User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 222

Archive 215

←

Archive 220

Archive 221

Archive 222

Archive 223

Archive 224

Archive 225

WP:ACTRIAL

The discussion on this topic has been occurring in a low trafficked page regarding the implementation of ACTRIAL. The WMF, apparently, has agreed to go along with it for a short trial to gain statistical insight. Their reasoning is a six year old consensus on the matter. When it was brought up whether or not a new RfC should be done to reconfirm that consensus it was shot down as unnecessary. Due to the immense change in Wikipedia policy that would result in this trial I felt it was necessary to post this notice to a much more seen board. The fact that this is being done in relative secret, away from the knowledge of most people, is astonishing and should bother any Wikipedian who values community input on such wide reaching actions. Therefore, the notice on this highly trafficked page. Please see a retooled Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial for further details. --Majora (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Everybody interested should certainly go to that page and comment. As I understand it, the proposal is for a short trial that would prevent non-autoconfirmed editors from creating an article. I don't think that could be characterized as an "immense change in Wikipedia policy." Autoconfirmed means:

"Although the precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances, most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits (including deleted ones) are considered autoconfirmed."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The switch from "account needed" to "specific right needed" to create articles is certainly a massive change to longstanding Wikipedia policy that has been in place for many many years. Only once before has this happened, when the restriction from "anyone" to "account needed" was done. The exact requirements for autoconfirmed and the length of the trial are rather irrelevant in regards to that. --Majora (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Even if the switch from "account needed" to "specific right needed" is a massive change (I don't think it is), a temporary test of that change is not. Deli nk (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Requiring new users to make a few edits before creating a published article on one of most popular website in the world is really not a major change in policy. We rightfully restrict editing templates, uploading images, editing high profile articles, posting links, and so on. Given that 80% of articles created by new users (several thousand each month) are so bad that they have to be deleted, implementing ACTRIAL should be viewed as part of a positive evolution in how we build and maintain a legitimate encyclopedia.- MrX 12:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• This was not done in secret: it has been discussed openly and loudly by all involved. As Smallbones has pointed out everyone is invited to weigh in on the conversation. Kudpung, who is the loudest supporter of it has been keen to direct anyone to the appropriate talk pages, as have I. If you look at the task list at WT:ACTRIAL, you will see that informing the wider community of the change is one of the things that needs to be worked on before implementation. This isn't something we're trying to sneak in the dark.
  An RfC was shot down as unnecessary because the main reason to hold one would have been to seek community endorsement for implementing the firm 2011 consensus without the support of the Wikimedia Foundation. I was in fact one of the people opposing flipping the switch while the WMF was opposed without an RfC. The Wikimedia Foundation agreed to run this as a trial and assist in the implementation. It was the opinion of everyone who had been following the conversation up to that point that implementing the 2011 consensus with the help of the foundation did not require a new RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, this was so secret that we (the community) had to repeatably discuss it with more than one WMF employee. If Majora was ill-informed about AfC, they are welcome to both read and comment when we discuss topics like these. This is a topic that editors like Kudpung have been dealing with for longer than Majora has been an editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  Relative secret. Gosh it is like people purposefully skip over words to try to make their side stronger. Relative. As in, done on a low trafficked page as opposed to someplace like the village pump that has many times the number of people watching it. It wasn't on T:CENT either. The conversations with the WMF are totally and completely irrelevant as the WMF isn't the enwiki community. I didn't know about this "approved" trial until I stumbled across the page and you better be damn well sure that a lot of other interested editors also didn't know. Hence, my post on a well trafficked page. I don't get why you are making this out to be a bad thing that I notified people. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  I'm going to have to agree with Majora, I consider myself pretty well informed about whats going on, on wiki and this is the first I've heard of it. Why wasn't this advertised via T::CENT or a watch-list notice? The only reason I'm seeing this now is I watch this page. This could have been handled a lot better with more community input via village pump or some other high trafficked page. This is all based off of a 2011 RFCC's consensus, just to give some perspective look at how much RFA has changed in the last 6 years. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  In fact the issue did come up at Village pump in February this year, with links to the NPP page where subsequent discussions have proceeded: Noyster (talk), 08:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Because it appeared that there was an accusation of impropriety or that we were hiding something: nothing is being hidden. WT:NPR is more active than some of the village pumps some days and has activity from a wide range of community members. Those of us who have actively been working on this have been quite open in bringing it up, because part of the problem is that many people already think that this is the policy. As I said, if you look at WT:ACTRIAL you will see that informing the members of the community that will be most affected is part of what we need to accomplish before it is rolled out. I'm fine with this being posted here: I was planning on posting it to the village pumps when we had updated the page more myself. I stand by the sentiment that an RfC isn't needed: this concept has been discussed consistently for the last 6 years and has been a major sticking point in the relationship between the WMF and the volunteer community. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Before being so verbal, I suggest Majora AGF and do their own Wiki-forensics and find out what it's actually all about. There has been so much completely open discussion on it recently all over en.Wiki that it will probably take up to three hours to read through it all. Anyone who is seriously concerned, rather than shooting from the hip with indignation, should be able to devote that much time. Either that, or they should help out with the very maintenance tasks that would have avoided this fact finding mission from even being needed. They will then probably understand why the Foundation wants this trial before it will stop blatantly refusing to upgrade the WikiMedia extension which has been the main cause of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• The proposal has been on Centralized discussion, for example: 11 July 2011 Discussion about the trial duration for requiring autoconfirmed status in order to create articles.
  The real "being done in relative secret" problem is that the vast majority of editors have no idea how much garbage is added to Wikipedia every day, and how hard the new page patrollers have to work. The secret is that the growing pile of no-hope pages degrades Wikipedia as the longer it takes to remove junk, the more entitled the authors of such junk feel. Requiring auto-confirmed status is a kindness for new editors because the requirements for a successful article can be explained gently before the prospective new editor invests their energy. It is no longer satisfactory to hope that someone else will eventually clean up all the spam, hoaxes, trolling and garage-band stuff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• It seems like you haven't read much about ACTRIAL.And "six year old consensus"? There are tons of policies here which were agreed upon 10 or even 15 years ago, and I don't see any complaints about, say, IAR or NPOV on my watchlist accusing editors of bad faith and using large words rather than addressing the actual consensus and raising fresh concerns about it. Esquivalience (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• The most ignorant and B.S. comments arrive from those with the least experience on the lines.And the 6th law at WP:CGTW is so damn true!Also as Johnuniq has commented--the reason why you folks are abound in the relative ignorance is that you are so cut-off from WP:NPR and precisely possess nil idea about the system and the problems faced by new page patrollers.And if you glance through WT:ACTRIAL you will see that informing the members of the community, before it's execution, is one of our top priorities.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, Cameron11598, RfA most certainly has indeed changed in the last 6 years. I'll give you that. Down from 52 to 15 successful candidates a year. Also all because the community at large can't be bothered to do anything about it despite Jimbo's 2011 'RfA is a horrible and broken process.' We gave up on our massive WP:RFA2011 project because of the bad faith and trolling that was thrown at us from all sides by people who insisted there was nothing wrong with the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I concur with Majora. Certainly, a local proposal of such a nature at Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC is likely to receive little opposition, and perhaps even overwhelming support if the list(s) comprised largely of individuals who agree that such measures are necessary were notified. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Majora: I have no idea why you thought posting here would be an improvement. At some point you must have realised that 80% of the posts here are by the same old faces puffing hot air about the same old things, while the other 20% post because they are under the slightly phenomenal misapprehension that Wales has any influence at all in this community, and that a post here will actually get things done :) unless of course, that's your intended target demographic, in which case the quality of any further debate on ACTRIAL has likely just sunk a few percentage points. Happy editing! — fortunavelut luna 09:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Implementing ACTRIAL will not impede any existing community member in any way. Nothing is being done in secret, but why should any existing user even care - unless they are involved in WP:NPP or WP:AfD or WP:AfC or an Admin would does a lot of deletion work? Anyone who volunteers in these areas knows all to well the unrelenting firehose of spam, copyvio, and nonsensical garbage that we deal with. ACTRIAL will place a small, easily overcome, barrier for brand new users to create brand new pages. The statistics show that over 80% of brand new pages by brand new users are total crap and get deleted. We know that even a little bit of experience on Wikipedia before creating a brand new page dramatically improves the quality of new page creations. After 10 edits and four days the success rate of new pages is about 80% - the inverse of non-autoconfirmed users. I hope that the spammers and idiots will find ACTRIAL too much trouble, but I'm very confident that serious contributors will continue to get their feet wet editing existing pages first before trying to create a brand new topic. Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

What Legacypac said. Long overdue development. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I was going to write a paragraph only to find that Legacypac has already posted just what I was going to say. The whole community will be notified about ACTRIAL when various details are worked out. Existing editors who do not work at NPP or AFC will be completely unaffected, and those that do will most likely find their workload dramatically reduced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• This is a general comment, not intended as a reply to anybody. I am going to be very precise.

• The discussion(s) about ACTRIAL were never intended to be secret, or discreet. Even though in 2011, there was an RfC. That is pretty open. There were several discussions after that from time to time, at appropriate places/talkpages.
• Even though I have very weak support for "AC-TRIAL", it is just a trial (duh). It is going to have a run for a limited time. After getting statistics, it will be decided whether to convert it in a permanent policy or not. I dont see any long term harm, or disruption from this trial run.
• I always believed, and still do, if a large number of editors (with NPR flag) perform the task of reviweing the new pages regularly; then the situation for ACTRIAL will never arise.
  • Currently there are less than 450 editors with NPR flag, with most of the work being done only by aound 10% of the editors.
    • I have been trying to increase the NPR flagholders by a few different means. A long time ago, i posted a request here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice/Request/Help_Wikipedia_by_reviewing_new_articles! Which is still not responded to. I had even specially told three WMF employees after posting the request (diffs available). Yet, there has been no response at all.

All I am trying to say here is: lets go with the "trial", if editors still think the trial shouldnt be a permanent thing, then instead of shooting it down; the "guys above" should come up with a solution. I believe, in current circumstances recruting more worthy editors as NPR is the best shot. I have tried to explain it in User:Usernamekiran/Strategies for NPR, but I could never finish that essay. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Will someone with superpowers pull the trigger and implement the thing? I agree it could have been more public: the NPP talk page is trafficked by 30-40 editors, which is not a whole lot. Also, saying, "This has been at CENT, back in 2011" is useless, because how many of us here were active on Wikipedia 6 years ago? I don't believe ACTRIAL is trodding on anyone's rights unjustly, I also don't believe it will solve the world hunger and peace the way some expect it to. But I have no problem with a short implementation just to see. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The 2011 posting is significant because it was a massive RfC with over 500 participants. In the following years it has been discussed so frequently and in so many places with so many people that you'd likely have over 1000 currently active editors involved. Any RfC involving ACTRIAL will likely be one of the largest if not the largest RfC Wikipedia has ever seen as Kudpung has pointed out before. There will be one: after the trial is complete. To do one before to reaffirm the clear wishes of the community since 2011 would be to commit to holding two massive RfCs which would suck up the community's time, when no one who has been involved in the conversations, including those who oppose the change, really doubt what the outcome of the RfC would be. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'd not heard of ACTRIAL until after I got involved earlier this year in helping with New Page Patrol after I learned there were over 22,000 unpatrolled pages created since Dec 2016 that needed attention. Why would I? - I don't frequent these hallowed halls of mighty discussion. But when I understood its purpose and the nature of the ACTRIAL trial, it made complete sense. Why this thing has rumbled on and not been tested is incomprehensible. It's clear to me that those who did propose the trial have always been keen to raise its profile and get some action. Nothing could be further from the truth to suggest anything was being done in secret or even 'relative secret' - except perhaps that those in a position to take this forward were not listening to the continued calls warning of how serious the situation was becoming. Must get back to the remaining 17,000 pages, now. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I am a reluctant supporter of ACTRIAL, because other approaches to reducing advertising on WP have not succeeded, and there is an hypothetical basis for this approach, and so we need to test it. so we need to at least test this approach. My own prediction about the result, based on the known data, is that it will reduce the number of new articles about 5 to 10% at most, still leaving at least 80% of the spam--and probably proportionately increase the work at AfC, which is even worse, because fewer people look at it. But the way to determine the actual result is with a test, not with arguments. Anything else is opinion, and the variety of opinions here about the effect it will have implies that most of them must be wrong. We need to actually see. (And the proposed method would have a technique for bypassing it for editathons, which is one of my major practical community activities.) DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support, as I imagine most would who volunteer at NPP and AfC which have graduated from being a daunting task to overwhelming because of WP's unsustainable rate of development. The time involved cleaning up and sorting through all the unsourced/not properly sourced articles and marketing promotion is known to cause burn-out; thereby bleeding over into editor retention issues. Add to that, the relentless pressure of COI, SPAs and advocacies who present relentless arguments and look for ways to bypass the process. The whole thing reminds me of A Coon Huntin' Story by Jerry Clower @5:47 when he says..."Well just shoot up in here amongst us, one of us gotta have some relief." ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

nd opposed ACTRIAL at the original RfC. because of its difficulty it would cause well-intentioned new users, and I still think that's a valid concern.

User:Majora - I would be interested in what you think ought to be done differently, either in how this experiment ought to be publicized better, or, more importantly, in how you think the experiment ought to be conducted differently, or in what harm you think will be done. Are you saying that, by shutting out new editors who come to contribute one article to the encyclopedia, we will lose a resource? I am familiar with (and mostly disagree with) that argument, but I would like to hear whether it has been balanced against minimizing the load of crud from new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been following this page for a year or so, because it is mostly a free-vent zone for editors who want a last right to complain, and I probably will not follow it in the near future. I see that it still is a free-vent zone. However, those who read it have the same right to ask questions of the venters as the venters do to post to it. Also, if User:Jimbo Wales decides that ACTRIAL really would harm the encyclopedia, then at least he will likely provide an argument that we haven't heard before. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My only goal was to advertise the situation. Period. Full stop. My goal was not to vent. But to inform. Jimbo's talk page is one of the most watched places in the entire encyclopedia. Other places, such as AN would have also fit but would have been inappropriate as it wasn't directly tied into administrative duties. The responses in this section show that that goal was achieved (although the vitriol shown to me by some was totally unnecessary).

My personal feelings about ACTRIAL are that it is an easily gameable system (the level of autoconfirmed is laughable when you think about it) that will simply result in those wanting to put crap into the encyclopedia being able to do so while shutting out those that actually want to contribute constructively. If this is what the community wants, so be it. I am and always will be a supporter of the community and the consensus they provide. But consensus can change and there are numerous people here that were not when the original ACTRIAL RfC was done. People say that the community is still behind ACTRIAL but we really don't know that as the community has changed substantially. Again, if this is what the community wants I'm for it, even if I disagree with the overall premise.

For those of you in this thread that went down the "but they don't know what it's like!" route, you can't be any more mistaken. I have done NPR before. Before it was locked away behind a user right. I know what it is like and I understand your frustration. As for actual alternatives. Tools, Robert, tools. Tools that can be used to quickly and effectively sort and find bad topics for removal. I mention the use of peacock terms yesterday on IRC and how they could, conceivably, be used to sort new articles into those that need to be looked at. The idea was ran with and a tool has already been created (https://www.ltakb.org/wordwatch/). It is semi-functional but it shows how these types of things can be used as opposed to further restrictions on creation. --Majora (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Tools, Majora, tools? This belated bringing to an actionable pitch of important measures to protect Wikipedia's integrity and principles is the result of 6 years of the Foundation's blatant and persistent refusal to to maintain and fully develop its own very tools that would have made this trial and its possible consequences probably unnecessary. Fortunately, under pressure of our complaining about the staggering and sudden increase in the NPP backlog since June last year, they have now acquiesced and admitted that the trial is not only necessary, but essential.

There is this popular misunderstanding, taken out of all context by its detractors, that Actrial is only about introducing a minor restriction to the creation of new pages. That's only one part of it, the other two thirds of it are about properly informing new uses and providing the genuine ones among them with some help rather than slamming a CSD door in their faces - do some reading please.

You do realise of course, that whether it was implemented or not, the consensus to roll out the experiment no more needs re-debating than any other policy or software that ever reached a consensus. Or are you and Godsy going to insist that we re-debate BLPPROD, PROD, AfD, and all the CSD criteria and Wikipedia policies? Probably not, but without AC-TRIAL results enabling us to find solutions for the future, Wikipedia will degenerate into a slum of spam, adverts, hoaxes, attack pages and general vandalism, and it's happening already. It rather surprises me coming from you, a scientist who deals with research and facts, and such a valiant and vociferous defender of the very copyright rules part of our experiment will enable us to find ways to protect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments on New Editors

Yes, this is a heavily watched page. It is, in my opinion, a page where a lot of empty comments are posted and watched. When I was watching this page, I never saw any action result from a posting to this page. Thank you, User:Majora, for clarifying that you posted without any specific objective.

The banner at the top of this page includes: It is ‘’not’’ a place to publicize arbitrary on-wiki disputes.

I will offer a few comments here that I have offered elsewhere about new editors. It is well known that new editors, more specifically editors, one of whose first edits is a new article, come here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. That is well known and is an article of faith that is not subject to practical question. At the same time, they don’t understand what is expected for a new article, and many of their articles are either tagged for speedy deletion or proposed for deletion, and that is very often their last (as well as first) experience with Wikipedia. That is, we lose them almost as soon as they offer their services. So, if they really have come to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (and it is a matter of faith that they have), something needs to be done to keep these new editors. We need a corps of meeters and greeters to welcome these editors enthusiastically into Wikipedia and keep them, rather than just losing them. It isn’t reasonable to expect the current New Page Patrol editors, whose job is to keep crud out of the encyclopedia, also to perform the function of engaging and instructing the large number of enthusiastic clueless potential new editors whom we are losing as to how to contribute the quality articles that they have come to contribute.

In my own observation (which may be incorrect, because it apparently differs from what is known as a matter of faith), new editors, or, more specifically, contributors of new articles, fall into three overlapping classes. The first is those who come to contribute to the encyclopedia. I and some other experienced editors think that they would be able to help out better with some of the five million articles that we already have rather than by adding one article that we do not yet have, but that is a side point. The second is new editors who are simply clueless. Some of them don’t write a sentence. Some of them have a topic that isn’t encyclopedic. Some of them also belong to the first class. The third class is new editors who come for a self-serving reason, to publicize themselves or their company, or their cause which will right a great wrong. The second and third classes overlap, in that some editors can’t write a coherent paragraph about their company.

I will make my own perverse individual comment about the policy of Do Not Bite the New Editors. While this behavioral guideline (technically not a policy, only a guideline, but in practice a dogma, a religious principle at least as basic as the pillars) is an excellent concept, as it is applied and interpreted, it does more harm than good. It does good, of course, in encouraging experienced editors to be courteous and welcoming to new editors in the complex environment of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it also has two negative effects. First, it is one of the first rules with which new editors become familiar, and, as a result, combative new editors, such as social justice warriors, use it as a cudgel to resist well-meaning advice to try to be collaborative, because they will say that they are being bitten, when they are being cautioned. Second, it leads experienced editors to overlook the unpleasant truth that occasionally new editors, especially new paid editors, but also combative editors, need to be bitten.

What specific concerns does User:Majora have about ACTRIAL as an experiment, other than a desire to discuss it publicly in a place where discussion is watched and has little practical effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not naive, Robert McClenon. I knew full well what I was getting myself into when I posted here. I knew that the backlash would be swift and come from many. But I did it anyways. Not because I was looking for a discussion here. Quite the contrary actually. That is why my very last line in the original post was a direction to WP:ACTRIAL. This was, again, merely an informative "announcement" if you will. An announcement that I knew would get push back, that I knew would elicit pronouncements that I was a "serial opposer", that that I "didn't" understand, but which I also knew would reach a great deal of people. That is why I also posted it at WP:VPP.

What specific concerns do I have? That other measures have not been tried. That there are still tools to be created, tested, and implemented that could avoid this. That ACTRIAL should be an absolute last resort. I don't think we are there yet but I have no problem accepting it if that is the community's wish. That is my concern. My fear is that people have gotten so trapped in the "ACTRIAL is the only option" mindset that we are not thinking of alternatives. That we are doing something extreme without exhausting other options first. --Majora (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Majora, you're talking about ACTRIAL like it is a permenant thing and not a temporary research experiment. After it is run there will be a follow-up RfC after everybody has a chance to look through the statistics. If the wiki starts to burn down, which I highly doubt, we can stop it in the middle if there is a consensus to do so. Like I said above, no one really doubts that an RfC to hold the trial would pass and that the community has supported this consistently over time, and after this post and the post at VPP, I still don't see that there is any demand by the community for a relitigation of the need for a trial. I am glad that more voices are coming to the conversation and I hope we'll get more help at WP:ACTRIAL in figuring out what needs to be done in advance and what should be tested during it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You make a fair point. Trials are meant to be temporary but Wikipedian historians would say that that has not always been the case. The restrictions put in place after the Seigenthaler incident in 2005 were also supposed to be "temporary".[1][2] Now, please don't anyone jump to conclusions that I am against account creation to create articles. I'm not. Just stating a fact that previous "temporary" changes have not exactly been as temporary as they were initially made out to be. --Majora (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Majora has seen this, but I've added drafts of announcments at WP:ACTRIAL. I'd encourage everyone who is interested to look and comment. I'll also repeat here what I said there: I have no intent of sneaking this in as permanent, and want an RfC afterwards because I think the trial will likely show us other things that need to change.

Kudpung and Scottywong, have also pointed this out to people who want it to be permanent immediately. Kudpung and I have probably been the loudest voices of late on this, and Scottywong was on the original team that was working for implementation. I'll commit here and on as many places as needed that we are implementing a trial, and that I will work with anyone to create an RfC that will run one month after the scheduled trial date is over. What I don't want is a massive 1000+ person RfC that will take a lot of energy from the community before the trial when I think there isn't a demand for it, and when that energy could better be spent after the trial working out kinks and seeing what the best way forward is. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Tools, Tools, Tools

Perhaps I am asking useless questions, but the mention of tools makes me ask what tools are being proposed. User:Majora writes: “Tools, Robert, tools. Tools that can be used to quickly and effectively sort and find bad topics for removal.” Please be specific. I’m a computer scientist. I can read a spec. Please provide a concept of a tool that will identify crud quickly. Please don’t just say, after years of discussion, that you or the WMF need more time to brainstorm perfect artificial intelligence to screen out crud. Please give me some idea of how artificial intelligence will identify crud without false positives. In my opinion, even a few false positives, identifying valid stub articles or valid full-length articles as crud will do more harm than an experiment in restricting access by new editors for four days and ten edits. You mention “peacock terms”, but much of the crud that I tag for CSD isn’t even coherent enough to contain recognizable peacock terms. If you have a specific idea, please mention it.

By the way, I agree with User:Majora that ACTRIAL, once implemented, almost certainly will become permanent, but I don’t understand why it is considered to be an “absolute last resort” to be tried only when all else has failed. It looks to me like a much simpler and more plausible experiment than asking for more time to imagine tools, but maybe there is something that I don’t understand.

What tools? Please don’t just say “Tools” as a sort of mantra without saying how the tools would identify crud without false positives. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

We have already proven that bots can determine with high accuracy if an edit is vandalism or not and take appropriate action. That alone is proof of concept for the greater use of bots to flag certain things. The peacock terms tool that was quickly thrown together is an example of things that could be used to help reduce the burden on reviewers. The greater number of terms the greater a chance that it is pure spam. There are patterns to the crap. You just have to look for them.

To be frank, I don't believe that restricting article creation will actually do much good. As mentioned previously, people who want to put crap into Wikipedia will easily get around the restriction. Autoconfirmed is a low bar for those that want to introduce nonsense. Since I don't believe that any good would come from this, the only thing left is the repercussions. The restriction on actual good faith editors. Since people will continue to come up with crap, we shouldn't stop looking for those tools anyways. I've already resigned to the fact that article creation restrictions are probably coming and going to be permanent. Again, I'm not naive. I've already come up with an example, Robert. A specific idea that has already been created (although semi-functional and needing refinement). I'm continuing to brainstorm but I shouldn't be the only one doing so. --Majora (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert, if you want something in a spec-like form check this out, especially topic #11 "automated sock identification" and #11b "scoring" which I wrote. I think this is doable enough that there are aspects of it in Aaron Halfaker's ORES work (not claiming credit, just saying there are similarities). Also #32 "checkuser oracle" which is kind of a dream now but I'd appreciate professional feedback on the idea. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I am all for using ORES for sorting and identify problems in new articles. I won't even pretend to to even begin to understand the underlying architecture of how ORES works and how far it can go. I just know that its use on Special:RecentChanges is telling of its potential power. --Majora (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Somebody should ping Halfak (WMF) on this. Yes, we need tools that will help automate how humans sort between the garbage that gets submitted and the real encyclopedic gold. Bri's suggestions at 11b should certainly give the WMF AI folks a good start on what we need when it comes to paid editing garbage. I'll also point out that business article scoring is likely very different than general article scoring like ORES. Business garbage articles usually have lots of text and lots of refs. It's the quality of refs that count, but that might be fairly easy to score - think WSJ and Financial Times vs. Press Release. There are some key give-aways. Lists of awards that nobody ever heard of before, product lists. Highlighting the CEO/Founder who is the greatest guy in the world. Age and size of the company, but the bad articles always seem to leave out all the numbers I'd like to see. Little things like sales, number of employees, number of stores/outlets. But the big thing is adspeak. Most American are trained from birth to recognize when somebody is trying to sell you something. Adspeak is the most recognizable thing in the world, except when you are speaking it. It dominates all garbage business articles - the marketing/PR folks writing the article just can't help it. My guess is that AI can spot adspeak a mile away. A tool like that wold be invaluable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support trial. Thanks for the heads up. While I know of ACTRIAL I did not realize that a trial of it was moving forwards. Exciting news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• One of the problems is that while the WMF now endorses the necessity of running the trial, and funding the development of the desperately needed software, they've just come up with the age-old excuse that they haven't got the money to do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You (User:Kudpung) have referred to the software, which I assume is not the same as the magic tools being requested by Majora, but what software are you and the WMF are saying is part of the plan? Also, although this is not a question for you, what are they saying are higher priorities in their queue for spending their grotesque amounts of money? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am not Kudpung, but I can link you to here, a page that is hilarious and depressing at the same time. Imagine if we would use that money to save lives! The community earned this money, but unfortunately it does not get a say in how it should be spend. The WMF is basically stealing millions of US dollars every year (in a way that is morally wrong but legally OK). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WIKIPEDIAHASCANCER -- (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It's depressing that us volunteers have to beg for a few scraps of resources for basic content management tools. The community wish list process is obvious window dressing giving the appearance of supporting the community, but not so much, while millions of donated dollars are spent on grants, endowments, audiences, and an almost 20% increase in staffing expenses. I'm also not sure what is included in the 50% increase in technology spending (data centers? database software? Ebb? Flow?). Let's face it— we're on our own for creating our own tools, gathering and analyzing our own stats, and building and operating our own ACTRIAL.- MrX 17:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As you are probably well aware the WMF prefers to ignore the wishes of the community, and spends its money on bizarre vanity projects that were doomed to fail from the start and hated by a large majority of the community. Remember Wikipedia:LiquidThreads, Wikipedia:Flow, the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool? Médecins Sans Frontières could've saved many lives with the money the WMF has wasted. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

it's understandable that any one project might fail. But it's also should have ben understandable for many people here software development is not a mysterious process, and that they have both a knowledge and dislike for formal organization. It apparently was not obvious that the WP community has a greater insistence on its own independence than the people doing the work in almost any other organisation, and that there is no way of compelling the community to do what they individually do not want to do, and, as an added difficulty, there are no people or groups in the community that can speak for it, or even that can be negotiated with. It may have been assumed that because we have no formal organization we are individually vulnerable to doing as we are told, where the actual situation is the exact opposite--we deliberately have no formal organization as our protection against being told what to do. But for all this I would not assume that the current WMF understanding is quite as unrealistic as it was two years ago.

