User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 233

Archive 230

Archive 231

Archive 232

Archive 233

Archive 234

Archive 235

→

Archive 240

2FA?

Just out of curiosity, do you (Jimbo, not the talk page stalkers) use two-factor authentication? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 13:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo's account had been hacked, and so he has strengthened his security, but it is inappropriate to ask his current security protocols (or his passwords!) here. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an introductory guide to 2FA for a Wikipedia account here. It is "currently experimental and optional" and I wonder how many people are actually using it. 2FA has to be done right or there is a risk of locking yourself out of the account, which is a different problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I use 2fa.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I know some people have criticized the current implementation of 2FA, but as long as you keep a record of your Scratch Keys (which are generated when 2FA is set up) I believe dev people can recover an account even if you manage to lock yourself out of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Re: "it is inappropriate to ask his current security", not discussing security details violates Kerckhoffs's principle and encourages Security through obscurity. It is an extremely common misconception that security through obscurity is desirable, but virtually all security experts have rejected this view as far back as 1851. This is a counterintuitive concept, where what seems to be a good idea to most people when they first hear about it actually turns out to be a bad idea. Basically, the good that comes out of many people knowing the security details far outweighs the bad that comes from the bad guys knowing the security details.

There is a current RfC at Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose#RfC about when to talk about stuffing beans up your nose concerning this issue. Please don't let my well-known opinions sway you if you go to the RfC. Just evaluate it according to our policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have explained on the RfC why Guy Macon is wrong. These principles are about how to best design a perfectly secure system, not how people should behave when using real-world and sadly sub-optimal systems. Everyone using security must assume their system fails Kerckhoffs's principle, and minimise information disclosed. As a basic example, if Jimbo had replied: "No I don't bother with 2FA and have my password written on a PostIt stuck on my monitor" you can see how providing information is generally bad. And before anyone says that it is obviously a bad idea to admit to weaknesses, all information is bad, and boasting of perceived strengths is asking for trouble too. There's the old joke that the computer nerd sets their WiFi SSID to "Unhackable" and returns the next day to find it set to "Challenge Accepted". -- Colin°^Talk 20:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between "here is why I disagree with most security experts and think security by obscurity is a good idea" and "I have explained why Guy Macon is wrong". --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Well the thing is, I don't disagree with "most security experts" and it is important to appreciate what certain guidelines are about (system design vs use). If you bother to read to the bottom of Kerckhoffs's principle, it quotes security expert Steven M. Bellovin saying "there's nothing wrong with trying to keep [your system design] secret – it's another hurdle factor the enemy has to overcome." Guy Macon is not only wrong but a little too full of himself. His over-complex eponymous password creation scheme isn't even one he claims to use himself (256 random characters created by some hardware random number algorithm IIRC). Last time I counted, I had nearly 400 different accounts all with different passwords. Now was my wiki password "correct horse battery staple" or "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", oh, I'm losing track. -- Colin°^Talk 23:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Your personal attacks do not strengthen your argument. Quite the contrary, actually. And with all due respect to what Steven Bellovin wrote 11 years ago, there is something wrong with keeping Wikipedia's security vulnerabilities secret. By suppressing open discussion you hinder the good guys from fixing the vulnerability. BTW, Wikipedia's security vulnerabilities are few and far between, largely because the developer community discusses them openly instead of keeping them secret. Finally, before criticizing me for not following my own advice, try actually reading it. I was quite clear in stating that I have ONE easy for a human to remember and hard for a computer to guess passphrase and that the one passphrase protects encrypted storage that contains random passwords for all of the websites I access. I never suggested that the user create dozens and dozens of easy for a human to remember and hard for a computer to guess passphrases. Doing that would make your passphrases really hard to remember, thus defeating the purpose. Please put your flamethrower away and have a calm, reasoned discussion. This isn't 4chan. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I suspect you haven't actually properly read what you wrote. On the 23rd you argued against mandating 2FA on Wikipedia as you claim it is "in general [] less secure than simply using a long, easy-to-remember-but difficult-to guess passphrase." Now, to me, that suggests you are proposing such passphrase for use on Wikipedia. You don't say "less secure than a 256 random character password generated by a hardware random number generator". You then posted some links to lay articles that contradicted your position (they say that even weak 2FA is better than none). You went on to expand on your claim with a 1200-word rambling essay. And I'm afraid that the moment you labelled it "Macon's Principle" your ego became fair game for discussion/mockery and you are no longer capable of a reasoned discussion, because you've dug a hole for your ego and placed yourself in a position where you can't back down without serious loss of face. You have repeatedly misquoted/misunderstood Kerckhoffs's principle and Security through obscurity and taken guidance for system designers and misapplied it to system users. In your "principle", you note "Just write your passphrase in whatever way you normally write. If you are handicapped in such a way that you cannot type the same thing every time, sorry, but you are hosed on Wikipedia or on any other system that requires a username or password." So clearly you are intending others to use this passphrase scheme to log into Wikipedia. Nowhere in that "principle" do you say that this passphrase should be used to log into your password manager software, which then maintains a list of ultra secure, computer generated and impossible to remember passwords that are then copy/pasted or script-inserted into the website. Forgive me if I didn't read all your postings over the last few days. I see someone has already raised the point I made and you admitted some days afterwards that your "principle" only applied to your master password.

You claim "If you follow Macon's principle, 2FA or any other form of add-on security is not needed." This is a bold and egotistical claim [there's no getting round that, your name is in the claim]. It is at odds with all current security advice, which is generally moving towards 2FA and not towards Macon's principle. You have assumed that a strong password is all you need. You have forgotten that there are weaknesses involved in getting that password from either your head or from a password manager and into Wikipedia's servers whereupon it is hashed. Lots of opportunity for your password to be compromised. A keylogger could capture your passphrase as you type it. A malicious script or browser add-in could intercept the password manager's add-in that places the password into the boxes for you. Or if you use a non-browser password manager, then your computers clipboard is another opportunity. Flaws or evil code in the the WMF server code (or libraries that they download and use) could also get your password before it is hashed. These are all real weaknesses that have been exploited over the years. The reason we have 2FA is that we don't trust passwords on their own, no matter how long and wordy they are. And that is standard security advice.

The claim that keeping information about a security system (or personal security-related information) secret always makes the system weaker is a very hard claim to prove but very easy to disprove. I've already given examples on the BEANs talk page. And a few examples are all that are needed to disprove any "always/never" dogmatic "principle". There are many more. In the real word, all systems we use break Kerckhoffs's principle and all are made weaker when users supply information about themselves. In the real world, security issues go unfixed. There are unfixable issues with SMS, email and all old browsers and old operating systems have unfixed issues, yet we continue to use them at work, and most people's mobile phones are not up-to-date with the latest software. Disclosing information about unfixed security issues is contentious and certainly not an easy or obvious problem to solve with dogma. You naively believe that releasing information will inspire an army of open source good guys to fix the problem before the bad guys get out of bed. Sorry, but the flaws in the UK direct debit scheme that were so amusingly exploited when Jeremy Clarkson posted his bank account details and approximate location of his home in the Sun have still not been fixed. There is enough information in the cheque I use to pay my window cleaner to allow him to pay his mortgage from my bank account. Of course, it would be spotted and he'd go to jail, but he could still do it. We live with these flawed systems: I don't go posting my bank details, address and signature on the web, so my risk is limited to worrying about my window cleaner.

Coming back to the original question, Jimbo could only answer the question one way that didn't compromise his security: he had to claim to use 2FA, whether he does or not. If he's said he didn't use it, then he's just provided information to a hacker that if you break or intercept my password then you will gain access to my account. All such information makes it easier for the bad guys. Don't make it easy for the bad guys. -- Colin°^Talk 09:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "fair game for mockery", "you've dug a hole for your ego" and "you are no longer capable of a reasoned discussion", because of your repeated personal attacks I do not wish to have any further interaction with you. From now on, If I see a comment with your signature on the bottom of it, I will skip it unread and move on to the next comment.

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people.

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

-Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, p 149

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I see from this statement that you don't want to use 2FA on Wikipedia, and from other comments that you think a secure password means you don't need 2FA at all. This is entirely up to you but you cross the line when you start recommending to others that 2FA is not necessary. And this is why I'm posting here, not to try to convince Guy Macon, who was a lost cause as soon as he stared using our forums for self-promotion. The UK National Cyber Security Centre (part of GCQH) publish their advice on using 2FA. I'm not even going to quote or paraphrase any of it; read it for yourselves. Wikipedians know to get important information from reliable sources, and to not trust random people on the internet with self-promotion agendas. -- Colin°^Talk 20:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: thank you for taking time to explain the advanced security issues. Several months ago, burglars broke into my car overnight (in U.S.) and took the money and items not obscure (phone charger, antique bottle, and even cointray in console); however, major $money hidden in the motor compartment was not taken. The best security, for me, has been multiple levels of security through obscurity, in multiple areas. Otherwise, the result has been smashed car windows or kicked-in deadbolts (who knew?), and burglars took whatever was not obscurely hidden, while everything hidden survived the thefts. Obscurity was the solution, even if changing passwords more often, or using obscure usernames. I recommend multiple hidden compartments, some with wrapped foil or fire safes as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I was selling burglar alarms door to door years ago and 1 homeowner came to the door and after I started talking he looked at me angrily and said; "I guess you're just trying to find out if I have a burglar alarm, well I do and its a good one, and slammed the door." I had to think about that for awhile. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow funny they thought you were a burglar casing the house. As a child, left alone for an hour in the house one evening, two strangers turned up at the front door. They asked to speak to my parents, but I said they weren't in. So they tried to chat friendly and asked what I was looking forward to for Christmas. I said I hoped to get some games for my ZX Spectrum. They hoped I got my wish and left. Afterwards I felt really guilty that I'd told these men we had an expensive computer in the house that they might want to steal. I also felt bad that I'd spoken to strangers. I admitted to my parents what happened. Mum asked if the two men were smart with dark suits. Yes. Did they have little black name badges. Yes. Well I don't think you need to worry about them stealing our computer. -- Colin°^Talk 08:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

) your Mum is/was smart.

Seriously? You hide cash under the hood of your car? You are a crazy person. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And all the richer for it. But I remove the $money before the auto mechanic arrives, and hide it elsewhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I hide my money in a bank. It works well. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hacking attempts

I got this message today: "There have been 18 failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device since the last time you logged in. If it wasn't you, please make sure your account has a strong password."

There are about 10^128 possible passwords of the length and character set I use, so my account won't be hacked anytime soon. Count Iblis (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: hackers gotta hack! If you don't want to see these messages you can disable them in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Only 18? Some people have had hundreds. It's almost certainly a brute force attack based on a list of common passwords, and if you use a unique strong password then they are unlikely to live long enough to crack it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And some of us got literally thousands, prompting some editors to ask why there isn't an attempt limit in place. Many sites will ask for a positive password re-set, via email confirmation, after only three or four mistaken attempts. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey kids! Let's make every Wikipedia user reset his password! Wouldn't that be fun! You can buy permanent control over a botnet with 10,000 infected computers (and 10,000 IP addresses) for $200. Buy the botnet and you can hit all 1,200 administrators at the exact same time, hit all 130,000 active editors in a couple of minutes, then spend the rest of the day hitting the as many of the 35,000,000 registered users as yoiu can. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a forced reset could be a disaster. A throttling, maybe to something like one request per hour after say three failed/unconfirmed attempts, seems reasonably sensible - reducing the frequency of attempts makes a huge difference to the likely success of a brute force attack. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

So was there any pattern to this latest attack? Who was targeted? I'm happy to wait for $195 in the January sales... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia so there are of course several attacks going on at once. The attack you and several others in this thread experienced was related to you editing on or near the ref desks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there's an incredible amount of disruption at the ref desks at the moment. Does that reliably geolocate to anywhere in particular? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's the person known as the ref desk troll. They are using open proxies so don't reliably geolocate anywhere. Also, devs are looking at the issue mentioned above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jimmy, any chance of allowing two-factor for all users please? I use it as an admin, I think it would be reassuring to a lot of users to be able to protect their accounts this way. Also, can it be mandated for privileged users by a set date please? Orangemike is the latest Level 1 desysop as compromised. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Lots of admins have enabled 2FA and then found they could not log in when something unexpected happened. See phab "2FA" search. The WMF does not want to store private recovery information and there is no good way to restore accounts once 2FA has broken. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• @JzG: Actually, there is a user group for enabling 2FA, which any user can make a request for it at meta:Steward requests/Global permissions. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 02:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not close enough to the tech these days to know the current state of the ability to offer 2fa more widely. Based on broad industry trends, I would say that in due course, 2fa will be available for everyone, and probably mandatory for those in higher permission roles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed SemiHypercube. I just went through the set-up myself to enable two factor authentication as a normal user and it was an easy process. Those who want the extra security can have it. Honestly, I would make it mandatory for administrators and anyone with access to sensitive data. If someone wants advanced permissions and can't take an extra measure to secure their account, I'm not sure how you can say you can be trusted with those permissions. — Moe Epsilon 02:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Two-factor authentication" is in concept (like in our article) a very broad category. In practice it seems to me to be about connecting accounts to phones. But as many successful Bitcoin thefts have demonstrated, phone companies are generally eager to help out someone who asks the right questions the right way, allowing them to get control over the users' phone. I suppose spooks benefit greatly when phone tech support people and/or companies imposing 2FA help them flesh out their phone databases, but I am more skeptical about whether it would actually protect the users. I'd feel more protected if, for example, I knew exactly how many login attempts the last 33 "multiple failed login attempts" messages I received actually were. The present help file makes me suppose, maybe, that means 33 x 5 = 165 failed attempts, which is a trivial threat, but is it? Wnt (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I had one account with 2FA set to email a login code to another account, rather than text a login code to a mobile phone. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Honeypot accounts can also be used. If for every real account there are hundreds of honeypot accounts with easy to crack passwords, then almost all hacking attempts will end up hacking a honeypot account. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

One can set this up such that when logged into such a honeypot account the entire Wikipedia becomes your sandbox that is initialized to be the current state of Wikipedia. It then looks like all your edits are actually being made when in reality nothing goes through. Count Iblis (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That part wouldn't work -- Wikipedia is world readable, and the attacker has instant recourse to alternate IP addresses to read it. WMF could fool around trying to set up some kind of "secret" Pending Changes to facilitate some elaborate scheme of shadow-banning, but such schemes could only be used against legitimate editors for political reasons, not any attacker worthy of note. The purpose of the honeypot account is a) to identify the source of hacking attempts in real time and b) to reveal if there is some source (compromised password file!) that allowed the attacker to log in successfully on the first try. It might be productive to make it so that login attempts into other accounts fail if you've logged into a honeypot account, but then again, failing to log into multiple accounts might also be actionable. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Habeus corpus/Huawei arrest

Jimbo, I am no fan of who I still call Communist China, but I do have an overriding concern about theHabeas corpus aspect of this Meng Wanzhou's arrest in light of Reuter's saying "Reuters was unable to determine the precise nature of the possible violations." and "The company has been provided very little information regarding the charges and is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng," it said in a statement. and "Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a daily briefing on Thursday that China had asked Canada and the United States for an explanation of Meng's arrest, but they have “not provided any clarification". and "She was detained while transferring flights in Canada, it added." I believe that the Magna Carta first gave all us little people in the civilized world all the right of habeus corpus and I was pissed off when the big bully stole that right with double speak "Patriot Act"...and even more annoyed that the rest of the western world allowed our right of habeus corpus to be castrated. I don't know or care about whatever the USA is up to with their secret courts and global intimidation tactics but I am concerned when my Canadian government is enlisted into this kind of apparent habeus corpus abuse on steroids. What do you think about the threat to our, your and my, habeous corpus right? Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Without actually having read a full article on the arrest (that's not required to comment on this page, is it?), I don't believe that it's a matter of habeas corpus. There is a law in the US on economic sanctions, preventing people from selling certain goods to certain countries. Yes, these laws sometimes are intimidating and meant to be so. It may be better than the alternatives (e.g. war or doing nothing). In this case, I think it's related to the sanctions on Iran. I don't personally buy into the economic sanctions in this case, but I might, e.g. for North Korea. Canada has apparently agreed to the law and to help enforce it. So Meng may have broken this or a similar law, and she got on the "wrong" plane. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

WSJ on bail hearing Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

more details on bail hearingNocturnalnow (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance of the right of Habeas Corpus in this case. I don't think there has been any suggestion that she should not or will not soon have a day in court. Note that I'm neither supporting nor opposing nor even commenting at all on the merits of the case, as I have no idea. I'm just saying, Habeas Corpus is a technical term with a specific meaning and that it seems to have nothing to do with this case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, habeas corpus involves telling a judge what the charges are, not the press. The police often ask the judge to look at the information privately, so as to avoid revealing information about an ongoing investigation.

In this case, we know why the press isn't being told:

" 'Wanzhou Meng was arrested in Vancouver on December 1,' Ian McLeod, a Canadian Justice Department spokesman, said. 'She is sought for extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday. As there is a publication ban in effect, we cannot provide any further detail at this time. The ban was sought by Ms Meng ', McLeod said."[1]

-Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This article says "Meng also has the right to appeal the extradition judge's decision and apply for a judicial review of the minister's decision all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada." So, I think this could be a long and interesting case. Apparently she was arrested at the airport during a flight change, which just seems a bit Kafkaesque to me; I just feel sorry for her for some reason, I mean, its not like she killed anybody or invaded a country under false pretenses, and as of this moment, the way the system works, our Canadian government lawyers are arguing against her even getting out on bail. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It isn't just the US that has an issue with Huawei:

"In May, the Pentagon said that devices from Huawei and ZTE posed an "unacceptable" security risk. Personnel on US military bases are banned from buying equipment manufactured by the Chinese tech firms.

Over the summer, Australia barred Huawei from providing 5G technology for wireless networks in the country over espionage fears.

New Zealand followed suit in November, but said the issue was a technological one.

Britain's largest mobile provider too has joined the global ban on Huawei. On Wednesday, BT announced it was removing Huawei's telecommunications equipment from its 4G cellular network, following a warning from the head of MI6 foreign intelligence service that singled out the Chinese company as a potential security risk."[2]

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The fallout about this case between the US and China has more to do with sovereign rights of countries. Note that Huawei does actually stick to the US laws regarding exporting US equipment to Iran and other countries sanctioned by the US. So, this case may be about the US invoking the law on extremely flimsy grounds to force Huawei out of Iran in a way that's unacceptable to Huawei and the Chinese government. China's sovereign right to trade with whatever country they want to trade with is then being infringed by the US as far as China is concerned. This may prompt China to retaliate on another matter that also has this dimension of sovereign rights. E.g. the US has a made a big deal about freedom of navigation in the South Chinese sea, while China claims that the South Chinese Sea belongs to China. China has so far not imposed its own laws to block US ships from sailing close to its artificial islands, but that could change. So we may see a big diplomatic escalation between the US and China on many outstanding issues. Count Iblis (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This looks similar to the ZTE case, only that this time they arrested the CFO instead of enacting export sanctions against the company. From a company's point of view, the former is probably a lesser evil. ZTE got away by paying a hefty fine and giving promises. Maybe it is also relevant that Huawei, like Apple, has a patent royalty dispute with Qualcomm and refuses to pay. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We only got the Habeas Corpus Act because back in the seventeenth century a voting teller at the House of Lords recorded the vote of an unusually corpulent peer as ten votes in favour Habeas Corpus Act 1679#Parliamentary history. 91.110.30.168 (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 91.110.30.168. But I do see that the essence and spirit of habeas corpus does go back over 800 years to the Magna Carta with the Habeas Corpus Act, centuries later, providing a name and additional law supporting that essence and spirit, i.e. "King John’s Magna Carta guaranteed to all free men immunity from illegal imprisonment, a guarantee that has traditionally been invoked by way of the writ of habeas corpus."

Getting back to Meng Wanzhou, there is one critical point that none of us have been considering, which is:

From what is being reported, the secret, "sealed" warrant issued for her arrest was issued by 1/ONE Dept. of Justice District in the USA, the Eastern District of New York, and no charges have even been laid against her as yet, just a warrant for her arrest. And she, as of Monday, will have been in jail 10 days solely because 1 USA DofJ District/officials wanted her arrested when she was at an airport in the middle of a trip. I have no idea how many DofJ Districts there are in the USA, but I bet there are a lot. So, unless we all trust all of the DofJ officials in all of those districts to exercise intelligent, reasonable and non-politically motivated discretion in obtaining their secret "sealed" warrants, then each and every one of us have to be prepared to be arrested at any airport in the world during any trip we take if that airport is in a country which has an extradition treaty with the USA, AND, to be held in a jail of that country for at least 10 days before even knowing what the charges are against us, AND to have the 3rd. country's lawyers be pushing for us to 'REMAIN LOCKED UP' for perhaps many years if we want to exercise our right to fight the extradition. Now, maybe I'm missing something here, I hope so, if I am, please tell me.

Maybe you trust all of the USA officials in all of the hundreds of DofJ local Districts to think and act in a way that respects your civil rights but I sure as hell don't. I think the process of this arrest, regardless of who the target may be, is a blatant and abusive and revealing wake-up call to all believers in basic, universal human rights that the long reach of American law enforcement entities has become an existential threat to all of humanity and especially to each and every person who dares to exercise freedoms of speech, religion and association. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I will never forget what a different so-called "District Court" did to this nice, gentle, helpful young man, who I never met but I imagine many of you did, through one of their kangaroo court "grand jury" indictments which only requires a 50% vote to indict, and yes, I know there is no similarity between the targets of these District Courts but I see an identical bullying and satanically secretive process. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

China has demanded that Canada release the arrested Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou or face consequences. Count Iblis (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: "100s" There are 89 United States district courts in the 50 states plus 5 in US territories, each with their own US District Attorney. I certainly have some sympathy here, but are you saying that before somebody is arrested they have to be notified well beforehand that there is a warrant? How long do they have to wait? As I understand it, they now have the law enforcement officer tell you that there is a warrant, maybe even touch you with a printed copy if they brought that along, and then arrest you immediately - seems reasonable in most cases.

I'm surprised that nobody here has stressed the extra-territorial nature of the arrest and extraterritorial law. It does seem extreme at times, but it does have it's uses, e.g. in war-crime cases and similar, e.g.2 remember the Spanish court trying to arrest Augusto Pinochet while he was in a British hospital? I might go along with that type of extraterritorial law. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a real concern. It is likely that it was ignored because Nocturnalnow started this off with a bogus habeas corpus argument. We have four relevant articles at Extraterritorial operation, Extraterritorial jurisdiction, Extraterritoriality, and Conflict of laws. I would encourage anyone reading this to look those articles over and see if they can improve them. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I stand corrected re: habeas corpus, at least technically, but much more importantly ,imo, would your thoughts, opinions be the same if Mark Zuckerberg were sitting in a Chinese prison for the past 9 days because of some secret arrest warrant issued by a court in Russia? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

[EC] I wasn't aware that I had expressed an opinion on Meng Wanzhou's arrest, but I certainly wouldn't have a different opinion if it was Zuckerberg arrested in China. Assuming that anyone cares about my opinion, I am neither automatically against or automatically for extraterritorial jurisdiction. An example of a case where I would be against it is Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. An example where I would be for it is in cases of International child abduction, where I support the approach found in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction over whatever local laws exist in the country the kidnapped child ends up in. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Guy, about not having expressed an opinion re: this case, sorry. Also I like your approach of using intelligent discretion about extraterritorial jurisdiction, which I'm confident our Minister will do, but I hear the target has some health issues, so I just hope this all works out ok for her and Canada. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that we all have a natural tendency to be parochial when it comes to things like this to the point of any non-Canadian not really giving a hoot about the spot this process puts Canada in. About half an hour ago, I had to hear on CBC about the State-owned China Global Television Network calling Canada a "loyal dog" and "servant" of the USA as well as "Canada's “judicial independence” as a sovereign country (being) a joke and a lie" and threatening that "Canada could pay an unexpectedly heavy price for its action", all this when we're trying to get more trade going in Asia because USA is screwing up our steel and auto industries with big tariffs from "Tariff Man". Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Russians against for Net Neutrality

As if the issue wasn't complicated enough, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai conceded that 500,000 fake comments urging the death of the popular system came from Russian emails. and this Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The above is one reason why we should ban Huffington Post the same way we banned The Daily Mail.

Huffington post: "Millions Of Fake Messages Opposing Net Neutrality".[3]

Engadget: "Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has admitted that around 500,000 comments submitted during the net neutrality public comment period were linked to Russian email addresses. Pai noted in a court filing that most of the comments were in favor of net neutrality, which the FCC repealed last December".[4]

Actual words of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai: "...Instead, one finds the now-standard overheated rhetoric about “net neutrality” (omitting, as usual, the fact that the half-million comments submitted from Russian e-mail addresses and the nearly eight million comments filed by e-mail addresses from e-mail domains associated with FakeMailGenerator.com supported her position on the issue!)."[5] (He is referring to Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, a supporter of net Neutrality).

