a purpose. If you were right, it should be easy to prove you were. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI is a process for editors to gain attention from administrators and checkusers. SPI isn't required (or even recommended) for obvious socks. SPI would go into immediate overload if every sock was taken through SPI, Liz. I process them directly, sometimes because I notice them, and sometimes because other editors that know I'm familiar with a particular sockmaster report them directly to me.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. SPI does indeed exist for a purpose, or to be more precise for two purposes: (1) for an editor who sees that there is reason to believe there is sockpuppetry, but is not an administrator and so can't deal with it to ask for admin help, and (2) for an admin who thinks there is evidence of sockpuppetry, but thinks there is some doubt to ask for either further opinions to help decide, or checkuser evidence, or both. There is always a backlog of SPI cases waiting to be dealt with as it is, and the whole system would break down if we started requiring admins to put every case through SPI, even perfectly obvious ones. Also, there is a good reason for not giving full explanation of all the evidence, namely that doing so would tell the sockpuppeteers how to avoid giving themselves away if they go on to create further sockpuppets. Finally, in this case it is totally unnecessary to say what the evidence is, because it is perfectly visible in the editing history. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, just so I'm 100% clear. Will any account that is a fan, a SPA, for this boy band, will they be assumed to be a sock, too? Of course, I don't want the SPI system to crash. But the only way that these accounts seem to be the same individual is they edit the same articles. So, what is to distinguish a non-sock Boy Zone fan from a sock one? I don't for one minute doubt you have a great deal of Admin experience, I'm just AGF of new accounts that might want to edit these articles. Thanks for the information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not every new editor who shows up at that article will be blocked on sight. But people are habitual creatures, and long-time editors who deal in topic areas habituated by socks and single-purpose accounts will pick up on people's tendencies...similar language, tone, the nature of what is being added, etc... If Grundle2600 shows up in a Barack Obama-related article, I and several others can spot him a mile away, for example. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, for example, I've recently had multiple brand new accounts come to my talk page to try to get an article on a very obscure 16-year-old Indian programmer undeleted. If a legitimate new account decided to create an article on this kid, they'd probably get blocked per the WP:DUCK test, but it's not too likely a lot of unrelated accounts will come along to do that. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Tarc & Mark. I realize that after a few years, socks and trolls become easier to spot and you both have more experience than I do. But I also think that when one watches a topic, looking for violations, it's likely one will find them. When one is on the look out for socks, every new user is scrutinized in a way that doesn't happen normally.

My thinking goes this way: A false negative just means that a sock or troll continues to post for a while until their intentions become evident to all. But a false positive results in a new Editor receiving an indefinite block, out of the blue. Being trigger-happy (and I've seen new Editors indefinitely blocked after two edits), might prevent vandalism but could also be driving away inexperienced users. It takes more than a few days (or few weeks, or a few months!) before one achieves "competency" in editing Wikipedia. I think one should not assume malice when it's really just a user who is new and makes mistakes.

Sorry for being preachy. It's just for the long-term vitality of WP, I think Editor retention outweighs potential vandalism. IMHO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're taking a very narrow approach to editor retention. "False-negatives" are not as harmless as you've suggested. It's important to recognize that by allowing abusive sockpuppetry, we're hurting editor retention. Good editors quit all the time because they get tired of dealing with abusive sockpuppetry.

I don't know whether you've ever tried to edit an article in the face of coordinated sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I don't know whether you've ever had the experience of arguing a content point with an editor/editors, only to discover after weeks or months of dispiriting discussion that the editor is a sockpuppet of a previously banned editor. These experiences are intensely frustrating. We lose good editors because we don't handle sockpuppetry effectively. All the time.

And more insidiously, the good editors who stay become reluctant to touch certain topic areas or articles, because they're infested by sockpuppets and whenever anyone tries to address the situation they're told to "AGF". There is an editor-retention issue here, but I don't think it's the one you've outlined. MastCell ^Talk 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, no, I don't know what it's like to battle a sock puppet but I read over the Rupert Sheldrake Talk Page and I think I see socks arguing on both sides of the issue. It makes me dizzy trying to follow a thread of conversation.

But while I might have a narrow approach, I think you are overstating how big a sock problem WP has. This is because that, for the Editors who fight vandalism, they see bad behavior every time they log on to WP because, well, they go out looking for it. When you're constantly swatting flies, it's easy to think that the whole world is full of flies. But I'd guess that 00.001% of Wikipedians are involved in fighting vandalism. I'd guess most Editors rarely encounter it unless they choose to edit in contentious topical areas.

And while I don't have the data to back up that claim, you don't have evidence that good editors have quit WP because of sockpuppetry. I imagine you can think of one or two examples but considering the tens of thousands of editors at WP, that is a drop in the bucket. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

00.001% of tens of thousands of editors is less than one editor. -- ToE 13:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By my calculator, 00.001% of 10,000 editors is 10. 00.001% of 100,000 editors is 100. But that doesn't seem big enough so I'll change my guesstimate to 00.01%. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that you are confusing percentages and decimal fractions. The % sign represents a factor of 0.01, so 10% is 10 * 0.01 = 0.1 and 0.001% is 0.001 * 0.01 = 0.00001. Thus your 00.001% of 10,000 editors is 0.001 * 0.01 * 10,000 editors = 0.00001 * 10,000 editors = 0.1 editor. -- ToE 20:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, they won't. Boy2013 nearly got past me, and it wasn't until Boy2014 came along that I was convinced. I'm not going to publicly explain what Boy2014 did that was so compelling, but he had a couple of behaviours that identified him as Pesf that went beyond editing Boyzone articles, as did Musictool. Of course, once he was confirmed, connecting the dots between Boy2014 and Boy2013 was trivial.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I once caught a sock puppet on my talk page. I was pretty sure it was a sock but kept engaging the two different accounts until they slipped up and replied to a question to one user without logging out from the one account to log into the other and replied as the other persona on the wrong account. Since it was obvious to everyone reading the page as well as the admin, it didn't need an SPI report. Ever since then I tend to attempt to engage both users I suspect as socks at the same time and watch how they respond. I figure if it worked by accident maybe it can work on purpose?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as you're not so focused on catching suspected sockpuppets that you forget about the articles. If an addition is made, its from a RS that can be checked, then its a positive for the article (and, if it displays a less than NPOV, then edit to clarify). This phrase 'If a page has been created by a blocked user, I will invariably delete it' may reflect policy but if the info is kosher its an epic fail for Wikipedia. IMHO, zealotry in pursuing real or imagined socks shouldn't be allowed to detract from reasonable, verifiable and legitimate content, no matter how it got there. AnonNep (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why are all these blocks and bans still in place? That is implying that the blocking and banning policies are completely worthless - which they may well be, given how much the community in general allows such people to waltz right back in and do whatever they please. See User:Ryan kirkpatrick. User:Grundle2600 and many others as prime examples of this. --MuZemike 05:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No idea. I find the quick-to-reach-for the block and ban-hammer negative and counter to the creation of a positive content-focused culture. How to roll it back? That's the hard question. AnonNep (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just a little concerned that in the above conversation there are regular editors who don't appear to be able to recognise obvious socks. Seriously people, look a bit harder. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not every regular Editor needs to be able to identify socks, Black Kite. Lots of users work on content and in areas that don't involve preventing vandalism. In fact, it's probably best if people who are skilled in identifying socks be the ones imposing blocks since a wrong identification results in an innocent Editor being blocked. It seems like the activity for a specialist, not a generalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to the earlier msg and the above, I'd wager that the number of genuinely new editors who get caught in a mistaken-for-a-returning-sock is vanishingly small. Know what's a good test? See if they post anything on their talk page after the block. 99% of the time there are no follow-ip posts, no unblock requests of any sort since they know the gig's up. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, I can only speak for myself but I first registered an account in 2007 and have edited on and off ever since (mostly logged out). But it is only since this summer, since I immersed myself in WP, that I even learned there is a MOS or what a noticeboard is. I have seen many block notices that never say how a block can be appealed! And in the case of socks, I don't think I've ever seen an instance when Talk Page access wasn't taken away. How is a new user supposed to know that they even can appeal, much less how?

So, you know what happens? A new editor comes in, makes some questionable edits--because they don't know what they are doing--and gets blocked for whatever reason (and it sometimes doesn't take much) for any length of time. What do they do? They create another account since the old one doesn't work any more and they don't know why because they don't realize that communication happens on this thing called a Talk Page (they may not even know they have a User Page). So, they return to work editing the articles they are interested in and if some astute Admin recognizes them from their previous account, then they are labeled a "sock" and receive an indefinite block. No appeal. So, what do they do when they find out that they can't log into this new account? Well, just forget it, they'll edit logged out. But once a user is labeled a "sock", there is no way they can participate on Wikipedia again without getting blocked. I have not seen any way that once a Editor receives a label like "troll" or "sock" or "puppet" or "disruptive" that it is ever possible to lose this label.

I think there is a major blind spot for long-time Editors and Admins that they assume all casual Editors have the same knowledge that they do...that they will know where to go for help, find answers or policies, file a complaint, or appeal a ban. They don't know all of this and without a direct link posted by a friendly and helpful fellow Editor, it's unlikely they'll stumble upon it. But, luckily, there are users who post welcome notices and give suggestions and warnings or engage new Editors on the Talk Pages of the articles they edit. I think a personalized gesture of help is responsible for more users becoming regular Editors than any other aspect of Wikipedia behavior. I know I remember the users who were kind to me when I was just learning the ropes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, the message a blocked editor receives automatically when they try to edit gives them instructions on how to appeal a block. The message in the block notice left on the talk page serves only to explain the reason.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to know, Kww, thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem Liz describes seems worth to address. There may be many clueless editors who come to edit WP assuming "anyone can edit", but are not aware of talk page, user talk page etc. I think, the requirement of registering email should be made mandatory and if a new user messes up something. They can be sent a polite short email (in addition to talk page notice), which I am sure there are more chance of them reading it then a warning on the talk page.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 03:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PERRENIAL#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing. We'd lose far, far more editors that way than we do with blocking editors who can't seem to find a talk page. Even editors who register can be reluctant to provide an email address. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, although I first registered an account in 2007, I rarely logged in. Until July 2013, I normally edited as an IP editor, I wasn't interested in keeping track of the typos I fixed or dressing up a User Page. So, I get a little upset when registered users assume IPs are irresponsible vandals and, if they stir things up, they should be blocked for being disruptive. Now that I am registered again (mainly because I had to to participate in some Wiki activities), I still would never post an email address on my account. Every time there are mandatory requirements imposed, you'll lose casual Editors who are happy to do minor fixes but don't want to create another website-specific account. It might just take a few minutes to do, but it's still a hassle that some Editors won't want to bother with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. I myself do not use some website due to requirement of creating website-specific account.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 10:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kww He has deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BZ20:_Anniversary_Album and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_will_save_the_day article already twice. He is abusing his privilege and deleting every boyzone article. He is very rude and he is ruining wikipedia. Every new user who makes a new page for Boyzone he deletes. So kww are you going to to delete the articles everytime they are created? How dare you abuse your power when you should be doing good you are doing bad. I would like people to look out for this user. So are you telling me these pages about the new Boyzone album and Single due for release in November 2013 don't merit space on wikipedia? You are ridiculous and you are destroying wikipedia. I and many people are annoyed that these pages have already been removed twice by you and i am sure if they are created again you will delete it, you are a horrible person. I and many people want these pages created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.230.244 (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for clarity of authorship in an info box

I write everything posted here in my name personally. It's completely silly to think that I have a 'ghost writer' on Wikipedia. I read this page every single day, and generally read everything that is linked to. I respond to threads where I think I have something to say, but often just let a perfectly good discussion run without me. Those who suggest my involvement here is minimal are almost as silly as those who suggest I must be so busy that I couldn't possibly write these things myself. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Although there are responses on this page that are signed 'Jimbo Wales', I am doubtful that all such responses are actually authored by Jimbo Wales. That skepticism stems from my awareness that Jimbo has a busy life, and that many of these responses concern matters that could hardly interest him. It also stems from the actual tone and wording of these responses which suggest to me that at least some of these answers signed 'Jimbo Wales' are drafted by proxies, multiple authors who are probably Administrators and possibly limited to Administrators on ArbCom. In the interest of full disclosure, an ifo box at the top of this page should explain these details of authorship, and if it indeed is claimed that Jimbo himself authors all responses signed 'Jimbo Wales' that should be what is in that info box to allay skeptics like myself. Brews ohare (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to respond to that without writing something that would look like a personal attack. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares if someone else drafts a response for him, he's the one who's responsible for it so he probably makes changes/revisions as appropriate -- just like a speechwriter. So basically, you're asking if Jimbo adheres to WP:NOSHARE? Seems rather an insulting thing to ask an established (to say the least) editor. I think you should provide some diffs showing where you think the authorship is in dispute. Making such an accusation without providing evidence is rather cowardly (to say the least). Rgrds. --64.85.216.87 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming Jimbo isn't writing anything he posts is a terrible breach of AGF. KonveyorBelt 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no breach of faith or whatever in suggesting that Jimbo has 'ghost writers'. It is a standard practice. For example, President Obama tweets all kinds of shit under his name that he has no knowledge of - it's done by his appointed agents. Supposedly if they go off the rails they will be admonished or replaced. Brews ohare (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Brews — how do we know that you're really you asking this? And then again, am I really me answering you or is somebody else doing it because I'm too busy in real life writing about VOKS or a piece on something that Leon Trotsky wrote in the early 1920s? Carrite (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrite: You are trying to make this thread a form of entertainment, I see. Whether I am responsible for these remarks signed 'Brews_ohare' is somewhat different in importance from Jimbo (the face of WP) actually saying something, or merely some minion acting in his stead. For example, if one has a dispute with Admins and brings it to this page thinking to obtain a 'higher level' opinion, that hope is somewhat dampened if in fact one ends up talking to exactly the same Admin, but now wearing a Jimbo hat. Brews ohare (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It is entertaining[15]. You're spouting a conspiracy theory that responses from Jimbo are drafted by a cabal of highly-trusted ArbCom members who are authorised to secretly speak on his behalf, without evidence, and claiming that even if your theory is false it has to be legitimised by an infobox stating so. L Faraone 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My goodness - now the standard practice of 'ghost writing' is elevated to the level of conspiracy and cabals! All that is suggested here is that it be made clear whether Jimbo actually authors all comments over his name on this page, or not. Brews ohare (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOSHARE is pretty clear, and unsubstantiated accusations of violating that are disappointing to see here. L Faraone 17:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The really odd thing about this idea is that "Jimbo" (who I am firmly convinced is really Jimbo) doesn't edit this page much at all -- probably not more than a couple of hours a month. It baffles me why there would even be a suspicion. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Noting that trying to out the owner of Wikipedia as being somebody else is a breach of policies. And how do we know the OP isn't being ghostwritten himself? Should everyone have a userbox? KonveyorBelt 18:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"Owner of Wikipedia"? - 2001:558:1400:10:B0B6:DB50:81:D4CC (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

