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

One need only look at articles on conservatives and ones on progressives to see how obvious my heading is. Even progressives will admit they know this, yet they don't care so long as this website is twisted and tilvanted in the direction they want. Its never been a secret people like myself have only been welcome here so long as we can cross the line and edit progressive things dispassionately...otherwise the left wing idealists will do all they can to marginalize my work. I find it appalling this website has the pomposity to even pretend it maintains a neutral voice in areas such as conservative American political biographies. I really think this website should stop coddling editors that do little more than promote negativity and bias in our conservative bios and start applying equal and fair penalties across the board to all persons that misuse this website to promote their agenda on our bios, and to cease seeking excessive penalties on just the conservative editors.-- MONGO 19:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

We have well-developed policies for this and well-developed mechanisms in place to enforce them. If they are not sufficient, you are free to propose improvements in the proper venues (this ain't one). If that's not enough, and I've yet to be convinced that it is not, it's the best we can do. I can't imagine what you hope to achieve in this thread. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it is the extreme that MONGO seems to, but I have certainly noticed that when it comes to politics, Wikipedia treats biographies differently depending on where they fall on the political spectrum. The "well developed mechanisms" to enforce neutrality rely on the consensus of editors and when those editors tend to lean in one direction politically, the result is enforcement that leans in one diretion politically. Deli nk ( talk) 20:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

IF that's so, all you can do is bring in more conservative editors who are prepared to put policy first, and that's not going to happen by discussion on this page. We are a self-governed community and that's highly unlikely to change.
One might make a case that enforcement can lean in one direction politically because policy is overly complex and nuanced, but institutional inertia is far too strong a force to make significant changes in that area. Again, we're self-governed, and that's not all good. There's a reason why most modern governments are representative governments. ― Mandruss  ☎ 20:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: If Trump is the bad guy, it is largely this kind of attitude which gave him the job he has. Some people are out to hurt others and themselves, but most are not. Half of all people are not. The people claiming the championship of tolerance sometimes do what equates to bombing for peace. Tit for tat. Joining in. Approving by way of action. The claim that more opposition editors should be joined in is clearly covered by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and objectivity is more important than your mere feelings and wishes. It really is. I have the high ground, Anekin. Put down your sword and return to Ashla. If you strike me down now I will become... OOPS! Too late now isn't it... Or is it? Mark this, the more dirty tricks used against them, prospectively or in kind, the more they will get away with. ~ R. T. G 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Its been reduced to a chess game of sorts. So many articles are reduced to 1RR and that means reaching consensus at the talkpage, but when they bring in the army, no number of valid citations will return neutrality to the article since the majority rules. That is not the best way to protect our BLPs.-- MONGO 00:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Many people in the United States think that they are moderately right wing, but in Europe we would call quite a few of those people the far-right. People who are extremists rarely consider themselves to be extreme in any way, they think they are rational beings. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to easily compare the terms liberal and conservative when talking about U.S. and let's say European politics. For instance in "conservative" America there is no ban on religious based headwear generally speaking in public whereby in some parts of "liberal" Europe there is.-- MONGO 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Turning that around, many people in Europe consider themselves moderately left-wing, but here in the US, we'd consider quite a few of those people far-left. I'm not sure what we've gained from this. As far as headdress banning, etc., see Horseshoe theory. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon •  videos) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I rather prefer the Pournelle chart. I am very strongly apolitical. I don't support any party or any candidate, on the basis that I believe that politicians have an ability to deceive us that far exceeds our ability to detect deception. Here is what I see when I read Wikipedia politics atricles: I see a group of what what the US considers to be liberals pushing their POV and generally winning, a group of what what the US considers to be conservatives pushing their POV and generally losing, and a group of editors who put aside their personal POV and try really hard to edit from a NPOV. Alas while the third group has the majority, the first two groups are far more persistent and tend to dominate any discussion. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: don't you think the top left and top right of that chart are both doing far better on Wikipedia than the top middle? EllenCT ( talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If by "doing better" you means a having a numerical majority, no. If by "doing better" you means making more noise, getting their way a lot, and shouting down opponents, then yes. Definitely yes. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: I'm skeptical of your opinion on the numbers because I don't see the top middle as being particularly compelled to edit on controversial topics like the left and right edges are. How can you tell the middle has a majority among editors? In any case, the content policies are such that those edges fight over mainstream and runner-up POV status, while the actual mainstream center is often relegated to fringe and suppressed as undue because of the disproportionate shouting-down from the edges. How can policy be upgraded to address this systemic bias towards the extremes? EllenCT ( talk) 11:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I believe that the top center has a numerical majority is that they consistently outnumber the extremists in RfC !votes. Alas, when it comes to editing political articles, the extremists win because they are indistinguishable from self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently read a thread on stormfront that invited people to join Wikipedia to get rid of the "bias". ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Link please? EllenCT ( talk) 20:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