It should also be obvious that developers of anything like to have an actual goal--and that we cannot supply one. With respect to ACCTRIAL and NPP and AFC, I cannot say that we really do know what we want, nor can it be said that the desires of the people most interested in it will be accepted by the community any more than the desires of the WMF developers will. I have been talking with Kudpungon concepts of dealing with new pages for some years now--we ave some ideas--key among them that we must have a single pathway--but we neither of us can be certain of what details will be needed, nor can we know that what we propose will actually function as intended, nor can we know that the community will accept them. The community works by unregulated trial and error--there are many community initiatives that have not worked either. And in reality any method of working however inefficient would do adequately, if enough good people actually worked on them. If it's a question of designing systems to encourage such people to work, neither the foundation nor the community actually knows how to do that; the best we can do is remove known obstacles, and hope this will be one of the rare times that it makes a significant difference. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the past performance of the WMF is response to consensus/requests from Wikipedia.

ACTRIAL reached consensus in 2011[3][4] Here we are in 2017 and still no trial.[5]

In 2014 we reached a concensus regarding Superprotect and Media Viewer.[6][7][8] It took until late 2015 to remove superprotect[9] -- after it got coverage in The New York Times.[10] (We did get Jimbo falsely claiming that Superprotect has been lifted,[11] so that's something.)

We are a couple of weeks away from closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. I would ask anyone interested in addressing the problems we are having with WMF to comment on that RfC and participate in the WMF discussion to come. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment on ACTRIAL

Actually, this is a comment on trials generally. I think we should give the WMF a general pass, under some restrictions thoughtfully debated within the community, to run small-scale trials to gather data on all kinds of things like this. There are huge swathes of Wikipedia policy which are things we do not because there is evidence from rigorous testing that they are the right things to do, but because we've always done them that way. A tiny little trial should not require an enormous wide-ranging community debate. Such an attitude prevents the Foundation from doing what made Wikipedia work in the first place: Be Bold.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Jimmy, for your reply here. Just for the record in case people watching haven't followed the discussions up until this time: WP:ACTRIAL is a community driven initiative that the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team has agreed to assist in implementing and testing. I agree with your sentiments re: giving wiggle room for testing, but I know that there are those in the community who would be suspicious if this came from the top down. While there has been some distrust built between the community and the Foundation over this specific issue over the past several years over the Foundations lack of assistance in the trial until June 2017, it is my hope that in implementing the trial it will actually serve as a model for future data-based testing of community initiatives with the help of the Foundation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about articles about rapes of underage girls

Hello, Jimbo. I would like to know your and WMF's position on interpretation of the WP:BLP rule as applied to articles about rapes of underage girls. I mean WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." 08 October 2014 article about rape of underage girl in Novosibirsk was deleted from the Russian Wikipedia. Nevertheless deletion of article about another rape of underage girl - Rape of 16-years old Diana Shurygina - is still being discussed since 5 April 2017. At first the article had been deleted on 12 April 2017 by Lingveno, but later Lingveno's decision was disputed and the article was recreated. The disput has not yet a result and the article is on the Russian Wikipedia now. Thanks for comment. Кадош (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I quickly read the article and it is unfortunately a fairly unremarkable case. The court's original sentence of the young man looked pretty harsh, but is now reduced to 3 years in a penal colony. What is really remarkable about the case is that the girl went on national TV and discussed the case using her real name. She is now being attacked for that. The ruWiki article does prolong the victimization. She was a minor when raped, and a minor when she went on TV. She wasn't at fault for the rape and, as a minor, should have been shielded by others from making the TV appearance. She's just not at fault. If the case, which is causing some controversy in Russia, could be discussed without using her name or otherwise identifying her then perhaps it need not be deleted, but I don't think that is an option now.

Of course I do not speak for Jimmy.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

When a person waives their right to anonymity, it can be hard to get it back again. The US media regularly names the woman in the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is stricter than some parts of the media about naming people unless it is really necessary. The question is whether this case meets WP:GNG; if it does, then it isn't very practical to hide the name of the victim by calling her by her initials or similar, because it would be in the sourcing anyway. The article title is problematic and would be flagged as such on the English language Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I note, in passing, that the victim in the Polanski case has given several media interviews long after reaching the age of majority. A fifty-something-year-old woman relinquishing her anonymity is a very different situation from a minor attempting to do the same. (What constitutes 'acceptable' treatment of rape victims by the media has changed somewhat over the last four decades, as well.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It probably wasn't the best of ideas for the woman in the Russian case to waive her anonymity. I've seen similar cases in the UK, but usually in the tabloids because the mainstream media is wary about doing this. "Giving your side of the story" can have long term consequences.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

One has to wonder whether the assumptions behind this kind of privacy rule are still valid today, or a relic from another time. Gone are the days when a girl who lost her virginity before marriage would be considered "ruined" or "damaged goods". Now, many rape victims, such as Emma Sulkowicz, want to come forward and be heard. Do we want to perpetuate the idea that a rape victim has something to hide or be ashamed of? There is no law that I know of in any jurisdiction, except maybe where Sharia law is in effect, saying that a 16-year-old can't go on TV and tell her story. 172.56.36.107 (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just point out that Emma Sulkowicz was 19 years old when the alleged rape occurred and 21 when she came forward for a newspaper interview. The newspaper did not then publish any names AFAIK, not Sulkowicz's, not the man's, not any of the 3 other women who came forward. An adult who wishes to discuss being raped is a very different matter from a 17 year old - her parents and the TV producers should have known better. Manhattan is also very different from Ulyanovsk. *Perhaps* in some places it would make sense for parents to consider allowing their minor daughter to come forward publicly, but Ulyanovsk, far from metropolitan Russian, is not that place. The validity of WP:AVOIDVICTIM in the context of sexual assault can certainly be discussed, but I'd try to get extensive input from women and let them decide. Frankly, I'd think they would want to make it stricter, more against using the victim's name. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So what about the minors who publicly come out as gay or transgender and talk about how they were bullied in school? Do you think that might in some cases have an effect on their futures, given that not everyone is open-minded about such matters? Just like how the girl didn't choose to be raped, they didn't choose their orientation or gender, nor did they choose to be bullied. But since they were bullied, they wanted to make their voices heard. And they wanted to tell their story directly rather than through their parents because who knows, maybe their parents aren't LGBTQ-friendly. The victim has a unique perspective and feeling heard could provide closure and healing rather than furthering her victimization. Also, in cases like Tinker v. Des Moines, the free speech rights of minors were upheld; it was recognized that they have a role to play too in the public discourse. 172.56.36.107 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any easy formula to decide these cases, but there are some broad principles which may be in tension at times. There are two positions that I think are clearly wrong: (a) never publish the name of any victim of an underagge sexual assault versus (b) always publish the name of any victim of an underage sexual assault if it can be found in any reliable source. In some cases, for example where an adult comes forward in a very public manner with a clear intention that their name be known, in order to raise public awareness of the issue, and the name is being reported reliably in lots of sources, then obviously it is fine to include it. In other cases, for example when the name of a minor victim is found out by a tabloid or other low quality source that nevertheless would be accepted in some limited cases by us as a reliable source, and where most reliable sources are declining to print the name, then we should not. The more fundamental principle behind all this is to be respectful of human dignity and to take into account as a real factor the wishes of the person involved, insofar as those can be determined.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Another underage girl that was raped in Moscow, committed suicide attempt after internet hounding: [12]. That is why I suppose that the rule WP:AVOIDVICTIM must be interpretated as strictly as possible when it comes to rapes of underage girls. I suppose that Wikipedia in such cases must not join the mass-media's choir because most mass-media are commercial organizations that earn money with publications about such stories. But Wikipedia is a non-commercial project and it does not need in earning money on publications that may cause suicides and moral suffering - first of all I mean articles about rapes of underage girls. The girls do not understand all consequences of public discussion of their cases, so if even an underage girl and her stupid parents agree to take part in a TV show devoted to her rape, it does not mean that Wikipedia has to publish a "neutral" article about the rape. Wikipedia will get enough money even if it does not contain articles about rapes of underage girls. Кадош (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have articles for money; it has articles because people want to take down what is known about something and share their research. An article would not exist if people were not interested in understanding the event. And those people consult the sources on their own. The same newspaper you cite about the suicide printed [13] what Google translates as a comment about a video of the encounter, "I must admit that the student does not particularly resist and herself almost drags the guys." Presumably the video of the encounter and a possibly misogynistic response to a perceived false rape charge had something to do with the hounding. To be sure, bullying is not to be condoned -- but Wikipedia should document it nonetheless. There is a popular idea nowadays that suicide is the golden road by which any angry teenager can truly show them all, have everyone who was harassing them prosecuted and ruin their lives, get sympathy from all over the world. I don't think that is a healthy response because it promotes more suicides. I mean, I bear this girl no ill will, but I am equally unmoved to any sort of compassion that would involve censoring people from sharing news references and neutral summaries with one another. If you want to be compassionate, document the details of how she was hounded, and what people propose to do about such cases. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. Today's featured article, Murder of Dwayne Jones, looks like a good example of one of these articles done well. Wnt (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Serious Issues related to Wikipedia

Dear Jimmy sir sorry for disturbing you, there were some issues related to wikipedia which were concerning me which could be solved by founders so I approached here

The first issue is is about growing userbase, as you may know sir that till 2020 there would be 6.1 billion mobile phone users, wikimedia foundation should utilise this opportunity to increase userbase by developing high tech software for mobile phone which could be mobile-friendly and if there is some financial problems which prevents founders to install efficient mobile friendly software than the foundation can ask for software donation. And please sir I request you to place pop ups of account creation ,because people don't know that wikipedia can be edited and even people who discoveres that Wikipedia can be edited are often discouraged when their contributions are deleted ,I know dear sir that citing sources are crucial but newbies don't know how to do it. Frankly speaking WP:Cite sources is not at all helpful from the point of view of beginners as it is too difficult. Visual editors are not efficient on mobile interface and difficult to operate.

2. Secondly there is deep concern on content creation (article creation) because Wikipedia started at the dawn of 21st century but till 2017 it has only 10 million articles by this pace till 2030 it will not have even 15 million articles due to the rigid notability policies, according to my belief Wikipedia should have at least 1 billion articles as there are too many subjects in the whole world to write about . It seems there is discouragement by the foundation towards content creation and creativity for example music related articles often face discriminated and are often tagged for deletion by terming it as promotion. Whereas films which are not even titled are permitted and retained ! Isn't this promotion of films ? Overall the rigid notability policies, and other innumerous policies are moving Wikipedia towards Red tape.

3. Less administrators production - Wikipedia produces very less number of Admins. As a result crucial noticeboards like BLP noticeboard., Incidents Noticeboards and other noticeboards have huge backlog to clean up. This issue may fix up if experienced and good faith active editors are automatically elevated as administrators rather than giving frustrating interview at RfA.

3. Please Give tools to fight harrasment, filthy abuses, personal attacks to non-admin users .

3. Please Save and provide support to innocent blocked victims - Many users are under constant fear of getting blocked as they believe that administrators are nearly God's of this site. And even arguing or talking with them is quite harmful for their future on the Wikipedia. Further an innocent blocked user has to beg for unblocking publicly on the talk page, which is quite humilating. And if their talkpage is also blocked they have to beg through unblocking request system . This is quite humilating and complete harrasment of normal users. Instead of requesting unblock why not contest a block, and have a quick investigation by a team of non-admins over the contribution history of blocked victim. If blocked one is proved innocent than an oversighter must delete his blocking history and the blocking admin must be desysopped immediately. This will encourage the non-administrators that they are too valuable for this great encyclopedia and are not second-class members of this site.

• the recent changes log should be added next to watchlist, so that it would be quite easy to prevent addition of hazardous content on any article

• Thirdly the new page reviewing, rollback and pending changes right should be automatically granted to user who touches 1000 edits, as such huge count of edits means that the user is going to stay and is willing to contribute.

And dear sir ,please don't take my suggestion as eddicts. As people often gets offended on this place. I care for Wikipedia that's why I gaved suggestions which came from the bottom of my heart. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 13:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, those are a lot of issues. I'm not sure Jimbo has time to reply to all your comments, but he typically appreciates hearing details about user concerns. I think many of those problems need to be addressed as wp:RfC discussions, to see if enough users want to change the results. I had no idea that guideline "WP:Cite sources" had grown to over twice the length of 2 short novels combined (>85K). WP has long-term "wp:Ignore All Rules" (wp:IAR), but even so, having such massive red tape guideline pages (which exceed the length of full novels) is likely to discourage or repel new users. It is a good point about the wp:VE Visual Editor not being well-suited to the growing base of mobile-phone editors, but phones are getting larger screens every year and unfolded screens might be a future solution. Also, the lack of Pending-Changes right, among long-term users, is troublesome, but hopefully enough other users have requested those rights to work the backlogs. I am annoyed working on pages for films to be "released in 2018" so perhaps those could be more limited. As for the billion-article Wikipedia, as an information scientist, I am afraid you are quite correct, and we might need to split Wikipedia into "article-types" where bio-pages are auto-generated by Bots to give millions more a Wikipedia page generated from simple wp:RS reliable sources. Currently, the flood of bio-pages as a "Who's Who" has eclipsed the "What's What" coverage of things by Wikipedia, so we did not have coverage of U.S. classified network "ClassNet" (when Hillary Clinton was questioned for not using ClassNet but private email; see: "Classified United States website"). Also WP has limited coverage about crucial parts in everyday devices, such as contactor switches (for A/C contactor or jet pump contactor) to better explain how those large electrical devices are operated without burning out the switches due to electrical arcs eroding the wire contacts, especially when the power is disconnnected. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

2nd recent article in Entrepreneur magazine promoting paid editing

Last month we discussed the Amy Osmond Cook piece in Entrepreneur, What I Learned When a Wikipedia Troll Deleted My Page". This month, there is another piece promoting paid editing, "Entrepreneurs Are Paying Wikipedia Editors to Create Profile Pages", which we have been discussing at WT:COI here.

Three things.

a) Jimbo, as the more or less official face of Wikipedia to the world, will you please consider talking to the publishers of that magazine?

b) The other thing is that the reporter apparently reached out to a WMF communications person, Samantha Lien. I don't know what Samantha communicated, or how that conversation went, or how well it was reported, but what got into the article was OK but not great. It was this -- people are “'strongly discouraged from editing articles directly about themselves or [about] a subject they’re closely affiliated with,' says Samantha Lien, a Wikimedia Foundation communications manager. 'This is known as editing with a conflict of interest,' she says, and it’s something Wikipedia’s volunteer editors spend a lot of time policing for."

In my view WMF communications people should have a clear and simple message about advocacy editing, including COI and paid editing, that puts it in a context. ~Something~ like:

1. Wikipedia's crazy and beautiful mission is to provide the public with articles that provide accepted knowledge, for free, through a volunteer community of editors. It has succeeded beyond what anybody could have imagined
2. This makes it a target for all kinds of abuse - people wanting to "get the word out" about any number of causes, companies, products, etc. Even universities do it. These people are like industrial polluters who pour waste into rivers. Parts of Wikipedia are like Lake Eerie when it was so polluted that it caught fire. Parts of Wikipedia are very clean and solid.
3. For people who want to get content into WP but don't know how, there are ways to explore whether a topic is appropriate for WP. There is a help desk (WP:Help desk) where they can ask for help, and there are paid editors who at least say that they follow WP's policies and guidelines. (see their statement). There are also paid editors who hide what they do and are like people today who sneak around and dump waste in our national forests.
4. Please don't pollute Wikipedia or support people who do. Volunteers spend a tremendous amount of time cleaning up pollution trying to maintain WP as a useful resource for people who want to learn, and this cleanup takes their time away from building good content.

Something like that. This is perhaps something that the board could discuss with the ED who could then get the communications people on board with the message, so there is a clear and consistent line?

c) Finally, I embedded this in what I wrote above, but I am starting to arrive at a view that we should start pointing to the fact that there are paid editors who at least say that they consistently follow the policies and guidelines. In the absence of information about where people can go for help, the undisclosed paid editing ecosystem just thrives. WMF and the editing community can perhaps starve it by pointing people elsewhere. I am not saying endorse them, but I am saying point to paid editors who follow the Statement. Complicated I know, but the world of paid editors is not going away. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please also see this proposal.... Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC) (did it myself, per below Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Jimbo doesn't need to step in everytime someone writes a blog post about paid editing. Comms is doing just fine. Sometimes, you present a simple, clear message to reporters and they don't recount it the way you would prefer, or just plain get it wrong. Gamaliel (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know what happened in the interview. What we can do is make sure that WMF communications understands the reality of advocacy editing in WP and is able to put it in context. I had already emailed Samantha to learn about what happened but she is travelling now. Btw I emailed the executive editor of Entrepreneur myself, as I was worried that they are setting up a regular theme and I don't know what jimbo may or may not do. They (happliy) replied right away and said the two articles were just a coincidence. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia paid editing view the practice negatively. At l;east that's my recollection. It might be useful to keep a record of all those articles someplace, as they appear. Coretheapple (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

In an ideal world anyone tempted to pay for article creation would be forced to read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Unfortunately that is not possible. But we can promote the observations therein to the press, in hopes that people will pick up on the clue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I certainly agree that proactive p.r. would be a very good idea, rather than the WMF merely responding to press inquiries. Jimbo or some other WMF person should write articles and opeds decrying these paid editing mills and opposing paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that an appeal to high-minded principles like "the integrity of Wikipedia" may fall on deaf ears, whereas an appeal to self interest (i.e., your article can turn around and bite you) often is more effective. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that self-interest only works in instances in which the subject is marginal and makes a fuss about getting in. If the subject is notable, then it does make sense to either create an article oneself or pay one to do so. There is no inherent disadvantage to hiring paid editors. Paid articles are not flagged for the reader. Still, you're right in principle and Jimbo or whomever can and should make that argument. It's hard for me as a volunteer to get worked up on this subject if the founder - who has a personal stake in the integrity of the project - is not sufficiently moved to speak out often against it,Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• to risk beating a dead horse, i really think we should start being clear that there are paid editors who follow policies and guidelines, and those who don't, and encourage people to avoid those who don't. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know from direct interactions that there are promotional editors who follow the terms of use and write acceptable articles. I also know that these are a very small minority of paid editors, and that not all the editors who claim to follow the guideliens actually do soI would strongly object to the WMF or anyone giving the message that paid editing is acceptable, because it is sure to be misinterpreted. DGG ( talk ) 09:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DGG. There is a fine line between encouraging paid editing, and pointing to people who at least say that they follow PAID, and what I am saying is the latter. We need to move past the discussion about "acceptable" or not - it happens and there is no way that we can stop it, with WP structured as it is. (The conversation about "acceptable" or "bad" is like the alcohol prohibition movement in the US - banning alcohol just promoted the activities of gangsters, right?) One reason I am encouraging formation of a guild or project is to have members of the guild/project police each other and throw out people who don't actually follow PAID. We of course will continue to do what we do, no matter what. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• While I respect our current consensus, and even clean up some blatant COI spam for which due to its inherent notability I can't argue for deletion, I can't stress enough how much we should not tolerate anyone making money out of the free work our volunteers provide to develop and maintain our legitimate content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

we do tolerate it, just barely. That is because we cannot ban it, nor could we police a ban. I spend a lot of my time educating paid or otherwise conflicted editors how they can be good members of the community by honoring PAID and COI and the rest of the policies and guidelines, letter and spirit. We do get useful content from such people via their proposed articles and content. We also get way too much awful content added directly to articles by paid or otherwise conflicted editors who don't follow PAID/COI. It is not going away, and we should educate people about the difference between "white hat" and "black hat" paid editors. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: re: "we should not tolerate anyone making money out of the free work our volunteers provide" – Content on most Wikimedia Foundation websites is licensed for redistribution under v3.0 of the Attribution and Share-alike Creative Commons licenses. This content is sourced from contributing volunteers and from resources with few or no copyright restrictions, such as copyleft material and works in the public domain. CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License says that anyone is free to share & remix for any purpose, even commercially. Google and others are making money out of the free work our volunteers provide, and there's nothing we can do about it. We release those rights to them every time we click Save changes. wbm1058 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That's correct as far as it goes. Anybody can use our content for any reason, commercial or otherwise. But there is a huge difference between making money from using our content and making money by producing our content (e.g. by inserting hidden ads). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here disagrees with that. That is not the point of discussion. What I'm asking here, is whether we should start distinguishing between editors who say they follow PAID, and those who most definitely do not. In a way that is meaningful and public. This is about doing something different. Jytdog (talk)

The discussions have been based upon a false categorization which is There are either paid editors or unpaid editors. That's like saying there are either employed people or unemployed people, when, in fact, a state of employment is usually quite fluid instead of stagnant. The only real solution to this problem is if every editor refuses to be stuck in either the paid or the unpaid category and, instead, embraces the reality that any and all editors, given the current situation, may be a paid or an unpaid editor any time they feel like it. Then, the policies and rules will be applied equally and no one should really care whether anyone is paid on a particular day at a particular time or not, and the whole issue becomes moot, as it is already in a round about way. Realityornot (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

mmm I cannot agree with that. COI matters and needs to be managed. Having a COI really does change what people do; this is just human nature. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I understand, it just seemed like there was no real solution or anything else to try, but now Count Iblis has come up with an idea, directly below, which at least at first blush, looks like it might be effective in an active and deterrent way. Realityornot (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We just need to weed out corrupt editors here and that can be done using sting operations. We can create an undercover Wiki-police force who'll pretend to be business owners who want to get favorable wiki-articles written about their businesses. The existence of this operation will be public knowledge, this will serve as a deterrent to not engage with improper paid editing as you won't know if the person you're dealing with is or isn't an undercover agent. Count Iblis (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My views here are well-known already so I don't have a lot to add. My sense of it is that there is a growing consensus to take a few stronger steps to deal with the issue. The paid shills will scream, of course, but that is of little concern to us. I do think that there is one thing that I could do here, at least for Entrepreneur Magazine, and that is to submit to them a piece explaining why the advice in previous columns is very bad. The problem here is that Entrepreneur is really the perfect place for bad advice to cause us problems - it's a magazine that appeals to ambitious small companies who want to grow and who therefore probably aren't (yet) ready for a Wikipedia article, but who would love to have one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Count Iblis's proposal seems worthy of serious consideration, I believe. Realityornot (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is a strategy for managing the market overall, by doing what we can internally to promote self regulation by "white hat" paid editors, and communicating to the world at large that there are black hat paid editors who should be avoided and white hat paid editors who (at least say) they follow policy and are community members in good standing. The Count's proposal is a tactic to play whack-a-mole. fwiw it would be probably involve committing fraud (it is one thing for cops to run a "sting" and a different thing for people to con each other), and I doubt that WMF or the editing community per se would formally do it. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Removed edit by the usual banned editor per WP:BANREVERT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a fan. This doesn't pass the ethics smell test to me. If not fraud – which implies certain legal criteria and civil or criminal wrongdoing – it's at least probably against the job boards' own Terms of Service. E.g. Fiverr's ToS states "Sellers must fulfill their orders" and buyer's identity, if discovered, "shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever". Don't think it's a good idea to promote ToS violations at other sites to help enforce our own. Further, if it is in fact fraud, then it is also a WMF ToS violation to elicit it here. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Fivrr ToS looks like it is totally incompatible with our ToU where the buyer's identity must be disclosed. In that case nobody who uses Fivrr can do paid editing on Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Count Iblis's proposal above is original and interesting — it might be a way to differentiate between good actors (those who indicate intent to follow NPOV and verifiability) from bad actors (those who just seek to bill a few hours of work for whatever purpose. There is a difference. Ultimately, however, no such sting operation would have teeth because it is such a simple matter to edit around blocks. Until we have some sort of meaningful registration policy and a requirement of sign-in-to-edit, all this concern about paid editing is akin to a dog chasing his tail. Ain't gonna catch it and it ain't going away... Carrite (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This could be also be considered outside this specific context of improper paid editing. In many disputes that sometimes lead to ArbCom cases, we need to judge what the intention of an editor was when he/she edited in a problematic way. This is not always clear and often one gets discussions that escalate the underlying dispute with different editors choosing different sides. The less hard evidence there is to prove that an editor is really guilty, the more such disputes tend to escalate. In some of these cases one can then consider intervening using sting-like actions when complaints are made anonymously to ArbCom, e.g. about harassment on other sites. Count Iblis (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think black and white lines should be drawn. No paid editors, period. Being paid to create/edit articles for small companies that subscribe to Entrepreneur magazine is bad enough, but we also have a situation where large biotech and pharmaceutical companies are paying WP editors for both reputation management and paying to demonize their competition. The line will be crossed if it isn't a hard one. LesVegas (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy, Thank you very much. Yes, you should write a response to Entrepreneur. Of course you can't do this personally for every publication that advises folks to break our rules, but even one letter would be greatly appreciated. Individual Wikipedians could organize to do this type of thing on a regular basis, but there is some opposition to this from the usual sources. I guess the major question is where and in what form could Wikipedians organize to do this. There are about 5 places we could send similar letters right now. Ultimately, the WMF is best positioned to send such letters. I think they are responding better than they were a few months ago, but a real proactive approach is needed.