He is the chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation. Bantering about semantics does not make Konveyor Belt's point any less correct. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading this nonsense is like sitting through the entire 10 hours of trollolol. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is troling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flin the flan warrior (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Brews is right after all, clearly Flin the flan warrior = Jimbo :) . Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

How do we know that Brews ohare isn't 17 different people, who took turns writing that post above? The question has no merit if its all about "skepticism stems from my awareness that Jimbo has a busy life, and that many of these responses concern matters that could hardly interest him." Really, you find it hard to believe someone on an encyclopedia site would not have a broad range of interests or be able to simply comment on a subject here even if the actual subject doesn't interest him much. Tis really silly.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually many different people did take turns writing that post :). Count Iblis (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anything is possible. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"You are trying to make this thread a form of entertainment" ... "Are you making a mockery of me, Vimes?" "No Sir, but I may be assisting." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely conjectural on my part, of course, which is why I have asked for some clarification on the matter. I simply do not believe that a person as busy as Wales can possibly engage in all the trivia that appears above his name on this page. Brews ohare (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Jimbo's postings on this page are few and sporadic. As of this minute I can only see three amongst all the verbiage: a four-liner, a two-liner and a one-word post. That's pretty typical. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, everyone, step away from the fence, and don't feed the troll please. They are highly sensitive animals who, when found in captivity such as a website discussion forum, can get highly agitated. It is best when they are pacing and roaring for them to be left alone to calm down and return to their cave. I suggest we look over there, where there is a herd of stub articles who would love for us to go up and pet them and pay attention to them, it actually helps in their growth and leads them to have healthier longer lives.Camelbinky (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Damn! I wish there was "like" button for this remark! Smatprt (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Memorial service for VisualEditor

The one-month anniversary will be 23 October 2013, for the removal of wp:VisualEditor (VE) from the Wikipedia top menu. I think we should create an essay page where people could post their opinions, in retrospect one month later, about the removal of VE under guidance from Kww, use of Special:Preferences opt-in, and discuss the continued cleanup of hundreds of text glitches saved into pages by the early versions of VE. Very many people burned days, weeks or months in dealing with the problems, and perhaps some people need a process of closure to defuse the tensions which had grown during the whole situation. Also, other people think more publicity is needed to inform (or warn) newer users who might wish to opt-in and learn more about VE, so it would be a chance to discuss how the bugfixes to VE have improved the operation. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:34, 20 October, 00:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the threads that talk about VE end up in shouting matches, how do you propose to make sure things are civil?Camelbinky (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We could buy a couple of kegs of good IPA and hold a wake... Carrite (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

VE is still deployed on other Wiki projects besides en.wiki. The reports of its demise are premature. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. VE is moving forward as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess the other discussions have VE covered well enough, and we can just continue fixing the articles for the prior VE glitches. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, people are welcome to edit wp:VisualEditor to document actions, discussions, and summaries of those discussions, which is also why WP:WMF#Reception exists. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, I still use visual editor probablu about 1/3 of the time. It is still far better than markup editing when you need a quick change to a long text or one with any long references already present... or editing template parameters. It gets frustrating sometimes, when it loses its mind, but I appreciate the effort that has been put into it. :) Dovid (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss tool ideas at WP:VPIL Idea Lab

This is a reminder for people to discuss ideas for new tools or templates at wp:VPIL, the Idea Lab. With more than 30 users now authorized as wp:Template_editors, there has been renewed enthusiasm to enhance the tools, or create new templates which the authors can continue to expand without the prior lockdown which occurred when templates became popular and were fully-protected against non-admin updates. Anyway, discuss or create a new thread at wp:VPIL (or wp:Lua requests). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Also review list at wp:TOOLS. -Wikid77 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about more copy-edit tools: As I continue to edit more articles, while considering what type of tools could make the updates easier, I imagine copy-edit tools which could detect more typos, and remind the user about those glitches not yet fixed. Then, during an edit-preview, and new typos or forgotten glitches could be highlighted as reminders of other issues to fix. Currently, we have smaller tools which detect only some problems at a time. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rapid editing of hundreds of pages uses fewer tools: I have noticed, recently, when trying to edit hundreds of pages quickly, then the main focus of the edit, such as formatting references for titles/pages, will tend to overwhelm the need for other types of tools, so reminders about spacing or misspelled words can seem less of a priority when focusing on other major aspects of the page contents. I think most people would be overwhelmed when trying to edit hundreds of pages for some particular major aspect and then be reminded to fix "40" other grammar, phrasing or punctuation issues at the same time. However, if editing to correct the spelling of one typo in 200 pages, then an edit-assistant tool could be more useful. -Wikid77 17:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP: COMMONS is broken

Whenever the "random file" button is pushed, it goes to a wikimedia foundation image instead of giving a commons image. Flin the flan warrior (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/File? Works fine for me. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken for me -- it's giving random pages from the http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File namespace. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Symptom of a wider problem, see WP:VPT#What has happened to Commons?. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My experience was mixed. It is as if files from wikimediafoundation.org are part of the "rotation" when Random File is clicked on Commons. I got about three Commons images and then a wikimediafoundation.org file; then about five Commons and then Wikimedia; I kept clicking and the number of Commons images before a Wikimedia image varies from three to ten. And by the way, of all the Commons images I saw in this test (about 50) I did not find a single image that was in any way "objectionable" to anybody, which sort of surprised me in light of what I have read on this page over the past couple of years. (I don't actually hang around Commons myself, except for clicking on Random File a bunch of times just now.) In fact, there was not a single image of a person or (cough cough) any part of a person. It was mostly buildings and bridges. There was even a picture of a swimming pool, but no swimmers (clothed or otherwise) were in sight. Does the Commons Random File function only include certain types of images? Neutron (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought there wasn't any way to make it do that, but I was wrong (see mediawikiwiki:Manual:Random page and especially mediawikiwiki:Manual:Hooks/SpecialRandomGetRandomTitle). I don't know how it's configured on Commons.

I watched the new files feed for a while last month, prompted by this discussion, and had to watch 400 files go past before the first objectionable one came up (which we quickly deleted). (A quicker way to do this is to go to commons:Special:NewFiles.) So I'm not surprised you saw none in the 50 random files you viewed. --Avenue (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Each day thousands of files are uploaded, and usually less than 20 or so are "objectionable" and many of those will be deleted by the end of the week. People say "porn" on Commons is a problem, but I've probably uploaded more train photos than there are penises on Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you not seen WIKIPORNIA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.33.157 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Followup to Looie496: Based on the discussion on WP:VPT there definitely is a problem and someone has submitted a bug report. Neutron (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

For a minute, I thought someone had created WP:COMMONSISBROKEN, though I suppose it would only redirect back here. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Different kind of "broken", I'm guessing. Neutron (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Still bugged for me right now. Flin the flan warrior (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Still bugged as of 11:00 AM. Having to sift through the recent files is annoying, espicially due to porn that trolls seem to be spamming. Flin the flan warrior (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WMF should prepare a position against database copyright

I think that the idea of database copyright is extremely dangerous to efforts like Wikipedia, because it can prohibit the dissemination of factual information. Some actual examples: in the EU, Ministry of Sound is pursuing legal action against users of Spotify because they list the songs on their playlists, and Football Dataco is pursuing action against Yahoo for listing scores, penalties, and substitutions in games. [16] If these are upheld, I don't see any particular reason why a news outlet couldn't come after a Wikipedia user residing in the EU for updating our list of school shootings to include all the incidents in theirs, or even a physics publisher coming after him for copying a list of nuclear isomers.

Additionally, I fear we may be seeing vandalism fueled by the idea - I don't know who is behind it, but an upsurge of very small vandalism edits randomly altering statistics [17] makes me think someone is systematically attacking us with an army of bots under a notion of proprietary rights that is fueled by such legislation.

Most importantly, we need to remember that an effort was made in the 1990s to impose database copyright in the U.S., and so long as there is an international industry that makes use of it, the threat is still there. We might only have weeks to find out and oppose such a bill if it is introduced, so we should be well-prepared in advance.

For all these reasons, I think that the WMF should lay out a position paper, with proper legal consultation, expressing its opposition to existing database copyright practices and explaining any risks or incidents affecting its users, which would urge the EU to contain the practice, and be suitable to be referenced and reposted widely in the event of any future US legislation that would threaten Wikipedia's operations. Wnt (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, the Spotify case is based around the argument that the playlists Minsitry of Sound creates constitutes a creative work, so unless my admittedly limited reading of that case is incorrect, it isn't really a database rights case but regular copyright. But on the overall point, I tend to agree. Database copyright could significantly and negatively impact many lists, and would hamper our ability to share information. Reso lute 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the source I cited said it was. I am no expert myself; I think the difference is that a court is reviewing the amount of "skill, labour and judgment" put in by MoS rather than the amount of "originality". Wnt (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't be sharing information you would be stealing it. John lilburne (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to be a wet blanket -- but I fear the concept that a database right would apply t independently created lists is a bit of a false issue ... the counties which recognize such rights do not apply them to such lists as may be created on a website, but rather to use of a privately created list then being used without consent of the person creating the list. The SCOTUS decisions based on telephone listings (Feist v. Rural(1991) etc.) are not ancient by any means and there was a legitimate question as to whether such listings were copyrightable prior to that ruling - it was not an "open and shut" case. Nor does the EU concept of "database rights" extend to simple compilation of facts readily available without use of that database. Thus - WMF has no reason to fret this one at all, nor ought it undertake any actions opposing what appears to be widely found other than in the US. It is also useful to note that some classes of database (medical records, etc.) are indeed protected under US law. Collect (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

While Im sure Collect did his/her homework, I'd rather side with Wnt and hope that the WMF has their legal team take some real time to consider how this may affect Wikipedia; and even if it does not affect us directly, Jimbo has, in my opinion, always seemed to be against extreme censorship even if it doesn't affect Wikipedia directly; he may yet speak on this matter himself and we'll see how he views this. I would say even more so than the WMF a few emails and friendly letters from Jimbo might catch some politician or bureaucrat's notice.Camelbinky (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand Collect's point that in theory we could create our own list of football statistics without ever consulting any list protected by database copyright. However, doing so would involve edits from hundreds of anonymous editors, any one of whom might consult the forbidden source after all. It would only require one IP to turn up both on the list of people who hit on the company's site and on our edit history for them to support a claim that we'd infringed them. You can't do clean room design with crowdsourced content! Wnt (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as the court is concerned, you can't conclusively prove you took material from a copyrighted source unless there was a specific citation. KonveyorBelt 18:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What are YOU interested in?