*confused stare* ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe EllenCT suspects that you never read any such thread and thus asked for evidence that it exists. I have the same suspicion, but it isn't a particularly strong suspicion. Such a thing is certainly plausible. If indeed the thread on stomfront exists, it would be useful to read it and possibly identify which specific articles they are targeting. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I had no such suspicions. I only wanted to read the posts and have them documented to allow others here to read them, as organized advocacy and it's abuses in editing are a common topic of discussion here. EllenCT ( talk) 11:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I've heard people complain that I can be too honest (which can be perceived as blunt/undiplomatic) but no one who knows me would ever accuse me of not being honest enough. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 11:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I have stricken my comment and apologized to The Quixotic Potato on his/her webpage. [3] - Guy Macon ( talk) 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: What would I have to gain from lying about that? I don't see how that would benefit me in any way. stormfront.org/forum/t183229/ Google "inurl:stormfront.org wikipedia" and you'll find a lot of similar stuff. Often it isn't difficult to identify which Wikipedia articles and accounts are involved. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 22:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't followed the link which you didn't make clickable, but that you didn't make it clickable helps me understand your reluctance. www.stormfront.org/forum/t962216/ is the top hit on your proposed Google search (implying that there may be more links to it than to the other pages from the same search) is someone complaining that white nationalism is good, but white supremacy is bad. I would have thought that white nationalists were always white supremacists, so I don't see the distinction. A similar problem occurs on the left, when Leninists argue with Maoists about Stalinism, sapping oxygen from discussions over distinctions just as slight at the middle. I feel like I've been smeared as far-left for saying Denmark and Australia are better than China and Russia. EllenCT ( talk) 12:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am Dutch. See Dutch famine of 1944–45 and Netherlands#Agriculture. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 12:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well there's your problem. You are treating things said by a comedian doing his comedy routine as if they are true. Might I suggest listening to cartoonists [4] instead? == Guy Macon ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not a Trump-supporter. https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b4/45/8d/b4458d0d7ccd5751ea38bc523403ed74--lemurs-decision.jpg ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 22:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you see Scott Adams' list of Trump's "achievements"? The most contrived list of participation trophies I have ever seen. I find Adams' political posturing so moronic that I have stopped reading Dilbert. Guy ( Help!) 23:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the PC world. Notice how it's not just conservative politicians. In the Israel arena, you'll also find a large bias, I know of quite a few people who no longer edit in that area. And I do find the bias on here a major problem, including antisemitism. (That is the one "bias" you can't mention here, you can say that as a women you are harassed, or others, and people will setup task forces or listen to you, but if you say you are Jewish and face antisemitism, you will be threatened with a block.) You see it on the front page, you see it in talk pages and you do see it in the articles and more importantly you see it in policy discussions, such as RS and BLP. So while I think Wikipedia might have been a great idea, at this point in time, it's just a fun hobby but I don't think we should use it for objective truths. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "but if you say you are Jewish and face antisemitism, you will be threatened with a block." ^{citation needed} ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Heck, I'll give it a try. I am Jewish and face antisemitism. Now who is going to threaten to block me for saying that? (I am not actually Jewish btw, just testing if the claim is true). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I was warned once for pointing out a potentially antisemitic comment. And, I also pointed out a real antisemitic comment when I ran for ARBCOM this past month and a few people agreed with me, but others "poo-poo"ed it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Diffs please. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I would have to dig it up (at least the Wiki comments), but if it helps, it did involve the admin most known throughout the town as ban-hammer Coffee. If you look at my block log, I think this was when I said I would contact the ADL and then he blocked me for a legal threat when no such threat existed. It also involved Bernie Sanders who apparently according to Wikipedia isn't Jewish, and Stanley Milgraum. The one from ARBCOM, was when someone put together a list of candidates, and only for me did it say, "A Jewish Republican from NY." And while I am mostly positive that it wasn't meant in a negative way, that is not how it is sometimes perceived. And to make matters worse, when I pointed it out, rather than apologizing and editing, he dug in his heels. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that according to Wikipedia Bernie Sanders is Jewish. In fact, our article includes the statement, "Sanders has said he is 'proud to be Jewish'" in an unusually extensive "Religion and heritage" section. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you write something like the stuff I quoted at 00:38 then people are going to ask for diffs. So please dig em up. If an admin threatens to block me for saying "I am Jewish and face antisemitism" then that admin will be de-sysopped. Please ping me when you've found the diffs. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit: [5] was clearly a legal threat. Good block. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it clearly wasn't a legal threat. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