Opposition to paid editors inserting hidden ads into articles is certainly growing - not so much in terms of the percentage of editors, since that's always been very high - but in terms of intensity. The abuse by paid editors is also growing and repeating itself as well.

I'll call the repetition Paid recidivism, e.g.

• The Orange Moody extortion scheme is back. We may not have even slowed OM down two years ago. He's still sending the same emails - exactly the same emails - to his victims. I've reported this to the WMF and made sure (with Jytdog) that arb com has received the evidence.
• Bell Pottinger is back - this time in an extremely vicious attack in South Africa against President Jacob Zuma's critics. As far as I can tell Bell Pot didn't technically edit an article, they just wrote all the text, and then told an employee of a Zuma related company to put it into an article, complete with instructions on editing. IMHO just a cynical ruse to avoid our rules. See [14].

So we've still got a lot to do. Fine tuning a few knobs is not going to do it however. I agree with Jytdog that an overall strategy is needed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, here´s another article promoting paid editing [15], "Do You Use Wikipedia for Personal Branding?". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I will reach out to them. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It might be of interest to WMF Legal that they are using Wikipedia trademarks and image marks like [16] and embedded like [17]. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Guild of paid editors notion

• note also posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Guild_or_WikiProject_of_paid_editors

I have been thinking about language, and I don't much like the "white hat" and "black hat" language. I think maybe "paid editors in good standing" and "other paid editors" (meaning ones who have been banned or don't follow policy). Not as catchy but "paid editor in good standing" at least doesn't make us represent something that we cannot know is true. But if someone is following PAID some, and has not been indeffed, they are a "paid editor in good standing". We can say that.

I want to ask - at a high and initial level, does anybody here oppose the formation of something like a "guild of paid editors" by paid editors, to do the self regulation thing? There is some interest in doing that at the Talk page of the "Statement" and if this balloon is not getting terminally shot down here, I want to go to work doing what I can to help them plan and form it, and then at some point bringing it to a more community-wide forum to get validation of the model before it would actually launch.... So just checking for "blockers" (to use the dev terminology) at this very initial starting point. Obviously the details will matter. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to shoot this down. I'm not totally against it. It could work as part of a larger strategy. But I'm very, very leery of establishing an "approved list" of paid editors. Part of the larger strategy might involve the WMF signing a simple agreement with any paid editor who applies. It could require proper identification of the company with contacts, etc. and a complete list of all paid editing jobs they've done in the last 3 years. Requirements of disclosure on Wiki, following all community rules. An agreement to pay damages in certain cases, with jurisdiction of SF, California courts. In return, the paid editors would get a registration number with the requirement that they place it on all Wiki related correspondence and webpages with text like "We have agreed to follow all Wikipedia rules regarding paid editing. The WMF does not approve or certify paid editing firms. Complaints about our services should be forwarded to the WMF citing this registration number." together with a trademarked symbol.

Presumably, customers would not deal with firms without a registration number, if the WMF got the word out. A minimum quality could be maintained, with penalties for firms that don't follow the rules.

I'm not sure that it would work, but I've seen similar systems work, e.g. for review courses for professional certifications.

The key to any system to work would be accountability (names and contact info), feedback from customers, and review from the community and the WMF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Am glad you are not opposed! That is meaningful. But please don't mistake what I am proposing for an "approved list". I very much don't want to go there; the reason why I am proposing a self regulation thing is exactly to avoid the kind of heavy infrastructure and obligations you are proposing as well as any actual involvement of the WMF in making it go.

For people to remain in, they would need to follow WP policy and guidelines; nothing more. We will always be able to indef people who violate policy, that would never go away, but the guild members would police themselves, driven by self-interest, as bad apples would taint all of them. If the guild wanted to issue something like a registration or seal, it could do that. Whether that would matter would depend on how well this worked. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am very opposed, particularly with this terminology. In my view, there is no such thing as a "paid editor in good standing". It's a bad practice of which we should remain highly intolerant at every level. If you are a paid advocate or marketing consulting you should not edit any Wikipedia entry where you have a conflict of interest, period, ever. These people are bad actors who should be banned and shamed publicly.

I would be less opposed if we thought about some formal recognition for a "Guild of Talk Page Advocates" - people who get paid to come and talk to the community about suggested changes. We should make it very clear and easy for people to contact us and get help, in order to reduce the incentives.

I would even support the WMF hiring 20 active Wikipedians to work on helping companies and people deal with BLP issues, with an absolute ban on paying for the service. Undermine the market for these scumbags.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as somebody collects the info and it would be reviewable by (some) Wikipedians, and a place for customers to register complaints. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Very good points above from Smallbones and Jimbo. I like the talk page advocates idea but am opposed to the WMF paying money to editors to help companies and people deal with BLP issues. I think there are far better uses that can be funded with that money, and that the "talk page advocates" should be conversant with site policies. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, I would be happy to talk, if you like. But what you are saying here is exactly what we need to leave behind; again see the example of prohibition in the US. And your language of "scumbag" is ... unfortunate and kind of sloppy. There are paid editors who follow PAID, and who are clueful. There are, well, scummy paid editors, and the goal here is to choke off their market by educating the public, and that means having something to point to that is not "black hat". Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I kind of like the "Guild of Paid Editors" idea. The basic premise we have to accept is that volunteer Wikipedians write about what they want, they write about what interests them. While there are doubtlessly a few people fascinated by the doings of contemporary business, demand for those sort of articles by the subjects (who seek validation or representation on one of the internets most ubiquitous information sources) far outstrips editorial supply. There will be paid editing, it is going to happen — the question is whether the damage of self-serving article creation can be effectively mitigated. It is possible to create and maintain articles in accord with NPOV and Verifiability standards, but there is absolutely no question that it is something that must be closely monitored. Driving things underground by playing whak-a-mole with transient paid editing accounts isn't the solution; we need to find a way to normalize (and thereby watch and regulate) the activity; to insure that those who play by the rules in good faith won't be targeted and repressed, so that we can concentrate upon those who don't play by the rules, cleaning up their messes and getting the perpetrators out of town. I see the notion of a "Guild of Paid Editors" as a step in the right direction. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. Provided we introduce a Wikipedia Guild of Maintenance Workers and pay our New Page Reviewers, OTRS agent, Vandalism Patrollers, and Copy Editors $500 per hour for their work. Oh, yes, jolly good ideas! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I realize that you're engaging in hyperbole, but do you really think paid editors make "$500 an hour"? The common rate is more like $10 to 20/hr. and if one doesn't care too much about the caliber of the output, there are gobs and gobs of people in the developing world willing to work for more like $5/hr. or even less. That disparity aside, WMF is LOADED with cash, they literally can not waste it fast enough, so paying a certain number of people to do unpleasant-but-necessary maintenance or creation work wouldn't be out of the question. I'm not saying I am FOR that, mind you, only that it's not far-fetched and worth pondering. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am inclined to oppose the idea of organizing paid editors by way of in house assets; from a WikiProject to a categorization scheme. I am, nevertheless: reasonable, and willing to be convinced otherwise. The burden, however, rests with those who would enjoy such a privilege tough, as yet, I've not seen a request that gave with its asking, a compelling rationale which, I believe, is, necessarily, a requisite first step. It certainly has not been given here; nor even broached, in my opinion.--John Cline (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

User:John Cline it is unclear what "privilege" you see here; I tried to make it clear that there would be no editing privileges associated with this. This would formalize what is already going on with the "Statement" linked above. Btw, the statement was nominated for MfD in the spring, and that was overwhelmingly shot down (MFD is here. The community is not opposed to the Statement and associated activities existing. This would just formalize it further and hopefully make it more functional. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, the privilege I spoke of is the privilege to organize a guild on Wikipedia, using Wikipedia assets. My concern is that it would be misconstrued as an institutionally condoned practice, and misused for self-serving gain. I would expect a genuine proposal to allay these concerns upon its outset. My own support would be contingent on it.--John Cline (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for answering John. (The "Guild" language is dead and if this is anything it would be a wikiproject). Three answers:

1) In my view the WikiProject is a benefit to us and that is what I am looking at. We want to make a differentiation in the marketplace (that is all around us) between black market paid editors who violate policy, and legit ones. I want to do that to educate consumers that the black market is illegitimate (where the "scumbags" are, to use Jimbo's impolitic language) and that there is a legitimate set of sellers of paid editing service. That benefits us.

2) Paid editors are semi-organized already around the Statement linked above which is hosted on WMF servers in Wikipedia-space This would merely formalize that. (The Statement was put up for MfD and failed to be deleted by a longshot... so that use of Wikipedia-space already has consensus.

3) There would be some reward for paid editors who participate in the WikiProject but that is part of the goal - again we want to drive people away from the black market of undisclosed paid editors and a key part of that is having a clearly defined place where policy-complying paid editors reside here. So yes, customers would be able to find them there. (Same as the Statement does already.) That benefits them. No denying that.Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• just fyi for folks here, so far all the comments the village pump are negative. :( Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• related, there is a proposal to add a speedy delete criterion for articles created by undisclosed paid editors here. Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC) (revised, not redacted Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC))

Proposal for WMF to pay editors

• The only compelling rationale that I know of is that our coverage of small businesses and larger but non-famous businesses is relatively limited. I have been thinking lately that a plausible way forward on that would be for the WMF to directly pay Wikipedians to work in those areas. Companies should not financially contribute to this effort at all. The idea is to destroy the market value of these services as a better way to control it than the whack-a-mole, without introducing the horrible idea that it can somehow be OK for people with a conflict of interest to write Wikipedia entries.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If the WMF is going to pay Wikipedians to work on any area, then surely there are loads of areas that are more deserving... Why not simply noindex all articles about companies? That would instantly destroy any (perceived) monetary value. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, let's think this through. What areas would be more deserving, and why? Most areas already have good coverage. I'm sure there are areas which are all three of these things: neglected by volunteers, not the object of pressures from marketers, and also of great interest to readers. I would argue that if there are areas which are neglected by volunteers and of great interest to readers, we could likely get them done with more community organization. What I'm really interested here is in completely destroying the fallacious argument that we have to accept paid shilling because our coverage of companies is not as good as it could be. That path feels to me like attempting to cure an infected finger by stabbing ourselves in the heart. And I think the issue of the purity of motivation (to share knowledge, rather than to market a company) is the heart and soul of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, good god jimbo - did you really ask this question????? pretty much EVERYTHING outside of the key interests of well-off, male, technical geeks and western entertainment/film/tv is woefully under-covered and more culturally worthy of being included in an encyclopedia than propaganda for small and medium capitalist organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally I focus on one specific niche, typofixing. Typofixing is quite boring, and not as "sexy" as for example vandalfighting is. We have loads of software to fight vandalism, but there is almost no software to find and fix typos. I had to write some myself, and the WMF refused to fund it. The software allows me to fix over 2000 typos in less than 24 hours. I am not claiming to know much about all the other areas, but I imagine that there are people in a similar situation to mine. An RfC asking: "If the WMF hires some Wikipedians to work on some areas, which areas should that be?" seems to be a good idea, and I don't think "articles about companies" would be high up that list. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are suggesting here. What do you think would be high up that list?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's have the RfC and find out. I hope stuff to counter our systemic bias. Paying people to write about female scientists from third world countries sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe I am too idealistic. We are doing fine with our coverage of "white" males from rich countries (people like you and I); maybe we can use money to encourage people to write about subjects other than that. I assume you are familiar with WP:BOGOF, we are already sponsoring paid articles about companies. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's premature for an RfC. I really like your example: female scientists from third world countries.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a good idea to think and talk about this for a while. Of course funding topic area A does not mean we cannot fund topic area B; we can do both. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• If WMF wants to pay editors, that would be great. It is a separate issue from influencing the market external to WP where people or companies who want articles connect with freelancers and PR companies. As long as this remains "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", there are going to be paid editors. And the world is teeming, and the demand is always going to outstrip a curated supply. But this proposal could maybe put a small dent in the demand. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to this, but if this happens, I think the annual fundraising banner needs to allow people to specify whether they are donating to fund editors, or to fund the operations of the WMF and hosting expenses. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to the WMF paying editors to create articles on businesses. If anything the WMF should be paying editors to clean-up all the ad filled articles on businesses that we have now. One question that would have to be clearly answered before paying to create business articles is "what type of businesses do we want to be covered in articles?" Let me propose a very simple to define group for the US. All actively traded stocks, that is the Wilshire 5000 component stocks. Due to mergers, companies going private, and other changes in the market there are only 3,618 stocks in the "5000" index. My educated guess is that these companies account for well over half of the US non-farm, non-government economy (whether measured by employment, sales, corporate profits, exports or any other reasonable measure). Add in well-known private companies like Cargill, or Koch Petroleum and maybe you can get to 5,000 businesses that we should definitely be covering. Extrapolating worldwide, we might need 20,000 - 25,000 total articles for a similar coverage of business. We already have something close to 50,000, though admittedly not all the ones we want are included now.

The problem with going much beyond 25,000 companies is that the rest of the companies are relatively tiny. Add another 100,000 companies and our coverage in terms of employment, sales, etc. might only increase by another 5%. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If price = 0, how much will be demanded?

My point, of course, is that increasing the number of companies we can cover is a fool's game. Right now we don't really have any limit, so we're all over the place with very tiny companies - like a coffee truck in NYC, or a one store donut shop (with jalapeños) near Dallas, an online lingerie seamstress near Oxford (1 "employee" - the owner), lots of very new companies that just want free ads, some tech startups that may have had one round of financing. All sorts of companies that can fake 3 local newspaper articles, but no news source would ever notice when they go bankrupt or otherwise disappear. With that kind of open invitation we can get millions of companies wanting ads - and hiring 20 or 200 or 2000 editors is not going to keep up with the demand. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• One can also consider a system where points are awarded to editors based on their contributions, contributing in assigned target areas that need improvement will earn you more points. These points can then be redeemed for money or for other purposes. Editors who want to see certain articles improved can themselves award points from their own account. Editors can then donate points collectively to a WikiProject (a chosen participant in that WikiProject then gets the points), these points will then be used to improve certain articles that the WikiProject participants have flagged for improvement. Editors who are found to have misbehaved will lose any points earned by their problematic edits. Bots won't earn points. An example of a point based system is StackExchange. Here you get points based on answers to questions, but the points are not worth any money. But this already motivates people to write good contributions. People who ask questions can award extra bonus points that will be subtracted from their account. Count Iblis (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I like this idea. Right now our rewards for most editors are all intrinsic but this might work in concert. We should consider what kind of compensation would be compatible with the spirit of a volunteer-driven community. It might be stronger if the community got a vote on who is eligible – to prevent malicious gaming, and to promote preservation of community values. I'll discuss at the Wiknic today and see what other folks think. What I'd just discussed with another person was a similar idea, like a tangible but token gift from WMF to the "editor of the month" or something like. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I want to pick up on what User:Kudpung wrote about in the subsection above. Probably the single biggest thing that the WMF could do to help, would be to finally give the NPP people the software tools that they have been asking for for years, instead of unilaterally not doing what the a strong RfC called for. This has to do with dealing with adequately patrolling the torrent of new pages that come in, which is serious labor (the hard work of maintaining WP, which the WMF never talks about). Paying people to work NPP might be useful but I don't want to speak for the volunteers who do that work. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The worst thing was getting gratuitous emails from the WMF telling me to lay off. And just look at the absurd claims of 'secrecy' below. If I got a 2p point for every hour I've spent on NPP issues, I'd be able to afford to go to Montreal and talk to the people that matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Smallbones that paying editors to create articles on small business is not a good idea. I think it's a terrible idea. Let's assume arguendo that small businesses are a neglected subject. I don't believe they are, but let's assume that. If so, why single out them for attention? Are there no other subjects that are worthy of such support - assuming that paying editors for any kind of article creation is a good idea? I would suggest that, if indeed the subject matter is neglected, it is that small businesses tend not to be sufficiently notable. This is the same reason why so many are a subject of paid editing that why up being speedily deleted. If a business is interesting enough to draw attention in reliable sources, surely our millions of unpaid volunteers will eventually get around to it. The same goes for physicians, musicians, mountain ranges, streets, veterinary medications, varieties of wallpaper, brands of wax paper, etc. etc. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• One other thing to consider. Notability is not temporary. That being the case, what about small businesses that no longer exist but obtained reliable sourcing when they did? If we are to pay editors to write about "living" businesses, aren't we engaged in recentism? Many defunct historical businesses are very interesting. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't really like the idea of WMF paying editors, because it is a slippery slope. The thing that made WP beautiful was its primitive volunteerism and community can-do attitude — and if you ask me the worst thing that has happened is the multimillions of dollars flowing into San Francisco and the cancerous growth of a professional bureaucracy, which sees itself as apart from and superior to the volunteer core. Turning the volunteer core into paid staff would be the final step in this degeneration, and from there the alluring world of paid advertising is but one short step. THAT SAID, there is a clear supply-and-demand problem with Business articles, and the market-based solution (paid editing) in its current form has clear problems in terms of the quality of the output — which frequently violates NPOV, for starters, and leads to a proliferation of garbage pages about seriously unworthy business entities. I wonder if the old "reward board" model might work. A company could post its offer ON WIKI, and those responding would have to do so transparently — their work could be easily checked. That strikes me as a better solution than the off-wiki freelance marketplace. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I am also opposed to paying editors. We have some research looking at the effect of pay on involvement. Specifically there is evidence looked at institutions paying people to donated blood versus requesting voluntary donations. The conclusion was "markets in blood ‘repres[s] the expression of altruism"[18] What I would love to see is the Community Tech Team double or tripled in size. Volunteers could become a lot more productive with some more simple tech tools. Things like a bot that notifies Wiki Projects when images used on the pages within the project are put up for deletion[19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment IMO our first major effort should be to better document all the organizations that are actively in breach of our terms of use. I have done some of this here. We need to clearly notify the wider world about those who are not in good standing. We also need a group of functionaries to help enforce socking done for paid editing. When a brand new account creates a promotional article in their first couple of edits about a borderline notable topic and the article is perfectly formatted, that should be enough justification for a CU to dig up their other accounts. We should also consider holding IP data for blocked accounts that are related to undisclosed paid editing longer. If we make it harder to do paid editing in breach of our terms of use hopefully new paid editors will than follow the rules. The problem is that nearly all long term paid editors have a string of blocked socks. Are we going to give the likes of Kohs and Woods a legitimate way to return to good standing? Most paid editors are actively trying to take advantage of what we do for their own and their clients personal gain. These are not collaborations we generally want to foster, especially when we have lots of organizations that share our goals such as universities and other NGOs interested in working with us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of speaking for Kohs: (1) He is SanFranBanned and has no path back no matter what we decide to do about paid editing; (2) He's doubtlessly still going to be editing here anyway, because he will never be bullied into submission; and he edits in accord with NPOV and Verifiability, which means his work is not problematic and not apt to be even spotted; (3) He showed his financials on this page previously and revealed what I've known for a long time — that he's a very, very small scale paid editor. So don't make him out to be a bogieman or a reason for not being able to make rational the paid editing environment. He's not the problem. Never was really. Carrite (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not mean to make either one of them out as a bogieman. My point was simply that most undisclosed paid editors already have a large number of blocked socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had experience here and elsewhere of combining volunteers and paid staff, it doesn't have to involve as much angst as it has in this movement. When you mix professional and volunteer staff it is really important that the professional staff do the things that the volunteers want to have happen but aren't volunteering to do. So a fact checking team going through old uncited content, checking its veracity and adding cites where they can, correcting errors and removing material they can't verify or that turns out to be copyvio, that could be fairly uncontentious, especially if they produced some stats on the quality of the material they were working on and identified editors who had been making stuff up. It would also help if the people doing that work were earning a living wage in an economically disadvantaged part of the world - so few if any of our volunteer editors were feeling jealous or resentful of them. Better still make their workload something the volunteers can decide - articles that Wikiprojects have identified as important but low quality, or poorly cited rarely edited articles with high readership. ϢereSpielChequers 08:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As i said above I generally don't like editors being paid by the WMF, especially not for creating business articles. But here is one task that I could see being done by WMF paid editors: cleanup of old, rotten, seldom-viewed, seldom-edited, short substubs. We have lots of these - let's say 1 million articles on en:Wiki (give me an operational definition and I'll try to give you a better estimate). Let's say for now that "old substubs" are defined as "less than 5 pageviews per day, smaller than 2 full paragraphs, 0 or 1 inline citations, less than 5 incoming links from other articles, no substantive edits for the last 3 years, and an ORES score indicating a probability of being a stub of greater than 70%." There's almost certainly over 250,000 of these, and a pro computer programmer could generate the list quite easily. Who's going to clean these up? Probably not 1,000 volunteers, each doing 1per weekday for 50 weeks (ie a full year job), But how about paying $4 each to classify them into "keep - it's actually useful" (as I guess 10% of them might be), "merge - even if it's only 2 lines into a related article" (60%), "prod - nobody's interested in this" (25%), and "delete with extreme prejudice" (5%). It would only cost $1 million. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why start with rarely viewed ones? I'd have thought the more widely read ones would be more of a priority. ϢereSpielChequers 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Short answer: Almost everybody can agree that these articles don't add much of anything to Wikipedia and probably detract from it. We've got to start somewhere. We've got a bunch of merde filling up more than half of the basement of our 2 story house. We've grown accustomed to the stink (which greatly reduces our reputation), but once we dig in and see the size of the problem, we'll likely finish the job.

Longer answer: Before running into Wikipedia, I thought editing was mainly about removing the bad parts of the text, removing bad articles, generally tightening up things to put a more concentrated concise message into a limited space. Since e really don't have a limited space, most people have forgotten about the benefits of being concise, of not having extra moving parts in the machine that don't do anything other than require maintenance. Being concise not only saves us time, it shows respect for our readers by saving them time. Sooner of later somebody has t dive in and clean it up, but it's not likely to be our usual volunteer editors. Would you try to help clean these Augean stables as a volunteer?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Seems unfeasible to me. The more we interfere with the editorial process, the more likely we are to loose our safe harbor protections. I don't think WMF would be willing to take that risk. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment A solution for which there is no problem. The "demand" in the supply and demand equation is from subjects, not editors. Which is sad. My heart aches. But, lamentable as it is, not many people other than the subjects care about most small companies, especially the ones that are borderline notability --the ones that are most frequent subjects of paid editors. This is not an unusual situation. There are a lot of subjects that nobody cares about. Editors step in and write articles about those gaps in the encyclopedia, thereby giving them whatever limited benefits there are from writing Wikipedia articles. A new editor may "make his bones" easier by writing about small companies than he might about writing about Trump or Putin. And yes, as has been pointed out, there are a gazillion things the WMF can throw away money on that make more sense from the Wikipedia volunteer standpoint than making small business owners happy. But I haven't come to the most important reason this idea makes no sense --- it wouldn't put a dent in the problem. There are millions of small businesses out there. Unless you hire thousands of editors to write hundreds of articles each, you won't do much good and subjects will continue to demand articles about themselves and their businesses. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales:: It seems silly to put WMF money into this when there's clearly commercial money desperately trying to go there. Perhaps a better use of WMF dollars would be to set up a review board of experienced WP editors, and pay them to manage a noticeboard or similar project where commercial interests could openly and transparently offer contracts to Wikipedians, and/or get whatever help they need. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really understand the logic of your argument. "Corporate money is desperately trying to subvert the values of Wikipedia and turn it into a marketing platform, therefore the WMF should not spend money to remove the incentives to do that." Right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No. I think the main thing holding back coverage of companies is that business articles are prone to deletion. They might be called boring, no "assertion" of notability, etc. And we know that the top-level spammers like Orangemoody advertise being able to get an article about your company killed unless you pay. This plays right into my prejudice that deletionists are generally less trustworthy than positive contributors, but to be sure, the positive contributors are also dubious - the Main Page continues to allot Square Enix, a single obscure company, one top billing article (usually about its Final Fantasy products) every 180 days. Anyone who sees this should assume that the corruption in Wikipedia runs broad and deep, and is likely to take claims seriously either by editors who claim to be able to push articles or to get them rubbed out.

Particularly, the question comes up how WMF would decide who to hire. I'm thinking it should be someone who loves to write articles about businesses, yet someone whose articles somehow get deleted much less often than those of other editors... preferably someone who has the discretion to avoid listing the Orangemoody experience on his resume. But in any case, I'm thinking the best candidate for the job is the absolute last you should ever want.