There was a thread recently regarding just how busy Jimmy Wales could possibly be and if he read and responded as himself. Turns out he responds as himself and reads everything himself (kind of obvious, but apparently it had to be clarified for some). That got me thinking- where else is Jimbo active on Wikipedia, so I checked the user contributions. I was surprised that with the exception of them being mostly biographies, there isn't any specific common categories (or types) or articles you work on. My question is basically- what interests do you have in regards to Wikipedia articles? Do you often just surf around on Wikipedia reading articles of any certain interest or even do so randomly? Just a curiousity question regarding "What Jimbo reads on Wikipedia". (oh, could be a neat subpage off your user page; if people actually care what Oprah reads why wouldn't editors and casual readers alike might be interested in what Jimbo recommends for reading on Wikipedia?)Camelbinky (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have an interest in BLPs generally but you must have overlooked one interest, which has toned down in the past couple of years, and that's the House of Lords. I think you'll find a lot of my biographical edits are in that general area. But in terms of what I read, well, that varies widely. I actually do a lot of Wikipedia reading offline, when I'm traveling. Looking at the history of my offline reader program, here are a few of the articles I've been reading lately: Mercury(II) fulminate, Ricin, Lily of the Valley, Automated external defibrillator, and Old Yeller. A barnstar to the first person who figures out what that means. (And when you do, it's a good opportunity to reflect on why I think privacy with respect to what one is reading on Wikipedia is so important - a competent analyst can tell a lot about a person, sometimes surprising things, by knowing their reading history.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in medicine and chemestry? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 18:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A fan of Breaking Bad, perhaps? -- Jodon | Talk 19:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You got it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Jesus! He got a Barnstar form Jimbo... cool :) Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. For anyone who hasn't watched it: Mercury fulminate, Ricin, Lily of the Valley, and AED are all featured in the series. And roughly in this order. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh Gosh! I forgot that one xP I've heard about that tv series, haven't seen it though. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you would probably have needed to have seen it to pick up on Jimbo's clues. I'm sure you get asked this a lot, but you're not Eve Hewson by any chance? -- Jodon | Talk 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the million dollar question! :D Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't a denial. :) There's my million dollar answer. -- Jodon | Talk 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, does Jimbo Wales take some credit (or blame) for everything everybody else does on Wikipedia? : ) Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's have this very clear... I am not Eve Hewson, Jordan Hewson or Ali Hewson. I have nothing to do with Bono or his family, except that he has been my favourite singer ever since I am 11 years old. Several people have asked me if I am Ali Hewson, so here is a no for that question, some friends say I look like her, but I am not that sure, she is 52 and I am way much younfer than her. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bono sings as well? Mercy me, and here I thought he was just a philanthropist. :P -- Jodon | Talk 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh :O. Bono is the lead singer of U2. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ohhh sarcasm is certainly wasted on the young. I happen to like some of U2's songs. Sigh. -- Jodon | Talk 20:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't understand your sarcasm at first, that's because English is not my native language. Sorry. Oh, we shouldn't be having this conversation on Jimbo's talk... this thread is about Jimbo's interests in Wikipedia. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry Jimbo. Now where's my barnstar? :D -- Jodon | Talk 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize as well Jimbo :'( Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The House of Lords? Very cool subject. I am becoming more and more interested in heraldry, and monarchs. I am also very interested in Hawaiian Royal biographies and history. Biographies are my main interest, but I like figures from history long passed.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales actually launched the article on the M-16 rifle. It differs somewhat from the current state. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Carrite: Nope, that's only the earliest surviving edit at that title. Many early edits have been lost, and there is some earlier page history at the title "M-16A" (which shows that the article was clearly created by a newby). Anyhow, Jimbo has described himself as taking "a strong interest in firearms policy and legal issues, especially constitutional issues", and has made many edits related to this subject. But also se his last post in this thread in archive 1 of his article's talk page. Graham87 08:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  - I have had no interest in this issue in several years. I learned what I wanted to know. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But then I'm left thinking...why Old Yeller? Nostalgia? It doesn't fit with the others. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Saul compares Jesse to Old Yeller in Breaking Bad. It does fit. -- Jodon | Talk 09:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My interests, when strung together....show my ADD. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

@Graham. Wow, those are redlinks to a potential bonanza of documents for WP's institutional history. Does anyone wise in the ways of the Wiki (and sporting advanced permissions) have a way of telling whether any of the following redlinks possibly survive?

Wikipedia_commentary/A_poem_of_sorts_in_narrative_style...

Wikipedia_commentary/A_pome_of_sorts_in_narrative_style...

Wikipedia_commentary/Breadth_and_depth

Wikipedia_commentary/Making_Wikipedia_profitable

Wikipedia_commentary/Modular_content_creation

Wikipedia_commentary/Disability_Etiquette

Wikipedia_commentary/Wiki_is_not_paper

Wikipedia_commentary/Two_Main_Theories_of_History

Wikipedia_commentary/Should_Wikipedia_Use_Profanity

Wikipedia_commentary/When_should_I_link_externally

Wikipedia_commentary/The_future_of_Wikipedia

Wikipedia_commentary/The_best_president_to_have_a_beer_with

Wikipedia_commentary/A_definition_of_Philosophy

Wikipedia_commentary/Please_help_build_911_Attack_memorial

Wikipedia_commentary/Ethics_vs._Morals

Wikipedia_commentary/Kill_the_Stub_Pages

Wikipedia_commentary/Improving_Portal_Pages

Wikipedia_commentary/Internet_Authority_Disease

Wikipedia_commentary/Use_pinyin_not_Wade-Giles

Wikipedia_commentary/Wikipedia_Anti-Rules

Wikipedia_commentary/Get_rid_of_subpages_entirely

Wikipedia_commentary/Proposal_for_an_Encyclopedian_Recycling_Endeavor

Wikipedia_commentary/Faith_vs_science_with_regard_to_the_Wikipedia

Wikipedia_commentary/Middle_East_Reconciliation

Wikipedia_commentary/Project_Sourceberg

Wikipedia_commentary/Belief_in_God_spectrum

Wikipedia_commentary/Drawbacks_of_Philosophical_Understandings

Wikipedia_commentary/The_Wikipedia_Community

Wikipedia_commentary/Simple_View_of_Ethics_and_Morals

Wikipedia_commentary/WikipediAhimsa

Wikipedia_Commentary/Ethics_or_Morals

Fascinating. Carrite (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Answering my own question, it does appear that at least some of this has survived on WP Meta. See, for example: Talk:Is Wikipedia an Experiment in Anarchy. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as you've probably figured out, pretty much all of it survives (albeit in the form of soft redirects to Meta, plus edit history) at the Nostalgia Wikipedia. To be honest, I think that's a perfectly good home for a lot of that text, which is why I haven't expended much effort in transferring (or re-transferring) it here. Graham87 06:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Recherché talks about recherché topics

In reviewing those Meta pages (such as "meta:Talk:Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy"), I did think it was interesting how Jimbo advised to keep the meta-discussions out of the Wikipedia space, due to distractions, especially when they used words like "recherché" (\rə-ˌsher-ˈshā, -ˈsher-ˌ\ : "unusual and not understood by most people"). In discussing the scalability of WP, the users mentioned the need for personal lists of "wp:RecentChanges" which seems to be the current wp:Watchlist feature. However, some of the discussions did seem to be worrying about problems which would occur only years later, and perhaps actually at a reduced level. I guess in general, people prefer to talk about whatever tangents interest them, and that is another reason to also focus on the major concerns of the readership, where the major topics would address some long-term issues. With WP software topics and templates, many times people have requested some complex template feature, and when written, then only a handful of people have actually used it (for a few days!). The quality guru W. Edwards Deming would respond only to consulting requests when he was asked several times, in earnest, perhaps as a way to avoid fanciful notions asking for his assistance. The wild, tangent topics can be interesting, but we have seen exotic topics and exotic software distract from the central issues which affect more users or readers. -Wikid77 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid Editing

(Note from Jimbo: I want to let this conversation run unimpeded but I wanted to set out my views in a way that I think will help clarify and focus the discussion. I have long favored the term 'paid advocacy' over 'paid editing' because there are some perfectly innocent forms of editing that involve people being paid (for example academic projects). But I have recently come to the more refined position that we should say 'paid advocacy editing' to make clear that it is the editing of articles that matters - I don't mind one bit if a PR firm is transparent, open, and honest, and comes to the talk page of an article to make suggestions or complaints, complete with sources, etc. By narrowing our focus to just 'paid advocacy editing' we can eliminate a lot of useless side noise questions that I feel the advocates of corruption (because that's what it is) throw up to confuse the issue. In terms of what policies I think English Wikipedia should implement, I think it is pretty easy. Define the narrowest possible policy to start to hit at the worst offenders, and then expand it over time if and when new problems arise. Arguments that we can't ban X because people will still do X aren't very convincing. We ban vandalism and people still do it. In society we ban shoplifting and murder, and people still do them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC))

As far as I can see, there's already a fairly wide slice of behaviour prohibited under WP:NPOV. Is there any behaviour that isn't covered by that policy that you believe also needs to be prohibited? Or is it merely the case that we need to enforce the polic(y/ies) we already have? Wily D 09:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We could simply have a rule: 'Be Good' and everything bad would go against that, too. :-) No, WP:NPOV is not sufficient in and of itself to cover these issues. One of the fallacious arguments that you'll see in discussion of this topic is a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, there are other problems with POV-pushing editors. Some of them are as bad or worse. That's not relevant to policy making about this issue, though. Murder is much worse than shoplifting, but that doesn't mean we don't have laws against shoplifting. (I am not saying by the way that you are making this fallacious argument! I'm just saying... look out for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But do we need more rules or simply less tolerance. Murder vs. Murder for Hire are both crimes. We don't need separate policies but more perhaps more severe punishments. Advocacy editing is not uncommon at all. It should not be tolerated though. I don't think the compensation piece should matter as much as the overall message that advocacy is not purpose. We can be less tolerant of certain types of advocacy but creating separate policies seems to imply that certain advocacy is okay as long as no money is involved. I believe that is flat wrong. Labeling someone a paid advocate when we would be reluctant to label someone an unpaid advocate seems counter to the core of what NPOV and AGF is about. --DHeyward (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing, as we know, is becoming more and more of a long-term menace to Wikipedia, and indeed is becoming an existential threat to Wikipedia as a trustable neutral encyclopedia. Something must be done to eradicate it. (I am aware that it cannot be entirely eradicated, but it should be eradicated as nearly as possible.) There are two RFCs currently being considered, one to ban all paid advocacy, and the other to require paid editors to disclose. It appears that both RFCs will be closed out as No Consensus. The first proposal, the more extreme, is opposed for various reasons, including that some disclosed paid editors are effective contributors, and effective enforcement of such a rule would rely heavily on outing the offending editors. The second, the less extreme, is opposed on various grounds, including that it is not sufficient, and that it is only a restatement of the conflict of interest policy. As a result, it appears that the English Wikipedia community agrees that there is a problem, but cannot agree on what a solution is. Consensus is often elusive, and this is no exception.

(I would argue that the policy on WP:OUTING should be modified in one detail, to provide some procedure for the private outing of paid editors, not on talk pages, but to OTRS or WMF. That is my opinion.)

The ways forward are to fight the threat of paid editing with the existing inadequate tools of policies of the English Wikipedia, or to turn to a higher authority. That higher authority can be either Jimbo Wales, as a god-king, a role which he no longer uses, or the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). The WMF Board does not require consensus. It votes. I ask that Jimbo Wales refer the need to fight paid editing to the WMF. WMF should, in my opinion, take a two-part approach. First, formulate a meta policy, across all Wikipedias, stating that paid editing is not permitted, and that undisclosed paid editors should be globally banned. (The so-called paid editors who are effective contributors are not editing articles on which they have a COI. They post to talk pages.) Second, WMF should consult with counsel as to whether legal action against Wiki-PR is in order. It is not permitted to make legal threats on Wikipedia, but WMF should consider whether to make legal threats via US postal mail.

Action needs to be taken against paid editing. Current policy is better than nothing, but is not sufficient against the existential threat of Wiki-PR to the integrity of Wikipedia. Since the English Wikipedia community is not coming to a "consensus", which is often elusive anyway, action has to be taken by the WMF, at least in the form of a meta policy, and possibly legal action. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

First we must distinguish paid editing from PR. Paid editing can be done solo and is not detrimental to the overall health of the wiki, while PR firms are not here to build an encyclopedia.

Consensus has been so far not to implement any proposal, though I see no reason why not one could be passed as long as it isn't too radical on either side.

private outing of paid editors. By private, do you mean in SPIs or similar venues, between admins only, or in ANI or Arbcom?

We need not "fight the threat". The problem can easily be solved without name-calling and hostility. As for legal threats by WMF, they are free to pursue whatever they wish as long as it doesn't spill over into the wiki.

Lastly, it is not the WMF's job to force or impose unreasonable policies on en-wiki. They have better things to do. For more information, see my essay on COI editing. KonveyorBelt 01:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps a policy on PR editing of Wikipedia, explicitly stating that paying third-party firms to edit Wikipedia, is needed. As to private outing, I meant only in SPI or to OTRS, and without posting to talk pages or Wikipedia pages at all. Any posting to ANI is very visible, and could do real harm if false, even before it is redacted or suppressed. Any reporting of improper COI to ArbCom should only be by email, not to ArbCom pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary to recognize the threat. Reasonable individuals can disagree over how to fight it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not the job of WMF to impose unreasonable policies on en-wiki. However, if en-wiki cannot formulate reasonable policies because of lack of consensus, reasonable meta policies may be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps the WMF should publicly state their opinions on paid editing without making a policy yet,and see if the community thinks it is reasonable. KonveyorBelt 01:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to see Jimbo give his opinions on any new policies that should or should not be made. KonveyorBelt 04:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically it sounds like you would want something on the order of:

Wikipedia editors shall neither solicit nor accept payment for editing articles on the behalf of the person or organisation making any such payments, whether for the purpose of lauding or denigrating any person or organisation. Employees of any such person or organisation are expected to fully comply with all Wikipedia policies including those affecting conflict of interest editing.

