User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Please treat people with dignity and with common sense

I am talking about this case. I explain the situation in a few words.

1. the user is sysop on one of Vietnamese language Wikipedia.
2. The user was blocked from English wikipedia 2 years ago for disruptive editing.
3. The user has never socked before requesting the unblock on AN yesterday.
4. The user is not interested in editing English wikipedia.
5. The user is asking for the unblock only because being blocked and templated here on English wikipedia is damaging his reputation on Vietnamese wikipedias.

Please treat him with dignity and with common scene, and unblock the user or at least remove the templates from his user page. 76.126.140.7 (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If your summary is really factually correct, then I agree with your conclusion. If for no other reason than WP:SO.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge my summary is correct.

Jimbo, Wikipedia has problems with decreasing number of editors. I'd like to give you some suggestions on how to make Wikipedia, more sane, more friendlier place with less drama and more content editing.

1. It is good to remember that enforcement of any Wikipedia's policy is not nearly as important as well being and health of a person.
2. Behave first like humans and second like Wikipedians , not the other way around.
3. Don't impose indefinite blocks.For an established contributor a maximum block duration should not be longer than one year. Here's why:some editors will not return after the block expires. The ones who do return could always be re-blocked, if they don't behave. It takes only a minute to block somebody. On the other hand the arbcom spends days discussing appeals and then there are thousands of pages of insanity on drama boards.This is not rocket science, only common sense.
4. Treat people with dignity and kindness. You will achieve much more this way, if you really want a user to stay away versus punishing him.
5. Delete banned users list. It is an absolutely unneeded scarlet letter.
6. Stop the community bans. It will remove lots of dramas.Besides let me please quote Tarc on the subject of the community bans: "What this sort of thing comes down to is how many supporters you can line up vs. how many opponents they can line up. It's like World of Warcraft, sometimes there's just too many orcs and not enough humans."

Please listen to me, Jimbo. If my suggestions are incorporated it would benefit some editors, but most of all it would benefit Wikipedia.76.126.140.7 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does this remind me of mbz1 and the recent AN drama, dear Comcast IP? Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You're exactly right, and we could make a few conclusions of it:

1. There are more than one person who is not going to edit wikipedia, but is bothered about being blocked here. Such people should be unblocked because keeping them blocked violates the policy that blocks are not for punishment, especially not for the real life punishment, and in a worse case scenario reblock takes only a minute.
2. Sometimes different people are expressing the same sentiments, but it doesn't mean they are the same person, Jehochman
3. It is rather sad that somebody who is not a member of the Wikipedia community should ask the community to act as humans.

I think anybody can get unblocked with a simple appeal after 6 months of not socking. The banned user list is necessary to coordinate enforcement. If a editor doesn't get along well with peers, they can be excluded. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, the user who is being discussed here is not banned. He was blocked by a single admin. He hasn't socked for two years. Why don't you go ahead and unblock him now?

But you're mistaking about special offer. For example Willbeback hasn't socked, and he made a public apology, and he is still blocked, which IMO is wrong. If he wants to edit Wikipedia why not to give him another chance? Reblock takes only a minute. Besides, Jehochman, what is a point in non-socking, if somebody as you states that non-proxy IP from Germany and non-proxy IP from US are operated by the same person at the same time? IMO SO is a silly policy anyway. Much better proceed like that. Let's say somebody misbehaved. Don't block him. Instead make him to serve the community service. For example a user could be allowed only to revert vandalism for 6 months, or something like that.71.202.123.162 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone should lump together and put all kinds of "socking" on the same level - there's positive and negative socking. The ones who continue their negative behaviour under "socking" should not be equalized to the ones "socking" in a positive and constructive way, by behaving well, contributing to the quality of Wikipedia, doing nothing but constructive edits and comments etc . Generally refusing anyone who "socked" to get unbanned is therefore counterproductive to the overall quality of the project.--37.230.10.40 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Per talk page, I have now unblocked this editor. He's promised to be true to his word and not edit here, and I'll see he sticks to that agreement - Alison ^❤ 01:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Alison's response is the correct one, but the case still illustrates serious flaws in the administrative system.

• Trongphu's talk page access was revoked for making one (1) indignant remark in response to an excessively severe block,^[1] a comment which, unfortunately, seems fairly well justified whether you take it to refer to en.wikipedia or the USA in general.
• The recent ANI discussion criticized Trongphu for not using the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System and "socking" (their intentional misnomer for evading a block through what would otherwise be a legitimate use of an alternate account) by signing his username to an IP post. Still, I have to ask: why wasn't this matter resolved via the email address he was first given - [email protected]? Something's not working there.
• The totally obnoxious front page that Wikipedia gives blocked users [2] is not just wrong in Trongphu's case or for Asians afraid of "losing face" - it's wrong for everyone. It exaggerates the significance of the blocks people hand out, and when it comes to labelling Trongphu as a suspected sockpuppeteer for making a parting comment (ironically, the same behavior that just got him unblocked!), it was outright defamation, at least in a moral sense.

We should enact the following reforms: 1) remove all Scarlet Letters from main User: pages. 2) Do not route unblock email requests to /dev/null. 3) because you should actually be reading all unblock requests, mailed or not, there's no reason not to revoke talk page access only when the blocked user posts a substantial number of unreasonable "unblock requests", like ten or twenty non-responsive answers, or at least two or three that contain material so problematic (such as "outing") that you feel the need to 'oversight' them. Wnt (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't want to see this fall off Jimmy's talk page yet, without it being addressed. It's rare that I agree with Wnt, but he makes some excellent points here, which I think should be put to the wider community. Let's please fix the block template to make it more useful and less offensive, and less confusing to all. There is a use to tagging userpages where accounts are actively being misused and tracking them provides value, but there is little point in keeping them after a while, and less point in using them as a Scarlet Letter; a mark of shame. The same applies to the LTA page. If the issue is long over, why does the page still exist? If, at some time, it needs to be restored, it takes seconds to simply undelete it. Similarly, with revoking talk page access, there are some cases where talk pages should be immediately and permanently restricted - everyone gets that - but time and time again, I've seen talk pages being locked down waaay before they should be. Admins should be willing to at least go the extra distance in dealing with blocked editors, rather than just shutting the doors early, usually out of frustration - Alison ^❤ 19:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"allegations of sexual orientation"

A detailed list of allegations of sexual orientation of living persons is wikilinked to their BLPs in Outrage (2009 film). I suggest that since the "sourcing" is almost entirely interviews with the filmmaker and reviews of the film, that they do not suffice as "strong reliable sourcing for allegations of sexuality on Wikipedia." Others feel that if a newspaper lists the name as being in the film that such is sufficient to list the allegations in the article on that film. I suggest "allegations" about living persons should have strong and specific reliable sourcing, and interviews with a person making an allegation do not actually suffice to support reprinting the allegation online. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Another weigher in and sad it is proper to list allegations as long as they are sourced: Thus "XXX book alleged that George Gnarph murdered Sally Gnarph" would be ok, but we can not say "George Gnarph murdered Sally Gnarph" which I find an interesting parsing. My own opinion is that "XXX book made allegations noted politicians were secretly gay" is appreciably different from having "XXX book says George Gnarph is secretly gay." For those below who shout "forumshopping" I would point out that Jimbo has specifically said that posting on his user talk page is not forumshopping. Collect (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping aside, this is an entirely disigenuous summary of the situation. The point is that such allegations are what the film is all about, apparently. It is a notable work that not only contains that en passant: it is actually built mostly of that. It is like having a film entitled "Cyclopia, the kitten-eating Wikipedian". While the allegation that I eat kittens would be a BLP violation if it was a poorly sourced sentence somewhere, if there is an article about a notable work that allegates that, we are required to cover it.--cyclopia^speak! 17:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We are actually not required to cover anything. We have editorial judgment. A notable film that makes BLP violating allegations can be described without our necessarily repeating those allegations. alanyst 17:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Right, we have editorial judgement. In this case, since such allegations are not a minor or secondary part of the film, but are the film, and are in turn sourced to dozens of secondary sources, such judgement requires us to repeat them. Otherwise we're omitting what the film is about, which is our very task. Just to make things clear: What if such allegations were in the title? Should we censor the title? Delete the article? --cyclopia^speak! 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, if an editor is reported for WP:OUTING another editor, it is well understood that discussions can take place on-wiki about the doxing allegations so long as they do not repeat the substance of those allegations; and indeed those who repeat the allegations (thereby perpetuating the doxing) are liable to be sanctioned. Most editors take this restriction in stride and manage to comment on the matter without violating it. For some reason it is less well understood that rumors and speculation that violate BLP can be similarly discussed in an article without repeating them, and that repeating them is perpetuating the risk of harm to living persons. In this case, it's not too difficult to figure out that the allegations made in the film can be characterized in general terms ("claims of hypocrisy by several well-known conservative figures whom the film alleged to be secretly homosexual, including a former Republican governor, a Fox News anchor, ...") without tying those allegations to specifically named individuals; and this would still give the reader a clear idea of what the film was about. alanyst 19:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation. BLP is about how we deal with living people. This is instead about how a notable creative work deals with living people, not us. Notable work does notable allegation, it is not us doing un-notable allegations. --cyclopia^speak! 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• To get a sense of what's going on here, I suggest other editors have a look at Collect drawing an equivalence between being gay and treason, of all things. Shocking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I also compare contentious claims to many things -- including murder and eating goldfish -- but nowhere did I say that being gay is the same as treason -- so please drop that weird and inapt claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is good reason to treat the film's allegations with great care, particularly when they have not been confirmed in any other sources. And sources which merely repeat the allegation of the film (reviews of the film, for example) do not qualify. I think this is particularly true in articles about the person rather than the article about the film. (That is, I think it could make perfect sense to describe the film as alleging that X, Y, and Z are closeted homosexuals, while at the same time holding that the allegation is not sufficiently credible to put into the biography of the person.) As a final note, one way to possibly diffuse the emotion around this situation is to think of this way: whatever anyone's views are on homosexuality and allegations of homosexuality, the point is that these people are being accused of hypocrisy. Whether you are pro- or anti- or neutral- any issues relating to homosexuality, I think we can all agree that calling someone a hypocrite is a pretty big deal requiring better sourcing than an activist documentary is likely to provide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect has repeatedly pointed out that we should follow BLP, but Collect should acknowledge that WP:WELLKNOWN is the relevant portion of BLP. WELLKNOWN covers this exact issue quite well. This kind of forum shopping is atrocious; it splits the conversation over too many pages. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo: I agree absolutely with your view on the need for better sources. And I agree completely that a biographical article should not contain material about sexual orientation based solely on an activist documentary. But the question here is a bit different: Outrage is a notable movie whose central premise is the identification of allegedly closeted and hypocritical individuals. We can't neutrally and comprehensively describe the movie without alluding to the allegations it makes about the sexual orientation of named individuals. After all, the movie is essentially a vehicle for these allegations. It's a tricky situation, and I cannot pretend optimism when it comes to the ability of a self-selected group of Wikipedians to deal sensitively with a nuanced and politically charged topic. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The primary problem is that the article lists (say) several refs for each claim --- and each ref traces back to the same actual source - the film and filmmaker. Allegations about sexual orientation are a particular sore spot on Wikipedia, and it is obvious that specific standards must apply to all articles relating to living persons. WP:WELLKNOWN applies to reliable sources making allegations -- a source reporting that an unreliable source made an allegation is not a source for the allegation per WP:WELLKNOWN and it is a misuse of that section to suggest otherwise -- in fact it is the scurrilous repeating of allegations that is the bane of Wikipedia. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

The problem is that same actual source, the film, is the subject of the article. And the allegations are all what the film is about. If we don't cover the allegation, we also do not cover the film. It is a film made of allegations. Also: Similar situations arise constantly. Take Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Are the people making the conspiracy theories -that is, the original sources- reliable? Hell no. Is the theory damaging to a living person? Oh yes. Yet it is a massively notable set of conspiracy theories, reported by secondary sources, and therefore we cover it, including the fringe allegations. --cyclopia^speak! 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We could simply state that allegations are made about politicians -- and then not mention names nor wikilink to their BLPs. Do you see how easy that is? And since there are not actual reliable sources making the allegations we can actually follow WP:BLP !! Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure we could. We could also move Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories to A president citizenship conspiracy theories and avoiding mentioning his name at all. Do you see how easy that is? But wait, that something is easy doesn't make it right. In article about a notable movie, if we don't want to be ridicolous, we should just report what the movie says. In detail. Even if it's bad stuff about people. If you have issues with that, take it to the movie authors, not WP. --cyclopia^speak! 22:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In public life, there comes a point at which, even though an alleged fact is not notable or well-sourced, the fact that the allegation has been made is itself both indisputable and noteworthy. (The canonical pre-Internet example is the allegations of adultery against Gary Hart in the 1984 presidential election; the allegations were circulating and hurting Hart in the poll results, and the newspapers couldn't well report that Hart's support was dropping without explaining why. See Michael Kinsley's essay on this in Curse of the Giant Muffins.) This type of situation is more common both within and outside Wikipedia than people ordinarily think of; compare this hypothetical example, which is based on several of our actual articles. It would be relevant in this instance to assess whether the people at issue are likely to be harmed by our reporting of the allegations at issue. The notability of the film is also relevant; we might not be able to avoid mentioning the subject of a number-one film in the way we could avoid dwelling on allegations in an obscure one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The film grossed under $300,000 total, and did not make the "top 100 films of 2009". [3] It is not a "number-one film." Nor did most newspapers enumerate those mentioned in it. I had hoped you would regard the primacy of WP:BLP but fear you are of the "it got printed so we should have it in the encyclopedia" camp :(. And there is no rationale for wikilinking living persons from that article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you're grossly misrepresenting Brad's point and accusing him of disregard for WP:BLP, both of which are indications that you've officially jumped the shark and should step back for awhile. This isn't a simple issue. It's one that serious, reputable publishers have struggled with. Some reputable outlets (e.g. the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald) have published the names of those featured in the film, while others (e.g. the Washington Post, NPR) have omitted them out of respect for the subjects' privacy. NPR struggled quite a bit internally with this issue. It should be clear that responsible publishers differ on this challenging question, and ridiculous oversimplifications aren't helpful here either. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Gosh -- you seem to appear a lot lately regarding any post I make. Brad is fully capable of noting if I misunderstood what he wrote -- but you do not make a good interlocutor. The reputable publishers did not print the list of allegations. '

None of them printed the comprehensive list of names

None printed detailed rumours about them appended as they are in this article. Period.

