User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 153
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Wikid77 in topic Google Translate working well or less poorly
 | 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 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | → | Archive 160 |
Should en.Wikipedia medical articles have a prominent disclaimer?
As a WMF board member, you should be aware of this discussion. I'd appreciate an acknowledgment that you have seen this notice. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why Anthonyhcole chose to link to a lone instance of inflammatory, obvious, and deleted trolling in his post. Since I presume his intent was to provide a neutral notification of an ongoing policy discussion, I imagine he must have meant to provide a useful link directly to the current version of the active RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because the troll's satire, though inappropriate in that forum, emphasises the point most likely to interest the WMF. The board members engaged with en.Wikipedia know that vandals and good faith editors do add false dosing information, ineffective or dangerous treatments, etc. to our medical articles; they know that a portion of our readers think we're a reliable source; so they know that without a prominent disclaimer on our medical articles we're putting those readers at significantly greater risk.
- If this RfC closes with no change, and the WMF doesn't act, all harm caused by dangerous information in our medical articles is their responsibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I find it very awkward to know that a site with such power as Wikipedia, that at the same time is so dysfunctional in certain areas, now appears to be a hazard for people looking to cure potentially life-threatening diseases, to be honest.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Evaluating legal disclaimers is for lawyers, not a few people camped out in a WikiProject. If you think Wikipedia is exposed to liability due to changing circumstances of how people use medical information, you should ask the lawyers to go over it and decide if the current disclaimer needs to be made more prominent (as Doc James suggested). If a more prominent disclaimer is actually required, it shouldn't be left for random users to add and remove from various articles, perhaps at the same time as they're vandalizing them. Wnt (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a safety warning. It doesn't require a lawyer to decide if warning our readers "be careful, this article may be dangerous crap" is a good idea. It takes a sense of ethics and responsibility. Our existing medical disclaimer already says everything it needs to. All this is is an effort to draw readers' attention to it. — Scott • talk 16:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would think twice at giving sick people any advice as long as the quality of this advice can not be proven in a safe way. The last thing this project needs is someone dying because of receiving wrong advice from here.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- So do you also want parachute to have a disclaimer "Warning: do not rely on this information to rig a parachute release system", rattlesnake to have a disclaimer "Warning: this is not a reliable guide on how to handle a snake", snake handling to have a disclaimer "Really, don't do this, I don't care what your stupid religion is, it's obviously wrong!", etc.? Wnt (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. This project has so much flaws that the pharmacy industry could easily infiltrate it by wrangling in a friendly administrator in a topic related to a medicinal product that noone knows of but a specific person affected by a disease could buy into the depiction although it is completely wrong. --37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, and if anybody else does, they are welcome to start a discussion on the topic. In the meantime, we can stick to the topic in hand, not slippery slope arguments. — Scott • talk 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. It's a good idea. Every time somebody comes up with a good idea, someone else comes up with a slippery slope or similar bogus reason for doing nothing, and the result is that nothing gets done. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Right, if a pharmacy company decides to release a "medicine" with severe side-effects that could get you killed or ruin your life and then gets Wikipedia to believe it is good stuff, there should be no warning, whatsoever, that this information is not guaranteed to be true, whatsoever.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to get into generalities, then the generality is that the MEDRS-thumpers usually seem to find "ethics" to be satisfied best by removing stuff. This conflicts with the "ethics" of providing the sum of all human knowledge. Having been drawn here in the first place by the latter, I find this a problem. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wnt, why the scare quotes around "ethics"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I recognize there is morality, which comes from a philosophical model of the universe and its purpose that can extend into politics and religion, and there is law and regulation, an amoral process in which people seek to prevent certain events they dislike through coercion, but I have yet to see evidence of a third category. For example, in medicine "ethics" is merely another word for "profit": even a patient who is absolutely dependent on a prescription medicine is denied the right to simply purchase it on his own initiative if he can't afford to pay a tribute to the doctors, his subsequent decline serving as an object lesson to others who might defy them. It is presently being made "unethical" to simply sequence someone's DNA and tell him what his genes are, lest this not qualify as a diagnosis subject to patent; the patient's knowledge of his predispositions is to be rationed, test by test, for hundreds or thousands of dollars each. Clearly knowledge about medical conditions, what their symptoms and treatments even are, is another valuable property some in the medical industry would like to put under lock and key so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. To be sure, the inclusionist's own "ethics" are not that different, except the profit is measured in material taken for open access and universal accessibility. This is actually a selfish act, because in the age of hundred-page EULAs, continual monitoring and revocability, only content that is truly free feels like it belongs to us at all. I would like to think in my case the belief is more fundamental, as I've opposed every form of censorship and have faith in the free exercise of thought, but I am not immune to the baser appeal. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your rambling, ranting comments are incoherent, irrelevant, and ignorant. I for one will not be paying attention to any further posts from you in this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, speaking of law and regulation as an "amoral process" is not much short of being severely immoral, inethical and inhuman, by itself. Any jurisdiction must be connected to moral and ethics. Anybody who thinks this is not the case should have no say, whatsoever, in such critical affairs.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I recognize there is morality, which comes from a philosophical model of the universe and its purpose that can extend into politics and religion, and there is law and regulation, an amoral process in which people seek to prevent certain events they dislike through coercion, but I have yet to see evidence of a third category. For example, in medicine "ethics" is merely another word for "profit": even a patient who is absolutely dependent on a prescription medicine is denied the right to simply purchase it on his own initiative if he can't afford to pay a tribute to the doctors, his subsequent decline serving as an object lesson to others who might defy them. It is presently being made "unethical" to simply sequence someone's DNA and tell him what his genes are, lest this not qualify as a diagnosis subject to patent; the patient's knowledge of his predispositions is to be rationed, test by test, for hundreds or thousands of dollars each. Clearly knowledge about medical conditions, what their symptoms and treatments even are, is another valuable property some in the medical industry would like to put under lock and key so far as the ordinary citizen is concerned. To be sure, the inclusionist's own "ethics" are not that different, except the profit is measured in material taken for open access and universal accessibility. This is actually a selfish act, because in the age of hundred-page EULAs, continual monitoring and revocability, only content that is truly free feels like it belongs to us at all. I would like to think in my case the belief is more fundamental, as I've opposed every form of censorship and have faith in the free exercise of thought, but I am not immune to the baser appeal. Wnt (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wnt, why the scare quotes around "ethics"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I happen to agree with you on that point, as I've noticed that very issue in a couple of articles. But that's beside the point; this is still a good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you want to get into generalities, then the generality is that the MEDRS-thumpers usually seem to find "ethics" to be satisfied best by removing stuff. This conflicts with the "ethics" of providing the sum of all human knowledge. Having been drawn here in the first place by the latter, I find this a problem. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding Coretheapple's point, it would be more accurate to say that some ideas, whilst seen by adherents to be beneficial, are not in alignment with the opinions of the wider editing community and thus fail to become policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Even though German Wikipedia is generally very dismissive of warning templates, there is a de:Vorlage:Gesundheitshinweis (similar to Template:Disclaimer medisch lemma, and there are dozens of interwikis). It is included in ~10.000 medical articles, at the bottom of the articles. For example compare de:Gemcitabine and Gemcitabine. For warning templates at the top: Say hello to banner blindness!
- I would also seriously recommend to think about using flagged revisions on medical articles in enWP. I read a study about enWP showing that ~10% of damaging edits are viewed by 100+ persons. Deeper analysis shows that many of the associated survival times are quite short, and these are often the result of damage to extremely popular articles. This doesn't happen with flagged revisions, readers don't see unreviewed/vandal edits. Only logged users and the vandal (cookie) see the vandal edits, until they are reverted. Look at the page views of medical articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages and think about it. Right now, PendingChanges is activated only on 1,019 articles (0.02%) in enWP. According to Special:ValidationStatistics: "The average review delay for pages with edits currently pending review is 11 min 52 s; the delay measures how long the oldest pending edit has gone unreviewed." In November 2013 there were a total of 182 million page views on 27,870 medical articles. German Wikipedia is reviewing changes on all its 1,6 million articles. --Atlasowa (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- What got me, having dealt with many outpatient MD/psychiatric staff, is a self-identified 'ER' health professional being allowed to sound off, using that tag, on general medical topics that an 'ER' would have minimal experience in. I've no issue with them using a plain old editor name to do so, like any one else, but why do they get to play 'Doctor' on Wikipedia where they'd never be allowed to in real life? AnonNep (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- AnonNep, I have to assume from the linked debate that you are referring to Jmh649 who uses the signature "Doc James". This editor discloses his real world identity. He is a physician named James Heilman, holds an M.D. degree, and is a clinical instructor on the faculty of the University of British Columbia. He has every right to call himself a medical doctor, since he is one. I don't see what his specialty in emergency medicine has to do with anything. If you were referring to another editor, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Seat filling
| As noted there, I won't be filling this vacancy except at the request of the ArbCom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
You may know about this already, but just in case, I thought I would drop a note here. And for what little it's worth, I support both WJBS's proposal (expand beeblebrox's term to 2 years and add guerillo for a 1 year term) and if preferred JV's suggestion of both of them merely for 1 year terms. And I don't mind if it's done by founder fiat (alliteration : ) - or if by way of a new community discussion : ) - jc37 19:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678
—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The most wonderful time of the year?
| This matter was raised at WP:AN and can be further appealed to ArbCom. Further ban evasion and grandstanding should be avoided. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Jimbo,
Jimbo, I was editing under my real name, which was displayed on the images I uploaded. Only because of this being banned from Wikipedia is hurting me in my real life. I am not interested in touching any Wikipedia site ever again. Jimbo, Wikipedia would be much better off, if it learned to let people go. Now is the most wonderful time of the year, when anything could happen. Let's see if this applies to Wikipedia. I simply want Wikipedia to let me go, which in my situation means unblocking my account with an edit summary "Peace". You could globally lock my account, if you want to, I don't care, at least it will not be displayed in the public records. So, is this truly the most wonderful time of the year, when anything could happen, Jimbo? I am doing this not only for myself, but for others like me. I know at least one other person in a similar situation, but there are probably more. Happy New Year! Mbz1 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.122.249 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
1.1 Wikihounding 1.2 Threats 1.3 Perceived legal threats 1.4 Posting of personal information 1.5 Private correspondence 1.6 User space harassment
|
Please let Jimbo answer first
It has happened a myriade of times, but hey, this is Jimbo's page and people are mostly trying to get an answer from the founder himself and do not want to have anybody else to have his words cut short and forestall a genuine reaction!--37.230.8.60 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I generally consider Jimbo's replies here to be the result of careful thought, not an instantaneous "genuine reaction". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please read my line carefully (although I am not a native speaker and it might be ambigious): What I meant was that other people are reacting to requests, prior to Jim, and therefore influencing the direction of the disussion. With a "genuine reaction" I meant that the founder should have the first opportunity to reply and once he has done so, others should reply. When things go the other way round, I think there's a case of taking the word out of the addressee's mouth.--37.230.8.60 (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, this is a wiki page and I'm a Wikipedian. I read it every day (well, almost every day although I suppose there might be 5 days a year when I don't). But even so, lots of other people read this page every day as well. It's ok for conversations to be asynchronous to some extent, otherwise things would be slowed down. Also, sometimes people are just asking a question that any number of people could answer. Also, sometimes I overlook particular discussions (we don't have a great notification system so when this page is very long, I may scan over it and miss things. Also, also, also.
- For the most part, my answers are the result of longstanding principles that I have been articulating for years, to an extent that lots of people could guess accurately what I'm going to say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Bumptious and cocky behaviour by "officials"
Honestly speaking, a number of "responsibles" or "officials" of this site actually do behave more hubristic and overbearing than the worst big-headed cops you will encounter in real life.
This doesn't mean that there's not a whole lot of good people inside this system, but the number of "black sheep" seems to increase on a daily basis.
When I say that people are getting banned without any prior warning, without giving any kind of accountability, line of argument or giving of evidence, there can be no other conclusion that some things have gone utterly wrong and people are treated unfairly and morally AND legally wrong. Given the fact that this site was envisioned by a person who I believe to be genuinely righteous (and maybe a bit "bona fide"???) I think it is time to think about changes and improvements to the overall system! For anybody who has been banned because of an intrigue pr cocky and overbearing behaviour by a "cop" will contribute to the fraction of people who think Wikipedia is doing wrong to the people and the planet as a whole , and in the end, and given some more years of time, there will be so many opponents that have a grudge on this whole project that it could go to waste. (Or the people betrayed by it will do so...)--37.230.8.60 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's generally best to raise a specific case for our reflection and consideration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again I agree this occurs on a regular basis. Just watch ANI or AE for a while and you'll see this abuse first hand. Arbcom routinely blocks editors in cases and lets admins off scott free for much worse activity than the editors were guilty of. Then those that escape usually get banned from the site by AE within a coupe weeks because "broadly construed" wording means the admins and especially AE can block with unlimited discretion regardless of how tangential the edit really was. We shouldn't be blocking people because they have a sanction on political articles and get blocked for editing New York because politicians live there. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the problem with purely substituting hypotheticals for actual examples. Who was blocked for editing New York because politicians live there? If the answer is "no one" then it's really hard to take this complaint very seriously. With a realistic example we can explore what happened and think about what could be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo it happens all the time and the fact that you are so blinded by good faith frankly shows the naivety you have for the project. If I were to give you one example, there would be arguments for and against. The absolute best thing for you to do would be to spend the time and look at the blocks levied by Arbitration enforcements and especially User:Sandstein. So not take our word for it, look for yourself and perform somedue diligence.108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the problem with purely substituting hypotheticals for actual examples. Who was blocked for editing New York because politicians live there? If the answer is "no one" then it's really hard to take this complaint very seriously. With a realistic example we can explore what happened and think about what could be improved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again I agree this occurs on a regular basis. Just watch ANI or AE for a while and you'll see this abuse first hand. Arbcom routinely blocks editors in cases and lets admins off scott free for much worse activity than the editors were guilty of. Then those that escape usually get banned from the site by AE within a coupe weeks because "broadly construed" wording means the admins and especially AE can block with unlimited discretion regardless of how tangential the edit really was. We shouldn't be blocking people because they have a sanction on political articles and get blocked for editing New York because politicians live there. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Users denying IP's comments on their discussion pages
There's a user who's openly admitting that he does not answer any requests by IP-Adresses on his disc.
Coincidentally, this user is abusing Wikipedia as a tool to satisfy his personal sense of inferiority by trying to defame and villainize an historical person he despises due to a "personal aversion". Moreover, he thinks his mission is to tell the world that the Wikipedia-featured historical person is not only a villain, but that his death was self-inflicted, but the reality, including a substantial number of well-respected authors, who he is ignoring to the extreme, speak quite a different language.
Unfortunately, he has a number of influential friends among the administrators, who let him go with the greatest kinds of breaches of Wikipedia policies, just because they are "friends".
It is freaking one out when you know there's a POV-soldier talking shit, abusing an historical person and lay the blame on his tragic death, on the one side, but when this "person" is also pulling every imaginable trick to pull "opponents" inside Wikipedia into the dirt, I think there's more than one line crossed!--37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps if you gave some specifics to your widespread accusations I would know better what the devil you're talking about. KonveyorBelt 06:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually there are several users who have stated openly they don't respond or talk to IP's. Some actively delete their comments off their talk pages. IP's can't vote in RFA's, Arbcom or do a variety of other things. This site has a long history of being opposed to IP editors. Regardless of the talk about being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, that is far from the truth. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The reason IPs can't !vote is because this would allow one user with a dynamic address to vote dozens of times. If there are indeed users who refuse to talk to IPs, then please mention some more details so we can deal with this in an orderly fashion. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure that's always possible, but even when someone vote with a username and no other edits the vote is typically ignored, same thing here. If there are no other edits, or only vandalism then they would just be ignored. Also the same argument keeps coming out that IP's can't be trusted but they have never been allowed to vote so how do we know? We don't and if foul play is suspected then a check user has the authority to check that out. The bigger problem is the very real problem and wide scale perception that IP's are nothing but vandals. People say there is no problem but then nothing is done to editors who blindly revert an IP's edits, block IP's for no reason or generally mistreat IP editors. When the project and Jimbo start treating the problem seriously, the problems will stop. A large percentage of vandals (not all of course) of vandals are editors who were mistreated. That is a commonly known problem. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The reason IPs can't !vote is because this would allow one user with a dynamic address to vote dozens of times. If there are indeed users who refuse to talk to IPs, then please mention some more details so we can deal with this in an orderly fashion. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Jimbo Wales!
.jpg)
|
|
| Hello Jimbo Wales: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
|
Yeah, happy 2014 to Jimbo and all Wikipedia users, honestly (but also including those who have been fighting for justice and have been banned, indiscriminately and for no substantial reason).--37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Administrators publishing numbers of the users they banned
To not single out any "officials, who behave quite frankly", I will first only post this:
There's an admin who is so proud of the number of people he "put in jail" or, more specific, his "personal dungeon" that he includes numbers of this on his user page.
While this may be bad enough, he also isn't ashamed of the sheer number of people he berobbed of their freedom,
but, please hold tight, the number is something like
1576 Users !
I can't imagine someone being proud of imprisoning hundreds of people, but this guy is, indeed! A crazy world this was, in 2013. --37.230.8.60 (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, blocking someone from Wikipedia isn't really putting them in jail. But in general I don't think such numbers are useful really. If someone is on vandalism patrol, though, then doing 1576 blocks is not evidence of wrongdoing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo this has been a problem for a long time. We have a bot going through and blocking thousands of IP's that have never even edited just on the principle of them being IP's/Proxies. One of the key reasons that edits and new editors are declining is because this community is blocking them at an increasing rate. Its only matter of time before this site goes to an edit with a username only policy and frankly so much content is protected at this point it won't belong before you have to be an admin to edit. If you aren't seeing this then perhaps you need to get out of the office and into the trenches and edit more. My suggestion would be to create an alternate username and edit as a new user or IP to see how they are being treated. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no chance of Wikipedia changing to a username-only policy. Jimbo and the Powers That Be always speak out strongly on behalf of IP editing. Also, see WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that really addresses the IP's point. I can confirm that unregistered users really are treated appallingly. I often have to revert editors blindly undoing an IP's hard work, only requiring an obvious reference or a bit of formatting. Sometimes, really worryingly often actually, I have to undo regular editors undoing IP editors removal of vandalism. Often the IPs will get reported for 'blocking'. 1576 is nothing - dude should check out WP:ADMINSTATS. But perhaps there's so many blocks because there's so many vandals. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again, actual examples would be useful!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course. I will leave the IPs to do their own whinging. This type of thing can still be seen. You should try it some time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok Jimbo, how about the widescale blocking of IP's by a bot here. Thousands of them solely because they are "proxies" Now, 10 years ago that made sense because proxies were mostly used by hackers and the like. But with increased computer security threats proxies are now common internet/network security practice. This is done by Colleges, Schools, government organizations, top 100 companies and even service providers like Verizon and Comcast. So blocking thousands of IP's that have never done 1 edit with the justification that they are proxies is a waste of time, system resources and is abusive to potentia editors based purely on bad faith. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Open proxies are entirely different than the proxies you discuss. AOL famously proxied outbound requests, and we allow those edits because the underlying IP is exposed through the X-Forwarded-For header. Can you clarify how editors are being disadvantaged by this in ways that aren't addressed through the IP-block exception or the unblock request tracker? LFaraone 21:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes there is a difference but that difference is subtle and you can't honestly tell me that this isn't preventing people from editing? Besides the fact that these IP's have never even edited at all and we are blocking them based on the assumption they will. That is completely counter to AGF. Yes blocking them prevents them from vandalism, but so does not allowing anyone to edit and that isn't a good way to help the project either. Yes, actually a good example is the fact that we need Account creators. If it weren't for the fact that we block so many IP's from editing, we wouldn't need account creators at all. Add to that the fact of most people not wanting to take the extra time to learn that there is an account creator and just not bothering with it and leaving. Wikipedia has too any rules to learn as it is, there is no need to further antagonize the problem be not allowing them to edit at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- The difference isn't subtle. Open proxies are open, and can be used by anybody on the Internet. The other ones I described cannot. LFaraone 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is still zero point in blocking an address that has never edited and its still assuming bad faith. It shouldn't matter where the edit comes from or who does it, if it contributes positively to the project. If the IP is performing vandalism then by all means block it. Its obvious to me at this point that I'm preaching to deaf. If you want to make the project better and allow people to contribute, then allow them to do so. If you want to keep the project in a weakened state and allow a limited number of people to edit in an environment controlled by a few, then keep things how they are. Jimbo created this place with the mantra it was an encyclopedia anyone could edit, now prove it and allow them to do so. Quite being lazy and blocking tens of thousands of IP's just to save the admins a couple of blocks a day. If they want the job volunteers or not, they signed on to do it. If they don't want the work then don't apply. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's you that's missing the point: the IPs that are being blocked as open proxies have no valid purpose: they are generally machines hijacked by botnets, and frequently machines specifically configured to allow wrongdoers to cover their tracks. Blocking them doesn't discourage good-faith editors from editing Wikipedia because no good-faith editors would use them to edit.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is still zero point in blocking an address that has never edited and its still assuming bad faith. It shouldn't matter where the edit comes from or who does it, if it contributes positively to the project. If the IP is performing vandalism then by all means block it. Its obvious to me at this point that I'm preaching to deaf. If you want to make the project better and allow people to contribute, then allow them to do so. If you want to keep the project in a weakened state and allow a limited number of people to edit in an environment controlled by a few, then keep things how they are. Jimbo created this place with the mantra it was an encyclopedia anyone could edit, now prove it and allow them to do so. Quite being lazy and blocking tens of thousands of IP's just to save the admins a couple of blocks a day. If they want the job volunteers or not, they signed on to do it. If they don't want the work then don't apply. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The difference isn't subtle. Open proxies are open, and can be used by anybody on the Internet. The other ones I described cannot. LFaraone 22:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes there is a difference but that difference is subtle and you can't honestly tell me that this isn't preventing people from editing? Besides the fact that these IP's have never even edited at all and we are blocking them based on the assumption they will. That is completely counter to AGF. Yes blocking them prevents them from vandalism, but so does not allowing anyone to edit and that isn't a good way to help the project either. Yes, actually a good example is the fact that we need Account creators. If it weren't for the fact that we block so many IP's from editing, we wouldn't need account creators at all. Add to that the fact of most people not wanting to take the extra time to learn that there is an account creator and just not bothering with it and leaving. Wikipedia has too any rules to learn as it is, there is no need to further antagonize the problem be not allowing them to edit at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Open proxies are entirely different than the proxies you discuss. AOL famously proxied outbound requests, and we allow those edits because the underlying IP is exposed through the X-Forwarded-For header. Can you clarify how editors are being disadvantaged by this in ways that aren't addressed through the IP-block exception or the unblock request tracker? LFaraone 21:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again, actual examples would be useful!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that really addresses the IP's point. I can confirm that unregistered users really are treated appallingly. I often have to revert editors blindly undoing an IP's hard work, only requiring an obvious reference or a bit of formatting. Sometimes, really worryingly often actually, I have to undo regular editors undoing IP editors removal of vandalism. Often the IPs will get reported for 'blocking'. 1576 is nothing - dude should check out WP:ADMINSTATS. But perhaps there's so many blocks because there's so many vandals. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no chance of Wikipedia changing to a username-only policy. Jimbo and the Powers That Be always speak out strongly on behalf of IP editing. Also, see WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo this has been a problem for a long time. We have a bot going through and blocking thousands of IP's that have never even edited just on the principle of them being IP's/Proxies. One of the key reasons that edits and new editors are declining is because this community is blocking them at an increasing rate. Its only matter of time before this site goes to an edit with a username only policy and frankly so much content is protected at this point it won't belong before you have to be an admin to edit. If you aren't seeing this then perhaps you need to get out of the office and into the trenches and edit more. My suggestion would be to create an alternate username and edit as a new user or IP to see how they are being treated. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Back on track: I remember seeing something like this yesterday. The OP is probably referring to the Template:Admin dashboard/rfarfp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The original point raised by 37.230.8.60 was that some people may take offence at an admin flaunting the number of accounts they've berobbed of their freedom. But one might argue that people who have had their editing thwarted by an administrator (for whatever reason) need little reason to feel aggrieved and may complain about any perceived flaw that presents itself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Honey - I shrunk Wikipedia...