Brian Hart, an FCC spokesman: "The most suspicious activity has been by those supporting internet regulation"[6]

(Emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd want a reliable source for this, obviously, i.e. one not associated in any way with Ajit Pai. Guy (Help!) 06:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You want me to show that the claim that "FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai conceded that 500,000 fake comments urging the death of the popular system came from Russian emails" is false using a source not associated in any way with Ajit Pai? And you reject the reliable secondary sources I just provided because they looked up what Ajit Pai said in the public record before reporting what he claimed (That most of the fake comments were in favor of net neutrality)? I think that your team blue hoodie is obstructing your vision... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Huffington Post should be deprecated as a source, but outright bans are unhelpful as they look spiteful and inconsistent, "Why did you ban A but not B?"--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. Thanks for correcting so quickly! Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I may be overreacting but right now, because of this reported intrusion and statistical effect of bots, I am wondering whether we can trust any type of polling or ratings or 1-5 star ratings which come through the internet??? You guys would know better than me, but have biased bots already taken control over, or at least are influencing, most such statistical representations of population preferences which originate or accumulate via computer programs? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You can never trust feedback polls or 1-5 star ratings, anywhere, unless using a broad sample of all customers. Customer complaints could be a rigged group of gripes. This has been warned for over 30 years by quality guru W. Edwards Deming, who repeatedly warned people, when trying to measure results or opinions, beware: "By what method – only the method counts" because results must be carefully gathered, not rely on volunteered remarks, but rather use a method to get representative samples of all user opinions or machine operations. Otherwise, the "squeaky wheel gets the oil" while other wheels grind slowly but quietly to hinder quality of movement. Polls must use a method to sample all users, not rely on opinion polls where zealots can dogpile a slanted view. See related comments below. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Polling doesn't work until there is secure authentication of identity. At the moment, this prerequisite service does not exist for the general population. Jehochman ^Talk 17:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Valid statistical analysis requires tests of sampling: Many polls or surveys depend on random samples of the population, just as a computer simulation with a stochastic model would require concurrent runs with tests for randomness of the initial input data. Likewise, some longitudinal studies might try to mimic randomness by specifically selecting test subjects within representative age groups to be re-tested at the designated time points along the duration of the long-term studies. Hopefully, WP can explain such issues, adequately, under "Design and analysis of experiments". (And yes, I did insert as many related wikilinks as I could remember.). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Four times when having an online poll was a bad idea
• 15 Polls Hijacked by the Internet

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Securing the Financial Future of Wikipedia

Having recently used Wikipedia and been greeted with a request for a donation, I would like to speak with you, or send directly to you, a summary of a technology which could, in a very simply and user friendly way, ensure Wikipedia's financial future. Please contact me via "<redacted>" for a summary of this. 69.75.216.174 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to talk about my salary, while we're at it. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes same here. I hear the janitors of this place get better benefits than other labourers. Not to mention it takes a few minutes to summarily fire a labourer, but months to depose a single admi- I mean janitor. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Jimbo, I have a great deal on some swampland in Florida you have to get in on. Just contact me via "<retracted>" and I'll fill you in on all the details. Available for 4 easy payments of $24.99 (plus S&H). This product is not intended to treat, cure, or prevent any disease, and these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, the IRA, or the MPLA. --Jayron32 20:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Formalities

Hello Jimbo, please enjoy the WP:ACE2018#Result. Thanks! — regards, Revi 06:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Prescient comments

I was going through dusty old files and found this. Thought it might give you a chuckle. Or a shudder of recognition. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"Just to let you know....

...that whenever I see a racist comment on any page, I plan to remove it, and I will likely block the contributor. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds completely appropriate to me. Be sure to carefully follow policy and of course don't over-interpret remarks. But yes, racist commentary has no place in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [32] just wrecked my head. I hate this kind of garbage, deeply. I thought about this post a bit while at work today, and I should add a disclaimer that I wouldn't remove material that is "contextual," within an article. For example, a (very stupid) politician who has made some kind of racist remark that was noteworthy, or you know, historical comments, that are part of the knowledge base in WP. But if it's just random bigotry that I happen to find here and there, well....none of us should suffer such fools gladly. Or at all. Thanks for the "nod." Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course. Sometimes articles need to cover racism and racist attitudes. Of course we'll need to have examples in at least some such cases. I understood your meaning the first time around. But yeah, that comments - the one you linked to, above - is clearly out of line and not ok for Wikipedia at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)"

I hope we are still standing strong against this - and a lot more.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a big deal to a lot of people. I'll use this space to wish you the best in the coming year... WP is still one of the best presents I've ever gotten. Can you guess how many times I've cracked a Britannica in the past 15 years!? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some racial issues are difficult to explain: There seems to be confusion about racial issues, with some users being suspicious about hidden racial terms. For example, in the U.S., many people think the term "slave" automatically means "African black slave" because more than 10 million negro slaves were shipped from Africa into the Caribbean or South America during colonial times, while over 90% of U.S. antebellum slaves were born in the U.S. plus thousands were Native American slaves (not black) as in the New Mexico Territory, slaves termed "Genízaros" (see: [7]). Hence, talking about slaves can seem a suspicious reference to black/white racial issues, and people will hunt for hidden meanings behind every phrase. Meanwhile, WP has been overrun by users trying to equate the Confederacy with slavery, rather than check the sources which note how Southerners were freeing slaves up through the War and some States wanted the Confederacy to become a slave-only nation; however, the moderate legislators from Alabama and others decided not to banish free states as expelling states from the Confederacy if they emancipated slaves within a state ([8] p.105). After checking the facts, the Confederacy emerges as a moderate nation which limited the powers of their central government, limited federal spending on lighthouses or maritime navigation, forbid protectionist tariffs of import bounties (see: Morrill Tariff), and tried to deter federal pork barrel projects while allowing states to free slaves.

  Unfortunately, when trying to update WP pages about the phase-out of antebellum slavery, there is the risk of people seeing all issues as black/white tensions and screaming "racism". Such screaming has stunted WP's coverage of the American Civil War and the immense accomplishments of black people in building towns and bridges or elaborate mansions (Arlington House, Nottoway Plantation, etc.). Just mention blacks working with whites to build massive buildings or towns operating with numerous slaves running the daily activities ([9]), and beware the bickering.... For example, the first black soldiers in the Civil War were armed Confederate troops (thousands re Battle of First Manassas, see: [10]), while the Union had almost no black soldiers until March 1863, two years later, with the late introduction of the U.S. Colored Troops (USCT). There are many fascinating sources about teaching black craftsmen, better conditions after the French Code Noir (1685), and 1840-1865 attempts to repatriate slaves to Africa as in the American Colonization Society, etc. WP needs to stop all the racial witchhunts, add the facts about what black people actually have accomplished (even in the Cotton States), and try to discuss racial fears in a civil manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2018, +sources & link "Genízaros". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also as segregated North vs elitist South: Without calling any officials "racist" then perhaps WP can note how the U.S. Congress banned black employees in 1810 from U.S. Postal Service (see: [11]), or how Confederate President Jefferson Davis advised army re black Confederate soldiers but also fostered black child "Jim Limber" over a year in his home before end of Civil War. I have found a source stating how Southern slaves were treated as children (who never grew up), but it seems they could be semi-family members who "kept in their place". -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You already raised the racist "Irish slavery" trope and were slapped down and in fact blocked. You now appear to be engaged in full on "some of my friends are black" defence of Confederate racism - and you do it in the context of a discussion of Jimbo's a comment that racists should be blocked. I suggest you stop before this is once again found to be trolling and you end up blocked perhaps for a longer period. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to hear every side. Racial harassment is a real problem, as is any form of harassment, but editors who merely have racist beliefs should be debated fairly. Classic racist "evidence" like The Bell Curve badly needs to be put into context not merely of broader socioeconomic factors but in terms of child development, epigenetics and other ways in which a people may have to fight off lingering impacts of inequality for more than one generation. In recent news, one of the more amusing things coming out is that traditional racism, based on human genetics, may have neglected to notice that we are not humans, but ecosystems. Gut microbiota, affecting secretion of oxytocin in the brain, can determine whether an animal is autistic or not, [12] and these microbiota vary fairly consistently between the self-identified racial groups that have so little human genetic meaning. [13] Do the things we eat, the particular plants which have domesticated bacteria and mammals to serve their self-propagation, affect our character in subtler ways than autism? Perhaps people will be banned from the talk pages for inordinate hatred or pride regarding Lactobacillus reuteri heritage. Wnt (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting points about diseases which affect racial views. Also, I had suspected racial bias in one source, but kept reading to learn about Confederate President Jefferson Davis fostering a black child in 1864-65 (mulatto boy Jim Limber as his ward). People who self-righteously condemn others for "racism" are likely to be using reverse racism as thinking they are members of a master race of people who are not "racist" when judging other people as if lower than themselves. The irony can seem quite comical, but it is also sad to see such people with racial hangups and wonder why they harbor such hatred about racial issues that they want to silence everyone else without really listening. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make a point about not stifling discussions about racism and racial issues. I think. It's actually really hard to parse the meaning of your ramblings. However, in doing so, you come off as nothing more than a racism and slavery apologist. Stuff like slave owners treating their slaves like children and Davis fostering a black child in particular stand out as examples of such apologism ("they treated their slaves well, those black people were actually pretty well off!")--Atlan (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting you looked for the hidden meaning behind every phrase I clearly stated, so let me note it was "hard to parse" because I had no hidden meaning to parse. Now, I think there were over 3,700 antebellum black slaveowners, who owned black slaves, and it would be interesting to note how they were treated, in general, or if their work was hired out. Also, in over 10,000 slave weddings, between plantations, note how the bride/groom met each other across plantations. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't admit any such thing and your response, unsurprisingly, makes absolutely no sense.--Atlan (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77, dang boy, you hit the nail on the head. What were they complaining about? And who was kinder to slaves than the General, who almost freed the slaves that weren't his though they enriched him, or good old Jeff Davis, who was as kind to the blacks as George Wallace was? Who put the "lost" in Lost Cause of the Confederacy? Nothing but gallant chivalry against No-thern agression! If William Ellison owned slaves, that means slavery wasn't bad, and/or blacks DID IT TOO you know! Does Texas also do MLK and Robert E. Lee on the same day? (I can't believe I'm reading this.) Drmies (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating dialogue... You other editors have illuminated subtleties that I had only alluded too in my decade old post. It is obvious that in article space the project must give coverage to certain and conspicuous historical aspects of racist behavior. My truest intent in my OP to Jimmy was to clarify that I would banish editors who were actively vandalizing the 'pedia with their horrible bigoted shite. Moot point now, because I am no longer an admin. But I will "tell tale" on any racist pigs I see vandalizing our nice, tidy and perfect palace of words. My Best Regards to you noble editors! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help correct the "Irish Slavery Debate" which WP has covered for 2 years as a white-slave myth, despite history professors concluding that Irish slaves were both slaves and Irish indentured servants when kidnapped from Ireland and sold into forced labor by ship captains in the Caribbean islands (especially "Barbadoes"), during 1640-1665 re Cromwell. For years the WP article, as "Irish slaves myth", has promoted the viewpoint that those Irish men, women and children were not slaves at all, but merely "servants" despite being described as "Irish slaves" for centuries in historical writings. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The Irish slaves myth trope again? Really? Have you never heard of the Law of Holes? Guy (Help!) 09:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wnt: I do not subscribe to both-sides-ism when it comes to racism on Wikipedia. Remember that the two sides in the "debate" over racism basically come down to whether skin colour makes someone less human or not. There is a long and inglorious history of trying to split the difference on this, most notably the three fifths compromise. Racism is antithetical to Wikipedia's ethos, and editors who come here to advance racist ideas can and should be shown the door. We don't need to hear from them directly, we have plenty of sources that discuss their views. Racists and holocaust deniers can get in the sea as far as I am concerned: we do not need them in order to neutrally cover their views, and their mere presence here is often disruptive. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a very narrow generalization of racist beliefs, but when racism is actually alleged it seems to have a far wider scope. Criticizing minority cultural differences, opposing immigration, opposing Islam on political/philosophical grounds, opposing Zionism, defending police shootings, even making light of the potential reactions of an unspecified uncontacted tribe all can and often are presented as racist. And sure, sometimes they are, but if you use it in that sense racism is a far more prevalent and far less serious phenomenon than you make it out to be. But the biggest thing that we miss out on when we fail to engage with even the most benighted racists is the thought involved. You make it sound like the equality of the races is some kind of law of nature, when the truth is, it's a decent approximation of an empirical result. There are no races, nor even any families, who can't work mathematics or can't appreciate music or are inherently incapable of following laws, and nobody can explain why. I mean, supposedly human behavior evolved, right? So where's the evolution? You have an entire planet of people running around with, by all appearances, the same souls with the same potential characteristics, with the same opportunities for sainthood and atrocity in every country and continent, and the effect of ignoring racism is that you forget that, you forget that what makes people human is utterly inexplicable in modern science. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

See, Wnt, that's why I don't divide my bigotry. Every one of your points in the first sentence represents fine shades of unquestionable bigotry, even if it doesn't fit in the "racism" bucket. It creates a nice way for bigots to back out of blame for their fear and hatred, but are all still symptoms of the same disease. "It's not racist to criticize Islam" is only technically true, but that's only because the bigotry is not race-based, under most definitions of race. Let's start with being opposed to bigotry in all forms, and not worry about who the bigots have chosen to hate. There is no grey on any of these, it's the sort of thing we should not be giving credence to in any form. --Jayron32 21:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The strange part is that many of us grew up among vociferous criticism of Christianity, and it's hard to understand why in the name of being non-bigoted we are encouraged to criticize one but prohibited from criticizing the other. I mean, when Monty Python put out Life of Brian, even amid Troubles, they did not even fear terrorism let alone being hunted down by the authorities and thrown in jail like Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and certainly, they did not face an attitude that they deserved both those things to happen to them for stirring up trouble. For those who have seen religion be the plaything of politics for generations, it is frustrating to suddenly see a bastion of anti-gay, anti-female, anti-liberal thought that is taken to be an unassailable, unquestionable preserve that we are not to touch, and indeed, which many non-believers now treat with well-feigned reverence. Is that bigoted? Wnt (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I do draw a distinction between nationalism and racism, but in the current climate most nationalism is white nationalism and the most zealous opponents of immigration seem to have no problem with immigration - including anchor babies and chain migration - when the faces are white. One prominent proponent of white nationalist tropes has married three immigrants in succession, supported chain migration of the family of the third of these, and has never said a word about anchor babies from a hostile foreign power whose people are Slavic / white, possibly because the fathers are very often cronies of someone who has leverage over him. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A white nationalist might indeed take that position, but I think a large majority of Trump supporters would take an "illegal is illegal" position and not be favorable to loopholes for eastern Europe. It is also my impression that Brexit supporters and similarly-minded Europeans object to migration from the poor end of Europe, no matter how "Caucasian" it is. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? Let's go to the horses mouth re: Trump: Here trump advocates for restricting immigration from (his words) "shithole countries" during a discussion about immigration from countries with dark-skinned people (Haiti, El Salvador, various African nations) and suggested trying to increase immigration from "countries like Norway". It's funny how the same people who claim it's all about legal vs. illegal immigration simultaneously argue that we should make it easier for white people to legally immigrate and harder for darker people to legally immigrate. But you keep telling yourself it's not a racial issue. I'm sure if you repeat that enough, it will come true in the future. It's just clearly not true right now. --Jayron32 18:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I don't want to argue against you too hard, because I am suspicious of Trump on this point (more than his followers, though). But to me it looks like your path to victory is telling everybody who voted for Trump that they're not welcome on Wikipedia, which seems like a non-starter to me; and if this is all tied to "racism", you've done your own reductio ad absurdum. I should have called out your statement before that "It creates a nice way for bigots to back out of blame for their fear and hatred, but are all still symptoms of the same disease" above. Fear and hatred are a natural part of the human psyche, with dedicated regions of the limbic system; what racists do wrong is not that they hate and fear, but that in a world of low wages, acidifying oceans, wars, famines, plagues, crooks/corporations, and stupid bureaucratic policies, they waste their hatred and their fear on something pointless. Like the gasoline for an engine, hatred and fear are too precious to be sprayed around willy-nilly. But when you find yourself supporting excessive action against a large chunk of the population, and vilifying basic human emotions, what that means is you're reacting against a self antigen and participating in some kind of atopy. Take a step back and try again. Wnt (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You brought the subject of Trump up, and not me. I don't care who people voted for. I have no time, however, for people that excuse bigotry with hand waving, false equivalency, and facile, but wrong assessments of large ethnic or religious groups they know nothing about really, but are all to willing to mime incorrect arguments they heard from others because it confirms their simplistic worldview that people who look different or have a different religion than themselves are to be distrusted as an entire group.--Jayron32 03:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Real racists are very rare. A policy that aims to crack down hard on racists has the effect of imposing censorship on sensitive subjects. With all editors subject to such a regime, what you'll get is that occasionally people who are not racists will get banned or blocked. A recent real world example is the firing of Marc Lamont Hill from CNN "Yesterday, I gave a speech at the UN in which I critiqued Israel’s polices and practices toward Palestinians. It’s baffling how people are not responding to the critique, but instead responding to things I didn’t actually say." Count Iblis (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Real racists are very rare," but fake racists are everywhere? Levivich (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Except of course they are responding to things he actually said, and he's just upset his antisemitism caught up to him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear editorial colleagues, please... if my OP post is going to promote (unexpected) dialogue, let's not let it denigrate into name calling and finger pointing/ wagging. This is an important topic. Let us keep it very civil, if we possibly can? Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

(Insert picture of a goat tied to a stick... here->) Thanks in advance, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

[ATJ] Misbehaving sysop "Pablo Escobar", piracy, and permanent ban at the EO Wiktionary

Hello

My name is Taylor and I have been active at various wikies (EN,EO,ID,SV) for 2 years. Unfortunately I have run into severe trouble on EO Wiktionary. I am currently permanently (formally 3 months) banned there for the 3rd time.

The state if the EO Wiktionary is fairly bad (example of a Wiktionary in a good state: SV). The worse thing is the excessive piracy there. The administrator Pablo is obsessed by "improving the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by mass-copying everything from everywhere (other Wiktionaries (preferably DE), Wikipedia, over 100 years old low quality dictionaries, other (non-GFDL) sources, ...). Maybe copying from DE Wiktionary is not a "real" crime, it is just desperately useless. Pablo has already copied 10'000's of pages and templates from there. For example the section about the SV word "mus" (EN: mouse) as left behind by Pablo "improving the quality" was full of explanations in DE and translations to DE. I have fixed that page. I have fixed 100's of other pages with similar problems. Another fine page recently "contributed" by Pablo (efter having banned me) Kaiser - note the red template and category links, the "nekonata" whining and the script errors, as well as the dominance of DE and lack of EO. I have also fixed 100's of pages copied from some old SV<->EO dictionary, by correcting the provided translation, adding further translations, or labeling the word as "archaic". There used to be 7 templates for same thing: plural form of EN noun. One of them is copied from EN Wiktionary, others are copied from DE Wiktionary and renamed several times by Pablo. Many of them worked badly due to Pablo's lack of skills and "puristic" changes (replacing traditional grammar terminology like "pluralo" by "genuine" EO words constructed by literally translating ridiculously long compound words from DE) resulting in broken templates showing things like {{{2}}}. I created a new well-working template even suitable for "though" words like "virus" of "die". My work switching to the new template and deprecating the broken ones was violently interrupted by the ban. I have also created several (not insanely many) EO pages with definitions and examples. EO Wiktionary is far away from having satisfactory pages about even the most elementary EO words. Pablo doesn't care at all about definitions (the hardest part). Many pages about EO words "contributed" by em consist of nothing but the translation block, brainlessly copied from DE Wiktionary without changes, frequently even containing EO as destination language (the translation of the EO word "kato" into EO is "kato"). But the "best contributor" Pablo copies (frequently particularly lousily) from other (non-GFDL) sources as well. The problem got pointed some time ago by one former user (who had left EO Wiktionary). Pablo deleted the 3 pointed pages (I re-created 2 of them without piracy soon after) and ey promised to delete all other pirated pages that ey would find. Ey gave a f**k about even searching. Later I pointed 2 further pirated pages. Pablo ignored the message. There are 1000's of more of less directly pirated pages there.

There are currently 3 active "contributors" at the EO Wiktionary. Me, permanently banned and unable to edit anything except my discussion page full of unproductive bickering with Pablo and appeals than nobody reads. Then Noelekim contributing valuable edits to an EN->EO list-type dictionary. Pablo has even created a few EN pages, (lousily) copying from this dictionary. This contributor doesn't edit any other pages and doesn't participate in discussions and bickering (maybe ey just fears a ban). The last and actually pretty exclusive "contributor" is Pablo "working" hard in order to turn the former EO Wiktionary into another (piracy-powered) DE Wiktionary.

Pablo doesn't appreciate my contributions at all. I have been accused many times for "notoriously destroying other people's work". According to Pablo brainless mass-copying is valuable "work", while fixing such mess by me is "destroying other people's work". I was also working to create a few smarter templates allowing to replace hundreds of primitive mass-created or mass copied-in templates. This was not appreciated either, the work is not finished and I can't continue. There are frequently absurdly many (3 or even 5 or even more) templates for very same thing, just abbreviated and spelled differently ("ark", "Ark", "ark.", "Arkit", "ARK", ...). There are redundant templates copied from other Wiktionaries, spelled in DE, ES, IT and more. Pablo is continuing to "really improve the quality" of the EO Wiktionary by adding further redundant templates. I got also accused for "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". I had admittedly edited many templates, but none of my edits had the effect according to the accusations. More likely Pablo is angry about the fact that I have skills for editing templates and modules while ey does not have such skills, and solved eir problem with undesirable competition by banning me. But it comes even worse. Some time ago (year 2014) Pablo emself performed a (primitive) edit on a template (EO verb declension table) with effect according to accusations: "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates". Ey even boasted with this edit in the news (year 2017, pretty late news) on the title page (that nobody else can edit). Apparently Pablo has the right to "spread evil neologisms to all pages via templates" while I don't have such a right, because Pablo is the emperor while I am just nothing. Note that I actually have NOT spread any neologisms to all pages via templates. The previous ban was "justified" by among Other Nonsense Complaints About Me Refusing To Use Uppercase Letters. This seems to be a "rule" imported by the DE nationalist Pablo from the DE Wiktionary. I refuse to follow DE rules (Obligation To Begin Every Word With An Uppercase Letter) at the EO Wiktionary.

I have got banned 3 times. The "justifications" given by Pablo are very long but incomprehensible even for people proficient in EO, and accusing me for including but not limited to "acting like a dictator" (Pablo emself either doesn't act like a dictator, or maybe ey does have the right to act like a dictator while I don't), "using lowercase letters" (see above), "notoriously destroying other people's work" (see above), "repeatedly submitting nonsense" (apparently Pablo's own nonsense (this is DE again, not EO) either doesn't count as nonsense, or maybe Pablo has an absolute right to submit unlimited amount of (pirated) nonsense, while I don't have a comparable right), or "spreading evil neologisms to all pages" (see above).

After having banned me the last time, Pablo published a news item about me containing not only false accusations about "spreading evil neologisms to all pages via templates", but also evil sexist insults using male words despite I am not male. I cannot answer to the post denying the shameful nonsense because I am banned.

Pablo got crowned to permanent administrator in year 2010 by just 3 YES votes from totally 3 votes. Those 3 people left the project long ago, Pablo remained and became the permanent absolute emperor at the EO Wiktionary. The last successful election to an administrator was held 2017-Jan, Castelobranco got 4 YES votes from totally 4 votes. The steward restricted Castelobranco's adminship to 1 year pointing to the low amount of votes of 4, while Pablo with 3 votes previously got permanent adminship. Castelobranco left the project 4 months later, eir adminship expired silently 2018-Jan, and Pablo alone is now the absolute emperor for all eternity.

Pablo gives notoriously a f**k about community consensus. About 1/2 year ago I initiated 2 ballots:

• "Should DE play a privileged role here at the EO Wiktionary?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes
• "Should non-EO words have a translation block?" -> 4 NO-votes from totally 4 votes

Great! But Pablo gives a f**k about it and continues copying complete pages from DE Wiktionary, together with all "needed" templates with DE names. This method apparently "saves work" for Pablo. The SV Wiktionary does not have a single DE template, and non-SV words don't have any translation block (and not images either). Pablo's aggressive DE nationalism is taking over the EO Wiktionary and nobody (except me) dares to protest.

I have repeatedly suggested for Pablo to go back to the DE Wiktionary where ey apparently came from. No result.

There are further problems with Pablo's conduct. In the recycle bin there are almost 1'000 candidates for deletion accumulated during many years. Pablo gives a f**k about deleting them. Ey doesn't archive the discussion page (90% of content is globally distributed spam in EN) either.