This "article" includes gallons of innuendo, and precious little fact. Asserting that this is a "ridiculous oversimplification" is pure and simple bosh. Did you read the current article, Brad? Cheers. `Collect (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Newyorkbrad. And I disagree with Collect, in this particular case that we should omit the names. However, i do think that the article on the film should make it very clear to what extent, if any, reliable sources independent of the film have confirmed these allegations, or reported them as fact, and that unless they have been well confirmed, they should quite probably not be mentioned in the individual biography articles. DES ^(talk) 21:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is already done, there is no mention whatsoever in the Charlie Crist article that any rumors or media reports have been made, nor that he is the subject of a film. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Update: I removed the contentious material and will prevent it from being restored until there have been discussions and a consensus about what to include and how to reference it. The situation that existed was appalling. There was list of rumors with a heap of shoddy references to the film or other sources that were simply parroting what the film said. It was as if somebody was trying to make up for the lack of quality references by supplying a large quantity of substandard references. The general principal is "when in doubt, keep it out". Once there has been time for thoughtful discussion, an uninvolved admin will hopefully summarize the discussions and document a result, which can then be implemented. Jehochman ^Talk 14:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the things that I did was visit the individual Wikipedia pages of some of the named politicians to see what we do about it there. In some cases, we cover what is obviously a legitimate issue in their biography - repeated allegations, sometimes court cases, etc. In at least one, we either don't mention the allegations at all or barely mention them. I haven't done enough research to be certain but preliminary research suggests that the individual articles have it about right in terms of what we report.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I cleaned up one of those individual articles, where I found unsourced information which according to the article had been "discussed on local radio programs in his district" "the mainstream U.S. print media did not cover the story". There was undue weight/hit piece problems with the article, and it may still not be totally ok. Iselilja (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has correctly noticed that there is a different treatment of the film article versus the individual biographies. Before the recent removals and complaints by Collect, our article about the film reflected the consensus reached previously on BLPN that the film article would name the people who are outed in the film, but the individual biographies would not name the film unless it was a major element of that person's life, as seen in high-quality reliable sources.
Unfortunately, Jimbo has taken an untenable position regarding what sources we might use: he wrote here that "sources which merely repeat the allegation of the film (reviews of the film, for example) do not qualify." This position cannot be entertained or there would be no sources available at all. It is absolutely necessary that the references actually refer to the film. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I said no such thing and strongly disagree with it. My position is as far as I can tell the same as yours! --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd emphasise the word "merely" in what Jimbo said. We should ideally use sourcing that shows the significance of the allegations to the film when considered globally - passing mentions that the film contains an allegation may not be enough. If I'm misunderstanding, then the alternative interpretation that we should be looking for sources that make the allegations independently of the film rather than just repeating them would be untenable. I don't think we should be thinking in terms of categories of sourcing (reviews, new stories etc) but in terms of what a particular source tells us about the degree of relevance of the information to the article. Formerip (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are trying to make sense of the Jimbo statement, which is admirable. However, he said film reviews are not appropriate for film article references. Try making sense of that. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I said no such thing. If you come across something I have said which sounds ludicrous you may rest assured that you should read it again, with precision.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I agree that wouldn't make sense, as I have indicated. What is true is that we shouldn't consider something noteworthy just because it is mentioned in a film review, particularly if there is a BLP concern. What we should do is give consideration to the way the information is presented in the review. Does the review give the impression that we are dealing with an important aspect of the film, or does it merely give a mention in passing? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would note that I am far from the only editor evincing concerns about the casual disregard for the WP:BLP policy here. As for the false claim that if the article stuck only to what the film says that there would be no article at all -- that is pure straw man here. An article about a film can surely describe awards it has received, its monetary success, and a précis of the content of the film. This article, unfortunately, exceeds that proper remit for an article on a film. Collect (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "casual disregard" for WP:BLP here. Quite the opposite, I see people trying to have a serious discussion about a complex issue requiring us to balance comprehensive encyclopedic coverage of a notable movie with the privacy of the movie's subjects. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Collect has yet to acknowledge the relevance of WELLKNOWN to this topic, WELLKNOWN being one section of BLP. It seems to me that Collect imagines BLP has no such section.

To Collect's point about the article needing a suitable synopsis of the film—if I were to write one, it would contain in prose what you see in the bulleted list of people who were outed in the film. Collect doesn't like the list; doesn't want it in the article. However, Collect argues for "a précis of the content of the film", this being a prose-format synopsis containing the arguments and assertions made in the film, these arguments and assertions being the outing of Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, and so on. To me, having the list of names and a synopsis of the list is the same thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks like BLP enforcement gone wild (again). When I look at the old version [4] I see people have gotten together a dozen sources for some of these. It's not even consistent - they took Craig out of the article but we still have Larry Craig scandal. Wikipedia should not be seen as a collaborative experiment in how to whitewash history and reshape reality, and even if it were, I would say homosexuality is not an allegation; it's not "negative material"; it's not an "attack"; and that should be acknowledged. Wnt (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Come on, of course it is if it's unwelcome and person doesn't think its true. Being called "a Catholic" or "an American" or "a moderate" or "open-minded" or anything else can be pejorative and defamatory if the person don't agree with the label. (Anyway the main point being made in the film is not that the people are gay but that they're hypocrites, which is prima facie defamatory.) Herostratus (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite the seriousness of the allegations made in the film, our article about the film should plainly state what are the allegations. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, Binksternet—but for those individuals who have not conceded the film's claims concerning them, those allegations can be covered quite well without naming names. There is precedent for this: respected mainstream media organizations CNN, NPR, and The Washington Post all covered the film and its controversial allegations without naming the individuals, according to the Outrage article itself. For those individuals who have publicly conceded the accuracy of the claims concerning them, there is no potential harm to them and thus the article can name them; but we must assume that there is a risk of the not-conceded claims being erroneous and therefore harmful to their subjects if promulgated in association with their names. alanyst 03:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a sweet deal, unless the "alleged" closeted hypocrites keep their mouths shut, we'll expose them for lying and deception. It would align with NPOV to show what reliable sources stated before the film came out, which under threat of one admin was deleted, and show that reliable sources also reported which people were featured in the film. All of this was also deleted by the same admin, with accompanying threat. Meanwhile, we're missing the point that that is the core of what the movie is about closeted hypocrites and the mainstream media which is complicit in a double-standard when sex scandals are gay sex scandals (Larry Craig one of the main exceptions). That the majority of these cases are also Republicans is also a part of the story, and feels like part of the opposition to Wikipedia covering this with due weight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Alanyst, newspapers can and do choose which politician's names to reveal in their coverage of scandals. In reporting on the film, Variety named politicians Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery and former NRC chairman Ken Mehlman. Variety did not name Ed Schrock, Mary Cheney or Shepard Smith. The Los Angeles Times named politicians Larry Craig, Charlie Crist, David Dreier, Ed Koch, Jim McCrery, Ed Schrock, newscaster Shepard Smith and former NRC chairman Ken Mehlman. The Los Angeles Times did not name Mary Cheney. Rolling Stone magazine names only Craig, Crist and Mehlman. The Huffington Post named Craig, Crist, Dreier, Koch, McCrery, Mehlman but not Schrock or Cheney. Time Out Chicago named just Craig, Crist, Koch and Cheney. So you can see that various periodicals choose various names to print. Lucky for us, Wikipedia is not censored. If a name is printed in any reliable source, we can repeat it for the reader. We do not have have censor-type editorial policies like the Washington Post which only named Craig, plainly stating that they would not name any others. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the subject of the film can be covered without naming names, as proved by its having been done by respected media organizations that are not generally viewed as biased towards Republican interests. Whether it should be covered without naming names is a question of ethics and editorial policy; and I firmly believe that for us on Wikipedia, both the ethical choice and the policy guidance of BLP weigh against naming names where there is a risk of harm to living individuals should the claims be wrong. Encyclopedic coverage does not mean indiscriminately repeating everything ever published about a subject; thus it is not censorship to choose not to publish certain things when they run afoul of our editorial policies. alanyst 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your concern was embodied in the 2013 consensus wherein the film article carried a full account of the film (as it should) but the various biographies affected by the film were not to carry the film's allegations unless local consensus determined it. The example that was given was that we say on David Icke's biography that he thinks the British Queen Mother is an alien-sourced reptilian, since that is one of the things he is known for, but we do not say so on the Queen Mother's biography. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Icke's theories about the queen are different because they are such that mentioning them won't significantly increase the chance of anyone believing them or make them seem more credible. So mentioning them doesn't have similar BLP problems.

And when we do this for theories that might have a chance of being believed, like Obama's birth certificate, the people involved are so well known and have so much said about them already that Wikipedia's influence on their lives is negligible. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a reason to include past rumor information. Part of the point of the film is that despite sourcing and now a film 5 years ago, these claims are largely ignored, No reason to believe that their use here will invigorate new discussion at all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that a real argument? Sort of like saying "after a while, a falsehood becomes true enough that no one is harmed" or the like? I can not find any Wikipedia policy which could remotely support that argument at all. Nada. If something is contrary to Wikipedia policy, it remains contrary to Wikipedia policy. Even after five years. [5] the massive list and "references" was not in the article for five years -- it was put in the article in April 2013. Well under a year. Actually about 8 months total. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Sport's argument was not such a good one. I notice, though, that you jumped on him for not arguing policy. Could you make a statement about WELLKNOWN, which is policy? I don't think you have addressed its directives with regard to the film Outrage. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The misuse of WP:WELLKNOWN has been present in a great many articles. It applies only where strong reliable sources ("multitude of reliable published sources") documenting the allegation or incident exist and requires that such material be noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. The examples fail that test. They are rumours, weakly sourced to a film by a blogger, and are not shown to be noteworthy, relevant or well-documented per WP:BLP. As they fail on all five grounds out of five, "WELLKNOWN" is no more than a dingy piece of lace here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty ripe piece of opinion. There are several people for whom "noteworthy, relevant and well documented" is amply satisfied in this connection. Your application of such a broad brush here shows more ideological predilection than sensible analysis. But that's to be expected, I think. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason for that aside? I did not edit in any way based on "ideological predilection" whatsoever, nor is my position in any way "ideologically motivated" nor do I give a damn what anyone's "ideology" is - I just follow what the community has said is "policy" and that is damn fine enough for me. No matter what your own "ideological predilection" might be. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning Sarah's cause for dismissal and her 'mistake'

Jimmy, why the hell is Frank Schulenburg making public statements about why Sarah was let go? This is opening the door for Sarah to sue WMF for damaging her reputation even if the statements are true. He also mentioned that, "everybody makes mistakes" which is damaging Sarah's reputation as Frank is implicitly stating that Sarah made a mistake. Frank is neither a legal nor an HR professional. If anything, it should be Joady Lohr (HR Director) making the announcement and it should be as short as possible: "The WMF announces that Sarah is no longer an employee of the Foundation. We wish Sarah the best in her future endeavors." But mentioning why she was let go? The scandal has now been picked by the media and Sarah's name and the cause for her dismissal and her alleged mistake are spreading out: [6] Bad mojo Jimmy, bad mojo. Can any HR American/California attorneys and Public Relations professionals chip in this discussion please? What would be the best course of action for the WMF right now? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis is incorrect. Sarah did make a mistake.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, she made several mistakes: not declaring COI on the talk page of each piece and gibraltaring one on the main page as a Did You Know? snippet. As for the paid editing, that's not banned by en-WP policy although WMF may have employment contracts that you know about and we don't. Speaking of which, is there non-disclosure language which is keeping SS from speaking on the matter? Carrite (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC) ///// Note: redacting the comment on gibraltaring, after further scrutiny of her edit history it is my considered opinion that the piece in question wasn't a paying job, as it was worked on repeatedly over time. My apologies to Sarah. Carrite (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What's done is done. Can't unring the bell. Reverse Streisand effect. Sorry for the cliches but it seems best to say little, now (especially given your speculation what someone may do or may not do in court). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not libel if it is true. End of case. Also, she can be counter-sued as the door swings both ways, which people should remember every time someone mentions a lawsuit when raised as an alarm. Search legal records for massive countersuits awarded. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  No, it's defamatory whether or not it's true. That it can be proven to be true is a defence against a libel charge. Eric Corbett 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

• 1: a publication to one other than the person defamed;
• 2: a false statement of fact;

that is understood as

*a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and

*b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.

In addition, if the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos asked for a PR professional to chip-in and I do have a PR background. In my opinion, it was a pretty standard letter and the cause of the layoff would have been presumed by the media anyway, who regularly watch Jimbo's page for Wikipedia stories. If the community wanted it handled with discretion, the community would have had to do so in the first place, by emailing Jimbo/WMF rather than posting here, but in most cases that is not what the original poster wanted. However, it will be very hard for WMF to fight against covert, non-neutral paid editing when their own staff and partners have been exposed for similar practices. For that reason, if I were in WMF's shoes, I would have been forced to advise the same action, as regrettable as it may be. CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this is real news now: [7] Unfortunately, Stierch is taking the media flak over the fact that we can't come up with a clear answer and a consistent policy, one way or the other, about anything. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Real news? Are you sure? Have you compared the Independent piece with the Ars Technica piece, to see how much they differ and if they are separate articles? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying I want to start an article about it based on GNG (the thought may have crossed my mind, but it's absurd). All I'm saying is that sometimes I actually read The Independent, not as an external link but as a newspaper site. Wnt (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jimmy, you and the WMF did the right thing. I hope this discovery will act as a catalyst to prompt further remedial actions by the WMF and yourself. The editing community should have little to no say; we are talking about the good reputation of the project, critical to editor retention and public trust and acceptance. As for the adminship status of this editor, enacted by over 200 !voters in 2012, it should be removed at once. Repeat, the administrator flag should be removed at once, by you or an office action if need be. Thanks again for seeing this overall problem as significant-to-crucial. Jusdafax 06:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Petition to un-gag Sarah

I am unaware of any nondisclosure agreements and do not intend to intervene in a staff matter. Leave Sarah some dignity, people, she's a human being, not your cause celebre!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The undersigned urge Jimmy Wales to pressure the WMF to release Sarah S. from any and all non-disclosure agreements, so that she can be free to tell the English Wikipedia community the truth about what she did, what the WMF did, and anything else the community should know. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Scott • talk 23:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC) --- KonveyorBelt 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my. I go away a few weeks and ....wow.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Petition for administrator standards

The undersigned urge Jimmy Wales to pressure the WMF to insist that any newly-appointed administrator on the English Wikipedia, before taking up their office, avow they will not engage in paid editing; and also disclose any paid editing or COI editing that they have engaged in previously.