- "Honey – I shrunk Wikipedia!"
- "That's nice, Dear. Bring your little friends and come upstairs - dinner's ready."
- (In your dreams... The {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is usually un-shrinking: (6,914,307. :)
Of course, it's not the numbers, but the people of Wikipedia that matter most. We take too much for granted. It is troubling to realize that a lot of our friends have shrunk into inactivity because no one has appeared to appreciate anything they did – not even a simple "thank" notification. We can do better.
Anyway, I mainly wanted to thank Jimbo and all his little friends who have been an encouragement to me this past year in many ways. All my best to everyone in 2014. (05:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC))
(Triple-click here to be of good cheer. —Telpardec TALK :)
Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales
- Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales
Jhenderson 777 — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.
Comment You Made
While I not get into the IP mess you two are talking about, I do think you are wrong when you said that User:Wehwalt was "out of touch" with the community.
Not only is Wehwalt "in touch" with the community, he has done more for it than most of the editors on here. At present, he has 100 FAs (more than anyone), numerous GAs, numerous DYKs, and 15 WP:FOUR awards (not the most, but still not bad). The articles he has worked on span the spectrum from coins, to history, to politics, to law, to sports, to towns in the US. He works with other editors on their articles (myself included) and gives advice when and where needed. While he is an admin, he typically doesn't get involved in normal admin stuff (ie: blocking). He is the kind of editor that more Wikipedians should be like.
So, he isn't "out of touch" and to say he is shows that he might have been correct, that you are out of touch with the community. Just one editor's opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello Jimbo I've just emailed you. The subject line is "Hi Sir". 199.195.250.120 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Cowboys at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files currently and for many years has required that the nomination process include the step of adding a tag to the image caption on any articles the image is on. This is to attract more attention to the deletion debate to see what should be done. Unless there's an objection, nominated files are deleted after 7 days. Several users and at least one Administrator is refusing to adhere to the requirement. This is like canvassing - it's an attempt to sway the discussion by improperly influencing who participates. Cowboys--Elvey (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Stated in the abstract like this, of course it sounds like you are making a reasonable point. However, to help others who are interested in the issue examine and discuss it in a productive way it would be helpful to do a few things: First, link us to the relevant discussion. Second, name and quote the administrator in question. Third, invite that person to come and discuss it here as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was trying to keep the message short, to avoid tl;dr… but here goes:
- "First, link us to the relevant discussion." => It's at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files (which I linked to already) in particular, this section and others indicate @Stefan2: had told users that it wasn't necessary, saying "The usual thing is to not add any {{puff}} image. Also, non-addition of that template is not a reason to keep a file."
- Also, this section indicates @Anna Frodesiak: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions), and after notification there, said she had done so, but hadn't, but then did (diff) after a second notification, even though she had been told there by @ТимофейЛееСуда: that it wasn't necessary. IMO, the only thing Anna did wrong that merits further attention is that she relied on Twinkle, and that attention should be on Twinkle, not on Anna, who I notify merely as a courtesy.
- Also, this section indicates @ShakespeareFan00: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions).
- Also,this section indicates @Leoboudv: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions), and after notification there, said s/he had done so, but hadn't, but then s/he did go back and do so after notice was given - (diff) even though @ТимофейЛееСуда: said, incorrectly, that Leoboudv had correctly tagged it initially.
- Also, this section indicates @Stefan2: hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions). And isn't responding to my request to do so about that or any of the users' many other contemporaneous PUF nominations.
- Also, this section indicates administrator @NtheP: / @Nthep:. (Why the varied capitalization??) hadn't done so (added a tag to any image captions) and hasn't replied to my ping of 3 days ago at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files#File:Jeffrey-skitch-pinafore.jpg either.
- (links updated when content was archived off Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files)
- "Second, name and quote the administrator in question." I've pinged Nthep, above. I can't tell which of the above are admins on commons. ShakespeareFan00, (AKA SFan00_IMG) performs many administrative tasks using scripts to perform actions IN BULK that remain a problem (CN discussion and link to ANI discussion). (Commons is down for me. Details in a hidden comment:)
- "Third, invite that person to come and discuss it here as well." Done with pings, above.--Elvey (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- IMO the problem here is that Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is out-of-step with the rest of the deletion process. Compare to the main WP:Articles for Deletion, where the notification aspect is under a separate header at Wikipedia:AFD#After_nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, i.e. it is considered a courtesy, not an obligation. Wikipedia:Files for deletion has it listed n the instruction box, but prefaced with "If the image is in use, also consider...". All the others contain similar language about notification of contributors, etc...being nice but not mandatory. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- (@Tarc:, your link was broken; I made the obvious fix.) Wikipedia:AFD#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors does indeed currently say: "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see below), nominators…" in fact, Twinkle, when used for AfD DOES notify the relevant users, by editing the page to be deleted, which is likely to be watched by the bulk of relevant users. OTOH, Twinkle when used for PUF, does NOT notify notify the relevant users, because it does NOT edit the page which is likely to be watched by the bulk of relevant users, namely the page (or pages) on which the file is used. Users are responsible for their edits with Twinkle, but the immediate cause for the failure to follow policy seems to be largely due to Twinkle. I think @Anna Frodesiak:'s final comment there (at PUF) strongly supports this contention.--Elvey (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I was expecting a click-and-forget thing like a PROD. I raised it here: [1] By the way, you must find it frustrating that users don't follow the 3 steps properly. I was one, maybe because Twinkle handles it like it handles a PROD. It just says it's notifying and creating the entry, etc. I never saw any message saying that I was supposed to tag images in articles. I never knew about the 3 steps. Did I miss some information message somewhere? Could this be one of the reasons that people tag incorrectly?] and then started a thread here: Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files#Using Twinkle - Step III omitted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, that's why I wrote above "…that attention should be on Twinkle, not on Anna…" (I fixed your typo that was breaking a link.) --Elvey (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Same as Anna (who, incidentally, is also an admin), I used Twinkle and asuumed (wrongly in this case) that it dealt with all the procedural steps. Missing step 3 was an AGF error (now fixed) and not a refusal to adhere to policy as neither Elvey nor anyone else has raised this with me prior to this discussion.
- There is a discrepancy between FFD and PUF in that FFD makes any labelling of the image on the pages it is used a consideration rather than an obligation as PUF does. Making the two consistent would be an improvement. Nthep (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- This discrepancy should be fixed. Most of the nominations at PUF do not adhere to this third step, so it has become general practice to not do it (whether intentionally or not). There also is an issue of WP:AGF surrounding this ordeal as instead of working with editors to resolve this issue or to notice their mistakes, Elvey gave warnings for "nonconstructive editing", blamed the wrong editors, did not AGF when an editor didn't do EXACTLY as asked, and did the same to another editor (admin) just to show a few instances. Elvey is, so far, the only editor who is unwilling to find a solution, but instead simply wants to show how everyone else is wrong. Bringing this issue here in the manner he has only further shows this. At this point, it seems that we should rewrite the third step as a suggestion from PUF to conform with FFD. The question is: Is the fact that general practice has been to not tag captions enough, or do we need a separate consensus? There has recently been consensus to not include WP:NFCR tags on articles and only on images so between that, the current general practice and conforming with FFD, do we have enough to make this change? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If we're agreed that there needs to be a discussion about what notice has to be given and where then this isn't the page to do it. Either at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files cc'd to Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion or the other way round as one option is to tighten FFD process to the same as PUF. As I suspect that neither talk page is hugely watched then making it an RFC as well to get wider attention might not be out of order either. Nthep (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Anna started a discussion initially Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files#Using Twinkle - Step III omitted. That might be the best place to have the discussion. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- If we're agreed that there needs to be a discussion about what notice has to be given and where then this isn't the page to do it. Either at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files cc'd to Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion or the other way round as one option is to tighten FFD process to the same as PUF. As I suspect that neither talk page is hugely watched then making it an RFC as well to get wider attention might not be out of order either. Nthep (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- This discrepancy should be fixed. Most of the nominations at PUF do not adhere to this third step, so it has become general practice to not do it (whether intentionally or not). There also is an issue of WP:AGF surrounding this ordeal as instead of working with editors to resolve this issue or to notice their mistakes, Elvey gave warnings for "nonconstructive editing", blamed the wrong editors, did not AGF when an editor didn't do EXACTLY as asked, and did the same to another editor (admin) just to show a few instances. Elvey is, so far, the only editor who is unwilling to find a solution, but instead simply wants to show how everyone else is wrong. Bringing this issue here in the manner he has only further shows this. At this point, it seems that we should rewrite the third step as a suggestion from PUF to conform with FFD. The question is: Is the fact that general practice has been to not tag captions enough, or do we need a separate consensus? There has recently been consensus to not include WP:NFCR tags on articles and only on images so between that, the current general practice and conforming with FFD, do we have enough to make this change? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh well
- Jimbo, I came to you here at the this the most wonderful time of the year to ask you, a named person, to replace my ban with a global lock. I explained to you why I asked for this. Instead the discussion was hijacked by a heavily involved demiurge1000 and now closed by a heavily involved Jehochman.
- Jimbo, I asked for letting me go,and explained to you why. Instead I was treated as I am posing a great danger to the very existence of Wikipedia. My IPs were blocked, my comments were removed, and in the end my request was denied, like if my request were accepted it would have endangered Wikipedia.
- Jimbo, here's what I'd like to tell you. Wikipedia will be much better off, if it learned to be humane, if it learned to let people go, if it learned to allow the discussed persons to be a part of the discussions concerning themselves like this is done in the free civilized word at least at the most wonderful time of the year. Happy New Year! 69.181.41.193 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should know by now that Wikipedia is not humane. Its more like Sparta with Arbco acting as Spartacus. They even have a pit to kick their enemies into. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is madness. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note that Spartacus never visited Sparta (he was a bit busy during his fairly short and brutal lifetime), and was not known for kicking people down wells. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- True, the Romans had a way to deal with their version of 6000 guys in Guy Fawkes masks, and you might say it was "above board". Wnt (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- And the fictionalised Leonidas was actually the protagonist of 300, defending his people's freedom against the tyrannic might of Xerxes' hordes. Comparing ArbCom to him is probably the kindest compliment they've ever had. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Book Recommendation
Hi there Jimbo-- I was wondering whether you've read/plan to read The Circle by Dave Eggers. It's a book about privacy and the sharing of information which is obviously very relevant to Wikipedia. If you haven't read it I highly suggest you consider doing so.
Thanks and Happy New Year! Newyorkadam (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- Interestingly I got it as a Christmas gift. I hope to start reading it tonight. Normally I only get time enough to do long reading when I'm on a long plane trip by myself, and I don't have any of those scheduled for a bit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I powered through it in chunks of a hundred pages at a time. In my opinion it's a page turner; it's a great book. -Newyorkadam (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
Blocking this page so IP's can't edit
| I'm officially declaring today to be Relaxation Thursday. So, relax.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
You know, with all the discussion on this page about abuse of IP editors it shocks and appalls me that some admin would really have the balls to block the page so only established accounts can edit. That action was complete shitty and classless and only shows the validity of the IP's statements on this page. Further Jimbo has stated repeatedly that his talk page should be left as is. If I were Jimbo I would be pissed. Jehochman you should be ashamed of yourself and frankly if I had the admin tools I would revert that action as baseless and rude. Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As an update on the AN discussion regarding Mbz1: people seem willing to let her vanish, but she is currently under an ArbCom block that specifically requires appeal to Arbcom. Mbz1, if you are still watching this discussion, please go ahead and do that. I'm going to unprotect this page and see if Mbz1 can refrain from further ban evasion. She has a clear path forward, and needs to start showing good faith if she wants to make progress. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC) |
More WMF Bright Line violations
Jimbo, what do you think about...
- Denny Vrandečić, who works on the Wikidata project that is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, editing Wikipedia's article about Wikidata?
- Wikimedia Foundation supporting the OpenDyslexic font, while the Wikipedia article about OpenDyslexic was authored by User:Laurence Francis Harrison, who publishes numerous classic books in the font and sells them on Amazon? (Harrison hails from the Long Beach, California area, same as this single-purpose IP address, too.)
In addition to the above, could you comment on whether there are any restrictions on classes of editors using Wikipedia:Drafts to compose new content that may (eventually) be suitable for Wikipedia article space? For instance, may paid encyclopedists use Draft space? May paid advocacy or paid PR editors use Draft space? May self-COI editors use Draft space? - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Personally I would rather you just delete the page, than stop supporting the font. That's kinda ridiculous. Its a good font. I was just trying to write an article that nobody else has written, and should have. Feel free to edit, work on it, instead of bemoaning the inclusion of a page about a font that wikipedia has already included on their font list. Especially as I don't represent OpenDyslexic, you'd kinda be cutting off your nose despite your face. So, I'm just removing my liability now for anyone removing the OpenDyslexic font. It is a dumb decision. - Laurence Francis Harrison (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Harrison, I think the font is a lovely idea. The problem rests in the provenance of the Wikipedia article about the font, as it was created by someone with a financial incentive to popularize the font. This violates Jimmy Wales' widely-known "Bright Line Rule" against paid advocacy editing of article space. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Harrison blanked his article, I've unblanked it. If he wants it deleted he can request that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any "financial incentive" here at all. As I understand it, Mr. Harrison has licensed the font CC-BY-3.0, effectively giving it away, and doesn't get any money when people use the font. Mr. 2001 has a habit of stretching things - to the point of making personal attacks - when it comes to the bright-line policy. If he goes this far a couple more times, I'll ask an admin to start the procedure to ban him.
- To Mr. Harrison - thank you for your work and for making the font CC-By. Don't let the turkeys get you down. BTW, I love it when people use the word "despite". It's a word that seems to have been forgotten, at least in American English. Nevertheless, I believe the proper usage here is "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Unfortuneatly, it sometimes seems that you have to learn how to conjugate the verb "to spite" in order to properly edit Wikipedia. All the best, Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Unfortuneatly", Smallbones tried to give a grammer lessin. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Smallbones, perhaps you haven't realized that Mr 2001 is a very well known very banned editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yet at one point I was chastised for failing to roll out the red carpet for this very well known very banned editor, even while he was in mid-troll mode.[2]. I guess some banned editors are more banned than others. Coretheapple (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Smallbones, perhaps you haven't realized that Mr 2001 is a very well known very banned editor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Folks, this report is just the usual anonymous poking of Jimmy. Ignore it, or better still, DENY it. The suggestion in the OP is entirely misguided because it is not really an attempt to comment about a particular article or a particular situation—it is just another poke at Jimbo, who for some cruel reason of fate, is more well known than the anonymous poster. Johnuniq (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Mr. 2001 has gotten a bit old. The novelty has worn off. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- 2001 seems to have missed Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales, which says:
- "[Jimmy Wales'] authority is used on an ad hoc basis: it is exercised when other decision-making structures are inadequate or have failed in a particular situation. As a general principle, Wales has been unwilling to act in contravention of community consensus or a decision made by the Arbitration Committee."
- In the case of the Bright Line Rule we have a clear community consensus, as can be seen at Wikipedia:No paid advocacy, Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit. If it were my decision to make, I would make the Bright Line Rule an official policy, but the Wikipedia community does not agree with me.
- The bottom line is this: Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, not at User talk:Jimbo Wales. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. 2001's agenda notwithstanding, he has perversely kept the "bright line rule" issue alive. It would have been forgotten if it weren't for him. So to respond to what's been posted earlier: no, it is not a good idea to ban him from this or any page. Coretheapple (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- 2001 seems to have missed Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales, which says:
- It would be best practice for the Wikimedia Foundation to not edit articles about things like Wikidata directly to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The other case is less clear to me but my view is that when in doubt it is better to write something on the talk page and leave direct article space editing to uninvolved editors. As for the use of the draft space, I haven't given it enough thought to form a solid opinion, but my initial thought is that this is an ideal space for people to submit things for community consideration after full disclosure of a COI.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Mr. 2001 has gotten a bit old. The novelty has worn off. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Unfortuneatly", Smallbones tried to give a grammer lessin. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Harrison blanked his article, I've unblanked it. If he wants it deleted he can request that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Harrison, I think the font is a lovely idea. The problem rests in the provenance of the Wikipedia article about the font, as it was created by someone with a financial incentive to popularize the font. This violates Jimmy Wales' widely-known "Bright Line Rule" against paid advocacy editing of article space. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mr. Wales for having to interrupt your New Years internet party. The reason I made the books is the same reason I made the article, because it hadn't been done and I figured people would benefit from it-not for profit. It was actually a University down-time project. I think you said something along these lines, but I would rather, if people believe the article harms the credibility of Wikipedia, I'm sure one of you has the power to delete it. I "blanked" it, because Wikipedia is hard and I'd rather just avoid people thinking I was corrupting Wikipedia or Wikimedia, which this person seemed to insinuate, especially telling people where I live in a public forum. Bit weird. The page is like 8 sentences, I see no harm in one of your deleting it. It took me about an hour to put together. I'm sure someone else can put it together better. Sorry for all the trouble. Regards, Laurence. Laurence Francis Harrison (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry Laurence, everything is ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your article was OK. I assume that it was an inadvertent lapse, because in fact there is absolutely no warning or advice given to people creating accounts that we have strictures and customs (not policy as yet) against that kind of editing. But since it was a very well-done article, neutral and not promotional, hopefully you won't be discouraged and will edit in any area that interests you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The Paul Myners photo
Jimbo, remember back in April 2013 how you said that you would respond to concerns about your permission to share a photo under a free license, and that the "full report" would come "in due course"? Whatever happened to that report? - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I got so disgusted with commons that like many volunteers who are treated badly, I just threw my hands up and walked away from it. Every now and then I think about getting back to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year! I see youre commenting here and Im guessing getting back to regular routine. Any chance on catching up with your emails?Thelmadatter (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'll start catching up on Monday when I get back to London.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
| NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5 | |
|---|---|
 Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC) | |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Bright Line Rule: self-COI exception?
Jimbo, since you are an expert at the Bright Line Rule and presumably User:Guy Macon is not, could you speak to Macon's claim that the Bright Line Rule does not apply to User:28bytes' authoring a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public? Does the Bright Line Rule really only apply to "paid advocates", while those with a personal and direct financial conflict of interest are exempt? - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I was quoting one of the multiple occasions where Jimbo has made it crystal clear what his bright line rule is and is not.