On the title page of the EO Wiktionary (that nobody except Pablo can edit) we can read that the EO Wiktionary is supposed to become "the greatest and most complete" dictionary ever. Just now this "greatest and most complete" project ever has the most incapable and arrogant administrator ever, filling the dictionary by (lousily) pirating from over 100 years old low quality dictionaries and other dubious sources (DE Wiktionary), and banning everybody attempting to contribute in a different manner. Pablo has repeatedly boasted with things like "I have been tolerating your" ... (followed by absurd accusations) ... "but now my patience is exhausted". Pablo behaves like the exclusive owner of the EO Wiktionary and a dictator.

There is no reason at all why Pablo should be an administrator. Neither the election 8 years ago (electors went away long ago, and on many wikies all admins have to be reconfirmed evey year), nor merits (the amount of edits is tremendous, but it's >= 99% piracy, Pablo is a manually operating pirating bot), nor the skills (Pablo can barely code templates, and not att all code modules), and last but not least nor the conduct.

On the EO Wiktionary there is a page Administrantoj with section Misuzo_de_la_administrantaj_rajtoj (abuse of the admin rights) saying:

Al administranto povas esti liaj rajto deprenita, se tiu la rajtoj misuzas. Nuntempe povas la admnistrant-statuso esti deprenita aŭ per decido de Jimbo Wales, aŭ pere de decido de Arbitracia komisiono. Laŭ ilia decido oni povas doni malpli altajn punojn, ekz. limigo de uzado de iuj funkcioj. Teĥnike povas la administrantajn rajtoj depreni stevardoj.

An administrator can be deprived of eir rights if ey abuses those rights. Currently the admin-status can be canceled by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee. According to their decisions lower punishments can be ruled, for example restricting the usage of some functions. Technically the stewards are responsible for removing administrator rights.

The "Arbitration Committee" is a red link. There doesn't seem to exist any Arbitration Committee on the EO Wiktionary, and the promised "Global Arbitration Committee" doesn't exist yet and probably never will. I tried to appeal via my user page but the template {{unblock}} doesn't work there, Pablo gives a f**k about my appeals and no other admin exists. Then I appealed to the Arbitration Committee on the EN Wikipedia. The result was a rejection by only 8 NO-votes from 8 total votes sending me to "Requests for comment". Nobody seems to read that page, the only one comment posted there sends me to you. During a pause between 2 bans I seized the occasion and posted a proposal to desysop Pablo. Not a single comment or vote came it.

It is extremely easy to create a new account and continue editing from it, or just edit as an IP-address. Unfortunately I would prefer to leave Pablo alone with bad behaviour and avoid coming near to sockpuppetry. Nor I am willing to wait until 2019-Feb-13 when the ban is expected to expire, allowing me to perform a few edits before I get banned again, maybe for 2 years, maybe genuinely permanently.

The EO Wiktionary has been hijacked by a severely misbehaving administrator. There is no local community able to deal with this. There is no exclusive private right for Pablo to own a public wiki. 2 "instances" have sent me to you with the issue. Please desysop Pablo. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you please provide links to 10 separate examples of copyrighted material that is reproduced on the Esperanto Wiktionary? I would like to see links to the Wiktionary page and links to the copyrighted pages the material came from. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and Jimbo Wales: YES we can. Do you need 10 pages? Here you have 4 (this is NOT all):

• junto (created 2014-Jul-12 by "Pablo Escobar", nominated for deletion 2018-Oct-18 by "Tayor 49", not yet deleted) pirated from vortaro.net/#junto
• loka%C5%ADti pirated from vortaro.net/#loka%C5%ADto
• kazo pirated from vortaro.net/#kazo
• komparacio pirated from vortaro.net/#komparacio

BTW: some IP-dumbhead succeeded to create a "well working" template "unblock" in the meantime. Taylor 49 (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC) fixed Taylor 49 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The first three led me to a box that supposed I should fill out -- but I don't understand the language. The last one claims that https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio was pirated from https://eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/komparacio.

Let's try again. Give me a single example where I can read both pages and verify that the text is the same or nearly the same, and where the source does not have a Creative Commons or public domain license that allows re-use. I plan on using Google Translate to figure out what the pages say, and may ask for a translation of the Goggle translate software doesn't give me the same general meaning for both pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I fixed my stupid C&P-error above. Is it the left links or right links that do not work for you? The right links "vortaro.net" do work for me and there is no box that one is supposed to fill in. If they don't work for you then we have a phenomenon called Geo-blocking. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Page eo.wiktionary.org/wiki/junto was pirated from vortaro.net/#junto (screenshot of "vortaro.net": s1.bild.me/bilder/110417/3227363piracy.png). Hopefully you are not geoblocked from seeing the screenshot too. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, after a minor intervention by AFBorchert, some pseudo-progress occurred in the matter. Pablo answered to my appeal (result: still permanently banned) and deleted the two pages junto and loka%C5%ADti with empty comment. Note that something like "Deleting page previously pirated by me, Pablo Escobar, from PIV ie vortaro.net, and sorry for the piracy." would have been more suitable than silence. There are more piracies available: ricevi pirated from vortaro.net/#ricevi. Is it now my task or Pablo's task to find and delete all the piracies from there? I still don't see any reason why Pablo should be sysop there or anywhere on any public Wiki. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A steward deleted 3 files from EO Wiktionary. Probably not a symptom of a well-funtioning local sysop. Can someone look into the core problem (someone who "accidentally" became sysop 8 years ago owns a public wiki)? Taylor 49 (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: These deletions were done on request on Meta. It is common practice to ask stewards to delete your own Javascript/CSS configurations on various projects to enable your global settings (see meta:Synchbot). This is in no way related to the adminship of Pablo Escobar. Regards, --AFBorchert (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert and Jimbo Wales: Maybe. There is still a problem with Pablo exclusively "owning" the EO Wiktionary, the unjustified ban that cannot be appealed against, and the piracy. Taylor 49 (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: In your comments you address two points, your temporary block and the possible copyvios. I wonder whether the latter was discussed at Esperanto Wiktionary before. In my opinion it would be best to start with the local processes on the Esperanto Wiktionary. If this fails, i.e. if copyvios are not taken care of, this could be posted at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous with a reference to the local discussion. Even if there is only a very small community at that site, the community should not be bypassed. Perhaps it could be helpful to ask a seasoned admin of the Esperanto Wikipedia project for advise. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert and Jimbo Wales: As stated above, the piracy has been discussed at EO Wiktionary. Pablo is willing to delete pages but one has to separately heavilly pressure em for every single piracy page (strategy "if you can't avoid it then make it at least as expensive as possible"). The fact that I am banned makes it impossible for me to discuss anywhere outside of my user page. I did not try at all to bypass the degenerated local community (see many links above). But Pablo gives a f**k about almost everything. The local processes simply don't work. Pablo doesn't care and nobody else is present. I have not yet tried to ask a former sysop, but I fear an answer "I am no longer sysop thus this is NOT my problem.". Most of them apparently have left EO Wiktionary, left EO community, or even left Wikipedia. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Only the owner can edit eir private public Wiktionary. Am I just stupid, or is this a fault in the system, that a more or less randomly crowned (incapable) sysop can completely take over control over a formerly public wiki ? Taylor 49 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

People from the biggest Wiki don't understand issues at a degenerated Wiki without community. Taylor 49 (talk) 12:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To you and your family, your page watchers, and all Wikipedians. May you have peace, goodwill to all, health, and happiness for the holidays and in the new year.

―Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To the editors, admins, rollbackers, newbies, and vandals all across Wikipedia, Merry Christmas!

Thanks, CrazyMinecart88 (talk | contribs) 00:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My 100th edit

I know I recently made my hundredth edit, but COULD SOME ONE PLEASE TELL ME WHICH ONE IT IS?! Sun Sunris (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sun Sunris: it appears to be this one (considering you also had 8 deleted edits) prior to it. If you have technical questions in the future, feel free to stop by Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I counted and thought it was that one, but I just got confused since the notification redirected me to my sandbox page, which contains my my 101st edit. Sun Sunris (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

	Merry Xmas
	Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. 5 albert square (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at AN. Your input would be greatly appreciated

Hi Jimbo. A discussion is in progress at the AN noticeboard. Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Site_ban_or_topic_ban?

The community would be most grateful if you could make a brief comment there, on your thoughts on the matter. Colleagues are having a lively discussion on how to go forward, and as some of these issues were posted onto your talkpage, I think it is a matter of courtesy that you be informed and invited to comment. I do not believe you have been pinged, but I have done so. Just a few words would be sufficient. Kind regards, Simon Adler (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe so many of you people lined up to get an editor site-banned because he commented about Irish slaves and black slaveowners. This kind of liberal intolerance has been a major turn-off to voters and will do nothing to fight racism. In other news, the Republicans just sprung their scheme to secretly abolish Obamacare by altering it to be illegal, and now celebrate that Americans with "preexisting conditions" won't be able to get health coverage. [14] To me, denying kids access to medicine because they have diabetes seems a whole lot more like racism than any of the wild extensions of the term in the discussion above. Wikipedia liberals live in a dream world while conservatives are out there in reality building a true nightmare. Wnt (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Erm… this isn't "lining up to get an editor site-banned because he commented about Irish slaves and black slaveowners", this is pointing out that an editor who's repeatedly posting incoherent racist rants such as complaining that he's no longer allowed to describe black people as "niggers" isn't someone who reflects Wikipedia values, and that someone who continues posting incoherent racist rants immediately coming off a block for it, and when blocked a second time for it replies with this, isn't someone who's welcome on Wikipedia. I don't see how the internal politics of the US regarding healthcare has any relevance whatsoever to this incident. ‑ Iridescent 12:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually the problem for me was the combination of the "Irish slaves" myth, promoting a white nationalist trope as if it were a genuine problem with Wikipedia content, combined with revisionist comments about the Confederacy. That means he's either a white nationalist or has lost his ability to distinguish the unreliability of white nationalist sources. White nationalists - racists of all kinds - should be shown the door. The presence of racist speech ion talk pages creates a chilling effect. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Wnt.  Those who are so eager to have Wikid77 site-banned for making "racist" comments, might want to consult the definition of racist.  From our article racism:  "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity."  A similar definition for "racist" from Google is "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."  Do you have any diffs where you can show that he (or the material in his comments) either: (1) believes that one race is superior to another -or- (2) has shown discrimination or prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity?

Although I certainly disagree with some of his comments (especially his apology of Roseanne Barr's racist joke and his desire for "free speech" here) and find some of his comments either naive or insensitive (e.g. [15]), calling his comments so racist as to site-banning him is a stretch.  Many of his claims about the Confederacy he posted in the above section "Prescient comments" he backed up with WP:RS. I do see some level of Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism, but what I believe is most important in our discussions at Wikipedia is sticking to the best sources and following WP:NPOV, which I believe he thought he was doing. I did not see any of those who attacked his comments as "racist" as providing better sources that disagreed; instead, I believe the objections are based primarily on editors' feeling that the statements are racist based on what they have been taught about the Civil War--possibly from unreliable sources--rather than doing the harder work of looking at the sources. One of the sources Wikid77 used was Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America written by William C. Davis who is described as a Pulitzer Prize winning professor of history with Civil War emphasis. Our article on Davis has no controversy section one would expect of a Neo-Confederate historical revisionist.

Besides, if the comments are so offensive, why not simply remove them?  Then the discussion could be over whether the comment violated our rules.   --David Tornheim (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You state that "what I believe is most important in our discussions at Wikipedia is sticking to the best sources and following WP:NPOV, which I believe he thought he was doing." Then you try to claim that an example of this is Wikid77's use of William C. Davis. While it is true that Wikid77 made one passing reference to "Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America", in fact there is nobody who would disagree more with Wikid77's claims that secession was not about slavery than Davis. I own and have read the book as well as many others by Davis. For the benefit of those who don't have the book, I did a quick google using terms "look away william davis review" and came up with this scholarly review at [16]. That review states:

Davis begins by leaving no doubt about what made the Confederacy different. Slavery was the "only significant and defining difference" between the North and South, he argues (9), and "secession and the Confederacy's existence were predicated on slavery (130).

On page 106, right after the page that Wikid77 referenced, is the following (not in the review I cited):

But the oligarchs had a safeguard even there, for they made their most vital issue, slavery, a part of their constitutional fabric and thus untouchable ... . On this issue alone, they knowingly violated all the arguments about state rights that their section had been making for generations, for they set slavery above state sovereignty: inviolate, untouchable.

Davis is not an outlier. Rather he is typical of the overwhelming consensus of historians that Wikid77 rails against. The views Wikid77 presents represent the extreme version of the Lost Cause. Of course both you and Wikid77 would know this if y'all in fact actually did (as you claim others haven't) "the harder work of looking at the sources." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is the kind of debate I prefer based on the sources. I never denied there are problems with what he said which is why I called it Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism, just as you do.

I did fact check his statement "the moderate legislators from Alabama and others decided not to banish free states as expelling states from the Confederacy if they emancipated slaves within a state ([2] p.105)".

Page 104-105 do say:

"Rhett still had an amendment in a play to expel any state that should abolish slavery [which failed because of moderates like Stephens]....The important point to Stephens and others in defeating an outright ban on free states was essentially public posture....The moderates like himself [Stephen] were clearly in the majority, men who saw safety in numbers and a temperate policy that looked outward. There was more to them than slavery."

These sentences somewhat support part of Wikid77's somewhat confusing sentence, but it is also directly contradicted by what is also in plain view on the same pages:

"The Deep South could be expected to stand firm on admitting only slave states...[by numbers and veto-power]" and "There would be no popular sovereignty to allow territorial governments to choose to become free states. Here as throughout, preservation of slavery was the driving force behind most of the variations from the Constitution of the United States."

There's no question he was cherry-picking and conveniently left out the material that disagreed with his claim, which is why I called it Neo-Confederate#Historical_revisionism.

But until now--after the filing and proposed site ban--no one bothered to show why his use of the source was wrong. Telling him simply to shut up is not a convincing argument against his position either to him or to anyone who shares similar beliefs. Slamming the argument with good WP:RS is the way to do it. So I thank you for doing that. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know as much about the history as you do, and I am glad you dug into it -- but would you have dug into it if Wikid77 hadn't been here (then) to raise the issue? One reason for chat here is so people like you with a good knowledge of topic areas might be motivated to expand our articles. But I should also add that if you throw him and like-minded people off of here, and they go somewhere else to form an echo chamber exceptionally sympathetic to the Confederacy where they can tell each other and newcomers the "real truth banned from Wikipedia", who is going to follow them there, who is going to be allowed to respond to their arguments there? We had our chance at reasoned debate ... and now that chance is blown. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I also agree with Wnt, but I think we (people in general) are viewing this and other "rights" issues much too superficially. I was shocked when I saw this almost 20 years ago "You have zero privacy anyway," Scott McNealy told a group of reporters and analysts...."Get over it.". Shocked because he was confirming openly what I was already concluding but wondering whether I was just paranoid.

That was the end of most Americans' 4th amendment rights. Just 2 days ago I heard a Senator admit something much more troublesome about the risk of loss of the right to freedom for most Americans; here Senator Hatch at 1:07 says "you can make anything a crime under the current laws".

Re; freedom of speech, imo, Americans likely have never had much freedom of speech unless you agree with the crowd you are with and the current opinions of that particular crowd. Its gotten so bad now that even at Berkeley fringe speakers are banned. If you really want to know how bad it is and has been, the most credible and aware person I know immigrated from "behind the iron curtain" 50 years ago and she says she was floored by how much less freedom of speech most people have here and how much more brainwashed the people were here. What I think is the real issue is not how much of these freedoms citizens have but how selective those freedoms are applied. For example, we know Tariff Man has more freedom of speech than most of us when it comes to degrading women and still getting hired. And we know that Senator Hatch is less likely to get arrested for any of the made up crimes he speaks about than some poor soul pulled over with a broken tail light (just watch "Live PD" to confirm that), and then we have "hush" agreements, for people who can afford them, to selectively protect their privacy and keep their 100 million dollar a year job. Not so for the lowly mailroom guy who someone complains to HR about. So, the real problem here is the selectivity and degree to which citizens have rights depending, primarily, upon how much money or power they have. There is a solution to that problem, but no problem gets solved until its recognized. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also +1 for Wnt. Wikid77 has said some things about race and slavery that I don't agree with personally, but it would be a shame if Wikipedia ended up like a modern university campus where people were not allowed to say anything that might be controversial. Wikid77 has been accused of spouting racist nonsense but this seems excessive. I would support a topic ban if Wikid77 is going to put his foot in his mouth over this issue, but I can't support a site ban on the basis of the evidence. Wikid77 needs to accept that not all African Americans in the old South were happy with the system and singing "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" like Uncle Remus in Song of the South. The fact that this film is not available in a home video format in the United States is an indication of how times have changed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's been just over a year now that the long-standing, but unfortunate French term for ghostwriter ("nègre littéraire") has been banned from French by the Secretary of Culture (cf. [17]). Wiktionnaire, as it turns out, is not observing the new rules. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. Wikid77 has repeatedly stated, in his own voice, white supremacist tropes such as the "Irish slaves" myth and Confederate apologia. It is fine to ask questions about these, and discuss them, on relevant article talk pages, but comingh here, as Wikid77 did, to assert that Wikipedia has a massive POV problem because it does not recognise these white supremacist tropes as fact, is a much more serious issue and indicates either that Wikid77 is a white supremacist, in which case he can get in the fucking sea, or, much more likely, he has lost the ability to critically evaluate sources pertaining to racist themes, in a climate where many so-called "conservative" outlets are now blatantly espousing white supremacism. I'd also note that Cullen328 is one of the kindest people I know. He is not given to capricious blocks. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: What amazes me most is how all considerations of policy have gone straight out the window here. Here I see you deleting a redirect calling Wikid77 a "racist editor" in the logs. Here I see User:Beyond My Ken threatening an editor in the middle of "consensus" discussion, telling the "!voter" to "express his opinions less", and none of the admins reading even comments about it. I mean, there used to be a time when calling an editor a bigot would get you hauled before ArbCom, but here people don't bat an eye about it. I suppose the good part is all the old passive-aggressive arts seem to be falling into disrepair - in old times, a threat might be delivered by a series of "unrelated" file deletion discussions, and an admin would do a speedy delete citing some alphabet soup criterion, and then when the editor complains that "Negro slaves" have nothing to do with "CSD:X23 Pokemon fan art", the admin would respond "some Pokemons are black" and put archive tags around the conversation to say we're finished here. But I do wonder where it's all going. Wnt (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so it is not possible for me to "threaten" an editor with anything except my disdain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar: User:Beyond My Ken I was hoping you might save me some time- I'm working on a couple new articles right now- but to save time (and since I'm sure you could easily recall where you placed the comment,) but would you point to the diff. where you recently described yourself as a "Hanging judge"? The bolding and 'scare quotes' were your own, I am not sure about the capitalization. I used the correct form here. I was wondering if you would do that, because I have a difficulty reconciling what you said there, and what you have stated here. Thanks in advance, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be "nowhere"—have you confused him with someone else? As BMK correctly points out, he isn't an admin so couldn't be a "hanging judge" even if he wanted. ‑ Iridescent 23:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have confused the issue terribly I am afraid! I must admit to a serious error. It is clear that another editor was placing those attributes on BMK or he was directing them at someone... I can't find the exact quote in that wall of text at that arbitration case. If BMK had ever subsequently used that term in relation to another editors attribution of that particular quality to him, or to, or by, anyone else, for whatever reason, either directed at or from other editor(s), I have misunderstood. My apologies, to any and all involved. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just been watching Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat. This is at the top of the list of cartoons that would get a white person taken outside and shot today. Personally, I don't mind cartoons like this as long as there is an understanding that they were made under rules that were considered acceptable by the Hollywood studio system at the time. The problem with Wikid77's edits is failing to accept that things have moved on since then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What could possibly make you think your second sentence is appropriate? Someone complained about the well-deserved banning of Wikid77 having some sort of "chilling effect"; obviously it is not chilling enough. --JBL (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wnt: Actually I linked the relevant policy in the deletion summary. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Wales has not "weighed in". One can assume that this is due to the fact that he is no longer relevant to en.wp debates. I agree with the majority that this was a politically-motivated hit.— 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, probably more of the reason he hasn't weighed in is because Jimbo has one of those "life" things you might have heard about. SemiHypercube 02:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. For the record, I have not until just now seen any of this discussion/debate and have not had time to deliberate on whether I have an opinion on it, and further, if I do have an opinion, it would be helpful in any way to share it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Hadn't seen this. Hi Jimmy. I never got a reply from you or from other board members regarding Cirt/Sagecandor, did I? I guess you don't intervene in local en.wp matters. That's ok. As Fletch said in, well, Fletch, "your beach". Do what you want. :) — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Note comment above meant to distract from the issue by slyly accusing me of being a basement dweller. lol. Only four hours til work. (sigh) ^^ — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sashi, I'll save you a ton of time and energy which can be applied toward fun and/or constructive stuff. It is not statistically profitable to try to guess what someone else is thinking, i.e. "meant", or even whatever is going on in somebody else's head, except sometimes if its a family member. As an example, I once had a job investigating tips (we did not investigate anonymous tips) about people committing welfare fraud and almost every alleged fraudster was sure...many 100% sure...they knew who squealed on them. I, of course, could not tell them that they were wrong as that would help them identify the tipster by the process of elimination, but Sashi, I will tell you they were dead wrong at least 90% of the time. So, that's my good deed for the day, but, I can't make a horse drink, so its up to you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm thirsty, Now. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@SashiRolls you may have missed a thread from earlier on this page that was "archived," where Jimbo made some pretty clear comments about racist rhetoric in discussions/ user pages as opposed to "historical" artifacts in the mainspace or in related talk pages. This would apply even to the most recent history- today's news, perhaps.

Any editor has the right to launch a complaint against another who they think are presenting a racist view as acceptable practice. And by any, I mean any and all.(Unless they are "prohibited by some special session of WikiCourt.) Jimbo Wales included, if he were to really get his back up. (BTW, Jimmy, if you're reading this... I am serious about replacing the picture on your user page with a picture of a goat tied to a stick. Maybe not, you seem to attract all the tigers as it is... But maybe. Once a year on "Wikiday." You don't have to reply, I never expect one, and you do enough around here anyways.) Best regards, to all of you. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Some interesting stuff that applies directly to the issue at hand, I think. However, if one takes the position that this project is a club of some kind, then it is to be expected that some Members will want to, and be entitled to, kick out some other Members because of their voiced opinions which might be politically incorrect in general or specifically related to the decade or the mentality of the majority of Club members. But, it ain't a club, is it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is of course a club of some kind, and will attract those people who have a common POV. That common POV should not just be the liberal or libertarian consensus. This common POV is rather that WP is dedicated to including not just the facts about the world that were of general permanent interest, , but all significant disputes about those facts and all significant opinions. That doesn;t mean just those opinions that are accepted as orthodox today, but those opinions that are rejected or not accepted, provided that there is sufficient information about them to be worth the discussion. People shouldn't be coming here only to find support for their views, but rather to find out the range of views and the argument sand historical basis for them. They can then use this to better understand their own views by consideration of the views of their opponents, or, to consider if their own views should be modified in the light of other views whose existence or degree of support they may not have known. This includes historical revisionism that might support all sorts of views they are likely to abhor. Anyone who wishes to really understand the current racial situation in the united states needs to be aware of he opinions of racists, even of those who continue today to be racists despite the social opprobrium of expressing it. Even if one is determined to dedicate their life to the destruction of the remaining racism, one can not hope todo it without an understanding of why otherwise good people still adopt such views.

Most people coming here to write on US politics share the point of view usually associated with those who consider themselves to be committed to free speech for all opinions. Usually it proves they extend this much more generously to those opinions that agree with their own--and it can hardly be expected otherwise. The encyclopedia must therefore have a commitment to broaden their outlook by strenuously trying to appropriately include whatever has been said or could still be said for the people with other opinions.We all say we support free speech, but we usually mean that speech that doesn't confront us with questions that are unpleasant to deal with. That's OK in real life--when I encounter a dedicated exponent of something I find repugnant I am not likely to want to waste my time letting them try to convert me, or even trying to convert them. But when i write for an encyclopedia dedicated to preserving the knowledge of the world as it exists, that's completely different. If I do not give them opportunity I am acting to withhold the whole truth about the world. DGG ( talk ) 12:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an issue, though, of false balance between honest opinion and dishonest. At RSN I noted a quote Mike Godwin recently shared on social media:

“When observing right-wing conspiracy theories, we saw positive feedback loops between the core of that network—composed of Fox News, leading Republican pundits, and Breitbart—and the remainder of the online right-wing network. In those cases we saw repetition, amplification, and circling of the wagons to criticize other media outlets when these exposed the errors and failures of the story. By contrast, the mainstream media ecosystem exhibited intensive competition to hold each other to high journalistic standards, and a repeated pattern of rapid removal of content, correction, and in several cases disciplining of the reporters involved. Moreover, in none of these cases did we find more than a smattering of repetition and amplification of the claims once retracted.” NETWORK PROPAGANDA, page 220.