Sound sufficient, anyone? I oppose "Paypedia" and I also oppose "out anyone I disagree with" as being intrinsically wrong and deleterious to the initial concept of the project. Collect (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a decent start but I'd also want to include the 'carrot' part which says that if you identify honestly and transparently, we support your right as a paid advocate to engage with editors on the talk page to make suggestions or complaints.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks like something with which I agree. I would like to know what Jimbo thinks. I know that he has expressed his concerns about paid editing in general and undisclosed paid editing in particular (the latter being an existential threat to Wikipedia). I still think that WMF needs to make cross-language policy, since the English Wikipedia community does not have consensus (consensus being elusive) on what policy needs to be made. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I always try to be careful to avoid the term 'paid editing' and use instead the term 'paid advocacy'. The problem with the term 'paid editing' is that it is too broad. Imagine if a University encourages professors as a part of their public service to edit Wikipedia on areas in which they have expertise. That isn't problematic, and it isn't advocacy. (Indeed, it is something we want to encourage!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It is a useful terminological distinction. I agree that professors and other experts should be encouraged to edit articles on which they are experts, as long as they are editing from a neutral point of view. (Professors who are receiving grants have COI issues if they edit for the grant sponsors.) Are you then in agreement that paid advocacy is a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia and that the policies need to clarify that it is not permitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hence the deliberate "laud or denigrate" in the proposal making clear that neutral edits not seeking to promote or denigrate any person place or group are not where the problem is. A University employee, moreover, seeking to denigrate anther school or to promote his own university should, in fact, be limited, and is already covered under the COI policy. Edits in their area of expertise, as long as they do not try to "laud or denigrate" another person or organisation are fine under this proposal. The other concern is already dealt with by the COI policies etc., so are you certain they need to be duplicated in this one? I consider the new idea that the WMF should dictate policies is unusual for Wikipedia, and likely offensive to much of the community. Collect (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The "laud or denigrate" makes clear that the most important problem is with POV pushing, but we should not be complacent about allegedly neutral editing by paid advocates, for at least two reasons. First, of course paid advocates will argue that it is merely factual to insert information about their product being ranked number one by USA Today (or whatever), and in a very narrow sense that's true but in a broader sense a full rounded editorial judgment by an unbiased editor will likely come to a different conclusion about the relative importance of such claims. Second, paid advocates editing articles directly gives rise to an appearance of impropriety which will be damaging to our reputation externally, and to our moral spirits internally.

I also caution against the idea that we should not have a new policy if something is already implicitly banned by policy. The point is that we know that we have recently had a massive problem and a lot of dickering and rules lawyering claiming that it might be ok. We need a clear, sharp, pointed, and direct policy to give us an easy and appropriate tool to combat this kind of behavior which will tend to bring disrepute on the encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If we're reading your thoughts on this matter correctly, it appears the goal is to steer paid advocacates to the discussion pages of articles rather than the article themsleves. Correct me if I am mistaken. The wording of such a policy might be: "Paid advocacy is relegated to talk pages only. If you are being paid by any entity to alter the content of any article, you must present such arguments on the talk pages of the articles, and seek community approval for such edits. Paid advocates must present neutral and verifiable evidence that their edit requests are accurate. Neutral editors will then review the evidence and determine whether it is admissible." I personally would take it one step further and that would be to ban paid advocacy even from talk pages. How might you wish to see this sort of policy worded?--MONGO 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Still can't wrap my thoughts around the belief that paid editing isn't going to be found to violate the core policy of NPOV. Of course the example of the benign edits by the specialist done on college company time to enhance the factual accuracy of some articles should probably be considered to be harmless. But there is a difference between that situation and someone hired specifically to edit...my belief is that in the latter case, the fiscal transaction will equate with an expected result....and that seems to lead inexorably to issues with NPOV and COI.--MONGO 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm only a postdoctoral fellow, not a professor, but I'm explicitly paid to do public outreach in my area of expertise (I'm an astronomer). This often includes public talks, demonstrations of telescopes, letting children handle meteorites, etc., but would include things like editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, since much of the money for astronomy comes from public (and private) grants driven almost entirely by public interest, one of the reasons we do outreach is to justify our existing funding/generate future funding. It's very difficult to imagine a proposal that addresses who a person is, rather than their behaviour (more or less, whether they're pursuing goals that are congruent or incongruent with Wikipedia's), that would still allow someone like me to edit. Wily D 17:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For me this poses no particular dilemma. I think it is very easy to imagine a proposal that addresses this issue if we focus on 'paid advocacy editing' rather than the broader question of 'paid editing'. For a postdoctoral fellow in astronomy to edit about astronomy and to do so partly with the motive of raising the level of public interest in astronomy is completely unproblematic. Where it would be problematic would be if you started POV pushing in, say, articles relating to science funding to argue for more funding for astronomy, etc. But that's not really difficult for anyone to understand. A cleaner case to consider, with real world implications, would be museum curators writing about things in the museum about which they are expert. That's fine (assuming neutrality and everything else is ok) and very different from editing the article ABOUT the museum itself to include rave reviews, etc. Advocacy is sometimes borderline, of course, and whenever it is borderline, someone with a conflict of interest should bend over backwards to avoid even a hint of impropriety.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that even those "harmless" edits give rise to an appearance of impropriety and should be avoided and at a minimum strongly discouraged for paid advocates. There are better ways. I have never yet seen a case of someone escalating through the proper channels all the way, not getting a satisfactory (from the perspective of NPOV and quality) result. Making suggestions on the talk page and escalating to the appropriate wikiproject, noticeboard, OTRS, or even directly to me always works.

Here's an analogy that may make this more clear to those who are struggling with the concept 'appearance of impropriety'. Here is a famous historical court case: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation. Suppose it were discovered that one of the sitting judges was, undisclosed, a paid consultant to assist Microsoft with legal issues. Would we find it a very plausible defense that all of the judges rulings were open for review by anyone reading the case, and that it could not be proven that the result was biased? No - even if we can imagine, in some hypothetical way, that a paid advocate might put aside those considerations in a particular situation - well, as a matter of good public policy we should ban such conduct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm very glad you've returned to the issue and hope you remain active in it. One aspect of paid editing that disturbs me is corporate representatives creating article about their companies through the Articles for Creation process. This is presently allowed but in my opinion should not be. My concern is that this elevates to attention small companies of limited notability by creating what is in effect "advertorials," sponsored content, without proper disclosure to readers. It skews the content of Wikipedia in favor of those entities that desire publicity, as opposed to competitors and others not so inclined. I've mentioned this before on your talk page, and you responded sympathetically to the concern I raised, and I wanted to do so again. I think something needs to be done about this. Since there is no consensus on dealing with this or any other paid editing issue by the community, I think that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the WMF as Robert pointed out above. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My little proposal:

Paid advocacy is tolerated as long as the employee clearly and explicitly states their conflict of interest beforehand on their userpage or another venue. However Wikipedia editors shall not secretively accept payment for editing.

Short, sweet, and clear enough for people to get the message. What do you guys think? KonveyorBelt 17:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is dreadfully inadequate. What it fails to acknowledge is that one someone has openly declared as a paid advocate (a very good thing) there is no reason for them to additionally go ahead and edit articles directly. They can and should edit the talk pages, and their own userspace pages, to make suggestions and recommendations. But they should leave the actual article space edits to people who are independent. This works very well and is the right way forward - and prevents scandal for both the PR firm and the client.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is more or less the current practice. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Current practice is typically to ban people who are involved in paid advocacy editing. The policy is a bit wobbly due in no small part to lobbying by those who are engaged in the practice, but it is not very well tolerated and for good reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just saw this. I don't know. What I've observed is that editors engaged in paid advocacy are not banned unless they make a pest of themselves in other ways, such as sockpuppeting, since paid editing is not banned by policy. For example, just a short while ago a paid editor engaged in paid advocacy editing against a particular medical product was busted for sockpuppeting. That editor was blocked for one week, despite having engaged in both paid editing and sockpuppeting. (And, I see, did not admit to a COI when asked about it.) Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently for some it needs clarification, and if it is the "practice" it needs to become the policy. KonveyorBelt 20:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that perhaps both the terms "paid editing" and "paid advocacy" are too broad. I agree that paid editing, such as by professors in their areas of expertise, is desirable if it is NPOV. On the other hand, and Jimbo has implied agreement, we have several respected and responsible paid advocates, such as User:Arturo at BP, who do not edit, but who post to talk pages providing information that can be edited by NPOV editors. I think that what we are trying to forbid is "paid advocacy editing". There appear to be two points of view on paid advocacy editing. The first is that paid advocates should declare their affiliation and may then go ahead and edit. That seems to be what Coretheapple is saying is the current practice. Jimbo appears to be saying, in response to Konveyer Belt, and I agree, that paid advocacy editing, either when declared or when undisclosed, should not be permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, Jimbo can hat this discussion as it is over. Oh, and while he's at it, he can rename Wikipedia "Corporatepedia." Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have in fact started a MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bounty board (2nd nomination) DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Very Sad to note it has come to medical articles also those campaigning against Lasik or Lasar Eye Surgery are using negative paid Advisory .They paid money and recruiting editor to edit the Lasik article and promote the a clear minority view of Morris Waxler who wants all Laser devices recalled on what has been used by 28 million people worldwide.Note the page LASIK was once a WP:Good Article now it has neutrality and citation tag.Have raised it Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Integrity#Lasik_article here .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I just stumbled on the Lasik situation. It should be studied, as it is an example of how paid editing can be deployed against people, corporations and products. That is an angle that I hadn't considered: that paid editing is potentially a two-edged sword.Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Details

Jimbo is saying, and I agree, that paid advocacy editing should be explicitly prohibited. However, that will have two consequences, one desirable, and one undesirable, that must be addressed. The desirable consequence is that responsible paid advocates will declare their affiliation and post to talk pages. Then NPOV editors, taking both the facts and NPOV in mind, can update the article pages and improve their quality. That is good. The undesirable consequence is that paid advocacy editors will conceal their affiliation. To be sure, that will not be new, but is already the problem that we are trying to address. The question is how to deal with undisclosed paid advocacy editing, within Wikipedia. On the one hand, undisclosed advertising violates federal (US) law, and so can, in extreme cases, by dealt with by law enforcement. On the other hand, paid advocacy editing done from outside the United States is almost certainly outside the reach of US law, and besides Wikipedia should be able to enforce its own policies without relying exclusively on US law enforcement. The problem is that there appears to be a conflict between the policy against paid advocacy editing and the policy against outing. This means that there needs to be a mechanism for persons with knowledge or reasonable non-idle suspicion that an editor is a paid advocacy editor to report their concerns other than on-Wiki. There should be a mechanism to report paid advocacy editing to OTRS or to the ArbCom. Only if a user is blocked by "highly trusted" personnel for paid advocacy editing should their affiliation be published as the reason for the block. Such blocks will lead to sockpuppetry, but sockpuppetry can be detected from the quacking. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC) CommentsRobert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Next Steps

There so far has not been a consensus on the English Wikipedia as to what to do about paid advocacy editing. Anyone can propose a restated policy, but it is likely to get no consensus. (If a consensus can be reached, that is good.) I propose that the next step is for Jimbo to go to the WMF Board and ask them to adopt a policy against paid advocacy editing which could be meta to all Wikipedias. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you are advocating this- I cant get people to agree with me, so if I can just convince Jimbo to convince the WMF, I can thwart the will of the Community-at-Large... Do you see a problem with that? I truly hope you work within the system to watch the contributions of editors, wherever they come from, and not focus on why the edits are being made. Focus on violations of existing policy. For if Jimbo and the WMF agrees, this sets such a terrible precedent and eliminates any idea that English Wikipedia has the right to make any !rules regarding its policies on editing. This sets the precedent that that if the WMF one day wants to eliminate anonymous IP editing, they could do so with no consultation of en:wiki. We all saw with VE how so-called "unilateral" decisions by the WMF go over on here. If the Community will not agree with you, then perhaps you should review your arguments and present them from a different angle, instead of "Mom said no, so I'm going to Dad" which is what your next step happens to be.Camelbinky (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The WMF is not here to force unreasonable blanket policies on Wikipedia and it shouldn't be doing so. KonveyorBelt 19:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus for a new policy regarding editors. However, a WMF clarification on the TOS that already exist might provide avenues for addressing the real problem. No one disagrees that the army of meat/sockpuppets being paid to own certain articles violates a number of principles/policies. Clarifying that the WMF views it as a TOS violation that might reach legal steps if it continues would be the logical place for WMF intervention. It's not so much what action happens on WP as much as what action WMF will take outside of WP. --DHeyward (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will try to address the three comments in sequence.

First, as to Camelbinky's criticism, that is not exactly what I was saying, but it is close to what I was saying. The "will of the Community-at-Large" is not paramount. Building an encyclopedia is paramount. There are many things that "Wikipedia is not" as to content; they are not important. There are also many things that Wikipedia is not, as to process. Wikipedia is not a democracy, or an experiment in democracy, or an anarchy (Usenet is), or an experiment in anarchy. There are also some things that Wikipedia is, as to process, for the time being, but that are not essential to its mission. Wikipedia is an experiment in community consensus. Experiments do not always work, or they may usually work but not always. However, Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an experiment in the electronic collaborative building of an encyclopedia. If community consensus (which I think is too often a will-o-the-wisp) cannot solve an existential threat to the encyclopedia, something else must address that threat, and paid advocacy editing has become an existential threat to the neutrality of the encyclopedia. I am saying that if the consensus of the English Wikipedia cannot develop policies that will address the existential threat of companies that advertise that they do non-neutral paid editing, then it must be addressed in some other way. It is unfortunate that it appears that community consensus cannot address the threat of paid advocacy editing (and of companies that advertise that they do paid advocacy editing, and therefore are admitting that their mission is to corrupt the neutrality of Wikipedia). However, WMF is a higher authority than community consensus. If a gentle nudge by WMF can get the English Wikipedia community to form a useful consensus, I would prefer that over direct intervention, but I would prefer direct intervention over the corruption of the neutrality of Wikipedia due to a lack of consensus on what to do about it.