"The Bright Line Rule is about paid advocacy editing - i.e. someone who is being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer. Nothing even remotely similar to that is involved here. While the edit might be legitimately be debated on other grounds, the Bright Line Rule as a best practice has nothing whatsoever to do with this kind of case."[3] -- Jimbo Wales, 5 December 2013 (Emphasis Added)
- I would also point out that the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this is also crystal clear:
- Wikipedia:No paid advocacy
- Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit
- For the record, I fully agree with the advice found in our Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, you have selected one instance where there was no financial conflict of interest (the spouse of a spouse's client), and then used it to try to apply to this instance where there was a financial conflict of interest. At best, you're being naive; at worst, disingenuous. Let's wait for Jimmy Wales to respond; obviously, the intent of the question was not to gain your opinion about your opinion. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than speaking to the specific example, about which I know too little to comment, I would say that in principle there is no material difference between being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer just because one is self-employed. I wouldn't regard that as an exception at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's what I thought you would say, Jimmy, and I agree. Thank you for confirming my belief that Guy Macon was off base in his assessment of the Bright Line Rule. - 2001:558:1400:10:60BE:E938:FAFA:1EC7 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than speaking to the specific example, about which I know too little to comment, I would say that in principle there is no material difference between being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer just because one is self-employed. I wouldn't regard that as an exception at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Every time I add an image to Commons, and in particular Wikipedia, I am in deliberately raising my exposure, which in turn may raise sales of my images. Should I stop? Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- No. Every Wikipedian who does good work may impress someone somewhere and in some way improve their financial situation as a result. That isn't the point. As a side note, I have not given much thought to COI at Commons but it strikes me that because commons functions as a repository, the issues become somewhat different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If the bright line rule applies to the self-employed, then it's even closer to conflicting with BLP than I thought. People are normally allowed to edit articles about themselves under certain circumstances. If editing an article about your employer is prohibited, and that applies to cases where your employer is yourself, that would seem to prohibit you from editing an article about yourself.
(Note that it is no answer to say "you're only prohibited if there's a financial interest"--the whole point of saying that you count as your own employer is to state that your personal interest is equivalent to the employee's financial interest. If being self-employed is like being paid, and being paid means you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for your boss, then you can't edit an article with the wrong birthdate for yourself either.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- The BLP emergency exceptions trump everything. Even in BLP situations, best practice under the bright line rule is not to edit about yourself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But of course exceptions for emergency situations are valid. There is no conflict at all between the Bright Line Rule and BLP - they are 100% consistent and while there may be some interesting borderline cases (1) I can't think of any and (2) they will be borderline cases just as all rules have borderline cases and therefore not valid objections to the general principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- If there are exceptions for any reasons, even BLP emergencies, then the rule isn't so bright line any more, is it?
- Furthermore, if there are exceptions, wouldn't the argument for having such exceptions work in reverse? That is, if you normally can't edit an article about yourself but you can under the BLP emergency exception, why wouldn't there be a BLP emergency exception letting you edit an article about your boss, with a similar justification? Sure, the latter is different because you could always phone up your boss and ask him to make the change himself, but I doubt that that's what you're suggesting. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia takes action against a PR person for removing clear defamation about his company, we're going to have a PR problem ourselves. WP:IAR means that there are no "bright line rules" without exception, except the one about trying to improve the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've also already pointed out that IAR and bright line rules don't mix.
- I'd also argue that improving the encyclopedia isn't a bright line rule either (and, of course, that IAR is wrongly phrased when it invokes improving the encyclopedia). I've heard, more than once, the argument that we shouldn't remove information based on respecting a subject's privacy or other personal concerns, because that benefits the subject personally but makes the encyclopedia less useful for people who want to find the deleted information, and that's the opposite of improving the encyclopedia. My reaction in this situation is improving the encyclopedia be damned, at some point improving the encyclopedia at the cost of harming someone isn't worth it.
- (You could define "improving the encyclopedia" such that by definition an encyclopedia that harms someone has not been improved, but that's cheating. By that reasoning "improving the encyclopedia" means nothing at all.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia takes action against a PR person for removing clear defamation about his company, we're going to have a PR problem ourselves. WP:IAR means that there are no "bright line rules" without exception, except the one about trying to improve the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The BLP emergency exceptions trump everything. Even in BLP situations, best practice under the bright line rule is not to edit about yourself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But of course exceptions for emergency situations are valid. There is no conflict at all between the Bright Line Rule and BLP - they are 100% consistent and while there may be some interesting borderline cases (1) I can't think of any and (2) they will be borderline cases just as all rules have borderline cases and therefore not valid objections to the general principle.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Jimbo Wales: and @Guy Macon:, any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance; it is trumped by a)policy and b)the law. Because PAE is flat out illegal. If User:28bytes authored a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public, and didn't prominently disclose it, that user has broken the law (provided the law was in force at the time when the user did so, which it looks like it was NOT). FTC regulations bar PAE, and they apply to any edits to wikipedia. "All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at…" - and that is from an actual wikipedia
policyguideline. Is ancient behavior cause to go after an otherwise good user? No, not IMO. --Elvey (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Jimbo Wales: and @Guy Macon:, any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance; it is trumped by a)policy and b)the law. Because PAE is flat out illegal. If User:28bytes authored a Wikipedia article about a software product that he was also marketing for sale to the public, and didn't prominently disclose it, that user has broken the law (provided the law was in force at the time when the user did so, which it looks like it was NOT). FTC regulations bar PAE, and they apply to any edits to wikipedia. "All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at…" - and that is from an actual wikipedia
- Elvey, I'm with you up to the point that you said that WP:COI is "actual Wikipedia policy." It isn't, which has been a source of frustration for many of us. I just had a PAE rub that in my face very recently. It isn't, and it isn't going to be. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- May I have a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US please? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has lawyers and any Wikipedia policy based on legal concerns ought to be sent by them first. You really have no business proposing a change in policy on the grounds that something is illegal, when you're a layman with no legal training. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- ...a layman who went strangely silent when i asked for a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US. I call shenanigans. No such US law exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo, if you haven't gotten an opinion from the WMF which says that FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant, how do you know that it is? It may sound like it would be relevant if you interpret words in a certain way, but it would take a lawyer to know whether that's the interpretation that the law would accept. And you're not a lawyer. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually not. That rule (255) specifies "advertisements" and as everyone knows or ought to know, Wikipedia articles are not, per se, advertisements. Any overt ad in an article may be readily deleted or emended by any editor, so the FTC rule does not apply. The examples presented in that section (255) clearly bear no resemblance at all to Wikipedia's status. 255.5 presents some examples which might impact Wikipedia if Wikipedia allowed "commentary from editors" to remain in articles (their personal opinions or views on a product or service for which they are compensated). As long as editors can not cite their own work concerning a product or service for which they are compensated, the Wikipedia articles do not compare with any examples. I am amused, moreover, that it is clear that book reviewers under 255.5 must declare that they got the book for free -- since pretty much everyone knows that review copies are sent out from publishers. And, technically, the FTC should require film reviewers to pay for tickets -- but again, people who do not know that reviewers in general get "free stuff" are disingenuous. Since Wikipedia does not allow such "ownership of edits" (others do not alter the reviewer's comments in a newspaper, etc.), the issue does not arise here. IANAL, but I strongly suspect the WMF legal team would agree. Collect (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- If, as Jimbo claims, FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant, one can only wonder why the WMF sent a cease and desist letter to WikiPR[4] (which cites violating our terms of use and our trademarks, but does not cite any specific law or regulation, and which mentions potential future litigation, not prosecution) instead of contacting the FTC and seeking prosecution.
- I think that what is going on here is pretty clear. The quote "any consensus of the Wikipedia community on PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) at the links Guy mentions DOES NOT have much relevance" says it all. Somebody doesn't like the community decision (I don't much like it myself, but I follow consensus even when I don't agree with it) and is grasping at straws in an attempt to ignore that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- ...a layman who went strangely silent when i asked for a reference to an actual law or court ruling supporting the claim that "PAE is flat out illegal" in the US. I call shenanigans. No such US law exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I'll comment here as a COI contributor who has studied the legal issue. I think because Wikipedia is different than other crowd-sourced websites, the exact application of the law is ambiguous. For example, on other websites each piece of content has a distinct author and often their comments represent personal opinions. We don't disclose any authorship information to readers at all, which makes it difficult to disclose when an author has a financial connection.
Rather than citing exact passages from the law, I would look to its basic principles. It's intended to prevent covert advertising and corporate interests that purport to be part of a grassroots movement. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- A bit of a correction/clarification. I thought a specific passage was being cited, but it appears it was the entire document. I would take it for granted that the document is relevant, the question being to what extent and in which circumstances. CorporateM (Talk) 02:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I, err…, apologize for having a life; I've been AFK for a couple wonderful days. I have little expectation a reasonable debate partly because, I just realized, I have seen a user make edits on behalf of the powerful credit reporting agency Moody's that I think only a paid advocate would make, that is, I strongly suspect I've witnessed involvement in criminal activity. The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides
- "apply to “any advertising message . . . that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser . . . .” 9 The Guides refer to advertising without limiting the media in which it is disseminated.:9 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b)."
So, the Wikipedia article edits made are advertisements, and everyone ought to know that such edits are advertisements. My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)
Furthermore, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure in the CRA article as long as it contains such advertising is a legal requirement, but there is no such disclosure. (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)
So, reading passages from the law is the way to go, IMO, rather than looking at what a pseudonymous Wikipedian has to say. The opposition's arguments are so weak that it turned (above) to the dirty tricks of accusing me of running away (I hadn't) and resorting to shenanigans (Jimbo's answer is quite sufficient, despite the bluster that attempts to discredit it.) and demanding I provide something I'd already provided in my initial post. Sad, really. And predictable. Because the idea that Guy and Collect are advancing - that 16 C.F.R. § 255 is not relevant - is not just wrong, it is preposterous. Furthermore, IMO, the consensus of the Wikipedia community is against PAE; due to various shenanigans, there is a manipulation that makes it appear that there is opposition. There was a non-admin closure of Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy - it was not diligent either, and I had specifically called for closure by an experienced admin, and called out the divide-and-conquer/distract shenanigans inherent in, e.g. a competing proposal created by a user who argued against <sic> banning paid advocacy, etc. --Elvey (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Were Wikipedia to be a repository of "opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience" of its editors, then it would fit more nicely into the FTC's regulations. One problem is that often editors make COI edits by proxy, but in other cases the community makes it overly difficult to remove overt BLP violations. So you'd have to look at different circumstances:
- If a COI editor produces an advertisement, which a volunteer places into article-space by proxy, would the corporation be accountable for it? The FTC usually holds the corporation accountable for the actions of "agents"
- What if a COI editor produces bias content, that is still more neutral than a borderline attack-piece that was there previously?
- What if the content is promotional (only slightly), but the PR rep didn't realize it?
- One thing I heard a lot from lawyers at an annual marketing conference was that in a lot of areas, the interpretation of disclosure laws is not always clear and it's not always clean-cut. The bar is whether the communication is misleading in a way that influences readers unfairly and that bar must be interpreted for each circumstance individually.
- I think we could promote more consistency by creating either
- A policy about promotion, which helps define it and attack it with the same fervor as copyvio
- A policy about company articles, similar to BLP, but completely different, that merely defines the application of NPOV to corporate pages
- Either would help create more consistency and compliance with community norms and both have been kicked around on and off.
- CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- A brief note on FTC rules. Does Wikipedia contain the "opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience" of its editors? It obviously contains the "findings", and in most cases, even where the articles do not look like pure promotion it will reflect the opinions, beliefs, and experience of the editors. So yes, edits to Wikipedia articles can be considered as endorsements and are subject to FTC rules. If you are not clear what an endorsement is in the context of Wikipedia you can pose the question directly to the FTC at endorsements@ftc.gov .
- See also http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/audio-video/video/endorsement-guides
Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not so complicated. Either there is a Bright Line Rule or there isn't. Right now there is what Elvey calls a test case: an article that he has offered for deletion on the legal grounds that he states above. It is a clearcut example of an article that was created at the behest of the subject and in return for payment. So let's see if there is a Bright Line Rule or if this company gets away with it. Either the article is deleted on that grounds, and there is a Bright Line Rule, or as seems more likely it survives deletion, in which case there is no such thing as a Bright Line Rule and, in that case, I'd respectfully ask Jimbo to stop talking about something that doesn't exist. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think if we all can get past the notion that there is such a thing and that the approach of Total Annihilation of paid editing has been rejected, it will be quicker for us to get down to solving the real problem, which is the creation of commercially-driven, POV content — which we all agree is out of bounds. COI editing needs to be declared (without repercussions) and the contributions of COI editors supervised (without malice). Carrite (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not so complicated. Either there is a Bright Line Rule or there isn't. Right now there is what Elvey calls a test case: an article that he has offered for deletion on the legal grounds that he states above. It is a clearcut example of an article that was created at the behest of the subject and in return for payment. So let's see if there is a Bright Line Rule or if this company gets away with it. Either the article is deleted on that grounds, and there is a Bright Line Rule, or as seems more likely it survives deletion, in which case there is no such thing as a Bright Line Rule and, in that case, I'd respectfully ask Jimbo to stop talking about something that doesn't exist. Coretheapple (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to obtain clear community consensus from a diverse group of people about anything. The lack of overwhelming consensus, which doesn't exist anywhere, does not mean the rule does not exist, nor does it mean that it does or that Jimbo should stop talking about it. IMO, it is a useful message to communicate that the volunteer community owns Wikipedia and PR reps are cautious guests whos top priority is to avoid the appearance of impropriety while improving articles. It should not be interpreted technically-speaking; meaning I don't see the community banning PR reps who correct grammar through direct editing. It is the right message for "the masses" who do not have the experience or knowledge to show good judgement for each situation and therefor the right message for a spokesperson to communicate. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- One thing I find amusing is how various Wikipedians dither about with no demonstrated legal experience or credentials on this matter, yet they claim to have special personal insight into how exactly the FTC guidelines are (or would be) enforced. Meanwhile, over two years ago, a notorious banned Wikipedian had the foresight to engage in a conversation with Betsy Lordan of the FTC's Office of Public Affairs. Her response to the specific question of a paid editor creating or modifying content on Wikipedia (without disclosure) ranged from a sort of 'no comment' reply, to it being a problem only if the action constituted "an endorsement for a product in advertising". Elsewhere, Lordan is quoted as saying, "The [FTC]’s revised Guides governing endorsements and testimonials are guidance. They are not rules or regulations, so there are no monetary penalties, or penalties of any kind, associated with them." It would appear that User:Elvey and User:Jimbo Wales would be coming dangerously close to violating Wikipedia's "no legal threats" policy, except that their legal musings are about as reliable as this car. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to obtain clear community consensus from a diverse group of people about anything. The lack of overwhelming consensus, which doesn't exist anywhere, does not mean the rule does not exist, nor does it mean that it does or that Jimbo should stop talking about it. IMO, it is a useful message to communicate that the volunteer community owns Wikipedia and PR reps are cautious guests whos top priority is to avoid the appearance of impropriety while improving articles. It should not be interpreted technically-speaking; meaning I don't see the community banning PR reps who correct grammar through direct editing. It is the right message for "the masses" who do not have the experience or knowledge to show good judgement for each situation and therefor the right message for a spokesperson to communicate. CorporateM (Talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
[Comment self-reverted; user now blocked] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The claims about the FTC are worrisome, and if we have any choice in the matter, it should not be to encourage them. I'm well aware that crazy court decisions sometimes come down where companies and money are concerned, but let's be clear: inviting the FTC in to prosecute editors is like letting a cobra loose in your house to catch the rats. Wnt (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- [Comment self-reverted; user now blocked] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think I'm not that crazy is on the right track. Most likely the FTC itself does not know. It would be useful to encourage them to figure it out... CorporateM (Talk) 01:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- [Comment self-reverted; user now blocked] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think that User:I'm not that crazy is a bit crazy. He is citing Thekhoser's interpretation of the FTC guidelines which is something like citing the turkey's interpretation of how Thanksgiving dinner should be conducted. In particular the k assumes that since he was banned for putting advertising on Wikipedia that nobody else ever puts adverts on Wikipedia, thus since there is no advertising on Wikipedia, the FTC law on misleading advertising does not apply. A bit circular that. Rather a plain reading of the FTC's guidelines says that anybody who puts advertising messages onto Wikipedia without revealing that they are being compensated by the sponsor is breaking the law on misleading advertising. And "advertising" is clearly very broadly defined. As I said, if you have any questions on the guidelines, please just ask the FTC directly at endorsements@ftc.gov
Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Smallbones, it seems that INTC was citing Betsy Lordan's interpretation of FTC guidelines, not Thekohser's. Advertising is not "clearly" broadly defined, as the FTC still has not made any comment regarding whether content in Wikipedia constitutes advertising. In fact, I have an e-mail from Lordan myself, where she says there is no guidance from the FTC regarding digital advertisers and Wikipedia. She does say, though...
Below are all the pertinent links to recent FTC initiatives for digital advertisers.
- Endorsements and Testimonials Updated Guidance – 2009
- Announcement that Guides (guidance) Have Been Updated
- Enforcement Actions
- Legacy Learning – Case alleging deception stemming from lack of disclosure in endorsements
- Reverb – Case alleging deception stemming from lack of disclosure in endorsements
- Closing Letters
- Letters announcing that the FTC is closing investigations in endorsement-related deceptive advertising cases without bringing charges. (The letters explain why.)
- Dot Com Disclosures Updated Guidance – 2011 - 2013
- Search Engines, Updated Guidance – 2013
- Native Advertising, Workshop – 2013
- Re:closing letters - in general it's better to modify your behavior (i.e. quit breaking the law) before you are investigated. That they were not formally prosecuted (but just agreed to stop their earlier practices) is not reason that we shouldn't have rules that prevent abuses. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The last one seems closest, Native advertising, though I think that volunteers being paid, with none of the revenues flowing to Wiipedia or the Foundation, does present a special challenge in terms of the corruption of the process. Native advertising is defined as "a form of paid media where the ad experience follows the natural form and function of the user experience in which it is placed."Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- What we're talking about here is not really the same thing at all as native advertising, which is a way of presenting paid-for advertising with the full collusion of the media owner. The much closer parallels are probably things like businesses contributing fake reviews to consumer review sites, or for that matter writing fake letters to newspapers' letter pages. Barnabypage (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I usually cite the .com disclosures document. I agree the reference was to comments by the FTC, not by TheKohser and the FTC itself is the best source to get information from. However, I do not believe it is common practice for them to make themselves available to provide a consultation. I have sent an email as suggested by SmallBones to endorsements@ftc.gov. Can we prevent this string from being archived right away in case they do respond?
- The other thing that can be done is reporting blatant astroturfing to Attorney Generals in NY and CA.[5]submit Alternatively, I would wonder if the WMF would join other crowd-sourced websites that are more aggressive about pursuing astroturfing businesses legally. Wiki-PR is far from the only one. I do not know if that is something WMF would consider doing and/or if it would depend on community input, but it seemed like there was broad support for the case against Wiki-PR, who is not the only one by far. CorporateM (Talk) 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Coretheapple - I'll be astonished if it's against policy to point out where a user has broken the law.
- Please stop it with the straw man, and please stop ignoring the law, Carrite. --Elvey (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wonder how many more times Elvey will need to be told that the FTC Guides are just that -- guides -- not laws, before he will come down off the roof and stop shouting about "criminal" activity on Wikipedia? I'm setting the over/under at 4,200 times. Where are you Newyorkbrad? He seems not to be learning quickly enough! - 2001:558:1400:10:B9FF:AB59:868A:DE42 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Tara Harwood - paid editor?
Jimbo, Tara Harwood was the WMF's Head of Administrative Services for nine months between 2010 and 2011. There is a "Tara H." advertising on Elance their "ethical" Wikipedia editing services. It would appear to represent Harwood, but you never know if it is a "joe job" account. Looks like the Elancer never received a paying project via that platform, but nonetheless, if this is an actual former WMF head employee, doesn't this account sort of look bad for your Bright Line Rule? The Elance listing clearly says, "I can create or edit Wikipedia articles", not "I can create or edit the Wikipedia Talk pages associated with articles". Maybe someone at the WMF could reach out to Harwood, currently a data analyst at SumOfUs, and ask her to delete or modify the Elance profile (if it is hers)? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can someone explain what is 'your Bright Line Rule'? I'm assuming it's different from WP:PAY and WP:NOPAY? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The "Bright Line Rule" is (as might be expected) a bright-line rule intended to reliably prevent issues with conflicts of interest; the rule is that paid editors or representatives for any given organization should not edit the article directly, instead limiting themselves to requesting changes on the talk page of the article, or similar avenues. It's simple and effective, but unattractive and restrictive, as there are many direct edits an editor with a conflict of interest can legitimately make, and slow response times for indirect edits. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is Bright-line rule a particularly American legal phrase, then? I'd don't recall encountering it, until reading it in a Wikipedia context. AnonNep (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know; now I'm curious, too. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know where the phrase originated, but I am pretty sure that it was first popularized when it was used in a US supreme court case. In 1948, in the case of Wilkerson v. McCarthy[6], Justice Frankfurter's wrote the following in a concurring opinion:
- "When a plaintiff claims that an injury which he has suffered is attributable to a defendant's negligence -- want of care in the discharge of a duty which the defendant owed to him -- it is the trial judge's function to determine whether the evidence in its entirety would rationally support a verdict for the plaintiff, assuming that the jury took, as it would be entitled to take, a view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. If there were a bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence, there would be no problem. Only an incompetent or a willful judge would take a case from the jury when the issue should be left to the jury. But, since questions of negligence are questions of degree, often very nice differences of degree, judges of competence and conscience have in the past, and will in the future, disagree whether proof in a case is sufficient to demand submission to the jury."