That seems to me germane here. It is fine to be wrong, even through prejudice. It is not fine to persist in an error, still less double down, after the error has been pointed out with good sources. And it is absolutely not fine to assert that Wikipedia has huge systemic problems because you still have not got your false idea reflected as truth despite doubling down after having the error pointed out to you. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The persistence of human beings in error is undeniable, but there is no way to be certain that myself or anyone else is altogether free of it. Our normal response is to hide from information we do not like. As an example, I never look at Fox, because it is unpleasant to realize the depth and persistence and harmfulness of some of their characteristic errors, especially because I have no absolute way of knowing I am right. Certainly I have convinced myself my views on it are right, and the people I usually associate have roughly similar views and are quite sure of them also. Some take that as proof. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally believe that despite the conspiracy theories galore, a regular application of Occam's razor leads us to a fairly satisfactory consensus reality. This is what we're doing when we require our sources to be reliable, i.e. we induce that sources that are generally telling the truth in situations like this are telling the truth in this particular case. In theory, induction and abduction are obviously not infallible, but in practice I prefer to stick to Ben Franklin's maxim, "three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead." Daß Wölf 11:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

All this is true. The issue for Wikipedia is that one should be open to the possibility of being in error. Wikid77 was not. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 15:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC announce: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Jimbo Wales: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, 5 albert square (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

What I got for Christmas Eve and Boxing Day

Please see

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Op-ed, December 24, 2018
• The Wall Street Journal, December 26, 2018
• The WSJ mentions the Signpost, but none of the dozen other articles that I've seen follow the WSJ's story do. See, e.g. Atlanta Journal Constitution
• Somebody mentioned that the story was number 4 on Twitter, but since I don't twit, I have no idea what this means.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I congratulate you on good research. I should note, however, the narrowness of the loophole by which you were apparently able to publish it on Wikipedia. Editors have often been warned, in no uncertain terms, not to go through primary documents like legal filings or house listings for information, with all the dire shaking of spears and rattles that accompanies WP:BLP fanaticism. This FOIA document would likely have been ruled off limits for an article, and perhaps the editor sanctioned. I doubt you would have gotten a better reception at Wikinews, since after all, who does? Only the Signpost could thread the needle and give you a platform to say that when the University of Iowa Media Bulletin called him a "GTE District VII academic all-American", they should have more accurately stated "GTE District VII Academic All-District", and so for him to write on a resume that he was an "Academic All-American" was clearly some sort of grave disqualifying misconduct that would take an otherwise upstanding advisor to World Patent Marketing and make him someone the executive and legislative branches of government would think twice about, if they ever thought once. The world's press has proved you right, and this is a great accomplishment. I would predict it is great enough that someone will notice and muzzle the Signpost before something like this happens again, however much I am sure to object. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - the Signpost is a special place on Wikipedia. The newspaper has been publishing original reporting and commentary since 2005, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon. The community accepts that the Signpost will continue in this role. Before anybody tries to muzzle the Signpost, they'd need to have a community-wide RfC to see if the consensus has changed.

There wouldn't be much point in eliminating the Signpost's special role in our community. I could report the same material elsewhere. The disreputable outlets are fairly well-known, but it wouldn't be hard to find a reputable off-wiki publisher for material like my recent story. No matter how large the hat-sizes of admins or arbs grow, their remit does not extend to censoring the off-wiki press. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Great work Smallbones, thanks! Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A year ago today the Internet was destroyed.

• "[The] internet has been dying a slow death — and a vote next month by the Federal Communications Commission to undo net neutrality would be the final pillow in its face" " some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements." --The New York Times (2017)

• "This is the end of the internet as we know it" .. "They will have the power to block websites, throttle services and censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they have pay-for-play arrangements and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road" --CNN (2017)

• "Ending net neutrality will destroy everything that makes the internet great. The internet without net neutrality will be a Wild West of extra fees and censorship. --NBC News (2017)

• "How the FCC’s Killing of Net Neutrality Will Ruin the Internet Forever" -GQ Magazine (2017)

So join me in mourning the Internet, killed by the FCC a year ago today.

And ignore those liars who publish trash like

U.S. internet speeds rose nearly 40 percent this year (December 2018)

and

4G speeds are on the rise once again in the U.S... In big cities like New York and Detroit we're measuring 4G connections in excess of 30 Mbps, an indication of network capabilities to come (July 2018)

And most certainly ignore those fools who think that maybe giving the same US government that runs the Postal Service and the VA hospitals -- and who have a long history of using that power to censor things they don't like -- control over the Internet isn't such a good idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, When the original 13 colonies got together and formed The United States of America, do you think anyone told them that they could never leave and that they would be invaded if they tried? (added because, apparently, this is the only topic that interests anyone here... :(   ) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Guy; I just read this and it says both the FCC and FTC now have oversight of ISPs, so how is that not US government control? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The Internet isn't and has never been completely free of government regulation. Just put some child pornography on your website and a nice lady wearing robes will explain this to you in great detail, then give you a long time to think about it from your new home -- a durable and stylish concrete box with a charming roommate. Chances are that neither the FTC or the FCC will be involved: the TLA most likely to show up at your door is the FBI (or whatever the equivalent is in your country).

The FTC regulations are detailed at https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/advertising-marketing-internet-rules-road and https://www.ftc.gov/policy/cooperation-agreements/restoring-internet-freedom-fcc-ftc-memorandum-understanding

You will have to ask all those people who predicted the end of the Internet if Net Neutrality was repealed (and who still predict the end of the Internet Any Day Now if it isn't reinstated) why they think that the FTC rules aren't enough. My only answer is that the FTC has never fined someone for using naughty words. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the companies will take a while to get started. I mean, it's all well and good to say that the day after they were allowed to ban and slow websites that they didn't do it, but they weren't going to pay good money to buy and configure tools to do that before they were allowed to, or compile a very long and reliable list that wouldn't expose them to ridicule, or to write the snide notices and PR explanations, let alone to collaborate with one another about how to all do it at the same time so the users don't bolt and create bad press for them. Think of how long it was before all the good stuff on YouTube was allowed to persist, before abruptly it turned into dots and broken links. This is bigger than that. The companies will marshal their forces and then go for shock and awe. Wnt (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

So your claim is that, even though after a year has passed the Internet has not been ruined, and even though not a single one of these companies has taken advantage of this supposedly surefire way of making profits, the disaster will happen Real Soon Now?

Will you at this time make a commitment to not repeat that argument if another year goes by without the disaster happening? How about another five years? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It always amuses me that there is a close to 100% overlap between demands for Facebook and Twitter to give a platform to right-wing rabble rousers and opponents of net neutrality. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts from me on this topic.

First, as some of you may be aware, I'm in favor of net neutrality, but I haven't considered it to be as key an issue as some activists think. I have said often that most of the harms appear to be somewhat theoretical in nature. If we are concerned, as consumers, about various "pinch points" on the Internet being used to extract money from us in a way that reduces competition, we don't have to dream up scenarios where the phone company / Internet provider charges a 30% surcharge to Skype (who have to pass the costs on to us of course) because they prefer us to use their own competing product. We don't have to dream that up because we already have emerging chokepoints which are extremely profitable and growing - the mobile phone App Store model in which I can't install anything on my iPhone (without a geeky and hard and fragile process of rooting) unless it is approved by Apple, and for which Apple takes 15-30% of the revenue.

Second, "net neutrality" is a term which is used as a single unifying idea, but in fact, the area is extremely complicated. Netflix pays to co-locate servers with ISPs to improve the quality of service for their users. If an ISP wants to charge them a lot for that, they can and they do. But, ISPs also have to consider that the people paying them (which is us) want their Netflix to work well, and so if they overcharge Netflix to the point that Netflix says no, then we are going to be unhappy. There are complications around "last mile monopolies" which are ever-shifting and exist (very much) in some areas and don't exist (at all) in others. So any nuanced analysis of the issues quickly moves us away from simple "bombshell" pronouncements. Some forms of the end of net neutrality would be very destructive. Others are just a natural working of healthy competition.

Finally, even in a very bad regulatory situation, the effects are not likely to be "night and day" and happen overnight. They will be subtle, pervasive, and long term. The Parable of the broken window is good to review in this context.

It's worthwhile for us, as Wikipedians, to reflect on this possibility. Suppose in the early days of the Internet, we did not have the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions which made Wikipedia possible. Imagine that if from the beginning, I faced personal legal risk for every single thing that everyone uploaded. Imagine that any copyright infringement could cost me tens of thousands of dollars even if I did all the right things in terms of having responsible takedown procedures. Then, Wikipedia simply wouldn't exist. But imagine a world with no Wikipedia - in that world, I pretty much guarantee you that not many people would even believe or know that Wikipedia could have existed! It certainly seemed implausible beforehand, and frankly, a lot of people in the world seem not to actually believe it works as it does. So we wouldn't even lament the loss, because we wouldn't know what would have been possible.

Bad regulation around net neutrality will be like that. It won't be a single explosive moment with darkness to follow. It will be a slow demise of things that we love, a slow process of the extension of the power of the oligopolies. We'll see things like Verizon acquiring Yahoo accelerating. We'll see the participatory Internet become less robust, less innovative, less powerful, while we see top-down ecosystems gain in dominance. We won't lament the loss of Zingboids.com, because Zingboids will never have existed, and we can't even quite imagine what it is yet - in the same way that we wouldn't be able to imagine Wikipedia if it weren't here. That's what the loss of the innovation around the open internet would be like.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

So true. The problem is that some people are convinced that reduced federal government regulation of the Internet will inevitably lead to a loss of innovation, and other people are convinced that increased federal government regulation of the Internet will inevitably lead to a loss of innovation. DMCA Safe Harbor is an interesting example. Technically it is a government regulation, but the real effect is to stop certain kinds of lawsuits from happening. Not every example of increased US government regulation involves congress or the president. Sometimes it is a judge telling people what they can and cannot do. Pure anarchy and pure tyranny have both been shown to result in bad outcomes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, re: Broken Window especially. You're right about how hard, close to impossible, it is for people to imagine something they never had. Critical thinking is also hard to imagine for someone who never does it, but it seems to be enjoying a revival; J.P. Morgan is even referencing it in T.V. commercials. So, maybe C.T. coupled with the energy and determination exemplified by the Yellow vests movement will provide successful ways for regular people to keep and expand our freedoms. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo's response here is beautiful. Too rarely people understand the beauty of the empty space that can be filled. I am reminded of Laozi: "Thirty spokes share the hub of a wheel; yet it is its center that makes it useful. You can mould clay into a vessel; yet, it is its emptiness that makes it useful. Cut doors and windows from the walls of a house; but the ultimate use of the house will depend on that part where nothing exists. Therefore, something is shaped into what is; but its usefulness comes from what is not." And the same is true of rules online. It is the freedom that is valuable. If you have a rule at all, ask whether it is truly defending the freedom it is meant to enclose. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo's thoughts, especially in light of his/your self description of being pathologically optimistic, are troubling. They must be taken seriously, especially as the "pinch points", "last mile monopolies" and oligopolies' extensions are already realities, as said. But, the scripts are still being written; different scripts for different countries, perhaps. A lot, perhaps everything, depends upon how much passion resides in the hearts of citizens. Right now, I'm admiring the French. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

And this use of a confrontational venue to promote a personification of liberty and reason is a most profound demonstration of the power of a few, 5 in this case. The blending of liberty and reason, isn't that the essence of everything at risk and worth fighting for in the worlds of politics and social movement? The trend Jimbo identifies in the way of emerging and growing chokepoints is proof, imo, that "bad regulation" is already here. The great news is that the yellow vests massive protests, accented by the creative art/symbolism of the Mariannes, provides a proven, successful template that can be applied to turn around the Net Neutrality or any other social/political issue. All that's needed is a few organizers and organizations. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to go to France to find defenders of liberty. These women were standing up for their rights also. The Ocean City lawyers claim that "females baring their breasts in public, although not offensive to everyone, is still seen by society as unpalatable", a claim that certainly seems on a par with what might have been written seventy years ago that "Negroes drinking from city water fountains, although not offensive to everyone..." I salute the protesters bringing this action, but the notion that there can be so many "politically correct social justice warriors" around the country enforcing their outrage on forums like this one whenever someone says something they don't like, yet they are not out there razing Ocean City to the ground for treating one sex as criminals for what the other does freely, is not impressive. Wnt (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Right. Its now been 28 years since just one young woman won the right for women to go topless in Ontario. Also, I like your point about "politically correct social justice warriors"; maybe they are mostly just another special interest group, when it comes down to it, with a few shepherds and a whole lot of sheep. The leaders/shepherds of Special Interest Groups, imo, often become so self-centred and self-serving and/or dogmatic that any semblance of being based upon a set of valuable principles fades away into the sunset. The great news is that individuals and small or large groups of people with a cause, and some persistence/stamina, can usually create positive change/societal improvement in a democratic society. I dare say those Ocean City women could eventually get the rules changed if they just keep at it, especially on hot days on the beach. I thought "flash mobs" would become a great new way for activists to make their points, but it never seemed to catch on. I mean, if 1,000 topless women showed up at noon on July 4th. at Ocean City, what a cool (pun intended) thing that would be. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jimbo Wales!

Happy New Year!

Jimbo Wales,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wikimedia and Accessibility

Hello Mr. Wales and everyone else who hangs out here; not sure if anyone is aware of this Phabricator ticket from nearly 12 years ago that has had no headway made. Currently the captcha system Wikimedia websites use is not compatible with screen readers, there are alternatives that could be used but this hasn't seemed to be made a priority at any point in time with the foundation. I'm just curious to know if there are any plans to address this type of issue? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

But... but... If they fix that, I would have to find another stock answer for people who react to any suggestion to improve our software with "post a Phabricator ticket".

Besides, only 7,297,100 (2.3%) Americans are blind and only 2,985,900 (6.4%) of Americans Age 65 and older are blind. Who cares about a few million blind people? Let them use the braille edition of Britannica! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wouldn't allowing two-factor fix that? My blind friends use that in preference to captcha all the time. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• The WMF makes you use CAPTCHA in order to register a username. 2FA only happens after you have a username. Most websites solve this problem by requiring the new user to answer an email to complete the registration. The WMF allows you to register without requiring you to reveal an email address. It is unlikely that the WMF would ever require you to reveal a phone number. Related issue: some people don't have text messaging. I am one of them, All I ever got was spam so I has my cell phone provider disable it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Shows hopw long it is since I registered an account! Guy (Help!) 16:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You don't need a cell phone to edit Wikipedia so you certainly shouldn't need one to register. I certainly don't have one. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In 2009 Microsoft made a video about what 2019 would be like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWxqSEMXWuw

I want one of those coffee cups. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It always amazes me how quickly science fiction becomes dated. Either the authors can't imagine a change from the present (Captain Kirk doing textbook sexual harassment in space), or (in this case) they can't imagine that what is currently changing will stop. When the video was made, improvements in display and input technology seemed like a high priority - who knew they would just stop? Similarly the sci-fi writers of the late 20th century never imagined humans would simply stop going to the Moon and leave it for maybe China to try to repeat in a century or two. Wnt (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

At least it doesn't predict that we will all be wearing silver space suits and going to work in flying cars like The Jetsons. This has been a popular "what the future will be like" prediction since at least the 1930s. The video mainly seems to predict the rise of touchscreen technology, which is correct and was already under way in 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Throughout history and right up to the present, different people have worn different clothes (with the obvious exception of uniforms). If my glowing rectangle is to be believed, in the future everyone will all dress the same.

Where is my flying car? They promised me a flying car by now. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, Windows 7 launched in 2009 (the year the video was made), but showed little interest in catering for the needs of touchscreen input. By the time that Windows 8 was launched in 2012, it was so touchscreen based that it performed poorly on non-touchscreen devices, leading to widespread criticism. Windows 10 was an attempt to strike a balance between touchscreen and non-touchscreen input.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

2nd RfC: The Daily Mail

The latest Daily Mail RfC is about to close. If anyone reading this has input on this, now is the time to participate in the RfC.

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Its a waste of time, imo. this and this show that, at least, DM has not perpetuated as much war mongering propaganda as some of our most "reliable" sources.

But, DM gets the boot, imo, because its branding and P.R. is not so good. Branding is 95% of opinion setting for people in general, maybe only 65% for Editors, "perception is reality" and all that. and 65% is more than enough to "No" that Rfc. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Just now reading the Times "apology"? I see this: "It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers."

The arrogance of assuming the administration was well-intentioned and just "taken in" like a hapless victim shows the utter "mouthpiece" nature of the Times, at least at that time. Especially now that General Wesley Clark has blown the whistle showing that same administration within 2 weeks of 9/11 was already pre-determinedto invade Iraq (and multiple other countries). We need a panel, maybe even an existing panel like ArbCom, to do annual assessments of all the major/most used reliable sources to see if they can qualify as reliable or not. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how showing NYT has engaged in warmongering shows that DM doesn't. Daß Wölf 18:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

All completely valid points (and I might add I am personally disgusted by anyone -- politician or newspaperman -- putting out false evidence of WMDs in order to justify an invasion that has already been decided on), but they do not change the fact that The Daily Mail fabricates direct quotes and entire interviews that never happened and cuts and pastes articles from lesser known publications, adding a few false facts to make the story better clickbait, and publishes the resulting copyright violation under their own byline as if they wrote it instead of plagiarizing it.[18][19] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous examples of mainstream publications putting out stories that turned out to be fabricated and were either retracted or resulted in a finding by a journalism standards board. The first thing your first source mentions is a retraction of the "MailOnline" (not the Daily Mail btw) retracting a false story about George Clooney soon after it was published. Why do you think it is less serious than consistently publishing articles designed to help the U.S. government get approval for invading Iraq? Or should we forget the NY Times on that because the opportunity of the Iraq war justified any means of supporting it? TFD (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that The New York Times fabricates direct quotes and entire interviews that never happened, or that it cuts and pastes articles from lesser known publications, adds a few false facts to make the story better clickbait, and publishes the resulting copyright violation under their own byline as if they wrote it instead of plagiarizing it, please put together a list of citations so that the rest of us can evaluate the evidence and post your evidence on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you can prove your case, the NYT will no longer be able to be used as a source on Wikipedia.

But please, don't act as if two wrongs make a right, and please don't stuff words in my mouth. If you want my opinion about what is "less serious", post your evidence so that I can compare it with the overwhelming evidence that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and then please ask me what my opinion is rather than telling me what my opinion is. As it turns out, you are really bad at mind reading. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There was the Jayson Blair#Plagiarism and fabrication scandal case at the New York Times and similar cases at other publications outlined in the Journalism scandals article. It's a strawman argument that anyone would remove the NYT from the list of reliable sources, since it is one of the world's most reliable newspapers. And they are reliable, like the Daily Mail, because their reporting is overwhelmingly accurate, they employ professional journalists, have editorial oversight, correct mistakes, are subject to an independent complaint process and their investigative reporting is routinely reported in other mainstream publications.

You have not explained why you believe publishing false information in order to promote a war is less reprehensible than publishing information about a celebrity. (One example of this is outlined at Judith Miller#The Iraq War. I had assumed you were aware of it.)

TFD (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And you have not explained why you believe that eating babies is less reprehensible than eating apples. I don't have to subject myself to you stuffing words in my mouth, and such behavior is unacceptable, so this is my final response to you. You can reply if you wish, but I won't read it. Wikipedia really needs a killfile, but until we get one, I find it to be rather easy to simply check the signature and skip to the next comment without reading whatever the disruptive editor posts.

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps The Guardian belongs on the blacklist? What do you think? Wnt (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

At least we don't get a side bar with: Sexy blond hideaway Jules gives his exclusive Ecuadorian weight loss diet for 2019! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"Femail" is a whole other reason to read DM ... but their greatest talent is in writing great headlines. Lesser lights of journalism will put their article under some bland blurb - DM isn't afraid to go to five lines of headline in order to get the reader hooked before he starts reading. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

What, a "great headline" pretty much copied from Tom Watson's tweets which are in fact the entire "story" that it's printed? Yes, I have to say that's some serious talent at work. Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A few points. Whether or not a newspaper has engaged in 'warmongering' strikes me as completely irrelevant to their validity as a source. We don't vet sources to make sure that they come to political conclusions that we agree with! The only thing that matters is truth - reliability. A paper that gets it wrong often enough (all papers make errors of course) is the issue. Low quality is different from political outlook.

I don't know if, with the change of the Editor in Chief, the Mail has significantly improved in quality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It's too soon to tell. Two of the things I regard as litmus tests: the "sidebar of shame" on Mail online, and the prevalence of churnalism, where the Mail is far and away the worst offender in national newspapers. I see no impact on either yet. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth do these "litmus tests" have to do with the claim of unreliability you're making? The sidebar in particular is mostly stories based on pictures of some sort... I wonder if what really bothers you is that this makes it too reliable. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, the warmongering description is not nearly as interesting or revealing, imo, as the statement by their editorial board that: 'but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in (re: Iraq having WMDs etc)'. Granted they use the weasel words "looks as if", but still, that statement is either a Freudian slip, betraying an underlying assumption that the USA administration was operating in good faith with the American people, which General Wesley Clark's whistle blowing interview shows clearly not to have been true, or much, much worse, an intentional, albeit couched, and blatant effort to provide a powerful, bordering upon subliminal assumption, support for the Administration's framing of the invasion as just some kind of innocent mistake.

Jimbo, I have a question, "why would those words; ''along with the administration" be included in this apology? What could possibly be an explanation for including those words other than to "sell" the "innocent mistake" framing of an invasion which cost 4,000 American and 100s of thousands of civilian lives? It is difficult, I know, to accept the reality that General Clark exposes....because to do so gets one angry and frustrated, and its equally difficult to accept the possibility of a paper like the N.Y. Times' editorial board having an underlying pro-administration bias, at the least, and/or an underlying administration enabling mission, about the most important news which effects the world's peoples...news leading up to invasions. And I'm sure you know this is not the first war/invasion when such possible enablement has occurred. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In light of this impending reaffirmation of the banning of a national newspaper, I've suggested renaming DYK as The Daily Churn to show some in-house humility. Yes, we can, right, Jimbo? Now all we need is a consensual swarm of yellowjacket-pedians to demand reform. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• The National Enquirer is also a national newspaper. As was the News of the World. Guy (Help!) 00:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, & now we have new and improved off-shore GAFAWMF games on our cellphones as we wait at the checkout. So movement! Such forward! — 🦄 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I googled GAFAWMF and am none the wiser. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

We come to it at last... the great battle of our time.

Some German researchers tried putting the entire pathway to do photorespiration into the chloroplast itself, feeding CO2 from the screwups of RuBisCO straight back into photosynthesis. [20][21][22][23] The result they say is an improvement of crop yield -- at least in tobacco -- of over 40%.

Think about what this means. The cost of biodiesel is apparently less than a dollar more than conventional fuel oil. [24] If you improve crop yields so dramatically, it is possible that mining and pumping petroleum will no longer be cost-effective. Greenhouse emissions will plummet.

Problem: any sufficiently large advance in evolution is indistinguishable from a doomsday weapon. What if GMO crops get off the plantation, take over all the wild lands around it because they can yield so much more energy from photosynthesis? There's Scylla for you. On the other side we have the appalling habit of decent researchers selling technology into the "intellectual property" system and having one company "own" it, whose reach in this case, fueled by fears of escaped crops, could end up being manifested as terminator technology. Imagine every farmer proud of his dramatically increased yield -- and every one utterly dependent on a Master who alone can dispense the secret key that lets those crops grow. There's Carybdis.

Universal feast, universal famine, destruction of greedy corporations or their final formal ascent to deity status. The board is set, the pieces are moving... Wnt (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, lots of potential here and some scary parts. Perhaps the scariest part is that we need to do this to support the population that will be here by the time the new crops are ready. A correction to WNT's comments. Paul F. South, Amanda P. Cavanagh, Helen W. Liu, and Donald R. Ort are from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, except for Liu who is now at Berkeley. (Oskee Wow-Wow and Oskee wee wee) The Germans appear to be reviewers or similar.

And the Gates Foundation, the major funder, seems to require broad distribution of the "final" crops.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix-up with the authors. Where did you find a requirement for broad distribution? (Though I was more suspicious of a post facto regulatory capture, for only the noblest of reasons) Wnt (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

from the LA Times "Both efforts are the fruit of the RIPE project, which stands for Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency. Its motivation is simple: to increase crop yields and combat food insecurity. (The $70-million initiative has gotten much of its funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which requires that any crops developed through the program be made accessible to farmers around the world)."

That's vague enough that you are still right to have some concerns about somebody capturing the commons. Also there is a commons license for publishing and something similar for plant materials here

"This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This license does not apply to figures/photos/artwork or other content included in the article that is credited to a third party; ... Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests Data materials availability: The data reported in this paper have been tabulated in the supplementary materials. Plants and constructs reported are available from the University of Illinois for research purposes, subject to the conditions of the Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement." Bolding mine - looks like they are trying very hard to keep this open. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think that agreement is the same thing here which is all about protecting "ownership" over the material which can be used only for noncommercial research purposes, i.e. not farming. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If things go wrong then the Svalbard Global Seed Vault will come to the rescue. Count Iblis (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Consequences of bipartisanship

Jimbo, I saw this video of Barack Obama today, and wanted to know what you think of it. If you have seven minutes, please let us all know? 73.222.1.26 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I watched 3 minutes - it's interesting. I wonder if the original video is somewhere, without the editorializing voiceover? I don't think my views on this are particularly unique or interesting though. Basically I would say that it is fairly obvious that the right of far/alt-right and far/alt-left movements, as well as the associated rise of nationalism has absolutely been fueled by various people feeling "left out" of what has clearly been a broad economic boom. I don't at all agree that it is a "consequence of bipartisanship" by the way.