...Says the man who was blocked [6] for making that legal threat. And who removed it [7] in order to be unblocked after being indefinitely blocked. You have a rather lengthy block log [8], and again and again your block appeals have been rejected by involved administrators, yet you still keep claiming "I didn't do it!" -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed it to be unblocked, that doesn't make it a legal threat, as most of the people commenting there agreed with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Claiming that someone is a "Republican" (as in the American meaning of the word) can be rather offensive. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 02:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I will just leave this here: [9] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Coffee: Please read my edit dated 00:40, 5 January 2018 (see above). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I still haven't seen diffs that support @ Sir Joseph:'s claim, despite my request, which means that Sir Joseph's assertions can be dismissed. Note that no one has threatened to block me over my comment dated 00:40, 5 January 2018. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 13:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, I'd love to see a fully fleshed out example. I know what I'm about to ask will be an investment of significant effort, but if you can do it, I think your example might be enlightening to a lot of editors. Basically, I'd like you to take an example biography that you think is biased, and rewrite it in your user space to better match our NPOV and other policies. We could then have a much more meaningful discussion using that example as a jumping off point.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 08:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, If you decide to take up Jimbo's offer, I will be glad to help by checking references and making suggestions, leaving the final decision as to how to word the biography to you. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO has retired after receiving a topic ban. Jimbo's proposal of having a more meaningful discussion based on a rewritten article seems interesting. I would also be willing to try to help out by posting my thoughts (if any) on the talkpage. My POV is clearly described on my userpage. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 10:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see the locus of dispute is Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Should this even be a separate article? It was big and loud during the special election, but it's only one of the reasons Moore was unfit for office and the long-term significance of these specific allegations seems unlikely to be particularly great. Guy ( Help!) 10:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Our conservative bios" I didn't know we had such definitions within Wikipedia. I refuse to see biographies of Living Persons as a partisan ball to toss back and forth. This may be the manner that this editor has decided to view the project...but I don't see the world or Wikipedia in such black and white terms.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many people who edit biographies of politicians don't see it that way. I think there are quite a few prolific editors who think in terms of "biographies of our people" and "biographies of their people". Deli nk ( talk) 13:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Which brings us to the solution of the problem: if that's where a person's head is at, they should be topic-banned out of the area. There is absolutely no place for partisanship with BLPs. Clean out all the game-players, right and left. Carrite ( talk) 03:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we often give progressives a pass on stuff that we should not. However, there is also a substantial real-world problem which is not ours to fix, in that conservative politics in the US has abandoned any pretence at public service ethos - the tax bill is a perfect example of this, blowing a $1.5tn hole in the budget knowing that they will then have to "fix" this by a slash-and-burn on welfare and other government programs, in order to restore "fiscal responsibility". Guy ( Help!) 14:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you just proved MONGO's point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. I am an outside observer (I live in the UK). Did you see the shenanigans over the tax bill? Last minute rewrites by lobbyists, sabotaging the ACA and blowing a $1.5tn hole in the deficit, when all the Republicans have talked about for decades is how the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible? The Congressional GOP is not doing its job. They have abandoned any principles they may have had in pursuit of an agenda entirely driven by the Freedom Caucus. Teabaggers have basically hijacked the party. They are not holding the executive to account, and if anything has been done to benefit anyone other than billionaire donors, it appears to be purely accidental. Under Byrd, you are not supposed to use reconciliation to pass massive and far-reaching changes. How does drilling for oil in the Alaska wildlife reserve come under budget reconciliation? They know they cannot carry this with a 2/3 majority n the Senate so they are abusing process, as they did in stalling Garland's SCOTUS nomination, and they are not doing it out of any principle at all because their practices are the opposite of what they did when Obama was in the White House. They have sold their souls to a tiny handful of billionaires and to the evangelical fundamentalist fringe, who give them the numbers they need on the ground purely on the basis that one day they might override Roe v. Wade. That is, after all, why Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court. He is a self-confessed activist who does not believe in stare decisis. In short, the Republican party of Ronald reagan is dead, and the Democratic party are in a mess because they are still acting as if the other side are acting rationally and with the national interest in mind. Looking over the water, I have never been more terrified for the future of a country I love. There is a genuine risk of another civil war. The Southern states really do seem to want Christian Sharia, and the GOP seems to want them to have it. Where are the grown-ups? The statesmen are all leaving or dying. Guy ( Help!) 10:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, this just proves the bias of people. 99% of Americans will see major tax cuts starting next year. That you are thinking the end of the world, just goes to show the bias of the news you are reading. We all died last month when the FCC rescinded Obama's net neutrality, and then we all died again when Trump signed the tax cut into law. So your rambling aside, that doesn't negate anything that was said here, that Wikipedia has a leftist bias. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you see it as a bias towards an extreme instead of against the center? EllenCT ( talk) 18:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Sir Joseph: You keep commenting here, but you still haven't provided the diffs I asked for. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 18:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't owe you anything. I already told you what happened and I am not going to go dig up comments from the archives. You don't have to believe me, I am just telling you what happened to me several times. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that what you said is bullshit. And this is not an isolated incident. You do not owe me anything, but you do owe Coffee an apology. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 22:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, you calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. I was threatened several times. If you don't like it, that is fine. I owe you nor Coffee anything. I would appreciate it if you stop conversing with me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why are you writing me messages? You wrote "if you say you are Jewish and face antisemitism, you will be threatened with a block". I said: "I am Jewish and face antisemitism...", and I was not threatened with a block. Therefore, what you wrote is bullshit. Q.E.D. If you would've been correct then I would've done everything in my power to ensure that that admin was desysopped. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 06:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, you've made your point, if it needed making (we see that kind of crap all the time and nobody takes it seriously, so it does little harm except to the reputations of the editors spewing it). If you want to make a case for NPA vio, ANI is thataway, but I personally wouldn't bother. We get it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This conversation between myself and Sir Joseph was over as far as both parties are concerned; why are you trying to restart it? Oh wait, please do not answer that question. Instead, maybe you can revert some vandals or improve an article or something like that. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That depends who you ask. Independent analysts say not, and also note that there will be many on lower incomes who actually see taxes rising. Plus, much of the cut for those who do have one, will be lost in higher health insurance premiums due to the removal of the individual mandate. The biggest winners by far are corporations, billionaires, commercial property magnates, private schools. Losers will be anyone living in a state that has relatively high state taxes (i.e. blue states), who will lose out due to the federal deduction cap. Most of the cuts for middle and lower incomes expire, while the corporate cuts are permanent, so by 2027 the majority of taxpayers will have higher bills - but the wealthiest will not be among that majority. It is the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history, as far as I can see, and it primarily benefits GOP donors. You could call it the Donor Relief Act. They were entirely open about this: there were GOP congresspeople saying that if they didn't pass tax cuts, their donors would cut them off. This is not a secret, not a conspiracy theory. It is a massive structural change to the entire US tax system (and one which makes it vastly more complex, incidentally, contrary to Ryan's pipe dream of a tax code that fits on a postcard). And it should not have gone through under reconciliation. The GOP would, rightly, be incandescent if a Democratic Congress did this. Guy ( Help!) 19:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, you should read from a more diverse source. Using all calculators I have seen, including CNN, NYTIMES, etc. most people will see a tax cut, heck, the doubling of the standard deduction and a doubling of the child tax credit is huge for lower income people. And for someone who is so against corporate subsidies, most of the people who might see an increase are those who will lose their mortgage interest or property tax deduction, a subsidy for home ownership that those who rent, and those on the lower income side can't avail themselves of. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have checked multiple sources, and looked at the tax itself plus the knock-on effects. What we really need of course is a proper score from the CBO, but this was rushed through without that. What I see is large permanent cuts for corporations, billionaires and landlords, and small, temporary cuts for others, balanced by parallel changes that will offset or increase tax and other costs, with a number of sources stating that by 2027 most Americans will pay higher taxes than they did before, skewed such that those who pay more will be disproportionately middle and lower incomes. And then there's the elephant in the room: a $1.5tn hole in the budget. They are not going to cut military spending, and they are already talking about targeting welfare. But that's not really the point. The point is that after eight years of pontificating on how Obamacare was a partisan law rushed through in the dead of night (after a year of committee hearings, thousands of amendments from both parties, and bipartisan support throughout most of its life), and castigating the Democrats for running a deficit (Obama was reducing the post-crash deficit year by year), the GOP have used a reconciliation process designed for minor tweaks, to completely change the entire US economy, with zero scrutiny, zero input even form most in their own party, and created a massive deficit. They are completely open about what they will do next: they will point to the deficit they created and claim they have to "fix" it by cutting entitlements. We know those cuts won't come from the military budget, around half of all Federal spending according to most sources, and we know it will come fomr benefits for the poor, especially the working poor, because they have already targeted those benefits. We don't know how bad it will because the ink wasn't even dry on the lobbyists' amendments when the bill was signed, so it has not been properly scored or costed. This is grossly irresponsible.

At the same time they have been approving nakedly political appointments to the Bench, confirming people into senior Federal jobs for which their only qualification is a vested interest in destroying the agencies they now run, and so on. In other words, they ave abandoned any pretence of public service and are all-out for the libertarian agenda of the Tea Party.

How many GOP Senators publicly opposed Roy Moore? A man credibly accused of child molestation, who has twice lost his job due to violations of the First Amendment?

What brought down the candidacy of Sam Clovis? Not the Senate. Matthew Petersen got past the Judiciary Committee and it was only when he was shown to be utterly incompetent in questioning at confirmation that he voluntarily withdrew. The GOP is party politicking, and not upholding basic minimum standards. I find it hard to imagine that the Democrats would have put up a Federal judge candidate who has no idea of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and I don't think any previous Republican President would have done so, and no previous republican Senate would have let the candidacy get to a confirmation hearing. It's kakistorcracy.