- It is such a useful concept that you see it appearing in a fair number of legal cases after 1949. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! It makes more sense in terms of Duty of care, as that 'bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence'. (Although, still a bit unsure on how/why its been adapted for Wikipedia.) AnonNep (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The term "bright line" has become part of the vernacular and is used more widely than in the strictly legal sense, so it wasn't really adapted just for Wikipedia. "Slippery slope" is another term used in constitutional law that has become part of common language, and thus is commonly used here. While not exactly opposites, you often see the terms used in the same argument, as in "we need a bright line to prevent a slippery slope". First Light (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The opposite to a bright line rule would generally be an Elephant test MChesterMC (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The term "bright line" has become part of the vernacular and is used more widely than in the strictly legal sense, so it wasn't really adapted just for Wikipedia. "Slippery slope" is another term used in constitutional law that has become part of common language, and thus is commonly used here. While not exactly opposites, you often see the terms used in the same argument, as in "we need a bright line to prevent a slippery slope". First Light (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that! It makes more sense in terms of Duty of care, as that 'bright line dividing negligence from non-negligence'. (Although, still a bit unsure on how/why its been adapted for Wikipedia.) AnonNep (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know where the phrase originated, but I am pretty sure that it was first popularized when it was used in a US supreme court case. In 1948, in the case of Wilkerson v. McCarthy[6], Justice Frankfurter's wrote the following in a concurring opinion:
- I don't know; now I'm curious, too. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is Bright-line rule a particularly American legal phrase, then? I'd don't recall encountering it, until reading it in a Wikipedia context. AnonNep (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- The "Bright Line Rule" is (as might be expected) a bright-line rule intended to reliably prevent issues with conflicts of interest; the rule is that paid editors or representatives for any given organization should not edit the article directly, instead limiting themselves to requesting changes on the talk page of the article, or similar avenues. It's simple and effective, but unattractive and restrictive, as there are many direct edits an editor with a conflict of interest can legitimately make, and slow response times for indirect edits. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
We actually have a Wikipedia article on Bright-line rule, which states it is "a clearly defined rule or standard, generally used in law, composed of objective factors which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation." CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Critics and critiques
Hi Jimbo. Happy New Year. I'm curious about your position on sites like Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. I believe I have read comments from you that were derogatory about these external sites, but again and again it has been outside pressure that has resulted in the unmasking of abusers here and that has exposed improprieties here, often resulting in various reforms and cleanup.
It also strikes me that Wikipedia hasn't managed to develop healthy internal controls and review; instead attacking, banning, berating, and browbeating those who seek reform from within. Certainly the external sites mentioned have their own problems with bullies and abusive characters, but hasn't Wikipedia's own lack of systemic oversight and its own failure to deal with bullying, harassment (in various forms), and dishonesty (in various forms) created the need for external supervision and oversight? Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Websites with numerous vicious insults: Of course there are problems with POV-pushing and even various insults in Wikipedia pages, but the level of hostile remarks allowed by other websites, without oversighting or blanking or redacting the insults, raises questions of whether they are helping or, ultimately, hurting Wikipedia, on balance. To reduce hostilities here, a call for wp:RfC on a user's actions has often led to self-correction of excessive badgering, or else site-banning of troublesome users. In fact, several admins have resigned the tools, when faced with strong opposition for their excessive actions. The key tactic is to let the WP community debate the issues for several weeks, and not wp:SNOW-close a discussion before the wider community can decide the corrective means needed to reduce the various problems. A person with only a few enemies can be seen by the community to be a passive non-threat in general, given enough weeks for average users to respond. It can be surprising how many "strangers" will !vote together during an RfC to correct the misguided actions of some users. An outside website is not really needed to resolve those cases. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- The answer, of course, is that a certain number of the Wikipediocracy (WPO) regulars have no intention whatsoever of helping Wikipedia and would like nothing better than to "hasten the day" of its demise. Then there are a certain percentage very definitely want the best for the project. With all shades of opinion in between those poles as well... Ultimately it's only a message board and people will see what they want to see in the inkblots... The function of the site is akin to that of an opposition newspaper relative to a government administration, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I very much like Carrite's summary of Wikipediocracy. It is an opposition site, and as such, has its pros and cons. I do read it regularly although I havent contributed.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughful replies. I have seen signs of maturity in how some challenging situations have been handled on Wikipedia. I've always thought that a general discussion board for article work would be nice, a less formalistic way to get outside thoughts from a broader audience apart from the individual projects and talk pages. The teahouse and help desk seem to function pretty efficiently. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The answer, of course, is that a certain number of the Wikipediocracy (WPO) regulars have no intention whatsoever of helping Wikipedia and would like nothing better than to "hasten the day" of its demise. Then there are a certain percentage very definitely want the best for the project. With all shades of opinion in between those poles as well... Ultimately it's only a message board and people will see what they want to see in the inkblots... The function of the site is akin to that of an opposition newspaper relative to a government administration, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has been saving lives again
I thought this was a quite interesting example of one way Wikipedia helps people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Permanent link to responses: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 3#Jung Myung Seok. Graham87 04:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Awareness of storms and household dangers: There are many articles which help users avoid risky or dangerous situations. With hurricanes, it has been helpful to note the great danger, in low-lying areas, from immense storm tides with waves often 3–4 metres (10–13 ft) higher than the projected storm surge which is often under-warned for various hurricanes or typhoons. I think people are learning how an approaching tornado sounds like a growing intense wind, a "freight train" which grows louder and louder, because it is heading directly for the listener, who has perhaps only 20 seconds to enter a "safe room" or stair closet or a bathtub with mattress/pillow on top. With micrwave ovens, we even have an entire paragraph which recommends to cook with a popsicle stick when "superheating" a coffee cup in a microwave ("Superheating#Occurrence via microwave"), to avoid the explosion of steam-driven boiling water when stirring or pouring powder into a smooth, superheated hot mug. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I often enter my "safe room" when editing wikipedia and always avoid superheated hot mugs. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt this holds a candle to the number of lives saved by the illustration from Meth mouth. (now there's an image you can't unsee ... I wonder what the filter people would call the thing to block it?) Wnt (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is wonderful how meth perfectly protected the front teeth of the "Meth mouth" to show the need to widen meth's anti-decay power by smoking more along the side teeth as well. Also, we have "Goldilocks" which warns little girls not to stay in bear houses. ;‑) Wikid77 08:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- possibly, the Crystal un-Method? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Other natural disasters... I can't remember whether the schoolgirl who saved numerous lives because she knew that receding seas could mean an imminent tsunami, learned this from Wikipedia or in a geography lesson. But maybe the geography teacher had been reading Wikipedia anyway. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt this holds a candle to the number of lives saved by the illustration from Meth mouth. (now there's an image you can't unsee ... I wonder what the filter people would call the thing to block it?) Wnt (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I often enter my "safe room" when editing wikipedia and always avoid superheated hot mugs. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Internet Archive & the death of dead links
This probably isn't the best place to post, but since I know it's been discussed here before and this page is widely viewed, I figured I might as well drop a note here, especially as a few people have asked me about it. I've been talking with the Internet Archive for some time about how to use their archiving system to prevent linkrot (especially reference linkrot) on Wikipedia. All the technology is in place on their end to essentially eliminate linkrot on Wikipedia; they've been crawling all references added to Wikipedia within minutes of them being added to Wikipedia for quite some time. I have a meeting on the ninth to discuss how best to move forward, but it's likely that I'll be acting as WiR for the IA and driving community consensus/tool development on our end to take better advantage of the IA's technology. The primary end goal is literally the end of linkrot, with some cool secondary stuff - like the popularization of the Archives' television news search as a way to allow Wikipedians to verifiably cite television news broadcasts. In other words, as long as community consensus can be achieved (and I'm not imagining that'll be terribly hard on an issue like this!) we can expect, effectively, a total end to dead links on Wikipedia within the next two or three months. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds pretty awesome!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. This would be very helpful to many of the Mexico geography articles which tend to rely on government website information.Thelmadatter (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure about this? I seem to recall looking for some Indonesian sites I've used in the archive, and those didn't show up. Luckily Webcitation didn't die, so I'm still using that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of the info I currently have is from a couple in-person conversations with Alexis from the IA, both at events that were focused on different things where we were kind of just chatting in a corner, so I may get a few details wrong currently. Looking at one of my email threads, I should have said 'consistently within a couple hours' rather than a few minutes, but the IA has definitely been crawling all new external links on at least the English Wikipedia (not yet sure about other projects) within hours of creation since at least September (and doing their normal periodic crawls before that,) and is going to continue to do rapid crawls in the future. I should have significantly more info about the project and a path forward after the ninth, and will post an update either here if this thread is somehow not archived yet, or on my own talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that sounds useful. Hope it works... we could save a lot of trouble in the long run. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- A lot of the info I currently have is from a couple in-person conversations with Alexis from the IA, both at events that were focused on different things where we were kind of just chatting in a corner, so I may get a few details wrong currently. Looking at one of my email threads, I should have said 'consistently within a couple hours' rather than a few minutes, but the IA has definitely been crawling all new external links on at least the English Wikipedia (not yet sure about other projects) within hours of creation since at least September (and doing their normal periodic crawls before that,) and is going to continue to do rapid crawls in the future. I should have significantly more info about the project and a path forward after the ninth, and will post an update either here if this thread is somehow not archived yet, or on my own talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Over 150 sound files in danger of deletion on commons because of complex US law
commons:Template:PD-US-record is a licensing tag over on commons, (a similar one exists on en.wikipedia, but is not being used by any files) that is used on 162 sound files. The license's accuracy has been raised into question, but the consequences of it being deleted would cause almost all sound files that are not community created or government works to be considered copyrighted. I know the foundation is legally responsible to not allow copyright violations on its servers if they know about them. Would it be possible to get a official foundation legal opinion on the license? Zginder 2014-01-06T18:10:25Z
- @Zginder: - sure, by asking the legal team. :-) Best way is to write to legal@wikimedia.org, with a link to where a discussion is happening so that they can respond. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Prominent medical disclaimers
Hi Jimmy. Do you have a view on this kind of thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Permalink to avoid confusion -- since reverted. Rgrds. --64.85.214.177 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think a well-worded disclaimer is warranted. We should be discussing the content and placement of the disclaimer, as opposed to whether or not to have it at all. I don't particularly care for this particular implementation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to be clear, we already have a medical disclaimer (2 clicks away via the tiny "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every article). So no one's discussing whether or not to have one at all, but whether to have a brief disclaimer (with a link to the full one) on medical articles themselves. Are you saying you support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somewhere on our medical articles themselves? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somwhere (at the top) on our medical articles themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is an extensive and continuing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. It is complex and hasn't been closed, but it looks to me as if the views opposing any additional disclaimer have more support, numerically at least, than any others. DES (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's more complex than that but yes, there are mixed views. One of the arguments against it is one which does not impress me in the least: that other sites don't have them. Other sites don't have any of the kinds of disclaimers that we have, such as "The neutrality of this article has been disputed" - a disclaimer that no one is suggesting we get rid of. We are different from WebMD, the Lancet, etc., in some important ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Presently, the "disclaimers" link doesn't appear on articles in "mobile view" - it's behind a link consisting of 3 horizontal bars in the top left corner that most readers will never click - so Ironholds has lodged a request at Bugzilla to have that fixed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I hope people will consider Anomie's proposal to feature the current site disclaimer more visibly in the sidebar for all articles, rather than tagging specific articles. The problem I see with putting disclaimers in Wikitext is that vandals can put in really bad misinformation and take out the disclaimer at the same time (or we'll just forget them in little-watched articles). A disclaimer that goes missing at the worst possible time is worse than useless. Wnt (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somwhere (at the top) on our medical articles themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just to be clear, we already have a medical disclaimer (2 clicks away via the tiny "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every article). So no one's discussing whether or not to have one at all, but whether to have a brief disclaimer (with a link to the full one) on medical articles themselves. Are you saying you support having some kind of brief medical disclaimer somewhere on our medical articles themselves? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think a well-worded disclaimer is warranted. We should be discussing the content and placement of the disclaimer, as opposed to whether or not to have it at all. I don't particularly care for this particular implementation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
What is neutrality and what does "I am neutral" mean?
Hello Mr. Wales. I contribute to French Wikipedia and would like you develop your paradox about neutrality by the related paradox. If I must or can write what people think and if I am someone, can I write what I think ? Must I wait other people think like me to write the results of my point of view and how can I have people agree with me if people say "you are alone to think that so you are not neutral" ? That's not just a game. A lot of ideas cannot be written on French Wikipedia because they are not considered serious by serious people. My books are not published since nobody agree with me. The situation is locked and I know my idea are suspicious because I use those of René Girard to see the world and free people from dark ideas. I think your neutrality is very useful to prevent people from project their emotions to facts and write anything or so but I don't project and just read in the book of life. Anybody can check what I pretend seeing by seeing oneself. French Wikipedia seems to reproduce official ideas but where are the contests by popular people ? Are there less intelligent than people who refer to quantity ? Is quantity always right ? If I can't contest Alzheimer does exist and if my experience is not thought but other people, it is just the opinion of a clown or the suggestion that allow us to cure what we call "Alzheimer" in a few days ? Curing Alzheimer people is easy : just be a humane being ! If you can read French, please read my message here https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Wikip%C3%A9dia:Neutralit%C3%A9_de_point_de_vue#remise_en_cause_de_la_neutralit.C3.A9_expos.C3.A9e_par_le_fondateur_de_Wikip.C3.A9dia_Jimmy_Wales_appliqu.C3.A9e_aux_sciences_humaines otherwise please ask me to explain. I hope your year 2014 will be nice and joyful. --Nicolas Messina (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Bonjour Nicolas, Wikipedia is a tertiary source built from information published in secondary sources. If you have done research on alzheimers then I suggest you submit your research to a medical journal. If after peer review they publish it then others may well add it to Wikipedia articles. Original research without peer review is not really ready for Wikipedia. We don't want to be the first to publish new ideas, especially medical ones. As for neutrality, it can be a difficult thing to achieve, sometimes there are different theories amongst academics and where that happens we try to cover the leading theories, giving them due weight based on their coverage in reliable sources. One test is to see if you can cover both sides in a dispute without seeming to favour either. But the easiest way to achieve neutrality on Wikipedia is to write about things that you find interesting but don't have original theories of your own. ϢereSpielChequers 06:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Often, the "Original Research" allegation is used to stall/choke off discussions on Wikipedia talk pages that include very interesting and promising thoughts and theories by those who do not want any change to their version of truth. There's a difference between including "Original research" in an article and generally discussing this on a talk page. Sadly, most times, someone has a promising and genuine idea on a discussion page and it is nipped in the bud being labelled Original Research, although in the end the discussion could have helped developing the idea to get published and then have it included as sourced material that improves the article.--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a good thing, then. What you talk about sounds fun and interesting - discussions about new ideas - but it doesn't really belong at Wikipedia. There are lots of places to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a neutral editor. If I want, I can start editing about a politician in some other country who belongs to a political party I've never heard of, but I still have a strong POV -- I just don't know what it is yet. NPOV is like white light, which can be built only by joining all the colors of the spectrum in their natural proportions. We create neutral articles by seeking out a broad range of POVs from the established literature, giving as accurate a sense of which points of view are most prevalent as we can. When everyone edits properly, it should not matter whether they or you write the article - because neither of you should impose your personal choice to exclude things that are reliably sourced, nor to throw in ideas that have no published support. Nonetheless, it is useful to discuss "original research" freely, and I hope the French version has something like WP:Reference desk/Science where you can look for data to confirm or contradict your observations. Wnt (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a good thing, then. What you talk about sounds fun and interesting - discussions about new ideas - but it doesn't really belong at Wikipedia. There are lots of places to do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Often, the "Original Research" allegation is used to stall/choke off discussions on Wikipedia talk pages that include very interesting and promising thoughts and theories by those who do not want any change to their version of truth. There's a difference between including "Original research" in an article and generally discussing this on a talk page. Sadly, most times, someone has a promising and genuine idea on a discussion page and it is nipped in the bud being labelled Original Research, although in the end the discussion could have helped developing the idea to get published and then have it included as sourced material that improves the article.--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Concept of an Enyclopedia
Don't you think that an Encyclopedia should stick only to facts, giving the reader the opportunity to form his own opinion? As it is, most articles include a bunch of quoted point-of-views thrown together in an often wild order and solely the order in which these are put i.e their sequential arrangement form a point-of-view, by itself, leaving room to manipulate the reader and giving the editor the possibility to educate the reader rather than giving him the opportunity to act as an individual and form his own view?--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is no easy answer to this issue. A quoted point-of-view is often a salient fact. And quoted-points-of-view (like all facts, but easier than some facts) can be arranged so as to give an impression. Achieving high quality neutral articles which serve to educate the user rather than to inflame passions involves a lot of thoughtful judgment. It's why I say we are not transcription monkeys. We can and should exercise judgment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Double Standard concerning the requirements for an edit and a revert
For an edit to be accepted to be included in an article, it needs to be well-sourced and -justified. On the contrary, a revert of an edit that fulfills the mentioned criterias is accepted without any justification or source proving that the revert is worthwile and reasonable. Isn't this quite a double standard?--37.230.21.43 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- One would need to know to which edit you were referring to really answer your particular issue. One type of "removal first" is for weakly sourced claims in any biography of a living person. In too many cases, an editor will view a contentious claim as "justified" if it shows a person in the light which the editor wishes to portray the subject. WP:BLP seeks to make clear that such edits are improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect presents the issue well. In most cases I would say that the standards for inclusion and removal should be perfectly reciprocal. (Though individual examples are useful in terms of really chewing on the principle.) In biographies of living persons, there is a deliberate asymmetry for negative/contentious information. There are other areas where an asymmetry is called for (health information that might be dangerous if wrong, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- What it comes down to in practice is that people often disagree about whether an edit is "justified". An edit is not justified merely because one editor claims that it is. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The IPs question referred to reverts, not simply text removal. If one thinks their edit is well-sourced and justified, but it is reverted, they should go to the talkpage and demonstrate why their edit is well-sourced and justified, and communicate with those who disagreed. If it is a double standard, it's one promoting stability. CMD (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But there are certainly cases where someone reverts an edit that is, at first glance, well-sourced and justified. Upon deeper inspection the revert may be valid. When reverting, I think it's best to explain why on the talk page if there could be any doubt at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are two kinds of reverts that are particularly annoying. The first is when a revert is based on original research -- someone says that can't be true and never mind your source, or in a common refinement, that is an "extraordinary claim" (according to him) and never mind your source. It is very, very difficult to get people to admit that WP:OR even applies to people deleting stuff based on their own opinions. The other kind of bad revert is when someone undoes an entire series of edits because they claim one thing is wrong. It's not their job to pick out that one disputed detail and revert it; they're the Editor In Chief, so they just undo it all. Or sometimes they don't even say which; it's just "too big a change" so you ought to talk about it. Wikipedia would be a lot better off if people could play a game of successive refinements rather than jerking back and forth between two fixed versions. Wnt (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- But there are certainly cases where someone reverts an edit that is, at first glance, well-sourced and justified. Upon deeper inspection the revert may be valid. When reverting, I think it's best to explain why on the talk page if there could be any doubt at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The IPs question referred to reverts, not simply text removal. If one thinks their edit is well-sourced and justified, but it is reverted, they should go to the talkpage and demonstrate why their edit is well-sourced and justified, and communicate with those who disagreed. If it is a double standard, it's one promoting stability. CMD (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- What it comes down to in practice is that people often disagree about whether an edit is "justified". An edit is not justified merely because one editor claims that it is. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect presents the issue well. In most cases I would say that the standards for inclusion and removal should be perfectly reciprocal. (Though individual examples are useful in terms of really chewing on the principle.) In biographies of living persons, there is a deliberate asymmetry for negative/contentious information. There are other areas where an asymmetry is called for (health information that might be dangerous if wrong, etc.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
How long average reader views a page
Jimbo (et al.), I think we once discussed how long the average reader views a page (before changing to another webpage), but I could not remember what words to search in the talk-page archive, and Special:Statistics has average edits per page as "21.29" but I thought somewhere the average pageview duration was clocked at about 10 seconds (before next page viewed). Anyone remember the duration? -Wikid77 16:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the average pageview duration at Wikipedia is much longer than 10 seconds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- That certainly seems logical, and so I am wondering if the prior pageview-duration estimate included automated pageviews by web-crawler spiders and such. Some pageview levels are crazy, such as 50,000 per day for rare pages which "no one reads" but seem stuck in an auto-read application. Perhaps the prior average pageview duration was a simple calculation of total pageviews per month divided by number of unique usernames/IPs per month (including spider-access), to split the month into seconds per pageview per user id. -Wikid77 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That certainly seems logical, and so I am wondering if the prior pageview-duration estimate included automated pageviews by web-crawler spiders and such. Some pageview levels are crazy, such as 50,000 per day for rare pages which "no one reads" but seem stuck in an auto-read application. Perhaps the prior average pageview duration was a simple calculation of total pageviews per month divided by number of unique usernames/IPs per month (including spider-access), to split the month into seconds per pageview per user id. -Wikid77 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia.org according to Alexa:
- 3.65 Daily Pageviews per Visitor