• --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Is administrator status an "office"? If this is important to you, why not ask the question during RFA? What do you propose doing about the 2,000 or whatever administrators already minted? Do you think that the most problematic paid editors at WP are administrators, or are they actually non-administrators? What is the policy basis for JW having approval rights of those approved for administrative buttons? Carrite (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nah, just unbundle the tools and return it to "no big deal". Rgrds. --64.85.215.43 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support—John Cline (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have suggest this in the past and believe it is fundamentally required.—John Cline (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll probably have to make sure they also provide an official notary public's affidavit that they did not cross fingers while swearing their oath of undying loyalty. Unless the WMF flies all newly elected admins to the nearest chapter to swear them in. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your imagination is either very active, or very limited.—John Cline (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose until such time as a fixed policy which is 100% against paid editing is established. There is no reason to hold admins to an ideal which does not have wide enough support to actually become a coded policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• The only relevant "vow" is the WP:Terms of use; if the WMF wants to do this top down, they would need to consult some lawyers and try to work up a wording to go in there, whether it affects everyone or only admins, and then if desired editors could hold a plebiscite on it (at the rate things move on WP, if they get the ball rolling now, they might squeeze it in with the next ArbCom election). (note I'm not actually calling for this; a vote is a poor substitute for political organization) Wnt (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support: minimal and obvious. If there really is a "bright line rule," and that's not just a figure of speech, then this should be a no-brainer. Don't you think so, Jimbo Wales? Further comment: I just read about the Sarah Stiertch dismissal for paid editing. Assuming the reports are correct that she left the Foundation for that reason, it's outrageous. There are no rules against paid editing on Wikipedia. There should be, but there are not. Rather than throwing this person under the bus, the Foundation should change its terms of use to prohibit paid editing. Persons currently engaged in the practice should stop what they're doing, but not subjected to ex post facto penalties. If the Foundation feels so strongly about paid editing (which would be great), it should take action. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The English wikipedia can simply establish this as policy, including provisions for a desysopping process as appropriate. And that's not a bad idea. And it's probably unlikely that candidates who refuse to make this commitment will succeed in the future, even in the absence of a formal policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support ...at the very least. (Comment: knowing that some 'are' being paid to work on articles has taken the wind out of my sails, frankly, for working on this Project, and I am no longer willing to put long-term effort into difficult pages like BP, or into addressing the recent takeover and spin-job to the Cannabis articles by WikiProject Medicine. Not for free, anyway.) petrarchan47tc 22:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - who ever came up with the idea that it was ever ok for an admin to engage in paid editing? Hasn't it been obvious from the very beginning of the idea of "admin" that they would not be working for somebody else while they were working on Wikipedia? That said, I'm not sure that this page is the best spot for an RfC, or that the words "urge Jimmy Wales to pressure the WMF" are right. I think a simple petition to the WMF board to please make this clear, in light of the recent scandal, to the folks who are looking to create new "paid-editing rights" that it just doesn't fly to have an admin (or WMF employees for that matter) accepting pay from anybody other than the WMF to edit Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Administrators are just editors with extra buttons for the performance of site maintenance tasks. There are already mechanisms to remove tools from abusive administrators. I'm opposed to anything which creates the impression or reality that there are two distinct castes, administrators and non-administrators. Carrite (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Seek community consensus, instead of appealing to Jimbo. I would likely support a policy like this, but this is not the way to put it into place. Ross HillTalk to me! 22:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think we should isolate sysops from other editors by holding them to a separate set of rules than that of other editors. In doing so you will be ultimately transforming being a sysop into something that should be no big deal. I agree that paid advocacy is a problem, but it is a community wide one. Mkdw^talk 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As pointed out above, we need to have a policy on paid editing that prohibits such activity before demanding that administrators not do it. I think it's clear by now that the bright line rule is not actually Wikipedia policy, either de jure or de facto, even though Jimbo wants it to be. I am also of the belief that such a policy is unwise because as a bright line rule it has no exceptions similar to the exceptions editing your own BLP has, and per IAR *everything* has exceptions. It also encourages outing. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Paid editing or whatever one calls it has a corrosive, corrupting effect that ripples throughout this project. We hold admins to a higher standard, via community consensus, that they be given the tools. In my view it is absurd not to request a pledge from all admins to not take cash or favors of any kind in exchange for their broad powers, including the block button. These powers set them apart from other editors the way an armed policeman is different from the average citizen, in terms of influence and chilling effect. And no matter what some may say here or elsewhere, there is a very real caste system at work in Wikipedia. Jusdafax 01:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose What? First, Jimmy cannot do that. Second, the Wikimedia Foundation cannot do that. And third, the English Wikipedia community, by no means, has expressed unity against paid editing. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 04:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment This suggestion is just unrealistic at this point, even if it had support, since we'd have to poke and prod the 1,400 administrators we currently have. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we should upset admins with a poke or prod to pledge not to do COI editing or act in other ways as paid agents. And the Wikimedia Foundation can take any action it deems needful to preserve the perception and reputation of this online encyclopedia. Jusdafax 05:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Jusdafax: Back in reality, they have already made this "pledge" by going through the rigmarole of the dying RFA process, by showing they would not damage the project in any way with their tools, etc., etc. Why do we need extra confirmation that they won't do what they know is already frowned upon by the community? We wouldn't have given them tools if we thought they were going to be engaging in paid editing, that is pretty clear. We already expect them not to. Do you think a "petition" or "pledge" with a signature from every administrator would even make a difference here? Say this had already been the case, we had every administrator on record, including Sarah, who told us they would not engage in paid advocacy. She still engaged in paid editing as an administrator when she knew it would not be taken kindly to here in 2013/14. A pledge is empty, and we have to trust those we give the tools to. Likewise, we can't slap every administrator on the wrist for the actions of one editor. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware that another admin has recently admitted to "paid advocacy editing." To date I know of no actions taken to correct that. The community is deeply divided and arguably compromised. Something needs to be done asap to correct the existing precedent of admins editing for money. I take a hard line, myself, and call for such admins to be not only desysopped, but banned, as an example that there will be zero tolerance. Enough is enough. Jusdafax 06:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've followed the paid editing discussions as well, including the suspected paid editing of another administrator and other discussions, and I'm aware the deep divide. To me, if you previously expose your COI and still improve an article, then it shouldn't be a problem if it's a net positive for Wikipedia. The problem is secrecy and the 'shock' of exposing someone being a paid editor. We shouldn't be discouraging paid editing, as much as we should be encouraging transparency. Had Sarah previously disclosed that she was going to be using another account, linked to her main one so everyone knew who she was, that was used in mind of COI and relevant policies to improve articles for pay, there would be considerably less drama. Their edits could easily be scrutinized if they were making malicious edits (such as deleting criticisms of who they are getting paid from) and they wouldn't have to hide it from us. Paid editing is going to occur, just like vandalism will always be around. "Banning" paid editing isn't going to happen, because you can't stop it. It will only make paid editing harder to detect and that isn't what we need, we need to know where paid editing is happening. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, remember? KonveyorBelt 17:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• There will undoubtedly have to be continueing discussion about it, in the foundation and outside. COI, as so far explored on wiki has basically been limited to a simple editorial issue. Admins actually present a whole different dimension, which appears to have been largely unexplored. The use of tools is largely "unregulated" except for criticism, and a promise by the admin to not act while "involved" - but involved is limited to a type of interaction "on wiki." To the extent that there are paid admins, acting as "the admin for Organization Y", or "the Admin for industry Z", or "the Admin for PR company ten" in thier admin actions - those are, it appears, basically unreviewable, at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability

Hi Jimmy. I sometimes begin my day by patrolling Wikipedia:Recent changes (medicine). I have a feel for the reliability of our medical content. It's mostly not bad, and safe, It is about 10% complete, and hardly a day goes by when I don't notice someone - usually in good faith - putting seriously wrong health-related information into Wikipedia. Fortunately, there are editors far more diligent and dedicated than me scrupulously watching medical articles and catching a lot of the false information. But some slips through because it sounds plausible and cites a reliable source behind a paywall, or because the non-expert patrollers such as me who check the edit misread the source in the same way as the contributor. The errors that slip past patrollers usually sit in the article until a reader corrects it, which can be anywhere from days to years.

Sorry, I haven't kept a list of the medical errors I've encountered over the years, but there have been some awful ones. One that sat in an article for months told readers that the prognosis for a disease is far worse than it actually is. I have removed unsourced dosage information that had sat in Wikipedia for years.

Jimmy, we want to make the sum of all human knowledge readily available to all; but the present model militates against that goal.

I think Wikipedia needs to become a reliable source, with all of its published content reviewed for accuracy by the same standard (or higher, ideally) of scholar that reviews our highest quality reliable sources. We have a duty to provide reliable articles if we are to be true to the foundation's mission.

What do you think? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And how should we achieve that? Should the WMF hire thousands of professionals to do full-time article reviews? Should we freeze all contributions until a professional has reviewed them? Shall we reinvent Nupedia? If you assume 3 million articles, and 10 minutes each for review, that would require something like 600,000 scholar-hours just for a first pass to say noting of keeping up with changes for continuing reviews, or 15 weeks full-time effort for a staff of 1,000. If you assume a more realistic 1 hour per article, that is 1 1/2 YEARS of work for that same staff of 1,000 working 40 hour weeks on this alone. This would cost something over US$100 million/year. And it would still drastically slow down volunteer contributions. I don't think this is practical. DES ^(talk) 15:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be simpler to have top banner: "Don't believe a word of the following text". -Wikid77 15:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary given so many people argue that Wikipedia is failing because they overheard their brother's best friend's father say that Wikipedia is so unreliable. Resolute 00:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have an answer to your questions but take it to my talk page or open another thread. Here, I just want to know Jimmy's sentiment regarding Wikipedia becoming a reliable source. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Typically, Jimbo has advised people to place articles under pending-changes review (or similar). Medical pages are not a crisis, but for a real problem, consider distracted driving and especially "Texting while driving" (editing pages from car mobile phones) as perhaps much more dangerous (20x-100x?) than drunk-driving. Only allow WP usage from mobile phones with driver-detection lockout? -Wikid77 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the example of God: in order that people have the choice to do the right thing, they have the choice to do the wrong one. We can be confident that the right information will win out in the end. Any administrative structure - including the pending changes idea - simply takes that choice out of the hands of many and puts it into the hands of a few. There are many ways to do medical harm through deletion and rejection - for example, by the unthinking and sometimes bigoted or mercenary rejection of alternative ideas from other cultures. The United States has never been able to catch up with the progress made in the Soviet Union on phage therapy for bacterial infections and low-dose interferon treatment for flu, or Chinese traditional medical use of a wide range of natural substances such as ursodeoxycholic acid for avoiding gallstone surgery, simply due to bureaucratic and cultural obstacles. I do not want to enable any mechanism that could cause the knowledge of such things to be suppressed. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

EC @Wikid. In my experience doing any sort of an edit from a mobile phone is difficult and though there are young and youngish people who will laugh at me for that, I suspect that is a major part of the reason why our editing community is broadly stable whilst our audience grows with the Internet. But with the mobile phone likely to be the internet access of choice for many of the areas of the world where we are currently weakest, I can't see the WMF agreeing to bar all but the most hi-tec mobiles from editing. ϢereSpielChequers 17:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Most people should know by now to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, especially with smaller articles. I would support having a short medical disclaimer at the top of a page as discussed earlier here. KonveyorBelt 17:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, and most people should know by now to wear their seatbelts, yet the average ER sees a steady stream of unrestrained passengers involved in motor-vehicle accidents. If our approach is to present seemingly authoritative information and to depend on the reader's inherent skepticism and critical-thinking faculties, then I think we're asking for trouble. I can describe instances in which real people have been negatively affected in very real ways through their misplaced faith in the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical content, although I've generally hesitated to do so because there are significant privacy issues involved. I've come to believe that some sort of visible medical disclaimer or expert editorial control is essential, and I say that as someone who's spent virtually his entire Wikipedia career trying to make this project a credible, reputable source of accurate health information. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• My experience is that on the whole quality is still increasing, but I for one would welcome a bit more priority on that. If the aim is to increase reliability there are several things that we could do, some being easier to sell to the community than others. For example, it would be good to see some research funded into the contrasting experiences of DE and EN wiki since DE went down the route of flagged revisions on all articles. If the result was that as some of us expect flagged revisions makes for a more effective barrier against vandalism then I think we could finally sell the idea of flagged revisions to the EN wiki community. ϢereSpielChequers 17:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Most people older than about 3 years know that they need to go to a doctor in case of medical problems. So, this issue isn't a problem in practice. What may be a problem is that people don't typically go to the doctor to ask about general health issues, like diet, exercise etc. But here we should note that official medical guidelines have typically been in the wrong. E.g. the amount of exercise people need has consistently been underestimated in the medical literature (assuming that the latest guidelines are correct). The results of medical science have been very useful to deal with diseases, but it has in general not been a big success to optimize the health of healthy people. Not only were healthy people prescribed too little exercise, they were also prescribed margarine containing 29% trans fats, told for many decades that vitamin D is dangerous for the unborn child etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The angel on my shoulder is telling me to ignore your effort to drag this post off-topic. The devil on my other shoulder is telling me to spend the next 4 paragraphs explaining in detail how far off-base your contentions are. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Most people older than about 3 years know that they need to go to a doctor in case of medical problems. They know, but in actual practice they fail to do so sometimes. Knowing may be half the battle, but actually executing your knowledge is the other half, and sometimes people don't do that. KonveyorBelt 02:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not created by the World's dictator to enforce his nanny state policy. If you read Kip Thorne's book about black holes (forgot the exact title), you'll read about arguments he had with his Soviet colleagues about lack of freedom in the CCCP and homeless people freezing to death in the US.Count Iblis (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody is allowed to be an idiot when it comes to medical advice. Still, Wikipedia shouldn't promote that. KonveyorBelt 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I love the appeal to emotion here, Anthony. Start with a non sequitur related to medical-themed articles to try and scare people then post the already tired argument of making all of Wikipedia a "reliable source". Except, you haven't actually given a reason why we even need to. You say the current model "militates against" the goal of making the sum of all knowledge available to all without explaining why. Truthfully, I think it is your proposal that militates against this goal, not the current approach. To be even remotely feasible, your approach would be required to build barriers that prevent editing, and would create a multi-tiered system for both articles and editors. Resolute 00:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you always so rude? I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The problem with the current model is anyone can live edit. Randy can go to our Squamous-cell carcinoma article and tell the world that sunbeds are the best treatment. There is nothing in the "anyone can edit" model that entails any nutter must be able to see his thought-bubble go live the moment he clicks "save."