This is of course exactly the plan. GOP Congresspeople are more afraid of a tea party primary candidate than they are of the electorate, thanks to their buffer of gerrymandering (both sides do that of course), voter suppression (almost exclusively Republican) and ultra-partisan media (again almost exclusively Republican, as Fox and Sinclair are the dominant players in nakedly political broadcasting). It's a takeover. Exactly as described in Dark Money. The finest government money can buy, and nobody n the congressional GOP seems to think it's a problem at all. Guy ( Help!) 08:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, this just proves the bias of the sites you are reading. Tax cuts expiration or not expiration is something that is internal to the tax laws. The way the bill was passed, the individual tax code required a sunset provision. As all GOP people I've seen commented, if the Democrats would vote to make the cuts permanent, that would be wonderful. Again, you are biased, which is fine, but it's ludicrous to come here and talk about Wikipedia as if there is no bias on the articles here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Does most of the benefit go to corporations, property owners and the very rich? Yes. Are these cuts permanent? Yes. Are the smaller cuts for middle and lower income people designed to expire? Yes. Are the disbenefits inherent in the cuts (e.g. a manufactured pressing need to cut welfare) disproportionately harmful to the poor? Yes. Should reconciliation be used to make profound changes tot he basis of the economy, including changes completely unrelated to tax? FUCK NO. Did the GOP fund and endorse a credibly accused child molester who has twice lost his job for contempt of the constitution, as a Senate candidate? Yes. Is the GOP pushing forward unqualified candidates for Federal appointments including lifetime judicial appointments? Yes. Did the GOP vote for a $1.5tn hole in the budget? Yes. What dd the GOP do to hold back executive actions destroying the environment, permitting pollution, trampling Native American sacred lands, targeting people based on religion, ethnicity, sexuality? Nothing. This is Fourth Century Rome. Guy ( Help!) 21:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it's clear you have a bias and shouldn't be editing. I'm not going to respond to you any more because I have a policy of only engaging with people willing to listen to reason and openness. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the above example, the choice of what to cover and not cover, whether to go one notch further away in relevance (to say other peoples opinions on it) choices of words, whether to cover what was NOT done, etc. all constitute the spin of the article. I just mention one area (degree of relevance) which is not covered at all by policy, and a second (weight) which has no usable coverage in policy except saying roughly to mimic the opinions and spin of current media. North8000 ( talk) 21:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, everyone on this website is politically biased except the guy who just got topic banned for his long-term behavior on political articles. That sounds plausible. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Did he say that? You are putting words into his mouth. All he said is that the bios here have a liberal tilt and those editing to the conservative side are treated differently. Do you not think that is so? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. (I would say "many" or even "most". "All" is rather unlikely to be true.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel "long-term behavior on political articles?" Can you please provide diffs to such disruption. Also, would you consider yourself biased in this topic area? Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to search the archives of Arbcom and WP:AE yourself. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, would you consider yourself biased in this topic area?...of course he would...NOT...;) -- Malerooster ( talk) 22:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

1992 wants its joke back. Gamaliel ( talk) 23:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

lol -- Malerooster ( talk) 23:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• The basic premise of MONGO's statement is flawed. We have no obligation to ensure that articles about different politicians are similarly critical. None. Whatsoever. We are required to give due weight to reliable sources. This means that Wikipedia is going to be more critical of Nazis, of Communists, of climate change deniers, of creationists, of segregationists, of slavers, of homeopaths, and so on and so forth. I am not equating any of those groups. I am pointing out that they all receive more criticism than their opponents do, from the sources of information that we as a community have deemed to be reliable. If you don't like that, get the policy changed, or quit complaining. Or better still, produce real evidence that the policy is being violated: not very vague whinging about how a certain bio is biased. If I'm being blunt, it's because I've been dealing with nonsensical accusations of bias in south Asian politics for far too long, and I'm fed to the teeth with this sort of complaint. Vanamonde ( talk) 14:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

ARBIPA is altogether at a different level :) ( talk) 14:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If, however, we are especially critical of Nazis while giving Communists who have a similar level of whatever bad attribute you wish to name a free pass, then we do have a problem. Also, if we are especially critical of mainstream conservatives while giving mainstream liberals (US definitions) a free pass we have a problem. The question is whether we are doing that. I would like to see some actual statistics rather than depending on people's impressions before agreeing that we have a problem. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