I think there is an alternative for paying editors that would work much better. Allow any editor to sign up for a program where he makes some small sum, perhaps $1 a day, for every day that he does a significant amount of editing. Put absolutely no standards on how this editing is done; but of course if he is blocked or banned he cannot edit. (Socially, you can nudge Third World editors unfamiliar with some Western cultural biases in the right direction with some helpful advice -- it's never a beautiful village, it's a scenic tourist destination; the former sounds too Paki and will get the entire article deleted) The potential net outlay is around $10000 x 365 = $3.7 million, small change for WMF and I bet 80% of the editors can be persuaded to donate it all back rather than go through the aggravation and identification implicit in accepting payment; they'll still feel like big shots for making a large donation! But a billion people around the world live on $1 a day, and their countries are very poorly covered. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I said this years ago, PR firms and paid editors operate on Wikipedia anyway. As long as it's an open resource there's nothing you can do about it. If people were paid to edit articles on businesses by WMF and not let these people have any say in their entries then you'd likely greatly improve the neutrality of the site and directly counteract a lot of the paid editing that goes on. Jimbo seems to finally seeing this. If not paying money directly to people to edit, WMF could try running contests to write/rewrite business articles and give decent Amazon voucher rewards etc. The latter might be the best solution as a lot of articles can be improved through contests and there's a chance for editors to earn something decent. Jimbo, if you offered Amazon voucher incentives to people such as myself to run contests to overhaul and protect our business articles from outside interests and give out Amazon voucher rewards to the hardest working people you'd start to see a big difference I think. Amazon vouchers work well as it's not direct "paid" editing plus it maximizes the chances of editors buying books to further write content on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

An even worse idea. Wikipedia should not be endorsing a corporation with special benefits, it should not be endorsing a corporate monopoly no matter how much it seems like de facto law, and it sure as all the hounds of hell should not directly entwine itself with a corporate publishing monopoly. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That's right. Joe's Pizza gets a WMF-paid article; that alone is quite a feather in its cap. Not by a volunteer. A Wikipedia-authored article! Frank's Pizza across town will want the same. So does every other major restaurant in the community. But Joe has more wide-awake PR so it gets its name in the papers more, so there are more so-called "reliable sources" like the Podunk Gazette. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Figureofnine and Dr. Blofeld: I think both of you misunderstood my objection. I was not suggesting that having an article about a company was an endorsement -- I was saying that to specifically reward Amazon with business and assume that editors want to do business with them is an endorsement. That was what I meant by "corporate publishing monopoly". Wnt (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I was not responding directly to your comment but rather following up on Dr. Blofeld's, as I believe he made an interesting point. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your argument but I see it more as beating the companies at their own game. Of course not all companies have been subject to paid editing though, you have a point on that. What do you suggest as a better option? Who said anything about "endorsing" companies". It would be more about not endorsing companies by employing a team of writers to completely overhaul the articles we have, make sure they're neutral, remove cruft, protect and monitor them. It should have happened five years go.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Jimbo: I realize I'm contributing to this rather late in the day but I must say I'm very surprised that you are suggesting special support for the business community. There is overwhelming evidence that business is able to take care of its own interests whereas other areas such as women in general and women in business, science, culture, politics or even in sports have been subject to the interests of the 80% of Wikipedia editors who are male. Together with Dr. Blofeld and The_Quixotic_Potato (talk · contribs), I think it would be far more productive to give support to initiatives in support of better coverage of women and their achievements. Other areas deserving support obviously include the third world counties in Africa and Asia.-Ipigott (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Existing Wiki business directories

I found an article here about www.brownbook.net (which I am getting blacklist notices for when I try to save it here) which claims it indexes 34 million businesses. I should note that my impression of the site is not very positive - I tried searching for Google and got, amusingly, a bunch of apparent SEO services. I tried a search for Dual Trucking and Transport or Haoma in general and got nothing (why I would do that search may be a fun-ish exercise for the reader; we probably should have an article). Question: can people here decide what Wiki business directories exist, which ones are "best", and whether they might try to find common ground with Wikipedia (for instance, if they are willing to make some directory information or abstracts CC-licensed)? Because at some point we should figure out how many GNG-notable businesses there really are out there (I doubt it's anywhere near 34 million), and whether there is a way to allow searchers to rerun an unsuccessful Wikipedia search on one or more business directories, or pass through the results to a search that includes them, etc. If the companies can put up a page they wrote and control somewhere else, and can get us to lead unsuccessful searchers to their site if they're interested, then they surely won't want to come here and make Wikipedia articles; indeed, I would worry the strategy could work too well... in any case though these directories are a tangible point of reference for any reform proposal. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For creating Wikipedia, though I may have my complaints about the community the site itself and the concept behind it deserve kudos. --59.153.232.180 (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We've created a monster

Wikipedia is growing in size, and I believe is growing in reputation. This sounds great, but in my opinion, we have created a monster, and we are not taking serious steps to address the problem.

In the early years, it was kind of neat to have an article about a person or an organization in Wikipedia. That's not the case today — it isn't viewed as "nice", it is viewed as "required". It may be easy to say as an editor that "your requirements are not our requirements", but fighting this may be like fighting the tide. We've all seen the growth of COI editing and paid editing. Many editors are involved in many initiatives to stem that tide, but I don't think we are spending any time addressing the underlying problem.

Yes, we tell people they can drop the name of a potentially notable individual or organization in our requested articles list, but it is my opinion that this may constitute cruel advice. I don't want to hold out this essay as gospel, but the numbers there are good enough to make a general point. If there really are something like 100 million potential articles meeting our notability standards, we currently have just over 5 million articles and we are adding a quarter million per year. Even if we assume a fourfold factor, and assume we can add 1 million new articles per year, that means about 95 years until we catch up (ignoring new subjects!), which mean it's we should tell people that when they add their item to the requested articles list that they should expect to wait 40 years or so. Does anybody disagree that this is not an option that will set well with individuals and organizations who qualify as notable but do not yet have an article?

If you spend any time at the help desk, with the teahouse, or especially OTRS, you see this every day. I deal with multiple tickets at OTRS every day where I have to explain that the person writing to us has a conflict of interest and should not be writing the article. To oversimplify (and paraphrase) a common response, they will say "okay, I get it, we aren't supposed to write the article, but we need to have the article so what do we do?". I can't bear to tell them to add their organization name to the requested article lists because it is my belief that it will be many years before that turns into an article. There was a time we might have been able to get away with "no, you don't need the article", but that's a hard message to deliver today.

As a community, I think we should discuss how to address this problem. (This place may not be the best place to fully flesh out such a discussion, but I'm hoping I'll reach people who are interested in solving it).--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• The way to solve this problem is to hold articles to a higher standard as we have started to do by reading WP:N in the light of WP:CORPDEPTH: most companies aren't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. We're not a directory and the standard response by these editors are that they aren't promoting, just letting people know information about themselves. That's not our purpose. Yelp, LinkedIn and the YellowPages serve that purpose. We don't. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, you seem to be misreading the numbers in that essay. 100 million are estimated total potential articles, not about people or organizations. There is no estimate at all of how many notable businesses there are, and the estimate of notable people (1/1000???) is very, very fuzzy; I would not be surprised if it's off by two orders of magnitude. And for articles not about people or organizations, there is much less conflict of interest. If someone wants to write an article about the disease they have, the town they live in, the comet they study, or the chemical reaction that they teach about, that's much less of a COI problem. Not saying there isn't a problem with the organizations and businesses that want to promote themselves, mind, just that it's not as intractable as you seem to be proposing. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not so far off as you might think. The requests aren't just for articles about people and organizations, they inlcude requests for articles about places, and events, and bands and concepts. Plus, if my denominator is wrong (100 million) my numerator (250K created per year) is wrong, as the count creation is all articles, not just articles about individuals and organizations. Please feel free to refine the numbers, but unless I missed something fundamental, I think it is still true that the median time to creation of requested articles is years, not months. Months is acceptable, years is a problem.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think what is generally agreed is that there are notable people and organizations for whom we don't have articles at all, or don't have good articles, and that this gives rise to opportunities for unscrupulous people to promote COI editing, as well as giving rise to sadness on the part of people who would like to be covered, who probably should be covered, but who are faced with choices that aren't very palatable. Whether S Philbrick has the exact estimates of numbers right, I think it's a legitimate point about which there is general consensus.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not as pessimistic as the OP (whilst sharing his frustration). We have not created a monster. We simply just find ourselves in the position that most organizations have, when dealing with a three horned dilemma! However hard we try to avoid getting gored by two of the horns -a third- is always going to be there to get us. Maybe Heisenberg's uncertainty principle makes this clear as to why it is so very difficult for all us editors to see the whole picture, all at once and at the same time. Currently, I too am aware that we are getting gored increasingly by COI. Yet organisations that develop staying power constantly evolve. Just like in physicists that repeat experiments time and time again, we now have sufficient editorial history to see the patterns and modus operandi of detrimental COI activity. If need is the mother if invention – let us focus on that need to evolve in order to retain our primary remit which is to bring encyclopedic knowledge to all and not become a trade directory full of paid advertorials. Aspro (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem IMHO is that Wikipedia would be worth billions of dollars if we took in advertising revenue. One 2013 analysis [20] placed Wikipedia's value at tens of billions (for investors if WP took ads) and estimated a consumer surplus (value to our readers that they don't have to pay for) of up to $80 billion. But of course we don't accept ads - the non-profit WMF is worth exactly $0 to investors. But, and this is the real problem, businesses can try to appropriate some of those billions by placing their own hidden ads here. With $ billions on the table they can be very creative and persistent. They might essentially take over Wikipedia if we let them. With this set up, the WMF and the community have to take major efforts to stop the appropriation of value from our readers to the businesses. A hands-off approach by the WMF - "But what can we do?"- is a disaster waiting to happen.

How big is the problem? There are 6,000,000 businesses in the US by one count. All of them would like to have a free ad on Wikipedia. But we obviously can't allow that. The current notability requirements for businesses are pretty vague, squishy, or maybe just theoretical. We really need an easy to understand, bright line rule. The enforcement e.g. via AfD is time consuming and erratic. Actually it seems like many admins don't bother to enforce our "no advertising" rule at all.

Of course nobody except the businesses want 6,000,000 ads (articles on businesses) here. Most businesses are simply non-notable. We can cover most of what our readers really want to know about business in much less than 100,000 articles for the whole world. I submit that our readers want to know about the largest companies - those who have the most employees, the highest sales or profits or market value. The 500 companies in the S&P 500 employ about 25% of the US workforce. That 500 is less than 0.01% of the businesses. About 20,000 companies (0.3%) employ over half the US workforce. The same type of pattern holds for the other variables.

I suggest that the easiest way to stop the business advertising on Wikipedia is to redo the notability guideline for businesses. Simple standards like "Is the documentation in a reliable source of the company employing over 1,000 workers?" "Are sales above $x million?" "Is the company actively traded in a recognized stock market?" (about 48,000 companies are traded worldwide).

BTW, going thru all the old ads (business articles) and deleting them will take forever. I suggest we just apply these proposed rules only to newly created articles.Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Grandfathering is universally, inextricably tied to corruption wherever and whenever it is applied, it is inherently a form of privilege. It is a way of kicking down the ladder. In Wikipedia's case, it would also provide an endless array of bad examples and ample opportunity for Wikilawyering, and it violates the spirit of community consensus - because if people accepted all those articles individually, why should they break with their established policy? I don't want any situation where the policy you go by when editing depends on the history of the article.

The main deletionist argument I can see with businesses would be a variant of WP:ROUTINE... a policy I look on with considerable skepticism, but which tries to touch on the fact that there are some portions of news media that don't have the same degree of editorial process as others. I mean, reporters have never resigned in disgrace because they glossed over negative details in an obituary. So I'm thinking it is sometimes possible to automate the task of identifying business articles with clear WP:GNG notability, and sometimes possible to automate the process of finding business articles that only cite the company website and certain "ROUTINE" reports. While this is not a full solution, a proposal that involves grandfathering is certainly not a full solution either.

But in the end I am still primarily inclusionist. The bottom line is that I'd rather have a company written article with some information, ideally marked with a tag that "this business article has not been reviewed for neutrality or accuracy" if no one can be bothered to review it, than to have no article about a business that can cite sources about itself, even if we don't know (because we haven't looked) if those sources are meaningful or not. Some data, even biased data, is always better than no data. Wnt (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is where we disagree in a basic way. My view is that bad information is worse than no information -- it deceives you into thinking that you know something when you really don't. (Cue Donald Rumsfeld.). Not saying you're I'm right and you're wrong, but these are two fundamentally incompatible views of the world that will be difficult to reconcile in WP policy. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say this presumes misuse of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is a presentation of sources; readers must always assess the source for themselves. This is as true when the article is "honest" (but sourced to industry journals, industry critics, friendly news media, or hostile news media) as when it is deliberately skewed. I think readers often screen out noise by common sense -- if they read an article that says a company sells an electromagnetic bracelet that kills cancer cells, the message they will get in their mind will be something very different! Still, there is no excuse not to drill down sources whenever something is important or surprising. If we don't teach readers to do that, then we are failing them with just about any article.

But I do agree that there is a fundamental boson-fermion divide among editors, which underlies much of the inclusionist vs. deletionist contest. The former are editors who want people to know about points of view that they greatly like or dislike (symmetric), while the latter are those who want people to know only about points of view they like (antisymmetric). Why is a question much deserving further research. Wnt (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Editors of the world, unite! ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@My name is not dave: Inclusionists can and expect to unite, placidly contributing to a steadily growing article (or a steadily growing collection of little stubs about dull businesses, as the case may be). But deletionists are locked in an endless battle for dominance. Wnt (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: You said, "I think readers often screen out noise by common sense -- if they read an article that says a company sells an electromagnetic bracelet that kills cancer cells, the message they will get in their mind will be something very different!". But I disagree. Companies make wild claims such as those precisely because so many people believe them. Such claims fuel multi-billion dollar industries. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink produced by The Coca-Cola Company, whose article has been tagged with {{undisclosed paid}} since December 2016.

Ubuntu Cola is a soft drink certified by The Fairtrade Foundation.

I suppose the article on Coke is encyclopedic because "Coca-Cola's 'pervasive' advertising has significantly affected American culture", while the article on Ubuntu Cola is "free advertising" for them as I'd never heard of the brand before I found it in Category:Cola brands, via Category:Cola and the article on Open-source cola.

Smallbones, why would you focus your energy on deleting articles like Ubuntu Cola (by setting a high bar for notability) rather than addressing issues with articles such as The Coca-Cola Company? wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Wbm1058 Please consider 2 general ideas on why we shouldn't have articles on very small companies:

• There must by 100,000 businesses that make soft drinks around the world. All you need to go into that business is some flavored syrup and maybe some source of carbonated water. Should we include the kids who opened a lemonade stand for a few days and made $9.37, while getting their photo and a one paragraph blurb in the local paper? Maybe this one? Obviously not. We just need some simple cutoff rule (notability requirement) to decide which to cover. We have a not-so-simple notability requirement but it is widely ignored by businesses and paid editors.
• How can we tell if a business goes out of business? If we have an article on a business that no longer exists, we are effectively lying to our readers by suggesting it is still in business. Businesses are very good about getting all the free news coverage they can when starting up or when things are good. But they avoid coverage when they go out of business or things are bad.
• Specifics on Ubuntu Cola - I'd recommend this article for deletion because there are only 5 refs - 3 to the company's website, 2 to trade magazines (not really "independent" to my mind) where the links don't actually link to any article.
• Specifics on The Coca-Cola Company. There are about 150 refs, from a variety of sources, some going back decades - so I'm pretty sure this isn't a fly-by-night company. There are also a dozen or so entries under "Further reading" and a "Primary source" - it looks like an autobiography of a CEO.
• Sorry I couldn't find the "undisclosed paid" tag on the article. Not on the current article or talk page, not on the article at the start or end of December. Please link to it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• BTW there are 89 "colas" listed in our cola template, many of them defunct. I've never heard of 75% of them including Baikal, No Name, and Grandpa Graf's. I'm guessing the last one is named after my dog, because my dog is more notable! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Seems in your last two bullets you were looking at Coca-Cola (about the drink), instead of The Coca-Cola Company which indeed has the tag: Noyster (talk), 17:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, I clicked Wbm1058's first link, rather than the second on that line. The upe notice on the company article is pretty informative. It's in regards to Earflaps who was banned about that time for socking, and who was also incidentally involved in Banc De Binary and other retail forex/binary options articles. When a paid editor is involved in promoting a sleazy company like Banc De Binary, socking, and disregarding the ToU, then we're pretty sure he's not editing in good faith. I'd think the easiest way to deal with paid editing by a major company like Coca-Cola would be for WMF legal to just call up CC legal and ask them to stop - inform them that it's against our rules - and incidentally ask them for his contact details so that we know who we are dealing with. It would be difficult for volunteer editors to do the same thing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ironically, Earflaps may have been hired to get rid of tags on Coca Cola-related articles e.g. this edit. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

One of the things we do badly is curating the articles about merged businesses. Generally they get swept into the successor business's article. This is a pernicious form of recentism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

I agree that more objective notability criteria for businesses are a promising way forward. In the case of say footballers, we have an objective rule leaving little doubt whether a given footballer qualifies for an article or not. The rubric of "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources" has become unusable for articles on businesses, when even national newspapers can be deemed to lose their independence and reliability for their commercial reports, to a chorus of "press release!" and "obvious PR!": Noyster (talk), 23:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Kudos to the OP for eloquently explaining the reason why paid editing is happening, and why it will continue to happen even if it were banned tomorrow... Demand for new articles simply outstrips the ability and willingness of the volunteer corps to supply... So what if there was a renewed "Reward Board" and we made "Pay to Play" an option for those willing? Being a devoted poster to Wikipediocracy, I don't think that a Wikipedia article is necessarily a GOOD thing, mind you — there are plenty of bad outcomes possible on "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit.”™® Still, isn't this really the best way to handle paid editing? Force the subjects to make their monetary offer in plain sight, with an easy opportunity for ANYBODY to review their work in real time? Tell me how the current operating system of a few activists wringing their hands while a whole underground economy operates in secret is superior... Carrite (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Part of the problem here is that the WMF isn't fully onboard with the problem: Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017 § Week 2 Challenge: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? Much of the world's knowledge is yet to be documented on our sites and it requires new ways to integrate and verify sources. Our current definition of “reliable sources” is based on practices rooted in Western culture, where knowledge and history have been documented in written form for centuries. This bias – in favor of sources readily available in only parts of the world – is at odds with a vision that encompasses “the sum of all knowledge”. This bias – favors companies like Coca-Cola, at the expense of new Global South companies like Ubuntu Cola. Maybe some oral histories from members of the Fairtrade worker cooperatives in Kasinthula, Malawi and Kaleya, Zambia can help fill out the sourcing for this article? wbm1058 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would love it if the style guide and notability guidelines for articles about companies and business people were directed to educational content. In my happy fantasy world, we should only have an article about a business or businessperson if there is something to learn from.

Our articles about business should be along the line of a Harvard Business School case study. Some mistake that proved fatal and why it was fatal, or that they recovered from in some notable way, or some very smart decision they made and how it helped them succeed for a while. That sort of thing. Things to learn from.

Most articles about companies or business people are boring-as-hell recitations of some facts, and are not educational, and in my view they fail the mission. They are really directory entries that tell very mundane stories. Their value to the company or person is simply exposure. The PROMO is via its existence in WP and the accompanying seeming legitimacy a WP article grants.

I don't know if there is a way to frame what I am saying in a way that could actually form the basis of the style guide and N guideline, but at the heart of it would be a requirement for multiple independent sources not just with "substantial discussion" but with "substantial analytical content that describes a challenge overcome or strategic decision that was itself considered important in the field". Something like that.... Jytdog (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A radical way to cut out the vast majority of the crap is to change the notability standards for people and companies so that only dead people and defunct companies qualify for an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• You're late to the game -- the name "en.necropedia.org" has already been taken (can't link because it's blacklisted). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Too bad... :) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• OK, into the breach - I have opened a discussion at NCORP, here. Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• We can also consider splitting Wikipedia up into a commercial and a non-commercial part, such that all articles about companies are moved to the commercial wikipedia while the ordinary wikipedia can only have small stubs about companies. Imposing a strict limit on the length of an article about companies is easy to do, and small stubs are easy to check for improper editing. Count Iblis (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that will work. A POV fork like that would bite our reputation pretty hard in the arse. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• I addressed this in a section about brownbook.net above; despite the glowing tone of [21] it doesn't look good to me in reality. We can't really set up a free-range preserve for businesses because people will spam an ocean. However, that is not to say that we can't have an intermediate step - like getting a draft reviewed and cleared - to pull off a tag warning people about potential commercialism. Additionally, the "small stub" in your proposal would likely end up as a professionally drafted ad, with huge conflicts by paid professional Wikilawyers with law degrees to make sure that any negative detail is considered "too minor" to carry over. Wnt (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• • I'd be pleased as punch if non-notable companies were split off into a commercial pedia. The WMF should go out of its way to help anybody who wants to do this. Set up the wiki for them with the requirement that all content should be CC-BY-SA and then let them go for it. There would be lots of questions and difficulties however. Could it be setup with a nonprofit organization? I doubt it - nonprofits usually can't expend resources or otherwise give away money to for-profit corporations. But this likely could be overcome, e.g. a non-profit, maybe the WMF, can own a for-profit (let's call it WikiAds or WikiCorp).

But the biggest 2 problems would be 1) nobody would want to read it - if folks want to read an unending stream of ads, all they need to do is turn off their ad-blockers. 2) no company would want an article/ad in it, since it would not have any credibility. What companies want is to gain credibility by having a Wikipedia article (but there are just too many of them for our community to provide this credibility). In a very real sense companies paying for articles on Wikipedia are trying to steal our credibility. But 3) WikiAds should not have any trouble with including banner ads at the top of the "articles." Instead of being the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, its motto could be "even our ads have ads". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Problem, what problem? For example, Jimbo created the article Mzoli's some years ago. The only problem there was that some deletionists tried to suppress it. They failed and so today we can have an article like Zehnder's featured on the main page with a good picture. You see, it is our policy that "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." That's because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to cover the full circle of knowledge – that's what the name means. This is not a monster; it's our project. In so far as it's big and growing, that's a good thing not a problem. Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• comment- I just learned about this discussion from NPP-Reviewers, and there's obviously something going awry and causing a level of apprehension or uneasiness among some of the "locals". I recently had a discussion with Robert McClenon on my TP under the section header Thematic Wikipedias which is along the same lines of a suggestion I read here. That discussion actually grew from [this discussion] on the TP of Kudpung. That discussion grew from this discussion which was posted April 23, 2015 on Jimbo's TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• A car is the vehicle anyone can drive - the proof is the five-year-old kids driving miniature petrol engined toy cars around their council house gardens in London suburbs - but you can only take it on the road and use it to go somewhere if you learn the rules and pass the test.

We are about to roll out a 'test' (really, really only a trial) that may clearly demonstrate the need to dispute and change an ideological Wikipedia mantra (and its assumed policy) that is used and abused by inclusionists and spammers. In November last year we finally got some enhanced control over who can legitimately pass new articles for inclusion. Baby steps for sure, but there is a lot more that can and probably will be done, such as for example, slightly relaxing the rules under which our CUs can operate (just for starters). Ironically, there are already SEO and PR people out there offering their paid editing services who claim that they have admins and New Page Reviewers in their pay. There are fortunately ways of smoking these people out, but we're certainly not discussing them online. The problem with the monster we have created is that those who are in charge of the funds and the software are fully convinced that quantity is better than quality and that they need the total number of articles, including the junk and spam, to be able to boast about, well: the total number of articles. And they don't give a hoot for the unpaid thousands of volunteers whose work provides the content and protects its quality that pays their salaries. I think Sphilbrick's got it right, and I would like to see him actively supporting, time permitting, some of the things some of us are doing to addressing the underlying problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A test of WP:ACTRIAL should look like a success, since many spammers wouldn't have bothered to make accounts up to the new standard before. Those that do it now should be easier to spot for their synchronized pro forma account development. But given time to adapt, I should be surprised if they do not learn to outwit the system -- while the potential new Wikipedia editors and one-off contributors with deep subject knowledge will be permanent ongoing casualties. Wnt (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

FSM

Hi there, I have a question : If I have a signature of FSM I should be blocked due to that? A user of Wikipedia has this signature (Sayyid) (User:Sa.Vakilian) but he's not blocked. There are many of his signatures here (as سید) : fa:بحث_کاربر:Sa.vakilian --IranianNationalist (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the block log is here but I don't see a reason listed there. There are multiple noticeboard threads here. The lowest on the page led to the block, but Google Translate doesn't do a good enough job to tell how; I think there may be some word play going on with the signature but I'm not sure. This started out having something to do with Maryam Mirzakhani. [22] Also note FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If IranianNationalist is in Iran, then this is someone with amazing courage, who I would think to be very much in danger. But please be careful! Wnt (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the EnANB to take another look to my talk page and my signature has been changed from a special point recently (previously my signature was simply IranianNationalist). To clarify it firstly I will refer to the FaANB ( here ) :

Translation of the msg by the wikifa admin مهرنگار here : "Hi Sayid, because I'm pinged I'm commenting. This user (means IranianNationalist) after receiving the warning of Mr.Arjang (ارژنگ) about not using the word La Elah Ella Hayoola (There is no god but the monster) intentionally repeated this term and even used it in his/her signature. Absolutely the encyclopedia is not a place for this actions and here is not a battlefield for war against Muslims or insult to their beliefs. If I had no conflict of interest with this user I would block him/her due to insulting Islamic beliefs ....." And My response : "The encyclopedia is not a place to use Sayid too so don't receive any insult ..."

But @Wnt (Google translate shows many things wrong eg. "Do not bite us hotly with the tune of "crackdown"" is actually "Don't make our sorrow double by using the term "firecracker-playing(ترقه‌بازی)"" referring to the term used by the Islamic supreme-leader of Iran called the Tehran terrorist attacks as "firecracker-playing")but there are no diff links about Maryam Mirzakhani to prove edit war or war by me BUT vice versa there are some difflinks bellow from Kazemita1 (Sayid and admin مهرنگار are supporting User:Kazemita1 too) to show Kazemita1's editwar (against me and User:Gharouni) and read more about what happened below.