Second, Konveyor Belt says that WMF should not be forcing unreasonable blanket policies on Wikipedia. I hope that that is not necessary. WMF can adopt blanket policies over the various Wikipedias. If the English Wikipedia, due to lack of community consensus, cannot adopt a reasonable policy to check paid advocacy editing (and advertised paid advocacy editing), then it may be necessary for WMF to impose a reasonable blanket policy, using their own judgment of reasonableness. No one owns Wikipedia, but the WMF owns Wikipedia.

Third, DHewyard says that a clarification of the Terms of Service (TOS) might provide an avenue for adding the real problem. I agree.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Robert, with all due respect, the WMF also believed they could roll out VE and the community of en:wiki could do nothing about it because they own Wikipedia, as you put it. They were wrong. Honestly, you seem on a witch hunt claiming that all paid advocates are out to ruin Wikipedia's NPOV. That is hardly the case. There are those out there that want to work within the system, and often I tell communities "hey, get involved with Wikipedia on articles about your (city, county, town, neighborhood, local park, etc) as way to have something really great to link to". I see chambers of commerce, neighborhood groups, city govts, all get excited about that idea, it's fun, it's educational, they get their kids involved. It's something they can feel proud about because it's Wikipedia and people will SEE it, whereas a BID, CoC, or neighborhood group website may not get even half the hits or even 1/5. COI and paid advocates can be a tool to be harnessed as long as they play by the !rules that matter. As you point out we're here to build an encyclopedia; tell me- how is banning those being paid to write an article solely for that reason more to cause of writing an encyclopedia, instead of banning them only when they violate NPOV, RS, NOR, etc...? Albert Einstein was paid to write an encyclopedia article once (probably because at that time he was the only legitimate source for the topic). Be honest- you have a problem with people getting paid to edit and you don't think anyone should get paid at all to edit, regardless of what or why. If that is the case, be honest, and then drop your proposal.Camelbinky (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

On the matter of Visual Editor, WMF was wrong, not because they overrode the community of en-wiki, so much as because they ignored the community because they were listening to their employees. I agree that WMF was wrong. The actual nature of their error is complex and technical. They listened to software developers without also listening to software testers who represent the users. Also, I am not saying that paid advocates are out to ruin Wikipedia's NPOV. I am not even saying that paid advocacy article editors are out to ruin Wikipedia's NPOV. I am saying that allowing paid advocacy article editors will, inevitably, ruin Wikipedia's NPOV. The paid advocate editors are not trying to do that, although they don't care; what they are trying to do is to present their clients in the best way, which means skipping NPOV. There are many responsible paid advocates, such as USER:Arturo at BP. They do not edit articles. They post to article talk pages. What I am saying is that those who edit the article directly on behalf of their employer or client without disclosure are acting unethically (and illegally if in the US), and those who edit directly on behalf of their employer with disclosure are still creating work for neutral editors. That is why I want to ban "paid advocacy article editing", which is a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia, and if we, the community, can't ban it, then WMF should, because if no one does, then, as Coretheapple warns, we do become Corporatepedia, and we are no longer what we were. I have never said that no one should be paid to edit. I have agreed that professors should be encouraged to edit in areas that they are paid to teach. I have already stated my position more than once, but maybe Camelbinky misunderstood or oversimplified it. I do not like having someone tell me what I think when they tell me that contrary to what I have written. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, count me in as in agreement with Robert McClenon that the time has come for you to ask the WMF Board for a no-nonsense hard-line position on this matter. As a rank-and-file editor who believes that paid advocacy editing is a slippery slope as I stated earlier here, I thank you for your subsequent leadership on this issue in writing this current post. You have my deep respect and best wishes; there are other issues that face the 'pedia but this one, in my view, is the top priority. Sue Gardener's recent press release is also a good first step, but needs prompt follow-up. I believe the harshest measures possible, including legal ones if need be regarding "terms of use", are needed to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, and while I share the concerns expressed regarding WMF top-down decisions and am no fan of VE, it's my contention that extraordinary measures, regarding the corrupting influence of money, need to be taken quickly. Jus da fax 00:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood, though I may have oversimplified (sorry, but with my political science background, I tend to "spin", I'll attempt not to). Your idea is still misguided. There... are... already... mechanisms in place to handle the POV editing, regardless of whether the editor is a paid or not. Many editors have already said so, I don't understand what you think needs to be done or CAN be done by the WMF that will not make it harder to find and fix problems made by driving those paid editors underground. How about you put all this energy you're using on this proposal into fighting good old fashioned vandalism, POV editing, and helping newbies? New policies are all nice and fine, but they have to be effective and they have to add to something that existing policy doesn't already address. Example- we can go and put in new laws making it harsher and harsher on speeders on the road, at some point you hit a point of diminishing returns on the amount of money you spend on enforcement. In Wikipedia terms this policy proposal of yours would require resources of manpower-hours we don't have. The WMF isn't going to send their employees to patrol Wikipedia (if they do we become a police state and good editors will leave), and editors here have better things to do, and those that decide "my time is better spent on finding, outing, and banning paid editors instead of actually editing articles" are not helping the encyclopedia, we already have lots of editors (hey, myself too) who don't edit as often as they should for whatever reason other things on Wikipedia have interested them. Please, seriously reconsider adding another thing that can be used as a reason for driving actual editors into non-encyclopedic bureaucratic nonsense. You mentioned above what we are and we aren't, well- we aren't a bureaucracy.Camelbinky (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Working with museums...

Hi Jimbo and stalkers! Can anyone direct me to where the WMF and Wikipedia may be working with museums to further information? I am interested in working with two museums. The Bishop Museum in Oʻahu Hawaii and the Crocker Art Museum in Sacrmento. I want to be sure and work through whatever workgroups and organizations we already have set-up, if any and if not, how best to proceed in working directly with museums. Anyone have any suggestions?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you checked out Wikipedia:GLAM? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is what I was looking for. Thanks Liz!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Mark! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark Miller. I am sure you meant the Crocker Art Museum though a museum dedicated to Joe Cocker would be wonderful. I love your plan as I visit the Crocker often and returned recently from Hawaii. SarahStierch knows quite a bit about working with museums, so may have some good advice for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes I do. Just one note, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't work with GLAMs. It's the volunteers that do :) SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely Sarah. When I spoke with the Bishop Museum the other day I could not remember the GLAM project but was clear I was working as a volunteer. This is exactly my point, to find the specific projects in hopes to work together with the museums to find how best to share what they can. With the Crocker, I am interested in finding out about their own scanning projects on California art, and to locate primary, secondary and tertiary sources to cover the artists themselves such as Edwin Deakin. My hope is to begin many more artist biographies of California artists in their collection and to upload far superior images than what I have been able to do myself, such as Charles Christian Nahl's

(1872).--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on policy regarding COI and whatever paid editing policy says today for this specific instance

With the recent talk, in many different places, about editing for pay and all that, I would like some clarification on what I need to do and where I need to do this- I would like to work on getting Fulton, Missouri to at least GA status and to create and get to at least GA status Downtown Fulton Historic District; however I have a COI in that I will be working with the merchant's association, my business is a member of the relevant Chamber of Commerce, and I have a financial stake in a website that will benefit from increased interest in Fulton, Missouri, though not DIRECTLY from a Wikipedia article as my website will NOT EVER be used in any manner on any article. All interested parties that I have spoken to think having Wikipedia articles that are informative and can be linked to from their organizations would be a great asset; what exactly should I do first, and what can I tell those that want to join Wikipedia and edit these articles as far as where to "register" their COI and how to do so without being assaulted with "You're doing this because you have a vested financial stake" or "You're getting paid! BLOCK!".Camelbinky (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This one is very easy. First, disclose (as you have done here) any conflict of interest. Second, refrain from editing the article directly in article space. Work on it as a sub-page of your user page, inviting others to assist by talking to them on the talk page, or if the changes you would like to see are relatively small, it could be possible to work on the talk page itself, suggesting new sections. Invite an editor with wide respect in the community - preferably one who is strongly opposed to paid advocacy editing - to look over the work and make the actual changes to the article, if in their own independent editorial judgment the changes look good.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you are just imagining things that are not in any proposal. Taking your question at face value, I'd ask you to consider two questions "Is somebody paying me to do this?" and "Am I advocating for anything?" It doesn't look like that is involved in the above, so please calm down. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if the editing Camelbinky describes would not fall afoul of a narrowly constructed proposal, it is best practice and more sensible to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Avoid the appearance of impropriety" seems very similar to scope creep, as used here. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This emphasizes something that was brought to my attention recently: that along with mandatory COI declarations on talk pages, there is a need for absolute protection for those playing by the rules (NPOV + declaration of COI) from harassment by anti-paid editing extremists. Carrite (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. WikiExperts and WIkiPR have both (I think) said they didn't declare their COI partly because of the harassment it attracts. Both have now agreed to do so, so we should protect them from undue harassment. If we don't, they'll have little choice but to return to clandestine editing.

We should also look at a complementary adjustment of some kind that ensures their proposals get addressed in a timely manner. Several people have mooted a pool of professional reviewers, one (or more) of which is randomly assigned to oversee each COI proposal. Don't know what I think of this, but it might work. Not sure where the funding would come from, or how we pick the reviewers. Anyway, the present "system" for working with COI editors (WP:AFC and begging on user talk pages) is woefully inadequate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - a workable way forward is to ensure that there is a carrot as well as a stick, and indeed the carrot is much more important. I'm not sure if you think NPOV + declaration of COI is sufficient... I don't. I think it is important to refrain from article-space editing as well. But it is absolutely correct to say that we should welcome and thank people for openly declaring affiliations that may give rise to concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This can be carried to absurdities: I have a competing financial interest with any article about my part of Brooklyn. My house is in a historical district there, and its value depends on the general public esteem and attention paid to commercial , cultural, and geographic subjects in the area, and notable residents, In particular. can I write an article about our local public library? In fact, I also have a monetary interest in the financial well-being of all parts of NYCity, NY State, and the US government. And also in all of the companies my retirement fund has invested in. I think I can be objective about all of these. But what I cannot be objective about is articles about the political group I sympathize most with--and in fact I avoid articles about it. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, almost any rule can be carried to absurdities. One might as well go even one further step forward: we all benefit from the world being a better educated place and therefore more prosperous place so any good work in Wikipedia may benefit us financially in some sense. We can notice that this is absurdity and that it really has no bearing on the issue under discussion, which is paid advocacy editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Avoid the appearance of impropriety" means "the limits are more than the rule says". "Don't carry to absurdities" means "don't go too far past what the rule says". These don't go together well at all--you could just as well argue that he should avoid writing about his public library because although he probably could write about it objectively, not doing so avoids the appearance of impropriety. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What can we do about paid advocacy?

A couple of sections above Jimbo said "Arguments that we can't ban X because people will still do X aren't very convincing," and then he demolished that type of logic.

I'm concerned about a related fallacious argument "There's nothing that we can do about paid advocacy, so we just have to accept it." I believe that there is a lot that we can do, but that nobody has really tried to stop it. Writing new policies is fine, but ultimately admins and arbs are going to have to enforce the rules, and for whatever reasons they haven't enforced similar rules that could have gone a long way towards stopping it.

What I'd like to see is a list of possible steps the community or the Board could take that would make a real dent in paid advocacy here. I don't think any one step would be enough, but we should consider the full range of what steps are possible. So this is in the line of Brain Storming. Any ideas can be considered (and later rejected, or kept in reserve if needed). I know that some folks will cry that taking any of these steps will be the end of Wikipedia as we know it. Fine, but please put the objections in the subsection below, and leave the top of the section for ideas that might help solve the problem. Eight of my ideas follow, and other should feel free to add other ideas. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

automatically ban firms that advertise or send unsolicited e-mails that they provide editing services on Wikipedia, or who advertise that they will pay editors for writing on Wikipedia. This should be almost self-enforcing.
change the terms of use to specifically prohibit the insertion of adverts or other commercial messages.
hire one person at the WMF to work solely on tracking down paid advocates (there's too much to do for the volunteers)
formally require that admins, crats, arbs, etc, cannot be paid for any services, including plain editing, on Wikipedia. Have them make a clear declaration that they will not accept any money for any such services (going forward). This should be required by the Board and apply to all WMF projects.
have a place on Wikipedia to report suspected advertising - we can at least get a record of it and patterns would likely show up.
Do something that's mostly symbolic, like sponsoring a conference on the problem and invite academics, PR practitioners, FTC lawyers, Wikipedians, etc. to discuss the problem and publish the proceedings. It would certainly become very clear that nobody would be willing to support the way paid advocacy is done now.
Make notability standards stricter for companies - it looks like millions of companies could qualify under the current standards - additional standards (on top of general notability standards) might be a) independently audited financial statements available online, b) more than 50 employees, c) more than $50 million in revenue. That should reduce the potential number of articles on companies to less than 500,000 - a number we could conceivably handle.
Let advocates know that they must be in compliance with U.S. law on disclosing advertising, in particular the Federal Trade Commission's guidelines on the law Endoresment Guidelines and its Dot Com disclosures:How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising
Support - Except for points 4 and 7, these can be global across all Wikipedias. Point 7 has to do with notability, which varies across wikis. As to point 4, different wikis have different structures of functionaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam has infrastructure in place for reporting and addressing spam; no reason to re-invent the wheel. Wily D 07:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't WP:Spam only about external links? I'm think of something more for other types of advertising. Is there a place to report (and systematically store the reports) for various types of ads. Just to give an example, I randomly selected 2 articles from Category:Foreign exchange companies and the worst offender was Beta 2 Limited. Obviously written by the owner and the 2 secondary sources cited don't talk about the company, only on the owner's opinions on unrelated matters. Looks like an ad to me. So I know I can take this to AfD and that AfD is fairly complicated. If I was a newby I wouldn't know even that. So is there a place to report this?