For me, one of the interesting things about this phenomenon is that a lot of people who believe quite firmly that they are less well off than their parents and grandparents were at the same age are simply factually wrong. That doesn't make their grievances automatically invalid, of course. Nor does it mean that the effects (the rise of extremism) are any less important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a broad economic boom at all. In the US and most of Europe, economies were tanked by the crash of 2008 and the incomes of most people have remained static or declined since then, only those at the upper end of the income scale - and most especially those who benefited most from the speculative bubble that caused the crash - have seen substantial gains in income. All the figures I have seen show substantial rises in income inequality and a growth of income uncertainty among the lower socioeconomic classes - precisely the conditions which historically fuel anti-immigrant rhetoric. The seminal study of this is Parker, T: Goobacks, J. S. Park 2004 (7):8. Terk er jerbs!. But seriously, it actually is. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I was speaking of a much longer time period (as was Obama in the video) going back to George HW Bush. I'd have to take a closer look at most recent numbers to form a view of the implications of the 2008 crash.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Income inequality fell for most of the period from the great recession in the late 1920s until Reagan, and has risen pretty sharply since, albiet with some sharp swings, but never dropping down to its 1980 level. The top 1% have around a quarter of US income, and real median income, which tracked productivity pretty much form the end of the War, flattened in the Bush era and has never regained parity. See Wealth inequality in the United States. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So would it be a bad thing if the poor all became twice as rich while the rich became 4 times as rich? Would it be a good thing if the poor lost 50% of what little they have as long as while the rich lost 75%? See Envy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a super interesting debate but I might ask if we could leave it at that as it may not be productive for Wikipedia. I think we can all agree that it is likely that extreme inequality is likely to give rise to negative things such as extreme movements as those who aren't doing as well (or actually doing worse) are led by bad political actors to blame immigrants, etc. That remains true whatever one's position on inequality might be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. This is not a current affairs question, really - for a thousand years or so inequality has risen and fallen, in a cycle. Normally the catalyst for substantial falls is war or revolution. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If the wealthy become 4 times as rich, it seems likely that the poor will have to pay more than twice the rent that they did before. The comforting reassurance of a "positive-sum" economy implies that Mother Earth can yield an unlimited amount of resources, when in fact many quantities like the amount of land, codfish or petroleum are not going to increase at all. Moreover, even in social settings the amount of hypothetical wealth is still limiting: if the wealthy increase their campaign donations four-fold, do you think a two-fold increase in political contributions is going to increase your say over what is banned? And just about anything done by the poor is treated as inherently evil and in need of severe prosecution - sleeping on the sidewalk, walking along railroad tracks, God help them if they are out on the street and have to pee. America isn't a country, it's a competition, and the poor are losing. The question now is by which means they are to be removed from the field of play. Wnt (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In today's digital world, the public at large has a lot more political power. In the pre-Internet era, when the traditional media was the dominant source of information, public opinion was shaped a lot more by the real facts as analyzed by experts. Politicians who like today obviously did depend on public opinion, would in the old days be steered a lot more by expert opinion, as public opinion was ultimately still influenced a lot more by expert opinion. For certain topics, the public opinion did diverge a lot from the expert opinion and usually that had disastrous consequences. Take e.g. the way the US prison population had increased due to tough sentencing laws. This was the result of propaganda from US talk radio from the 1980s onward. This used to be confined to just a few topics, but gradually after the Internet arrived the number of such topics where the public overruled expert opinion gradually increased. Take e.g. global warming in the early 2000s. If you think of experts as the referees in a game between politicians who need to get as much public support as possible, then the situation today is like there not being any referees anymore, so anything goes. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is the most profound subject I have seen on Jimbo's talk page. Both Obama and Jimbo, as well as just about everybody else, sees and addresses this subject in the context of the discontent among the "left out" cohort; but there is another side to this coin. A more interesting and important side yet entirely overlooked by thought leaders and other leaders of 2019 civilization.

That other side of the coin is the obvious (yet, by intent or by its nature, unnoticed) dramatic rise of a global plutocracy all around the world.

This is not the first time such a switch from democracy to plutocracy has happened, in fact, it happened in Greece some 2,340 years ago.

The switch back then is mentioned in Encyclopedia Britannica re: a taboo ("conspiracy theory") subject matter, and I quote: "The number is generally taken to refer to the year (322 bce) of the death of the Greek orator Demosthenes, a turning point in the transformation of ancient Athens from democracy to plutocracy." The rise of the global plutocracy is not even debatable, imo, and the pay of CEOs is just one of the more obvious indicators. Another, much more tragic indicator, is the targeting of the non wealthy classes (with things like free tuition or "sign up bonus" pay) to engage in all the fighting, dying, and mentally/physically crippling effects of today's wars.

A macaron for Jimbo ^{or hungry tps}

Oh, but aren't these more fun?

Now, what I have discovered is that most of the time and efforts of the engineers of the plutocracy are spent on identifying and grooming less intelligent, maleable and usually humanitarian or idealistic type puppets to use in the development of the plutocracy (the engineers can not do it all themselves). A prime example is John Kerry (engineer) selecting Obama (puppet) to give the keynote address at the 2004 convention (you can see in our article about the speech that Kerry selected Obama and Kerry's staff wrote ("helped write") the speech.

Here we find another project by one of the plutocracy engineers underway, in Beijing of course, and here we see some of the higher level puppets..lets say "Commanders".. recruited to help educate the troops (students) in how best they can become part of the controlling class. The semi-taboo subject ("conspiracy theory") Bilderberg Meeting is another recruiting tool used by engineers to find capable and willing associates for bringing the global plutocracy to fruition. The most startling success story for that faction is how almost immediately after his first attendance, Jeff Bezos dramatically expanded his target market to include all of Europe and beyond, as if someone had sat down with him, explained the global plutocracy mission, and wrote him a huge blank cheque. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were both invited and attended before their elections to the highest office in their lands, but, the "coincidence theorists" see nothing thought provoking about that.

Jimbo,(or anyone), if you apply some "outside the box" (critical) thinking about the facts contained above, I promise you it will not add any degree of comfort to your intellectual observations of current or recent events. It will be, as it is for me, a feeling of having discovered that the cure for cancer is something obvious, simple and common place, yet nobody you know will believe you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, if you believe that you have discovered that the cure for cancer is something obvious, simple and common place, yet nobody you know will believe you, there is a 99,9%+ chance that you are full of crap. I'm just saying. In this case yoiur language ("global plutocracy", "troops (students)", "controlling class") makes me think that you believe the conspiracy theory that there is a Cabal that controls everything, yet are strangely powerless to silence you and the other who promote the conspiracy theory. There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The number of people who believe something has no relationship to the reality of it. People used to believe the world was flat. This is not a cabal. It is similar in some ways to a multi-generational collection of aligned churches; the Christian churches for example, except some of these organizations are much more secretive with their beliefs and objectives. Its adherents believe that a plutocracy is the best form of global government, just as the 205 people heading China believe their system is best.

What makes the group with 3 Bushes, Kerry, Mnuchin, Schwarzman, 2 Harrimans, 2 Bundys, Russell etc. an existential threat to democracy is the incredible success some have in creating and exacerbating violent conflict between countries and cultures, while others provide leadership toward a more centralized and integrated global government. Communist China and some of the Middle East monarchies are already plutocracies and will fit seamlessly into a global plutocracy. The E.U. and U.S. are well on their way as well.

The core question is whether you think its ok for a candidate for President of the USA to belong to a super secret society and the voters don't know anything about the cult (imo), or even that they belong to it. If you think that's ok, that would surprise me. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe in Freedom of association for everybody, even politicians who I dislike (which is pretty much everybody on team red and team blue). It saddens me that you don't. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything that Nocturnalnow posted about a cure for cancer. Please, if you're going to insult somebody, do it in a way that doesn't make me look all over the forum trying to find something that isn't there. I remember back in the 80s when people thought I was a conspiracy theorist because I said the NSA was listening on to their phone calls when they went over microwave links! First they say something is intolerable so it would never happen, then they say it was always obvious and you're crazy to complain about it. The rich have a right to hang out together and plot to take over whatever is left of the world that's not theirs yet (and what else would they plot???), but they don't have a right to claim that the entire contents and produce of the Earth, which has been here since the beginning of Time, not to mention the Moon and the asteroids, is inherently their "property", while the proletarians who have all the knowledge and do all the work sit around and do nothing to organize a resistance and meekly prepare to sacrifice their children on Tlaloc's holy altar to make way for AI replacements. That last bit is the right they don't have, unless people give it to them. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"It will be, as it is for me, a feeling of having discovered that the cure for cancer is something obvious, simple and common place, yet nobody you know will believe you." --Nocturnalnow.

I timed it, and it took me 12 seconds to "look all over the forum" and find it. And please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that anyone here doesn't understand that he was making an analogy, not claiming to have a cure for cancer, or that I wasn't using the same analogy in my reply.

And by the way, back in the 80s you were a conspiracy theorist if you said that NSA was listening on to phone calls when they went over microwave links. Assuming that you were right ([25] and [26] seem to imply a later date, and Snowden's revelations detail hardwired taps under FISA court orders, not interception of microwave links) you had no way of knowing that your claim was true. A conspiracy theory is still a conspiracy theory even if it later turns out that there was a real conspiracy that nobody knew about. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Phrack Magazine knew about it. Here's one from 1989 that came up on a search ([27]) but that's not the one about the microwave links specifically. I know I first heard about the NSA spying in 1985 from a certain extraordinarily intelligent Chinese student who knew how to circumvent a password or two; I think he was a year or two ahead of Phrack. Still, if you read the 1989 issue I linked, you can see they had a fairly good grasp of the situation at that point. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Some people still do believe the world is flat. Others believe that They™ are suppressing a cure for cancer, still others that shovelling wealth to the already wealthy will result in that money trickling down and benefiting everybody. We have a word for these beliefs: wrong. There have been concerns about transnational companies and the rise of the unaccountable super-rich for pretty much my entire life. In practice the main reason they get away with it is that they have all the money so they fund political races. It's interesting to me that one of the first acts of the new House is to propose a constitutional amendment to roll back Citizens United. It won't fly, for the same reason a Federal voting rights initiative won't fly: it requires the support of the people it is designed to hold back. Welcome to capitalism. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, but I prefer the US Bill of Rights to what you are pushing. Citizens United was a case where a bunch of people -- each of whom had a first amendment right to criticize Hillary Clinton -- got together and formed a non-profit organization called "Citizens United" to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton. Obama's FCC tried to stop them, but the United States Supreme Court correctly ruled that if individuals have a right to free speech then they also have a right to band together as a group without losing their right to free speech. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with people criticizing politicians. The issue is when they can pay millions (or indeed billions) to fund criticism without ever identifying themselves as the source of funding. Civilised countries generally have limits on electoral spending and requirements to reveal sources of funding, so that, for example, the Russian government can't shovel money anonymously through a weapons industry front group to skew the outcome of an election. It's a basic principle of fairness and democracy that one should not be able to drown out every other voice by the application of sufficient money.

Regardless of the spin on Citizens United, the effect, entirely by design, was to allow unlimited dark money to be spent on election propaganda. By either side, of course, but most of the billionaires for some reason seem to support the Republican Party. It's almost as if they think Republicans will give them huge tax cuts regardless of the effect on the deficit or something. I know, that could never happen. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but it is also true that it was the proper decision. I've been hearing about campaign finance reform since the 1970s, and ay caramba, there is always a loophole! It is as if a bunch of field mice can't actually figure out how to bell a cat who owns half the world. Even if you get Citizens United reversed, what happens if Donald Trump's friends see a right-wing news channel circling the drain and decide to buy them so they can keep operating - are you going to call that a campaign contribution? Will you stop Trump from having friends with similar ideas over for a gala dinner, impressing him with the resort, maybe they can stop in at the Miss Teen USA contest and see how it's turning out? Or ask them why they decided to switch their contract from a union to a non-union firm after the union endorsed the other guy the year afterward, anything to do with friends and alliances and deals made over a handshake? I mean, these people have a million moves and you have a rulebook with a couple of words. The only people who are going to get snagged up in a Citizens United reversal if half of Congress and half the state houses are hit by an asteroid, will be some nobodies with blogs who don't declare the $120 they spent on bandwidth. If you want the result of campaign finance reform, you can look into public funding of electoral campaigning, or better yet, simply demand that radio spectrum "owners" be required to offer free airtime, and ditto with cable franchise monopolists. Or more practically, and inadvertently returning to the original topic of bipartisanship, we could have an accurate and uncensored Wikipedia that gives in depth information about each candidate so that voters can inform themselves from an unfunded source rather than taking their marching orders from the bozo with the biggest tin horn. If we could do that, who knows what could happen? Wnt (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Secrecy and evil are compatible. Guy's comments caused me to think about this nexus. I know "evil" is seen as a subjective and religious term these days, but is it really? In any event, I think evil obviously exists just as "good", "helpful", and "nice" exist. And, I have yet to think of a situation where secrecy and evil are not compatible? They do not always co-exist in a situation...something or event can be evil and not secret or secret and not evil...but they are often found together and often facilitate each other and rarely if ever interfere with each other's results, so are, "compatible", imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy's comment about "civilized countries..." is true and not rocket science. The USA has the system it has because some people like the system it has, just like health care. Here in Canada our law can fit on a few lines:

Party and Election Finance Laws Private Funding:

"Canada’s federal election finance laws put limits on contributions to political parties and candidates. Only individuals — not corporations or trade unions — may donate. Contributions are limited to up to $1,500 a year to each political party and up to $1,500 to all of the registered electoral district associations, contestants seeking the party’s nomination and candidates for each party. In addition, donors may give up to $1,500 to leadership contestants for a party as well as up to $1,500 to independent candidates. These limits were set in 2015, and the amounts increase by $25 each year. Political actors must disclose the names of anyone who donates more than $200." Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about your permissions

Do you have all of the Wikimedia permissions such as CheckUser and Steward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinecraftPlayer2 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

MinecraftPlayer2 is there any reason that you ask this question? You can find your answer here.-- 5 albert square (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Public domain in 1923

I went to 1923 in art and randomly tried a couple of links. Everything I checked still had low-resolution fair use images that claimed they were not public domain. Is there a project that is trying to fix these now that works from 1923 are public domain? Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding how copyrights on artworks work. What has changed is that works published in the United States in 1923 are now in the public domain; unless the artwork is something that was published, such as an illustration from an American book (or more pertinently, in 2024 a cartoon mouse), it remains in copyright until the requisite number of years following the creator's death (the exact timeframe varies by jurisdiction). ‑ Iridescent 23:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Information on Active Wiki arbitration on the name of the country after Parliament renamed the "Republic of Macedonia", to "Republic of North Macedonia"

Dear Jimbo today on 11. of jan. 2019 Macedonian parliament voted to rename "Republic of Macedonia", into "Republic of North Macedonia". That created edit war and confusion on Wiki on the matter which name to use as an official name[28]. Only for information. Present Name of the country "Republic of Macedonia" should remain on the Wikipedia unchanged because "Agreement from Prespa" on name matter yet has to be ratified in the Greek Parliament as well, and according to the Macedonian Law for Implementation of Constitutional Changes, before approval and ratification of the Agreement of Prespa in Greece, changes of the Macedonian of Constitution that were passed today on 11. 1. 2019. will not enter into force. So, before final decision in the Greece Parliament including the end of the process of ratification of the mentioned Agreement, the name of the country is still "Republic of Macedonia", not the new one "Republic of North Macedonia" adopted today by the Parliament in Macedonia. Regards, 93.86.1.126 (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia) dictates the naming of the article Republic of Macedonia (per WP:ARBMAC) and a one-month long RFC is required to change the name. That should allow sufficient time to ensure accuracy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones asked for a reminder...

I've moved this from my user talk page as it refers to a bitcoin price prediction I made on this page. @Guy Macon: likes to kid me about predictions I've made, including the one in the section above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 232#Thar she blows! you wrote "I'll say it's close to worthless now, and that will become apparent by New Year's Day (please remind me then)." I waited an extra week.

Full disclosure: I have never owned any cryptocurrency or had anything to do with bitcoin other than being hired as an engineer to advise someone who has a large mining rig on how to get his electricity bills down.

It is my considered opinion that, like stocks, bitcoin prices are essentially unpredictable. Which is why I found your prediction to be interesting. There certainly was a bubble -- hitting the "all" button at https://www.coindesk.com/price/bitcoin is really interesting -- but your prediction failed.

Care to make another prediction? A day, a week, a month, any time frame is fine with me. I would like to compete against you with a prediction based upon a coin flip. I think that if we both do this a number of times that our performance will be about the same (I don't think you have the ability to be consistently wrong either!).

Back to that bitcoin miner: right now he loses money if he turns on his rig. He can become profitable if he invests in a more efficient mining setup, but there is a low enough bitcoin price at which the new rig becomes unprofitable -- and a high enough bitcoin price at which the old rig becomes profitable again. So he is really into predicting future prices, and doesn't care much for me saying that they are unpredictable. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have time right now to give this answer the care that it deserves. The price of bitcoin had fallen from $6500 to $3735 in the weeks before I restated my "$0" prediction. (I'd originally made it on this page on Feb. 14 when the price was about $9000.) The quoted price is now just below $4000, so - as financial predictions go, I'm still doing pretty well :p) !

Nevertheless, it's only a little bit more clear now that the bitcoin market is likely to become essentially defunct than it was back in November. (BTW, this is not financial advice in anyway. Short-selling is very difficult in bitcoin and I wouldn't recommend that anybody put any money into that market simply because it seems to be very difficult to get any money out).

I'll recommend Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain from User:David Gerard for the best blog info out there. (I'm not blaming him for my opinions here. We certainly disagree at times, especially on details). I haven't seen any real news from the heights of the usual financial reliable sources (e.g. WSJ, Bloomberg, NYT) in the last couple of weeks.

The news that strikes me as most important in the last month (but not in RS yet) is that Bitmain, the largest trade processor ("miner") of bitcoin is having major financial problems. A few months ago they were touting something like "the biggest IPO since Google". Now the cryptopress says they are laying off 50%-80% of their workforce, with the 2 Co-CEOs possibly among the layoffs. China has awhile ago banned bitcoin mining but not enforced the ban. In any case it looks bad not just for Bitmain but for the entire mining industry. Tell your friend not to buy new mining equipment. Tell him to buy used equipment by the pound from China. (Not real financial advice, as usual).

The best news for bitcoin supporters that I've seen lately is that the ICE, owner of the New York Stock Exchange, has a fairly new subsidiary that is has been planning to open a regulated, efficient, no-tricks exchange for bitcoin. The "good news" is that they have only delayed the opening by a month or so (to February). My gut-feeling is that they will keep on delaying the opening, until it's obvious that there's no real market left, but we'll see.

So, if you really want to drag another prediction out of me, the bitcoin price will be down significantly next January 1, if the market hasn't already effectively closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope nobody sees my good-natured kidding as anything other than friendly... So by "down significantly" may I assume that over 20% lower than the Jan 1 2019 price would be a successful prediction? Given the volatility is seems likely that it will be either far higher or far lower. I am not making a prediction on something that is almost as unpredictable as our President, but if I had to choose my guess would be "a lot lower" based upon the number of idiots I see who are obviously trying to drive the price up by attracting new suckers investors. It just feels like a bubble.

I would hope that if the WMF gets any donations in bitcoin it would convert them to US dollars the same day rather than holding them... Jimbo, do you know if that is the case? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not close enough to the process to know if "same day" is a promise I can make. But basically, yes. It is not the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to engage in currency speculation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The WMF should start to use the Basic Attention Token, see also here. Count Iblis (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better to be uncreative. Thanks for the heads up on "Brave Browser"/BAT though, it helps to solve a conundrum. It should be obvious enough that if you watch a TV program in 2045 that you don't get to just walk out of the room for the ad or look at some other diversion; you're expected to sing along, you're expected to know the words, and you're expected to have the right feeling about the company as assessed by an AI analysis of your voice and biometrics. The question is, how do you get from here to there? Well, by turning the watching of ads into a cash commodity for users - for proles rather than overlords - it becomes inevitable that certain harsh security measures will be necessary (which would have been hard to impose on reputable ad wholesalers) because they are scheming thieving little peasants, essentially evil in nature, stealing their existence from the few who own the world every day, committing crime and filth from public drinking straight on through to public urination simply because they don't or won't have a pot to pee in. So BAT can be viewed as a bridge between the medieval present and the illustrious capitalist future. Something similar was pursued in one of the early Black Mirror episodes, if you have the company's permission to look at it. Wnt (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Just out of interest, re "It is my considered opinion that, like stocks, bitcoin prices are essentially unpredictable." In the short term, I agree. But over the long term, the value of stocks is determined by the actual profit made by the companies - and that is measurable, and it is possible to estimate a valuation for a stock based on it. The closest the two things come, as far as I can I see, is that it is possible for followers of both to attempt what is known as Technical Analysis (or charting), which is nothing more than guessing which way a price will go based solely on patterns (real or imagined) on a price chart. But unlike stocks, cryptocurrencies have no underlying tangibles whatsoever, and there is no fundamental valuation that can be estimated. So when we reject chart-watching for the bunk that it is, cryptocurrencies have nothing left. Stocks are rational long-term investments, cryptocurrencies are not. So what do I think is a rational value for bitcoin? I can see none whatsoever, though I've really no idea whether it will eventually reach zero - but I suspect it will trend lower over time. "It just feels like a bubble"? Absolutely. (Can you guess I'm a follower of Warren Buffett?) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if there are not going to be any new applications for Bitcoin, it will still have a rational value. It's a global lottery where your chance of winning is a lot better than in ordinary lotteries. If people are willing to buy lotteries such that the total amount of money invested in the lottery is more than a billion dollars so that the first prize can be more than billion dollars, making almost everyone pay into the bank account of the new billionaire, then it's only logical that a lot more people will be willing to buy Bitcoins as it's much more likely that people will win money in that game. The market capitalization of Bitcoin should thus be compared to the combined value of the jackpots of all large lotteries. The latter is of the order of several billion dollars, while Bitcoin's market capitalization is $64 billion. Dividing that by the 17.47 million Bitcoins gives you the Bitcoin price. The Bitcoin game is thus more popular than ordinary lotteries are. It may become a bit less popular, but it's unlikely that people will abandon playing this game altogether. Count Iblis (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a fair point - there is rational value as a gambling mechanism. But there's a difference from lotteries, in that lotteries have a prize. Cryptocurrency is like a lottery with no prize but just a limited number of tickets. The value of the tickets is only based on what people will pay to buy them from you even without a prize - oh, and the limited number of tickets is growing every day. Even as a gambling mechanism, it seems very silly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(COI declaration: I have $20 in Bitcoin somewhere on my backup hard drive) In my opinion, Bitcoin basically lost any chance of succeeding when the Bitcoin Cash split happened. The entire community basically imploded in on itself, and rational discussion about how to improve the technology became impossible. The Cash proponents became obsessed with continued blocksize increases being the best way to scale the software, while the old guard backed more complicated solutions that were potentially much stabler long-term but would also take substantially longer to develop. Newsflash: nobody wants to use a currency that can magically turn into different currencies at random times with the value being determined by whoever has the most political sway in the community at the moment. The mining arms race also turned the blockchain from a novel way to determine consensus through a decentralized system into an never-ending electricity suck as everyone competes to get rich quick. Not a great look when we're still busy trying to figure out how to make energy without cooking the planet at the same time. Finally, the best solution either camp could come up with to solve what became known as the "coffee problem" (i.e. how to pay for your daily cup at Starbucks with crypto) ended up eventually becoming "idk, just have a PayPal-esque intermediary sit between the transaction, no need to fill the blockchain up with all that." So it's probably not going to work as a currency. While I do think there may be value in blockchains eventually, the hype surrounding them was way overboard, and early projects like the DAO just wound up backfiring on everyone. But, given the current state of the world as a whole right now, I'm not confident predicting anything more than "wait and see" at this point. Someone's probably going to discover that injecting blockchains into people cures cancer or something, and it still won't even make the top 10 most ridiculous events of this decade. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Newsflash: nobody wants to use a currency that can magically turn into different currencies at random times with the value being determined by whoever has the most political sway in the community at the moment." It's more basic than that. The key requirement for a currency is stability, and nobody wants to use a currency whose value is extremely volatile. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the stability issue is also a major problem. There have been various arguments on that front, ranging from "well gold is unstable too" to "it doesn't matter because <complicated economics jargon>." At the end of the day, Average Joe doesn't want to have to deal with fluctuating values and any rationally sized purchase being measured in many decimal places and shopkeepers don't want to deal with having to reprice goods on a real time basis. As it stands, the only thing the currency is really good at is being a speculation like gold, except it isn't even as good as gold since it's not a physical object that stuff can be done with. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the gold analogy too, but I think it misses the point that gold is also not viable as a currency (which is largely why the gold standard was abandoned). Those pushing cryptocurrencies as a cheaper way to transact than centrally-controlled currencies with their transaction charges miss the fact that established currencies and their mechanisms are actually very efficient and very cheap in transaction costs. Who wants to save a fraction of a percent in transaction costs when the currency itself is subject to wild daily fluctuations? Blockchain technology has great potential, but not for implementing currencies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

BitCoin does actually have a use as a normal currency. We can read here: "Back in early November, the U.S. successfully pressured the banking transactions network Swift to cut Iran off from the global financial system. This is now reportedly causing Iranian citizens studying at universities abroad to turn to cryptocurrency in order to be able to fund their tuition." Also, donations to Sci-Hub can only be made using bitcoin: "The project is supported by user donations. Imagine the world with free access to knowledge for everyone ‐ a world without any paywalls. Donate for this vision to become true. Make your contribution to the battle against copyright laws and information inequality. Even the smallest donation counts." Count Iblis (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Will there be an emergency? Nope, didn't happen

Maybe I'm just feeling very gloomy today, but it strikes me that President Trump will likely declare a national emergency tonight at 9pm New York Time. Such a declaration itself could become a different kind of national emergency. The stuff will really hit the fan in the press, in social media, and probably even on Wikipedia, and it will come from all sides. See e.g. ABC - Pence calls border 'bona fide emergency,' dodges questions about Trump falsehoods Pence is making the case ahead of Trump's address to the nation Tuesday night. and pre-refutations such as LA Times - There is no security crisis at the border

I'll just ask admins to consider ahead of time what they will do if it really does hit the fan on Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones I really hope he doesn't. However, the fact he's making federal workers work without pay is not a good indication **sigh**-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Fact is, there has been one since Jan 20 2017. Hashtag ITMF. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that what Trump will announce will be that he intends to exercise the powers of 10 U.S. Code § 2808 to begin construction of the wall that Congress is denying him funding for. This is probably not particularly alarming in the short run although, as Smallbones predicts, there will be a lot of noise about it. My concern personally is that this is a trial balloon for the exercise of much more alarming powers that the President may (or may not) theoretically have.