Why مهرنگار talked about "conflict of interest" : some months ago about the article Saeed Toosi (My honesty was proved by reliable sources BBC VOA even FarsNews) but مهرنگار said in my talk page "I blocked you due to 3 reverses" my reply "I did it based on the consensus of the 3rd and 4th opinions of other experienced users in the article talk page and there were many reliable sources" and مهرنگار replied : "even if you were right you must not edit you must move the subject to the FaANB" (Note : Sayid and Kazemita1 were vs. me there) so I blocked for 3 days just due to 3 edits in 24 hours and adding more sources. Now after some months this is where the User:Kazemita1 (The same user) had 3 almost 4 similar reverses in 24 hours against User:Gharouni's edit and my edit (Kazemita1(4) against Gharouni(1) and IranianNationalist(2 edits one before Gharouni another after it)) and I noticed it in the Fa ANB/Editwar ( here ) and the diff links of Kazemita1 editwar :

• fa:Special:Diff/20134903/20134972 (Kazemita1 vs. Gharouni)
• fa:Special:Diff/20135409/20136531
• fa:Special:Diff/20141758/20142089
• and the first one fa:Special:Diff/20130258/20133089

Sayid (Sa.Vakilian) said something there to save Kazemita1 (Sayid reminded his appeal in the main ANB). Because مهرنگار knew the subject previously, I pinged him/her there and reminded his/her what he/she said months ago "even if you were right..." but مهرنگار (the admin) said "I was gonna consider this subject before you ping me but because you pinged me and reminded what I said previously I will not consider the appeal" o.O and I appealed from this admin in FaANB as partiality and discrimination (here) but the appeal stayed silenced because two users said the admin's contributions are voluntarily so مهرنگار has the option to not consider the subject. One of the users was Sunfyr who previously started a polling to censor any naked content from the WikiFa home page but another good admin Huji helped to avoid this censorship. I appreciated Huji. the polling page.

This is the reason of "conflict of interest". مهرنگار in another article fa:آزاده نامداری (Azade Namdari) removed another source I had another appeal of مهرنگار in ANB as Wikipedia:Harassment (because same as the Saeed Toosi this was another controversial news about Azade Namdari who was the symbol of Hijab in Iran who criticizing less-veiled artisits but her video without any veil in public locations in Switzerland drinking beer became hot and viral all over the network but we couldn't add the news to a live-person article). Anyway the last subject ( most important ) was an old article edit ( here ) (PLEASE LOOK THE SOURCES BBC , WIKILEAKS , presidency.ucsb.edu and .....) but the user سیمرغ was deleting all sources without any talk about the bbc or California university. So I waited some weeks or one month for him to calm down the controversy and I added the sources again and I reminded the WP:Is not a censorship in the talk page. Next Sayid appealed from me in FaANB and there I used لااله‌الاهیولا at the end of my only one comments (my mistype it was one comment there) as a kidding. The admin became bothered and warned me to not use this phrase and I added it to my signature and I have been blocked.

Conclusion if u believe in FSM and you do 3 edits in 24 hours you will be blocked and if you believe in Islam you will not even by 4 edits. If you use there is no god but the monster in your signature you will be blocked but if you use Sayid (the descendant of the prophet) you will be appreciated even if you remove any reliable sources or make a vast WP:Canvassing about the "criticism of Quran" (But if I do I will be blocked immediately). I think it's a good point for Mr.Wales to be careful because he may be blocked too :D

It is said to "be bold" but the admin asked me why "do you added the news about Azade Namdari to the life person article , if you do similar thing again I will block you" Arjang ارژنگ said in my talk page and I repeated لااله‌الاهیولا. --IranianNationalist (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I found the article in BBC about Azadeh Namdari. As far as Google can tell me, the Iranians are doing a sort of censorship that should be familiar from en.wikipedia, where people cite WP:BLP and say that drinking beer abroad is a very serious allegation needing more proof than ... whatever you have. To be strictly fair, the BBC says that "the video shows her" drinking beer, which isn't absolutely precisely saying that she was drinking beer, since the video might be fake, the bottle might have been carefully washed and refilled with apple juice, it might be near beer or non-alcoholic beer (not that I have any idea if that is legal in Islam anyway)... they didn't give us a brand name. That said, obviously the allegation is notable WP:WELLKNOWN anyway. The BBC cites Young Journalists' Club [23] - I don't know if they have the video up because there's no way I'm enabling scripts on an Iranian site just to see a video I won't understand a word of, but if someone is feeling brave do tell us. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Cebuano Wikipedia

Respected Jimbo Wales. What is your position regarding crazy creation of articles by bots on Sebuan Wikipedia? Thank you in advance for the answer.--KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean "Serbian Wikipedia" (Википедија на српском језику), which has more than 354,000 articles? By contrast, the Bot generation of pages in Swedish Wikipedia has increased size to over 3,700,000 pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant "Cebuano Wikipedia", which has more than 4,923,275 articles. Most articles are created by bots and are very small and actually unnecessary. If Cebuano Wikipedia exceeds English Wikipedia (it is possible), then it can have a very negative effect on the image of our encyclopedia.--KHMELNYTSKYIA (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I just looked at two random articles and they were surprisingly useful -- they said something about a species of insect [24] and a wadi in Iraq [25]. I have been skeptical of Wikidata in the past but it was given credit for the first. I would be curious to hear more about who is behind this; is it an accident that this is the language of the part of the Philippines that Duterte came from? But without some clear evidence to get me started on conspiracy theories or fears about out of control bots censoring editors, I am forced simply to welcome a serious attempt to expand the success of English Wikipedia to another language. I think someone else who knows the language or is willing to put ten minutes into this might give a better response than me, but my point is, this should be about specifics, not an objection to "crazy creation" without any explanation. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The two random articles I looked at likely wouldn't be useful to anybody in the Philippines, a creek in Arkansas and a hill(?) in El Salvador. My concern is that these bot articles will overwhelm the encyclopedia and the local community's ability to deal with all the articles. Did the local community ask for all these articles? Are the articles grammatical and otherwise well-translated? Perhaps we could come up with a list of 100,000 articles that any encyclopedia should have, and make sure that they make it into all language versions. That could give a kickstart to many versions. But otherwise I'd say mass bot-translations should only be used if the local community asks for them. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You're telling me an article that we know is notable in English is "not useful" in a different dialect??? I dunno if this is precisely what you mean to say, but what I heard when I read your comment is that "those wogs only need to read a few articles about how to clean a rug and mop a floor and get a green card so they can come clean my house because there's a severe shortage of American/European laborers willing to do it for $5 an hour." I mean, the idea is ridiculous. Now to be sure, if there is a discussion at ceb.wikipedia.org that concluded that a WMF bot is attacking their site and there's nothing they can do about it they might persuade me, but so far I've heard no such claim here. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm thinking that putting 5,000,000 articles into 280 languages would be seen as a form of cultural imperialism. Not every society considers information on Taylor Swift to be a useful form of knowledge. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should show a slightly greater degree of cultural relativism and acknowledge that not all cultures find knowledge useful. Starting a Wikipedia in their benighted languages at all is a form of cultural imperialism. Really, we should recognize that we are only morally entitled to speak in the language we have been granted a site-license for, American English, and not write in any other way whatsoever, nor try to speak to any group of people other than white Anglo-Saxon nerd men. </sarcasm> Or, we can say, we would be more than happy to host articles about any singer from the Philippines who is known even slightly as much as Taylor Swift, even within that smaller population, and so it is not unreasonable to expect that editors of that wiki would have the same opinion, unless and until proven otherwise. It is one thing to defer to a local consensus of a Wiki and another to assume that they oppose useful additions to their content. Wnt (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Cut the nonsense please. Nothing that you are criticizing is even tangentially related to what I wrote. If any project wants a Taylor Swift translation or even a mass translation, all they have to do is ask. I won't respond further, since you are not addressing anything that I've written. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So far as I can tell from ceb:User talk:Lsjbot, they did ask, or at least, the creator of that bot is refusing to help Tagalog Wikipedia unless they have a community consensus for the request. [26] It is apparent the content is not without issues, but the operator has responded to concerns and fixed problems as they came up. In the end, Wikipedia works when the initiative is with those who build the encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to kind of take away the "fun" of creating something yourself, and "owning" it (in the good sense). Also the machine translation to English is kind of nonsense, is a bot any good at writing in this language? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A vast influx of machine-translated articles is only useful if those articles are of adequate quality. These, and the reason we're even having this conversation, are not always so. Is it a good thing to swamp the corpus with such things? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

While I strongly oppose the use of machine "translation" to create articles in any language (it takes much longer to clean them up properly than just to translate them from scratch), large amounts of bot-generated articles do not need to be a problem if they are of sufficient quality and there are enough people to eventually improve them. Remember Rambot? English Wikipedia used to have a large percentage of bot written articles, but grew out of it. The "random article" button is not fun to use on Wikipedias dominated by bots, but the Philippines-related content on the Cebuano Wikipedia may well be very useful. (We probably should talk to people who speak only Cebuano about whether this project is helpful to them or not). —Kusma (t·c) 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• As almost all have said, the bot-creations aren't problematic as long as the quality of the translation is good and/or there is a local consensus.There are very few users in en.wiki knowledgable with Cebuano.Pinging @Mclovin'tosh and Obsidian Soul: for commenting on the quality of the translated material.Also pinging Lsj.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Lsj has also commented--Yes, both my wife and another native speaker have checked the language of the bot-created articles, so it should be ok. at a t/p thread.There have been issues with his bot-creations, but they seem to have been succesfully resolved.Further, he used to maintain a nearly same workflow at sv.wp (Lsj's mother tongue!) before he was forced(??)to stop/retired(??) off--courtesy a magnitude of issues being raised with the bot-creations.Also, there have been two pending requests by two different wikis to run his bot.Some user who has been widely active in sv.wp for the last 2-3 years can clear a lot of fog.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not contribute to the Cebuano Wikipedia, but yes, I'm a native speaker. After clicking through several random bot-created pages in cebwiki, they're all perfectly fine. Aside from the unnatural absence of English code-switching and the use of "deep" Cebuano, they (surprisingly) don't read like machine translations. I can't really see any grammatical errors except for minor things like the absence of conjugating suffixes or prepositions in some adverbs/adjectives. For example, Kopes:

kasadpan sa ulohang dakbayan Vienna ("west of the capital Vienna")

should have been

kasadpan sa ulohang dakbayan sa Vienna (sa roughly translates to "of", "in", "at", "on", "to", etc.)

But Cebuano is much more forgiving about that than English and they're quite rare from what I can see. The meaning is still quite clear. All in all, the quality of the translations are exceptional.

As for restricting the articles to only things "Cebuanos are interested in", forgive me, but that sounds more than a little racist. And yes, I know that wasn't the intention. Yes, we do know who Taylor Swift is. And it's irrelevant, but at 21 million native speakers, Cebuano is not exactly a "small language". That's the same number of people as the entire population of Australia. While a creek in Arkansas may never actually be read, the same can be said for an average American reader of the English Wikipedia on a river from Mongolia. But we still have those articles, don't we?

As for the argument about article count, frankly that's Wikipedia:Articlecountitis. If Cebuano exceeds the number of articles on English Wikipedia, isn't that exactly what this project is about? The various Wikipedias aren't competing projects. The ideal scenario, after all, is universal coverage on the sum of ALL human knowledge in languages people can understand. Introducing arbitrary restrictions on what certain languages can talk about is just worsening WP:Systemic Bias. If the machine translations are bad, then there's basis for complaints, but they really aren't. If the concern is about the potential PR backlash regarding the use of bots, who really cares? People who would point that out, are already critical of Wikipedia. Even if it was all human-made, they'd still find something else to complain about.

What matters is that yes, we do understand it. And yes, they are useful for native Cebuano speakers.

P.S. I still do not understand why people insist on calling it "Cebuan"/"Sebuan", both are never used in the Philippines. It's like saying "Filipin" instead of "Filipino".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidian Soul:--Thanks for the informative answer!Even I failed to get Smallbone's points!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as native speakers find the articles useful and the community wants them I've got no objections. I do sometimes worry about cultural imperialism - perhaps Taylor Swift is not the best example - but please do understand that mass produced Western memes can crowd out ideas that are more relevant for a society. But as long as the community wants Taylor Swift, they got her! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No offense taken. Though I'd argue the opposite is what is usually true in terms of WP:Systemic bias. Taylor Swift can and should (regardless of what editors may personally feel about her) get an article in virtually any Wikipedia. Notability is universal and isn't relative to the specific culture associated with a certain language, and hers is easy to prove. But a local singer in a non-western country, no matter how popular nationally, has trouble even getting an article on enwiki. That said, most of it is NOT Wikipedia's fault. But rather simply the way notability is weighed. Print media, TV broadcasts, and films in other countries prior to the internet era are rarely digitized and thus very hard to find. Even more so for countries that don't use the Latin alphabet or don't speak English. Regardless, the "I've never heard of them" argument is still commonly used in AfDs.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The MW:Extension:ArticlePlaceholder extension may be a cleaner alternative than needing to create many stub articles with bots. This extension can dynamically show pseudo-articles out of WikiData entries and the stubs will remain up to date with the data. It does not perform autotranslation, however, but the system can be configured to display the stubs in a particular language. —PaleoNeonate - 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Endowment

Jimbo, how much money has the Wikimedia Endowment raised so far? Where are you publishing the investment returns achieved? 47.89.49.38 (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [replaced question archived prior to response 47.89.49.38 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)]

I will be having a catch-up with staff soon, and I'll let you know an update then. Ask around September 13th.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot

There are lots of concepts that remain uncovered in non-English wikipedias, as well as vice versa with many concets remaining blank in English. Should wikipedia institute a bot to mass-translate all pages that are covered by more than 10 wikidata articles accross several language pedias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.64.52 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot creation of articles is contentious and individual Wikipedia communities have very different policies on it. Bot translation isn't good enough for article creation yet, and no-one knows when it will be good enough. When it is we need to make some big decisions, and the likely result might not be batch creation of articles but translation on the fly so that when someone searches in language A for a topic they get a translation of the latest version of the article in language B. As for prioritising articles that exist in ten languages, I can see that being easily gamed and not entirely helpful. An article about an obscure sportsperson who played in a sport that is followed in ten languages might have little interest beyond those ten languages. There are other metrics such as common search terms that would be better if we have to prioritise. ϢereSpielChequers 10:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@92.2.64.52: Also see MW:Extension:ArticlePlaceholder which is another possible solution, but that must be enabled for that Wiki by someone who handles its configuration for it to work. —PaleoNeonate - 00:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

How to handle abuse from editors and admins?

Jimbo, I am taking your advice and adding the full text regarding a topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to clear any confusion and so everyone will know what i am referring to. I am extremely cautious as to even put up this topic, but I feel it's a topic that needs to be covered and answered. This is not an argument as I am not outing anyone, and certainly not writing the usernames of anyone. I've ran across some complaints from various different people stating editors and admins where violating many rules on here and it was claimed as "target harassment" usually I would shrug it off and move on, but after receiving several emails regarding this I decided to look into it. To my surprise, I have uncovered several editors and admins have indeed been abusing their rights. From blocking, denies for AFC that met the requirements, unnecessary comments, using the checkuser to place tags on users that certainly were incorrect tags, protecting articles, and names for unclear reasons, and lastly finding these editors and admins dragging these people's names through the mud via social media. When some of these admins are yet In this Committee and there is undeniable proof of all stated above, what is a user supposed to do? Other than going through wiki legal, and filling a lawsuit, why can't any of this not be handled in a civilized way? Why is this even a subjected that has to posted here? This is not something that should be going on inside of Wikipedia, we all have been here long enough to know better. I purpose an updated version of this whole issue. To avoid further complications related to this subject.FIGHTER KD 9:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Do you have any public evidence on the wiki to back this up? Otherwise, these are all allegations that have no merit. You also might want to be careful with making legal threats as they can have a chilling effect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 9:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Your user page claims that you edited back in 2011, yet your edit history only goes back a few days. What was your previous account? Also what do you mean an 'updated version'? --Tarage (talk) 9:55 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

There is nothing here for this board to act on. Suggest a rapid close with a suggestion to take non specific whining to User talk:Jimbo where it belongs. John from Idegon (talk) 10:31 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Whoa stop and everyone calm down. I was in no way stating legal threats, I was pointing out the routes that people choose to go through instead of here or straight to the source. Not in any way threatening anyone! I do apologize if anyone found my this as a threat, or whining. I was merly attempting to show people the proper route that's it! Also as I stated on my talk page "just because my username is different then it was in 2011 does not mean that I did not join in 2011. I don't have the slightest clue what my username was that long ago, I don't even remember what all I did yesterday much less 6 years ago! So I had to start from scratch!" I truly apologize for anyone thinking I had melicous intent. There's no need to get offensive and state I'm whining. I'm acting in good faith so please refrain from assuming something different. Thank you FIGHTER KD 12:42 am, Today (UTC−5) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Unless you actually bring proof, you are wasting your time. We are not going to change everything because you are upset. --Tarage (talk) 3:30 am, Today (UTC−5)

"Whoa stop and everyone calm down. I was in no way stating legal threats, I was pointing out the routes that people choose to go through instead of here or straight to the source. Not in any way threating anyone! I do apologize if anyone found my this as a threat, or whining. I was merly attempting to show people the proper route that's it! Also as I stated on my talk page "just because my username is different then it was in 2011 does not mean that I did not join in 2011. I don't have the slightest clue what my username was that long ago, I don't even remember what all I did yesterday much less 6 years ago! So I had to start from scratch!" I truly apologize for anyone thinking I had melicous intent. There's no need to get offensive and state I'm whining. I'm acting in good faith so please refrain from assuming something different" thanks in advance for reading it. FIGHTER KD 06:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

1. You didn't make a section heading, but just added comments to the end of a thread that is completely unrelated. I have added a heading that is the same as your heading at ANI. Feel free to change it if you want it to say something else. 2. You should have copied your initial comments from ANI. Nobody here will know what you said there, especially after the thread gets archived and removed from that page. But instead, here is a CONVENIENCE PERMALINK for others. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC) No longer makes sense as the OP has now copied the ANI thread to here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that in for me and for the advice! FIGHTER KD 06:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs)

Yo FIGHTER KD, please don't remve your posts or sections (per WP:REDACT, "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided"). Better to <s>strike</s> the comments through. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 16:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

FIGHTER KD 16:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC) I apologize I did not realize I had removed anything. Now please excuse me as I go into utter shock... ok I am back. When I was active in 2011, the very last thing anyone would ever do was to degrade people on here. I was not upset last night and I am not upset now. As it takes a great deal to upset me and I am no where near that breaking point. We are all real people, with real questions and concerns. I realize I have been gone for awhile but my god Fortuna Imperatix Mundi and jimbo can not be the only voice of reasons on here. Of course I have proof surrounding the topic. Otherwise I would had never put it for a topic for discussion. But what does everyone want me to do with the proof, take it to wiki legal or post it all right here on jimbo talk page, mine or just anywhere on Wikipedia..BEST IDEA YET.... Said no one ever. That would be Wikipedia suicide and we all know that. Am I stuck in a catch 22 now, or is there not another way people can express their concerns without it being an episode of making a murder. I am not even the one who fell victim to the harassment at hand, I simply went directly where Wikipedia sends you for these types of questions, only to end up here, which I do not see a downside in that considering both of you have been very helpful. ANY advice moving forward form either of you would be extremely appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIGHTER KD (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

First, Jimbo has not commented in this thread. You seem to be confusing me with him. That said...
The problems you describe have been discussed to death. Actually the editor community never really stops discussing them. I suspect we were discussing them long before I arrived 4 years ago. I suspect we have been discussing them since shortly after Wikipedia's birth. Improvements have been hard to come by and gradual, but as I understand it things were far worse 10 years ago. I think I've seen some additional improvement since I started. The situation is very complicated and involves many entrenched positions, and I think most experienced editors feel that one needs years of editing experience before they can bring anything meaningful to the debate. That's most of the reason a lot of the response to your comments has been negative so far. You're not likely to achieve any change this way.
If you just need someone to help you understand and navigate the minefield of Wikipedia editing, consider signing up for the Adopt-a-user program. You might be able to find a mentor willing to devote the one-on-one attention required to help you with that. Many newer editors prefer to self-teach, doing a lot more "listening" than "talking" until they have a few years of experience. Others think they know everything after 2,000 edits, cause all kinds of disruption, and eventually quit because Wikipedia is so unfriendly to them, or end up indefinitely blocked or banned. I don't think you will be one of them. Good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

FSM

Hi there, I have a question : If I have a signature of FSM I should be blocked due to that? A user of Wikipedia has this signature (Sayyid) (User:Sa.Vakilian) but he's not blocked. There are many of his signatures here (as سید) : fa:بحث_کاربر:Sa.vakilian --IranianNationalist (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the block log is here but I don't see a reason listed there. There are multiple noticeboard threads here. The lowest on the page led to the block, but Google Translate doesn't do a good enough job to tell how; I think there may be some word play going on with the signature but I'm not sure. This started out having something to do with Maryam Mirzakhani. [27] Also note FSM = Flying Spaghetti Monster. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If IranianNationalist is in Iran, then this is someone with amazing courage, who I would think to be very much in danger. But please be careful! Wnt (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the EnANB to take another look to my talk page and my signature has been changed from a special point recently (previously my signature was simply IranianNationalist). To clarify it firstly I will refer to the FaANB ( here ) :

Translation of the msg by the wikifa admin مهرنگار here : "Hi Sayid, because I'm pinged I'm commenting. This user (means IranianNationalist) after receiving the warning of Mr.Arjang (ارژنگ) about not using the word La Elah Ella Hayoola (There is no god but the monster) intentionally repeated this term and even used it in his/her signature. Absolutely the encyclopedia is not a place for this actions and here is not a battlefield for war against Muslims or insult to their beliefs. If I had no conflict of interest with this user I would block him/her due to insulting Islamic beliefs ....." And My response : "The encyclopedia is not a place to use Sayid too so don't receive any insult ..."

But @Wnt (Google translate shows many things wrong eg. "Do not bite us hotly with the tune of "crackdown"" is actually "Don't make our sorrow double by using the term "firecracker-playing(ترقه‌بازی)"" referring to the term used by the Islamic supreme-leader of Iran called the Tehran terrorist attacks as "firecracker-playing")but there are no diff links about Maryam Mirzakhani to prove edit war or war by me BUT vice versa there are some difflinks bellow from Kazemita1 (Sayid and admin مهرنگار are supporting User:Kazemita1 too) to show Kazemita1's editwar (against me and User:Gharouni) and read more about what happened below.

Why مهرنگار talked about "conflict of interest" : some months ago about the article Saeed Toosi (My honesty was proved by reliable sources BBC VOA even FarsNews) but مهرنگار said in my talk page "I blocked you due to 3 reverses" my reply "I did it based on the consensus of the 3rd and 4th opinions of other experienced users in the article talk page and there were many reliable sources" and مهرنگار replied : "even if you were right you must not edit you must move the subject to the FaANB" (Note : Sayid and Kazemita1 were vs. me there) so I blocked for 3 days just due to 3 edits in 24 hours and adding more sources. Now after some months this is where the User:Kazemita1 (The same user) had 3 almost 4 similar reverses in 24 hours against User:Gharouni's edit and my edit (Kazemita1(4) against Gharouni(1) and IranianNationalist(2 edits one before Gharouni another after it)) and I noticed it in the Fa ANB/Editwar ( here ) and the diff links of Kazemita1 editwar :

• fa:Special:Diff/20134903/20134972 (Kazemita1 vs. Gharouni)
• fa:Special:Diff/20135409/20136531
• fa:Special:Diff/20141758/20142089
• and the first one fa:Special:Diff/20130258/20133089

Sayid (Sa.Vakilian) said something there to save Kazemita1 (Sayid reminded his appeal in the main ANB). Because مهرنگار knew the subject previously, I pinged him/her there and reminded his/her what he/she said months ago "even if you were right..." but مهرنگار (the admin) said "I was gonna consider this subject before you ping me but because you pinged me and reminded what I said previously I will not consider the appeal" o.O and I appealed from this admin in FaANB as partiality and discrimination (here) but the appeal stayed silenced because two users said the admin's contributions are voluntarily so مهرنگار has the option to not consider the subject. One of the users was Sunfyr who previously started a polling to censor any naked content from the WikiFa home page but another good admin Huji helped to avoid this censorship. I appreciated Huji. the polling page.

This is the reason of "conflict of interest". مهرنگار in another article fa:آزاده نامداری (Azade Namdari) removed another source I had another appeal of مهرنگار in ANB as Wikipedia:Harassment (because same as the Saeed Toosi this was another controversial news about Azade Namdari who was the symbol of Hijab in Iran who criticizing less-veiled artisits but her video without any veil in public locations in Switzerland drinking beer became hot and viral all over the network but we couldn't add the news to a live-person article). Anyway the last subject ( most important ) was an old article edit ( here ) (PLEASE LOOK THE SOURCES BBC , WIKILEAKS , presidency.ucsb.edu and .....) but the user سیمرغ was deleting all sources without any talk about the bbc or California university. So I waited some weeks or one month for him to calm down the controversy and I added the sources again and I reminded the WP:Is not a censorship in the talk page. Next Sayid appealed from me in FaANB and there I used لااله‌الاهیولا at the end of my only one comments (my mistype it was one comment there) as a kidding. The admin became bothered and warned me to not use this phrase and I added it to my signature and I have been blocked.