I'm thinking about a project - perhaps named WP:Report ads - with a table that anybody can fill in, with columns like "Article", "today's date", "reason for suspecting this is an ad", "quote", "reporting user name", "result". Is there anything like that around? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? That sounds like the place where you would report a self-interested party creating a "vanity" article on Wikipedia. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, an off-wiki attack/hate/criticism site has been documenting since April 2012 countless cases of "obvious paid editors", but very little ever seems to be done about the exposed violators or their content. It would seem kind of foolhardy to create yet another "project" to spot vanity editors/editing, when you already have multiple reporting venues available, where little is actually done. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested in off-Wiki sites and I think WP:COIN is a discussion board where things can get quite complicated. I'm more interested in creating a place for a simple report of suspected advertising, and creating a database of these reports so that patterns can be easily detected. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the questions about Silgan Holdings below, unanswered. An administrator created a new article about a corporation, in exchange for a $75 payment. (I believe the administrator will be donating the $75 to charity, but does that remove the notion that they "accepted" money for services? I wish Jimmy would answer the questions posed about Silgan Holdings. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones Up thread, Jimbo made the interesting terminology comment, noting that neither 'paid editing' not 'paid advocacy' should be prohibited, while 'paid advocacy editing' is the problem. (As an aside, because Jimbo suggests that advocates can edit talk pages, and the term editing doesn't just mean articles, I'd suggest using 'paid advocacy article editing', while recognizing that it is getting bloated.) Your section heading refers to 'paid advocacy'. Does this mean you are proposing prohibitions much broader than Jimbo suggested, or is it just a terminology issue? Obviously, Jimbo's position is not privileged, and you are free to propose something other than his concept, but I'm wondering if you deliberately chose a broader term or were intending on putting teeth into Jimbo's suggestion?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the general issue of paid advocacy and I'd rather not create a 3 or 4 word Wikiterm to describe the general problem. I'm open to allowing paid advocates to edit talk pages, but I think the general problem should be addressed in its entirety. Jimmy has been fairly vague about the details of how he'd address the general problem - I'd love to see them all in one place. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, WilyD, I think you've nailed the solution to "paid advocacy" so now, how can we get the developers to improve the auto-merging of wp:edit-conflicts, to allow 2 users to make edits to adjacent lines? What is needed to elevate the priority of fixing more edit-conflicts, so that the developers will focus on them? The WMF has hired many more people recently. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled by the relevance of this last comment. Could you move it to a relevant place? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The recent (or is it still ongoing?) RFC on the so-called "bright line" has once again pretty well demonstrated that a majority of Wikipedians are more comfortable with the imperfect status quo with respect to paid editing and its abuses than they are wanting to launch a jihad on this matter. The majority seems to be in the general 60-65% vicinity — something that would be big enough to legislate coherent policies if Wikipedia was based on actual democracy instead of the hokey-pokey pseudoconsensus supermajority RFC system. I would not advise members of the minority, particularly the extremists among them, to go leaping into a holy war with guns blazing. It will not end well. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that it has already ended unwell, that further discussion is pretty well futile, and that it is now up to the Foundation to determine whether Wikipedia will continue to be Corporatepedia. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, if you're serious about this, I'm on your train as soon as you make the alternative technologically possible. Which means: no more IP editing, no more anonymous editing, real name registration, sign-in-to-edit, and (obviously) an end to so-called "real life outing" rules. If that's not done, cobbled-together hardline policies will only drive paid editing further underground, making its abuses more difficult to detect and correct. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've seen that argument before, repeatedly, in these discussions and I don't buy it. It is an "all or nothing" argument. Just because people will try to subvert a rule doesn't mean you shouldn't have a rule. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are already rules about NPOV. If you find violations, fix them. If you fix them and some interested party overturns NPOV through edit warring or sock wars, there are already mechanisms to deal with that. The current system isn't perfect, and frankly a real names/real identities editing system is the healthy way to move forward as WP begins to require more and more professional and specialist content writers — but given the inevitable inertia generated by the deformed WP political system, the current system is what you've got to work with. Which means: concentrate on the edits, not the editor. Identify abuses and fix them. Identify chronic abusers and they can be eliminated. (—Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA) Carrite (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Coretheapple on this one - Carrite's arguments are fallacious. "We can't do anything to stop it, so we shouldn't even try" - don't you think that the changes I suggested at the top of this section would make a major dent in the problem? "NPOV rules already stop the problem" - nonsense, among other things it is quite difficult and time consuming to get admins and the Arbcom to enforce the rules. "Regulation will only drive the problem underground" - the problem is underground and always has been, very few paid advocates declare their editing, and the majority won't because their article edits are clearly unethical (and would be vilified in the press) or even illegal under Federal Trade Commission rules. If the creaky consensus system is unworkable for questions involving large sections of the community, then the WMF can find a better system. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the community — a big majority — indicated one way on an issue, so it's up to WMF to come up with a new policy to overthrow the decision of that majority? Am I misrepresenting your views here? Good luck with that. I'd be happy if WMF came up with WYSIWYG software that we could live with... Carrite (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are misrepresenting my views, and as you seem to have a habit of misrepresenting things, I see no reason to continue this discussion with you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You proved me wrong so I'm taking my ball and going home!Camelbinky (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary of discussion

To summarize the above discussion, there are two clearly stated proposals being presented, and the "consensus" of the en-wiki community to do nothing or to do very little. User:Coretheapple (with whom I have more often disagreed than agreed on articles) is proposing that the existing policies be enhanced with a new bright-line policy and enforcement. Since there is not a consensus in en-wiki, these policy changes would have to be implemented by WMF, and could span all Wikipedias. Paid advocacy editing is currently a greater threat to the English Wikipedia than to other Wikipedias, but it is a potential threat to all Wikipedias. I agree with Coretheapple that we should not either to let Wikipedia slowly rot under the corrupting influence of undisclosed paid corporate edits or strip Wikipedia of the bulk of its editors in a paradigm shift. User:Carrite, on the other hand, is proposing, as he always has, that Wikipedia as we know it cannot be fixed without a paradigm shift, to strip Wikipedia of pseudonymous editors. Carrite's changes will never meet with WMF approval. I assume that Carrite knows this, and is using that as an argument to work with the existing imperfect policies without reworking the policies, to buy more time for him to make the case for his proposal that will never be approved. My question for Carrite, then, is whether he actually thinks that it is possible to: "Identify abuses and fix them. Identify chronic abusers and they can be eliminated."? I think that Coretheapple and User:Smallbones are saying that enhanced policies, which may require WMF enactment, will help that identification of chronic abusers and abuses. That is my summary. Does anyone want to restate their views? Coretheapple and Smallbones seem to think that better policies will help. Carrite seems to be arguing two ways, first, that the existing policies can possibly be used more effectively to restrict paid advocacy editing, and, second, that the problem cannot be dealt with except by changing the editing model of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to note, whatever else people think such Users should or should not do. My reading of the voluminous discussions are that there is consensus that they should honestly disclose the financial COI. Whether one views it as honestly communicating with each other as the basis for everything that is possible on wiki, or as a check on potential skewing of articles, or as a service (or obligation) to readers, it seems clear that in general, pro-disclosure of financial COI is the consensus view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we've had this discussion too many times before (see "old discussion" below that is taken from this page). Carrite has said repeatedly that there is nothing we can do about paid advocacy, so we have to accept it. My point above is that there are at least 8 steps we can take that that will put a serious dent into it. Carrite's response (as I predicted) was that this will be the end of Wikipedia as we know it. *His* point seems to be that Wikipedia cannot govern itself. Most of the 8 steps I give above can be implemented by the community, but if the community is indeed deadlocked by a creaky consensus system that can't handle interested parties participating in the discussion and confusing the issue beyond all recognition, then I believe the WMF can give us a push, or if necessary - if Wikipedia indeed can't be governed by the community - then the WMF will have to step in and do something on its own. Undisclosed paid advocacy on Wikipedia is unethical by the PR community's own rules, and much of it is illegal. Wikipedia can and must deal with that. Just saying, as Carrite has done repeatedly - "There's nothing we can do about it" is just wrong in so many ways.

BTW, I do agree with ASW that requiring disclosure of financial COIs is the consensus view. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Carrite is not saying that we can't prevent paid advocacy editing and have to accept, and isn't saying that Wikipedia is ungovernable. He isn't quite saying that. He is almost saying that. He is saying that the 8 steps proposed by Smallbones would be the end of Wikipedia as we know it. However, Carrite is the one who is saying that in order to govern Wikipedia, we have to have the end of Wikipedia as we know it. Carrite's agenda is that we should eliminate not only unregistered editing (with which I agree), but that we should eliminate pseudonymous editing and require editors to disclose their true names. That would be the end of Wikipedia as we know it. It would strip Wikipedia of most of its current editors. So when Carrite says that addressing paid advocacy would require the end of Wikipedia as we know it, he just means that isn't his way to end Wikipedia as we know it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

old discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

PR people editing WP is a fact of life. It has been for a long time and it always will be from now on. The choice we face is either playing Whack-a-Mole with one arm tied behind our back (Anonymous editing with "no outing" rules, no Sign-In-To-Edit, IP editing permitted, etc.) or whether we come up with a set of formal rules that both the PR people and Wikipedians can live with. This has been debated at very great length and, as is the case with most controversial matters given WP's supermajority-pseudoconsensus decision-making system, the result has been a draw — status quo wins. Some people continue to try to play one handed Whack-a-Mole, others try to explain the de facto rules for PR people to the more open and honest ones among them, hoping all along that they don't become Whack-a-Mole victims for trying to play fair... Oh, well... Ya make your bed, then you lay in it... We're stuck with a decision-making system that can't make controversial decisions, and it would be a controversial decision to ever get rid of it... Carrite (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC) You're back to the "we can't prevent it so we have to accept it" line of thinking. I strongly disagree. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC) What's the alternative? "We can't prevent it so we have to be in a permanent state of war fighting a battle that can't be won"??? One thing is positive: we can't prevent it. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Data on paid editing

Once suggestion I'd make to whomever wishes to deal with this is that data be gathered on paid editing: Which articles have been influenced by, edited by or created by paid editors, and listing also editors who have been identified, either by themselves or others, as paid advocates. In going through the archives of this page I noticed that at one point last year[18] there was a proposal for a "paid editor notice" or user box, but I have not located any examples of that actually in use. A list of editors making such an advertisement on their user page would be a good start. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Articles for Creation

(Note: Coretheapple asked me about this up above, in the midst of the longer discussion and I was afraid it would get lost if we discussed it up there so I'm making a separate section here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC))

I'm very glad you've returned to the issue and hope you remain active in it. One aspect of paid editing that disturbs me is corporate representatives creating article about their companies through the Articles for Creation process. This is presently allowed but in my opinion should not be. My concern is that this elevates to attention small companies of limited notability by creating what is in effect "advertorials," sponsored content, without proper disclosure to readers. It skews the content of Wikipedia in favor of those entities that desire publicity, as opposed to competitors and others not so inclined. I've mentioned this before on your talk page, and you responded sympathetically to the concern I raised, and I wanted to do so again. I think something needs to be done about this. Since there is no consensus on dealing with this or any other paid editing issue by the community, I think that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with by the WMF as Robert pointed out above. Coretheapple (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you can repeat the main points of the earlier discussion. What specifically is problematic about it in your view, and what might the WMF do about it? As a side note, I'm working hard to get people to drop the term 'paid editing' in favor of 'paid advocacy editing' to emphasize that not all paid editing is problematic. (The classic example is a university professor encouraged while on the job to engage in public service work communicating knowledge to the general public. Being paid in that way, to write about what one knows about, does not give rise to an automatic conflict of interest.)

Now, my own view is that while there may be specific abuses of Articles for Creation (but we should review specific examples), in general I think it should be a fine avenue for PR people to interact with Wikipedia. The reason is that it does not involve direct editing of article space. If there is full disclosure so that editors can evaluate in light of that, then that's a good thing too. And editors should reject proposals that are not suitable for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(For background: A while back there were problems with newbies inappropriately failing large batches of AFC candidates, so this RfC is discussing how to ensure at least adequate competency of reviewers in future. Also, there have been a few instances of editors reciprocally passing each other's inadequate articles.)

Others can speak with more authority than me on this but the volunteers at AFC may be having trouble keeping up with the workload. If this is the case, I'm worried that inordinate delays in reviewing may act as an incentive for PR editors to go underground. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC))

This is the kind of analysis that I find extremely helpful. I think a big part of the solution to this problem is to have powerful carrots in addition to powerful sticks. We need to make it easy for honest paid advocates to engage with us in a way that may not satisfy their every need, but which does help us to improve the encyclopedia and especially to avoid negative bias. One way to get at this is to examine what we think honest paid advocates *should* be doing, and then make sure that if they do those things, they get happy results. I consistently propose that if any paid advocate goes through reasonable other steps and gets unsatisfactory results, they should come directly here to my talk page and explain the issue. There are many good editors who watch this page, and as a place of last resort, it is very hard to imagine it not working.