First guy I thought about was Pol Pot. Communist, completely insane, and responsible for incredible amounts of suffering and death. The lead of his article says: "The combined effects of executions, strenuous working conditions, malnutrition and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population.[7][8][9][10] In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) perished as a result of the policies of his four-year premiership." so I don't think he got a free pass. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: Actually, I'd disagree. I don't think we should be comparing any two groups based on the premise that they should be receiving identical treatment, because any such premise is, of necessity, based on our personal preconceived notions. It is true that many authoritarian communist governments are treated as critically by historians as the Nazis; Pol Pot and Stalin come to mind; but there are others with more mixed reception (like Castro) and still others who are communists but democratic communists, and who are seen very differently: Melenchon comes to mind. Similarly, we cannot start out with the premise that all "mainstream" politicians should be treated equally. Whether or not a politician is "mainstream" depends on their popular support, and the degree to which their views are reflected in the popular imagination. The popular imagination carries no weight on Wikipedia, because reliable sources paint a very different picture. Creationism, for instance, is very much a mainstream position in the US. The belief that mythology is historical fact is a mainstream position in many parts of the world. Ditto anti-vaccination, quasi-historical revisionism, ethnocentrism, etc. Other things being equal, our biographies of politicians who hold such views must be more critical than those of their (equally mainstream) counterparts who do not. If such politicians are more concentrated on one side of any "spectrum", that is entirely their problem, not ours. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Frontloading leads of articles on conservative organizations with negative criticism -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A thread which is based on the questionable-at-best premise that there is something "biased" about the lede to Breitbart News because we describe it, as reliable sources do, as an ideological house organ for the far-right with a painstakingly-documented track record of publishing racist dog-whistles, misrepresentations of facts, fringe conspiracy theories and outright lies about people it politically opposes. There are no valid comparisons because there is nothing comparable on the left. There is no mainstream-left putatively-news publication which has such an appalling record of journalistic malpractice. Ergo, comparing Breitbart to anything else is a category error. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Look at Breitbart News. Now look at Palmer Report and MoveOn.org. Do the leads seem equally critical? (Not a leading question. I really want to know whether the the leads seem equally critical, especially to apolitical editors.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Are reliable sources just as negative about moveon.org as they are about that neo-nazi site? We have to follow reliable sources, even if you do not agree with them. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 20:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Does MoveOn.org claim to be a news organization? No, it does not - therefore, I'm unsure why you would believe that it should be compared to Breitbart. Rather, it is, as its article describes, a political action committee and advocacy group. Therefore, many criticisms applicable to Breitbart's journalism could not be similarly applied, because MoveOn.org does not hold itself out to be a news organization doing journalism. Similarly, our article on Palmer Report describes it as a "liberal political blog" - it, too, does not claim to be a news organization. Nor is Palmer Report anywhere near as influential or mainstream among the left as Breitbart is on the right - their comparative Alexa rankings (3,199 vs. 50) are demonstrative. Thus, Palmer Report has not received as much attention from other reliable sources. I agree we should move up and paraphrase the mainstream consensus of the site in the article's lede. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently heard the enlightening (if not really surprising) statement that "The opposite of Nazis are not communist. The opposite of Nazis are non-Nazis" ( Sascha Lobo, but I may have butchered that quote). You don't need to give equal weight to Nazis and non-Nazis, because they are the lunatic fringe, not a group comparable in size to their opposition. And that is similar with Creationist, Global warming deniers, Flat Earthers, but with the added twist that some of these groups have comparatively strong support in the US general population, but are (with local exceptions) otherwise largely non-existent in the wider world (which is approximately 95% of humanity). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 05:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales I'll give you an easy on. Trump has tweeted about 1) Hillary Clinton involved in Vince Fosters suicide and 2) about Joe Scarborough being involved in the death of an aide. Pretty clear that neither should be mentioned per BLP. That's certainly the case in Clinton's article but "whoa, not so fast on Scarborough." It was much worse for Scarborough before he tangled with Trump. You even commented [10] yet today even administrators think it may be reasonable to put in a BLP about Scarborough. "it was not an obvious BLP violation as required by WP:BANEX, and the text removed was substantially different than previous versions removed on BLP grounds to the point where classifying them as the same topic is even a stretch: it was about Trump advancing a conspiracy theory and was cited to the Washington Post, and specifically called the incident "unfounded conspiracy theories." [11]. Note that Trump has tweeted about both Clinton and Scarborough. The WaPo dismissed both. Now ask why the Scarborough story is not a "clearcut" BLP vio but Clinton is. Both are false conspiracy theories and clear BLP vios. Except Scarborough is conservative which keeps the CT alive. The failure is not overt but is akin to "it's okay to have 'when did conservatives stop beating their wives' but not when they are liberal" It's reflexive and immediately clear that Foster's suicide is completely irrelevant to Hillary Clintons bio but in Scarbough it's better to have an exonerating statement which only invites conspiracies and doubt. This isn't a RS to add to Clinton [12] but admins have said this [13] is enough to add to Scarborough. Dreadful. -- DHeyward ( talk) 06:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is actually not that difficult to solve. Trump is clearly not a reliable source for any claim at all, and his Twitter feed is primary anyway, so we would only cover these ridiculous claims if they have int urn been covered in reliable independent sources. A single mention would probably fail WP:UNDUE, whereas coverage of a false claim spanning more than one news cycle would gain sufficient independent commentary to establish that the claim is baseless. If multiple editors dispute inclusion, then the default is to remove the information (the onus being on those who seek to include it, to gain consensus), so an RfC would be the next step. The difficulty usually lies in getting one or two noisy people to accept this normal Wikipedia approach. Guy ( Help!) 09:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The body of content policy is sufficiently rich(?) and vague that plausible policy arguments (PPA) can be made on both opposing sides of many content questions. How many, I couldn't say, but it's a lot, likely more than half. Those who want the content in make PPA X and those who want it out make PPA Y. Group A attempts to counter Group B and vice versa (we call that "discussion"), but I've yet to see a closer attempt to sort out who has the stronger PPA. If they did, the close and the resulting consensus would be subject to their bias. So of course, even in the best of circumstances, it comes down to the natural human biases of the present mix of editors.
We see this at play right now at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Sexual misconduct allegations in the lead, which is largely a conflict between WP:DUE (include) and WP:BALASP (omit). As far as I can tell, almost all editors are acting with the best faith and above-average competence, and some of them are even arguing contrary to their known biases. The "omits" are currently leading, but change the mix and the "includes" could easily prevail, no bad faith required. ― Mandruss  ☎ 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say more than half of closers pick a policy argument when policy arguments have been advanced. As much as I detest Trump and think his personality faults are the second most dangerous risk of human extinction after supervolcanoes, rape allegations against him have not been litigated, and court documents such as admitted evidence is our standard for BLP inclusion of criminal accusations. There are far worse things about Trump which aren't in his intro. EllenCT ( talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

court documents such as admitted evidence is our standard - Hmmm, well in that case you better tell all the experienced editors who not only included related content in the body of Donald Trump but created Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and SNOW-kept it at AfD. Where is that in BLP, exactly? ― Mandruss  ☎ 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies" WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPGOSSIP. There is virtually no chance that a trial against Trump wouldn't be covered by very reliable groups of secondary sources, and I didn't mean to imply that is the general case. EllenCT ( talk) 15:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No way in hell are these attributed public allegations, collectively, what BLPGOSSIP means by "gossip", so we can discard that one. And I'm not sure what your comments about primaries have to do with this situation in which there are no court cases or documents. And WP:DUE—easily enough RS to pass DUE—and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Further, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures, as stated in its first sentence.
I'm not here to argue that RfC question (I haven't even taken a position there), but it illustrates the point I attempted to make in my first comment. There is plenty of PPA on both sides, and the closer will count and summarize !votes after discounting those that make no PPA. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you, and I !voted in the RFC accordingly. But why doesn't Trump's intro state his record low approval rating? Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers? Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments? Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump? Are any of those record presidential figures less noteworthy than the rape allegations? EllenCT ( talk) 16:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are valid questions, and others have said similar things. But off topic here. ― Mandruss  ☎ 16:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Off topic?!? Jimbo, do you think they are off topic? What are your opinions on them? EllenCT ( talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This thread is about the effect of bias in Wikipedia editing. It is not about the Trump article, I only mentioned it to illustrate my point about bias. I briefly allowed myself to be diverted into discussion of the Trump issue, and for that I apologize. If Jimbo has any opinions about the Trump article, he knows where to find it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 17:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a great question for the Nazis, is [14] a reliable source? EllenCT ( talk) 17:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You might want to clarify your statement. Right now, it can be read that if you are a Trump supporter, you are a Nazi. I am sure you don't mean that, but your sentence is very ambiguous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's an important point. While almost all American neo-Nazis are Trump supporters, not all Trump supporters are neo-Nazis. They just don't seem to have a problem with neo-Nazis, but that is not the same as actually being one. Guy ( Help!) 07:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually those questions ("But why doesn't Trump's intro state his record low approval rating? Why doesn't it describe his record low rating among journalist fact-checkers? Why doesn't it convey the Trump administration's record number of criminal indictments? Why is it silent on the record number of resignations under Trump?") are quite relevant to the topic, though it's more of a question about the article Presidency of Donald Trump. They are relevant because they basically illustrate that the original claim made by the OP and a few others are bunk. Most of the Donald Trump related articles have been white washed/cleansed of most info which could possibly be construed as negative. Now, since this is Trump we're talking about, and the sheer volume of controversy, there's some still bound to wind up in there. But the editing bias, if anything, actually skews the other way. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Donald Trump related articles have been white washed/cleansed of most info which could possibly be construed as negative. I would disagree with that as written. But, to whatever extent we bend over backwards to avoid providing ammunition to those who claim anti-Trump bias, it only confirms my point above. That was all done "legally" under Wikipedia content policy and WP:CONSENSUS, and there is a difference between POV-pushing and normal, inescapable human bias. Considering that your premise alone would be a very tough sell, what do you propose as a solution, practically speaking? If there is no practical solution, I'm not sure why we spend so much time talking about it. ― Mandruss  ☎ 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• I think what is crystal clear here is that Guy should not be anywhere near US political articles and should most definitely not be administrating in this area. The rest of his rant does not deserve any response and I will try my best to not respond to him in the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, don't be too quick about that. Guy is a longtime Wikipedian with a good reputation, and I think he's quite good at understanding the distinction between "Here is my personal political view" and "This is what Wikipedia should say". He has, in this thread, said that "Also, if we are especially critical of mainstream conservatives while giving mainstream liberals (US definitions) a free pass we have a problem. The question is whether we are doing that." I think that's a sentiment that can we all agree with - including the bit about gathering specific evidence and taking seriously the need to chew on the issue thoughtfully.