To be clear, I'm proposing a two-tier model for articles: reliable and not so. Once an article achieves featured status via the current volunteer review process, it then goes to a group of independent scholars who fact-check. An article that passes FA and expert review is then locked, and further editing and updates are done in the Wikipedia:Drafts space. Once a draft has passed featured article review and expert review again, it goes live and the cycle repeats. Such articles would be labeled prominently for our readers as having been reviewed for accuracy by experts A,B,C and D on X date and each would carry a prominent invitation to readers to collaborate on the current draft.

Of the 25,000 medical articles on en.Wikipedia only 58 are featured medical articles, and some of those will need their featured status reviewed before they go to expert review. So, at least to start with, we're not talking about a huge task.

I'm not proposing two tiers of editors. Reviewers are not writers or editors.

I've started with medicine because that's a topic area I know, but if the physics project would like to start a similar process, why not?

Any costs incurred in the expert review should be picked up by one or more of the various charities in the topic area whose mission includes education or outreach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't see how your two-tiered system stifles Wikipedia? You are insisting that any article that reaches a certain level be blocked away from the masses until so-called experts can review, then re-review, then re-re-review, .... And yes, reviewers are editors in your model. They are the privileged class of editor permitted to dump all over those doing the hard work. But what is most curious to me is how your proposal doesn't even solve the problems you argue. You complain about how easy it is to vandalize these articles or add misinformation... yet you propose to leave 99.8% within the medicine scope alone as prone to any form of undesirable type of edit you can imagine. And for that remaining 0.2%, you propose that other charities waste their resources on a redundant process here? You'll have to forgive my bluntness, because I don't see how this proposal does more good than harm. Resolute 05:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, our more conscientious editors are probably more faithful with their sourcing than many medical researchers. You don't have to go far at all to find some ral sourcing gaffs and sweeping assumptions in medical papers. What would we do if WMF paid an expert and they introduced some assumptions, because "they know it's true" despite sources saying otherwise? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the slackness of some papers that slip through the peer review process in some journals. That's why we have to set a high standard for the expert-review of our FAs. Having named expert reviewers will help with that - they won't want to have their name on a poor-quality article.

I haven't made myself clear enough about the role I envision for the expert reviewers. They won't - can't actually if we are to keep the crowdsourcing process that is the engine of this project - have a veto. If reviewers have veracity concerns about an article, we can ignore them and publish - we just won't be able to tell our readers it's been checked by experts for accuracy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I should indeed be relieved to hear you say that you're looking only to protect 58 or so featured articles, because it makes your scheme all but irrelevant. However, even in those 58 articles there are quite a few reasons to reject a lockdown scheme. To begin with, we have a few like Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act which are political or social articls. We have several biographies such as Ryan White which MEDRS should have very little role in at all, except for a few background sentences. And we have a lot of hard-core biological articles like DNA and virus and influenza which is where I really get concerned, because articles like this ought to be updated freely and continually to keep abreast of cutting edge research! Going through the list I would only acknowledge about 28 as being about medical conditions per se. Looking at the first of these, I see that Acute myeloid leukemia has one single unsourced sentence about various agents in clinical trials, presumably because the MEDRS fanatics would say heaven forfend that we actually link to useful sites that keep updated lists of clinical trials, primary sources describing the ongoing research ideas (even from good journals and accurately described), etc. (And no, the way to fix the article is not to delete that sentence!) So ... no. I'm not buying what you're selling. I should also add that the fallacies of "medical reliability" do have much in common with the fallacies of "filtering" content. You seem to assume that people can come to a consistent "editorial judgment" about what is good and bad, that people can agree on classifying content even when it affects what opinions will be presented, and that our concerns about presenting "bad" material should outweigh our imperative to allow good content to be assembled. None of these should be the case. Wnt (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• @Anthony If your concern is that "There is nothing in the "anyone can edit" model that entails any nutter must be able to see his thought-bubble go live the moment he clicks "save."" Then though I might express things differently, broadly I agree with you, and would commend the German language Wikipedia where they have implemented a flagged revisions system. On DE wiki if you aren't a trusted editor then someone else has to approve that edit before it goes live. Pending changes does something similar, but only for selected articles. Either system I would contend could do more for our medical accuracy than something confined to 58 articles not chosen for their problematic nature. ϢereSpielChequers 07:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

WSC: 58 articles to start with. I expect that all important (or simply all) medical content will be reliable within five years if this model is actively supported by the WMF and the medical specialties and charities.

Jimmy supports the flagged revisions model, I believe. What I'm proposing for medical FAs is similar in principle but raises the bar to the level of "reliable". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK in terms of outreach to medical charities etc you might be interested in what the chapters are up to (I'm a part time WMUK employee myself though I wasn't involved in the breast cancer event). It's currently early stages for this sort of expert collaboration, but yes we are working with outside experts to improve quality on Wikipedia. Of course as chapters we have to work with the grain of the community, so the exact form of outreach to medical expertise may not be as you wanted. But I like to think we are working in the same direction here, and I've yet to hear anyone object to this particular sort of expert outreach. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we share the same goal as Doc James and several other WP:MED editors. But only I am saying outreach to specialist and expert bodies is futile unless we can offer them stringent peer-review and articles locked between reviews. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• It makes sense to consider the inherent POV issues that arise from allowing a team of editors to represent one type of medicine and to silence all else, as it happening with WikiProject Medicine. The encyclopedia is not a health manual. Under the guise of saving gullible readers, information about medicines of other types, times and cultures is being systematically erased or spun so that only Western, alopathic medicine is represented here in a good light. I've seen articles on diet (GAPS), on acupuncture (German acupuncture trials), and herbal medicine succumb to the hostile takeover of this POV. The Western health care industry has saved many lives, but it is also the industry responsible for the third largest cause of death: medical mistakes. Scientifically-approved medicines accidentally kill someone every 19 minutes, and in 2010, were the fourth leading cause of death in the US. Given these stats, it makes sense that this industry, as much as Big Oil or Monsanto, would have an interest in controlling Wikipedia's coverage of related articles, but I think this should be heavily questioned. IMO, if we're going to hand this coverage over to a team, the encyclopedia should require a more well-balanced one that includes naturopaths, experts in herbal medicine, and so on, to offer a more well-informed, worldly view. petrarchan47tc 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Anywhere between 210,000 and 440,000 people needlessly die in U.S. hospitals every year due to medical errors.[8] Strangely, physicians in the U.S. earn more than those in Europe, Canada, and Australia.[9] Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  • A visible Do not take medical advice from Wikipedia disclaimer is a great idea, with the added benefit of allowing for a more universal (encyclopedic) coverage of issues. petrarchan47tc 02:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "that includes naturopaths, experts in herbal medicine, and so on" ← not a good idea to let people who believe in various magicks have free reign over medical content. Fortunately Wikipedia at least aspires to be taken seriously and so there is policy keeping the woo at bay (just). I don't think anybody has proposed that the existence of a disclaimer should be an excuse to tolerate nonsense in medical articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this would lead to the WP:GEVAL fallacy. Wikipedia articles on medicine should not be held to different standards of editing from other articles, but like WP:BLP articles, they need particular care and attention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Alex, your understanding of nonsense is in another part of the world considered medicine. This is an encyclopedia. This obliteration of the Ayurveda article is a prime example of what I'm talking about. There must be a middle ground between a totally Western POV and dangerous quackery. You are arguing, if I understand correctly, that we are saving people by not including this information about Ayurveda, for example? You are calling herbal medicine "majick" and showing the very POV I'm trying to call attention to. Someone with that attitude should not be working on articles about herbal medicine. petrarchan47tc 09:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Any "middle ground" between correct and incorrect is ... incorrect.
• You disapprove of my linked revert? Generally in any article (not just in Ayuervedic ones) we don't let edits stay which remove well-sourced content and dump a copyright-violating essay along with 95 crappy unformatted references into the article body. Is that how you want our medical articles to look?
• We need to make sure that we follow policy is describing fringe things: it is important these topics are presented neutrally. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should include references that explain other perspectives. Here's my try at it; to me this seems indeed to append the "correct" and the "incorrect", which I feel is appropriate. The sad truth is that no matter how dogmatic we are about our "scientific method", I have seen it defined in many different ways, and I have not seen experiments showing that one definition of the scientific method "works" better than another. In practice it involves some incredibly arbitrary decisions, like anything that is less than 5% likely to happen by chance is a publishable result. This Ayurvedic person says that Ayurveda uses inductive reasoning, which I would call the older, pre-Baconian version of the scientific method - I don't think it works as well as our scientific method, but I've never seen an experiment saying just how well, and I know that we have thousands of drugs that were discovered, at least as potent prototypes, by people armed with nothing but the bad old inductive way of doing things. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is in a sorry state, and IMO your edit improves it :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proper editing takes time and research; to delete material without looking at ways to fix the article, such as better sourcing, especially at the rate you're doing it, hurts the encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 02:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the edit I reverted? You'd leave copyright violations and page-breaking text dumps in place would you? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The preceding edit was not good. However, I wish that people reverting edits would at least preserve the source as long as it is relevant, even if they delete all the text, and if they can keep a bit of the text, that's better still. It is my belief that the citations + direct sources (images/videos) make up 50% of the total value of an article (a sort of equipartition theorem) and generally speaking I try to preserve the ref even if I feel the associated content needs to go. Wnt (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• It is this kind of blanket dismissal of ("magicks") that is the problem. Herbal medicine is based on a large database of empirical knowledge, which continues to expand to this day, and has been the source for many of the drugs since produced on a synthetic basis. Nor is the transition to chemical synthesis always a good thing (except for the person holding the patent). For example, modern society is accustomed to accepting that aspirin and related salicylate drugs cause many thousands of deaths every year from gastrointestinal bleeding.^[10][11] By contrast, natural willow bark contains a mixture of salicin and other unidentified activities with similar effects, and does not cause gastrointestinal bleeding, because the complex natural esters that come on the salicylic acid hold together better during digestion than the ad hoc acetyl tacked on by drug merchants looking for a way to say that they 'neutralized the acid' in salicylic acid.^[12][13] So yes, it is true, in the ancient city of Ur a thousand years before the birth of the biblical patriarch Abraham, the pharmacists sold a version of our best-known painkiller which was safer and better than one of the few drugs that the medical bureaucracy sees fit to allow on the shelves as 'safe' for use today. Wnt (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• What is horrifying to me is that folks who so easily dismiss these non-alopathic forms of healing have placed themselves 100% in charge of Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. They have come in to the suite of Cannabis articles, for instance, armed with little more than a (stated) anti-herb POV, and have completely rewritten the Cannabis articles using the MEDRS that falls in line with that POV, ignoring for the most part MEDRS which shows positive effects or less-damaging effects. THC has been used as a medicine for thousands of years without a documented death. Marinol, the pharmaceutical version of THC, has been around 35 years and has killed at least 4 people so far. "Western" medicine is a very new baby on the scene, and is mostly experimental, with a heap of dead bodies in its wake. I would call it both fringe and dangerous, and I would argue that the group representing this industry on Wikipedia needs to be closely monitored. I am complaining here because I can't possibly take them on; they are powerful, have no fear of using bullying tactics and revenge editing, work as a group and have the support of the most influential Wikipedians, from what I can see. Who is here to defend the encyclopedia? The fact that 90% of Wiki editors are Westerners is narrowing our focus more than we may appreciate, and certainly, one would assume, more than the millions around the world who use ancient and non-western healing modalities would appreciate. petrarchan47tc 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

""Western" medicine ... I would call it both fringe and dangerous" ← you're probably going to have a bad time editing medical content on Wikipedia then, particularly if you try and push that backwards view into the articles. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No one should be able to push their views onto articles unless supported by RS - and your view of non-Western medicines is being pushed daily by your edits. To work on herbal medicine articles whilst holding an entirely negative view of the subject is akin to a born-again Christian editing the Abortion article. petrarchan47tc 20:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• An example of WikiProject Medicine and their use of MEDRS: in this version, the work of multiple independent editors who researched and discussed the science on the "death by cannabis" claim for months; in this, Project Medicine's fix. In the former, THC has only killed rats when hash oil was injected into the bloodstream (since, after-all, it is a non-toxic herb). In the latter, it turns out that humans have died from cannabis (but only the junkies). petrarchan47tc 03:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I find the cut-down version unsatisfactory also because it takes out the J Clin Pharmacol reference about occasional strokes and heart attacks and the recommendation against it for those with cardiovascular disease. I'm all for medical marijuana and drug legalization, but we have to face reality: there's nothing potent enough to do good that isn't potent enough to do harm. (where drugs that influence human metabolism are concerned) When sources exist to document that, we should include them, and if they're perhaps wrong, we should include the sources explaining why they might be wrong. In this case, however, it appears that the risk continues to be believed [14] - they could have updated to that source, and I'd be semi-alright with that (though I always like two better than one), but deleting it is just irresponsible. If WikiProject Medicine in fact is responsible for excluding sources that discuss potential risks of marijuana use, contributing to the popular party line that marijuana is absolutely risk-free, then they are the ones spreading dangerous misinformation. You don't have to add stuff to do that! Wnt (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The risk is due to an increased heart rate, which is the same risk that shoveling snow would have on one with heart problems, and lasts from 20-60 minutes. We did a lot of research for that section, and this came up in our findings. On another note, I just noticed the last paragraph in WikiProject Medicine's version in the Effects section is nothing but a complete dismissal of medical cannabis, and entirely US-centric. This is far from neutral coverage and an example of the kind of spin I'm trying to point out petrarchan47tc 07:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In furtherance of the above, I added [15] - definitely not my best work, but at least a swipe of the paintbrush. Wnt (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The new source looks useful. There is some material on this topic at Effects of cannabis#Cardiovascular effects - one of the problems with this big "suite" of articles is that they're badly organized. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• In other words, dangers weren't removed, coverage exists in a different place. As for the Effects coverage, "it works for pain and nausea" are the only positive effects mentioned. Yet, when I added this MEDRS source to the Medical Cannabis page, it was removed by Dr Jim because "we already cover this with better sourcing". Since these positive effects are covered, there should be an indication of it in this summary. This summary does sound like it was written by someone who hates the subject. In this section, Cannabis sounds incredibly dangerous and barely effective as medicine. It is also the case that the majority of science comes from the West, where only 6% of studies are geared toward finding anything but negative effects. This understanding is not being allowed to be added to the encyclopedia, and has been removed/reverted every time, regardless of the MEDRS to support it. Basically, in my view, NPOV is more important that MEDRS. One can have a page full of proper sourcing, but it can be a hack-job all the same. petrarchan47tc 19:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy - as you've stated that you support a visible medical disclaimer, I think it would be really great of you to say so at the ongoing RfC on the topic. Seeing that you do could give a lot of people pause for thought and would almost certainly attract a lot of support that might otherwise have gone unsaid. — Scott • talk 13:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Petra, regarding: "the inherent POV issues that arise from allowing a team of editors to represent one type of medicine and to silence all else, as is happening with WikiProject Medicine," I think we have the policy settings about right (insisting on reliable evidence for all safety and efficacy claims and implications) but I do see zealous editors on all sides gaming or simply ignoring the policies occasionally. In my experience, disputes in the alternative and fringe medicine area are mostly over misinterpretation of policies or sources - which if habitual is a behaviour not a policy problem - and about the weight to be given to different kinds of sources - self-published skeptic blogs, alternative medicine journals, etc. - and I can't envision a policy change that would resolve the latter by fiat. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Realize that some editors who don't work solely on medical or human health articles were/are not familiar with WP:MEDRS and may not be guilty of intentionally nefarious actions. petrarchan47tc 19:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, as with the "invitation to edit" proposal below, my proposal in this thread - that we get subject-matter experts to fact-check out medical FAs and lock them until the next review - won't go anywhere without at least a nod from you and other board members. Yet, so far you have ignored this thread, and the last time I mentioned it you ignored my proposal and promoted your preferred pending changes/flagged revisions model. Can I assume that you disapprove of my proposal? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WMF Strategic Plan