Conclusion if u believe in FSM and you do 3 edits in 24 hours you will be blocked and if you believe in Islam you will not even by 4 edits. If you use there is no god but the monster in your signature you will be blocked but if you use Sayid (the descendant of the prophet) you will be appreciated even if you remove any reliable sources or make a vast WP:Canvassing about the "criticism of Quran" (But if I do I will be blocked immediately). I think it's a good point for Mr.Wales to be careful because he may be blocked too :D

It is said to "be bold" but the admin asked me why "do you added the news about Azade Namdari to the life person article , if you do similar thing again I will block you" Arjang ارژنگ said in my talk page and I repeated لااله‌الاهیولا. --IranianNationalist (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I found the article in BBC about Azadeh Namdari. As far as Google can tell me, the Iranians are doing a sort of censorship that should be familiar from en.wikipedia, where people cite WP:BLP and say that drinking beer abroad is a very serious allegation needing more proof than ... whatever you have. To be strictly fair, the BBC says that "the video shows her" drinking beer, which isn't absolutely precisely saying that she was drinking beer, since the video might be fake, the bottle might have been carefully washed and refilled with apple juice, it might be near beer or non-alcoholic beer (not that I have any idea if that is legal in Islam anyway)... they didn't give us a brand name. That said, obviously the allegation is notable WP:WELLKNOWN anyway. The BBC cites Young Journalists' Club [28] - I don't know if they have the video up because there's no way I'm enabling scripts on an Iranian site just to see a video I won't understand a word of, but if someone is feeling brave do tell us. Wnt (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my late answer, I just wanna to add two notes : The text I added to Azadeh Namdari's article was not about drinking beer but it was about her veil (after the photos and after Namdari's replying video there was another VIDEO from her in the public park having no veil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0wNO0Zf5_8 is any thing unclear? ) BUT the Note2 this is not the reason of blocking me because I had only one edit there talking about her veil not her drink. But the actual trace of the FaANB the sources of Iran Revolution 1979 were completely reliable :

1. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=39296
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vs4d8_cElE&feature=youtu.be (The relative video about the above source)
3. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/carter-facts.html
4. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/35-years-ago-an-iranian-revolution-thanks-to-jimmy-carter

BUT the appeal caused me to be block is that I said DON'T CENSOR THESE SOURCES
Another note is that I advocate for democracy and democrats (not as a party member but as someone attracted to the most of their slogans also their Freemason and secular roots) so if my edits in fa:انقلاب_۱۳۵۷_ایران had some problem I should not criticize Jimmy Carter (from a democratic party).
BUT ANYWAY CLEARLY THE REASON OF BLOCK WAS NOTHING MORE THAN MY SIGNATURE. (it is clear in HERE FaANB by ارژنگ admin)

This was my old huge edit in fa article of freemasonry thanked by an old good admin so it's impossible for me to be partial in the article revolution 1979. Ow I forgot to change my signature same as wikifa (Should I be blocked in WikiEn now? I don't think so) --No god but the monster (Welcome) 07:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are pushing a boundary here. Wikipedia should always avoid censorship, but at the same time it is defined by its purpose. Spamming a five-page essay about your politics in every signature would not be allowed, no matter what your politics. The purpose of a signature is basically to identify the editor - any random personal flair added is an indulgence. Personally, I am skeptical of even allowing editors to alter the text displayed by the signature, since it leads to endless confusion and a need to hunt back to see the real username to ping, for example.

You're pushing for a right to say "no god but the monster" on every post, so I have to ask: what do other religious zealots get away with on Iranian Wikipedia? I mean, do you see a lot of signatures like "no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet"? Are there signatures like "death to the infidel" or Sunnis or Christians or whatever? What is their existing limit?

On English Wikipedia, WP:Signature guides signatures; in one of the earlier sections it references WP:Username policy, which prohibits usernames (and hence signatures) that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g., by containing profanities or referencing controversies, or seem intended to provoke emotional reaction ("trolling"). I think this policy is overly subjective and detailed; for example, I can't really predict whether it would be applied against your signature here or not. I think the more restrictive policy I suggested above would be less censorious by being more predictable. Wnt (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for having a rational talking (nowadays it is rare in wikifa). About the first note, as it is clearly visible in my talk page my signature was same as my username since I'm in wiki but I suggest to redirect the first note to "purpose of a signature is basically to identify the editor" to User:Sa.Vakilian having signature of Sayyid (He's trying to spam his politics in his signature) (You asked about "other religious zealots" simply they are doing this now there is no difference between "Sayyid" and "no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet". Additionally the لااله‌الاهیولا is shorter than the English version too same as سید). About the second note too : Sayyid is controversial and in opposite to "containing profanities or referencing controversies, or seem intended to provoke emotional reaction" Sayyid means some people are descendant of Muhammad so having a higher rank against others (Arabicly :D Sayyid means Sir thus سیدی means "My sir"). There are some questions :

1. What is the discrimination between Sayyid and FSM?
2. More important : Should admins ask him to change his signature before blocking him?
3. How many days he must be blocked due to using Sayyid as his signature?

• Also there is an important note about : "Wikipedia should always avoid censorship, but at the same time it is defined by its purpose. Spamming a five-page ...". It is about mixing TWO ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS we must be moderated in our personal user accounts (Sayyid must be too) but it doesn't mean to CENSOR articles such as criticism of Quran or the sources of revolution 1979.

So What should admins do with a user (or some users are increasing in their numbers) always they try to remove (CENSOR) OR SIMPLY VANDAL in Wikipedia? During the year 2016, I had multiple appeals in this Mr. Wales talk page (More appeals in FaANB) about the users vandalizing to censor articles but admins just don't even warn them to avoid vandalism but some admins such as مهرنگار or ارژنگ even support them. If we don't control the vandalizers other users will do similar such as a nuclear bomb in articles (Thanks the monster I always showed the problems using the talk pages because if we don't respect to the law it is time-wasting to contribute to Wiki). I appealed about the discrimination multiple times (and no one consider) seemingly the WikiPolicies are only for the non-Muslim users if so ... say us to avoid contribution and we don't waste time to be easily censored. ONLY ONE CLEAR SAMPLE OF CENSORSHIP HAD NO ADMIN REACTION IN ANB : search in the page for the link http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-features-38152216 and similar sources such as http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=39296 in those two sections of the article) :

1. Sample1
2. Sample2

There are many other samples in other articles but Why I used this article? because this article was the subject of the appeal by Sayyid just used to say that IranianNationalist misused censorship so IranianNationalist must be block and for this reason I said no god but the monster. SO THE CONCLUSION IS THE VANDALIZER IS NOT BLOCKED BUT IranianNationalist IS BLOCKED BECAUSE SAID DON'T CENSOR. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 07:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned this user before on fa but I don't really understand the issue. The signature I see is " سید", or Sayyid; but Sayyid (name) tells me that not everyone using the name Sayyid is a Sayyid. I know nothing of the culture, and I don't know for example whether Sa.Vakilian implies the first name is Sayyid or the title is Sayyid. I may not understand where you are going with this -- if you could prove that descendants of Muhammad have obtained special privileges above other users on fa.wikipedia.org, then that would be something that users worldwide might ask WMF to act about. But if you are saying that there is something you find offensive about his signature and you want a fair chance to be offensive also, that is a tougher argument, especially if it is not the same exact issue, and I think it is unlikely that people on en.wikipedia would be able to get involved.

Your comments about censorship on fa.wikipedia.org are of course alarming, and plausible - every Wikipedia is under assault from those who don't like certain information. However, I think that your focus on the Flying Spaghetti Monster signature is distracting - you're asking for an indulgence for yourself when you could be focusing on the service Wikipedia provides to its readers instead. At this point you're asking us to look at this new issue, which is more important, but you have lost the attention of many reading this discussion thread at this point, and you still make it sound like this is as much about a personal dispute with one user as the content itself. The Persian-language BBC article you linked describes a Wikileaks disclosure [29] and something vague (at least in Google Translation) about it having some information about Iranian leaders. I do want to see Wikileaks material properly used to provide information in articles, but as I recall it was quite an argument for me at first even here in the English language articles. So bit by bit you are accumulating burdens that slow down and tire out people here who might want to try to help you. And what you're asking is both hard to decide -- I'm simply not capable of figuring out whether complex edits like your first sample above are good or bad, let alone whether they are honest or dishonest in intention -- and hard to practice, since trying to persuade the WMF to do or not do something about the English language Wikipedia is very difficult for en.wikipedia users, as many local users here could attest on various issues.

The first and most useless of the obstacles you face is this Flying Spaghetti Monster signature. I mean, do you want editors on fa.wikipedia to be signing their posts "Death to the Infidels"? If you don't, why waste your momentum arguing for a precedent for such signatures when you actually want to stop censorship in the encyclopedia? Wnt (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Believing in and worship of FSM doesn't mean "death to Muslims". These 2 can't be compared together. When I write a simple sentence about "There is no god but the monster" in the FaANB (When my signature is simply IranianNationalist) I will not be zealot if you criticize the FSM the clement :) but that admin warning me to not use this phrase even for just once ... when some users with name Sayyid having a clear policy at defending Islamic beliefs.

• In Persian language we don't have any name as Sayyid AFAK in the Sunni community the descendants of the prophet are called as Sharif but in Persian (exactly in Iran) it is very important to have a family-tree proved by a high ranked clergy to claim a Sayyid name or Mir(another title for Sayyid).

Any way I'm exhausted of discussing in WikiFa I will not even start any complain in the fa Arbitration Committee (because the admins there are in the FaANB and they have seen what happened why should I start another complain and absolutely be blocked by the Muslim Admins due to making a disruption?) Absolutely the WikiFa admin ارژنگ blocked me for one month because he felt an insult to his beliefs (completely partial action) if not he must not become bothered and must ask me to change my signature not block directly. If you say Muhammad was an Schizophrenic Muslims will claim that you insulted to their beliefs (Tnx Sam Harris having a rational view) but in the Quran itself Muhammad is called as Majnoon (insane or maniac arrested by Jinns) by the Mecca's people. So if you say there is no god but the monster in an Arabic-Persian mixed lang you insulted to their beliefs too... probably the problem is from the Islamic imaginations not my belief to My God FSM. Anyway it's glad to me because previously when I was reminding the systematic censorship in WikiFa it was not considered but this time the great FSM helped me to show clearly what's happening there :D Also I heard about the French news networks reflecting the Azade Namdari's hijab too I didn't assume this subject to become a world-wide news :D nowadays in Iran people mostly watch the forbidden Sat no local TV. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 07:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that your signature isn't the same as "Death to the infidels", but you still have to decide where to draw the line. Is it OK to have a signature that is a Hadith citation calling for death to the infidels? Is it OK to have one that says that God hates infidels? That the Jews killed Jesus? That gays are going to Hell? That there is no salvation except by Jesus Christ, or Muhammad in their case? So Wikipedias are faced with a choice between allowing pretty much unlimited advocacy through any signature, save only for some short length limit perhaps -- which if it is a short length might not be a bad idea even if it offended some folks -- or allowing some sentiments but not others, which is clearly crooked (I still have no idea if fa.wikipedia has a lot of shahada signatures) -- or saying that Wikipedia is "WP:NOT" a place for advocacy and that religious statements just plain don't belong in signatures, at least when they become controversial. Now of these, the most honest I see are minimal signatures or unlimited signatures. By unlimited, you get to signatures calling for (or quoting a call for) deaths to infidels. By minimal, you get to signatures that disallow Flying Spaghetti Monster advocacy. It's a slippery slope and I see those two as the stable options, with the rest being more prone to administrative abuse. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so the length of لااله‌الاهیولا is 13 chars and درفش کاویانی is 12 chars almost same also there are many other users with the same length eg بهزاد مدرس, so there was no problem with the length of my signature if you don't consider it in a byte by byte view :) (double for Farsi chars). If you consider this as a policy proposition to avoid partial signatures الله and God and سید or سیدالشهدا or شهادتین are too short and the "Alireza Hashemi~fawiki" (impartial) is too long so it's not a good idea. But if we want to avoid partiality we must force the users who have not reminded their first name (Sa.Vakilian : his first name may be Saeed) but they use their inheritable title such as Sayyid. (I should remind here that I'm Sayyid too :) but I consider this title as a racial discrimination advocacy). This subject was absolutely to show what discrimination is happening in wikifa blocking users based on personal beliefs of the admins not more. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 07:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"The best parts of the internet .... " Mashable

Mashable has a very interesting article The best parts of the internet are terrible at making money

Incidentally, there is some great praise for Wikipedia. (Sorry, Jimbo, I know you get tired of hearing all this praise)

The grandaddy of them all is Wikipedia, still the internet's crowning achievement. Its community-based information aggregation stands out as an accomplishment for humanity, arguably one of the wonders of the world—and it makes no money.

That's the key here. Wikipedia is and has always been a nonprofit. From its start, there was never any sort of bend toward figuring out how to make money. Certainly Wikipedia needs some money to remain in operation, which is raised by the Wikimedia Foundation

Of course, Wikipedia could have been monetized. Its cofounder Jimmy Wales still gets asked why he didn't. Who knows what it would look like if he had. We should all be thankful that he didn't.

a couple paragraphs later, after more general discussion.

"Upon further reflection, it’s clear that the broken system is ad-driven media on the internet. It simply doesn’t serve people. In fact, it’s not designed to," wrote Ev Williams, cofounder of Twitter and Medium, in a post announcing layoffs at Medium.

I know that there will be folks who will jump on this a say the "the WMF does make money" via donations, about $60 million a year comes in. But that is a pittance compared to the advertising industry that is threatening Wikipedia. I'll guess that just one article, Banc De Binary, got them $5-10 million per year (just an educated guess mind you) and there have been similar "articles" from at least 40 binary options companies. The retail forex industry, well known for spamming Wikipedia, is not quite the rip-off that binary options is, but has had "articles" on at least 50 companies. And that is just a small selection of the many companies that feel free to place ads here.

If we allow this to continue, it will break Wikipedia. Ads are not designed to build an encyclopedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Banc de Binary existed from 2013 to 2017, and the story is detailed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-06/Special_report. Yes, it is true that some sock puppeteer, probably associated with BDB, made a stub that was quickly speedied. Then they made a favorable draft (article history now viewable at Talk:Banc de Binary/Deleted version) which lasted for three weeks ... until an editor found it. In no time it had gathered some negative information (only allegations and bad reports, mind, as none of the regulators had done anything), which I think of as a good thing, and up for AfD, which led to deletion a month after that. Sock puppeteers tried to reintroduce the article, it went through some drafts, and emerged by 2014 as one of the "negative results" that the Signpost article suggests that BDB was trying to scrub out of Google with a SEO effort - nearly all the top 100 hits for the company were positive. So in other words, far from helping scammers fleece investors, Wikipedia was sounding an early note of caution, before regulators were willing to act, so that the company considered us to be a major problem and was promising huge sums to paid editors - one commentator, not willing to cite his source because of "BEANS" (ugggh), claimed they were promising "five figures".

But the thing is, Banc de Binary was a scam outfit. You really think anyone collected that money? You really think it added up to $5 or $10 million? I'm looking at a company that couldn't even figure out how to disguise its sockpuppets on the third recreation of the article, which was editing out of IPs from Cyprus and Israel. Any decent Wikipedian could conspire to skew an article in better ways than that, though of course no decent Wikipedian should. In the end the bottom line is that we maintained negative coverage of the company, despite all the helpful deletionists who show up to improve our coverage by cutting it.

Now I don't deny that there are ad campaigns underway, but I would look for them under our noses. I mean, WP:WikiProject Square Enix gets front-page "featured article" billing for a company product every 180 days without fail since 2007. I suspect that company, unlike BDB, might have known the right person to hire. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of misrepresenting the history of the Banc De Binary article like that. You might as well be encouraging scammers to do their work on Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please explain what misrepresentation I'm making. Here's what the article looked like on January 12, 2013. [30] We couldn't say "this is a scam company" because no regulator in the world had said that. But from that day we had the caution flags up the vast majority of the time, so far as I know. Wnt (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

And there is the reverse effect where social media is changing the way businesses operate: "“There are so many new companies coming out of the woodwork in the last few years that people have decided that they need to shout as opposed to whisper.” In this environment, it may seem that your ideas, hard work and talent won’t get you very far, unless you can learn to shout about them and show them off." Count Iblis (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never seen advertisers whisper. The oldest style of advertising I've seen is carnival barkers - and if they didn't shout, at least they barked. But one of the problems that we have with advertisers is that they don't speak up, when asked to. All we ask paid editors to do, beyond following the same rules as everybody else, is that they declare that they are paid editors. But they are not speaking up and fulfilling this obligation. It's hard to think of the hard-core paid editors as editing in good faith, when they don't declare when asked to and are so noisy around the rest of Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this new phenomena where you shout by the "look-at-me-method" poses a new problem for Wikipedia. Suppose that something similar as the ice-bucket challenge is launched not for a charity but to promote a business, then Wikipedia would be forced into advertising for that business if that challenge is notable enough to get an article here. Count Iblis (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Such as an article on Pokemon Go, for example. But I think the solution to such articles, for those willing to put in the effort, is to avoid having negative details swept into a little corner; perhaps some research on the extensive account access -> Niantic -> Keyhole, Inc -> In-Q-Tel -> National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency might pay off. I mean, much is known, it's just that we're not supposed to think about it. What if Wikipedians think about it? It seems more likely to make progress that way then to not have articles on well known 'cultural phenomena', even if the forces behind them are mysterious to most. I think for any company there is dirt to dig; angels do not prosper in the marketplace. Wnt (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

To distinguish him from the person's Wikipedia page.

First of all I know that this User page isn't protected but I would rather ask this than to be reverted on the mainspace. Should there be a hatnote differentiating the user page from the article Jimbo Wales? 2405:4800:1484:9559:4927:6ABD:69A:C5E3 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - The warning is bigger than a hatnote - it looks like this -

- Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki for you! 😂

hi

File:Wewiki.jpg

fa.wikipedia...ru.wikipedia...ar.wikipedia...ko.wikipedia...and

.#users of earth

Thank you--سرما^{ـــ☫ـــ}(Talk) 04:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the fascination with this? Also, the image is nominated for deletion on Commons, because it is probably a copyright violation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not have access to it--سرما^{ـــ☫ـــ}(Talk) 05:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Now I am genuinely curious what the image was. 2405:4800:1484:9559:4927:6ABD:69A:C5E3 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If you've missed it, it was the cartoon in this blog.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Section 230 reversal - is WMF monitoring this?

This article describes a Senate bill and a House bill that would revoke some of the protections web services have against being sued over contributors' content. It seems clear that this bill is not targeted at Wikipedia, but at sites like Backpage.com that were notorious for having ads for prostitutes, some of which turned out to be underage. That said, Backpage.com itself was already affected by other legal actions and according to our article gave up on having any section for "adult services" more than a year ago. As censors are inherently underhanded, I am suspicious of intentional "unintended consequences", and in any case, WMF should look for any sharp edges on this instrument, especially since it has the deepest pockets in the room, and the latter bill expressly denies any need to show intent for liability to apply.

For example, suppose a new editor turns up and makes a change to the Backpage.com article, something like (I'm making this up!) Child sex ads still run on Backpage.com, but now they're in the used cars section. For example, this ad^[citation] describes a "sweet black convertible, 12 years old, brand new headlights." If there is a trafficked child involved, Wikipedia might end up as the rich player in a lawsuit going after anyone and everyone mentioning the ad. It seems virtually impossible to predict such attacks in advance, and it seems like in some cases even good faith editing could end up being counted as "facilitating" the trafficking. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how serious the threat is, nor am I very sure if there is a practical way to draw a bright line (such as accepting payment for advertising) that would separate Wikipedia from Backpage in the text of legislation. But WMF should be aware of the situation and have a response, before it finds itself having to pay online gangs protection money to make sure that mysterious people don't show up posting questionable content that puts the site on hook for millions of dollars in liability. Wnt (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake evidence maybe planted by police

News reporters think they have direct proof of U.S. police "planting evidence" at crime scenes in Baltimore, Maryland, as supposedly where the bodycam captured video before police officers realized the camera was recording them (see: CNN, 20 July 2017, [31]). Of course, "everyone" in the U.S. knows how police plant evidence to fake a crime when they get tired of suspects evading conviction, well not everyone, as jurors tend to believe police testimony rather than other witnesses. In the Baltimore cases, the police body cameras have a 30-second video-cache buffer to record the active scene before an officer activates the audio+video recording mode (noted in CNN source as: "record 30 seconds of video without sound before an officer actively turns on the camera"). Allegedly, the video cache shows police putting evidence into the pre-searched location(s) before the main video records them finding the evidence some minutes later. So that is another method to catch corrupt police putting the falsified evidence into a crime scene, and might apply in similar situations. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

"Police stitch bloke up shock horror!"- what's the gen here? — fortunavelut luna 08:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Better guilty escape than one innocent suffer: I tend to favor the view of Benjamin Franklin (grandfather of America; age 70 in 1776), in the quote: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved" (1785, Bartleby 953). Although, others favor 10 guilty escape versus one innocent be convicted. If you're the one innocent, might agree the 100-to-1 balance is better, so perhaps Ben Franklin knew personally of those suffering for wrongful convictions. I guess another major problem with false convictions is the real culprit(s) escape to harm others, although they tend to get caught later for other crimes, as many tend to be repeat offenders. Also perhaps 50% of inmates are illiterate, as link between poor education and crime, or perhaps between high intelligence and evading police, as in white collar crime which might make robbery seem trivial x 1,000. To avoid fake news or fake evidence, then Wikipedians must beware common tricks used to deceive the public or reporters, even in wp:RS reliable sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that Wikipedians' "judgement" (AKA POV) about notable criminal cases should take precedence over RS? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The belief in "editorial judgment" is indeed one of the most pernicious myths of Wikipedia and of the press in general. Whether it is a newspaper editor spiking stories or a Wikipedian throwing alphabet soup at you, there typically seems to be a paymaster or a censor behind a judge pulling the strings. The position of an encyclopedia should be to report that the woman did float -- but to cite the deduction that she is a witch to the appropriate source, keeping it at arm's length. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fanmail

I just went on your Wikipedia page and saw that your net worth is roughly $1 million. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but the fact is that you are not obscenely rich (though you could do worse). It occurred to me then just how much you've really given - you created WP, one of the most visited sites in the world, and you could have commoditized it, but instead you just give it away for free. As Nixon said, you never profited from your work, you earned everything you've got. So thanks! ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of too many people who like to discuss their personal finances on the web, and if somebody does, I wouldn't trust the numbers they give. In short, I wouldn't expect Jimbo to comment on his net worth here.

This doesn't apply to me, however, since like most Wikipedians and journalists I know absolutely nothing about Jimbo's net worth! I'd guess that the number in the Wikipedia article is off, if only because it is 4+ years old. And not confirmed by Jimbo. Nonetheless, you might take that number, multiply by the square root of 2, do the hokey-pokey and shake it all about, and then say "plus or minus 300%" IMHO of course. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is based on the source in The Guardian which says "Wales's 2011 divorce settlement with his second wife put his assets at $943,000, barely enough for a small flat in central London." Perhaps since then Jimbo has moved towards qualifying for The World's Billionaires compiled by Forbes, but this seems unlikely. Anyway, as you say, Jimbo may not be as rich as Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, but money isn't everything.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Was that David Nixon, English magician and television personality?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The encyclopedia anyone can't edit, unless they are an IP

If you want to know how IP editors are treated on your encyclopedia, you could do worse than look at [[32]], which is about the frankly disgusting conduct of a group of registered editors on the Talk:Requiem (Duruflé) article and talk page. I have been called a coward, vandal and troll; the lies that have been told in edit summaries and on the talk page connected to that ANI conversation are absolutely disgusting. I have been editing on and off for a few years, all as an IP, and I'm walking away after the treatment that has been meted out to me by an organised group on the Requiem (Duruflé) talk page. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

hatting noise
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, sometimes a walk is the best option. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. Clotilde Rullaud needs a bit of work? I have no idea what you are talking about. 213.205.198.246 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Seems like a reasonable and reciprocal outcome, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there are many thousands of articles that are far more in need of attention than is Requiem (Duruflé). Like Clotilde Rullaud, for example. Although there is a musical connection between them. Just a quiet suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So let liars and bullies drive me off an article they feel is there personal domain? I'd rather just walk away from the whole website with a rather sick feeling of having been cheated by people who should know a lot better. No wonder I hear more and more people talking about the demise of this website, or about how toxic it is here. 213.205.194.246 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd assume anyone currently talking about the demise of this website is looking at stats circa 2014. Wikipedia:Time Between Edits is not the only indicator to show that things are very different now. ϢereSpielChequers 10:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 213, you are engaged in that discussion on the Talk:Requiem (Duruflé) page in arguing about the most contentious and long-running feud on WP, infoboxes. You could not find a more bitter and acrimonious issue to engage in on this whole site, ridiculous though that is. It has been to WP:ARBCOM several times, without solving anything, and has driven away some of the best editors in the field of music. Yes, there is "an organised group" who turn up whenever there is an argument about infoboxes, I only see these discussions when they are related to music for the most part, so I don't know about articles on other topics, but you see the same editors on music pages whenever there is an infobox issue, several of whom never edit articles about classical music and appear to zero interest or knowledge of it, all they care about is trying to force those boxes into every article. If you really have some interest in Duruflé or classical music outside the infobox issue there is plenty you could be doing to improve this site without being hassled.Smeat75 (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Which would be fine if this IP actually displayed any interest in Duruflé or classical music or anything except arguing and attacking other editors. His sole contribution to the article has been to revert the addition of an infobox four times in quick succession while four other editors have restored it. His many contributions to the article talk page have consisted only of attacks and smears against other editors, without a single post addressing the subject of Duruflé's Requiem. @Smeat75: so if that's the calibre of IP editors you want to attract to WP:WikiProject Classical Music, then you might as well give up on the idea of improving classical music articles right now. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

RexxS is correct in his assessment of the IP's contributions to that debate. Fortunately, discussion there has shifted to actual improvement of the article, which is the purpose of article talk pages. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And as a result, I'm happy to say that the number of references has increased from 2 to 5 and the number of relevant external links from 1 to 5, over the past 24 hours. Thanks to all who are editing constructively at the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article has been significantly improved in recent days because of work by competent editors, with no help at all from the disgruntled IP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Timbo's Rule 12. Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot. / Timbo's Rule 13. Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Wishing Jimbo Wales a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Increasing trend of paywalls

Jimbo Wales, I have attempted to draw attention to the ever-increasing trend of paywalls such as what recently happened with The New York Times ($9.99/mo), and The Washington Post ($99/yr) after an editor has used their site x# of times. As this trend continues, and I'm of the mind that it will, editors will have limited access to RS, and I imagine editor retention is going to suffer as a result. Paid editors can probably justify the subscription costs but I'm not willing to pay $10/mo. X 10+/- sources to volunteer my time as an editor and still contribute $$ during WP fund drives. I posted on the TP of Ocaasi asking for his input with hopes he can get a deal with news sources like what we have with AAAS and BMJ, etc. I've also attempted to get input from other editors, and what I've found so far is the belief that paywalls assure quality. Quite frankly, I don't think they're considering the magnitude of this issue, or the negative effects it will have on WP's "anyone can edit" motto, not to mention the quality of articles created, the work load spread over the few who can afford these paywalls rather than many who have free access to quality sources, or any of the maintenance issues. I think the following will have devastating effects: (1) cost, (2) inability to verify paywall cited sources, (3) rise in paid editing to cover cost of access, (4) issues with editor retention. It may not be a major problem at this moment, but I predict it will be as more publishers deploy paywalls. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are paywalled articles, which are also available via print, less accessible than articles which are only available via print? (In my opinion, no. Print-only sources are widely considered acceptable on Wikipedia, and libraries, for the moment, continue to exist. Similarly, academic journals, which generally have a very harsh paywall, continue to not only exist but to be the backbone of much of our research on science-related topics.) --joe decker^talk 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