- 4:29 min Daily Time on Site
- Wikipedia.org according to similarweb:
See also bounce rate. --Atlasowa (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Request
Jimbo, may I please ask you to comment on this unblock request? It is the same unblock that was discussed here. Also I'd be very interested to hear your opinion on some comments posted there in particular the comment posted by Sandstein "the user claims that they do not intend to edit Wikipedia again, and if that is the case, they have no reason to be unblocked.", the comment posted by A fluffernutter is a sandwich! "I think that the sticking point - the potential problem with granting this request - for many administrators is that while Trongphu is exactly right when he says blocks are preventative rather than for punishment, he's also exactly right when he says blocks are preventative rather than for punishment." and others. Thanks.71.202.123.162 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This editor has now been unblocked - problem solved :) - Alison ❤ 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Questionable content
Some articles about armchair psychology filled with questionable content and original research have found their way to wikipedia. Online communities are recruiting members to vote on keeping the page. Worrying development? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Articles kept for notability, not scientific importance: It is fine to use wp:RS sources to describe terms (such as "Involuntary celibacy" or incel) as armchair psychology, or pseudo-science, but wp:Notability is typically determined by the "world's attention span" where even a fictional university for training wizards, to fly, can gain a separate article, if the world writes about it enough. For years, WP has covered "Piltdown Man" not due to archaeological importance but, rather, as a well-known hoax explained by sources. If a page contains wp:OR original research, then update to trim the excess, or contact users to refrain from speculation. -Wikid77 06:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The problem also lays with certain editors acting unreasonably in the debate, and recruiting members of online forums to get involved in the discussion. This fellow here, he's been more then a little nasty to me and other users lately. He just sent me the following message, which I cannot say I am very fond of. He's been warned before and he is disrupting discussions with personal attacks and strawman arguments. Can anything be done about this? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia biography controversy (Seigenthaler)
Hi Jimbo, I've started an RM at Wikipedia biography controversy. Since you weighed in on this issue in the past, you may want to do so again. I also pinged you in the request, but I'd certainly understand if you've declined such notifications. --BDD (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Paid editing by WMF employee on oDesk
[7] Blog post
[8] Mailing list discussion
Can't the WMF make it clear to its employees and contractors that doing stuff like this is very bad for public relations? Hell might be other people (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd love to hear from Sarah on this. However, it's worth pointing out as a correction that Sarah has never been a WMF employee to my knowledge. Still, I very very strongly condemn such editing, and this is no exception. (Except that I'd love to hear from Sarah on this as it doesn't seem 100% confirmed yet.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly why, but you sound just like a spoof David Cameron writing here[9]. Giano 19:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seems strange that if Stierch has "never been a WMF employee", her Wikipedia user page says "Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation" and "I also am the Program Evaluation Community Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation". Or, it is possible that Mr. Wales is making a hair-splitting distinction that Stierch may be a "paid contractor", but that doesn't make her an "employee", which may be the case. Trust me, we're all waiting to hear from Sarah on this, and she's been notified (for almost 15 hours now) on her Talk page. - 2001:558:1400:10:78BC:4C64:2414:814F (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to make a hair-splitting distinction. I just don't know and have received conflicting information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought she once did a research project for the WMF (about women editors, I believe), but was never hired as an employee. Which would be working for the foundation without being an employee... not sure on my memory of this though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief. She is on the staff. She's also possibly as popular as Jimbo in some circles (if not more so), so I hope Jimmy will leave it at a very very strong condemnation. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 03:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I should note that she was listed as a Community Fellow until 31 October 2013. Not sure when she was hired as a staffer. It could just be that she hasn't updated her profile on EN Wiki. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just got this from the Foundation: "although she started as a volunteer, and then was made a Fellow, Sarah is currently an employee of the WMF".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why did you "point out as a correction" something that you hadn't confirmed before correcting? - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just got this from the Foundation: "although she started as a volunteer, and then was made a Fellow, Sarah is currently an employee of the WMF".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good grief. She is on the staff. She's also possibly as popular as Jimbo in some circles (if not more so), so I hope Jimmy will leave it at a very very strong condemnation. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 03:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to make a hair-splitting distinction. I just don't know and have received conflicting information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, she was notified of the blog post and the mailing list, but not of this discussion. Pinging @SarahStierch: so she knows about this. Rgrds. --64.85.217.168 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that Sarah has found enough time for Teahouse greetings, but hasn't penciled in an appointment to respond to Jimbo here. - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
As this is obviously a staff matter and I'm a board member, I can't comment at the present time except to repeat my usual principled objections to such things in the strongest possible terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's also a WP matter. If it's OK for Sarah, a WMF employee, to hire herself out for $44.44 an hour, or $300 per WP article, then obviously it's OK for any of the rest of us editors to do the same, and your "principled objections" are nothing more than pissing in the wind. Eric Corbett 17:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is also a WP matter and I encourage you to make your thoughts known to the Foundation. I'm just saying that I'm withholding further comment at this time because it is a staff matter. I did not mean to imply that it is not also a community matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The foundation is highly unlikely to take my thoughts on anything seriously so I won't be bothering. FWIW I don't see the same problems with paid editing that you and many others do, but Sarah's case is unusual in that she's the first WMF employee to be caught editing for money. Is she the only one? Does the WMF have a staff policy in place that either allows or disallows such paid editing? Eric Corbett 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can confirm that my e-mail to the Foundation regarding Stierch remains unanswered, more than 24 hours later. And as long as we're talking about WMF employees doing paid editing, I believe there is some outside "Wikipedia consulting" that Pete Forsyth has been doing while he has been an employee (though he seems to have his head screwed on right, about noting the distinction that COI poses). And, who could forget that 2004 classic moment when future WMF Deputy Director Erik Moeller hung out his calling card, saying "If you want me to contribute more to Wikipedia than I can do in my limited spare time, you can pay me to do so: PayPal me some money to moeller at scireview dot de". Good times, good times. - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are quite a few who've been doing "paid Wikipedia consulting", just think of the Gibraltar and Qrpedia episodes for instance. So maybe we should all down tools until we're paid as well? Eric Corbett 20:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's interesting how the last edit that Stierch made to Wikipedia before the allegations of paid editing broke, was to welcome VJSWarren to swing by the Teahouse sometime. No possibility at all that VJS is Victor J. Sordillo of Warren Township, editing without disclosing his conflict of (self) interest, right? - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not really, beyond "a lot of new editors have a COI", which is to be expected, anyway. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's becoming increasingly clear to me that I and others in my position are being taken for mugs to be exploited. Which perhaps we have been to be fair. Eric Corbett 21:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's interesting how the last edit that Stierch made to Wikipedia before the allegations of paid editing broke, was to welcome VJSWarren to swing by the Teahouse sometime. No possibility at all that VJS is Victor J. Sordillo of Warren Township, editing without disclosing his conflict of (self) interest, right? - 2001:558:1400:10:FC49:2FE8:A83C:ECDE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are quite a few who've been doing "paid Wikipedia consulting", just think of the Gibraltar and Qrpedia episodes for instance. So maybe we should all down tools until we're paid as well? Eric Corbett 20:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is also a WP matter and I encourage you to make your thoughts known to the Foundation. I'm just saying that I'm withholding further comment at this time because it is a staff matter. I did not mean to imply that it is not also a community matter.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
It's been over a day and a half since Sarah was notified of this conversation. She has made changes to her user page, welcomed a person to the teahouse, and removed a talk page note. Don't you think WMF employees and administrators owe the community a reasonably prompt response for allegations of this serious nature? Can someone take this to ANI? Hell might be other people (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- @JW. I would suggest that what you need to do is try to accept this is a normal thing and to help come up with a mechanism in which paid editing is both transparent and supervised. This is not going to mean the death of Wikipedia, there will always be committed volunteers. There are just some things that are not going to happen without financial stimuli and there will always be people willing to do a job for money. It is normal. We just need to make sure that this is being done on the up-and-up, according to NPOV. Obviously, paid editors have an incentive to cheat NPOV. This is why they need to be watched. Regulation, not prohibition. One would think that as a libertarian capitalist you would be all over this notion... Carrite (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sarah has been invaluable to Wikipedia over recent years - her work on community outreach, setting up the Teahouse, and encouraging women to become involved has been wonderful, and her efforts have been some of the best on WP. I'm strongly opposed to paid editing, but I also have a great deal of respect for Sarah, and I hope that we can keep in mind that she is a very valuable contributor. In regard to engaging with the community here about the allegations, I'm confident that Sarah will when she can - at the moment, her first priority is, I assume, to engage with the WMF, as this is primarily an issue that that they need to work out, and I expect that most of her focus right now is on that side of the equation. In regard to WP, we've repeatedly chosen to permit paid editing, and while some of us (myself included) may wish the the community took a real stance, it hasn't. From WP's perspective, at worst (if it is true) she is guilty of doing something that is "strongly discouraged".
- I'm sure that Russavia will make sure that this doesn't go away on the mailing list, (as much as it leaves a sour taste that it is Russavia raising this), and editors here will similarly make sure it is addressed on WP. Giving her time will hurt no-one. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well said. NE Ent 11:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- "No registration required," "we respect your privacy," and "no paid editing" are fundamentally incompatible. You can't have all three at once. NE Ent 11:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is my perspective as well. Once that notion sinks in (and I didn't always feel the way I do on the matter), the question becomes: What's the real problem and how should it be addressed? And the answer to that, I feel, is (1) POV editing is the problem (which we all agree is not good and not permitted); and (2) supervision of potentially POV-driven paid editors is the answer. But you can't supervise them if you're chasing them around with shotguns because they are going to, quite reasonably, hide... The situation needs to be regularized. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not my perspective. That analysis is as simplistic as saying "neutral" and "point of view" are "fundamentally incompatible;" or "encyclopedic" and "copyright (or "BLP"), are "fundamentally incompatible." Sure, that is all true, in a sense. But our policies like NPOV are not just prescriptive, they are aspirational and informational: 'this is how you should act/what you should do' in this situation. Moreover, our policies are primarily self-executing: 'this is what I do, here, when no one is looking.' In my view, what is fundamentally incompatible, is saying here is "full and neutral information," while concealing COI. COI, itself, is information the reader deserves; and financial COI is a well known and easily defined COI. Unlike a "point of view" which every human knows every other human has; COI, as normally understood and reasonably defined, is just not something every writer has. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The point is that enforcement is impossible in a system in which anyone can anonymously establish a WP account and in which "outing" (revelation of real life identity and relationship to the article subject in question) is considered a wikicrime... I think we can all agree that COI needs to be identified. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not my perspective. That analysis is as simplistic as saying "neutral" and "point of view" are "fundamentally incompatible;" or "encyclopedic" and "copyright (or "BLP"), are "fundamentally incompatible." Sure, that is all true, in a sense. But our policies like NPOV are not just prescriptive, they are aspirational and informational: 'this is how you should act/what you should do' in this situation. Moreover, our policies are primarily self-executing: 'this is what I do, here, when no one is looking.' In my view, what is fundamentally incompatible, is saying here is "full and neutral information," while concealing COI. COI, itself, is information the reader deserves; and financial COI is a well known and easily defined COI. Unlike a "point of view" which every human knows every other human has; COI, as normally understood and reasonably defined, is just not something every writer has. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- In regards to Bilby's comment that "wae've repeatedly chosen to permit paid editing, and while some of us (myself included) may wish the the community took a real stance, it hasn't": Indeed. The community has recently told at least two different administrators that (their particular) paid/COI editing is acceptable and not incompatible with adminship. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Except they did both, iirc, added "connected contributer" to their one article, when it was brought to their attention - even, if people will be lenient with the honest, the upfront (even the belatedly, so); they still resist the not up-front (per: 'the coverup is worse' or 'the failure to disclose what should be disclosed is seen as less than honest'). As for Sarah, now she must publicly choose, which interest (in her conflict) to serve. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would add that the fact that they are admins is probably seen as irrelevant, in that they are already expected to either act as an editor, or act as an administrator, and writing articles is seen as acting as an editor not as an administrator. Our "involved" concept for admins is already a specialized COI regime (o.t.h., if they took admin acts with respect to their own content the outcome would often be different). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even the policy page acknowledges that paid editing is not proof of a conflict of interest. If the person soliciting the paid creation of an article says "Please write me a neutrally worded, factual article about this subject" and neither the project nor the WMF have a policy against paid editing, the conflict is quite minimal. (Limited, then, to whatever benefit the writer might perceive she can obtain by writing something more aggrandizing than a neutrally worded, factual article.) Nathan T 21:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's one of the problems with the guideline. But let's not get into that again - the whole subject is tiresome, and is obviously not changing anyway. I'm grateful to whoever it was who raised this (let me guess.....), whatever the motives may or may not be. While initially I discounted such posts as "trolling" intended to embarrass the project, I am beginning to see that posts highlighting paid editing by Foundation-related editors at least keep the issue alive. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Even the policy page acknowledges that paid editing is not proof of a conflict of interest. If the person soliciting the paid creation of an article says "Please write me a neutrally worded, factual article about this subject" and neither the project nor the WMF have a policy against paid editing, the conflict is quite minimal. (Limited, then, to whatever benefit the writer might perceive she can obtain by writing something more aggrandizing than a neutrally worded, factual article.) Nathan T 21:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Those of you who are looking to put her head on a platter for not responding to this should bear in mind that her employer (the WMF) may have asked her not to discuss the issue "on-wiki", or even with her cat. It wouldn't be the first time for that particular organization (which is ironically dedicated to sharing knowledge). Assuming that's the case, Jimmy, perhaps you could nudge the good folks at legal to at least allow her (or you) to say that's why she can't talk, rather than leaving her to look like a x-no-evil monkey hung out in front of the people who she's worked with the past few years. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that can't be the reason now as she no longer works for the WMF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe, depending on the severance agreement. It's at best fuzzy as to whether she actually breached any policies or not, so some sort of agreement must have been reached before parting ways. In any case, perhaps the nice folks who were rooting for her head will be satisfied now, and those with an interest in doing so can imply that she was fired for breaking policy. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Breaking policy" my Derry Air. Frank notes, quite correctly (though a bit of an understatement), that it is "frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation". Agree that there could be NDAs which last after employment ends, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Our collective vagueness and indecisiveness in setting "policy" about these matters, combined with the tendency of too many of us to sniff blood in the water and then circle and pounce and bite, results in real pain to real people. It has happened too often in the past, and now again. This real living, breathing, feeling person must certainly be feeling anguish right now. She is indisputably devoted to the Free culture movement and has been widely liked and respected. It is quite sad that some take pleasure in trying to take Sarah Stierch down, just to score some sick point in the Wikipedia wars. SarahStierch still has my affection and respect, and always will. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Breaking policy" my Derry Air. Frank notes, quite correctly (though a bit of an understatement), that it is "frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation". Agree that there could be NDAs which last after employment ends, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe, depending on the severance agreement. It's at best fuzzy as to whether she actually breached any policies or not, so some sort of agreement must have been reached before parting ways. In any case, perhaps the nice folks who were rooting for her head will be satisfied now, and those with an interest in doing so can imply that she was fired for breaking policy. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Like Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well said, Cullen. I supported her at her RFA and I do not regret that decision. She is capable of writing neutrally despite a COI, an ability that few editors have (I only know of one other, who has been able to bring several company articles to GA class). I do think that a COI declaration would have been in order, but Sarah has not violated policy and should not be thrown to the wolves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- One of the ways to further the free culture movement is to help prove the concept of the free culture economy. People who are good at writing articles getting paid to create articles for the public space isn't exactly a horrific outcome. Sarah is getting burned because she embarrassed Jimbo and Sue (both of whom who have been all over the media declaring war on paid editing), and because the WMF is incredibly short-sighted.
Sadly, Cullen328, the "on-wiki" point scoring probably isn't over yet, but the WMF will no longer be implicated. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- COI disclosure and complete transparency combined with keeping to WP:NOADS and anyone can edit seems to be the wave of the future in my humble opinion. We already have tons of people POV-pushing and doing copyvio cut-and-paste off of PR sites for free around here, we know how to handle people who are tendentious and disruptive. Poor editors will get slapped whether they are working for free or for pay. No sense running more trolls and socks underground. This has the feel of marijuana legalization; tons of people doing, it might as well be out in the open so it's easier to keep an eye on it. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Marijiuana legalization is a good comparison. Two U. S. Presidents have been pretty clearly shown to have smoked marijuana, and that's not counting the one who "only inhaled". That's why a certain editor keeps bringing these cases of admins and WMF employees who edit for pay, here to Jimbo's talk page — to show the hypocrisy of calls for prohibition and shaming for something that good members of the WP community are also and already doing. First Light (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the details of this Stierch case—I just want to say that the issue has never been paid editing in general, it's always been about paid advocacy editing. You're right: getting paid to create articles for the public space is not a horrific outcome at all. The problem is not that people are getting paid to create encyclopedic content (however rarely that happens)—the problem is that people are paying in order to advertise and polish the images of their products and their businesses. Customers haven't been paying MyWikiBiz, Wiki-PR, WikiExperts, etc. because they want to create encyclopedic content for the public—they're doing it specifically to advance their financial interests by using this site to host their advertorials—any other assessment of their behaviour is insincere.
- Now is there a solution? Many have said opposing the practice is futile, because it will just go underground. This is far from the truth. The truth is that most business people have no interest in disreputable practices such as taking advantage of a charitable organization—it's just that they do not know that that is what they are doing. For example, most people don't know the difference between Wikipedia and Google Places for Business in terms of policy or content controls (hey they both show up on the side in Google results, don't they?). Simply setting policy, and making clear to the public what this policy is, will do most of the work for us. That's why in the past few months as policy has been debated and the Foundation has released a couple of press releases explicating their position, there has been a large backlash from the people who run these reputation management business—they depend on their clients being misinformed as to the nature of Wikipedia and acceptable behaviour thereon. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- After there have been three RfCs on an issue, posting arguments in favor of the losing side of the RfCs, no matter how good those arguments are, is pretty much a waste of time. I didn't much like the results either, but we all have to accept the fact that there is a clear consensus and move on. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment Atethnekos. Eric Corbett 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- COI disclosure and complete transparency combined with keeping to WP:NOADS and anyone can edit seems to be the wave of the future in my humble opinion. We already have tons of people POV-pushing and doing copyvio cut-and-paste off of PR sites for free around here, we know how to handle people who are tendentious and disruptive. Poor editors will get slapped whether they are working for free or for pay. No sense running more trolls and socks underground. This has the feel of marijuana legalization; tons of people doing, it might as well be out in the open so it's easier to keep an eye on it. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- So do I. A vast amount of waste motion, misunderstanding, and unnecessary work deleting and explaining, would be saved if the screen new users see before they sign up said, in letters of fire:
"Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself, your group, your client, or your company. If that is what you want to do, this is not the site for you".
- JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Me too, and I also agree with Guy Macon. We need to accept the fact that if left to the community, paid editing will continue to flourish. The community has spoken. Let's move on. If the WMF wants to act on the issue, the ball is in their court. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- So do I. A vast amount of waste motion, misunderstanding, and unnecessary work deleting and explaining, would be saved if the screen new users see before they sign up said, in letters of fire:
- Tim Sampson, "Wikimedia staffer loses job over edit-for-cash scandal," Daily Dot, Jan. 9, 2014. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Statement from Wikimedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Posted almost a day ago by User:Crisco 1492 in this thread. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
My recent edit experience
I am sorry but I am extremely, extremely frustrated with my recent edit experience. I edited the Mazda article yesterday to add a little information about keiretsu.(See [10]) My edit was deemed 'irrelevant' and was quickly reverted. It seemed to be a judgmental call and editor(s) refused to engage in any serious discussion.[11] My attempt to draw in attention at the Administrators' noticeboard was quickly shut down, by the same editor.[12]
My question is: is there a place in Wiki for editors like me, who lack time and experience, to contribute, and to reflect the ideas of many? Or the Wiki community would only accept those few with more experience and time. The outcome would mean whether this was my last participation into this (once) great project of you. Sincerely,--Now wiki (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Step #1 is discuss at Talk:Mazda, not the user talk pages. Try that first, but be aware it may take a few days or a week to attract enough users. Step #2 is Be patient. Otherwise, the next steps to take are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (i.e., WP:3O, WP:RFC, WP:DRN, etc.). If your edits are correct and appropriate, they will eventually prevail in some form, but be prepared to accept compromise and/or rejection. Rgrds. --64.85.215.214 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Try editing 20 different pages before getting demoralized: It is easy to imagine WP having degenerated into a hostile place which rejects all newcomers; however, try to update several articles, and compare the experiences when working on each page. If a person only visited the beaches at Nice (France) they might conclude all beaches have stones, or only swam at Mombasa then conclude all beaches have seaweed, or only walked at Virginia Beach, VA then might think all beaches have extensive white sand. Edit 20 articles for a few days and compare a variety of results. -Wikid77 21:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I asked the user in question to bring the discussion to the talk page, but he decided to file an admin report instead. I agree with 64.85 above, relax, everything can wait a few days (or months) as nothing is on fire. And I would like to add: assume good faith. Cheers, hope you decide to stick around, Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Mr.choppers: I invited you to participate in the talk page here [13], didn't I? But you chose to remain silent apparently.---Now wiki (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Um, I'm sorry I guess I didn't clarify that I meant the article talk page (I now know you're not entirely familiar with Wiki etiquette, but you came across as if you did - my bad), but you also can't expect me to reply immediately as I too have to work. By the time I got home you had already filed an ANI. I would recommend a bit more patience before going to such lengths in the future. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, your ANI report was closed by uninvolved user De728631, not by Thomas W. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Advertorials in The New York Times
The New York Times has begun to publish content provided by paying advertisers.