How's the strategic plan going - particularly in relation to the third point: "Improve quality"? What has the WMF done, and what user-generated initiatives has it actually supported that have had a measurable impact on the quality of, say, en.Wikipedia content? How much of last year's $40,000,000 did you spend on this important strategic goal? Did the foundation employ a single person tasked with improving quality? Did you commission a rigorous study into the reliability of Wikipedia across various sample topic areas so you could measure the effects of all your efforts to improve Wikipedia's quality? If not, how does the WMF track the quality of Wikimedia content? Did you establish a committee of experts to brainstorm the problem?

Is there a problem with Wikipedia's quality? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-paid-y a? (The Times of India)

I know that User:Wifione is on a "wikibreak" and the issue slowly faded away ... this is just for your information. Btw, what if Wifione returns to editing without addressing this problem? Do we let it be? I mean ... he's an administrator here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

it would be best if he just doesn't come back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, at the outset, let me offer my apologies to you and to the editors concerned that I couldn't comment on the discussions on this issue the last time you had initiated the same on this talk page. As Vejvančický mentions, I was on a wikibreak (which I generally take during this time of the year). I do wish to mention here that I've initiated an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. I'll be grateful if you and concerned editors could direct all your questions/comments with respect to my editing to the review, as this would allow the community to have a consolidated platform for current and future use, to review my editing. In case you should wish me to respond to specific questions, please do list them out at the review and I'll try my best to provide comprehensive clarifications (and apologies, in case I've made editorial mistakes). Thanks for the patience. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain in your own words the nature of your conflict of interest?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wifione. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: It would be best if he just doesn't come back. Apologies, but I think that, although this is of course your personal opinion with no power whatsoever, we shall let Wifione explain things first before closing the door. Also, I still don't understand why going against paid editing when such paid editing is done in accordance to our rules. It just looks unethical to me to measure all types of paid activities with the same bar. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 03:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate working well or less poorly

Just FYI. As you might know, Google Translate now is handling verbs well better in German text. This is an update, because years ago, I had noted how, in numerous German sentences, the verbs would be omitted (unlike 2004-2005), to the point where novice translators would have had severe trouble with translations. However, this month, I ran about 50 tests and found that all worked well, retaining all verbs in each German translation (Swedish text had been translating well for years). Compare English-to-German in Google Translate:

• English: Author Isaac Asimov was, is, and shall be known as a prolific writer.
• German: Autor Isaac Asimov war, ist und wird als überaus produktiver Autor bekannt sein.
• English: Sally sells seashells at the seashore; she shall succeed with selling.
• German: Sally verkauft Muscheln am Meer, sie sind mit dem Verkauf erfolgreich zu sein.
• English: Two sisters between twelve and two in Schwabing have vanished.
• German: Zwei Schwestern, die zwischen zwölf und zwei in Schwabing sind verschwunden.

Although some words could have better equivalents, the overall phrasing now produces sensible results. We can recommend users to help translate articles using Google Translate to handle many portions. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? It's bad enough that people here often write on subjects they are not familiar with, now you want to encourage people to do this using a language they do not speak? The mind boggles. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny how research can overcome a subject one is not "familiar with". Perhaps you should try it and stop writing about things you are only familiar with. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, the problem isn't using Google Translate, which can help editors write and expand articles. The problem is editors using it poorly and not checking their work after they use it. Your argument is flawed. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone update the article on Google Translate with some information about what the copyright status is of the translated documents, specifically, whether Google asserts any rights over these versions? Wnt (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do you understand German? The second example re-translates to English as "Sally sells seashells at the seashore; they (the seashells) are with the sale. To be successful". The fact that all verbs are retained does not give this the same meaning as the English original. If subtle errors are introduced like this, it will be very hard to find them, especially if you also rely on Google to "translate" your WP:RS. The third example tells me that two sisters, who have vanished between 12 and 2pm. (and then there is no further verb to finish the sentence). So your very examples demonstrate that Google "Translate" has no place in an encyclopedia unless you wish to completely sacrifice factual accuracy. —Kusma (t·c) 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I say this very rarely indeed on WP, but it's definitely merited in this case: LOL. — Scott • talk 12:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  The issues raised by Kusma are not a joke, but rather valid minor concerns, because we have seen people run Google Translate on a whole text and upload the results without checking for awkward phrasing, where other editors must edit and restate some of the wording. (Of course, awkward text also exists separately!) See below: "#Google Translate still has problems". -Wikid77 14:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate still has problems

Warning: As noted in the prior discussion, there are still some problems with the German phrasing generated by Google Translate, and in some cases it negates the verb, at times inserting "nicht" ("not") or omitting it to reverse the meaning. Also, when translating German-to-English, then the results often generate the wrong pronouns for the context, such as swapping sie as "she" to "they" or such. Overall, the translated text should not be copied verbatim, but adjusted by people who know the basics of verb conjugation, the declension of nouns, and use of subordinate clauses with die or daβ (etc.). In general, if an entire paragraph has been translated, then there are likely to still be wording problems in the result. Yes, unfortunately, common sense still applies to translations. -Wikid77 13:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

and it does help to also have some familiarity with the subject, and be able to tell what the intended meaning is likely to be, because otherwise the English though it might be correct is unlikely to be clear and idiomatic. It further helps to be familiar with the subject as written about in German to know the customary way that language expresses things, which is not just a matter of translation. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC) (

I use Google Translate extensively, and it is my impression that it has gotten much better. However, it has not reached the point where I would consider including a translated quote without vetting by an editor with bi-lingual knowledge.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Errors like this (negating verbs and similar) can easily cause huge errors which are hard to spot. For example, I showed this document (a legal statement by Allmänna reklamationsnämnden) to someone, who tried to translate the document using Google. The last sentence reads "Moderns yrkande skall således bifallas." but Google translates this as "The mother's claim is therefore rejected." which is the exact opposite of the original Swedish text. Scary. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia would seem to have all the proper circumstances for developing its own electronic translation: extensive dictionaries, nearly identical texts, computing resources, a multilingual community, and a fair number of people interested in coding. I bet all you need is to make a bit of a media splash and you'd have a thousand people interested in trying to develop some aspect of a free automated translation program just for the street cred. What is Wikipedia meant to be, after all, but the diametric opposite of the Tower of Babel, a project of decentralization and humility? Wnt (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some might say WP is building a wp:MOSque of style so astoundingly important that it is worth humiliating or topic-banning numerous people who note various world standards disagree with the guidelines. Anyway, the auto-translation of text is generally so difficult, with names such as Red Green (ice hockey) or "Amber White worked with June May in July", that WP might lease a translation product but building one could be prohibitively difficult and, instead, ask 1,000 multi-lingual volunteers to proofread rough translations written by other editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous reviewers

I'm curious if you want to share your opinion about this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly cowardly decision by the Virginia Court of Appeal there. If they felt the need to state a reluctance to rule a legislative act unconstitutional, it stands to reason that they think it might be but didn't want to take responsibility so kicked the can up the hill. Resolute 03:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the article at The Atlantic does a good job of presenting the complexity of the issue. I think that anonymous speech is important, but that responsibility for one's words is also important. Anonymity gives honest people a way to make themselves heard without retribution. Anonymity also gives vicious people a way to abuse and defame without retribution. The right approach is to give broad protection for anonymous speech, but for that protection to be limited - i.e. I don't mind if there is a process whereby an independent judge can make a determination that unmasking is the right thing to do.

At the same time we should remember that while difficult, achieving true anonymity is possible online, and achieving a level of anonymity that will make do for all practical purposes is actually quite easy. Tor works well enough to cover someone's tracks for any civil court case. Might even be enough to hide you from the NSA. Barring that, spoofing your mac address and logging into a random open wifi hotspot is pretty damn good too. My point is not to say whether that is good or bad (although I think that, on balance, it is very good) but to point out that it's a fact. If the Yelp Seven commentators/libellers were stupid and set up sockpuppet accounts from a single ip address or computer, then the court actually can make the decision. If they were sensible, no court could compel the release of information that would tie this back to actual people.

A further thought is that it should be possible in this case for the judge to settle the question. At least in theory Yelp could reveal the names to the judge, and Hadeed Carpet Cleaning could reveal their customer list to the judge, and then he or she could see if there's a match. Of course, Yelp likely doesn't have real names but just ip addresses, and there's the further step of tracking down those ip addresses. Hadeed could pay for it and the judge could hire an independent firm to investigate it. All of this is hypothetical but could in theory happen if the law were set up correctly.

And finally I'd have some questions about what Yelp's policies are. (I have no idea.) One way for this to be resolved amicably would be for Yelp to look into it themselves and if they see sockpuppeting they could just delete the comments. Or they could contact the posters and ask them to supply some kind of proof that they actually were customers. (A receipt for example.) Of course depending on how they do it, this could be expensive for Yelp so they will be reluctant to take on the burden. But it is a burden that might be well worth it, if it helps alleviate the impression that many people have that Yelp reviews may often be tainted by crazy people or competitors with fake complaints. I don't know enough about Yelp to say whether they do a good job on this right now or not, though!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a time for pragmatic utopianism, the zealous pursuit of freedom of expression. The more measures courts take to track down and punish fraudulent Yelp reviews, the more weight they will carry; and since technical experts might always be immune from the law, this permits them to do real damage to reputation with impunity. If we abolish libel lawsuits for all media not enjoying government monopoly or franchise, the Internet may be full of false insinuations, but people will have to learn not to believe them because they could be a routine part of business. Companies seeking to be reputable sources of reviews would actually need to take the precautions you suggest. The overall result should be that prominently placed bad reviews that do damage to business go on, but become harder to fake. Wnt (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "Trade defamation" has never been held to be "protected speech" AFAICT. The case at hand may very well be "trade defamation" and thus the court really had no option but to enforce the law. Just as Wikipedia ought to be wary of being used for advertising it must be absolutely vigilant against trade defamation, and those who promulgate it. Collect (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that Hadeed has apparently shown no evidence of actual defamation. My read on that story is that this is probably a SLAPP suit and an attempt to suppress criticism. Resolute 15:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

From the limited facts given, it is unclear to me what it is. I would say that in such cases we are generally going to have to count on judges with good sense deciding. That's error-prone of course, but I don't know any other solution. It doesn't quite make sense to me as a SLAPP suit, though, because depending on the exact text of the review, what is unmasking going to do, if these are real customers? It's not like employee whistleblowers who might be fired, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Naturally. If you owned a carpet cleaning company and managed to annoy some customers over the years (and let's face it, it's surely inevitable), wouldn't you prefer not to be criticised in a way anyone else could learn about? Anyway, even the Brits have recently discovered some limits to their libel laws. I recommend not putting our own cojones in the soup. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect - I recognize it has not been upheld (after all, I was disagreeing with a court decision here). But the courts have gradually moved toward recognizing more of the First Amendment's potential over time. Moreover, there will have to come a time when we stop relying on the dead hand of dead men's words to protect our freedoms, a day when we learn from all we've seen and advance a new conception of freedom of thought and discourse that casts aside many of the 'exceptions' that have been claimed in the past. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the courts are apparently quite supportive of the plaintiffs in trade defamation cases - which papers have you been reading? As for "dead hand of dead men's words" -- I suggest that your opinion is in the minority, and the minority on Wikipedia as well. Collect (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I value constitutional rights, but they need to go further; they were adopted by ordinary people, and they can be reinforced by ordinary people as surely as they can be weakened by them. But whatever happens, the U.S. is just one country, coming toward to the end of its days, and for the principles to endure we must be prepared to support them universally by belief rather than merely by tradition. Wnt (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW re the merits of the case: we don't know what really happened, but according to the Better Business Bureau the entity has had 33 complaints over the last three years. (You cannot make a complaint to the BBB without providing your name and address by the way.) Is that a lot? Yeah guess so; compare for instance to Superior Rug Cleaning (selected at random) with zero complaints in the last three years, which is probably closer to typical for a small business, since going to the BBB takes some time and effort and people usually only do it when they've been stonewalled by the company. So hmmmm. Running a business is hard, so I don't want to rag on them, but it looks like they might be putting themselves in a position where the Streisand Effect might come into play.