My view is that Congress has been lazy for a very long time in terms of giving increasing arbitrary authority to the Executive branch for all kinds of things. This has largely been kind of ok, mostly because whatever your views of various Presidents, none of them were actual lunatics. Depending on your view of our current President, you may find it alarming that he has these powers.

I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the thing to watch here is the border patrol's claim to unusual police powers throughout a large internal region of the U.S. 100 miles from any border or coast. [29][30] CBP is widely known to enter buses and private property without a warrant, and the latter article makes some remarkable claims about powers it has demanded. The thing to bear in mind is that if Trump can funnel billions into a "border wall" that is not a literal wall and can allocate them however he wants, before long he could have "border patrol" agents combing through backyards and walled gardens looking for pot plants (even in Washington State ... especially there, I would think), and whatever other nasty surprise policies he comes up with. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

[31]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Just watched the speech - it was about 10 minutes long, but nothing new in it. Nothing about a declaration of a national emergency. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Predictions are tricky. I mean, after all the dire warnings some made in favor of the North Carolina bathroom bill, I just finally read of a case of sexual assault in the ladies' room. In which the women are accused of assaulting the transwoman ... and who would have predicted that? Wnt (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A fascinating example of Stephen Miller's writing style. The lack of empathy in the White House is pretty chilling. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

They ask you, why do all the boys and girls go into separate toilets, and instead of being able to tell them that those toilets are not seperate because they are communal, which is clever, critical thinking for them, you are more likely to say to them oh, that's for privacy, though it is really against privacy, so there is the first and youngest encounter with stupid concerning communal toileting. The people who normalised communal toileting for the children of our culture cared about children in varying ways and paid less purchasing them than purchasing horses. There is no actual reason for communal toilet for any child over the maturity of possibly needing help with the actual physical actions like doing your button back up. It's just a tradition. The lagging reasons for communal toileting in schools are thus: Easier to help kindergarten children with clothing, Had some fun time with water in the changing rooms our selves, and It's never failed before/It's just a tradition. Life moves on. Communal toilets are cheap because everybody pays for them over time, or at least, for the lack of alternative! ~ R.T.G 01:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The transfer of power to the executive is a natural response to polarisation. The near-impossibility of gaining 2/3 majority in a Senate where Wyoming gets the same number of votes as California means that bipartisanship is a difficult proposition, especially now that the right wing media has basically severed itself from the continuum of mainstream journalism. Guy (Help!) 01:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to distract from the anger properly directed at "Tariff Man" (who is hurting a lot of Canadian workers), but the most important aspect, imo, is how many people have big debts and no savings (including me) which causes them(us) to live from paycheck to paycheck.

We just never seem to learn the most basic elements of capitalism. People my age had grandparents who witnessed first hand all the farms and homes that were repossessed by banks, or just as often by governments for unpaid property taxes. Even our parents would see any amount of mortgage on the homes we grew up in as a heavy threat, like a raised guillotine, to be paid off ASAP. My granddad came out of the depression better than most because after losing a couple of cotton crops to the boll weevil, he picked up himself, wife and 2 kids and moved to the city and learned how to sell life insurance from scratch. Also, being a Mason helped a lot, I imagine. But the point is, the only thing I remember him saying to me when we went to watch the train roll through town, was "Hold your money!"

I didn't even know what he meant and never asked. I, as a 5 year old, thought it meant literally "hold it in your hand". Much later, after he died, my mom told me it meant to save your money, and boy, she got it. She never paid 1 penny in interest. She always worked and had a deal with my more normal dad that he would pay the mortgage(which included interest) and she would pay for everything else. Many of her generation, at least a lot of them, who grew up in the great depression, would have had no trouble at all waiting a month or 2 for their paychecks. But the money lenders got most of us in my generation. I started getting credit cards in the mail when I was still in school with no income at all. Some people call it "Debt capitalism" and differentiate it from pure capitalism....I don't know enough about economics to speak on that, but maybe there is a difference.

This biggest selling song ever at the time it was sung here, says it all, and I especially get a kick outa the guys in tuxedos snapping their fingers, cause I imagine those are the guys who owned the "company store". Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

WP blocked in Venezuela

It appears we have gone dark there [32]. Anything we can/should do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that article is correct, it's currently a single company rather than a nationwide ban. The company is CANTV which has a million broadband subscribers, so it's not negligible, but unless there's evidence that other ISPs are also blocking access this could easily just be a glitch at their end. ‑ Iridescent 11:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

That article seems a bit biased - since it is breaking news this is at the moment no more than a "brief blockage", and as you say only by one company that we know of. Censorship of Wikipedia describes a lot of other "brief blockages". Certainly it would not be wise for any Bolivarian official to block all access to a site that is one of the great triumphs of socialist collaboration for the common good. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite Turkey yet, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism and provocations take place on Wikipedia

Hello Jimmy and other administrators! Vandalism and provocations (they wait 3 rollbacks from me) take place on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&action=history (here easy understand)). I ask you take action against vandalism (restore my edit in the article, warnings for violators if will be need). Thank you! Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yellow Man 1000. No matter whether your edit is correct or not (it's sourced, after all), the fact that it's true doesn't mean it's relevant. You need to Discuss with other editors when they revert your contributions, not edit war. Especially when your contributions are being undone by more than one editor, you need to step back. Administrators don't handle content disputes, they handle behavioural issues (like edit warring). Edit warring is disruptive. Never edit war, not even when you're right. Thanks! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• It was simple vandalism (he understood this clearly, he did not click UNDO, and his description has no relation to info about music). And any clever man understand. I have right combat vandalism (not war of edits). Personal whim of vandal is not reason seek consent. If not so, I have right remove any new information which I do not like! You not will be glad, if I will rollback you simply so. I ask help here. Not protection for vandals which act against Wikipedia and me. Jimmy Wales, help me! Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Tool for quickly copying media from Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons to another wiki?

I wonder if anyone here knows of a tool for quickly copying media (images mainly) from Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons to another (non-WMF) wiki, in such a way that automatically follows best practices for attribution?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty of asking at Wikipedia:Help desk#Tool for quickly copying media from Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons to another wiki?. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I also found InstantCommons but haven't had time to test it yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information now

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation.

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

• There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosurewikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergencywikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: m:Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

​ The redlinks are supposed to point to meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign I believe, seeing as the message was composed on Meta. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo request petition - please help spread the word

Hi again. The photo request petition from about a month ago now has over 100 signatures. I have tried emailing, tweeting, and messaging TASS and RIA Novosti to inform them about the petition - but never received any responses. Can you please help by promoting the petition a little, and contacting the agencies (they are less likely to ignore you). Wikipedia needs these photos very much - the lack of free media to cover Russian, Soviet, and CIS history topics is one of the most important matters facing Wikipedia; the importance of getting these photos under a Commons-compatible license cannot be understated. It won't take much of your time, but it could really improve Wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll tweet about it but that won't help much. Let me think about what the best way for me to help might be. Have you been in touch (I presume so since this is posted on ru.wikipedia.org) with the Russian chapter? If they'd like to support an effort for a more direct outreach from me, I'm happy to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Yes, I have been in contact with the Russian chapter of the project. The petition was hosted on ru.wikipedia because TASS and RIA Novosti are Russian agencies, but the petition is more like Commons; users from nearly every major Wikipedia have signed it, including English, Polish, Spanish, Portugese...not just Russian. The request is so that it items can be used on Commons (which is an interwiki project). The hard part so far has been getting TASS and RIA Novosti to actually respond to us; I tried calling the phone number on their website today (which didn't work). Since they are a bit difficult to reach, I thought you might have more luck since you are a public figure and apparently TASS and RIA Novosti have donated photos to Commons in the past (I assume you had something to do with it? If not, I wonder who was involved and was able to reach them.) Either way, we really, really, really, need to get the photos under free licences - while NASA astronauts have nice portraits in their infoboxes, the way we use low-quality images used to represent Soviet cosmonauts (like this and this is a little bit embarrassing to us - but these agencies pretty much have a monopoly on the portraits. Some people on Russian Wikipedia have said that they are worried that the petition might not work because of new management of one of the companies (I forget which one - but strangely, there is lots of overlap in the content of their archives). Yet both agencies are still releasing content under free licences to several Russian government websites that want to use their materials - specifically, mil.ru, kremlin.ru, premier.gov.ru, duma.gov.ru, bashkortostan.ru, and rk.gov.ru. I think there is a 50-50% chance it will work, but if it does not, it appears that there are lots of people in Russia that are on our side on this one. Either way, the petition does need more publicity for certain.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Jdforrester tried to silence us

Jdforrester (WMF) deleted (not closed, deleted) the proposal at c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Drop security support for IE6 and IE7 because he didn't like it. Support for dead browsers cripples Commons (and MediaWiki in general actually), but there is no way to propose any change to it. - Alexis Jazz 19:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not a deletion. That's simply the removal of a section. Nick (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semantics. If someone on Wikipedia reverts vandalism, they would tell their friends they "remove vandalism from Wikipedia". - Alexis Jazz 22:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The Jdforrester (WMF) account has been blocked for a week on Commons. (his admin account is not affected) - Alexis Jazz 22:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

That is an outrageously bad cowboy block based on a pile of misunderstanding, and a silly heading based on a pile of misunderstanding. This is a good page to discuss the issue because uninformed ranting is SOP here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Might not be the best block ever, but it was a ridiculous action to do in the first place. I note the blocking admin said "While their actions as an administrator have been particularly sub-standard over the past years...", so perhaps the chickens have come home at Commons as well. Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, anyone with a WMF account should get intensive training on dealing with stuff like this. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think everyone should relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. But one question remains. I understand the MediaWiki software development is not in our hands. We could suggest whatever we want, but ultimately don't control it. But this is where I believe the friction starts. mw:Compatibility#Browser support matrix is seemingly a bible. We can't propose a change for it. Support for IE5 was actually dropped almost 3 years ago, but there is no way to even suggest dropping the support for IE6 and IE7. Meanwhile, the proposal on Commons, after Donald Trung and I brought it back much to Jdforrester's dismay, is heading for a pass. But what will that mean? - Alexis Jazz 05:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Depends on how many users and readers still use that browser. Just because its support has been dropped doesn't mean that there aren't still thousands of users using it. phab:T28059 is an example for that problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ser Amantio Di Nicolao

I'm surprised nobody's put this on your talk page yet: "Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia." YoPienso (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been watching your page for awhile; maybe someone posted this older story in October. YoPienso (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What surprises me is that according to his contributions he actively edits while at work in his Government job, he often violates the rules of use for AWB, people complain about his minor and pointless edits all the time but yet nothing is done about any of it. It's also worth noting that saying he is the man behind a 3rd of whats on Wikipedia is pure hyperbole. It's fake news! I really hope you are smart enough to not buy into this nonsense. 73.177.198.103 (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The news media articles don't usually point out that many of Ser Amantio Di Nicolao's edits are automated. There is nothing wrong with this of course, but it is important not to see edit count as a measure of overall contribution, as WP:EDITCOUNT points out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Seran Kim

Hi Jimbo Wales, I just wanted to express some frustration. Majority of wikipedia pages which I assess have proposed deletion, then discussion, after a long while, then it gets a KEEP. However, many articles get deleted and creators don't bother fighting back. My creation of Seran Kim is one of this frustration. Can the foundation encourage those who add bad tags to do the fixes instead of tagging? SWP13 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I doubt if the Foundation is well positioned to help here, but I do support a pause and community discussion of how to best deal with situations like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've often thought that PROD as applied to new articles is a strange procedure. Because practically any creator of an article would object to their newly minted work being summarily deleted and would just remove the PROD, as they're entitled to do without being obliged to justify their action. If the creator doesn't remove the PROD, it is likely to be because they are inexperienced and either don't even know a PROD was applied, or don't realise they are empowered to remove it, or don't know how to go about removing it: thus a new article – and probably its creator – disappear from Wikipedia without any consideration of the merits of either: Bhunacat10 (talk), 22:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps the PROD messaging could be improved, and somewhere people should be encouraged not to use it on brand new articles without first discussing the matter in a kind way with the original creator.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

Sir what is your opinion regarding Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia? ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think my views are too nuanced to be easily boxed into either category. I think some things should be deleted and some things should be included. For me, the real key is "eventualism" - nothing in Wikipedia is permanent, so if something is deleted that shouldn't have been, it can be brought back. And if something is kept that should have been deleted, it can be deleted later.

Furthermore, I think that most of us have similar views and that therefore the entire view of Wikipedia as having a war between "deletionists" and "inclusionsists" is just wrong.

Many articles (notice I didn't say all) that are simply short should be kept even if there is not much chance of them being expanded. The biggest exception would be biographies that are likely to cause damage if they are not properly maintained over time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Roughly 20% of our articles are "sub-stubs" - a couple of lines long without much, if anything, in the way of references. We could delete almost all of these and lose less than 1% of our pageviews. I'm not saying we should delete all of these, but - other than the time it takes to delete things around here - not much would be lost. Perhaps merging them into a related article would be best.

There are many adverts that should be deleted, however. These are actively harmful in that they mislead our readers, and encourage other advertisers to place their garbage here. By far the worst "ads" however are the financial scams that the scammers put into Wikipedia. Some of the retail forex articles, almost all of the binary options articles and cryptocurrency articles are (or were) about scams pretending to be normal firms offering secure investments. Most of these should go - they cost our readers $millions each year. Once a scammer is caught and reported on in reliable sources, of course we should keep the article, but without any shilly-shallyinging about the charges against them. Any reputable publication will have rules about not promoting scams. We shouldn't be an exception. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's got to be one of the worst articles I've ever seen (and it doesn't even hide its POV). Just goes to show that navel-gazing is never good. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Inclusionist is the Wikipedia equivalent of pro-life: a religious position that frames the debate much more than it informs it. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite - Not that bad an article. @JzG - Inclusionists believe in the rule of law with respect to what should be kept and deleted; deletionists live by the sword wielded in the name of "I Don't Like It." YMMV. I think JW near the top is basically correct, the lines between the two camps are soft and most people are in the middle. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much everybody on Wikipedia is an inclusionist, just like pretty much everybody is pro-life. The "inclusionist/deletionist" labels are psychological framing, designed to reinforce a tribal approach to the level of discrtimination in content. I don't think it's helpful. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be right about Wikipedia, but the ratio among full-time AfD voters is another matter... Wnt (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Random convergence is astonishingly against the odds and abortion is the only way, to truly set you free from unnecessary discomforts, so long as you are a male politician. You shouldn't call out generalised attacks on WP, even if you outnumber them. ~ R.T.G 10:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I just think that most people, like myself, are pragmatists - if we see something being deleted that we think is notable and worthwhile, we'll work on it; similarly if we see something that we believe isn't adding any value to the encyclopedia, we won't, and may well stick a "Delete" on an AfD. But just doing that doesn't make one a deletionist. Now obviously we're far more likely to work on a topic that we know something about - I'm far more likely to try to rescue an article at AfD about an obscure garage band than an equally obscure celebrity YouTuber - but that doesn't mean I think the latter should be deleted. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

What concerns me is that if there is very little published information about a topic, then we cannot know if the published information presents an accurate view. For example, recently a number of students at Covington Catholic High School in north Tennessee came into an argument with Black Hebrew Israelites in Washington, D.C. Several years ago, the school came to attention when students wore blackface and most recently a graduate was accused of sexual assault. When one puts those three things together one forms a poor opinion of the school. But I do not know if it is representative or fair. There are of course many instances of bad behavior by students and graduates of well known schools but it is a minor part of the extensive reliable sources on them. Jeffery Skilling of Enron, currently serving a 17 year sentence for fraud for example holds an MBA from Harvard, yet the only mention of him in the Harvard Business School article is that he is listed among Notable alumni. TFD (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to proportion. What percentage of guys who go to all-male schools run by all-male religions in Southern states turn out to be entitled misogynist bigoted asshats, compared to the proportion of Harvard grads who turn out to be epic fraudsters. I honestly have no idea of the answer, there was only one "out" Nazi at my thousand-year-old single sex school, and he's changed his mind since. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

They have "all-male religions in Southern states"?!? We need an article. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

List of female priests in the Catholic Church. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: that doesn't mean females can't be part of the religion. Also, the Catholic church isn't even the largest church in the South; in fact, the South is the area with the smallest portion of Catholics. SemiHypercube 17:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This school is run by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an all-male hegemony. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Figures JzG would be here disparaging high school kids. For the record, the kids did not wear blackface, they, and many schools participate in different types of color schemes, so they will have a blackout, whiteout, blueout, etc, and if you look at the pictures, you will see the kids wear full black skinclothing, not blackface. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Endowment Fundraiser Gala

	The Bearer of this Title is Entitled to One Wikimedia Foundation Endowment Fundraiser Gala
	I say, old chap. EllenCT (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Jimbo, may I please ask you some questions about these redlinks? EllenCT (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that it is still true that the WMF is free to dip into the principle of the endowment if times get hard. For years I have been arguing for a legally binding commitment to make the principle untouchable and to spend only the interest from the endowment if we ever get to the point where contributions are too small to cover expenses.

Last year the WMF took in $91 million USD in donations, spent $69 million USD, and had $113 million USD in non-endowment assets, so it would take a huge drop in donations combined with the WMF refusing to lower spending, and this would have to go on for several years before they were forced to choose between cutting back on spending or dipping into the endowment principle. From this I conclude that there is no real downside to making the endowment principle untouchable. The WMF just has to decide to do it and then have the lawyers work out the details. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Any chance we can try to use the leftover $ to purchase Commons-compatible licenses on photos that are needed for the project? While most photo agencies currently don't have the option of buying such license, if we made it clear to them that we were interested in purchasing such licences, they might one day include it as an option.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. In fact, if the usual Jimbo Appeal explained that that is one of the things we plan on doing with the money, it just might increase the amount that gets donated. I bet the photo agencies have a number of images that are currently bring in exactly zero dollars, and I suspect that they might welcome the chance to make at least a little money off of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can't take credit for the idea though - User:PereslavlFoto from Russian wikinews was wondering why we have a Photo donation petition instead of us just purchasing the photos. Sadly, Commons-compatible licenses aren't for sale from either TASS or RIA Novosti as of today.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to bring the point about the endowment principal versus interest to the Endowment board. I do not think that a legally binding rule is either desirable or possible, but as a matter of firm policy it seems straightforward enough for the reasons you mention. To date, the Endowment is not making any grants of any kind, so it's really a moot point right now. I consider the structure - with an independent board that has to approve grants to the Foundation - to be more than adequate to ensure that this isn't simply a "really big bank account" for some future profligate CEO/board.

Why do I think it's a bad idea? Well, if it really were somehow legally binding (which is likely not possible) then even in a circumstance where we have universal and absolute agreement that the principle should be dipped into

As to the second point, this is precisely the sort of opportunity that the Endowment fund might be used for, but I would personally support it (in principle: the devil is in the details) out of the annual budget. I think it would be a fine thing to do to spend a few million a year on community-led "content liberation" programs. I say "community led" because I would want us to only buy things that are of actual value to the community in building the encyclopedia. As a silly example, a few years back David Bowie sold the copyrights to his back catalog for $55 million. The buyers raised the money by selling bonds and I suppose they probably did ok if the royalties amounted over time to more than $55 million. We could afford to buy a catalog like that and release all the songs under Creative Commons licenses - but that would be VERY pointless in terms of building an encyclopedia.

There are other examples, though, which could be much more interesting. As a hypothetical example I heard about several years ago, the family of Martin Luther King, Jr. apparently have exclusive access to vast archives of his letters and other memorabilia. They are, I was told, hoping to find a way to monetize it, but in the meantime it is hindering scholarship. Maybe the value of something like that is "only" $1 million, let's imagine. So for a tiny amount of money we could buy and release such stuff - at the very least make it available to scholars. Now, this is mostly an interesting example because it's only "half way there" in terms of helping to build the encyclopedia. But at least it seems relevant.

No, the obvious case would be back catalogs of historical images - news photos that are currently still under copyright but which would be of high encyclopedic value.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that the items of the top-priority for the wiki to buy, if we somehow could, would be portraits of deceased and/or retired people & irreproducable historic events whose articles have the most Wikidata links (ie, are available in many languages, including many Wikipedias that do not allow fair-use at all) but lack free media to represent them, or when such free media is de minimis. Specifically, I think it would be a good use of the foundation's funds to acquire free licences of portraits of cosmonauts to replace the very low-quality postage stamps and blurry images we have right now. (For example, buying this photo for Q433046). And of course it would be nessesary to gain access to photos of things that no longer exist (buildings that have been demolished, artifacts that were lost or even destroyed, statues that were taken down, etc) As for the Martin Luther King Archive, I don't think Wikipedia will have to buy it to make it public - the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, or one of many other public organizations might gain publication rights too. I don't think that buying music into free licences will be very useful to the wiki, with the possible exception of getting a specific rendering of a very important song, such as a national anthem, for an infobox. It would make sense to have a file of Ant etkenmen, but buying multiple renderings of America the Beautiful or The Star Spangled Banner by different artists just to write about different albums and covers by the artists would be quite excessive.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd thought I was pretty much up on what the Endowment was doing, but couldn't find some things, so I'll start with some questions:

• Is there a better website than https://wikimediaendowment.org/ to get info on the endowment?
• Is the Endowment legally separate from the WMF?
• How much money does it have now? Is there an IRS 990 form available?

I probably have different ideas about endowments that a lot of folks. My view is that the "continuing income stream" from interest is over-rated as the real function of an endowmwnt. For example if the endowment has $100 million in principle and gets 6% in interest or capital gains each year, then it only adds $6 million to the WMF budget - not a whole lot. Of course, if everything works well, that is what will happen.

But IMHO the real benefit, the real purpose, comes down to "what happens if everything doesn't work out as planned?" There are 2 aspects of this:

• Potential partners, whether employees or other institutions, will usually want to know whether the WMF will be around in 5 years. Sure, it looks like it is going well now, but what if something unexpected happens? Well, with a fair sized endowment, it will be certain that the WMF will be here in 5 years. We'll be able to attract better employees and other potential partners (e.g. GLAMs, universities, or foundations that might want to work with us.)
• General uncertainty - this might be technological change or management screw ups, war, depression, earthquakes, the effects of climate change or just the totally unexpected. This happens to everybody sooner or later, whether it's 5 years or 50 years down the road.

To be able to deal with general uncertainty - and thus be able to work with the best employees and other partners - dipping into the principle (rarely!) might be required. The major problem with this is distinguishing management screw ups from the other causes. Dipping into principle in the case of management screwups would not be a good idea, without first addressing the cause of the problem.