Google reports many search results for paid news. This trend has ramifications for Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources, as specified in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The New York Times has published paid advocacy advertisements since at least the 1950s, and I think well before that. One of them was the starting point of the famous US Supreme Court case Times vs Sullivan. Why should the policy of the NY Times (a private organization) control or even significantly influence that of Wikipedia (a quite separate private organization)? DES (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because if it's not marked or the statement that this is a paid advertorial is missed, editors may insert advertising junk as actual information, because it's in the NYT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- True, but the linked story above says that all such "advertorials" are being marked, at least for now. Yes, editors will need to take care to check, but then editors using the print version (or scanned editions) might run into these from any date, and would still need to take care. DES (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you, that we still need to take care. However, there is an increased possibility of such advertorial junk getting through as the paid advertisements go online (and if the "Advertorials" are marked in really small font, who can blame editors for missing it?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is actually the oldest, original application of the FTC's guidelines about misleading advertising - adverts that masquerade as legitimate news reports. Accusations that journalists re-published PR-provided stories as if they were independent journalism is also one of the oldest criticisms of PR, dating back to the early 1900s when AT&T allegedly pushed out pro-monopoly propaganda through newspapers it had paid advertising relationships, that would also (depending on who you ask) publish stories provided by their PR department with a journalist's byline on it in exchange for advertising dollars.
- I don't think the NYT would ever cross that line of sponsored adverts without a disclosure. However, a better question is whether the disclosure is prominent enough, such that a Wikipedia editor will notice it. I was on the plane about a month ago reading what I thought was an article in the in-plane magazine. As I read, I noticed it was totally glowing - in tiny print at the top left corner it said it was an advertisement, but I did not realize it until I was 4 paragraphs in.
- I don't think there is anything to do about it though. They are obviously not reliable sources and any editor has the good sense to know it. Some editors may accidentally use them not knowing it, but there are no preventative measures that can be deployed to prevent it and those mistakes will probably not be many. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Right. This sort of thing is done generally and it's called native advertising. Slate has been doing it for awhile; they used to mark the articles, but they had a recent redesign and I don't know if they still do. As you can see here The Atlantic does this also, and apparently also Forbes and the Washington Post and HuffPost are going there too and probably most everyone else either is doing or will do. Certainly the Wikipedia also does this, although we don't mark the articles and of course there are other differences.
- I don't think there is anything to do about it though. They are obviously not reliable sources and any editor has the good sense to know it. Some editors may accidentally use them not knowing it, but there are no preventative measures that can be deployed to prevent it and those mistakes will probably not be many. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not nuts about this, but as a long-term business strategy it's preferable to "let's slowly die" which I guess is the other main option on the table for these publications. As long as the
advertisementssponsored articles are marked it's not a problem per se, exactly. Where the problem comes in IMO is the new dynamic. IMO it's healthy if the relationship between the editorial and business departments has a good dose of referring to the other as "ignorant bean-counters" or "la-di-da prettyboys" (as appropriate) after a couple drinks. And so this sort of cooperation with advertisers rather than just selling them space is not a good trend. But here's a counterview, that nothing much has changed.
- I'm not nuts about this, but as a long-term business strategy it's preferable to "let's slowly die" which I guess is the other main option on the table for these publications. As long as the
- But anyway this is a general thing and not specific to the Times. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I would not be surprised to see the notices getting smaller and pretty well hidden, and I think the FTC is going to be pretty reluctant to interfere with a revenue model that may be essential to America having large functional news publications. This may then devolve such that there's space for boutique publications with a sales model based specifically on not hosting sponsored content. Who knows. But definitely a trend for Wikipedia editors to be aware of. Herostratus (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's been a prominent topic with both the FTC and PR reps. I go to a monthly marketing meetup that I attended yesterday and native advertising became the topic of discussion for the full hour. On one end you had ppl asking how they can get the disclosure smaller so ppl are more likely to read the article without glazing over it as an advert. On the other, there were ppl asking if it was prominent enough to be ethical/legal. In all the examples we actually saw, there was no disclosure the headlines/links were sponsored, but once you clicked on the link, it went to www.corporatesponsor.com and it was overwhelmingly obvious who authored the content (but not until after you clicked the link to read it). I haven't seen any cases where I could credibly see an actual disinterested, non-pov-pushing editor genuinely mistake it for a reliable source though. However, we could only guess that it may get there at some point. CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
German User Jamiri abusing legally protected artist name / Account who tried to report this immediately banned following a Cease and Desist Notice
| This is really a matter for German Wikipedia. I let this discussion run for a bit to see if anything interesting for us might come out of it. It sort of did and sort of didn't. But I think we've chewed on it enough for now. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Dear Mr.Wales, I would like to report to you that German user Jamiri has been unauthorizedly using the well-known artist name Jamiri for years and that he has refused to refrain from abusing the prominent name, despite multiple requests. Moreover, the German Wikipedia Administration is not only ignoring multiple notes of the abuse (even in front of the arbitration committee) but an even more blatant case has happened, this morning: Following a Cease and Desist Notice to the abusive user Jamiri, the account who reported this infringement of law has been banned only minutes after by the Administrator MBq under the pretense of "Kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit erkennbar" (No intention to collaborate encyclopedically noticeable). User Oliver Koslowski even dared to file a vandalism report under the same, ridiculous pretext (No intention to collaborate encyclopedically) and the above mentioned Administrator indefinitely banned the account, 4 minutes (!) after it was posted. At the same time German Admin JosFritz, has vandalizingly removed the Cease and Desist Notice from the talk page of German Admin Itti, while all the mentioned individuals have been protecting the plagiarizing user "Jamiri" for years and sabotaged any attempts to make the administration aware of the abuse of the legally protected artist name. So, I would like to ask you, Mr.Wales, what is your position in this case?--37.230.9.135 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
|
New wiki-inventions for 2014
The month of January might be a good time for people to think of new ideas for Wikipedia, such as new inventions for wiki typesetting. Most technology tends to be copy-cat ideas, so new ideas require special effort, such as the wp:VPIL Idea Lab noticeboard page. For example, for years we have wanted to link to an external webpage, but also link some words in a title back to local Wikipedia articles. Now, the Template:embwlink ("embedded wikilinks") can format an external-link address with some words wikilinked to local pages. As two examples:
- {{embwlink|"Common |[[Thermodynamics]] |in Design"|url=http://loc.gov}}
→ "Common Thermodynamics in Design" - {{embwlink|"Tests Confirm| [[Swine Flu]] |Case In|[[Wisconsin]]" |url= http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19761207&id=w9MxAAAAIBAJ}}
→ "Tests Confirm Swine Flu Case In Wisconsin"
- {{embwlink|"Common |[[Thermodynamics]] |in Design"|url=http://loc.gov}}
Although 2-way linking seems simple enough, to link both an external webpage plus local pages, it has taken years to reach this point, due to the problem of highlighting the 2 forms of links, where the external-link text has a light-blue hue (or reset by "exhue=#0000cc" or such). For years, there was a mental barrier to not mix external/internal links, and even some guideline standards might have thwarted the invention of dual-embedded links. In general, very few new ideas are introduced in societies, and a study of "re-inventing the wheel" has confirmed that, historically, the wheel was rarely re-invented but, rather, copied by other civilizations. It takes special effort to encourage people to promote new ideas. Even with the new Lua script-based templates, the vast majority of Lua modules just redo the markup-based features, with relatively few new ideas at this point. Instead, 2014 could be the year to greatly advance new ideas, along with minor improvements to the old technology and procedures, and perhaps fix the trivial wp:edit-conflicts or other major bugs. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:32, 9 January, revised 06:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- In its best moments Wikipedia is like an anarchy, but indeed cultural stability is by far anarchy's most significant weakness. In a society where all are free, equal and independent, there is no easy way to propagate change, while those who follow leaders can find themselves in blitzkrieg or moon projects or Cultural Revolutions very quickly. Still, innovations are not always such a good thing, and those examples above definitely fall into that category: we shouldn't have to duck and weave between words looking for a link, or have multiple external links to the same place. I would suggest a simpler solution along the line of "Tests Confirm Swine Flu Case In Wisconsin"
or even "Tests Confirm Swine Flu Case In Wisconsin" but introducing a new icon and getting people to use it is one of those changes which are very difficult to propagate. I've scribbled up lots of little things like Module:MapClip that I think should be generally useful, but to move people to actually use them would take a substantial PR/advertising campaign. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need another noticeboard, specifically for new ideas which are backed by implementation or detailed instructions. The concept of links-within-links is a logical follow-on to the simple, one-level links, and in computer science, such "recursive" linking would be a natural feature but requiring multi-level highlighting, such as:
- The new stage play is [[Do you know [[who's afraid of [[Virginia Woolf]]?]]]]
- I think there you're trying to .gif the English language. One play based on another based on a person should be introduced with three separate phrases, whether or not they happen to use some of the same words. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- The main issue is to indicate the levels of embedded, nested wikilinks, which I have denoted above as light-blue for external-link text. A related problem is to define recursive footnotes-within-footnotes (wannabe nested reftags: "<ref>xx<ref>zz</ref>yy</ref>"), such as explaining a complex pronunciation of a term which needs multiple sources to document the pronunciation aspects, and the #tag syntax "{{#tag:ref|..}}" provides some help. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:22/17:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need another noticeboard, specifically for new ideas which are backed by implementation or detailed instructions. The concept of links-within-links is a logical follow-on to the simple, one-level links, and in computer science, such "recursive" linking would be a natural feature but requiring multi-level highlighting, such as:
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files.2F2013_December_26.23File:Darj.28rh252-4643.29.jpg){kind=link}
- I know you meant well by that, Wikid, but to be completely frank it's one of the worst ideas that I've seen in a long time. (I also particularly dislike the comments about "mental barriers" and so on that you chose to accompany it with, by the way.) I don't know a way to ask you to get rid of it without making it sound like I'm threatening you, which is absolutely not something that I would ever do; so I'm just going to bring it straight to WP:TfD, hopefully to get community consensus that it's not something we should ever use. Sorry. — Scott • talk 15:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- So rush to delete the new template? See TfD for {embwlink}. -Wikid77 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- We should always be open to new inventions, but it is worth discussing then first as experience has shown that not everything that technically can be written and theoretically might help the site actually works in practice. One suggestion though, I think that with the rise of the mobile phone based editors we really need a mixed casing option that will mixcase a highlighted bit of text. The tempting alternative is to simply revert such additions as shouty and usually unsourced. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- @User:WereSpielChequers, could underlining of text help to denote the wikilinks? For mixed-case text, {{fixcaps|TEXT FROM MOBILE PHONE IN /ANYTOWN}} gives "Text from mobile phone in Anytown " -Wikid77 17:41, 9 January, 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
| old school |
=> "Common [[Thermodynamics]] in Design"[http://loc.gov] | => "Common Thermodynamics in Design"[15] |
| new school |
→ "Common [[Thermodynamics]] in Design"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://loc.gov |title=LOC}}</ref> | → "Common Thermodynamics in Design"[1] |
| new & improved |
→ {{embwlink|"Common |[[Thermodynamics]] |in Design"|url=http://loc.gov}} | → "Common Thermodynamics in Design" |
Sorry about the snark-tag after 'improved'. But I really fail to see how having multicolored links *within* other links, is a good idea. Recursion is elegant, but not for everyone. And no, going all last-millenium and underlining hyperlinks is very Netscape 2.0 (which is distinct from web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- We've got options out there at least as css code for editors who want to change the colour of links. I use an option that shows one liners separately to longer articles. If people who wanted to increase the emphasis of wikilinks could choose more striking colours would that achieve your objective Wikid77? If so I suspect we already have the technology or could implement it, though I don't know how popular it would be. ϢereSpielChequers 11:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's another interesting idea, and users could color-code the major/minor wikilinks rather than just one style, such as a new {highlink}. -Wikid77 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Distinguishing information purely by color is bad for accessibility and should only be an opt-in feature. See the W3C's notes on the topic in their guide to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. — Scott • talk 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, I think that having it opt in if it happens at all is one thing we all agree on. I'm not seeing any particular difficulty or downside with that, but I'm still not clear whether there is much demand and whether there is any benefit which we could point to to justify asking someone to code this. ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- The wikilinks could be coded by gray-shade colors. Embedded wikilinks would probably be useful in every article with external links. -Wikid77 06:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Distinguishing information purely by color is bad for accessibility and should only be an opt-in feature. See the W3C's notes on the topic in their guide to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. — Scott • talk 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's another interesting idea, and users could color-code the major/minor wikilinks rather than just one style, such as a new {highlink}. -Wikid77 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Article titles and section headings
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles (version of 14:42, 10 January 2014) has this point.
- Use "sentence case", not "title case"; that is, the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay), but otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).
Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings (version of 14:42, 10 January 2014) includes the following statement.
- "The provisions in Article titles (above) generally apply to section headings as well (for example, headings are in sentence case, not title case)."
Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style#Capital letters (version of 00:23, 4 January 2014) includes the following statement.
- Use sentence case for article titles and section headings – Tips and pointers, not Tips and Pointers.
Many new pages do not use sentence case for article titles, and many new pages do not use sentence case for section headings. Correcting those aspects of those new pages, before other pages have links to them, is easier than doing so afterward, when incoming links also need to be corrected.
Wikipedia:New pages patrol (version of 12:23, 4 January 2014) "is a process by which newly created articles are checked for obvious problems." User:AlexNewArtBot (version of 20:23, 28 December 2013) has a list of pages that list new articles by WikiProject. I have on my watchlist a few of those list pages (for example, User:AlexNewArtBot/EnvironmentSearchResult for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment), and I have frequently used them to check new articles for mistakes in letter case in article titles and section headings. (Sometimes I leave an article unchanged when I am not certain of what choice to make in regard to letter case.) I have usually used these edit summaries.
- revising letter case—WP:MOS#Article titles
- revising letter case—MOS:HEAD
There are so many new articles that need to be checked, that many other editors can assist in checking them, even if only in selected subject areas. If every editor read and understood Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style before starting new articles, then (to a large extent) the most important features of Wikipedia:Manual of Style would be correct from the beginning, and those features would not even need to be corrected.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Writing articles is a major division-of-labor burden: After months of studying policies, guidelines, "in-house style" and the 6 W's (Who, What, When, Where, Why & hoW), many people will begin to realize how the whole effort of writing and illustrating an article (with wp:lede context, wp:infoboxes, wp:reftag wp:footnotes, left/right staggered wp:images, dot-locator maps, data wp:wikitables or wp:charts, conversion/format wp:templates, and typical wp:categories) is just way too much work for the average "one person" to handle, and hence teams for specialized labor must be involved to reach good-article level, beyond having encyclopedic coverage of the topic, written with clarified text and relevant wikilinks. Now, any questions as to why people would then quit Wikipedia after head-to-head confrontations with hostile users, or losing whole new paragraphs to wp:edit-conflicts, or being asked to update marginal pages with wp:data hoarding of wp:UNDUE trivia clogging the system? -Wikid77 (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have excessively high expectations. If your question is non-rhetorical, then my answer is "No, I have none."
- —Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Wavelength. On the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit it is not part of the process to expect every editor to read and understand the manual of style. It isn't hugely important if an article is temporarily non-compliant with MOS, certainly not as important as it being free of vandalism and falsehood. MOS changes are things that take place in the background, much like the typo fixing that is my speciality. I celebrated Xmas by trawling through a subset of our articles that contained the word manger and secularising over a hundred of them. You'd be astonished how many sports teams had been
leadled by a container of hay in the manager's dugout. I suppose some fans might argue that would be an improvement as unlike a manager a manger is unlikely to contradict the instructions given by the fans to their team. I'm hopeful that most of those fixes will stick and that some people may even learn that manger is not an approved abbreviation of manager. But I'd rather that our fellow editors made their contributions and left me to correct a particular type of mistake then they failed to edit because someone told them to read a style guide before they started editing. ϢereSpielChequers 07:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)- I gave some thought to whether to mention this, and to how to say it simply and gently. Even an expert speller can make spelling mistakes. The word "led" (past tense and past participle of "to lead") rhymes with "lead" (referring to a metal), but the word "read" (past tense and past participle of "to read") rhymes with "red". The word "than" rhymes with "man", but the word "then" rhymes with "men".
- —Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah finally spotted for the fraud that I am. Truth is I'm not really an expert speller. I just find particular common mistakes and pursue them across the pedia:) ϢereSpielChequers 19:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Please treat people with dignity and with common sense
I am talking about this case. I explain the situation in a few words.
- the user is sysop on one of Vietnamese language Wikipedia.
- The user was blocked from English wikipedia 2 years ago for disruptive editing.
- The user has never socked before requesting the unblock on AN yesterday.
- The user is not interested in editing English wikipedia.
- The user is asking for the unblock only because being blocked and templated here on English wikipedia is damaging his reputation on Vietnamese wikipedias.
Please treat him with dignity and with common scene, and unblock the user or at least remove the templates from his user page. 76.126.140.7 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- If your summary is really factually correct, then I agree with your conclusion. If for no other reason than WP:SO.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge my summary is correct.
- Jimbo, Wikipedia has problems with decreasing number of editors. I'd like to give you some suggestions on how to make Wikipedia, more sane, more friendlier place with less drama and more content editing.
- It is good to remember that enforcement of any Wikipedia's policy is not nearly as important as well being and health of a person.
- Behave first like humans and second like Wikipedians , not the other way around.
- Don't impose indefinite blocks.For an established contributor a maximum block duration should not be longer than one year. Here's why:some editors will not return after the block expires. The ones who do return could always be re-blocked, if they don't behave. It takes only a minute to block somebody. On the other hand the arbcom spends days discussing appeals and then there are thousands of pages of insanity on drama boards.This is not rocket science, only common sense.
- Treat people with dignity and kindness. You will achieve much more this way, if you really want a user to stay away versus punishing him.
- Delete banned users list. It is an absolutely unneeded scarlet letter.
- Stop the community bans. It will remove lots of dramas.Besides let me please quote Tarc on the subject of the community bans: "What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans."
- Please listen to me, Jimbo. If my suggestions are incorporated it would benefit some editors, but most of all it would benefit Wikipedia.76.126.140.7 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why does this remind me of mbz1 and the recent AN drama, dear Comcast IP? Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're exactly right, and we could make a few conclusions of it:
- Why does this remind me of mbz1 and the recent AN drama, dear Comcast IP? Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please listen to me, Jimbo. If my suggestions are incorporated it would benefit some editors, but most of all it would benefit Wikipedia.76.126.140.7 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- There are more than one person who is not going to edit wikipedia, but is bothered about being blocked here. Such people should be unblocked because keeping them blocked violates the policy that blocks are not for punishment, especially not for the real life punishment, and in a worse case scenario reblock takes only a minute.
- Sometimes different people are expressing the same sentiments, but it doesn't mean they are the same person, Jehochman
- It is rather sad that somebody who is not a member of the Wikipedia community should ask the community to act as humans.
- I think anybody can get unblocked with a simple appeal after 6 months of not socking. The banned user list is necessary to coordinate enforcement. If a editor doesn't get along well with peers, they can be excluded. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jehochman, the user who is being discussed here is not banned. He was blocked by a single admin. He hasn't socked for two years. Why don't you go ahead and unblock him now?
- But you're mistaking about special offer. For example Willbeback hasn't socked, and he made a public apology, and he is still blocked, which IMO is wrong. If he wants to edit Wikipedia why not to give him another chance? Reblock takes only a minute. Besides, Jehochman, what is a point in non-socking, if somebody as you states that non-proxy IP from Germany and non-proxy IP from US are operated by the same person at the same time? IMO SO is a silly policy anyway. Much better proceed like that. Let's say somebody misbehaved. Don't block him. Instead make him to serve the community service. For example a user could be allowed only to revert vandalism for 6 months, or something like that.71.202.123.162 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone should lump together and put all kinds of "socking" on the same level - there's positive and negative socking. The ones who continue their negative behaviour under "socking" should not be equalized to the ones "socking" in a positive and constructive way, by behaving well, contributing to the quality of Wikipedia, doing nothing but constructive edits and comments etc . Generally refusing anyone who "socked" to get unbanned is therefore counterproductive to the overall quality of the project.--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think anybody can get unblocked with a simple appeal after 6 months of not socking. The banned user list is necessary to coordinate enforcement. If a editor doesn't get along well with peers, they can be excluded. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Per talk page, I have now unblocked this editor. He's promised to be true to his word and not edit here, and I'll see he sticks to that agreement - Alison ❤ 01:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alison's response is the correct one, but the case still illustrates serious flaws in the administrative system.