Which won't help liberty, because the annoying thing is that if the Hadeed Seven do indeed turn out to be legitimate complainants, that won't effect the case law (I think). Future judges won't say "Well, Judge Smith read the law to allow that identities could be exposed in situations like this, but it turned out the plaintiff's case was completely bogus, which just shows how these things can be used strategically to quash legitimate complaints and intimidate future complainants, so I'm not gonna do that". They will say "Well, Judge Smith read the law to allow that identities could be exposed in situations like this, and that's that; that's the precedent, and I'll follow that". Right? IANAL but isn't that how case law works? Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back

Note to those just arriving at, or re-arriving at, this discussion: there seems to be emerging support and excitement for a proposal by Jehochman, below. Please engage with that now, rather than a blackout, as there also appears to be emerging consensus that a blackout is not right at this time for this issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just putting this out here for preliminary discussions: The Day We Fight Back.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If WP:RS articles surface we should certainly write a WP:NPOV article on it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So is the plan to shut down Wikipedia again for a day?--MONGO 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that is what Jimbo means, regardless of anybody's opinion on government surveillance and related issues, they do not threaten Wikipedia directly enough, imo, for any action to be taken. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No kidding. But aside from shutting down the website for a day, what other means of protest are both available and obvious enough to make our opinion obvious.--MONGO 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And how long do we "fight back" against the amount of data Google and others collect? Intothatdarkness 17:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...without that Google data collection...Wikipedia articles would not appear in a google search. Some collection is part of how your search engine provides data to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm..and their scanning of e-mail for targeted advertising purposes and other activities relate to Wikipedia articles how, exactly? It's not just searching...Google collects and uses far more than that. Intothatdarkness 19:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Have essays or related articles ready in time: We can use the words "avoid" or "counter" while the word "fight" is problematic because of connection to wp:ANI WP:BATTLEground mentality, but there might also be conflicts with some users who like mass surveillance. I suggest a new essay "wp:Avoiding mass surveillance" but be prepared that everything new will be dragged to AfD or wp:MfD and allow extra time for people fighting against any progress to improve coverage. Meanwhile, it is good for people to remember those who have been arrested over false perceptions, and those celebrity sex tapes, with people a few months underage, have led to charges of child pornography where perhaps 19 is considered legal age. It is good to remind people to clear the browser's temporary files, to erase controversial work files, and beware of mobile phone zoom-lens cameras at an Internet cafe, or even in public restrooms. There are cameras and snooping everywhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet another case where Wikipedia should avoid politicizing itself. I recall posting several times on this user talk page asking if Wikipedia were co-operating with "collection agencies" (pun intended) and was assured Wikipedia was not so doing. That is far different from the "action" being called for in a political manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. SOPA connected to Wikipedia, but I don't think this connects enough for action. Seattle (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Another useless protest? Can we avoid politics and attention-grabbing gimmicks and just focus on building and improving the encyclopaedia? Thank you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There are enough internal issues here that should be addressed as it is. Intothatdarkness 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Three comments, based upon our SOPA experience:

First, because of our community consensus policy, Wikipedia cannot respond as fast as reddit.com or icanhas.cheezburger.com can. If we are going to participate, we need to hammer out the details now, not later.

Second, before Wikipedia got on board the SOPA protest, news sources kept speculating on us: "but will Wikipedia join the protest?" Wikipedia joining or not joining is a very big deal.

Third, we need to be really careful not to overuse the idea. Wikipedia protesting one thing in four years has a lot of impact. Wikipedia protesting four things in one year has far less impact. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Beyond any other protest activities, the focus could be on "consciousness raising" as providing information which people might expect, about mass surveillance. Even with the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, Wikipedia was mentioned in discussing the "red carpet" as an obvious website to check for background information. -Wikid77 01:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that too. The mass surveillance articles can always use help. petrarchan47tc 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The relative importance of this thing needs to be considered, though. It's true that if Snowden's revelations came along ten years from now, the potentially watered-down effect of Wikipedia's response would be a nonissue. But revelations such as these have no precedent in history, so the third point may have less validity than the first two. petrarchan47tc 21:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Snowden merely provided further confirmation of what many already knew.--MONGO 21:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

He provided hard-core, undisputed evidence straight from the source which has enjoyed 8 months of nonstop, excellent media coverage and sparked indignation and action across the globe. Previous NSA whistleblowers and Congresspersons like Wyden were all but ignored, and have expressed deep gratitude that Snowden blew the lid off this story so that it can finally be addressed in open courts and by the general public. Remember, "We don't spy, not wittingly" was the NSA's accepted line prior to Snowden. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite. And the UK's GCHQ is just as guilty. Eric Corbett 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Et al. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear..some countries with similar forms of government, outlooks and language have been working cooperatively behind the scenes...big shock! Thank goodness Snowden blew the lid off all these things or else we would have all been in total darkness as to the nefarious activities of big brother.--MONGO 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"The fact that this has made it to the floor of the House of Representatives is unquestionably good. It is another step…in the march to a real debate,” Wyden said, and added that Snowden’s disclosures made it possible. “We wouldn’t have had that seven, eight weeks ago.” This fact was acknowledged—albeit begrudgingly—by other House members... during a... hearing with officials from the Department of Justice and the NSA. “Snowden, I don’t like him at all, but we would’ve never known what happened if he hadn’t told us,” said Representative Ted Poe." * petrarchan47tc 02:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• “So, today I’m going to deliver another warning: If we do not seize this unique moment in our constitutional history to reform our surveillance laws and practices, we will all live to regret it,” Wyden continued. “The combination of increasingly advanced technology with a breakdown in the checks and balances that limit government action could lead us to a surveillance state that cannot be reversed.” petrarchan47tc 03:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A little while ago it was proposed that we join with various multi-national corporations in taking a stand for Internet freedom, and I commented that we would be better aligning ourselves with other Internet non-profits. I still think that, but the aesthetics of the facebook banners they are proposing leave me a little cold. The Franklin quote: try telling that to Winston Churchill. And I'm particularly nonplussed by the image of of some guy (is it Rosanne's husband? have they run it by him?) who's so annoyed with the NSA he's about to kill his work colleagues. I know its just what some random people thought would grab people's attention, but it strikes a tone that's a bit too right-of-centre for my liking. Maybe Wikipedia should be part of this once they've had a re-think about what it is they want to convey. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is Snowden's revelations and the spying a big enough deal that we need to shut down Wikipedia? That's the question we should be asking. KonveyorBelt 01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a campaign about putting a banner on your site, not about shutting it down. Formerip (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• The question we should be asking is what can we do to support people's right to read freely, without fear that their reading habits on Wikipedia will be used to harass them somehow. This would be a good time to remind people that "Freedom from fear" means freedom from being oppressed and targeted for harassment based on your Internet use. For those who think this is "no big deal," I'd suggest you take a look at "Top Secret America," a reputable, open-source book and website that came out way before Snowden, and get a handle on what we're talking about here. When serious thinkers in intelligence ethics are formulating arguments along the lines of, "Well that guy was a national level legislator, he should have known better that he's fair game for anything anyone can possibly dig up by hacking his digital trail and exposing it to the public ..."-- with social norms like that, what chance do the rest of us have to defend ourselves against smears, harassment or worse? Who's going to want to run for public office under those circumstances?

• We already know one thing we can do to support people's right to read freely without fear that their reading Wikipedia will be used to harass them. We can set up a TOR exit node in Wikipedia's server room, set up so that it can only access Wikipedia and Wikimedia, and with the ability to edit Wikipedia blocked. That way, anyone can read Wikipedia in an untraceable way. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support for the implementation of TOR as part of Wikipedia's "fight back". petrarchan47tc 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• For my part, I would like us to take a stand in favor of the general principle of informational self determination. That's how we run our site-- and that's how people want to live, they want a say in what is done with the information collected about them, and how it is used. Djembayz (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll pipe up as a marketing guy. A message is most effective when it matches the format of the media. We're an encyclopedia. On Feb 11, I suggest we fill our front page with articles, blurbs and news about mass spying and privacy. That will send a strong message, and help educate people. It's sort of like what we do on April 1, except serious instead of foolish. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Exactly what I was going to add, including mentioning that we could have a very, very compelling set of DYKs on the subject. First Light (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Djembayz (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Jehochman's idea is a fine one, which stands to reason since he's versed in this sort of thing. Without prejudice to other ideas, let's push this forward. Herostratus (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like This is brilliant. Jehochman has found just the right balance between silence and blackout. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like What I love about it is that it is NPOV and still allows us to show, in a neutral way, that we think the issue is important. Let people make up their own minds - but let them be informed when they do. As a side note, and I guess this is an odd place to put it but people are probably curious - I am generally in favor of a blackout in cases where we can have a real material impact, i.e. just before a major vote that is about to do something awful. But a blackout with no specific ask, with no specific legislation looming, strikes me as overkill.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Definitely a better idea than a full blackout - still gets the point across, but does it in a way that matches Wikipedia's purpose of educating. Perfect compromise. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 15:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like Don't like a balckout for this - other things are of course possible as well, such as banners. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I've put Olympics hatnote, above, to remember "11 February" (Tuesday) occurs in middle of 2014 Winter Olympics, 6-23 Feb 2014, when many Wikipedians will be updating thousands of articles to provide coverage. Already, the pageviews of "2014 Winter Olympics" have doubled since early January. -Wikid77 04:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

What percentage of readers will visit the Wikipedia home page when they're here, do we know this? petrarchan47tc 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we do know the percentage as a steady rate, from pageviews of Main_page during the prior 2010 Winter Olympics (Feb. 2010 Main_page stats), as 5.1 million/day unchanged during the event (2014 average: 9.0 million/day). However, the Olympics will take space on the Main_page, as covered each day. Also, "viewing" does not mean reading the page, and so a Main_page banner might be needed to get attention on 11 Feb. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If we decide to say something, we'll almost certainly want to add a link to our statement near the top of every article for the day. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all...this is NOT a Wikipedia protest. Just because Jimbo brought this to our attention here does not mean he is sponsoring this or involved in any way. Guys...this has been out there for a while and Jimbo is not the first to share this. If you don't want to take a stand as a group because that is what our guidelines and policies state then don't...but those guidelines and policies ARE NOT TO CONTROL US AS A GROUP and/or whatever we want to support or protest as that group. Those policies and guidelines are meant to help us write articles not control us as a community.

I support this Jimmy!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, as noted above, we can expand (or highlight) the related background articles, beyond "mass surveillance" without actually protesting any specific issue. -Wikid77 06:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very strong support. Let's not go black over this, but a banner and a tailored main page are fitting. It just wouldn't look right for all our closest allies to participate only to have Wikipedia remain silent on an issue of such gravity. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

We could use the same mechanism we use to put Jimbo's smiling face on our fundraising banners. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for HectorMoffet's every word. petrarchan47tc 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Support for banner and main page educational words and pictures. Let the free encyclopedia spread the news. Jusdafax 07:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• We should not silence our coverage of the Olympics. That and other things can continue while we highlight the issue of Mass Surveillance. Jehochman ^Talk 11:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Jehochman proposal.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support as clearly educational in contrast to a blackout which would be the opposite of educational and what we need is to educate our readers generally, and specifically on this issue. Annoying them with no wikipedia will irritate people without informing them of these very real surveillance issues. I do though wish wikipedia would allow editing with tor, the use of which is one of the best ways we can all show our opposition to mass surveillance♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If it were done naïvely, it would be tantamount to lifting all blocks and bans, a radical affirmation of the principle that anyone can edit. If edits from the Tor network could be clearly identified in the history, or if they all went through a review similar to pending changes, then edits by Tor users could get extra scrutiny. —rybec 05:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I could only see supporting this if it was expanded to deal with the sort of surveillance conducted by Google and other tech companies on a daily basis. Otherwise it's just more politically-motivated electronic masturbation. Is Google's surveillance "good" because they do it in the name of advertising profits? If we're going to NPOV it we should include all these activities. Intothatdarkness 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why non-governmental global surveillance isn't worth mentioning too. Although, to put it into perspective Google doesn't have prosecutors, prisons, an army, an air force, or armed drones. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Jehochman proposal. Gandydancer (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - And as we are an encyclopedia with much in the way of information, I think should last a full week, not just a single day. Out goal, as noted above is to inform by sharing what others say. I think that this is something we can do well here. - jc37 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Caution - Ideally, this could be the beginning of a series of one-day featured topics on timely concepts from politics, as well as other fields like extrasolar planetary systems. But filling the entire Main Page, even for a day, means creating and polishing a lot of material. We have to make sure that we don't declare to the world we're going to do something big, then show them a sloppy job. We also have to make sure that the NPOV is not compromised, as this is not something that we can easily argue is strictly necessary for our continued operations. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. A most excellent idea put forth by Jehochmah, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Jecochmah's idea of using our own articles in a protest stunt as total madness. A potential banner or similar on the issue must in no way be linked to Wikipedia's ordinary content unless is a very neutral manner to explain background. Using our own articles to argue a cause would totally damage our principle of neutrality. Iselilja (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we would never change articles away from NPOV. What's proposed is to display a custom, one-day-only message at Main, and to have a banner of some type above articles. I suspect your objection still stands, but just wanted to clarify that our articletext is sacrosanct.HectorMoffet (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Main Page Project

• On the assumption that the proposal has already been supported, I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back in a similar vein to the April Fool's Day Main Page campaign, due to the already-overwhelming likes for Jehochman's (IMO brilliant) compromise above. Please don't hesitate to add to the basic framework I created (and partly ctrl c, ctrl v'ed off the AFD pages) :D.--Coin945 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I left a post on Wikipedia talk:Did you know with regards to this, as if this happens that section would need advanced preparation. CMD (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I believe you're jumping the gun in declaring this proposal supported. There may be support to make the proposal, but it should be taken to the community as a whole, not just the limited group that follows this user talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, we need a centralised discussion, but we need to keep in mind we don't have that much time. benmoore 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you realise just how massive and fractured the Wikipedia community actually is. If anyone who has every touched the edit button is required to have a say so all thousands of us can have an organised discourse on the topic, then I really don't think we'd ever get anywhere. This is a genuinely good idea and I see no reason why we can't just go with the flow rather than resort to overly-bureaucratic systems. In any case, I didn't actually declare the nomination supported. Instead I explained that I created a page (created prematurely because I think the proposal will go through anyway), so when it eventually does we'll already have a basic framework to work off of. But Ben Moore is right. We don't have much time at all to be flapping about.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• No need for hyperbole, no one is suggesting "anyone who has every touched the edit button" need be consulted. Just e.g. a week-long straw poll or mini-RFC with a limited number of properly-developed options, per precedent. benmoore 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Centralized discussion needed, or this will look like a hijack by the few. Also, there are other main page interests in addition to DYK that need to be included in a consensus. — Maile (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to put together a concrete example of what the page might look like. People will have a much easier time evaluating the proposal if they can look at something. We can prepare the page while concurrently having a centralized discussion to decide "go" or "no go". That way we aren't caught short of time. Lastly, I suggest Edward Snowden be considered for the featured article that day. We'll have to work hard to get it up to featured condition in time, if it's even possible. Love him or hate him, he's been a central character for this issue. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• No worries, Maile-- I think everyone recognizes that a decision of this magnitude can't be made by insiders on Jimmy's talk page. As Jehochman says, we're informally just working out what it is we're proposing. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I have to agree - those of us reading this page tend to be fond of "drama" that many others can do without. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Meh. There's a difference between "drama" and a legitimate controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of Support for this, but I also think it should hopefully only help to try to garner a wider consensus from the community, and/or seek out consensus from members of the community that frequent the above-mentioned individual project pages for the various subsections of the Main Page. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Editors who support a one-day banner on every article:

• Only a tiny percentage of users start with the main page. There is a reason why our fundraising appeals appear on every page instead of just appearing on the main page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• KonveyorBelt 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• 21:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Jusdafax 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both proposals. — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for HectorMoffet's idea: a one-day banner on every page and Jerichoman's idea. (Do we need a new category here: Both?) petrarchan47tc 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support We can't just sit by and let this continue without putting up some sort of fight. As you can see with all the people that got around the blackout on American Censorship Day, people will still find a way in. Therefore, if we let them in and flood them with anti-spying and other related topics, it might actually work out better than the SOPA/PIPA stuff did. Supernerd11 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors who support a one-day banner on the main page only:

• Only as an explanation of what's going on on the main page that day (Jehochman's proposal above). And it should be neutrally worded as noted by Jimbo Wales, above. - jc37 19:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I support both of the above proposals to be placed simultaneously. Fine with Jimbo wording it, as it eliminates wrangling over the wording. Jusdafax 21:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per Jc37. I would like it to be described in this as a "Featured Topic", which requires that those supporting the proposal be prepared to make it a Featured Topic. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both proposals. — Cirt (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for both; Wnt has a good point too. petrarchan47tc 01:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors who oppose any banner:

• Intothatdarkness 17:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence

Are these paid positions? Is there any evaluation of competence before this WMF stamp (or more substantial support, if any) is handed out? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. No. Eric Corbett 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Many WiR positions aren't paid, Malleus. And there's always at least some evaluation of competence done by the institution hosting the WiR - the degree of which varies depending on the institution. More than one museum has previously chosen not to host a WiR because they didn't believe the potential damage to their brand was worth it, and most WiR positions have competitive application processes. WMF isn't involved in vetting competence normally for the simple reason that WMF doesn't support most WiR positions much if any. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So some are paid then, as I said. Eric Corbett 22:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some are paid. I couldn't give you a good idea of what fraction are paid off the top of my head, but definitely a good bit are. I responded to your original post because it made it sound like all were paid and no competency evaluation was done, whereas only some are paid and at least some competency evaluation is almost always done by the hosting institution unless someone got snookered. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi SNUHRN; some are paid and some are not - it usually depends on what the institution hosting the WiR wants or is able to offer. Some WiR's do receive support from the Wikimedia Foundation, but the number is normally very small. A few WiR's have been funded by the WMF - any WiR funded by the WMF should be listed here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

So, if some outside organization is paying someone to edit <whatever>, the WMF will just happily give the "Wikimedian in Residence" seal of approval, without any other checks? And does the WMF take its own cut from such funding? Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation generally isn't consulted about particular WiR positions before they're implemented. Anyone can go to a cultural institution and try to convince them to fund such a position, in the same way that anyone who edits Wikipedia can call themselves a Wikipedian. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a very healthy position for the WMF to be in. Eric Corbett 22:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

How would we react if a private corporation, as opposed to a cultural institution, decided to fund a WiR? --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we could expect a Holy War. Eric Corbett 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If the corporation were open about it, allowed the WiR full editorial freedom, encouraged collaboration with any corporate archivists, etc., why not? It could be a nice example of good-practice paid editing. It wouldn't be popular in the community, absolutely. I'd be wary, myself! But I'd support it as a valuable experiment. The worst-case scenario would be that the community backlash was too much for the corporate WiR. The best-case scenario would be that Wikipedia gained a shining example of good practices in corporate engagement—which helps make a case against people hiring sketchy PR outfits and other such nonsense unhelpful to our encyclopedic goals. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, what I conclude from above is:

1. If some external organization finances a WiR, it's "their money, their problem" with respect to evaluating the competency of the applicant
2. if the paid-for content sucks badly enough, it lands in the lap of Wikipedia's editor community to WP:SOFIXIT
3. still no word on whether the WMF takes a share from external WiR grants

Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Usually people hired as WiR's are pre-existing Wikimedians, so if their content sucks as a WiR it probably sucked beforehand. Competence is required, and Wikipedia's community can deal with incompetent WiRs in the same way it can deal with any other incompetent editor. The WMF doesn't take a share of funding that external entities put towards their WiRs, and generally speaking this both would not be worth it in terms of the overhead for WMF, and wouldn't be in WMF's interest anyway (because WiR partnerships are something that WMF should generally want to encourage.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Email from Miss Bono

Hi Jimbo, I am not spending a lot of time in Wikipedia for conection problems and I wanted to let you know that I have sent you a couple of emails. Please, if you read them, can you reply back? Also, if you see this message, can you reply via email? I dont know when I will be able to check my Wikipedia account. Thank you very much and have a wonderful 2014. Best wishes, -- Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Just answered!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Instant CirrusSearch ready while indexing

Although the overall search-index is still being populated, we can already run instant near-real-time searches (including pages updated within recent minutes) by using the new CirrusSearch backend on typical Special:Search for text. For example, to search user-talk pages about recent "SOPA protest" discussion, use:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/?search=User_talk%3A%20%22SOPA%20protest%22&srbackend=CirrusSearch

Note the user-talk prefix is "User_talk%3A" where colon ":" is encoded as "%3A" and spaces are "%20" in the URL encoding.
Alternatively, just run a typical wp:wikisearch (MWsearch), and then rerun the URL with "&srbackend=CirrusSearch" appended, to also search pages recently edited within the last few minutes. Currently, the search-index seems about half-populated, but it is being expanded ASAP without overloading the wp:Job_queue(s). Anyway, for recent edits, the CirrusSearch results seem current, while the remaining older pages might take another day or two to be indexed. Because the search-results have the same format (except with recent edits also searched), I think the long-term plan is to switch to CirrusSearch as the default index, rather than MWsearch as re-indexed daily 4-6 am overnight, once users feel the overall instant results are dependable. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Does it have the ability to search and find every place where User:Guy Macon has used the word "fleemishes" on Wikipedia without returning any of the places where other editors might have used that word? (See Wikipedia:Help desk#Fleemish Search). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that ability is above cloud computing, as perhaps a "HeavenSearch" system. ;-) -Wikid77 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to drag Wikipedia, kicking and screaming, into the 1980s. We should not be missing basic functionality like this. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Naked woman in Niqāb as an illustration of adequate muslim dress

There is an article on Russian Wikinews on «How a muslim woman should dress in public» (translation). The picture in the lead section implies that they may go naked, provided that they wear niqāb (and site admins reverted my attempt to remove the picture). May I ask for your opinion: can this be an acceptable behavior on Wikimedia sites? --Grebenkov (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is ludicrous and wrong, and likely racist. Nothing can justify it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Я напишу по русски, ибо уверен, что добровольцы охотно вам переведут. Пожалуй, я бы дал такую же оценку (смотри предыдущее сообщение) вашим обвинениям в расизме участника, о котором вы ничего толком не знаете. Я бы дал его потому, что мне этот участник известен давно. Ну а автору топика обратится к вам посоветовал я, но он откровенно слукавил, на форуме Википедии поднимался вопрос о допустимости ссылок на Викиновости и именно с этим вопросом я его к вам и отправил. Однако он похоже струсил и сжал обсуждение до формата допустимости иллюстрации. Если вы считаете, что ссылок из Википедии на Викиновости быть не должно, то скажите это. Или скажите что-то прямо противоположное. В этом вопросе давно пора поставить точку, уже откровенно надоело, что примерно раз в полгода форумные троли начинают подобные обсуждения. скажите уже наконец своё окончательное слово и мы его зафиксируем в правилах Викиновостей и Википедии. Заранее признателен. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Google translate, which is clearly broken in many respects: I write in Russian, because I am sure that you are willing volunteers translate . Perhaps I would have given the same evaluation (see previous post ) your accusations of racism party , which you did not really know . I would give it , because I have long known this party . Well, the author topic will appeal to you advised me, but he frankly slukavil Wikipedia forum raised the issue of the admissibility of references to Wikinews to this issue I had and sent to you . However, he chickened out and squeezed like the discussion to illustrate the format of admissibility . If you think that the links from Wikipedia to Wikinews should not be, then say it . Or say something quite the opposite . In this regard, it is high time to put an end already frankly fed up about once every six months forumnye Trolls begin such discussions . has finally tell his final word and we will fix the rules Wikinews and Wikipedia . Advance grateful . - Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

После того как я назвал вандалом человека, который массово убирал ссылки на Викиновости из Википедии без консенсуса Викисообщества меня заблокировал администратор русской Википедии David.s.kats. Я не желаю работать под "патронажем" таких персоналий и посему покидаю Википедию. Единственным условием моего возвращения может быть снятие флага с этого человека, который позорит админкорпус руВики. Я отдал много сил Википедии и давно уже являюсь человеком Викизависимым. Чтож, есть повод с этим покончить, есть немало более комфортных для созидания мест. Спасибо, Джимми за всё что вы сделали и делаете. Удачи вам в ваших дальнейших делах. С уважением, Алексей. --Schekinov Alexey Victorovich (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

English mutation: "After I called the vandal the man who cleaned the mass of links to [Russian] Wikinews Wikipedia without consensus [of] Wiki community, administrator has blocked me [by] Russian Wikipedia David.s.kats. I do not want to work under the "patronage" of personalities and therefore leaving Wikipedia. The only condition for my return may be the removal of the flag from the man who dishonors adminkorpus ruViki [ruwiki]. I put a lot of effort and Wikipedia has long been a man Vicky [wiki-]dependent. Well, there is reason to do away with it, there are a lot more comfortable for the building sites. Thanks, Jimmy for all that you have done and are doing. Good luck in your future business. Sincerely, Alex." --21:27, 14 January 2014 (Google Mutation from me. -Wikid77 07:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

The image is listed at MediaWiki:Bad image list. Shouldn't that make its use on Russian wikinews impossible? Or are Russian projects insulated from it? Formerip (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It was uploaded directly onto ru.wikipedia and the uploader cited flockr.com in the copyright and that bad image list is anyway en.wikipedia specific. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• How is that even in scope for Commons? Wait, don't ask... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Invitation to edit

A while ago you commented on a trial I was running of an invitation to edit. I didn't analyse the results because it quickly became obvious to me that the sample size and duration were too small to say anything at all.

I don't know how to determine the duration and sample size necessary to draw meaningful conclusions from a study like this, I wasn't confident anyone involved at the time did, and I don't know anyone who does. If I could get sound advice on the study design, and help with the data analysis, do you think I should proceed with a bigger trial? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I won't proceed with this then. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss Articles for Creation

For reference: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of American Historians And another example, an entirely different case: [16]

It is my sense that in both of these cases, if the article had been created, it would have survived an AfD quite easily. So why is AfC following what appear to be much higher standards for inclusion than AfD? The inconsistency strikes me as deeply problematic.

Note that in addition to the inconsistency between AfC and AfD there is the deeper inconsistency of coverage of what anyone would admit are quite obscure and unimportant bits of pop culture cruft (which I don't mind, on the premise that as long as it is well-referenced and is what people want to write about, that's fine) while simultaneously rejecting an article about an academic society which is clearly notable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Likely because recent pop-culture cruft tends to be documented with many easily-accessible web-based sources (which Wikipedia tends to bias toward), while the two articles you link would rely more heavily on either older print sources or items generated by the organization itself. If it can't be quickly verified, it's easier to reject as not notable. Intothatdarkness 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I proposed an AfC review/AfD merge recently [17] - the people there didn't go for it, but if someone wants to reopen the idea you have my vote. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we have any studies about AfC and whether or not it delivers on its promise of being a friendlier process than classic New Page Patrol? (To me as an almost outside observer, it seems that AfC is gentler in terms of not hitting new articles with lots of cleanup templates and speedy deletion requests, but quite strict in what is deemed acceptable for mainspace, but as I said, I would welcome any data). —Kusma (t·c) 21:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A nursery for new articles written by new editors is a good idea in principle, but too often, AfC just doesn't want to cut them loose and let them grow up.

Articles for Creation has some intractable WP:OWNership issues. Outside editors who have attempted to intervene have encountered stiff opposition. Arbcom is poised to desysop an administrator who ignored AfC processes and would not kotow about it on WP:ANI afterward. It's a real shame. HiDrNick! 21:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, I find myself getting in a negative, non-inclusionist mindset when I review AFC articles. Taking Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Society of American Historians by itself, it's pretty good, but a majority of AFC submissions are not suitable for inclusion, and a large portion of those probably never will be. After reviewing more than a couple AFCs in a row, I start to get discouraged and I find myself wanting to just decline the article and move on. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, AfC reviewing can be mentally exhausting. I review from the back of the backlog (so possibly the easier articles have already been handled), but a typical period of reviewing for me might include ten to fifteen declines - of which at least three-quarters are articles obviously created to serve as advertisements or PR puff pieces, usually by editors obviously linkable to the article subjects - and maybe, if I'm lucky, one or two approvals. And I'm by far not the toughest reviewer out there, and I really enjoy when I am able to send an article live. AfC as I experience it is an ocean of crap punctuated by the occasional raft of good stuff; it can be very easy to slip into the mindset that everyone submitting an AfC is there to sneak in some puffery/advocacy and that it's your job to hold the line against such COI incursions. If someone's being paid for working on those articles, it's sure not me, and I've come to resent being asked to to such PR staff's work for them. Jimbo, I know you dislike paid advocacy; I would encourage you to try patrolling the AfC backlog or staffing the IRC #wikipedia-en-help channel for a few days to see just how much of the flow AfC deals with is exactly that and how exhausting it can be. If the advocacy spam wasn't gushing in at such an astounding rate, I suspect we'd be able to do a much, much better job with the articles that their creators actually, genuinely cared about and thought were encyclopedic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And, after having ruminated on my own words for a while, let me add a few more things. First, that we're drinking from a firehose of crap does not excuse poor-quality reviews. Reviewer exhaustion might explain some of it, but it doesn't excuse it. It's absolutely true that sometimes articles that could fly on their own are declined at AfC because a reviewer is too conservative or doesn't know what they're doing, and that's not something that should be happening. However, that leads me into...