Such an approach also would have the added benefit of giving us solid empirical evidence of a suggested route not working well, which will give us ideas about how to fix it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedia already gives the p.r. industry a very direct way of interacting with editors, which is the talk page of preexisting articles. If there are issues, they can raise them there. Where I would differ is that I don't think that giving companies and corporate executives an avenue for creating articles about themselves falls into the category of that kind of positive input mechanism. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely sure how AfC presents a problem. If autoconfirmed editors choose to by-pass the AfC process, their articles get picked up by NPP (which seems to have no shortage of volunteers). If paid editors choose to submit via AfC then at least they are taking an honest route, which will only allow their articles to main space if they are free from major sourcing/promotional problems.
Anecdotally, from working for a couple of years at AfC, articles are often written by someone with a strong COI - musician articles written by the band or record company, artist articles written by gallery owners, company articles written by the PR departments - we all know it goes on but I believe AfC reviewers are savvy enough to decline the obvious examples. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As suggested above: My problem with use of the AfC process by paid editors is this. When readers turn to Wikipedia, I think that they have an expectation that the content is created by independent editors, and has not been inspired, much less created, by the subjects of the article. The fact that the material has been vetted by independent editors is beside the point. These articles are the Wikipedia version of "advertorials," which are also often written by people employed by magazines, but without disclosure to readers.

When small companies of marginal notability and limited interest pay people to create articles about them, which seems to be the main activity in AfC of paid editors, it skews the overall content of Wikipedia in favor of subjects that have more desire to be published in Wikipedia. It says to readers that those subjects are more important than the companies in their same field that do not have articles, when in fact the companies (or people) that don't have articles are less publicity-minded. It unfairly gives Wikipedia an invidious bias in favor of such "publicity hounds" that otherwise would not be of sufficient interest for a Wikipedia article.

In my view this practice is a Wikipedia-sanctioned form of autobiography, only one step removed from people writing articles about themselves or their companies. The fact that there is an apparatus that "sanitizes" the process is immaterial. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It won't pass through the AfC filter if it's not notable, well-sourced and neutral. Therefore, I don't see a problem. Do you think our notability criteria are too easy, or will our AfC volunteers not recognise poor sources and puffery? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AfC volunteer here. I can positively assert that right now the AfC process is so under-volunteered that some AfC submissions are taking 4 weeks from when they are posted for review to when they get a response to their submission (Example at Category:AfC pending submissions by age). While yes, there's been some bad apples inappropriately failing submissions, I think that this is much less harmful to the project overall than inexperienced editors accepting submissions that are not up to snuff (both in terms of volunteer time mis-appropriated to the cleanup and damage to the project's reputation). I would also note that unless we're doing a backlog drive we do not have the volunteer bandwidth to stay even with the number of submissions in to submissions out. Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) replying to Anthonycole: I think that if an organization wants to be in Wikipedia, it shouldn't be hiring somebody for that purpose. The very fact that the Acme Widget Co. has an article in Wikipedia puts it at the top of Google search results for widgets. The Beta Widget Co. may have an illustrious history, and it may be a larger and more important company, but its CEO doesn't give a damn, so it doesn't get an article because very few Wiki volunteers care about the widget industry. I'd rather not have Wikipedia influenced in this way. I think it's a mistake to view the situation narrowly and say, well, the article is neutral and the subject is notable, and that's all we need to know.

Jimbo asked for examples. It is almost impossible to determine A) articles that have been created through the AfC process and B) Editors who are paid editors. One acknowledged paid editor is active in AfCs, so I suppose one can focus on him, but that can be viewed as picking on the guy so I'd rather not. An examination of current AfCs may be the way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you believe that Articles for Creation is the problem here, more so than, for example, the ability of registered accounts to create articles (about their company) directly in article space? Surely it is the paid advocacy editing that is the problem, rather than the specific avenue through which it happens to reach mainspace? (If a lot of paid advocacy articles were created using Visual Editor, would Visual Editor be the problem needing to be addressed, or something else?) Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they're both a problem. Direct creation of articles is not against policy, and in fact I recall participating in an AfD in which a blatant example of that was involved. (The article was deleted, but not because of the COI.) What differentiates the abuse of the AfC process by paid editors is that it is not only permitted but encouraged. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"Encouraged" Who? Where? How? When? Such a slanderous allegation against the folks who do a huge amount of difficult work at AFC cannot go unchallenged. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just chiming in here... I agree with Sionk. AfC has a first pass check for notability. Inconsequential companies can try all they want, they will typically not pass AfC. If they do pass AfC, new page patrol (NPP) will also typically weed those out. I don't think there's a problem here, other than the existing manpower problem. As to "paid advocacy," please note a contradictory parallel in medical research. It is a well known problem that "independent" researchers, even those with impeccable credentials and known integrity, produce results that tend to favor their sponsors. This case is indeed slightly different (the 'classic professor' is one step removed in the sponsorship chain, doing this as part of a job, not direct payment for WP advocacy). Nevertheless, the articles will skew towards their hypotheses and preferences for research direction. The only checks we have in place on that now are OR and the COI rules (including self-citing). If we weaken COI, we weaken the bulkhead significantly. Dovid (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand the desire to have every article in Wikipedia created and fully edited by people who have no connection to the company, but I think that goal is unrealistic. Volunteers have spent the last dozen years making Wikipedia into the go-to resource for information about...well, almost everything. It has been a resounding success. So successful, that people and companies feel they need to have a presence. If they are no notable, we say sorry, but what about notable ones where no editor has decided to start an article? What should the canonical widget manufacturer, who might be notable, but is exceeding boring, do? AfC provides a venue, one that has been enormously successful. In fact, so successful, that the problem isn't volume of content, but finding enough competent reviewers to vet the material. I don't think it is realistic to tell a widget manufacturer that there will be no article about the company until and unless some editor decides that widgets are worth writing about.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What's not realistic about it? Coretheapple (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not realistic because the evidence shows there are plenty of companies, making boring products, which are highly unlikely to inspire an editor to write about them, at least not editor who are unconnected to the industry. It would be unfair to tell them that we have made Wikipedia such an important resource, and their company passes our notability standards, that they cannot have an article in Wikipedia unless some random volunteer chooses to write about them.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

But that doesn't address why it's not realistic, or wrong, for a company or person not to have a Wikipedia article. Remember too that we currently ask (but do not order or forbid) companies or people not to create articles directly about themselves. It may not be likely that an obscure company is going to become a Wiki article. So what? Was "right to Wikipedia article" written into the Constitution or UN Charter at some point and I missed it? You also don't address the other points I raised. In obscure areas especially, giving undue attention to the publicity-seekers is especially invidious, and is not fair to the non-publicity seekers. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I should have linked this earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I conflated two concepts. It is unfair to create the world's best repository of information, then deny inclusion to entities who qualify for inclusion, simply because no random editor chose to write about them. It is unrealistic to expect that companies will simply shrug this off. However, I am curious about your second sentence. Is it your position that companies can write about themselves, as long as they abstain from hiring competent help? That's a curious position, and I'm asking in case I misunderstood it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I certainly don't feel that way. However, at the present time our policies do not prohibit it. They should, but there is at present no sentiment for curbing such practices. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Our very definition of notability encourages publicity seeking since we require reliable sources to back up an article. For example, take the Balloon boy hoax article. The event itself was broadcast worldwide and as a result there are 75 sources backing this article - more then most articles will ever have. The event itself is utterly unremarkable though - two parents wanted media time and therefor staged a disappearance that lasted some hours. There are plenty of uncovered events that had more repercussions then this one. However, an encyclopedic article is simply a summary based on secondary sources, and if those do not exist one simply cannot write that article. Whether or not this is "fair" is irrelevant - fairness is subjective and not quantifiable in such a way that one could create a working policy using it. And no matter what: If you create a lot of noise you are likely to be heard.

Aside from this, Wikipedia is one huge juicy apple as far as PR agencies and COI editors are concerned. Its incredibly popular, adding content costs nothing and one can change content as will. Given such conditions a flat-out ban on all COI editing would be as effective as the 20's alcohol probation in the united states - It wont lower the amount of COI editors and will force the few decent COI editors to either hide their conflict of interest or risk being penalized / blocked. Now, given that you can never stamp the issue out it is likely a lot better to regulate those editors: Discourage COI editing but don't flat out forbid it in AFC space; AFC van act as a walled garden that no article should leave until it is decent. This would keep the main space clean(er) of COI articles while it also allowing reviewers to keep an eye out for these editors which hopefully results in a few decent article's and editors. This would also create a situation where playing by the rules is somewhat more favorable over breaking them: Declaring an a coi and editing trough AFC would allow you to gain advice and keep your account somewhat safe from harm, whereas dishonestly regarding the COI puts you at risk. A strong "not allowed" policy on the other hand would cause a situation where an editor had nothing to gain by being candid about their edits. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the "let's regulate it because they'll do it anyway" argument is overblown. Deceptively creating a phony account for the purpose of evading Wikipedia no-ad rules stands a reasonable chance of being an FTC advertising violation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Eh, i think thats not going to happen any time soon. First, the Federal Trade Commission only has jurisdiction in the US whereas the English Wikipedia is called the Worldwide Wikipedia for a reason (Thus it does not apply to editors in the rest of the world). Second, if i create an account you cannot see my IP address or know who i am - and trust me when i say that checkusers won't receive permission to user their privilege over such an issue. Third, you can edit from anywhere - if i use a public wireless network your chances of tracing me would be near zero. Fourth, even if you had the IP address even courts in the US already set precedence in several cases that an IP cannot be automatically linked to a living person. Fifth, there are hundreds upon hundreds of advertising article EVERY DAY, and quite unfortunately that is not a hyperbole, much as i wish it were. I do not represent the FTC or the WMF, but i cannot imagine that either would be to thrilled to investigate all these instances of veiled advertising. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as this issue is viewed as "we must ban Paid COI Editing," the result has already been determined — things are running 60-40 against that hardline position (conservatively stated, might be closer to 70-30). We're a lot closer to normalization than prohibition in terms of level of popular support. There will be no bureaucratic white knights swooping in from the WMF or the FTC to save the day for the minority position. Wikipedia's policy structure is its policy structure, we all need to accept that. The problem isn't the editors, it's bad content. Isolate the bad content and eliminate the bad actors who put it there — using the current rules, and without abusing those who generate good content and play by those rules. Hike! Carrite (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Has this topic has gone off Articles for Creation? I'm not even sure what the purpose of this section was in the first place! Sionk (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo is welcome to hat it. I feel that any discussion of paid editing is futile, and that the Foundation is really going to have to take action if anything is to be done. There is really no point in further discussion unless Mr. Wales has anything further to say. (I'm not trying to be truculent, but I just think that all major points have been covered, and these discussions are a bit of a time-consumer.) Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

AFC reviewer here. One thing the community and, if their help is asked for, the Foundation can do is politely ask major search engines to not automatically rank all Wikipedia articles highly in search results. If they cooperate, it would reduce the incentive to create articles for PR purposes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Erm. Not sure if we want that that. It's good for us if articles are ranked high generally, not just because that tends to increase our service to the public and consequently our editor recruitment (a little bit, maybe), but also because popularity will be a key assett if (when?) when ever have to contend with a for-profit forked rival. Also search engines companies would also blow us off.

This is hardly worth mentioning because as a practical matter it'd be impossible to get the community to agree with it, but: "not having articles on sub-notable entities" is not a really a core value and doesn't use up our limited stock of paper, and could be jettisoned in specific cases if called for in. In fact we do this: we have articles on everyone who's played one game in major league baseball (and similar situations for some other sports), even though there's no data for some beyond bare vital statistics (if that), zero third-party references, and nothing to say about the person beyond one sentence. I don't mind that, it's OK with me. One advantage of doing that is that it prevents a great deal of contention re notability for ballplayers. It's a big time-saver and articles on ballplayers who don't meet WP:BIO does not hurt us.

Similarly, the standard of notability for incorporated entities could be reduced to "proof of existence". Any data we have beyond that, to expand the article beyond a one-sentence stub, would be gravy. At least then the question "notable enough or not?" would be quickly answered. Not sure if this would take a load off AfC people or not, or would have negative or positive side effects, but something to consider on the merits maybe. Not a lot, cuz not gonna happen, though. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, narrowly avoided this case of verifiable-but-false

Wikipedia:BLPN#Stephen_Birmingham

Article says a book was published in 1997. Editor has a copy of the book published in 1971. This is not good enough--he needs to actually cite something that says the book was published then. Apparently having a book which says it is published in 1971 is not considered good evidence for a book being published in 1971.

At least this one has a happy ending because someone found such a reference, but he really shouldn't have been required to. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC) 14:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The publication date should be on the book's title page so unless the article is specifying a 1997 edition rather than when the first edition was published, this doesn't make sense to me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good example.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an example of editors not understanding that all sources do NOT have to be third party. It's a common misperception that many of us tried to clarify in policy, but as with a lot of misperceptions that are noticed on noticeboards, when it is brought before the talk page of a policy those that want policy set in stone say "there's no proof there's a problem". You can even get a large consensus at the VPP and STILL not get a policy changed because of policy page stalkers claiming THEY weren't involved and "I see no problem". This is just more proof of policy wordings getting misconstrued by the next generation of Wikipedians and nobody wants to change policy, its easier to change the US Constitution.Camelbinky (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mr Wales monetary appeals

If Mr Wales wishes to be taken seriously, he needs, like any leader of an enterprise, to take the funding of it seriously. It is his foremost executive responsibility if he remains committed to the effort. His mass appeals at this site are evidence of a further deep problem of the enterprise, rather than being any substantial contribution to a long-term solution. If this is to be a charitable enterprise, so be it: he needs define the necessary endowment to support it, and to develop a plan to fund the endowment. That is, he needs use the connections his status affords (e.g., Chozick NYTM piece), and to develop a realistic business model for his charity, that works. Otherwise, from a practical perspective, he has a successful brand and presence, but an unsuccessful (non-selfsustaining) enterprise. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. However, we have a strong track record of successful fundraising, and in recent years we have improved the efficiency of the fundraiser to raise more money than ever with less annoyance for the reader. That a charity which exists largely through small donations sometimes asks people to donate is not evidence of a problem at all - it is a point of pride and very important to the long term sustainability and (importantly) independence of Wikipedia.