^{Print is dinosaur technology. Save the trees and plants - they convert CO2 and H2O plus energy (sunlight) into O2 and C6H12O6 (glucose), and are man's best friend in the age of global warming. Electronic transfers and digital technology are here now. It's only a matter of time when books will become nothing more than decorative antiques and exhibits in museums, and it will be sooner than later. How many Encyclopedia Britannicas do you have in your bookcase? The focus now is on the global economy, global education and the global exchange of information...electronically and digitally. We either keep up, or we fade away with print. Atsme📞📧 17:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)}

For scientific literature there is Sci-Hub, which by this point ranks among the chief pillars of civilization at least so far as the casual Wikipedian is concerned. With some of these other sources access seems easily gamed but potentially could become quite burdensome: in the past I've often read a "paywalled" New York Times article simply by doing a Google search for the headline and clicking the magically authorized link -- but at the same time, should access be more restricted, few libraries retain back issues in print, and electronic access to just about anything tends to be limited to a group of the specifically authorized. Intellectual property is slavery. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Paywalls aren't too bad if they allow a user to access x number of articles per month without paying. It's the ones that don't allow you to access anything without paying that are the problem. Personally, I try to steer clear of sources that do this, although WP:PAYWALL does allow sources that require a subscription.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Let's not miss the point here. Paywall sources are increasing. We're enjoying free access now; that's the bait. Even the most elementary skills in marketing and promotion explain why putting cheese in the mousetrap works. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Things are still reasonably OK with the British newspapers. Most of them have decided that a paywall would be counterproductive, and only The Times says "Nope, you'll have to pay up" after offering a brief and tantalising glimpse of the story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The paid editing is a completely different species of problem and completely unrelated to increasing number of paywalls that limit public access to good journalism. In the second instance, Wikipedia's value proposition of providing access to the World's knowledge for free becomes even more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

IP 144.15.255.227, you have taken what I said out of context. I'll repeat it again for clarification, "Paid editors can probably justify the subscription costs..." If you're not grasping what I meant by that, please ask for clarification. Your response makes it appear as though I was conflating the two, and I was not. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Paywalls are a fact of life. We should use the best sources available and be as complete and accurate as possible. If that means costly journals and obscure books, them's breaks. We're not here to be a link farm to The Guardian. If people want to explore a topic in depth, there know where the sources are; obtaining them is their problem, not ours. That sounds callous but it is ultra-realistic. We're here to write and maintain an encyclopedia, not to solve all the world's problems. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Did you consider the work of editors who are not only content creators, but also volunteers at NPP, AfC, and AfD? Is it a fact of life for them to have to pay to access paywalls when reviewing 100s of articles/day in order to verify content as reviewers and if they can't affort $1,000 to $2,000 a year in paywall subscriptions, oh well? So WP becomes the encyclopedia anyone who can afford paywall subscriptions can edit? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously there is a risk that people will use The Guardian instead of The Times because it is free. If the story in The Times says something half way down the page and you have to pay to read it, it isn't ideal for other editors or general readers of the article. I have to admit to a not-so-subtle bias against using The Times as a citation for this reason. Fortunately, any major news story should have enough free citation material (BBC, CNN etc) to avoid having to use a source that is paywalled.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Back in the 1970s, when I was working as a hospital janitor, I would buy the San Francisco Chronicle off the newsstand every morning and the San Francisco Examiner every afternoon. That was fifty cents a day and more on Sundays, so call it over $200.00 per year in 1970s money. I just had to have my Watergate news. Ten years later, I was subscribing to about a dozen magazines. These days, people expect to get their news for free. What's up with that? How do they expect the journalists to get paid? I am very happy to pay for my digital New York Times subscription and many excellent publications remain free online. Frankly, I am amazed at how much free content remains. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

People in the UK who own a television (ie everyone) have to pay a licence fee which is currently £147 (US $192) per year, so accessing BBC content isn't quite as free as it first looks. I won't start a debate about how much some people hate the licence fee.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Copyright is a combination of a tax and a disbursement. The tax is levied on readers and the disbursement is, in theory, given to authors. In the approximation where everyone reads the news, everyone reads the same news, the cost of printing the news is high, and the journalists are honest and impartial, this was practically a workable system despite its theoretical flaws. The same is likely true of other markets where authors are very widely read among those capable of paying the cost of distribution.

However, copyright is and remains a tax farming and legal monopoly scheme of brutish nature, which denies freedom of expression under the best of circumstances and approaches infinite inefficiency as the cost of distribution decreases. People rebel against paying for news when it no longer costs them anything to get a newspaper printed (at least on screen, so they can read it). People resent monopoly city papers that project a bought-out editor's desire to suppress threats to his clients' status quo.

It would be possible, for example, to fund papers by government grant, avoiding the need for an artificial scarcity to those not permitted to read. Such a scheme is disturbingly bureaucratic and prone to centralized censorship -- nonetheless it has been the status quo for decades for certain city papers that, when actually opened up in printed format, contain huge inserts with mandated notices required by ordinance or announcements from the government in fine print. (Similarly, a substantial fraction of all movie proceeds are paid by governments; this is why James Bond had a Mexican girlfriend in a recent movie and the depiction of the country was, as always, glowing like something out of a tourist ad. It is very rare for a movie now not to be state sponsored propaganda.)

The responsible commentator should stand away from broken philosophical models and recognize when something new is needed, even when the details are hazy or multiple ideas are possible. That means rejecting copyright. I would much prefer, for example, a system with guaranteed minimum income where a cadre of liberated, if poor, philosophers take on the task of reporting facts and news on Wikipedia for their own amusement and public spirit. Or, we could have a system I have frequently proposed where every taxpayer pays a percentage of income tax in grants to private funding agencies of his choice, which reward reporters, inventors, musicians, artists, and so on according to his personal priorities. What I will not do is lash myself to the mast of a 90% sunk ship and say that it can be saved. It cannot be saved. We must move on. And freedom of expression, including the right of every person to send out whatever file he wants, is the infallible pole star to help us navigate that course. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328 - thank our lucky stars this is the 21st Century and we have access to the internet, electronic transfers and digital media, so subscriptions are no longer necessary for publications to verify distribution via paid subscriptions which was the primary reason for subscriptions. We now have Alexa and numerous other methods of determining who reads a particular website which includes demographics. Journalists (whatever that means today because it certainly doesn't fit the same model I followed prior to retirement) are paid by...drum roll please...advertising dollars which is why bait-clicks are so important to websites - advertising is how overhead has been paid since the beginning of time (so to speak). If you want to argue in favor of volunteer editors paying for subscriptions to maintain the quality of a free encyclopedia and the integrity of the project, please provide a better argument. I'm all eyes. I just find it ironic that you feel volunteers are responsible for paying the salaries of others while we work for free. 😳 One last point, if I may...the AP and other news bureaus are still free, but when that changes (when not if because it's coming), why can't WMF cover the fees so registered editors can access the paywalls? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Why are we speaking about journalists and writers having a means to get paid as being a bad thing / four letter word? Except for those dependent on advertisers, in the electronic era, who is supposed to pay for their work and efforts? Or are the ole-fashioned print subscribers supposed to pay the journalists and writers so that anyone with an internet connection can exercise their god-given right to get the journalist's and writer's work for free? Also, as more goes electronic, the idea of having the print subscribers pay for all of that gets mathematically unsound and the "increasing trend" is the natural response. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What? Just curious...when you edit articles, is your comment above symbolic of how you interpret what the cited sources say? Are you a journalist or paid writer, and if not why are you so defensive of them? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't understand your first question....my comment was completely unrelated to how I interpret what sources say. On your second question, no I am not. I've turned down offers to write articles and a book in certain technical fields because it wasn't enough for the large amount of time involved. Your last question makes no sense if taken literally and is actually asking me to respond to a false inference. Finally, my main point is that having to spend time or money to access a source is nothing new, and not a reason to deprecate a source. Discussions about journalists getting paid was brought up only for that discussion, not for a discussion in its own right. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@North8000: As I said above, I understand they need to have a way to make money -- but we need to set up some other way besides copyright to do it. Copyright is an incredibly heavy-handed state intervention -- nobody finds out what they're going to make without a court to enforce and most likely to rule, arbitrarily, unpredictably, on what they are entitled to make. Nobody makes money on copyright without the state being ready, directly or via private intermediate, to spy on every communication and computer. So it's not like when I propose a new mechanism, even a new state mechanism, that I am somehow breaking some libertarian utopia, except in the heads of capital-L Libertarians who have convinced themselves that they really do "own" the inside of people's computers and even the inside of people's heads and that they are entitled to a whole vast apparatus of not-initiating-force to uphold that "ownership". And it's not like I'm proposing to leave authors to starve -- that is what the people are proposing who say just stay the course with copyright, because (like with the War on Drugs) all the heavy handed intervention in the world doesn't actually stop the traffic. What I think we need is to have funding agencies, not much different from how we have NIH to do public health research. We see from that sector of industry that what is state funded is pretty efficient and constantly producing, even as the private sector comes up with hepatitis C vaccines that most sufferers won't receive so they act as a reservoir to make sure the virus goes on infecting new paying customers. I mean, everything in private pharmaceuticals is heavy handed government picking winners and losers, and yet, if you suggest making all pharmaceutical development publicly funded, people look at you like you're a Communist Well, if that's Communism what do you call the alternative? And we could actually make those funding agencies more March of Dimes than NIH by putting them under private control and letting taxpayers choose which ones to send their money to -- though one is right to suspect that legislatures would only let that go so far, often with valid reasons. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

...but copyright is a fact of life and it's not going away — if anything, things are getting worse, not better. We're not here to cure what ails the world, we're here to write and maintain an encyclopedia — and that means using the best sources available so that we get things right, which is the main thing. If readers feel the need or the compulsion to backcheck sources cited, that is their personal mission and their personal problem. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Carrite, but why should volunteers have to pay that cost? Why doesn't WMF pave the way for clearance access as what Ocaasi has worked so hard to do with WP:TWL? Just today, I've run across 3 different paywalls, and the day has just begun. Granted, there are workarounds today, but what about tomorrow? Webmasters at the paywall sources will figure out the bypasses soon enough. The inability to verify content is paramount to maintaining NPOV and eliminating OR. I often come across statements cited to sources that say nothing of the kind. I am asking editors to step outside the box of their own experiences and try to see it from a reviewer's perspective, be it NPP, AfC, AfD, FA or GA, to name a few. It's becoming a serious issue, and editor retention is hard enough without adding financial dilemmas to the mix. We have bright young editors under the age of 18 who are reviewing. Do we expect them to give up their allowance so they can edit or review WP articles? This problem also extends beyond MEDRS - I have no problem with the related paywalls attributable to science and medicine - WP:TWL has helped immensely with that issue. I am just trying to get the attention of Jimbo Wales and hopefully others with WMF so they can start paving the way to avoid this issue rather than waiting until it's too late and we're down to only 500 editors who can afford to edit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you familiar with The Wikipedia Library? JSTOR and Newspapers.com subscriptions can be had for serious content people. So far WMF hasn't deigned to make NY Times subscriptions available to us, however. Don't get me started on the spending priorities of that cancerous, money hogging bureaucracy... Carrite (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeppers, Carrite, I was the account coordinator for AAAS and BMJ for about a year, and quit when I started helping at NPP, AfC, and AfD in July this year. I know what you mean about the bureaucracy! WMF could resolve this issue quite readily if they'd hire a "Paywall Access Coordinator" to work with the paywall sources to allow registered editors free access. It wouldn't even put a dent in WMF's budget, and it actually helps the publications because our cited sources drive traffic to their websites. TWL has their system down to a science, so it's actually something WMF could coordinate with them. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It is true that I was responding to a bit of a digression by Cullen328 (and not completely, since I did not get into the economic differences in disposable income...). For the main point, yes, obviously Wikipedia should summarize paywalled sources in detail for the general public, since that is one way of "stealing" their copyrighted content. Assuming good faith is a part of that. (note that whoever said there is no honor among thieves did not envision a day when reading a book you bought at the grocery store would be considered a theft) There are indeed a lot of "dubious-discuss" tags hanging off obscure sources nobody can ever seem to check (there's a pretty remarkable one in James Lovelock for example), and that's a problem, but not one best fixed by removing the obscure sources en masse, and I'm not sure it's best solved by paying tribute to publishers either. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme Are you actually encountering articles at NPP where people are referencing paywalled sites? My experience of NPP is that few newbie articles are referenced to anything. I appreciate that paywalls make things more difficult for people saving articles from BLPprod, but even there is this a real current problem as opposed to a future one? ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers yes. Worse yet, it's political crap which I've tried to avoid like the plague and got bogged down in the quagmire without realizing what happened. WP:NOTNEWS means nothing when there are political advocacies, and neither does WP:NPOV. Guess what? They cite The New York Times and WaPo, both of which are behind paywalls, but that's just the beginning as far as indications of what the future holds. I'm one of the dinosaurs that have lived through the transition from analog to digital, from print to internet, but ask my age, I'll tell you I'm 39. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is a totally different issue than using a source that takes some investment (in time or money) to read. And that the latter is nothing new.......in the old days it was called a subscription or a trip to the library. The only thing new in this respect is expectations otherwise. North8000 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with North8000 here. Journalism is challenging skilled labor with a lot of responsibility attached; doubly so for investigative journalism. It's sort of incredible to hear people suggest that, in effect, journalists should work for free. I recognize that everyone's economic circumstances are different, but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people with sufficient leisure time to volunteer here also have $10 a month in discretionary income that they can afford to spend to subsidize the New York Times, or the Post, or some other high-quality journalistic outlet of their choice. Failing that, there are high-quality publicly funded news sources that are and will remain free to access, like NPR and PBS in the US or the BBC in the UK. Finally, many municipalities have publicly funded library systems where one can obtain pretty much any source under the sun for free, with a small investment of time (these days, often just a phone call or an email request). For questions of source verification, I have subscriptions to several news outlets which (in my consideration) do important high-quality investigative journalism in the public interest, despite a political climate that has turned frighteningly 1930s-ish in relation to the free press, and I'm happy to verify sources from those outlets if asked. I suspect others are as well, but I do think it's strikingly entitled to think that people should be working full-time to produce high-quality news in the public interest and doing it for free. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

MastCell, you have missed the entire point of this discussion. Please start at the beginning and point out where I said anything about not paying journalists. This is crazy. My point is that volunteer editors shouldn't be expected to pay for subscriptions to paywall sites. I can't see where any editor - except for those who might be benefitting financially from paywalls - would object to asking the WMF to cover the cost of those paywalls. Going off on a tangent about not paying journalists is a diversion, and totally neglects the intent of the original post, so please start from the beginning. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have framed your original post more clearly, Atsme. Calling on the WMF to try to arrange for (or pay for) access to paywalled resources for editors is an idea worthy of discussion. However, I took your original post as call for Wikipedia or the WMF to oppose news media uses of paywalls for everyone in all circumstances on principle. And our highly idealistic friend Wnt immediately steered the conversation in that direction. In the ideal Wnt world, it seems that journalists would no longer be paid for their journalistic work but would, like everyone else, receive a guaranteed income in the hope that they will engage in productive work. I love that idea in theory but I am a pragmatist and differentiate between what might possibly happen in the immediate future as opposed to sweet "pie in the sky" notions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, Cullen328. I suck at framing proposals because my brain works faster than my fingers can type (when both are actually working). I wrote a synopsis instead of legible proposal and expected others to grasp the concept in hopes that it would eventually lead up to a proposal. I wanted input and a variety of opinions but was not prepared for potential derailing. My fault. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's my fault, for responding to something that Wnt wrote. I should know better at this point. I mean this with love, but Wnt is that guy who, when you're trying to decide where to go for dinner, starts talking about how the concept of mealtimes is a arrogation of individual freedom by the state. Super interesting and all, but doesn't help you figure out where to eat. MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I understood exactly what you meant Atsme and I agree with everything you've said. This is a real problem right now and it will only get worse. I've edited on a lot of controversial articles and I need to check the sources that other editors provide. If it's a NYT article I'm screwed, though I also use the trick of googling the title which another editor mentioned which sometimes works. Which helps me, but when one can use only one or two sentences of a article to make their point, one would hope that the readers go to the source article for more information and not be blocked from doing so. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@MastCell: Above I laid out two mechanisms for two extremes of journalistic commitment. At one end, a population entitled to guaranteed minimum income can do a great deal of routine journalism themselves. We know this because Wikipedia already does it -- many news media link to our articles because we aggregate the data better than the newspapers themselves! To say that only trained journalists can do journalism is like saying only trained encyclopedists can write encyclopedias.

Nonetheless, I recognized above that at the other end, we should have funding agencies for news reporting. An individual taxpayer who owes $20,000 in income tax might get a choice to put $5,000 of that into various options that include paying for PBS or FOX News (uggh, but it's their money), paying for Wikipedia, paying for a united consortium of quality newspapers, etc. Or they could donate to their favorite rapper or put money toward a cure for cancer. The legislature presumably would want to do some regulation, in terms of the scope of the funding agencies, the maximum amount given to any one recipient (you can't have people send all their required donation to their best friend after all), and some sector restrictions. Hopefully the latter would be more like requiring that "real science" get a certain percentage of each taxpayer's allocation than putting a very low maximum on the amount sent to rap artists on the basis that rap really sucks, even though it does.

These, however, are just examples of other approaches we can consider: the point is, we need to come up with something. We have to recognize that copyright doesn't work for musicians forced into "indentured servitude" to get any kind of contract at all, that it doesn't work for news media whose ads are totally controlled by Google and Facebook, that it doesn't work for scientific publishers who have to go up against a public armed with Sci-Hub, however great that service is.

My reluctance to pay the tribute is based largely on the fact that copyright is dying. Why have Wikipedia take donor money and hand it over to NYT to get subscriptions, when the more NYT is starved for funds, the less it will be able to sue to prevent infringment of its materials? I mean, if you believe that by taking that tack you're killing NYT, that seems bad, but if you think copyright is already doomed, then that's just a stage we need to get through. Eventually the "pirates" should be able to hoist their flag and not have it torn down any more, and Wikipedia can reference them. But Wikipedia will also want to favor social developments -- more workable than copyright, that is -- that allow those reporters some way to get back out and report more news. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Wnt, while I appreciate your input, it really doesn't have anything to do with what I'm proposing, and I'm concerned that it is distracting from the point I'm trying to make. I'm not here to right great wrongs. I just want to make the people who can help make changes aware of the situation we're facing with news source paywalls. I ran into an ezine today that have deployed a paywall, and was unable to verify a statement to the source. The latter is what's important to the integrity of WP. If you want to start a discussion about copyright, please do so in a separate section, and I'll be happy to comment there but in this thread, I'd like to keep the focus on how we, as reviewers and content creators, are going to deal with the paywalls. Thank you in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just FYI.....need help viewing/confirming a source.... Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange - " dedicated to organizing and sharing the vast resources available to Wikipedians, to aid in verification. "--Moxy (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Just want to point out that paywalls is only the tip of the iceberg. Writing content for Wikipedia requires access to more than a curious & intelligent mind, sufficient spare time, & the materials that happen to be available at your local library. Writing articles on ancient history, I'm encountering more & more incidents where I have to pay fees to my library's Inter-Library Loan service to get articles. (And yes, I know about sites like persee.fr & have an account at academia.edu.) And often I find the book I need to keep close to hand is wildly expensive (prices on Amazon range from $100 on up), so I'm forced to use ILL to get a copy of the book, then photocopy the entire work. (Yeah, I'm violating copyright just to provide free information. I don't like doing it, but I remember seeing stacks of photocopy in the files of some of my college professors, so I'm not the only one forced to doing this.) The costs for me are getting to the point where I am seriously considering using Patreon or GoFundMe to lessen my cost of research. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

New proposal; have paywalls dropped after 1 month

A friend suggested that WMF appoint or hire someone to contact the best RSs with paywalls and negotiate a dropping of the walls, at least for Wikipedians, after a certain time period, perhaps a month, when the content will be less "news" but still encyclopedic. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not bad as a general notion, it can´t hurt to ask. "We" get some form of access to something called JSTOR etc, I think, perhaps that can be built upon. Or the foundation could negotiate to buy, say, 5000 Washington Post or whatever web-subscriptions and give them to editors via some heavily debated and critisized process. Could be worth some sort of pilot-project. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's another thought to ponder:

"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. In coordination with a network of individual volunteers and our independent movement organizations, including recognized Chapters, Thematic Organizations, User Groups, and Partners, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. Wikimedia Foundation Mission Statement

I think access to paywalls would be included under other endeavors which serve this mission; the latter of which is to make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity. It appears to me that WP policies which require inline text attribution may actually conflict with collecting educational content under a free license. Yes or no? ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Must look at things the other way around. Our purpose is to gather and disminate infomation be it free or not. In fact the non free stuff is actually the stuff most have problem finding so yes the info is very valuable to those with limited resources. Would be great if every source could be viewed by our readers....and we should strive for that....but our goal is to impower others with knowledge not just links to info. A good example of this is the bots that translate English wiki articles to other language wikis. We understand that the sources used may not be understandable in other wikis...but the goal is to disminate the knowledge.--Moxy (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that material sourced to a paywalled article is less reliable because there is less chance that it will be checked by other Wikipedia editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering that Aspro's message below of 12:16, 11 August 2017 might have misunderstood my above message, I decided to clarify my message:

One thing to consider is that when an editor adds material that is sourced to a paywalled article, the Wikipedia material is less reliable because there is less chance that the Wikipedia material will be checked by other editors to see whether it is supported by the source.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You mean it is less readily verifiable, not that it is less reliable. Ultimately these things come down to the quality of the Wikipedian. If we are really worried about inferior, wrong, and vandalistic information being inserted into articles, as you intimate, the quickest, easiest, fastest, best thing we can do is eliminate the scourge of IP editing (free and easy multiple accounts) and to institute a hard, top level policy of "one person-one account." That would clean up things more than any amount of handwringing about paywalls. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Love that suggestion, Carrite! But read the link I just posted below and tell me how that's going to work into our current scheme of things. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I meant it was less reliable because of the Wikipedian's work not being easily checked by other Wikipedians. It's not that unusual for a Wikipedian to misuse a source. In some cases it's an honest mistake from a limited ability for reading comprehension or limited writing ability. In some other cases it may be due to the bias of the Wikipedian. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that our New Pages patrollers need maximum access to things like the New York Times, JSTOR, Newspapers.com in its expanded version and so on. This will require WMF to actually spend some of its millions of donor dollars on cash support of volunteers — which would be a departure of the cavalier way they have dealt with us in the past. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Think a small step forward may be to split References into two parts. The first for free access and the second for those behind pay-walls. Just because a paper is behind a pay-wall doesn’t mean is is good science and many papers are not properly peer review anyway, making them no better than OR in many cases. Good science can't hide behind pay-wall for very long before it gets reported in other free publications. So if we get an article with a high proportion of 'pay-wall only' references it will alert other editors to look around for free sources or consider the science suspect. This is something that already happens here on WP - thanks to editors who have professional in-depth knowledge of that area. Whilst some Journals may appear to be WP friendly... remember, they get their considerable profits from charging for content. They are not stupid. Many researchers may belong to institutions which have agreements from where they can download papers without personal cost to themselves but that leaves 100'000's world-wide that have to pay $30 at time for the most important must read stuff. These journals must have realized it would be too easy for these professionals to register as WP editors to get access for free. So Whilst approaching pay-walls for WP privileges is a good idea, it won't (I think) bring any meaningful improvement. Splitting References into two parts is a way of indicating how much weight the article has and we can that article forwards from there. Also, and finally, (because it think I have gone on a bit too long). If we were to spilt References in to a third triage, namely peer reviewed free access journals like PLOS it might encourage more scientists to publish their works in such journals as our articles will show that their work is more rapidly and widely disseminated through the academic world via 'free access'. So it is a plus plus for them for us. Gosh. I'm sure I could have explained that more simply without being so verbose. Aspro (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

A "free" regurgitation of a journal article by the click-for-profit "press" is a vastly inferior substitute. We cite the best sources we can; if readers want to follow up with them, that's their business. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Most certainly did take onboard Bob K31416 view and it was my failing not to make it clear that I agree with him. Also I agree with Carrite points and those of Moxy and Llywrch. Think we have much common ground here. Don't think we can come up with any perfect solution yet to square the circle but we can (and all here are trying to) help WP to evolve. As Linus's Law states: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" . Think the original OP has unintentional brought more eyeballs to bear on the real problems we experience. So thank you all for your comments. May I suggest, this gets re-posted somewhere so that this issue doesn’t roll of this page and get forgotten. Aspro (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have in the past made my point, & I will continue to do so: getting good quality content for Wikipedia -- & the other Wikimedia projects -- will only become more expensive, & the Foundation needs to acknowledge that they must eventually help with that expense. Of course, providing money to editors for research in one form or another isn't the only way to handle that problem -- having editors help each other identifying & obtaining sources would help in many instances -- but it's the one most Wikimedians can't do for themselves. -- llywrch (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This discussion may be influenced by the following: [33] - I'm sure you'll all agree on the choice. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I am rephrasing the proposal to take out the secondary option which seems to be causing the most disagreement:

"WMF appoint or hire someone to contact the best RSs with paywalls and negotiate a dropping of the walls at least for Wikipediansafter a certain time period, perhaps a month, when the content will be less "news" but still encyclopedic."

By focusing on this protocol then all people will benefit rather than just Wikipedia and since it is more simple, it is more likely to be agreed to by the better RSs. The suggestion to the RSs could be framed as a public service action on their part.