- Trongphu's talk page access was revoked for making one (1) indignant remark in response to an excessively severe block,[16] a comment which, unfortunately, seems fairly well justified whether you take it to refer to en.wikipedia or the USA in general.
- The recent ANI discussion criticized Trongphu for not using the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System and "socking" (their intentional misnomer for evading a block through what would otherwise be a legitimate use of an alternate account) by signing his username to an IP post. Still, I have to ask: why wasn't this matter resolved via the email address he was first given - unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org? Something's not working there.
- The totally obnoxious front page that Wikipedia gives blocked users [17] is not just wrong in Trongphu's case or for Asians afraid of "losing face" - it's wrong for everyone. It exaggerates the significance of the blocks people hand out, and when it comes to labelling Trongphu as a suspected sockpuppeteer for making a parting comment (ironically, the same behavior that just got him unblocked!), it was outright defamation, at least in a moral sense.
- We should enact the following reforms: 1) remove all Scarlet Letters from main User: pages. 2) Do not route unblock email requests to /dev/null. 3) because you should actually be reading all unblock requests, mailed or not, there's no reason not to revoke talk page access only when the blocked user posts a substantial number of unreasonable "unblock requests", like ten or twenty non-responsive answers, or at least two or three that contain material so problematic (such as "outing") that you feel the need to 'oversight' them. Wnt (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to see this fall off Jimmy's talk page yet, without it being addressed. It's rare that I agree with Wnt, but he makes some excellent points here, which I think should be put to the wider community. Let's please fix the block template to make it more useful and less offensive, and less confusing to all. There is a use to tagging userpages where accounts are actively being misused and tracking them provides value, but there is little point in keeping them after a while, and less point in using them as a Scarlet Letter; a mark of shame. The same applies to the LTA page. If the issue is long over, why does the page still exist? If, at some time, it needs to be restored, it takes seconds to simply undelete it. Similarly, with revoking talk page access, there are some cases where talk pages should be immediately and permanently restricted - everyone gets that - but time and time again, I've seen talk pages being locked down waaay before they should be. Admins should be willing to at least go the extra distance in dealing with blocked editors, rather than just shutting the doors early, usually out of frustration - Alison ❤ 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
"allegations of sexual orientation"
A detailed list of allegations of sexual orientation of living persons is wikilinked to their BLPs in Outrage (2009 film). I suggest that since the "sourcing" is almost entirely interviews with the filmmaker and reviews of the film, that they do not suffice as "strong reliable sourcing for allegations of sexuality on Wikipedia." Others feel that if a newspaper lists the name as being in the film that such is sufficient to list the allegations in the article on that film. I suggest "allegations" about living persons should have strong and specific reliable sourcing, and interviews with a person making an allegation do not actually suffice to support reprinting the allegation online. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Another weigher in and sad it is proper to list allegations as long as they are sourced: Thus "XXX book alleged that George Gnarph murdered Sally Gnarph" would be ok, but we can not say "George Gnarph murdered Sally Gnarph" which I find an interesting parsing. My own opinion is that "XXX book made allegations noted politicians were secretly gay" is appreciably different from having "XXX book says George Gnarph is secretly gay." For those below who shout "forumshopping" I would point out that Jimbo has specifically said that posting on his user talk page is not forumshopping. Collect (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Forum shopping aside, this is an entirely disigenuous summary of the situation. The point is that such allegations are what the film is all about, apparently. It is a notable work that not only contains that en passant: it is actually built mostly of that. It is like having a film entitled "Cyclopia, the kitten-eating Wikipedian". While the allegation that I eat kittens would be a BLP violation if it was a poorly sourced sentence somewhere, if there is an article about a notable work that allegates that, we are required to cover it.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We are actually not required to cover anything. We have editorial judgment. A notable film that makes BLP violating allegations can be described without our necessarily repeating those allegations. alanyst 17:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Right, we have editorial judgement. In this case, since such allegations are not a minor or secondary part of the film, but are the film, and are in turn sourced to dozens of secondary sources, such judgement requires us to repeat them. Otherwise we're omitting what the film is about, which is our very task. Just to make things clear: What if such allegations were in the title? Should we censor the title? Delete the article? --cyclopiaspeak! 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here on Wikipedia, if an editor is reported for WP:OUTING another editor, it is well understood that discussions can take place on-wiki about the doxing allegations so long as they do not repeat the substance of those allegations; and indeed those who repeat the allegations (thereby perpetuating the doxing) are liable to be sanctioned. Most editors take this restriction in stride and manage to comment on the matter without violating it. For some reason it is less well understood that rumors and speculation that violate BLP can be similarly discussed in an article without repeating them, and that repeating them is perpetuating the risk of harm to living persons. In this case, it's not too difficult to figure out that the allegations made in the film can be characterized in general terms ("claims of hypocrisy by several well-known conservative figures whom the film alleged to be secretly homosexual, including a former Republican governor, a Fox News anchor, ...") without tying those allegations to specifically named individuals; and this would still give the reader a clear idea of what the film was about. alanyst 19:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a BLP violation. BLP is about how we deal with living people. This is instead about how a notable creative work deals with living people, not us. Notable work does notable allegation, it is not us doing un-notable allegations. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here on Wikipedia, if an editor is reported for WP:OUTING another editor, it is well understood that discussions can take place on-wiki about the doxing allegations so long as they do not repeat the substance of those allegations; and indeed those who repeat the allegations (thereby perpetuating the doxing) are liable to be sanctioned. Most editors take this restriction in stride and manage to comment on the matter without violating it. For some reason it is less well understood that rumors and speculation that violate BLP can be similarly discussed in an article without repeating them, and that repeating them is perpetuating the risk of harm to living persons. In this case, it's not too difficult to figure out that the allegations made in the film can be characterized in general terms ("claims of hypocrisy by several well-known conservative figures whom the film alleged to be secretly homosexual, including a former Republican governor, a Fox News anchor, ...") without tying those allegations to specifically named individuals; and this would still give the reader a clear idea of what the film was about. alanyst 19:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Right, we have editorial judgement. In this case, since such allegations are not a minor or secondary part of the film, but are the film, and are in turn sourced to dozens of secondary sources, such judgement requires us to repeat them. Otherwise we're omitting what the film is about, which is our very task. Just to make things clear: What if such allegations were in the title? Should we censor the title? Delete the article? --cyclopiaspeak! 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We are actually not required to cover anything. We have editorial judgment. A notable film that makes BLP violating allegations can be described without our necessarily repeating those allegations. alanyst 17:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- To get a sense of what's going on here, I suggest other editors have a look at Collect drawing an equivalence between being gay and treason, of all things. Shocking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I also compare contentious claims to many things -- including murder and eating goldfish -- but nowhere did I say that being gay is the same as treason -- so please drop that weird and inapt claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there is good reason to treat the film's allegations with great care, particularly when they have not been confirmed in any other sources. And sources which merely repeat the allegation of the film (reviews of the film, for example) do not qualify. I think this is particularly true in articles about the person rather than the article about the film. (That is, I think it could make perfect sense to describe the film as alleging that X, Y, and Z are closeted homosexuals, while at the same time holding that the allegation is not sufficiently credible to put into the biography of the person.) As a final note, one way to possibly diffuse the emotion around this situation is to think of this way: whatever anyone's views are on homosexuality and allegations of homosexuality, the point is that these people are being accused of hypocrisy. Whether you are pro- or anti- or neutral- any issues relating to homosexuality, I think we can all agree that calling someone a hypocrite is a pretty big deal requiring better sourcing than an activist documentary is likely to provide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect has repeatedly pointed out that we should follow BLP, but Collect should acknowledge that WP:WELLKNOWN is the relevant portion of BLP. WELLKNOWN covers this exact issue quite well. This kind of forum shopping is atrocious; it splits the conversation over too many pages. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Jimbo: I agree absolutely with your view on the need for better sources. And I agree completely that a biographical article should not contain material about sexual orientation based solely on an activist documentary. But the question here is a bit different: Outrage is a notable movie whose central premise is the identification of allegedly closeted and hypocritical individuals. We can't neutrally and comprehensively describe the movie without alluding to the allegations it makes about the sexual orientation of named individuals. After all, the movie is essentially a vehicle for these allegations. It's a tricky situation, and I cannot pretend optimism when it comes to the ability of a self-selected group of Wikipedians to deal sensitively with a nuanced and politically charged topic. MastCell Talk 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)The primary problem is that the article lists (say) several refs for each claim --- and each ref traces back to the same actual source - the film and filmmaker. Allegations about sexual orientation are a particular sore spot on Wikipedia, and it is obvious that specific standards must apply to all articles relating to living persons. WP:WELLKNOWN applies to reliable sources making allegations -- a source reporting that an unreliable source made an allegation is not a source for the allegation per WP:WELLKNOWN and it is a misuse of that section to suggest otherwise -- in fact it is the scurrilous repeating of allegations that is the bane of Wikipedia. Cheers. `Collect (talk)
- The problem is that same actual source, the film, is the subject of the article. And the allegations are all what the film is about. If we don't cover the allegation, we also do not cover the film. It is a film made of allegations. Also: Similar situations arise constantly. Take Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Are the people making the conspiracy theories -that is, the original sources- reliable? Hell no. Is the theory damaging to a living person? Oh yes. Yet it is a massively notable set of conspiracy theories, reported by secondary sources, and therefore we cover it, including the fringe allegations. --cyclopiaspeak! 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We could simply state that allegations are made about politicians -- and then not mention names nor wikilink to their BLPs. Do you see how easy that is? And since there are not actual reliable sources making the allegations we can actually follow WP:BLP !! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure we could. We could also move Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to A president citizenship conspiracy theories and avoiding mentioning his name at all. Do you see how easy that is? But wait, that something is easy doesn't make it right. In article about a notable movie, if we don't want to be ridicolous, we should just report what the movie says. In detail. Even if it's bad stuff about people. If you have issues with that, take it to the movie authors, not WP. --cyclopiaspeak! 22:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- We could simply state that allegations are made about politicians -- and then not mention names nor wikilink to their BLPs. Do you see how easy that is? And since there are not actual reliable sources making the allegations we can actually follow WP:BLP !! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that same actual source, the film, is the subject of the article. And the allegations are all what the film is about. If we don't cover the allegation, we also do not cover the film. It is a film made of allegations. Also: Similar situations arise constantly. Take Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Are the people making the conspiracy theories -that is, the original sources- reliable? Hell no. Is the theory damaging to a living person? Oh yes. Yet it is a massively notable set of conspiracy theories, reported by secondary sources, and therefore we cover it, including the fringe allegations. --cyclopiaspeak! 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In public life, there comes a point at which, even though an alleged fact is not notable or well-sourced, the fact that the allegation has been made is itself both indisputable and noteworthy. (The canonical pre-Internet example is the allegations of adultery against Gary Hart in the 1984 presidential election; the allegations were circulating and hurting Hart in the poll results, and the newspapers couldn't well report that Hart's support was dropping without explaining why. See Michael Kinsley's essay on this in Curse of the Giant Muffins.) This type of situation is more common both within and outside Wikipedia than people ordinarily think of; compare this hypothetical example, which is based on several of our actual articles. It would be relevant in this instance to assess whether the people at issue are likely to be harmed by our reporting of the allegations at issue. The notability of the film is also relevant; we might not be able to avoid mentioning the subject of a number-one film in the way we could avoid dwelling on allegations in an obscure one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The film grossed under $300,000 total, and did not make the "top 100 films of 2009". [18] It is not a "number-one film." Nor did most newspapers enumerate those mentioned in it. I had hoped you would regard the primacy of WP:BLP but fear you are of the "it got printed so we should have it in the encyclopedia" camp :(. And there is no rationale for wikilinking living persons from that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, you're grossly misrepresenting Brad's point and accusing him of disregard for WP:BLP, both of which are indications that you've officially jumped the shark and should step back for awhile. This isn't a simple issue. It's one that serious, reputable publishers have struggled with. Some reputable outlets (e.g. the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald) have published the names of those featured in the film, while others (e.g. the Washington Post, NPR) have omitted them out of respect for the subjects' privacy. NPR struggled quite a bit internally with this issue. It should be clear that responsible publishers differ on this challenging question, and ridiculous oversimplifications aren't helpful here either. MastCell Talk 04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gosh -- you seem to appear a lot lately regarding any post I make. Brad is fully capable of noting if I misunderstood what he wrote -- but you do not make a good interlocutor. The reputable publishers did not print the list of allegations. '
- None of them printed the comprehensive list of names
- None printed detailed rumours about them appended as they are in this article. Period.
- This "article" includes gallons of innuendo, and precious little fact. Asserting that this is a "ridiculous oversimplification" is pure and simple bosh. Did you read the current article, Brad? Cheers. `Collect (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect, you're grossly misrepresenting Brad's point and accusing him of disregard for WP:BLP, both of which are indications that you've officially jumped the shark and should step back for awhile. This isn't a simple issue. It's one that serious, reputable publishers have struggled with. Some reputable outlets (e.g. the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald) have published the names of those featured in the film, while others (e.g. the Washington Post, NPR) have omitted them out of respect for the subjects' privacy. NPR struggled quite a bit internally with this issue. It should be clear that responsible publishers differ on this challenging question, and ridiculous oversimplifications aren't helpful here either. MastCell Talk 04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with Newyorkbrad. And I disagree with Collect, in this particular case that we should omit the names. However, i do think that the article on the film should make it very clear to what extent, if any, reliable sources independent of the film have confirmed these allegations, or reported them as fact, and that unless they have been well confirmed, they should quite probably not be mentioned in the individual biography articles. DES (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- That is already done, there is no mention whatsoever in the Charlie Crist article that any rumors or media reports have been made, nor that he is the subject of a film. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Update: I removed the contentious material and will prevent it from being restored until there have been discussions and a consensus about what to include and how to reference it. The situation that existed was appalling. There was list of rumors with a heap of shoddy references to the film or other sources that were simply parroting what the film said. It was as if somebody was trying to make up for the lack of quality references by supplying a large quantity of substandard references. The general principal is "when in doubt, keep it out". Once there has been time for thoughtful discussion, an uninvolved admin will hopefully summarize the discussions and document a result, which can then be implemented. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- One of the things that I did was visit the individual Wikipedia pages of some of the named politicians to see what we do about it there. In some cases, we cover what is obviously a legitimate issue in their biography - repeated allegations, sometimes court cases, etc. In at least one, we either don't mention the allegations at all or barely mention them. I haven't done enough research to be certain but preliminary research suggests that the individual articles have it about right in terms of what we report.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I cleaned up one of those individual articles, where I found unsourced information which according to the article had been "discussed on local radio programs in his district" "the mainstream U.S. print media did not cover the story". There was undue weight/hit piece problems with the article, and it may still not be totally ok. Iselilja (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- One of the things that I did was visit the individual Wikipedia pages of some of the named politicians to see what we do about it there. In some cases, we cover what is obviously a legitimate issue in their biography - repeated allegations, sometimes court cases, etc. In at least one, we either don't mention the allegations at all or barely mention them. I haven't done enough research to be certain but preliminary research suggests that the individual articles have it about right in terms of what we report.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo has correctly noticed that there is a different treatment of the film article versus the individual biographies. Before the recent removals and complaints by Collect, our article about the film reflected the consensus reached previously on BLPN that the film article would name the people who are outed in the film, but the individual biographies would not name the film unless it was a major element of that person's life, as seen in high-quality reliable sources.
Unfortunately, Jimbo has taken an untenable position regarding what sources we might use: he wrote here that "sources which merely repeat the allegation of the film (reviews of the film, for example) do not qualify." This position cannot be entertained or there would be no sources available at all. It is absolutely necessary that the references actually refer to the film. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I said no such thing and strongly disagree with it. My position is as far as I can tell the same as yours! --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'd emphasise the word "merely" in what Jimbo said. We should ideally use sourcing that shows the significance of the allegations to the film when considered globally - passing mentions that the film contains an allegation may not be enough. If I'm misunderstanding, then the alternative interpretation that we should be looking for sources that make the allegations independently of the film rather than just repeating them would be untenable. I don't think we should be thinking in terms of categories of sourcing (reviews, new stories etc) but in terms of what a particular source tells us about the degree of relevance of the information to the article. Formerip (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are trying to make sense of the Jimbo statement, which is admirable. However, he said film reviews are not appropriate for film article references. Try making sense of that. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I said no such thing. If you come across something I have said which sounds ludicrous you may rest assured that you should read it again, with precision.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I agree that wouldn't make sense, as I have indicated. What is true is that we shouldn't consider something noteworthy just because it is mentioned in a film review, particularly if there is a BLP concern. What we should do is give consideration to the way the information is presented in the review. Does the review give the impression that we are dealing with an important aspect of the film, or does it merely give a mention in passing? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- You are trying to make sense of the Jimbo statement, which is admirable. However, he said film reviews are not appropriate for film article references. Try making sense of that. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would note that I am far from the only editor evincing concerns about the casual disregard for the WP:BLP policy here. As for the false claim that if the article stuck only to what the film says that there would be no article at all -- that is pure straw man here. An article about a film can surely describe awards it has received, its monetary success, and a précis of the content of the film. This article, unfortunately, exceeds that proper remit for an article on a film. Collect (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any "casual disregard" for WP:BLP here. Quite the opposite, I see people trying to have a serious discussion about a complex issue requiring us to balance comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of a notable movie with the privacy of the movie's subjects. MastCell Talk 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. Collect has yet to acknowledge the relevance of WELLKNOWN to this topic, WELLKNOWN being one section of BLP. It seems to me that Collect imagines BLP has no such section.
- To Collect's point about the article needing a suitable synopsis of the film—if I were to write one, it would contain in prose what you see in the bulleted list of people who were outed in the film. Collect doesn't like the list; doesn't want it in the article. However, Collect argues for "a précis of the content of the film", this being a prose-format synopsis containing the arguments and assertions made in the film, these arguments and assertions being the outing of Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, and so on. To me, having the list of names and a synopsis of the list is the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like BLP enforcement gone wild (again). When I look at the old version [19] I see people have gotten together a dozen sources for some of these. It's not even consistent - they took Craig out of the article but we still have Larry Craig scandal. Wikipedia should not be seen as a collaborative experiment in how to whitewash history and reshape reality, and even if it were, I would say homosexuality is not an allegation; it's not "negative material"; it's not an "attack"; and that should be acknowledged. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Come on, of course it is if it's unwelcome and person doesn't think its true. Being called "a Catholic" or "an American" or "a moderate" or "open-minded" or anything else can be pejorative and defamatory if the person don't agree with the label. (Anyway the main point being made in the film is not that the people are gay but that they're hypocrites, which is prima facie defamatory.) Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Despite the seriousness of the allegations made in the film, our article about the film should plainly state what are the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this, Binksternet—but for those individuals who have not conceded the film's claims concerning them, those allegations can be covered quite well without naming names. There is precedent for this: respected mainstream media organizations CNN, NPR, and The Washington Post all covered the film and its controversial allegations without naming the individuals, according to the Outrage article itself. For those individuals who have publicly conceded the accuracy of the claims concerning them, there is no potential harm to them and thus the article can name them; but we must assume that there is a risk of the not-conceded claims being erroneous and therefore harmful to their subjects if promulgated in association with their names. alanyst 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's quite a sweet deal, unless the "alleged" closeted hypocrites keep their mouths shut, we'll expose them for lying and deception. It would align with NPOV to show what reliable sources stated before the film came out, which under threat of one admin was deleted, and show that reliable sources also reported which people were featured in the film. All of this was also deleted by the same admin, with accompanying threat. Meanwhile, we're missing the point that that is the core of what the movie is about closeted hypocrites and the mainstream media which is complicit in a double-standard when sex scandals are gay sex scandals (Larry Craig one of the main exceptions). That the majority of these cases are also Republicans is also a part of the story, and feels like part of the opposition to Wikipedia covering this with due weight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with this, Binksternet—but for those individuals who have not conceded the film's claims concerning them, those allegations can be covered quite well without naming names. There is precedent for this: respected mainstream media organizations CNN, NPR, and The Washington Post all covered the film and its controversial allegations without naming the individuals, according to the Outrage article itself. For those individuals who have publicly conceded the accuracy of the claims concerning them, there is no potential harm to them and thus the article can name them; but we must assume that there is a risk of the not-conceded claims being erroneous and therefore harmful to their subjects if promulgated in association with their names. alanyst 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Despite the seriousness of the allegations made in the film, our article about the film should plainly state what are the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Come on, of course it is if it's unwelcome and person doesn't think its true. Being called "a Catholic" or "an American" or "a moderate" or "open-minded" or anything else can be pejorative and defamatory if the person don't agree with the label. (Anyway the main point being made in the film is not that the people are gay but that they're hypocrites, which is prima facie defamatory.) Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like BLP enforcement gone wild (again). When I look at the old version [19] I see people have gotten together a dozen sources for some of these. It's not even consistent - they took Craig out of the article but we still have Larry Craig scandal. Wikipedia should not be seen as a collaborative experiment in how to whitewash history and reshape reality, and even if it were, I would say homosexuality is not an allegation; it's not "negative material"; it's not an "attack"; and that should be acknowledged. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see any "casual disregard" for WP:BLP here. Quite the opposite, I see people trying to have a serious discussion about a complex issue requiring us to balance comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of a notable movie with the privacy of the movie's subjects. MastCell Talk 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alanyst, newspapers can and do choose which politician's names to reveal in their coverage of scandals. In reporting on the film, Variety named politicians Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery and former NRC chairman Ken Mehlman. Variety did not name Ed Schrock, Mary Cheney or Shepard Smith. The Los Angeles Times named politicians Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery, Ed Schrock, newscaster Shepard Smith and former NRC chairman Ken Mehlman. The Los Angeles Times did not name Mary Cheney. Rolling Stone magazine names only Craig, Crist and Mehlman. The Huffington Post named Craig, Crist, Dreier, Koch, McCrery, Mehlman but not Schrock or Cheney. Time Out Chicago named just Craig, Crist, Koch and Cheney. So you can see that various periodicals choose various names to print. Lucky for us, Wikipedia is not censored. If a name is printed in any reliable source, we can repeat it for the reader. We do not have have censor-type editorial policies like the Washington Post which only named Craig, plainly stating that they would not name any others. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that the subject of the film can be covered without naming names, as proved by its having been done by respected media organizations that are not generally viewed as biased towards Republican interests. Whether it should be covered without naming names is a question of ethics and editorial policy; and I firmly believe that for us on Wikipedia, both the ethical choice and the policy guidance of BLP weigh against naming names where there is a risk of harm to living individuals should the claims be wrong. Encyclopedic coverage does not mean indiscriminately repeating everything ever published about a subject; thus it is not censorship to choose not to publish certain things when they run afoul of our editorial policies. alanyst 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your concern was embodied in the 2013 consensus wherein the film article carried a full account of the film (as it should) but the various biographies affected by the film were not to carry the film's allegations unless local consensus determined it. The example that was given was that we say on David Icke's biography that he thinks the British Queen Mother is an alien-sourced reptilian, since that is one of the things he is known for, but we do not say so on the Queen Mother's biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Icke's theories about the queen are different because they are such that mentioning them won't significantly increase the chance of anyone believing them or make them seem more credible. So mentioning them doesn't have similar BLP problems.