Keeping the endowment separate from management thus seems to be best. Having the endowment take on "management areas" like purchasing photos might be a bad idea. On the other hand, maybe a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity comes along - maybe a major newspaper calls it quits and wants to sell their full set of copyrights for, let's say $10-$20 million. I'd still prefer that the WMF makes the 1st decision to ask the Endowment for the money. And then have the Endowment decide whether that's a good use for the money, or a potential management screwup. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Definitely the money should be budgeted by WMF, which can ask the endowment nicely for an advance on its allowance. Otherwise Wikipedia doesn't have an endowment, it has a funding agency that it can apply to for money in competition with other ideas the funding agency comes up with on its own (good luck).

But WMF and its projects have grown massively, so we shouldn't laugh at the idea that it could buy up David Bowie's work; to the contrary, to have such a WMF would be a great goal. We should all know that copyright is immensely inefficient -- a few people pay and get access to something, but denying access to all the others does nothing to support the middlemen who dominate the industry, let alone any artist. If all the music buyers in the world could get together, pool their funds and Just Buy All The Music Together, then everyone would have access to every song all the time, and the artists would get the money they have plus all the money currently spent metering and limiting and suing and promoting. So there ought to be some way for WMF to round up a bunch of extra donors for the explicit purpose of buying stuff into the public domain and have them do so autonomously. In theory, some kind of Big Data application should make it possible to unscramble the egg - if there are 1000 Garage Band fans, and you can find and message all 1000 of them and tell them that they can pledge toward a campaign, then when you have 200 on board you can go to Garage Band and outbid the music companies who would only give them a faint whiff of the cash being collected anyway and make a better offer even in financial terms, without taking one penny out of the WMF endowment or budget. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In their comment above, Smallbones says "My view is that the "continuing income stream" from interest is over-rated as the real function of an endowment. For example if the endowment has $100 million in principle and gets 6% in interest or capital gains each year, then it only adds $6 million to the WMF budget - not a whole lot." Actually, it is a lot. The WMF spends roughly $2 million USD per year on Internet hosting. I have all of the numbers with citations at WP:CANCER. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's disrespectful to those suffering oncological issues to trivialize the term they use to describe their illnesses by associating it with your opinion that a widely regarded educational nonprofit is too successful. EllenCT (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You might feel different if it ever happens to you. I myself am a cancer survivor, and when the first person (a person who has never had cancer themselves) made the above complaint I asked my local cancer survivors support group to look over my essay. I also asked the same question on an online cancer survivors forum. The unanimous opinion among those of us who have actually faced cancer was [A] Most of us are sick and tired of people who decide for us whether we should be offended, with many of us remembering the bad days when you weren't allowed to even say the word as if we were dealing with Lord Voldemort, and [B] the analogy between spending growing without limit until it kills an organization and cells growing without limit until they kill a person is a good analogy.

In addition, I reject your usual loaded language and emotional arguments. Nobody ever complained about Wikipedia or the WMF becoming too successful in the area of creating the worlds largest and best free online encyclopedia.

My specific recommendations were and are:

• We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details.

• We should limit spending increases to no more than inflation plus some percentage (adjusted for any increases in page views, users, pages, or some other metric).

• We should build up our endowment, and structure the endowment so that the WMF cannot dip into the principal when times get bad.

While Jimbo disagrees with the fixed percentage (he thinks if we do that that we could miss out on doing some really great things that nobody has thought of yet -- and he could very well be right about that) and is a bit ... soft on the idea of never dipping into the principle of the endowment, I am under the impression that he is in basic agreement with my other recommendations -- but of course the devil is always in the details.

It is my considered opinion that the above recommendations are a good roadmap that will lead to our continued success. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of an endowment

The purpose of the endowment is "Ensuring free knowledge for future generations".[33] It exists so that Wikipedia, Mediawiki, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata and Wictionary never shut down because we ran out of money to keep them open.

The endowment is NOT for buying content, nor is it for any of the other good work that the WMF does outside of keeping the servers running, fixing bugs in the software, and a few absolutely essential functions like legal and accounting. And even those things are (and should be) currently funded from the general budget. The endowment is a safety net, not a piggy bank.

There is no need to even consider using the endowment (principle or interest) to fund anything. Last year the WMF took in $22 million more than it spent and had $113 million USD in non-endowment assets. So it is fine to discuss various things we might want to spend general fund money on but nobody should suggest that we dip into the endowment to fund anything. The endowment should get bigger, not smaller. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not both? Also, how is "buying content" different from "fixing bugs in the software"? Patches have a positive number of bytes. EllenCT (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Why not both?", why not use the endowment to ensure free knowledge for future generations and the regular budget to do lower priority things like buying content? Do you really want to risk Wikipedia's very existence to fund your pet project when it can easily be funded from the regular budget? Bug fixing and security patches are something we simply have to do to ensure free knowledge for future generations. If we leave bugs unfixed, eventually a hacker will exploit a bug and destroy everything. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think your aggressive tone is really unnecessary. As it turns out, I agree with you that at the present time and in the present circumstances, using the endowment for special projects isn't the right thing - nor is it in any way under serious consideration. As you rightly point out (contrary to your usual negative tone about it), the WMF is doing quite well financially, operating well within it's budget, holding spending well beneath revenue, to the point that we should consider whether there are high-impact expenditures that we could make to further our mission. Or do you call that 'cancer'?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Cancer is exponential growth of spending. The latest financials show a much smaller growth. It's just one data point, but if I see a couple of more years without the previous huge increases in spending I will mark my essay as obsolete/historical and write a couple of new paragraphs at the top praising you personally and the entire WMF. Especially if I ever see some real action on my "We should make spending transparent, publish a detailed account of what the money is being spent on and answer any reasonable questions asking for more details" proposal -- even if that action is to consider and reject it. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

One of the big problems with "content liberation" is that the Wiki-governance system just wouldn't know how to deal with it, e.g. if a significant photo archive came on the market. Let's say it costs over $50,000 and several editors recognize its significance. Well they might go to the various Wiki grant programs, but they'd likely be met with a) "that's way too much money" and b) "that's a highly unusual use - we've never engaged in that type of thing before" as well as c) "you'd need the money within a month to make a bid - that doesn't fit in with our schedule". Maybe they could go to the Village Pump instead - but I'd think the reception there would be "what could we possibly do about this?" Or they could go directly to the WMF, who'd say, "we'd need a board resolution" or to the Board who'd say a) "we need this to start with the community" and probably b) "this would have to come from a separate source of money - nobody ever donated to the WMF to fund content liberation". And going to the Endowment or any other potential source of funding would result in "we'd need the approval or support of the WMF." In short, I have no effing idea how somebody could even start the discussion on this.

Let me give 3 somewhat fanciful examples of what type of content we might want to liberate. Most people should be able to find something here that reminds them of some resource that we could use.

• Local historical society photo archives. Many counties, small cities, or regions have some sort of historical society run by volunteers that is given lots of old photos that they really don't know what to do with. They might classify them and add metadata - or at least sort them out. Occasionally they'll sell copies to researchers. Because it's one of the few resources they have that can be monetized, they'll claim copyright or keep them locked up somehow. We could start a program offering to pay local historical societies to digitize their whole collections provided they license them CC-0.
• Musical recordings of pre-1923 compositions. Say a well-known music conservatory would like to have a complete digital record of all major pre-1923 piano works and is willing to let their best students record these. But they need $'s to do the actual recordings, check copyrights, and pay their students a small performance fee.
• A newspaper has gone bankrupt and the trustee want to auction off the rights to the already digitized archive of text and photos.

So how would we start the conversation? Other people might have other ideas, but I'll ask you, Jimmy Wales, to do the following:

• At the next Board meeting (Jan. 30th?) ask both the Board and the Executive Director: "If we were to consider doing content liberation, how should we go about doing it? What sort of resources, both monetary and organizational, would we need"
• After getting answers from both we could open up a serious discussion in the community on whether we want to do it, and you or the WMF fund raisers could start the discussions with the Endowment and other potential donors on whether they'd be willing to fund it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Endowment money should not be used to buy content since it's for maintaining Wikipedia's existance. However, the priority of "content liberation" should be to secure specific media Wikipedia currently needs the most but it does not have - ie, portraits of notable deceased people and notable historic events that already have Wikipedia articles in need of media. There is far more need on all Wikipedia projects for a good portraits of people like Viktor Patsayev and a recordings of important Ant etkenmen as opposed to some obscure never-used-anymore pre-1923 song with no article and photos of some small town's annual parade. Anything Wikipedia is buying should be for use in specific articles, well-needed, missing, high-priority, and useful.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • The question of what content to liberate can be discussed after we decide how we're going to pay for it and what mechanisms will be used to decide. My guess is that if you have a list of 20 or 30 items you want to buy the rights to (retail) together with the cost, then you might have a chance of getting the money needed at one of the Wiki grants programs, but any more systematic method of content liberation will be much harder. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I have a wishlist here, I haven't finished it yet though. The items on the list are for-sale, just not under CC licenses. We should negotiate buying those under a Commons license first since there are articles waiting to be improved by them under non-fairuse criteria.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
        • OK, I see 90 items, but let's just round to 100.
        • 1st question: Who's going to negotiated for the WMF? The other side is going to want to negotiate with somebody who has the authority to commit the WMF to the deal.
        • 2nd: If they sell a one-time use for say $20, how much would the sell a free-use license for? That is, selling a free license means that anybody can copy it from Commons - so they would probably figure that they'll never be able to sell it to anybody ever again. How much would they want to charge. Probably the sum of all future expected sales. Maybe $200 if they expect 10 future sales. $1000 if they expected to sell 50 one-time uses.
        • So your list of 100 photos could cost $100,000.
        • There would have to be legal agreements drawn up. Those might cost $1000 for each side (which we'd end up paying). If we were to establish a standard contract, it wouldn't be a big deal, but individual deals like you are suggesting would likely have to be redone each time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

1st question answer - An employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who deals with finances. A Gofundme or fundraiser to buy the images could be involved, to make our project public. 2nd question answer - "Maybe $200 if they expect 10 future sales" 10 future sales per image is far more likely - they don't get as much purchases as you would expect. TASS and RIA Novosti have both donated photos to Wikipedia in the past, so there is certainly a possibility of negotiating a the purchase of images at a bulk discount. Yes, there would to be a legal agreement drawn up - one contract for all the photos in bulk.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You could pay a million bucks for some music students to free up some old orchestral sets, or you could pay a few grand to some music technology students to finish up their product with a suitable front end, hand it out to all wiki users to learn to type notes in the correct way, and set ALL the songs free, forever, and surely it wouldn't cost a million bucks to get something like Computer Muzys set free when it is already ancient freeware based on being free, once distributed at every magazine store for years while they developed it, capable of composing ANYTHING. (greatly edited) Because that would solve your recital problem too. ~ R.T.G 01:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll modify what I said above - "I have no effing idea how somebody could start an intelligent discussion on this," and withdraw from this discussion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Aside from your post not making sense at all I'm going to note here that Wikipedia is not dedicated to music. This is an encyclopedia, not a garage band. You did not mention a single article that is in need of the music stuff you need. The pictures of cosmonauts are actually quite needed - while NASA program astronauts have good portraits, some of the most famous Soviet cosmonauts do not have portraits from Commons for Wikidata - yet they should. There is a huge lack of Soviet media on Commons. There is no need to create media for every tiny song ever created before 1923 - most of it will not be needed in any article. Content that should be bought is what is most needed in the articlespace of all encyclopedias combined and cannot ever be recreated by a Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians. Any group of Wikipedians can play a pre-1923 song, but NO Wikipedian will EVER be able to create a photo of Viktor Patsayev or Natalya Estemirova. As for the price of the photos, RIA Novosti and TASS have donated photos to Wikipedia in the past, and it turns out that many of the photos are not sold much at all (reverse image search). So it is very likely, and important, that we could compose a full list of historic photos we need, and then buy them at a bulk discount or something.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smalbones: I forgot to tell you - over 100 editors from all over Wikipedia WANT the photos from TASS and RIA Novosti. If using any other Wikipedia $ is not possible, I would suggest a gofundme pr specific fundraiser dedicated to gaining licences on the specific items - surely many people who signed the petition would be willing to help free the content.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Dell or Hanauer?

Jimbo, I wonder where you would be on the tycoon spectrum. Do you feel closer to Dell or Hanauer? EllenCT (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Portugal

What's the situation with the Wikimedia Portugal chapter? Benjamin (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll bet you can fill in a few details here to help people get started with an answer! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Governance issues and disagreements with the Foundation. I'm specifically curious about Jimbo's opinion on the matter. Benjamin (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not in a position to be able to comment in great detail. This thread on Wikimedia-l discusses the issues. My understanding is that it is time for a new chapter agreement with Wikimedia Portugal and the chapter and WMF are discussing the details. A 2 month extension to the existing agreement has been granted to allow time to work through the details.

There are older threads on Wikimedia-l which sum up the very difficult internal conflict that roiled Wikimedia Portugal last year. This appears to me to be a good faith effort to make adjustments to the chapter agreement to restore balance and good will. I don't think "disagreements with the Foundation" is really a major part of what is going on here. (Except in the very limited sense in which negotiations often have parties disagreeing on particulars as they discuss various details.) Unless I'm very mistaken, this is a drama-level LOW situation (especially as compared to the internal drama-level VERY HIGH last year in the chapter's internal conflict).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Did the chapter do something bad? Benjamin (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a very either/or question, and I'm not really prepared to say 'yes' or 'no' to it. It's always a bad situation when a chapter has an internal conflict resulting in heated words and even legal threats against each other, etc. In such a case, from a distance, it is very hard to say who did something bad, and so I think people (including me) should refrain from casual comment. If you go back and read all the threads last autumn on Wikimedia-l, you'll have a better understanding of the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note the discretionary sanctions for biographies and American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Bishonen | talk 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC).

I just read Tulsi Gabbard's BLP and found one word in orange on that page: Aryan.

Really! As it turns out, someone had just suggested that I use the "gadget" in "preferences" that turns links to disambiguation pages orange. My question for the experts is: should people's siblings even be being mentioned by name on a BLP page? I gather this was discussed off-wiki concerning some relatives of Annette Funicello once... any newer takes on the question from everyday ordinary Wikipedians like you two would, of course, be welcome! SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the far-too-common misguided "compromise" between summarizing the published material about victims of a massacre and omitting them entirely by just listing their names. There I support full biographical detail on the most important principals of the massacre, by which I mean foremost those who gave their lives or made headlines for their suffering or resistance. Here it should be clear that if RSes have described Gabbard's siblings, where they live, what they do, that this provides invaluable context for any biography. Listing their names by themselves isn't very helpful. The urge to Wikilink from "Aryan" to Aryan religion was also badly misguided, though somewhat understandable given that the millennia-old Aryan name and trademark swastika logo had been so widely misappropriated by goons from some country in Europe in the last century. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha, just could not help yourself huh? PackMecEng (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, everybody, this is Douglas and I am sad at Wikipedia this very moment

I just tried to include my own material and photo (as predefinition) about a writer here in Brazil and they just told me I was wrong and as I started to edit the article in order to follow their rules, they told me I was vandalizing and now I don't have any resource to keep on with editing.

There is a warning that humiliates the writer above the article, I asked them what to do to enhance it and got no answer. It should be better them to delete it, because that warning isn't helping in any way the article and the person described in it.

I wish you, Jimbo, to help me on how to improve that. I am a regular reader and researcher at Wiki's website and always was at your defense. Now I just tried to make a contribution and some editors just made me sad.

Please, help me, thanx, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougie Pedia (talk • contribs) 00:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dougie Pedia: Sorry that it is not as easy to contribute as you'd like. The first thing that you can do is to identify which article you tried to write. There's only 1 contribution (right above) in your editing history. Next you can get several links to articles about the subject of your proposed article and just put the links in the proposed article (or here if you can't find it!) . If you can't find articles on the subject - well, it's time to get to work - how were you going to write a Wikipedia article on the subject? Jimbo usually doesn't answer very specific questions like yours, but you should be able to find help from other editors if you are willing to put in the work. The 1st article can be a bit difficult however - just keep at it until you get the hang of it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Doug, did you try to write that first article under another user name? Because I can't find it in your history. The only contribution listed for this user name is this note at Jimbo's talk page, and you have no deleted contributions. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to wrap up this section: the user Dougie Pedia has been checkuser blocked for socking. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP problem with Nathan Larson (politician)

The lead contains the unreferenced statement, "He has advocated greatly curtailing women's rights and decriminalizing child sexual abuse and incest, and is a white supremacist."

Per WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:LABEL, WP:SUBSTANTIATE, WP:INTEXT, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, this statement should be backed up with inline citations to multiple reliable sources, or else left out. Also, if the subject of the article has denied any of these allegations, that should be reported. The article should stick to the facts that were reported in reliable sources and avoid editorializing.

In particular, if one source says Larson supports abolishing the marriageable age and another source says child marriage is a form of child sexual abuse, to use those two sources as the basis of an interpretation that Larson supports decriminalizing child sexual abuse is a WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:SYNTHESIS. Thanks. 2600:1003:B10F:5023:0:4E:C252:C101 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the statement immediately, per the rule of BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately..." I agree with you completely that a statement like that, unsourced, is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, and that tendentious synthesis should be avoided. I encourage you to leave your comment at the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the content was extensively sourced in the body of the article with articles from HuffPost, USA Today, The Independent and Washington Post for example. I urge you to read the first article from HuffPost but be warned, it's pretty stomach turning. However, it's clear that no BLP or OR violations took place when the article repeated exactly what the subject himself has openly confessed (and apparently is proud of). Just the lack of cites in the lead was a problem of course, so I restored the material with the appropriate citations per WP:LEADCITE. I suspect this was an attempt of Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo to get around the protection of the article that was applied after sock puppets tried repeatedly to whitewash the article. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The seriousness of the allegations would demand that it be sourced at every step of the way, so you've done the right thing. But remember, our policy on BLP complaints remains "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately..." As we all agree "Appeals to Jimbo" in the sense of hoping that I will overrule the community is never going to work and is a bad idea. But I'm a Wikipedian, and it's always a good idea for people to ask me about problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that your first question ought to have been "why do we have an article about a non-notable politician?" Being a curiosity to the media, or having a well-written article, doesn't make someone notable. GNG seems to make a mockery of any more stringent notability criteria. Risker (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I do think this is a valid question. I think I would tend to !vote keep, but I fully accept that it is worth considering.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think "being a curiosity" most certainly does make someone notable. See also goatse. There are various interesting ways to test a democracy, and this certainly is one of them. At every step from registration to news coverage to debates and online organizing, you can ask -- does everyone have access to the democratic system, or do state and corporate gate-keepers decide which candidates are too extreme? It is a very useful article to continue expanding. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democratic system, and I have no idea why you are rambling about them. In any case, by now Jimbo has had plenty of opportunity to have availed himself of the information about why his intervention in this case was inappropriate. Risker (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I was speaking of American (or more precisely, Virginian) democracy above, as a means of encouraging that Keep "!vote" Jimbo mentioned. Yeah, yeah, I know, America is not a democracy either. So sue me. Wnt (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The articles say things like "When asked if he is a pedophile or just wrote about pedophiliac sex fantasies, Larson told HuffPost Thursday, "It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top there’s a grain of truth to what they say." That shouldn't be used to source the claim that he's a pedophile. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee: I don't see how that logic tracks but anyway, this is a user talk page. If you have concerns about the way an article is written, raise them on the article's talk page or WP:BLPN. Regards SoWhy 16:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

By "article" I meant the articles you gave as a reference above, not the Wikipedia article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Macedonian President Gorge Ivanov is now in the House arrest

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo Wales, did you know that after Fifth of January 2019. Macedonian President Gorge Ivanov was in the House arrest. He was arrested by the Prime minister of Macedonia Zoran Zaev and President Ivanov didn't gave his speech on the Christmas celebration on Seventh of January 2019. His residence was and still is surrounded by a strong police forces. All his advisors were arrested and major foreign policy advisor manage to escape in one neighboring country. After Fifth of January, Macedonian President Ivanov disappeared from public life.178.223.52.16 (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC) No, I was unaware of this. As is the entire English language press, as far as I have been able to tell. I suppose it has to do with his meddling into the corruption scandal engulfing his party?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Dear Jimmy, Ivanov is not a member of the VMRO-DPMNE, and Z. Zaev pressed criminal charges for "ignoring obligation(s)" to sign the Law on Languages and the Prespa agreement. In his last appearance in public in the Macedonian Parliament on 28. of Dec. 2018, Ivanov stated that he is strongly opposed to the Prespa agreement, that agreement is in violation of Constitutional and International Law and also that present government "is the enemy" [34] of the Macedonian people. On jan. 11. Macedonian Parliament ratified new Constitutional amendments, without blessing of Ivanov, who remained speechless. Later on jan. 25. 2019, even without his signature on the Bill and the Prespa Agreement, Greek Parliament ratified Prespa agreement. Ivanov again remained the only politician who didn't have any statement. From period of jan. 5. 2019. his supporters and advisors were jailed or subject to police treatment. Thank you.109.93.162.25 (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC) That's all quite interesting. Citation needed. I see nothing in any press about him being arrested.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC) There is a statement by one of the most prominent journalist and close friend of the President, Mr. Milenko Nedelkovski (VMRO-DPMNE) here [35]. Shortly, stating that it is Coup d'état.109.93.162.25 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Police treatment of intellectuals by journalist Aleksandar Pandov here https://infomax.mk/wp/xуhtata-паѓа-оваа-пролет-toтaлитapнaтa-власт-во-м/ .109.93.162.25 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Finally, about "prison break style" escape from Macedonian national police of person known to Wikipedia users [36].109.93.162.25 (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC) It can be hard to spot fake news in English, let alone Macedonian. (That name is also a matter of controversy, but Google Translate lists it right under Luxembourgish, so it must be true...) But it is odd no one has edited the article over anything but a "North" lately. If there's something to be learned here, why don't you go to the article and edit it? The case is an interesting illustration that neither the sources nor a group of random participants from the crowd is good enough to get to a decent article - you need the presence of the small very specific audience out of all of Wikipedia interested in reading and going over the edits on that particular article to know if something is real or not. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC) This guy is speaking truth, despite the obvious fact he is User:Operahome.77.105.14.12 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Macedonian, Russian, German, Spanish, English, even Serbian -- I see nothing in any of those Gorge Ivanov articles to suggest that anyone has even tried to add anything like this to any of them. The only thing anybody has been editing about is North! This might be a great time to call in WikiTribune and see if they can break a hot news story, but I am unconvinced. Wnt (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Well, given "Operahome"'s past, we have no reason to expect that any word of what he said here is true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Note: The IP who started this thread is, of course, again User:Operahome, aka the "Igor Janev spammer". Jimmy, I'd strongly advise not engaging him in discussion; they're banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Here] is some actual news about Macedonian ex-Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, for what it's worth. Note it's not directly related to anything said above. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody please look into updating the filter that stopped most of the spamming by thios LTA from hitting this page? I can think of at least one new keyword that we might want to add. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fancy I edit Wikipedia T-Shirt

Hee Jimbo, so in this amazingly good mood I was, I openend the Wikipedia Store, but there wasn't a fancy "I edit Wikipedia" T-shirt in kids size.. Now I can't wear one of those fancy t-shirts to school. '‑( Are there any plans for kid sized "I edit Wikipedia" shirts? : Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to do with the store nor do I even know who to ask! Perhaps someone else who visits this page regularly will know more than I do and point in the right direction for a request.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I too might be interested in an "I edit Wikipedia" shirt, but understand that there might not be too much demand for this in a size for a 5 year old. There are onesies available with a different slogan however. The store does have an email address merchandise@wikimedia.org but I don't know who would get the email. One alternative is indirectly suggested by the FAQ page

"We're Wikipedia - why can't we make our own t-shirts!?

Right now we want to make sure we have a minimum collection of high-quality, durable, and high-value products with the Wikipedia and Wikimedia project marks. We're actively looking at services that would allow small-batch printing of user-submitted designs, and soon we will begin to offer limited-edition user-submitted designs posted on Wikimedia Commons."

I doubt that the "I edit Wikipedia" text (even with the box or the heart on it) is copyrighted, but you might check at the above email.

There's also a page on Meta - last edited September 2018 - that you might try. Good luck and let us know what happens! ::Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fundraiser idea. How about a link from barnstars to the order page for a t-shirt with the same barnstar imprint? The price could include a donation. I'd proudly wear a "Defender of the Wiki" t-shirt to work, maybe it would start a conversation and spark interest in more people becoming contributors. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies, the shirt is actually for my self, let's just say for someone under the age of 16, but I'll send a e-mail to the store e-mail address, and maybe ask about in the Teahouse. And for the barstar idea, I think that 'd be a great idea. If anyone has any more input who to contact I'd be happy to hear it. Kind regards, TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see a T-shirt that says "I edit Wikipedia - you can too!" -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if [37] on the front and [38] on the back would sell. EllenCT (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I would put just this one on both the front and back for maximum crypticness. Best worn in summertime so front and back might be plainly visible. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As a successful marketing/advertising guy, I can say that "I edit Wikipedia - you can too!" (MelanieN's idea) is also perfect. It covers the A.I.D.A goal of all ads:(get Attention, get Interest, get Desire and Most importantly, take Actioni.e."you can too")..

and this reminds me of a project where a public service union wanted to increase member participation and I noticed how the Teamsters and other big unions had Union Jackets that members could buy so we got some jackets made up for the public service union and they took off like wildfire!