There is a certain degree of "stoicism" necessary to be a good Wikipedian, in the sense that if, as an editor, I have an emotional like or dislike of a person, I have to take an extra effort to check my thinking for bias.

We do have a historically more difficult political context today than we have had in the past (although of course it's good to remind ourselves that it's easy to think of the past in rosy terms) due to the current President being so... what's a good neutral term... let's just say "surprising in his behavior". (I think even his fans will concede that, perhaps with great joy, on the view that he really is an agent of change in a system they regard as hopelessly screwed up.)

Volunteer Marek says something above that I found quite surprising - that he believes the bias goes in favor of Trump or conservatism generally. I doubt that, but I do think we do a better job than some Trump fans realize of not being too anti-Trump as well. I like examples, because they give us a better chance to really chew on something and make progress together.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Jimbo Wales:, I don't necessarily think that this outcome is a result of purposeful intent. Rather, it's mostly because Trump is just hard to write about. Big name newspapers and media have struggled with how to cover him. So do we. And we have a BLP policy. And Trump does and says so many things that are controversial, crazy or weird that it often seems like writing about these aspects of Trump would be a BLP violation. Even though these aspects are widely covered in reliable sources. But because a lot of editors have an erroneous interpretation of BLP (roughly "if it makes someone I like look bad, then it's a BLP vio") a lot of the stuff that would be normally covered never makes it into our articles, and we wind up with whitewashed, incomplete and only partly encyclopedic articles about him. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you a little bit in that when I do edit certain articles, I make sure to bring sources that "the other side" would find RS. So while I might have seen something on a more rightleaning source, such as Fox or WSJ, I might then do a search for it on CNN or even MSNBC. I do think there is a problem in that if someone believes that 60+ million people in the US are tolerant of Nazis, and then thinks that he can edit neutrally in Wikipedia. What is needed is not just on Wiki, but in real life is opening up of the bubble. I recently saw a great TED talk where this was discussed and one thing that was said that when people live in a bubble (and only read sources they agree with, and only befriend people they agree with) it breeds extremism on both sides. As to the actual question of bias in Wikipedia, I will just point out that there recently was a discussion on RS noticeboard where Foxnews was discussed as being biased and that it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. There was no discussion of CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo, etc. People may not know their bias, they just edit what they know and for whatever the reason, the editors of Wikipedia have a more leftist tilt to them. We have also seen it in the Israel-Palestinian conflict area. A decade or so ago, the articles were quite different than they are now. One of the reasons is the bubble of extremism and how it's just not a nice area to edit in. I've said this before but I was here in the mid 2000's and it was a fun place to edit. I edited in a diverse topic area and I learned many new things by my edits being challenged and by reading. Now, it's more toxic so I don't bother changing things. So, sorry to make this ramble a bit, I think there are many reasons why there might be a bias in the articles, and that also means there are many opportunities to improve Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We're not in Freshman Comp, writing about the Confederate Flag or whatever--not everything has two sides. Some things have only a factual side, other things have many more sides. Drmies ( talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I side with Drmies. Also, there's a nonpolitical structural reason for certain dynamics around "bias" in the editing space here. The mainstream is by definition well-represented among editors and RS citations to support content. Editors who hold marginal or fringe viewpoints will by definition find themselves in the minority. Some of them feel the need to be more aggressive in order to get their views on the table at articles and talk pages. Sometimes it gets to a level we might consider akin to civil disobedience -- artfully done, it is pretty much accepted as passive-aggressive disruption, misinterpretation of WP policy, and POV-pushing. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO: In your experience, don't both sides of highly charged controversial topics do that, marginalizing the middle at least until an RFC is called? I got topic banned for being some kind of a leftist, when I'm far to the center compared to the dozens of classical Marxist editors who stay out of trouble because they would never dare escape their walled gardens to edit any article which has an established opposition to their dogma. What we have is a bias against the center, which is not how most people conceptualize bias, and our policies suffer because they aren't structured to address that kind of bias. EllenCT ( talk) 15:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like your Marxist friends are well-enough read or proud enough to know that they are outside the mainstream and that they are following WP:WEIGHT. The problem on American Politics is from editors who think the mainstream is "wrong" at best, or at worst part of the malevolent Clinton/CNN/CIA++ 21st Century conspiracy. These editors push their walled-garden stuff, against policy. Some of them appear to be doing this intentionally to "right great wrongs", e.g Immigration, US Supreme Court decisions. In the politics articles, this ends up at Arbcom Enforcement where all the POV crusaders show up to smog the Admins there into "splitting the baby" even after Arbcom has ruled that the area needs tough enforcement of editing norms. AE is not working and the whole mess is going to end up with American Politics 3, if I had to guess. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you are probably right. There is an additional problem, in that we need a constant supply of new admins to enforce these decisions: partisans will disqualify any admin who has ever ventured a political opinion, and any admin who has blocked or restricted more than one or two partisans is automatically asserted to be a partisan of the other side. Guy ( Help!) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A significant part of this conflict derives from adherence to Wikipedia's basic principles of verifiability in reliable sources. Activists on the right have been taught that sources everyone else views as mainstream (major newspapers and news networks) are irreparably biased and that only right-wing partisan media tells the truth. Whereas the facts are precisely the opposite - many (not all) ideologically-right-wing sources are ones with poor records of journalistic credibility, identified histories of publishing fabrications and intentional distortions (Breitbart, et al.), or outright platforms for extremist viewpoints and conspiracy theories (FrontPage, American Thinker, GatewayPundit, et al.) There are some similar sites on the left side of the spectrum, but few of them are ever cited on Wikipedia because they have a much smaller sphere of influence on the left.