- And when we do this for theories that might have a chance of being believed, like Obama's birth certificate, the people involved are so well known and have so much said about them already that Wikipedia's influence on their lives is negligible. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's a reason to include past rumor information. Part of the point of the film is that despite sourcing and now a film 5 years ago, these claims are largely ignored, No reason to believe that their use here will invigorate new discussion at all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is that a real argument? Sort of like saying "after a while, a falsehood becomes true enough that no one is harmed" or the like? I can not find any Wikipedia policy which could remotely support that argument at all. Nada. If something is contrary to Wikipedia policy, it remains contrary to Wikipedia policy. Even after five years. [20] the massive list and "references" was not in the article for five years -- it was put in the article in April 2013. Well under a year. Actually about 8 months total. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, Sport's argument was not such a good one. I notice, though, that you jumped on him for not arguing policy. Could you make a statement about WELLKNOWN, which is policy? I don't think you have addressed its directives with regard to the film Outrage. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- The misuse of WP:WELLKNOWN has been present in a great many articles. It applies only where strong reliable sources ("multitude of reliable published sources") documenting the allegation or incident exist and requires that such material be noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. The examples fail that test. They are rumours, weakly sourced to a film by a blogger, and are not shown to be noteworthy, relevant or well-documented per WP:BLP. As they fail on all five grounds out of five, "WELLKNOWN" is no more than a dingy piece of lace here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, Sport's argument was not such a good one. I notice, though, that you jumped on him for not arguing policy. Could you make a statement about WELLKNOWN, which is policy? I don't think you have addressed its directives with regard to the film Outrage. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is that a real argument? Sort of like saying "after a while, a falsehood becomes true enough that no one is harmed" or the like? I can not find any Wikipedia policy which could remotely support that argument at all. Nada. If something is contrary to Wikipedia policy, it remains contrary to Wikipedia policy. Even after five years. [20] the massive list and "references" was not in the article for five years -- it was put in the article in April 2013. Well under a year. Actually about 8 months total. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's a reason to include past rumor information. Part of the point of the film is that despite sourcing and now a film 5 years ago, these claims are largely ignored, No reason to believe that their use here will invigorate new discussion at all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Your concern was embodied in the 2013 consensus wherein the film article carried a full account of the film (as it should) but the various biographies affected by the film were not to carry the film's allegations unless local consensus determined it. The example that was given was that we say on David Icke's biography that he thinks the British Queen Mother is an alien-sourced reptilian, since that is one of the things he is known for, but we do not say so on the Queen Mother's biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- My point is that the subject of the film can be covered without naming names, as proved by its having been done by respected media organizations that are not generally viewed as biased towards Republican interests. Whether it should be covered without naming names is a question of ethics and editorial policy; and I firmly believe that for us on Wikipedia, both the ethical choice and the policy guidance of BLP weigh against naming names where there is a risk of harm to living individuals should the claims be wrong. Encyclopedic coverage does not mean indiscriminately repeating everything ever published about a subject; thus it is not censorship to choose not to publish certain things when they run afoul of our editorial policies. alanyst 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Alanyst, newspapers can and do choose which politician's names to reveal in their coverage of scandals. In reporting on the film, Variety named politicians Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery and former NRC chairman Ken Mehlman. Variety did not name Ed Schrock, Mary Cheney or Shepard Smith. The Los Angeles Times named politicians Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery, Ed Schrock, newscaster Shepard Smith and former NRC chairman Ken Mehlman. The Los Angeles Times did not name Mary Cheney. Rolling Stone magazine names only Craig, Crist and Mehlman. The Huffington Post named Craig, Crist, Dreier, Koch, McCrery, Mehlman but not Schrock or Cheney. Time Out Chicago named just Craig, Crist, Koch and Cheney. So you can see that various periodicals choose various names to print. Lucky for us, Wikipedia is not censored. If a name is printed in any reliable source, we can repeat it for the reader. We do not have have censor-type editorial policies like the Washington Post which only named Craig, plainly stating that they would not name any others. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a pretty ripe piece of opinion. There are several people for whom "noteworthy, relevant and well documented" is amply satisfied in this connection. Your application of such a broad brush here shows more ideological predilection than sensible analysis. But that's to be expected, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a reason for that aside? I did not edit in any way based on "ideological predilection" whatsoever, nor is my position in any way "ideologically motivated" nor do I give a damn what anyone's "ideology" is - I just follow what the community has said is "policy" and that is damn fine enough for me. No matter what your own "ideological predilection" might be. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Wiki-paid-y a? (The Times of India)
I know that User:Wifione is on a "wikibreak" and the issue slowly faded away ... this is just for your information. Btw, what if Wifione returns to editing without addressing this problem? Do we let it be? I mean ... he's an administrator here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- it would be best if he just doesn't come back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Wales, at the outset, let me offer my apologies to you and to the editors concerned that I couldn't comment on the discussions on this issue the last time you had initiated the same on this talk page. As Vejvančický mentions, I was on a wikibreak (which I generally take during this time of the year). I do wish to mention here that I've initiated an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. I'll be grateful if you and concerned editors could direct all your questions/comments with respect to my editing to the review, as this would allow the community to have a consolidated platform for current and future use, to review my editing. In case you should wish me to respond to specific questions, please do list them out at the review and I'll try my best to provide comprehensive clarifications (and apologies, in case I've made editorial mistakes). Thanks for the patience. Best regards. Wifione Message 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can you explain in your own words the nature of your conflict of interest?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I commented at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Jimbo Wales: It would be best if he just doesn't come back. Apologies, but I think that, although this is of course your personal opinion with no power whatsoever, we shall let Wifione explain things first before closing the door. Also, I still don't understand why going against paid editing when such paid editing is done in accordance to our rules. It just looks unethical to me to measure all types of paid activities with the same bar. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 03:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mr. Wales, at the outset, let me offer my apologies to you and to the editors concerned that I couldn't comment on the discussions on this issue the last time you had initiated the same on this talk page. As Vejvančický mentions, I was on a wikibreak (which I generally take during this time of the year). I do wish to mention here that I've initiated an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. I'll be grateful if you and concerned editors could direct all your questions/comments with respect to my editing to the review, as this would allow the community to have a consolidated platform for current and future use, to review my editing. In case you should wish me to respond to specific questions, please do list them out at the review and I'll try my best to provide comprehensive clarifications (and apologies, in case I've made editorial mistakes). Thanks for the patience. Best regards. Wifione Message 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Google Translate working well or less poorly
Just FYI. As you might know, Google Translate now is handling verbs well better in German text. This is an update, because years ago, I had noted how, in numerous German sentences, the verbs would be omitted (unlike 2004-2005), to the point where novice translators would have had severe trouble with translations. However, this month, I ran about 50 tests and found that all worked well, retaining all verbs in each German translation (Swedish text had been translating well for years). Compare English-to-German in Google Translate:
- English: Author Isaac Asimov was, is, and shall be known as a prolific writer.
- German: Autor Isaac Asimov war, ist und wird als überaus produktiver Autor bekannt sein.
- English: Sally sells seashells at the seashore; she shall succeed with selling.
- German: Sally verkauft Muscheln am Meer, sie sind mit dem Verkauf erfolgreich zu sein.
- English: Two sisters between twelve and two in Schwabing have vanished.
- German: Zwei Schwestern, die zwischen zwölf und zwei in Schwabing sind verschwunden.
Although some words could have better equivalents, the overall phrasing now produces sensible results. We can recommend users to help translate articles using Google Translate to handle many portions. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you joking? It's bad enough that people here often write on subjects they are not familiar with, now you want to encourage people to do this using a language they do not speak? The mind boggles. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Funny how research can overcome a subject one is not "familiar with". Perhaps you should try it and stop writing about things you are only familiar with. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Kevin, the problem isn't using Google Translate, which can help editors write and expand articles. The problem is editors using it poorly and not checking their work after they use it. Your argument is flawed. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Could someone update the article on Google Translate with some information about what the copyright status is of the translated documents, specifically, whether Google asserts any rights over these versions? Wnt (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Do you understand German? The second example re-translates to English as "Sally sells seashells at the seashore; they (the seashells) are with the sale. To be successful". The fact that all verbs are retained does not give this the same meaning as the English original. If subtle errors are introduced like this, it will be very hard to find them, especially if you also rely on Google to "translate" your WP:RS. The third example tells me that two sisters, who have vanished between 12 and 2pm. (and then there is no further verb to finish the sentence). So your very examples demonstrate that Google "Translate" has no place in an encyclopedia unless you wish to completely sacrifice factual accuracy. —Kusma (t·c) 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I say this very rarely indeed on WP, but it's definitely merited in this case: LOL. — Scott • talk 12:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- The issues raised by Kusma are not a joke, but rather valid minor concerns, because we have seen people run Google Translate on a whole text and upload the results without checking for awkward phrasing, where other editors must edit and restate some of the wording. (Of course, awkward text also exists separately!) See below: "#Google Translate still has problems". -Wikid77 14:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Google Translate still has problems
Warning: As noted in the prior discussion, there are still some problems with the German phrasing generated by Google Translate, and in some cases it negates the verb, at times inserting "nicht" ("not") or omitting it to reverse the meaning. Also, when translating German-to-English, then the results often generate the wrong pronouns for the context, such as swapping sie as "she" to "they" or such. Overall, the translated text should not be copied verbatim, but adjusted by people who know the basics of verb conjugation, the declension of nouns, and use of subordinate clauses with die or daβ (etc.). In general, if an entire paragraph has been translated, then there are likely to still be wording problems in the result. Yes, unfortunately, common sense still applies to translations. -Wikid77 13:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- and it does help to also have some familiarity with the subject, and be able to tell what the intended meaning is likely to be, because otherwise the English though it might be correct is unlikely to be clear and idiomatic. It further helps to be familiar with the subject as written about in German to know the customary way that language expresses things, which is not just a matter of translation. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (
- I use Google Translate extensively, and it is my impression that it has gotten much better. However, it has not reached the point where I would consider including a translated quote without vetting by an editor with bi-lingual knowledge.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Errors like this (negating verbs and similar) can easily cause huge errors which are hard to spot. For example, I showed this document (a legal statement by Allmänna reklamationsnämnden) to someone, who tried to translate the document using Google. The last sentence reads "Moderns yrkande skall således bifallas." but Google translates this as "The mother's claim is therefore rejected." which is the exact opposite of the original Swedish text. Scary. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I use Google Translate extensively, and it is my impression that it has gotten much better. However, it has not reached the point where I would consider including a translated quote without vetting by an editor with bi-lingual knowledge.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikimedia would seem to have all the proper circumstances for developing its own electronic translation: extensive dictionaries, nearly identical texts, computing resources, a multilingual community, and a fair number of people interested in coding. I bet all you need is to make a bit of a media splash and you'd have a thousand people interested in trying to develop some aspect of a free automated translation program just for the street cred. What is Wikipedia meant to be, after all, but the diametric opposite of the Tower of Babel, a project of decentralization and humility? Wnt (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Some might say WP is building a wp:MOSque of style so astoundingly important that it is worth humiliating or topic-banning numerous people who note various world standards disagree with the guidelines. Anyway, the auto-translation of text is generally so difficult, with names such as Red Green (ice hockey) or "Amber White worked with June May in July", that WP might lease a translation product but building one could be prohibitively difficult and, instead, ask 1,000 multi-lingual volunteers to proofread rough translations written by other editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Anonymous reviewers
I'm curious if you want to share your opinion about this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a fairly cowardly decision by the Virginia Court of Appeal there. If they felt the need to state a reluctance to rule a legislative act unconstitutional, it stands to reason that they think it might be but didn't want to take responsibility so kicked the can up the hill. Resolute 03:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the article at The Atlantic does a good job of presenting the complexity of the issue. I think that anonymous speech is important, but that responsibility for one's words is also important. Anonymity gives honest people a way to make themselves heard without retribution. Anonymity also gives vicious people a way to abuse and defame without retribution. The right approach is to give broad protection for anonymous speech, but for that protection to be limited - i.e. I don't mind if there is a process whereby an independent judge can make a determination that unmasking is the right thing to do.
- At the same time we should remember that while difficult, achieving true anonymity is possible online, and achieving a level of anonymity that will make do for all practical purposes is actually quite easy. Tor works well enough to cover someone's tracks for any civil court case. Might even be enough to hide you from the NSA. Barring that, spoofing your mac address and logging into a random open wifi hotspot is pretty damn good too. My point is not to say whether that is good or bad (although I think that, on balance, it is very good) but to point out that it's a fact. If the Yelp Seven commentators/libellers were stupid and set up sockpuppet accounts from a single ip address or computer, then the court actually can make the decision. If they were sensible, no court could compel the release of information that would tie this back to actual people.
- A further thought is that it should be possible in this case for the judge to settle the question. At least in theory Yelp could reveal the names to the judge, and Hadeed Carpet Cleaning could reveal their customer list to the judge, and then he or she could see if there's a match. Of course, Yelp likely doesn't have real names but just ip addresses, and there's the further step of tracking down those ip addresses. Hadeed could pay for it and the judge could hire an independent firm to investigate it. All of this is hypothetical but could in theory happen if the law were set up correctly.
- And finally I'd have some questions about what Yelp's policies are. (I have no idea.) One way for this to be resolved amicably would be for Yelp to look into it themselves and if they see sockpuppeting they could just delete the comments. Or they could contact the posters and ask them to supply some kind of proof that they actually were customers. (A receipt for example.) Of course depending on how they do it, this could be expensive for Yelp so they will be reluctant to take on the burden. But it is a burden that might be well worth it, if it helps alleviate the impression that many people have that Yelp reviews may often be tainted by crazy people or competitors with fake complaints. I don't know enough about Yelp to say whether they do a good job on this right now or not, though!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is a time for pragmatic utopianism, the zealous pursuit of freedom of expression. The more measures courts take to track down and punish fraudulent Yelp reviews, the more weight they will carry; and since technical experts might always be immune from the law, this permits them to do real damage to reputation with impunity. If we abolish libel lawsuits for all media not enjoying government monopoly or franchise, the Internet may be full of false insinuations, but people will have to learn not to believe them because they could be a routine part of business. Companies seeking to be reputable sources of reviews would actually need to take the precautions you suggest. The overall result should be that prominently placed bad reviews that do damage to business go on, but become harder to fake. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. "Trade defamation" has never been held to be "protected speech" AFAICT. The case at hand may very well be "trade defamation" and thus the court really had no option but to enforce the law. Just as Wikipedia ought to be wary of being used for advertising it must be absolutely vigilant against trade defamation, and those who promulgate it. Collect (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Except that Hadeed has apparently shown no evidence of actual defamation. My read on that story is that this is probably a SLAPP suit and an attempt to suppress criticism. Resolute 15:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- From the limited facts given, it is unclear to me what it is. I would say that in such cases we are generally going to have to count on judges with good sense deciding. That's error-prone of course, but I don't know any other solution. It doesn't quite make sense to me as a SLAPP suit, though, because depending on the exact text of the review, what is unmasking going to do, if these are real customers? It's not like employee whistleblowers who might be fired, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Naturally. If you owned a carpet cleaning company and managed to annoy some customers over the years (and let's face it, it's surely inevitable), wouldn't you prefer not to be criticised in a way anyone else could learn about? Anyway, even the Brits have recently discovered some limits to their libel laws. I recommend not putting our own cojones in the soup. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect - I recognize it has not been upheld (after all, I was disagreeing with a court decision here). But the courts have gradually moved toward recognizing more of the First Amendment's potential over time. Moreover, there will have to come a time when we stop relying on the dead hand of dead men's words to protect our freedoms, a day when we learn from all we've seen and advance a new conception of freedom of thought and discourse that casts aside many of the 'exceptions' that have been claimed in the past. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the courts are apparently quite supportive of the plaintiffs in trade defamation cases - which papers have you been reading? As for "dead hand of dead men's words" -- I suggest that your opinion is in the minority, and the minority on Wikipedia as well. Collect (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. I value constitutional rights, but they need to go further; they were adopted by ordinary people, and they can be reinforced by ordinary people as surely as they can be weakened by them. But whatever happens, the U.S. is just one country, coming toward to the end of its days, and for the principles to endure we must be prepared to support them universally by belief rather than merely by tradition. Wnt (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the courts are apparently quite supportive of the plaintiffs in trade defamation cases - which papers have you been reading? As for "dead hand of dead men's words" -- I suggest that your opinion is in the minority, and the minority on Wikipedia as well. Collect (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Collect - I recognize it has not been upheld (after all, I was disagreeing with a court decision here). But the courts have gradually moved toward recognizing more of the First Amendment's potential over time. Moreover, there will have to come a time when we stop relying on the dead hand of dead men's words to protect our freedoms, a day when we learn from all we've seen and advance a new conception of freedom of thought and discourse that casts aside many of the 'exceptions' that have been claimed in the past. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Except that Hadeed has apparently shown no evidence of actual defamation. My read on that story is that this is probably a SLAPP suit and an attempt to suppress criticism. Resolute 15:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. "Trade defamation" has never been held to be "protected speech" AFAICT. The case at hand may very well be "trade defamation" and thus the court really had no option but to enforce the law. Just as Wikipedia ought to be wary of being used for advertising it must be absolutely vigilant against trade defamation, and those who promulgate it. Collect (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is a time for pragmatic utopianism, the zealous pursuit of freedom of expression. The more measures courts take to track down and punish fraudulent Yelp reviews, the more weight they will carry; and since technical experts might always be immune from the law, this permits them to do real damage to reputation with impunity. If we abolish libel lawsuits for all media not enjoying government monopoly or franchise, the Internet may be full of false insinuations, but people will have to learn not to believe them because they could be a routine part of business. Companies seeking to be reputable sources of reviews would actually need to take the precautions you suggest. The overall result should be that prominently placed bad reviews that do damage to business go on, but become harder to fake. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
FWIW re the merits of the case: we don't know what really happened, but according to the Better Business Bureau the entity has had 33 complaints over the last three years. (You cannot make a complaint to the BBB without providing your name and address by the way.) Is that a lot? Yeah guess so; compare for instance to Superior Rug Cleaning (selected at random) with zero complaints in the last three years, which is probably closer to typical for a small business, since going to the BBB takes some time and effort and people usually only do it when they've been stonewalled by the company. So hmmmm. Running a business is hard, so I don't want to rag on them, but it looks like they might be putting themselves in a position where the Streisand Effect might come into play.
Which won't help liberty, because the annoying thing is that if the Hadeed Seven do indeed turn out to be legitimate complainants, that won't effect the case law (I think). Future judges won't say "Well, Judge Smith read the law to allow that identities could be exposed in situations like this, but it turned out the plaintiff's case was completely bogus, which just shows how these things can be used strategically to quash legitimate complaints and intimidate future complainants, so I'm not gonna do that". They will say "Well, Judge Smith read the law to allow that identities could be exposed in situations like this, and that's that; that's the precedent, and I'll follow that". Right? IANAL but isn't that how case law works? Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)