As a side note, I am surprised no one has spoken to the foundation block that Wikipedia does not promote recentism and thus has no need whatsoever for "today's news". Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Paywalls exist because some media still have these crazy ideas about making money and having a profitable business model. What financial incentive does the WMF have to offer to the media? The media is not a "public service". This isn't the USSR. TheValeyard (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am amazed by such an opinionated focus on such a minor part of the proposal....the words "public service"...ok, I will withdraw that entire sentence as it also was a very secondary and unnecessary part of the proposal. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I must also observe that some editors appear to me to have already made up their minds to embrace the concept of spending money to buy content to use on Wikipedia as either a necessary, timely or "good" thing. That is just fine, but it would better, I think, for the project, if we all keep an open mind about whether we wish to go down this path at all. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not embracing the concept; I'm accepting reality. The cost of information, despite the Internet, is increasing. (This cost might increase even faster without it.) A friend of mine works at the local public library, where they were faced with a distasteful budget choice: drop their subscription to Nature to save $5000 a year, or keep it & drop $5000 of magazine subscriptions. Because back issues of Nature are available thru JSTOR, & current copies can be found at the universities in town, they decided to drop their subscription to one periodical. So I don't believe it's outrageous to ask the Foundation to consider helping volunteer editors afford information. -- llywrch (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised there hasn't been any input about the link I've included twice above and now for a third time...The Wikitribune: perhaps this is what the WMF believes is the answer to fake news and paywalls? They intend to pay journalists while the rest of us work for free to .... do what? Keep the paid journalists honest? Wonder when the last time was that Jimbo visited RS/N, BLP/N, or AN/I?

He hopes that a combination of the distributed intelligence of Wikipedia and measured professional journalism driven by a business model “that’s not about chasing clicks” will lead to a news organisation built from the ground up to combat fake news and political rabble-rousing. There is a third way, he said, between the two models “of he said, she said faux neutrality, or having a Paul Dacre [editor of the Daily Mail] agenda and ramming things down our throats”. Wales, who sits on the board of Guardian Media Group, the Guardian’s parent company, founded Wikipedia with Larry Sanger in 2001, before donating the entire project to a non-profit organisation, the Wikimedia Foundation, that he set up in 2003. ^{ref: The Guardian by Alex Hern on April 24, 2017}

It will be interesting to see what comes of it and if it effects the paywall situation even a little. Perhaps for news but shouldn't RECENTISM be doing that? Right. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think JW is on the board of The Guardian any longer, or that discussing his latest money-making venture here is an appropriate use of project space. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It was written in April 2017, Carrite - 3-1/2 mos. ago. Did he recently resign from their BOD? Anyway, it's about paywalls and free access to sources behind paywalls which is the heart of this discussion. If he's got something else going on with WMF at the time that would effect this proposal, we need to know so where not wasting our time. Fake news, and unverifiable news because of paywalls actually parallels this discussion in several instances. If we're going to have our own newsource in The Wikitribune, why worry about paywalls for news, politics and sports? It seems a little too "stateish" for my taste but that appears to be the norm considering how MSM comprises media conglomerates that are connected in one way or another. Isn't that what globalism is all about? One people, one government, one currency, one source of news, one identity, no gender, no customs, no nation, no passports, no history, just one global entity where everyone is equal - or am I missing something? Why do we need anything else when we have the top 5 - Google, YouTube, Facebook, Baidu, and Wikipedia followed closely by Yahoo!, Reddit, Google India, Tencent QQ and Taobao. It's Utopia!! 🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm at Wikimania so I haven't had a huge amount of time to respond to this conversation.

First, I think it's a really interesting idea to think about how the WMF might negotiate for bulk discounts for access for individual Wikipedians to the archives of newspapers (to be paid for by the WMF). I totally disagree with Carrite's cynicism and negativism about this sort of thing - I really wish people with this kind of negative attitude would actually come to Wikimania or actually engage with the Foundation in a constructive way. Just being negative is not really useful, neither to oneself nor others. Rather than ignoring the facts of reality in order to complain, it might be more useful to look at programs like the Rapid Grants program and think about how they might be improved/adapted to provide more support for editors. Positive engagement is very likely to yield good results. Being a jerk is very likely to lead to people regarding you as a jerk, and nothing more.

Second, I don't think WikiTribune is any solution to the problem of paywalls and citations. We're tiny and expect to be so for the near term future but even if the success is very strong, there will always be hundreds of reliable sources that have nothing to do with me.

Third, I am no longer on the Guardian board - I left when starting WikiTribune because it was not appropriate to stay while doing something so competitive. But the parting was very friendly, and indeed I just popped by the office the other day to chat with their reader revenue team and share what insights I learned from the WikiTribune crowdfunding campaign. We're still friends.

Finally, I think it is actually not entirely clear that paywalls are increasing. In some ways they have been, but "soft paywalls" (which don't really interfere with the ability of Wikipedians to cite quality sources) seem to be winning in the marketplace over "hard paywalls". So I am not personally super worried about these issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I sure wanted to go Wikimania this year, darn it. Maybe next time. I hope you're right about the paywalls. I think they're more of problem for active reviewers involved with NPP, AfC, AfD, FA, & GA. Ocaasi did a great job with TWL, so that helps some. I just hope you're right about it not becomming a major issue and that the softwalls stay put. Have fun! ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled about the status of WikiTribune. My understanding is that it involves both professional journalists and volunteers. As a sort of hybrid between user-generated and professional content would it be considered a WP:RS? Guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

After looking at its description at Wikitribune, it appears to me that it would be an RS that is like a regular news organization that uses lots of interns. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, there may be a complication because a Wikitribune article's content can change, unlike sources used in Wikipedia which don't change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: If their articles could have curated revisions which are accessible easily and with cleaner (and more official) links than our permalinks, maybe this could solve this issue... —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure. I would need to see the actual situation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, I think that it is really unfortunate that you would call a highly productive, good faith editor like Carrite a "jerk" over a simple disagreement. That reminds me of the time that you referred to the views of Doc James as "utter fucking bullshit". That was far from your finest hour. I know that you are world famous and all, but you should really try to grow up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, I thought you were doing fine with the first sentence but then your message went downhill, ending with a personal attack that could be criticized in the same way that you criticized Jimbo. Two wrongs don't make a right. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo, I apologize for asking you to grow up. Just continue aging at the normal rate, but please stop calling your fellow editors "jerks". I hope that you are happy, Bob K31416. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Improving the environment of Wikipedia is a long, slow and uncertain task. We can all try once in a while and hope that a better attitude will slowly take hold. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for having my back, but I'm not one to take umbrage over uncivil civility lectures from The Grand Enabler of WMF. The irony tickles me. Carrite (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC) It just hit me that "Being a jerk is very likely to lead to people regarding you as a jerk, and nothing more." is an exact paraphrase of Eric Corbett's most inflammatory line. Hilarity ensues. Carrite (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cost of Wikimania

I have heard two complaints from Wikipedians who live in Montreal, that they would not be attending Wikimania due to its outrageous registration fee ($215 Canadian "early bird discount," $275 Canadian regular rate). LINK Tens of millions of dollars are raised every year by WMF, truckloads of money are paid out in "scholarships" for those deemed worthy of attendance by San Francisco, who attend the love fest for free — yet we see massive registration fees that effectively gate out attendance by the unblessed. What is wrong with this picture? Carrite (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I support expansion of the scholarship program, which is already quite good, and a reduction in the cost of attending Wikimania. The main thing wrong with "this picture" is that your comment is unnecessarily aggressive. Please stop posting to my talk page with this kind of negative attitude - or stop posting here altogether, I don't care which you choose.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I really wish people with this kind of negative attitude would actually come to Wikimania or actually engage with the Foundation in a constructive way. —JW. Rrrrrrrrrrrright. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

One obviously can't extrapolate far from a single example, but the ludicrously high charges (and those were less than a third of what they're charging now) were the reason I didn't attend Wikimania when it was held within walking distance of my house—and it's probably fair to say that I sit squarely in your target market. Negative attitude or not, Carrite has an entirely fair point—the extortionate fees coupled with subsidies entirely at the discretion of these people means that the genuine curious public are priced out and it's increasingly becoming a de facto subsidized vacation for those with friends in the right places. ‑ Iridescent 18:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? A cost 1/3 would be less than $100 for a three-day conference including meals. That's the opposite of ludicrous. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Where are you getting "including meals" from? From their own website, they provided lunch and tea and coffee "with additional food and drinks available from machines and cafés". £50 may be nothing to you, but it certainly is to me. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am at Wikimania; in addition to lunch there have been two evening "happy hour / snacks" things. If £50 is too expensive, I don't see how the Foundation can possibly be expected to make you happy. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's also breakfast included.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Carrite and Iridescent and it should be free for anyone who wants to attend. It seems weirdly cliquish the way its set up now. Good grief Jimbo, just fix it...make it free...get it done. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Free events have proven dangerous, where a modest fee deters troublemakers. Otherwise, there is a risk of "counter-protesters" coming in from Facebook organizers, to pull down war memorials, or whatever. A free Wikimania could be a disaster, and it only takes one violent mob to ruin even a large event. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not that crazy. Comic-con is 245 US dollar. My ticket to fly across an ocean THAT was expensive. From Wikimania: —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you really equating the commercially-driven ComicCon with the main educational event of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, those cashers of $80 million American dollars or whatever annually of donor checks to advance the purpose of the encyclopedia? Do you not see the utter inequivalence of this comparison? "Sure WMF prices are bad, but ComicCon is just as expensive!" — is that the point you really want to make? Carrite (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, i've spoken to many local Montreal folks who were volunteering at the conference, and they are having an awesome time. This was open to anyone —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one could get into Wikimania for free if one is a local who volunteers. And when I attended the 2008 session at Boston, I saw that Richard Stallman had crashed the event on the last day. (I think I uploaded a pic of him there to Commons.) However, there are a lot of contributors who either have family, commitments, &/or jobs that prevent them from volunteering or the spare money to afford to attend. Even in the affluent First World. And while I found attending an enjoyable & rewarding event, at this time I can't justify taking the time from my family & the money to go. I wish I could. (PS, if I were part of a team hosting a Wikimania here in Portland, & if certain Wikipedians were to try to crash the event, I'd have no problem looking the other way while that person did.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Free for volunteers, not just locals. I chatted up one volunteer who was from Columbus Ohio. Sunday dinner was included, as well as the other meals mentioned.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to provide relative costs: I regularly attend scientific conferences, which are most definitely not profit-making ventures. They usually run to USD600-800 for three days, including lunch on 3 days and dinner on one day. In comparison CAD200-300 seems like a perfectly reasonable price. AKAF (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Events like this have to make some attempt to cover their costs. Purely at random, I found this Doctor Who fan event which costs £99 for a weekend. It doesn't seem to include any accommodation or food in the pricing, and the price is quite reasonable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

However those events are not fund-raising the entire rest of the year and sitting on a substantially large McDuck moneypit of cash. They are *commercial* ventures intended to make money from the most invested fanbase. The problem is not that its charging as such, its that its charging a large amount which acts as a barrier to casual entry and simultaneously subsidizing the people who are least in need of it. If the WMF wants to emulate commercial events, then it should be charging its most invested editors. Its depressing that its not even a difficult problem for an 'educational' event to solve. Have free entry for talks/seminars during the day (education), charged entry includes meals/evening events (social). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The Doctor Who fan event mentioned above probably isn't intended to make a huge profit, but it isn't free to hire a convention hall and book speakers. It would be non-standard to suggest that Wikimania events should be completely free to attend, but the pricing does need to be looked at because not everyone is made of money.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Usually when not-for-profits or other educational groups want to run a free-entry event, they either get it sponsored or use some of their existing charity/donated funds for the purpose. Either option given a)the amount of attendees, b)the amount of funds the WMF has access to, c)the amount of potential sponsors the WMF has access to, would have been easy to do for any competent organization with a a competent staff. That the WMF is not capable of running a free-entry educational event is entirely due to its inept hiring practices. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about asking several hundred dollars to attend an educational event, particularly if travel, accommodation and food have to be added on top of that. The attendance costs need to bear this in mind; we're not all millionaires and some form of sponsorship or subsidy may be needed to keep the costs down to a minimum.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that those who can pay, should pay, and that there should be a generous scholarship program for those who can't. I don't think it is a valid goal that the conference be provided completely for free for everyone, nor do I think it should turn away people (especially local people) who can't afford to pay. I should also note that in general this is exactly the approach that has been taken this year as in every other year. I say this even while saying, with all due respect to everyone involved in decision making so far, that I'd like to see the scholarship program expanded. Others may disagree - I only hope and wish they'd do so respectfully rather than in the spirit of faux scandal and outrage!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There were 110 people who were given full or partial scholarships this year. What is the level of expansion that you would like to see? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"nor do I think it should turn away people who can't afford to pay." As above? 116.117.135.234 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How about a "minimum" conference pass, without meals and gala party (which was great this time, btw)? Attending some sessions and grabbing a coffee should come at a price that any student can spare, say 10-20$. --Pgallert (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

At the future Wikimania session, that option was proposed. It is not likely to be an issue in Capetown, but could be considered for other locations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Local youth around Cape Town are likely to have much less disposable income than those in Montréal. A really symbolic fee should do. --Pgallert (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone posed the question off-wiki "What price should registration be?" My fast initial reaction was "Ten units per day of the local currency, with WMF picking up the great bulk of the convention expense tab." A token charge is fine; trying to cover convention costs from admissions, which in any event is effectively another form of WMF funding when it is paying out on say 110 scholarships @ that large rate, only prices out those Wikipedians who are not recipients of scholarships and makes for a small, self-selecting clique of participants rather than a broad spectrum. There were locals priced out this year; we should make sure that this does not repeat itself in the future. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

how about a detailed and transparent accounting?

• In addition, how about a detailed and transparent accounting of exactly how much the WMF spends on this Wikimania? --Guy Macon (talk), 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Guy Macon made an excellent suggestion. Why keep secrets about funding? Edison (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Secrets? 207.134.107.253 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, secrets. an entry like "Expense - Wikimania direct Conference expenses such as venue, catering, audiovisual needs, public relations expenditures, etc. $489,000"[34] does not give us enough details to tell if the spending has been prudent. Did that "catering" cost $100,000 and feed 20 people, including a sizable under-the table kickback to someone on the WMF sfaff? We don't know. It's a secret. Did it cost $1000 and feed 200 people? We don't know. It's a secret. What if I wanted to do an analysis to see whether renting audiovisual equipment every time makes more sense or whether we should own the audiovisual equipment and ship it in? I can't do that analysis because how much we paid for audiovisual equipment and what we got for our money is a secret. Did we pay the customary price for renting the venue? Did we overpay? Did we get a great deal? We don't know. It's a secret. Why don't we have more financial transparency, with a detailed accounting of what we paid and what we got for our money? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  Over 900 attended the Wikimania including myself. The catering provided was just large enough to accommodate that. On top all conference members got breakfast and lunch included, as well as a closing party dinner.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can ask someone to take a head count and even to tell me what was on the menu, but why can't the WMF provide that information? Also, it does nothing to tell me how much was spent on catering per person. How much did they spend? Why is this a secret? Somebody paid the caterers, and the caterers had a contract saying what they would do for the money. Why not just publish that information along with a detailed accounting of what got spent on other things? Why is this a secret? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See here. Audiovisual equipment came in at €4.000 for 2016. Total cost for the venue was €55.000, which to me seems to be a good deal for a conference of this size anywhere in Europe (IIRC, CADE-26, 4 days with 110 participants, paid €30.000 in Sweden). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! "All expenses will be fully reported with receipts and reports of payments" That's exactly what I was looking for. We need to have that information be posted where anyone can easily find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just one comment. Some people seem alarmed and offended that attendees not on scholarship had to pay. Others seem alarmed and offended that the WMF spent money on the conference. Forgive me if I point out that alarm and offense and haughty dismissal of staff is not very interesting nor impressive to anyone serious. The idea that anything is being kept a nefarious "secret" is just... wrong.

My positions are as follows: I support expansion of the scholarship program (and thus spending more money on Wikimania overall). I support keeping costs overall as low as practical through the use of sponsorships, wise selection of venues, etc., while at the same time supporting that we not be silly about this. I support transparent accounting in line with normal standards for conferences of this type.

But even more than that I support that a number of people should drop the WP:Stick. It's boring.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Or you could simply instruct the WMF to publish a detailed accounting for all of our spending rather than listing a few broad categories like we did here and calling that "being in line with normal standards". I'm just saying. Why can't we lead the other non-profits in the area of financial transparency instead of just trying to get by by doing what others are doing?

• Radical transparency: These private companies reveal salaries, revenues, even bank balances
• Radical Transparency
• Nonprofit Management: Radical Transparency Can Save Philanthropy
• From Radical Transparency to Radical Disclosure: Reconfiguring (In)Voluntary Transparency Through the Management of Visibilities
• Radical Transparency Can Re-Energize a Company's Culture and Deliver Results
• Why Transparency Is Your Biggest Untapped Competitive Advantage
• The Case for Startups to Make Radical Transparency the Top Priority

-Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

What about a raffle?

• What about a raffle anyone could enter who wants to go next year? Any Editor or Reader? It could be advertised on our website like donation requests. We could even have 100 or 1,000 winners..."all expenses paid"? Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Other options

I'm sure there are many editors who were within a reasonable driving distance of Montréal, yet worked five days a week and were not prepared to take a vacation day to attend the Friday session. Perhaps a reduced fee pass for Saturday and Sunday only or maybe a Saturday only option would have attracted a number of editors with financial and/or time constraints.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Need articles for Wikimania 2017, Wikimania 2016, etc.

Another option would be to write separate, full-page Wikipedia articles for each year, to better summarize events for non-attendees (with links to sources, videos): separate pages for Wikimania 2017, Wikimania 2016, Wikimania 2015, etc. Then users with constraints on money, time, or vacation days could look forward to reading/updating the summary articles for each Wikimania conference and thereby become part of the events. That could help thousands of people participate more. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea — they all should easily clear GNG. It would be a good way to chronicle the events and speakers and such as well. There are various annual sporting events that get individual pages, this would be no different in principle. Carrite (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"Negative attitude"

When people criticize something it is really easy to claim that they have a "negative attitude", but this ad hominem is counterproductive.

Remember: "Play the ball, not the man". The WMF is often accused of being a circlejerk of people who are unwilling and unable to deal with criticism (both internally and externally), and it is difficult to change this perception. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Perhaps we need more Wikipedia essay-pages about discussing issues with a more-positive attitude. I forget the viewpoint of Foundation members feeling under attack for numerous issues, so enhancing an essay-page with tactics to avoid negativity might be very helpful for future discussions. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wikid77: Personally I am more in favor of teaching people that they are imperfect, and that others are allowed to criticize them. Criticism is incredibly valuable, we should thank those who raise valid points like @Carrite: above, and try to improve. We should not try to avoid negativity (especially not with that ad hominem used above); we should use negative feedback to our benefit. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That perception is not limited to the WMF. It is also characteristic of the admins, functionaries and some of a small group of editors who are allowed to get away with whatever they want. If they want to come after someone, they are allowed to intimidated, bully, troll and threaten all they want. If someone reports it, they are told they should just "ignore it", "just grow thicker skin", "take a break for a while", etc. The WMF sets the tone for these projects and that tone falls down to the admins here and that in turn is passed to the editors. Criticism and a desire to improve Wikipedia is looked at as a threat and those doing the criticizing, no matter how much they have done for Wikipedia to improve it, are determined to be a "threat" and blocked. Just look at what happened to Kumioko/Reguyla as a perfect example. They did over a million edits and tried to improve Wikipedia and they were trolled and harassed and bullied without end until they were banned. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:4D9F:586E:8234:7E05 (talk) 00:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Any rational, neutral, uninvolved editor who researches the Kumioko story will quickly learn that this person was deeply and profoundly disruptive in many ways, that they harassed and bullied others, and that their ban was 100% justified. I feel very sorry for a person with such deep problems, and hope that they can find peace and healing somewhere else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen: Please provide three links, or even one, showing that Kumioko bullied anyone! I can't find one anywhere and I watched that saga in disgust for a couple years. It and Floquenbeam in fact were the main reasons I walked away from this place even though I cared deeply about my areas of interest. I can certainly provide some that show that they responded to some bullies, stood up to bullies, was insulted and threatened and even trolled, mostly by the same half dozen people, a couple of which are admins and shouldn't be allowed to get away with that sort of conduct. Where is the morale high ground when Floquenbeam tells editors to F off? Where is the outrage when an editor is wrongly accused, without proof of being a sock? People here need to spend more time editing and improving Wikipedia and much, much less time trying to make names for themselves by banning and blocking as many editors as they can. Kumioko was banned because they stood up to problematic admins like Floqeunbeam and unless you provide some links showing otherwise, your comments are just hearsay and libelous. My point here though is to point that case out as a perfect example of the negative attitude reflected towards editors on this project. The more you do here and the more active you are the higher the chances you are going to cross paths with someone that will try to push their negative attitude on that editor. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:4D9F:586E:8234:7E05 (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

After Kumioko was blocked, IP editor, that person socked repeatedly and sent harassing, bullying emails to many editors. There is no need to provide diffs here, especially since diffs of emails are not possible. Their behavior was monumentally disruptive and splitting hairs about how to categorize their bad behavior accomplishes nothing. You can accuse me of libel if you want but I spent many wasted hours reading evidence of Kumioko's disruption, and I summarize it by saying that the disruption was massive, and in my opinion, this person needs professional help off Wikipedia. As for spending more time creating content, I am primarily a content creator and you can see lists of several hundred articles I have worked on by reading my user page. Anyone who has a sincere interest in the Kumioko matter can conduct their own independent inquiry and reasonable people will understand why the community ban was necessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

And how is that different than the "Negative attitude" an bullying that they were subjected too? I also read a lot about it and most of that "evidence" you speak of was nonsense and the only reasoning that makes that ban "necessary" as you put it is if you want to protect a hostile environment on Wikipedia. But I don't see you trying to improve that hostile, negative attitude that is project wide and systemic, you are justifying it. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:4D9F:586E:8234:7E05 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Kumioko has even been banned from most of the sites that are dedicated to criticizing Wikipedia, that are populated in no small portion by other banned WP editors, due to their over the top woe is me behavior and making everything about them. There's no shortage of favoritism or scapegoating on WP but Kumioko is no hill to die on. Capeo (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's true that they were banned on Wikipediocracy but that is hardly an insult given that the owner of that site are themselves banned by the WMF but they haven't been banned on any other sites so again, that is just hyperbole and lies. Kumioko's ban was based on lies and people too stupid or lazy to know any better and that is exactly the type of negativity that this thread is about and the reason why so many critics bash Wikipedia, why so many people stopped editing, why so few new people are joining the site and why every year the WMF has to spend more and more donation dollars just to keep the site running and editors editing. If they weren't paying a couple dozen admins on staff, many would likely have stopped editing themselves. As it is, they are in the WMF's pocket and contributing to the negative attitude. And yet again, no has provided one link or one shred of proof of wrongdoing against Kumioko other than they didn't follow their ban like a good little editor. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:4D9F:586E:8234:7E05 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

One question to consider is whether it's better to criticize with a moderate tone or an agressive tone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

One of the downsides of communication via written text is that it can be quite difficult to know how to interpret a message. Speculating about the intentions of others is often not helpful. We also have to deal with cultural differences. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a fact people can read something written in a foreign language as long as a couple of millennia in the past, & detect subtleties like sarcasm, humor, & irony -- yet two people communicating online who share the same native language on the same day can completely misunderstand one another. I can't explain it, but I often wonder at this dissonance. -- llywrch (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change was allegedly banned for "harassing admins by filing bogus reports at AN/I". The community didn't consider that bad behaviour - only administrators supported. Moreover the "bogus report" cited was actually a complaint that an administrator had removed the editor's defence from her own SPI page. Isn't this editor being "trolled, harassed and bullied", as the OP puts it? 176.27.97.220 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, now we have 2 socks in this thread arguing their innocence. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

And both referring to themselves in the third person because "surely" nobody would catch on who they really are. Nope! We're all fooled here. Good fun with popcorn though. Ravensfire (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The heart of the issue

Neither of the comments which Jimmy suggested were too abrasive are very strongly worded. But the topic is adjunct to the fact that Wikipedia is built entirely on unpaid labor, much if not the vast majority of which is from editors who can not afford a few hundred dollars to attend an event with their compatriots. 223.104.3.238 (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly then the people who actually work on Wikipedia do not go to those events. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You understood incorrectly. If you've been to a Wikimania, you'd know that many of the best contributors attend. So please do not just address this question out of total ignorance. State some facts if you can, but nonsense masquerading as informed opinion is worse than worthless. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Sounds like you've been to at least one Wikimania... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I found this. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Demographics we can estimate the median income and thereby derive how many Wikipedians could but don't want to go to Wikimania. However, we can also estimate that the number who want to but can't may be much larger than the typical number of scholarships. I expect someone better at math than I to figure it out. My inclination is to just start cutting huge checks to the historical Editors of the Week while someone figures out a more optimal distribution. 116.117.135.234 (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Youtube or videos as a source

Hi Jimbo. There is currently an editor that I feel is making a mockery of wikipedia by suggesting a video as a source. Even the source he himself used on the talk page (this one) also describes Khatumo as a seperate government though it usage of the word "maamulka" which means administration, also colloquially used to signify a separate government or state. He simultaneously rejects Wiley (a reliable publisher) as a source. I would have simply reverted on British Somaliland but don't want to edit war. Not sure what to do now. 92.13.137.81 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think videos are not usable as sources, then you are mistaken. The usability of a video, depends on its contents and it's creators, not on the platform or the medium. We have our rules, and if you have specific questions, please ask them. But generally, Jimbo's talk page is not the best place for these things, as he rarely intervenes in editorial problems. Please see our dispute resolution process —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Im not sure if this would be something your interested in but oh well:

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC of interest

At WT:NOT on a possible change to that policy, with wide impact on all articles relating to recent events. [35] Coretheapple (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)