When an adherence to mainstream sources is cited as a bias, the only reply can be that such a bias is inherent to our project. As long as our mission is to write encyclopedia articles based on mainstream reliable sources, any bias in those sources will be reflected here. If the proposed solution is to accept poorer standards of sourcing and to include more viewpoints from fringe bigots and conspiracy nuts, such a "solution" would only serve to destroy our work entirely. We are not required to treat the ranting of a random blogger on GatewayPundit the same as Robert Costa's reporting in The Washington Post. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The vast majority of editors are trying to summarize the balance of mainstream narratives on these subjects. "NPOV" is therefore not an absolute standard, but an approach to surveying and representing the best sources. Editors who complain about "bias" are generally doing something very different. They're starting from a belief as to "the truth", which they think is underrepresented in our articles. Most of the editors who get accused of left-liberal bias are just folks without any POV who are trying to convey the best of the mainstream sources. The editors who are concerned about bias tend to start from absolute personal beliefs they believe deserves equal weight with the mainstream. In American Politics, for example, there are aggrieved editors who explicitly deny WP:WEIGHT as if it were an attempt to suppress the truth. In a sense, our role is a bit boring -- editing rather than research. I do feel that the collective experience of WP, in the form of our policies and guidelines, is quite robust. Stricter understanding, observance, and enforcement of site norms would greatly reduce these metadiscussions and enhance the productivity of the editing process. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I've just pulled CNN up on my mobile - here are the top headlines I see: "A Trump Mutiny? Not Likely," "Trump tells black and Hispanic voters: 'Dems did nothing for you'," Trump to take victory lap on tax reform during farm bureau speech," "Analysis: Trump is 'the white affirmative action president'," "Is Trump 'consensual' type the new 'covfefe'?," "Analysis: Why Trump's 'Executive Time' Matters," "Trump reshapes US immigration," "Pair of lawmakers unveil bipartisan DACA plan," "Can Trump get a DACA Deal?," White House is ending protections for 200,000 Salvadorian immigrants," "The book that shook Washington - Wolff:Bannon's statement about Don Jr. 'not true'," "Billionaire bought 'Fire and Fury' for every member of Congress," "Trump ally says giving Wolff access was a mistake," and a breaking news headline "Trump lawyers anticipate Mueller interview request and want to limit its scope." I could go on, but I think you get the picture. It is hard to write a balanced article with such sources. I think SPECIFICO above puts it well "NPOV" is therefore not an absolute standard, but an approach to surveying and representing the best sources. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Uhhh... what's wrong with "Trump tells black and Hispanic voters: 'Dems did nothing for you'"? What's wrong with "Trump to take victory lap on tax reform during farm bureau speech"? What's wrong with "Trump reshapes US immigration"? What's wrong with "Pair of lawmakers unveil bipartisan DACA plan"? Etc. Etc. Etc. So no, I don't get the picture (I don't know about NBSB). Are you saying these headlines are somehow super duper unfair and very meanie to Trump or something? Really? How? Perhaps... you've just illustrated the problem with, uh, some, of our "conservative" editors? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Should have been more clear - I don't think there's anything wrong with those articles on their own. But taken together they seem to be "undue weight" about Trump. Is that really all that's going on in the nation? That entire front page (mobile) was dedicated to Trump. So when mainstream sites are pumping out 20+ articles a day about Trump it's hard to write a stable article about him. Mr Ernie ( talk) 21:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That I tend to agree with - but he does provoke and facilitate this phenomenon. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The headlines lead to lots of in-n-out burgers in these articles, but after days, weeks, or months, it becomes clear this or that isn't noteworthy and it's removed from e.g. the Trump articles. I find it's a waste of time to chase the headlines before it's possible to assesss due weight, and of course we have guidance that tells us not to do that. For better or worse, however, because WP articles dominate the upper tier of search results, there is good reason to try to keep up with these headlines even if it's a fool's errand. But Ernie, there's a big difference between lots of day-to-day headlines (on various events, but "lots" in the aggregate) and enduring coverage of any one of those stories such that it would warrant inclusion in WP. Over and over we see folks find a news story with one or two citations and then defend it to the death, pushing their cherry-picked source and refusing to recognize that truly noteworthy content will have an abundance of sources and a rich supply of detail and perspective. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I readily agree that we have an issue (on both sides) of racing to include endless piles of back-and-forth argument and opinionating whenever someone makes the news for a few minutes, and that this often leads to issues of undue weight. See Stephen Miller (political advisor) and Linda Sarsour for examples at opposite ends of the spectrum. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

EN Wikipedia does have a bias on US political articles and a resultant lack of credibility in that area. Regarding the fix, aside from changing the human race, fixing some defective and missing policies is the answer. NPOV is unusable in the area of weight, and if it were usable, it would be badly biased, basically dictating that an enclyclopedia should parrot current media opinions as "facts". WP:RS needs more metrics added, basically to judge a source's strength based on the objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it and to require stronger sourcing in that respect the more disputed an inclusion is.North8000 ( talk) 14:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Bias in which direction? Do people in Southern USA and Northern Europe have opposite answers to that question? That doesn't mean that the secondary peer reviewed sources support any definition of the center; in fact, the MEDRS-grade reliable sources from the US Deep South agree just as much with Nordic positions as MEDRS-grade publications from "communist" China (which today has far more de facto deregulation than anywhere in the US, at the expense of, e.g., food purity and associated issues everyone in China experiences quite frequently.) EllenCT ( talk) 15:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the unique US definitions of the terms, pro Democratic Party/liberal, against Republican party/ conservative. And similarly on the hot topics where views generally break along those lines. North8000 ( talk) 16:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ North8000: And therefore using the left- and right-wing definitions of the larger remainder of the English-speaking world? EllenCT ( talk) 22:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ EllenCT: Ellen, since the divisions of ideologies and related terminology are different, there is no equivalency of terms. The tower of babel of political science! :-) North8000 ( talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Part ofthe problem of course is that political science isn't science: there are few objective truths. There are people who seriously believe Ayn Rand to be some kind of genius, and other people who are equally convinced of the philosophies of Marx. In the US right now there is a substantial industry devoted to policy-based evidence making in support of political agendas - mainly fundamentalist libertarians, but certainly not all. Guy ( Help!) 09:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Examples of abusive editing environment