This t-shirt idea is fantastic, both with and without Melanie's version, and I think its going to go viral. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I got a black hoodie about six or seven years ago that has the Wikipedia Ambassador logo on the front, and the Wikipedia puzzle globe image, quite large, on the back. I wear it frequently but people rarely comment about it. Maybe they do not want to engage in conversation with a 6'-3" guy in a black hoodie, but I do think I look menacing in it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

A 6'-3" guy in a black Wikipedia hoodie does scream out... "don't mess with me... in a pub quiz"! :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

And a guaranteed team player, one hopes. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I've gotten a similar lack of interest in my Wikipedia T-shirt from years ago, similar design but electric blue. Then again, I'm the same height and not usually the most interesting person around anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Most advertising, like these shirts, have a subliminal effect. Think of it like Johnny_Appleseed, most of the seeds he planted he never saw sprout...same thing with most ads. But there is a cumulative effect, so the more the merrier. I can assure you that somebody who has seen your apparel walked right past you and within a day or 2, edited Wikipedia...guaranteed. Also, there's a bit of what's known as "the curiosity approach" with people seeing this apparel, which has been proven to work, especially with more cerebral people. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

How to fight the Dunning–Kruger effect, explained by psychologist David Dunning.

"The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don’t know you’re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club."
--Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have *me* as a member." (approx. Groucho Marx?). Of course we all know that the Dunning–Kruger effect has little effect on each of us, individually. It's all those other guys who are effected by it. So how do we stop all those dummies from getting in our way? Just a little joke of course, but it's clear that applying the concept might be a bit difficult because of - the Dunning–Kruger effect. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

We could develop a pseudonymous system of crowdsourced review. EllenCT (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Parts of that article compel us toward the truth, what has caused this situation, nobody can understand, and they explained it, but you won't listen.

"Well, it teaches us both about the limits and the genius of human understanding. Which is, we can take some idea and spin a complete and compelling story around it that is coherent, is plausible, makes a lot of sense, is interesting — and it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s right. So it shows you how good we are at spinning stories."

~ R.T.G 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also interesting:

There are some clues, I think, that come from the work of [University of Pennsylvania psychologist] Philip Tetlock and his “superforecasters” — which is that people who think not in terms of certainties but in terms of probabilities tend to do much better in forecasting and anticipating what is going to happen in the world than people who think in certainties.

This has also been exploited in machine learning with great success see e.g. here:

The game of chess is the longest-studied domain in the history of artificial intelligence. The strongest programs are based on a combination of sophisticated search techniques, domain-specific adaptations, and handcrafted evaluation functions that have been refined by human experts over several decades. By contrast, the AlphaGo Zero program recently achieved superhuman performance in the game of Go by reinforcement learning from self-play. In this paper, we generalize this approach into a single AlphaZero algorithm that can achieve superhuman performance in many challenging games. Starting from random play and given no domain knowledge except the game rules, AlphaZero convincingly defeated a world champion program in the games of chess and shogi (Japanese chess), as well as Go.

Count Iblis (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

All this AI and robots still can't do laundry? I'm not so sure driving in general is harder than finding a parking spot, either. EllenCT (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Look, you are going to find those crazy people real soon? To fight fire with fire, you do not join one fire to another fire. You fight fire by applying fire. You fight fire by controlling it and focusing it, not by beating it up and watching it do nothing in the corner until you decide to open its mind. Okay. The emperor is naked when he processes through the people. That story is not about Trump, however, as an emperor of the people, but the people... It is you. ... And read this, and stop telling your self that only Trump could wear emperor clothes or only he will benefit the story. You do not fight fire with fire by throwing two fires in together. That's how you get married in dubious circumstances. You fight Trump by helping your self, before he has a chance to. Okay? Face it. Face it. The emperors don't see their clothes as invisible, but only as visible by the worthy. He was clothed all along, the story goes today, as it has continued to do so since the run into the election. It's frightening when you do this, and then you start fighting about slavery. The Germans did not wake up one day and decide they were bored before the Nazis. They did not start anti Semitism. They ended it. You keep demanding about how you can see the misfits and rejcts when their foot is out of place, and one of them is going to shoot up the school eventually because guess what foots do, unless you are nuts, or follow the lie so long you neither feel nor see. These are accusations of apathy. It is the order of the day. It's not a secret. ~ R.T.G 05:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to fight Trump, or anyone else who challenges your reasoning, you'll have to start by telling your self you will fail often, and you won't either wear or suggest your opponent wears any of these new clothings, like painting each other with madness. Everybody is crazy to an extent. The deafning point about that is not the presence of craziness, but the capacity for lucidity and control of ones behaviour, and I really don't want to sound like I am heralding Trump, but these vibes about how he acts, like when he walks on funnily at the plane or how he treats reporters at his desk. He is a hotelier. He acts like a school marm when he is highlighting subordinates behaviour, and if they don't get it... they're fired, and never get it, right? Isn't that what makes Trump part of your pie? You can't just take him out of hand. You must admit, he is flagrant on his own time, and if that isn't good enough for you, well you'll have to come through me because it is easier for me to start you now than wait until you believe the crap you said about mental problems won something over. There is always the maximum sensationalism considered possible within the journalism by either the editor or the journalist, that is a fact. If you bully someone for being evil long enough because it feels that way, you'll create something that you never felt before. That's a fact. You are teaching children how to appraise, whoever it is they have decided is their Trump because they have decided that long ago and the only thing you can do about that by digging in is burying your self. ~ R.T.G 09:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "To fight fire with fire, you do not join one fire to another fire", see controlled burn. I didn't read the rest of what you wrote; as most sane people do, I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned Trump (I would have done the same if you had mentioned Pelosi or Hillary Clinton). I am sick and tired of people who hijack into every conversation on ever topic with political Logorrhea. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

You consider diagnosis a form of debate? /rant ~ R.T.G 09:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I consider you to be a disruptive thread-hijacking editor who inserts his politics into unrelated discussions. It would be really helpful if you could stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Your article started it. I'm sorry. Its first example it said, would be Trump, because of an obvious diagnosis. Well here is an obvious diagnosis. Denial and projection. It is unfair not to Trump, who will not feel anything from this article, but to you and I who are trying to draw our lives from these publications. Beware. Believing your self to be capable of more than you are is also ambition. Where will these people leave us when we are too stupid to read their words? ~ R.T.G 10:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Where will these people leave us when they have sold us the ability to understand their words by damaging the words so they appear to be a new idea? I'll tell you. Right here. Right now. Hijack our language, for instance. ~ R.T.G 10:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Remember, they are selling this crap to the people who wish to follow the alternatives. That's new. What is not new is the availablity of the alternatives. You are getting them all of the main stream. Clever people in science and journalism know that, but they don't say. Remember, if you were in a cafe, and they were trying to promote you coffee and muffins, the more deeply you understand the process the more deeply you will appreciate the appetite. I've never heard of a journalist seeking to appeal to "alternative" people and pointing out that the alternatives are pretty mainstream. You learn from the past. A bad action or a bad person is not the point at which you look to the future. Look for that atfer. ~ R.T.G 10:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for having a signature that catches the eye. Instead of my usual stopping reading when I see the word "Trump", from now on I can easily skip past anything you write without reading it. Free clue: inserting your political opinions into unrelated threads is really annoying. I personally think that every editor who shows this sort of "every thread must be about Trump" (or gun control, or abortion, or Jesus, or race, or Amway...) behavior should be topic banned under WP:CNH. Feel free to shout into an empty hall with a reply. I won't see it. *PLONK.* --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspected my time was limited. If you weren't trying to say something about Trump, how would I know what you were trying to say? ~ R.T.G 20:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, a conversation about competence and politics, what could go wrong? Yet the fact is ... whatever shrinkspeak you want to put on it, we now have a whole society that isn't smart enough to keep breathing. I mean, the Trump administration has put Elliot Abrams, a man with an illustrious history in connection with the official, longstanding US policy of support for terrorists in El Salvador and Nicaragua, as part of a policy of threatening Venezuela with imminent invasion by thousands of US soldiers (what could go wrong???), and meanwhile even the liberals are instead all worked up because Ralph Northam attended a party with historical costumes they regard as now in poor taste ... 35 years ago. I mean, it's easy to say today that the kids who inspired Fast Times at Ridgemont High should have been taught better, not had dangerous subversives like Jefferson and Madison and Adams held up to them as heroes, should have been studying scientific socialism and following in the path of the Chinese exchange students who better understood American culture than they did, should have been beaten with the leather belt until bones broke every time they listened to bullshit about being creative, because it is better to have a lifetime of aches and pains than to have to euthanise yourself over being a forever unemployable villain and nobody on account of some night's stupid attempt at art. If there is an art department at a school near you, burn it down! It is as dangerous as reading random books, or Wikipedia, or political volunteering, or anything else that could be marked against you on your permanent record. So where exactly are we? Journalists who are shamelessly partisan and reprint press releases, social forums that are dominated by corporations and trolls, scientific agencies that are censored and biased from the ground up, political parties that have nothing but contempt for their voters as they enforce a line written against them by an unknowable leadership... who is competent? Who could save the country, any country, from annihilation, and if they could, would they want to? Wnt (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC) And in other news ... the former chief economist of Bear Stearns has been appointed leader of the World Bank. [39] Wnt (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

"So where exactly are we?" We're on a fast train to a global Plutocracy, which should make moot the Dunning–Kruger effect, however, we now have a template for bringing the train to a screeching halt and returning power to the people, i.e., reviving democracies, but will other peoples have the legacy and spirit to employ the template? So, we are falling fast and know we have a parachute, but will we, globally, pull the cord so that we can continue to have the education and curiosity to consider things like the Dunning-Kruger effect? At least France looks safe for another generation, at least. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

According to the alt-right, Trump is only pretending to fall victim to the Dunning–Kruger effect; but the smart set who voted him into office in 2016 understand that this is just an elaborate 4D chess strategy.

Anglin writes, "What stupid people do not get is that Trump engages in self-parody, all the time. The media does not get that. Presumably, world leaders at the UN are significantly less stupid than the media, regardless of what their agendas may be, and they get that the guy does a character." In other words, U.N. representatives laughed with him during his speech in appreciation of the farcical nature of his act. MW131tester (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite shocking. Do you think he gets the deep irony there? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

When you're playing 4D chess, you pretend not to get the irony. MW131tester (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

They sure had me fooled, and I think I'm in love with the gal wearing 2 sets of glasses at the same time. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

New users of the Internet can't tell when they're reading sarcasm. Experienced users can't tell when they're writing sarcasm. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ha, ha, this is so tragically true, especially on Wikipedia regarding "conspiracy theories", JFK, Holocaust denial, 9/11: "The first is they think it’s about them [i.e., others]. That is, there are those people out there who are stupid and don’t realize they are stupid." To me, it's so obvious CIA killed JFK, etc. other factors besides Dunning are: Cognitive dissonance and bigotry, being irrational and obstinate. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Another factor, the Big lie: "It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Just watched Michael Moore's new movie and it really enlightened me on how advanced, intellectually and educationally, Germany was leading up to you know who and what and Moore made a not veiled prediction that a second 9/11 type event will be orchestrated before 2020 to justify some kind of "emergency" powers given to current government. I don't think so and find it disappointing he went so far into future speculation. But the most interesting thing to me was how the movie showed the American "tweens", 9-12, are apparently becoming quite political, and one such tween said quite convincingly, to me at least, that she was being "raised by social media" and that is a good/great thing. Her assertion hit a note of truth, somehow, but I haven't figured out how that can be...that social media is producing a more politically capable, astute and sensible population of voters. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

February is Black History Month

The Women in Red project does an excellent job building content related to women, an underrepresented demographic in the community of very active Wikipedians. Another underrepresented cohort are black Wikipedians, unfortunately a group with a less developed content building network. There are, lamentably, fairly massive content holes related to black history to be filled out there, folks... As February is Black History Month (established in 1926), I'd to once again challenge all content writers to create or substantially improve three Wikipedia articles related to Africa or the African diaspora during February 2019.

Ready??? ............ Hike! Carrite (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Folks interested in this might want to take a look at WP:Black WikiHistory Month, WP:WikiProject African diaspora, WP:Afrocrowd, and WP:Black Lunch Table for resources. Ckoerner (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it is often exceedingly difficult to get approval and articles created for African American / Black subjects. Draft:Lucy Coles, Draft:Freddy Crump, Draft:Gonzell White and Draft:Rudy Mills are examples. In the case of Freddy Crump, if a white drummer was celebrated and featured in at least five movies the way he was in his era there's no question an article on him would be approved in a snap. Rudy Mills should qualify for having produced hits and songs recorded by other artists. It's certainly true that coverage of Black artists and historic figures is harder to come by. But I don't think it should be this hard.to get approval for persons that meet our notability criteria. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think they meet notability criteria, you can just move them into mainspace yourself. Wikipedia operated fine for years without a Draft: namespace or an AfC process. MW131tester (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not allowed to move them because I was told I created too many articles. For example, I created many articles on reconstruction era African American politicians. I was criticized for not being able to include birthdates and more background info. Beacause, you know, the slavemasters kept such great documentation and passed it along to their former slaves when they became free and became officeholders.. I am also banned from AfD where I helped save dozens of articles. So these subjects will remain in draftspace until someone at AFC approves them and countless notable subjects are getting deleted at AfD without my being able to weigh in. But my point on this particilar issue remains that African American and Black subjects are particularly difficult to get approval on at Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:ANI isn't known for making very good decisions. It's mostly just a cabal that protects its own and seeks to exclude and disenfranchise those who disagree with them or aren't allied with them. MW131tester (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

General question for all who may have a view. Would it cause a significant amount of consternation if I moved Gonzell White into mainspace? What I'm asking is: if AfC says no, what happens if an ordinary Wikipedian in good standing creates the article anyway?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, The article has developed since the last AfC review. Generally when a draft gets moved outside of AfC it's by a now autoconfirmed user, which often ends with deletion. Since it looks to me like all the AfC criteria are now met, I don't see a problem. Pinging StraussInTheHouse as the last reviewer. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Bellezzasolo, agree that it’s improved. But declining isn’t necessarily prodding (see below) because a reviewer should also ask whether it’s likely to be kept if AFD’d, so a bit of guesswork is required. SITH (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Since unimproved drafts eventually get deleted, declining an AfC is like a slow prod. MW131tester (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I look at declining an AfC as similar to WP:PRODing a mainspace article or nominating it for CSD, in that any other user can unilaterally veto the decision, so that it has to go to AfD if people want to delete it from mainspace. The system is designed to be biased against those who want to keep an article out of mainspace. MW131tester (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "The system is designed to be biased against those who want to keep an article out of mainspace", [Citation Needed] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What happens when there's "no consensus" to delete an article? The default is that it stays. Advantage, inclusionists. MW131tester (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo - BE BOLD Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

+1. :-) Carrite (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy Wales. We asking for your help with publishing article about "AllatRa" book in Wikipedia.

Appears to you us an active user "International movement" (Ukraine) of Wikipedia. There was a non-standard situations and I ask you to help us to solve it.

In Ukraine in 2013 year has appeared the book "AllatRa", which began to become popular in Ukraine and abroad. It has already been translated into 9 languages of the world (English, Czech, Uzbek, French, German, Russian, Ukrainian, Italian, Bulgarian) and still translated into many languages ... I have a relationship with the university and students and I know that often students have been trying to find information about book "AllatRa" in Wikipedia and they couldn't find and it was surprising for us. And Couple days ago I decided wrote an article in Ukrainian Wikipedia about of book "AllatRa", however, it turns out that the article does not meet the requirements WP:NBOOK.

(Note that the moderators of Ukrainian Wikipedia were tolerant to me and all explained, but rejected due to inappropriate activities WP:NBOOK. There are no claims or disagreements with them, and I am grateful to them.)

There were worldwide attempts to write an article about "AllatRa" (book) but again, because of non-compliance with the criteria, they were also denied. In particular, in the summer of 2018, the Czech Republic wanted to register an article on "AllatRa". There's even in the magazine Forbes was published article about "AllatRa" (https://www.forbes.sk/premyslajte-ako-hessel-kulich-ci-cifra-ake-knihy-odporuca-5-top-slovenskych-ceo/). There are many different articles about book "AllatRa" and references on the Internet, in the periodical, it can be found on Google search. Link to page Ukrainian Wikipedia book "AllatRa", here I provided, for an example, 17 points of reference about this book. That's how this page of my book about "AllatRa" is presented by me: "AllatRa" (book).

Well, in fact, this situation with regard to the article "AllatRa" in Wikipedia is clear to me and I am grateful to everybody for the hints and for this experience.

However, by reviewing WP:NBOOK i saw the point about WP:WIARM. And this was an extremely successful advice for us. After all, life is a living and plastic, and not a cannery conveyor. :-) Therefore, thanks to your opinion WP: COMMONSENSE, I decided to ask you: Can you help us with article was published in Wikipedia as an exclusive case? which is interesting to many people all over the world, without exaggeration. I want to note that considering the popularity of "AllatRa", non-compliance with its criteria WP: NBOOK is a temporary phenomenon.

Take this opportunity I want to thank you for creating Wikipedia. Thanks to Wikipedia people all over the world have the opportunity to easily and extensively engage in the knowledge of our civilization and enjoy and multiply the best. Wikipedia helps people become more tolerant, peaceful and confident in looking at tomorrow.

With respect and wishes of further creativity for the benefit of all humanity -- International movement (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by International movement (talk • contribs)

I am afraid I will be unable to help you. The place to start is not with me, nor with Wikipedia, but with obtaining high quality 3rd party sources. If you are in some way associated with the book or its author, I recommend seeking out media interviews and published reviews of the book.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Banner linking to Facebook on Portuguese Wikibooks

On the Portuguese Wikibooks ( https://pt.wikibooks.org/ ) there is a banner that says "Curta o Wikilivros no Facebook" (Wikibooks on Facebook) with a link to [ https://www.facebook.com/wikibookspt ].

Is it appropriate for a Wikimedia-owned page to have a banner linking to a commercial website that is rather famous for selling user's information?

See:

• Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal --Wikipedia
• Is your data safe on Facebook? Not really --CNN
• Facebook: Your personal info for sale -- CBS News
• Facebook Is Now Selling Your Web-Browsing Data To Advertisers --The Consumerist
• Facebook Is Using You --The New York Times

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Depiction of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia with Visual Editor and Flow.

You probably don't want to look at User:Jimbo Wales, which also has a direct link to Facebook, in that case. (Personally I agree we shouldn't be linking to Facebook except in the rare cases where it's genuinely necessary to cite it as a source, but that ship has long since sailed.) ‑ Iridescent 09:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That is totally different from a banner that is forced on to every page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

An apt question is, who is running that Facebook page? Daß Wölf 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Related question: who is running the Portuguese Wikibooks page? I tried to edit my own talk page and found that it is configured so that I cannot edit the source.

Looks like they have a bot running that forces everyone to use WP:FLOW.

See [ https://pt.wikibooks.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/Flow_talk_page_manager ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if it is anything other than a community decision at Portuguese Wikibooks. So, the right people to talk to about it would be that community. If you'd like to communicate my thoughts, which they may or may not take into consideration as they see fit, it would probably be better to not link in that way - not just because of the concerns that people rightly raise about Facebook that Guy Macon cites above, but just that generally advertising banners linking out to commercial services run the risk of being perceived incorrectly as endorsement or advertisement. At the same time, I strongly support that Wikipedians (and chapters, and the WMF) be reasonable and balanced about the usefulness of using social media to share our ideas and culture. So, running official (community) accounts to do outreach for our projects is often going to be something that I approve of.

I'm not personally happy with what I perceive the 140/280 character nature of twitter has done to public discourse, but I still use twitter and find it a useful tool. I like Instagram and use it more in a personal way (I post about cooking, my hobby), even though I'm concerned about their slowness in dealing with self-harm images, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Good points about appropriate use of social media. The above raises another question in my mind; how, exactly would a person who doesn't speak Portuguese talk to that community? I just posted some ideas about that at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 28#A place for inter-wiki communication --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Machine translation is much better than it used to be, but also it shouldn't be hard to find someone who speaks Portuguese and English.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing all songs by an artist by genre

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs § Categorizing_all_songs_by_an_artist_by_genre

No need to reply, "Jimbo", but I've become very frustrated with how Wikipedia often classifies all albums or songs by recordings artists as one or more specific genres. As an arbitrary example, you'll notice Category:Lady Gaga songs suggests all Lady Gaga songs are dance-pop/electropop/synthpop, when many of her songs would never be described as pop, let alone any of these specific subgenres. If we require appropriate secondary coverage to include genres in an article's prose and infobox, why are we being so lazy and sometimes grossly misleading for categories? I propose we only categorize albums/songs by genre when sourcing confirms.

I plan to submit a more formal proposal at the village pump soon, but right now I'm seeking feedback here. I invite all talk page watchers to participate in the ongoing discussion. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting and obviously you have a strong point. It's a tough thing though because of how categories work.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, tough, but I'm hoping we might be able to make some adjustments. Thanks for commenting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Everywhere on Wikis "Republic of Macedonia" was replaced with North Macedonia, except on Macedonian wiki, where yesterday it became plain "Makedonija".

Hi Jimbo, everywhere on Wikis "Republic of Macedonia" was replaced with North Macedonia, except on Macedonian Wiki where now we have plain "Macedonia" contrary to the Prespa Agreement, namely "Republika Makedonija" yesterday became only "Makedonija" (see Macedonian Wiki). Is that Ok?109.93.112.195 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that all them are User(s) Operahome. Or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.227.169 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor weirdness on the WMF home page

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T200742

At [ https://wikimediafoundation.org/?noredirect=en_US ], even though I have selected "English", part of the page says "Stell dir eine Welt vor, in der jeder einzelne Mensch frei an der Summe allen Wissens teilhaben kann." The rest of the page is in English. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason you can think of why it might do that? Are you in Germany (or to be more precise, are you using an ip address that geolocates to Germany)? Is your browser set to request German pages?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

At meta

I left the following note

Somebody complained on en:User talk:Jimbo Wales that the supposedly English language page

https://wikimediafoundation.org/?noredirect=en_US has a large German text sitting near the top like a headline for no apparent reason. "Stell dir eine Welt vor, in der jeder einzelne Mensch frei an der Summe allen Wissens teilhaben kann." which is "Imagine a world ..."

Rather than just leave a complaint to Jimbo which he probably won't be able to handle easily, I figured I'd just contact the people who take care of that page. Searching for a contact email (or whatever), this is the best I could find. It started with "Contact a human" on that page and gave me about seven choices, but after a few more clicks petered out here. I do assume you, the reader, are human. Anything you can do about that page? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A trouble ticket has been opened here: phab:T215988. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Update, this is phab:T200742 - which has been opened since August 2018 - and is possibly intentional. That site is a bit messy for sure, read T200742 for a long discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The above is a poster child for why I refuse to use Phabricator. From T200742:

"The German language version of the Wikimedia vision you are seeing on the website is a writing choice, not a bug. It is entered into the CMS in the same way the rest of the writing is added to the site, and shows up exactly the way we intended and expected it to."

The other reason is the ticket involving blind people not being able to edit Wikipedia, unaddressed for well over 10 years so far.

It is in the power if the Wikimedia board of trustees (which Jimbo is a member of) to put their collective foot down and tell a WMF employee who is 100% immune to any sort of pushback from the community "NO! You will NOT insert a line written in German into the English version of wikimediafoundation.org!". That is one of the functions of the board; to oversee a collection of employees who are (for several good reasons) not required to answer to the community and make it right when they do something incredibly stupid. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The block is in other languages in each version. French -> Arabic -> Spanish -> Chinese -> English -> German. But I see no German version on the menu to get back to French, nor does manually putting de or de_DE get a German result, so I guess there's a bug here after all. Wnt (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Why did you create Wikipedia?

What motivated you to make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persononthinternet (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"One of the problems experienced by Nupedia during much of its existence was that the software lacked functionality." -- Nupedia#Software development. EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I had been watching the growth of free software (or open source software as many people call it) and saw programmers coming together to collaborate in news ways to build all the really great software that was building the Internet - Apache, Perl, PHP, MySql, GNU/Linux, Bind, etc. And I realized that this model of collaboration could extend far beyond just software and into many kinds of cultural work. And I thought that an encyclopedia, because it should be neutral and factual, provided an easier place to start and experiment than other types of work. I also always loved encyclopedias as a child, and the idea of a free encyclopedia for everyone on the planet felt really inspiring to me. Still does!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Larry Sanger moved to San Diego in February 2000, to help Jimmy Wales with Nupedia. Sanger contacted a friend, Ben Kovitz about ways to improve the site, and the two met on January 2, 2001 to discuss this. Kovitz told Sanger about WikiWikiWeb, and Sanger became excited that an encyclopedia could be written by anyone, and contacted Wales to set the site up. Sanger came up with the name Wikipedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References