As a side note, if your idea of my life comes from the Chozick piece in the New York Times, I can only suggest that you are likely to have a very confused idea. Her piece was filled with basic factual errors, only some of which was the New York Times was willing to correct. In any event, I do support the idea of a longterm effort to create an endowment, but not because our current model is unsustainable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'd much rather see the WMF funded by millions of "nobodys" each giving "pocket change" than a small number of megabuck "endowments" by a clique of donors selected from among "the great and good". A seven-figure check has lots of space to attach many strings while $10 via Paypal is not going to buy any influence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. At the same time, I do think it is important that we not treat major donors poorly. Last year, I came back from the World Economic Forum in Davos with $750,000 in donations (no strings attached) from a couple of major donors. I think we should really really appreciate that. (And I don't mention who they are because I know at least one of them wanted the donation to be anonymous and I can't remember about the other one exactly other than that he said that he didn't want a press release or anything.) But one reason such donations are without strings is that we are in a very strong position to simply say 'no' if someone wanted to give a big donation with unwelcome strings. (Some strings are of course not unwelcome - restricted grants to fund support for a particular geography or a particular type of project isn't necessarily a bad thing.) So yes, the small donor model is really important in maintaining the independence of the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Silgan Holdings paid editing by admin

This seemed to be overlooked or ignored a few times, so... Jimmy, could you please comment on the article Silgan Holdings? The article was created by a Wikipedia administrator, in exchange for $75.

Did the administrator bring disrepute on the encyclopedia?
Should the article be deleted?
Is the content worthy of commendation, scorn, or neither?

The Reward Board has existed for over seven and a half years. Its purpose is to compensate editors for creating new content on Wikipedia.

Does the Reward Board bring disrepute on the encyclopedia?
Should the Reward Board be closed?
Is content generated at the prompting of the Reward Board worthy of commendation, scorn, or neither?

It would be helpful to us to understand your specific thoughts on this matter, because it would seem that as long as the Reward Board is open and acceptable, then businesses seeking to have content created or modified in exchange for money have a legitimate vehicle by which to accomplish that. -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not changed my opinion from 2006, but it has been misunderstood and misrepresented here. I made the comment "absolutely unacceptable, sorry" as a specific response to a specific proposal from a specific user - one which has been borne out over the years by community consensus continuing to ban the editor in question. To interpret a private comment from email as a general policy pronouncement is deeply mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Also, user sub-pages

Above, Jimmy advises about ~~paid advocates~~ editors with a potential conflict of interest who wish to attempt to edit NPOV content: "Work on it as a sub-page of your user page". Jimmy, are you aware that in 2006, you said that posting paid content on a sub-page of a user page was "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry"? Could you confirm here that you have formally reversed your opinion from 2006? -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The snarky "gotcha" tone of the above post aside, this Silgan piece is actually a really nice example of how paid COI editing can improve the encyclopedia. This company employs 17,000 people and was involved in a $4.1B buyout covered by the New York Times. Not only an easy GNG pass at AfD, any day of the week, but there should be an article about the company. Would this article exist without a spiff being paid to somebody to write it? Nope. Does it fulfill any reasonable interpretation of NPOV? Yep. Is the encyclopedia better off with or without the piece? With it. Really nice example. Now, it would be extra nice if there was some sort of flag on the piece when it was first published so that people with no financial COI could look it over and make sure everything was on the up and up. That's what normalization of paid editing is all about... Carrite (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is extremely problematic that when I go to the article, and the talk page, I see no indication of the financial conflict of interest. This is not healthy for editors or readers, and is corrosive to the moral fabric of our endeavor. There was no valid reason, as well, for the administrator to create the article in article space, rather than writing it - possibly on his own website - and then inviting editors with no conflict of interest to review it and add it to the encyclopedia if appropriate. So, Carrite, while I see what you are saying in one sense, I think you are being too lenient in another sense, and in a way that - if we adopted it as standard policy - would lead to quite rightful doubts by the general public.

Let me put it another way - any company who approaches us with a request to have a page should get the response: please write a full comprehensive history of your company with references. Be neutral, and include negative information where appropriate. And post it on your own website under a CC BY license and let us know. Make it easy for editors to write about you. There is simply no justification for this kind of undisclosed paid advocacy editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

With respect to your two sentences, which are the "money lines": I absolutely agree with you, Jimmy, but here's the thing... The way things stand, there is no requirement that COI be declared (and it should be) and those really fulfilling our maximum expectations and doing that are only — as Greg Kohs put it — taping a "KICK ME" sign to their back. Let's all acknowledge that this sort of editing has happened, is happening, and will always be happening and normalize things by (a) requiring such declarations and (b) strictly punishing those who attack people who adhere to NPOV and declare COI but harass them anyway. It's a leap for you, I understand, but we all need to regularize reality. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And if a user in good standing decides to copy the company's CC BY content into Wikipedia, will Jimmy consider that to be a good thing, or will Jimmy attack it as "corporate spam", as he did in this case? -- I'm not that crazy (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

So maybe we need a template, intended to go on articles not on talk pages, that says something like "This article has been written by an editor with a paid connection with its topic, and should be reviewed for neutrality and accuracy by a neutral editor. This template can be removed once the review has happened"? It would then be up to the paid editor (or other agents of the subject of the article) to go asking at help desks for someone uninvolved to do the review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd consider a template like that a good thing, but a very bare minimum step in the right direction. In addition I'd like to see a very strong avoidance of article space editing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinky mistakenly believed above question concerned him, and followed with an unnecessary accusation that "scandal" was the motivation behind the simple request for clarification of Jimmy's position.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If you are speaking about what advice Jimbo gave me, let me make something clear to you that I'm sure Jimbo DID understand- none of the people who will be working with me are going to be paid TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA. The problem was that we have a COI as members of the downtown merchant's association and/or dues paying members of the Chamber of Commerce and/or business owners or building/land owners in the topic area and/or work at a tourism destination (museum, historical society, etc) and/or work at one of the universities in the topic area. All of us would have COI's as something each of us individually are involved with would be mentioned in some way at the article and the purpose of the article is for us to have something first-class to link to from our various websites and help people know more about our area. We wish to do it in a NPOV style and understand with that comes negative info, and we will be impartial and work with in the rules. We are not "paid advocates", we are, with the exception of our own employees who may wish to contribute as well, our own bosses and there is no one paying us to do "anything".Camelbinky (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and did Jimbo's page suddenly become Question time...? I personaly think "Could you confirm here that you have [blah blah blah]" to be rude and condescending and frankly who cares if he has? Is that a "scandal", for opinions to change over the course of 7 years and changing circumstances and different specific problems? Good lord, are you trying to stick a political "flip-flopper" label on him too?Camelbinky (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is branching out on to too many locations at once, but nevermind. I'm the user who wrote the article. I've mentioned this into the "offering user" already (admittedly via email) and I've mentioned it on my talk page when I'm not that crazy kindly linked me to the discussion and at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Clarification of WP:REWARD. I undertook the challenge because I feel that the entire debate is interesting, and it is a development which affects us all. I intend to comment on the topic, but felt that I needed more experience as to what it was all about. Basically "how can I debate this if I haven't done it?" I thus set myself the challenge of seeing if a neutral, notable, fair article can be written in such a way. I would argue that the topic in question is notable per WP:COMPANY and thus would have been created anyway, and that I (I feel, anyway) have created an article that is balanced and informative based on the sources that I found, and thus achieved a NPOV result. It's based on third party sources (apart from 1) and I've no COI as I've never heard of the company before, nor care about what they do. The funds are going to charity (probably RSPCA or similar, if I can get the user to email me to arrange it). So basically the whole thing was a bit of an experiment.

I like the idea of a template as mentioned above. I'll happily admit that being more transparent about my idea in the first place might have been a good idea, but to be honest the idea just kind of 'came to me'. I invite the debate and discussion, and intend to act on the community's wishes. That was the idea. That's my thoughts anyway, I'll comply with whatever the consensus is, and happily so. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to review these links: Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel and EEOC.gov. Or perhaps these: The Record (local newspaper, Stockton) and NBC local news.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I shall, thanks Jimbo! --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

How a template system could work. - Sorry for the bolding, things get lost in big threads... In the edit window, next to the check boxes THIS IS A MINOR EDIT and WATCH THIS PAGE, another for I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, blue linked to a definition of that. Checking this box would (1) make the COI flag automatically appear on the talk page — hopefully located under the WikiProject template banners but above the regular comments; and (2) cause the letters COI to appear next to the edit in the edit history, the same way that minor edits are so identified. Implementation of this would need to come with some sort of recognition that stalking COI editors with abusive messages and templates on their talk pages is a form of punishable harassment. That would make the COI declaration process simple, make the flagged edits easily checkable, and would make the entire situation normal. "We are going to watch your adherence to NPOV very, very closely" should be the message. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Carrite, could you clarify "punishable harassment", while I know you personally would stand up and say something about COI harassment, I'm not quite sure the admin community as a whole at places like AN/I would be as unified in punishing one of their own admins should an admin go around harassing a COI editor who clicked that box. I am curious as to what policy declarations would be implemented to prevent such harassment. Wikipedia doesn't have a good track record on addressing contribution stalkers as it is.Camelbinky (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Vote to de-sysop 3 admins started on Croatian wikipedia, SpeedyGonsales tried to stop it

Hi, Jimbo.

FYI, this morning, one user started a vote to de-sysop admins SpeedyGonsales, Kubura and Zeljko. But, SpeedyGonsales came a few hours later and stopped the vote without any consultation with the community. Fortunately, another admin restarted the vote for later today. IMHO, this is serious violation of rules. We will cover this story on meta:Requests for comment/2013 issues on Croatian Wikipedia/Evidence/Conduct. --Argo Navis (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reading

A reader posed a suggestion to Wikimedia at OTRS. The suggestion isn't workable (buy a copy of EB) but the reader linked in an article I had not seen before, which is likely to be of interest to readers here:

The Decline of Wikipedia--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It surprises me that any third-party source continues to discuss Visual Editor without commenting on exactly how poor the software actually is. The interesting thing about VE is not that it was rejected, but that WMF was under the misapprehension that people would embrace something that worked so badly.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sphilbrick. Yes I caught that. I thought their description of what has occurred on Wikipedia Editor Retention to be spot on.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Saw that via The Signpost and agree with quite a bit. But was more amused by the Signpost edition headline Your worst nightmare as a child is now featured on Wikipedia. Thought it was about editor, aged 5 years old, or so, bringing an article to 'featured' status. No, just an FA on cabbage. AnonNep (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone ever thought of this...

Don't know if this is even feasible, but its a thought I had from researching the topic second screen in marketing (btw our article on it sucks, if anyone is interested in working on it, there's a lot of good sources out there I was able to find). Basic idea on what second screen is- using a website for instance to get people who watch your commercial (or tv show) to become more engaged, because statistics show majority of people are on their tablets, laptops, smart phones while watching tv. It got me thinking about what Jimbo mentioned he looks up when I had asked him in a thread above "What do you read on Wikipedia?"... I do the same thing with tv shows and movies I watch too, something will be mentioned or an actor I cant think of the name is on the screen and I use Wikipedia. Wikipedia is unofficially a second screen source. Why not promote it more as such? Encourage this just like Shazam does on commercials for products (such as yogurt) and tv shows (Modern Family). Just putting the idea out there if someone with some influence around the WMF wants to look into that idea and run with a polished idea.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If the WMF were going to get involved in telling people top-down which commercial broadcasts and products to support, they would better be getting a really remarkable amount of money to make up for the loss of reputation. Of course, anyone trusting enough to actually buy one of those fancy bluetooth/USB/watch-me-naked-and-post-it-to-the-Internet^[19] kind of fancy telescreen TVs is free to write up some kind of "app" to synchronize it with their phone or computer and have them automatically look up articles on Wikipedia, and I imagine they can make some money reselling user data. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Wnt, I may have not explained properly, or else I'm not following you. Perhaps this will clear things up, please let me know if it doesn't make sense- right now, on shows like Modern Family (on ABC? and syndicated on USA network) they have a commercial, often right before an episode begins, encouraging you to synch up online at social media and "follow along", Shazam is one of those social media sites whose logo is represented (along with Facebook, Twitter, etc). What I'm saying is that Wikipedia could be one of those as well, where on ABC's website on each "profile" of each show there was a link to the relevant Wikipedia article where people could learn more. No endorsement from Wikipedia to ABC or that show; Fox, NBC, CBS, etc could all do the same equally.Camelbinky (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Google does that with news stories = somewhat ironic, considering the hostility some here often show toward coverage of recent events. But it's up to the media outlet to decide something like that. If Wikipedians want to affect that decision they can do so as individuals, without WMF lobbying specific companies. Wnt (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)