...the second point, which is that AfC, other than some basic, non-binding guidelines drafted by Wikiproject:AfC, is pretty much anarchy. Each reviewer does their own thing, according to their own standards. No one reviews reviews, except in unusual cases. No one judges whether reviewers are qualified to be doing reviews (yet. An RfC was just closed on this issue and brings us closer to having reviewing be a user right). No one really knows where the line is for "this article is good enough to move into mainspace", so everyone sort of rolls their own. New editors, for whatever reason, are drawn to AfC as "somewhere I can help", and sometimes make a mess of things. Old editors, for whatever reason, decide that AfC needs to be cleaned up right now, and also sometimes make a mess of things.

I've been brainstorming, very vaguely, some possible ways to ameliorate these problems lately. As far as the firehose, a trial balloon on the CSD talk indicated that there would be support for a CSD criterion that would apply to AfC submissions which could not ever meet our inclusion standards (submissions that would meet A7 or A11 in mainspace, for example). Support was lacking for making AfC an "X tries and done" system and for disallowing AfC submissions from editors who are clearly the article subject or their representative. As far as the anarchy...that's tougher. I suspect we need an RfC of some sort firming up the guidelines according to which AfC reviews should be done; the trouble is that there are so many possible threads to that that I'm having trouble visualising how such an RfC should work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• A major problem with AFC reviewing is that a lot of the editors doing the reviewing aren't qualified to review. They frequently deny requests that would otherwise stand up under scrutiny and hold articles to a much higher standard than if the editor just creates them from scratch. I also agree that there are serious ownership issues with some of the admins who "run" the AFC process. If you don't agree with them you aren't welcome. AFC is a good place to see some very abusive admin conduct towards new users. Kumioko (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't the Draft namespace in part intended to remove the bureaucratic hurdles of AfC? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion because Fluffernutter and I had a bit of a dust-up a few months ago over Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/International Association of Geoanalysts. I had added some sources to it after it was turned down the second time and a request was put on a wiki-project page for more sources. Fluffernutter turned it down a third time. I still think it should go live. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Let us go a further step back and ask just what it is that gives total newbies the idea that their very first act on Wikipedia should be to write a new article? When I joined the project back in 2007 I stuck around for many months and thousands of small edits before I worked up the nerve/cheek/arrogance to start writing a new article from scratch.

As a semi-regular AfC reviewer I can confirm that the "in-tray" is an ocean of raw sewage that we are forced to dive into to seek out the far too rare pearls. IMHO a fundamental flaw in AfC is that there is no "this is crap, go away!" decline option. We are far too polite to the vast majority of spammers and time-wasters that submit their rubbish - all the decline templates include an invitation to fix the abovementioned problem and submit it again. Spending an hour or two at the front end of the submissions list (the fresh stuff nobody else has taken a look at yet) is enough to burn up all the AGF of a saint.

I have just reviewed and approved Society of American Historians. At the time of the previous review none of the independent references that exist in the current version existed. You need to judge a decline by the state the article was in then, not how it looks now.

The notability problem that many such "worthy" subjects struggle with is that their adherents hardly ever publish anything outside of their own walled gardens, thus genuinely independent reliable sources are hard to find. Basically academics seriously suck at publicity - pop singers, wrestlers, etc. (or at least their managers) are masters of the art. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be an Academic Org Notability Guideline? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a SNG for academics/professors - WP:PROF, so maybe we can look at using some of its criteria to build one for academic orgs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it was a fair decision to decline the draft article, based on the fact that possibly only one source was independent, reliable and about the Society.

Generally I think AfC does an excellent job, though there are many people that delight in bashing their efforts. It requires a good level of knowledge about Wikipedia's various notability guidelines, about page-naming, copyright, MOS (and good judgement) then from this subset of Wikipedia editors you have to find people with the time and the patience to be consistently involved. New articles continue to arrive in waves, day-in-day-out. I worked at AfC a lot last year and rapidly got burnt out - the older drafts can be very complex and, occasionally, the authors can be abusive and/or time consuming.

The problem comes down to a lack of experienced editors, in my view. And part of the process of encouraging new reviewers to take part would be forgive the occasional mistakes. We're all human and have to start somewhere! Sionk (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The start of a solution to this interminable mess was the Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles - a way to allow us to standardise treatment of new articles from new users, to give them all equal assistance, and to re-focus of positive encouragement for new editors rather than stark automated deletion messages. Two-thirds of the community supported it, and agreed to try it, but Wikmedia Foundation refused - WP:ACTRIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.25.248 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a one-time-only opportunity to create a new system from scratch in the new Draft namespace, one that takes the best bits from AFC, NPP and even ACTRIAL. However the longer we take to get it designed and implemented the more the "old ways" will become established as "standard practice" in the new namespace so let's do this properly and not drop the ball. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

IP's excluded again here

Jimbo, did you know this page is fully protected? I only stopped by to glance at something and I saw yet again that this page is fully protected. The message states due to socking but its really just admin laziness. A lot of IP's comment here and protecting this page prevents them from commenting and forces them to either create an account or not comment. Is your intent really to force people to create an account to edit or that IP's aren't welcome here? Just a rhetorical question, but I wanted to let you know the page was protected. Kumioko (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Was it really fully protected or just semi-protected. I generally prefer it to be unprotected, but there are some times when there's sufficient disruption that semi-protection may be necessary. It's hard to imagine why full protection would ever be needed!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Banned paid advocacy editor using sockpuppets to influence discussions

User:I'm not that crazy and a series of IP addresses registered to Comcast Business have been blocked as socks of banned user Thekohser/MyWikiBiz [18]. The user used the sockpuppets to enter into discussions concerning paid advocacy editing, including opposing proposals [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. MyWikiBiz was run by Gregory Kohs as an outfit for paid advocacy editing on Wikipedia, but was subsequently barred from editing [25]. Gregory Kohs is now an employee of Comcast Business [26]. It is not clear if anyone at Comcast Business—other than Kohs himself—is aware that Comcast Business network resources were used for this purpose. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I somewhat doubt that Comcast has any idea that he has been doing as such. Though I do find it amusing that Wikipediocracy in their outing efforts have often criticized people who edited from a workplace and made suggestions of informing their workplace about such non-work activity. Other than one situation, I do not think it was ever actually done though. I don't believe such action, however, is appropriate in any situation less than actual found law-breaking, so I hope you aren't suggesting Comcast is to be informed in your comment here. However, I do enjoy the irony of such criticism on Wikipediocracy and then it turns out that Kohser is someone that does the same as those being criticized there. Silverseren^C 00:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Much as people are amused when us Wikipedia editors are similarly hypocritical, I'm sure. Wikipediocracy, like Wikipedia, isn't a single voice; it hosts many different users with many different opinions and goals. To think of them as a monolithic entity with a single set of principles would be a mistake. And credit where credit is due: I'm not as who should say an avid reader of Wikipediocracy, but I do browse it from time to time, and from what little I've seen, Kohs himself seems to be pretty consistent in this regard, whatever other issues one may have with him. I haven't seen any hypocrisy from him about this, though I'm sure people will be quick to provide counterexamples. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sure others can, but i'm not going to waste the time to. My comment was only to express some amusement at the revelation and to also suggest that, well, nothing to needs to be done about it at this point. I am firmly against any notification of Comcast, I do not believe forms of blackmail or job threatening are appropriate in any case. Not that you made such a suggestion, Athethnekos, i'm just making my opinion known on the subject. P.S. I don't think I should be commenting while watching Sherlock, it makes my sentences rather stilted in tone. I was seriously supporting the possibility of using imperilment rather than threatening there for a moment. Silverseren^C 00:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no evidence that this involved any workplace. To clarify the last statement: There is no evidence that anyone else at Comcast Business—and, in turn, the corporation itself—is implicated in anything disreputable. That being said, this user had a keen interest in the Wikipedia article Comcast Business, including advertising a list of clients [27], and the article's development at the Reward Board [28].--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "using sockpuppets to influence discussions" implies that this person took part in discussions in multiple guises in order to drum up support/consensus for a particular point-of-view, but the diffs provided do not seem to support this assertion. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, that's not my assertion. Assertions include: These accounts were sockpuppets. These accounts were used by the user to influence discussions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Because of WP's anonymous editing policy, it's fairly common for banned or blocked editors to continue to participate with new accounts or without using a registered account. Although this fact seems to quickly screw a small percentage of WP admins to the ceiling, WP as a whole appears to continue to lurch ahead with minimal damage in spite of it. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

However, the possible POV editing is of actual concern. Silverseren^C 02:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'll have to strengthen my assertion: The user used both the account User:I'm not that crazy and the IP 2001:558:1400:10:AC79:7A9:FAF6:9668 in order to influence a discussion on this page about Jimbo's brightline-rule, while pretending that they were two different people [29] and [30]; and did this again for another such discussion here [31] and [32]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Curious, should we even be associating real names with their employers let alone implying what they are doing is against their employer's internet acceptable use policy? Irrespective of this case, what you are telling any IP is that you are willing to out them to their employer just because you can. I guess if you don't like an 'encyclopedia anyone may edit' then the chilling effect would be most welcome. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm saying that I'm willing to do that? Where did I say that? To be clear, I'm not willing to do that. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kohs is certainly effective in demonstrating how ethically challenged paid-POV editors tend to be. Resolute 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Transparency of the arbcom

Jimbo, I'd like to ask you to state your opinion on the transparency of the arbcom's proceedings. I understand that there are some cases, which cannot be discussed on public forums, but there are only few of these. Most cases could and should be discussed here on Wikipedia, and a person who's being discussed should have a full right to take a part in the discussions concerning him, of course as long as he acts within policies. I don't even say that doing otherwise looks more like closed tribunals, and looks like the Arbcom has something to hide, but besides no matter what as we all know truth will out. Sorry I asked you to state your opinion, but stated mine instead. Now I am ready to hear yours. Thanks.69.181.42.248 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all cases should be public, and except in those rare exceptions all votes should be public. Clear reasons should be given in public. But some private discussion is perfectly ok. Certainly everyone should have the chance, in public, to face their accusers and rebut claims.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy - honestly

A neutral explanation of an important issue, planned at a time when the public is likely to be keenly interested due to a scheduled event, is consistent with our mission. I think we should do special front page days more often, for example to coincide with the first day of the Olympics, etc. Additionally, in this case those who argue that this issue does not impact Wikipedia have not persuaded me in the least. The freedom to read and learn what you wish, without being spied upon, is a fundamental human right which is core to everything that we do and everything that we stand for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
please just say no to misuse of Wikipedia for political purposes. Political campaign and the content production, including selecting what shall be promoted to the front page, must be kept totally separate if Wikipedia's claim of neutrality shall be kept intact. Now I see the "Fight back campaign" has decided on their own to take over the DYK spots on the main page. They even boldly declare "The normal "5 day" rule for expansion and nominating is not followed". And the proposed hooks are frankly marvelous in their splendid neutrality: ... that The Day We Fight Back (pictured), a protest opposing NSA mass surveillance, is supported by websites such as Reddit? ... That the current Director of National Intelligence James Clapper falsely testified under oath that the NSA did not collect data on hundreds of millions of Americans. ... That during the 2013 Papal Conclave, the NSA reportedly targeted Cardinals choosing the next pope. Among those spied upon was Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis. (Couldn't we just add straight away that NSA eats children?) Jecochman says he is in advertising; good for him; but that's not where Wikipedia should be. Some of try each day to abide with WP:NPOV and now this pure political propaganda is totally fine? Iselilja (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC) It sounds like some folks are getting carried away. Nobody's formed a consensus to change the DYK rules or anything else in support of this. Besides, there are enough spy topics we haven't covered that they ought to be able to earn those DYKs fair and square! We do ourselves no favors by giving free passes to anything but worthy content. Wnt (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Whoa whoa, slow down, Iselilja. Nobody's decided anything. Nobody's decided upon what we want to do, nobody's decided that we have consensus to should do it. This is a very very preliminary very rough drafts. The 'end product', if there is one, may look very very different. I wrote some of the above quoted text and even I wouldn't support it until it's had way more eyeballs on it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Remember dangers of surveillance: In the U.S., there are sting operations of guys who chat with undercover women ("young girls") and agree to meet them, and the report has been how the guys are told, at first, the woman is an adult, who later claims to be underage, and the guy must decide (by conversational clues?) how old she is really and whether to meet her; then upon arriving to her residence, the guys are instantly arrested and their homes are searched, so if a guy has received a gag gift (prank) of a celebrity sex tape (with anyone a few months underage), then he is charged/convicted of child pornography (based on probable cause from the woman claiming she was underage). So many have been convicted, there are general claims of entrapment. It is a form of mass surveillance because they target numerous people who chat on the Internet. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No "Disclaimers" link in mobile view

Presently, when you open a Wilipedia article in mobile view you don't see a link to our disclaimers (as you do at the bottom of articles in desktop view). It is hidden behind 3 horizontal bars at the top left corner of the page that most readers will never click. At the bottom of our articles in mobile view is the following:

Wikipedia ® Mobile | Desktop
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Terms of use | Privacy

On 6th January, Oliver advised bugzilla[33]:

If you look at the current set of mobile apps/the mobile view of WP, the disclaimer is in the sidebar rather than the article. The problem with this is that it conceptually distinguishes it from the content...which is what the disclaimer covers.

The response was

Legal cleared that this design is OK as they are flexible as to where this disclaimer is. kenan wang 2014-01-14 01:40:12 UTC

Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: WONTFIX[34]

Our articles used to say "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", which at least said something about the reliability of our content. The only indicator we presently offer our readers regarding the reliability of our content is the teeny weeny little Disclaimers link at the bottom of the article in desktop view. Is it really cool - disregarding for the moment the cover-WMF's-arse legal considerations - for our articles to give no hint anywhere in default mobile view regarding the freedom of Randy to plump any thought bubble he likes into the article? Do you think it would be better for our readers if the Disclaimers link was at least visible in the default mobile view, like copyright, terms of use and privacy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)