Jimbo, in the above section on political bias you asked for specific examples. Twice I have added a subsection for examples and included one and twice my comment was removed by Guy Macon. He was also kind enough to drop a templated warning on my user talk accusing me of "edit warring" for attempting to restore my comment to your talk page. So now you have a few examples. Can it really be that you are unaware how toxic things are here? FloridaArmy ( talk) 05:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an edit [15] talking about someone named "Matt Margolis", claiming that he has been "here on Wikipedia for years". I reverted the edit because there is no Wikipedia user named User:Matt Margolis and no article on Matt Margolis ( I am assuming that he is referring to the author of [ https://mattmargolis.com/ ].) He then appeared to be starting an edit war, [16] so I gave him the standard warning template [17] so he could stop the behavior before getting blocked for it. He was also warned by another editor [18]. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I posted a comment with a link to a deleted article page for a Conservative author. The deleted page includes the comment "content was {{del}}douchebag". You improperly removed my comment twice and then threatened me with a block for once restoring my own comment on Jimbo's talk page. I am restoring it once again to debunk your false statements, expose your improper threats, and because examples of the abusive editing environment here were requested by Jimbo. I trust if you remove my commwnt again you will be blocked. Here's what I wrote:

"Here's the page for a bestselling Conservative author and blogger: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Matt_Margolis&action=edit&redlink=1 here on Wikipedia for years] FloridaArmy ( talk) 04:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)"

FloridaArmy ( talk) 06:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody Peasant!

Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you? [19] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not currently have an article on Matt Margolis which may be a bias, or which may not be a bias, but probably indeed the kind of examples Jimbo was asking for in this section (where I moved the topic now) . Indeed, Guy's behaviour, reverting the example twice, may illustrate that editors and/or topics with a conservative stance may have it harder at Wikipedia. I don't know what happened prior to the deletion of the Matt Margolis article in 2005 (apparently it was deleted for having a slur only, but don't know what happened before that for which admin access would be needed). If this apparently conservative author would pass GNG (have no clue, never heard about the person before) it might be a good example to try build an unbiased article about him. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Or one could go to Jimbo's talk page and complain because an article with the content consisting of the single word "Douchebag" was deleted in 2005. I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The article only ever consisted of the word "douchebag" and an assertion that he created a blog (until the deletion template was added to it). There was no other content and certainly no assertion of notability. If he's notable, instead of bitching about it here, someone could go write that article. If he's not, well then, we're lacking that article for a good reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, no one's article page should be left with a slur attacking them and no one shoild be threatened with a block for restoring their legitimate comment to a discussion page. But bullying, threats, intimidation and slander are common here when it comes to Conservative subjects. The rules such as BLP are applied differently just as rules of editor bejavior go out the window towards editors workong on those subjects. Jimbo, please let me know if you'd loke more examples. FloridaArmy ( talk) 07:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? An administrator deletes a page with the content of "Douchebag" in 2005 and you are complaining because he gave the reason why he deleted the page? What would you have preferred? Would you have preferred keeping the article? Would you have preferred the admin deleting the article without saying why? Surely you can find a better example than a 13-year-old deletion of some childish vandalism. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's some shining examples from Jimbo's talk page archive:

'Your recent reverts to this article were in line with your past POV pushing behavior. This has to stop. The statements you removed were neither promotional nor inaccurate, and were both uncontroversial and easily sourced. I know you hate Naveen Jain - but you should go start a blog about him or something, and not use Wikipedia in this way.' [20] [21]

Leave me alone, follow our behavioral policies and guidelines, or make a case in a proper noticeboard if your truly believe the harassment you repeatedly target at me. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ronz's pattern of degrading the project is easily verified yet he his team are allowed and encouraged to bully editors and corrupt pages. These activities stink! What miracle will it take to actually stop this abuse? Mike in il ( talk) 15:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

His team? How does one apply for membership? Just asking? -- Malerooster ( talk) 15:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We have teams? Are there any openings for minions on any of the teams? I have a lot of experience as a henchman and am looking to move up. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Usually you have to start with a minion farm team before moving up to the big leagues. Minion farms are sort of like onion farms but the minions have to stay in the ground longer to mature. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman "have claimed to have been kidnapped" in Afghanistan in 2012 and held captive until recently freed. (That wording, incidentally, is from the lede in Kidnapping of Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman.) Joshua Boyle was also "a prolific Wikipedia contributor". I know this because his friend Geo Swan added it to the article. I also know Joshua Boyle's Wikipedia username because it was published in The New York Times. I won't link to the New York Times article because a comment of mine identifying Boyle's username has already been oversighted from the our article's talk page. I have been told that the Oversight Committee decided that since it was not known if Boyle "voluntarily" shared his username with the New York Times that it is considered outing to mention it here.

I think you can see the absurdity of this. Boyle is the subject of a biography here, we have a reliable source for his Wikipedia username, yet our internal rule (in this instance at least) prevents me from mentioning it on the talk page, leaving a false assertion uncorrected. And yet, in 2013 the Signpost reported on Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions. I understand why we have the WP:OUTING rules, but this seems like a Kafkaesque application of them. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 18:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see Boyle's actions as comparable in any way to Brevik's, so I don't accept the "sauce for the goose" line, but I do see your underlying point. When someone's username and real-life identity have been linked by a source on the order of the New York Times, then it seems odd to prohibit mention here. (In contrast, editors who are "outed" by less scrupulous publications do deserve privacy protection). To take a more apposite analogy, User:Qworty's real-life identity, which was published in Salon, is mentioned in list of Wikipedia controversies (and I seriously doubt that Qworty voluntarily revealed his real-life name). We've implicitly accepted that linkage as appropriate, which seems right to me. I'm not an oversighter, and in the end I think this is the Oversight team's decision, but I don't see this linkage as problematic. MastCell  ^Talk 20:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no meaningful sense in which posting information which has been published in the New York Times can be understood as "outing". It is extremely rare that information linking an editor's online name to a real name will appear in reliable sources, and is not the sort of thing that the outing policy is designed to prohibit. What is strongly discouraged (to the point of being potentially sanctionable) is true "outing" - whether on wiki or on various other social media or blog/forum sites. Even this policy is problematic in some cases (rampant abuse of Wikipedia by pr agents is a prime example).

I propose that we leave that latter point aside for the moment - it's complex. But what isn't complex is an addition to the policy that says that if the connection has been published in a high quality reliable source, then it doesn't count as outing.

For completeness, I should add that even posting something that is true and published in a high quality reliable source can be harassment in some cases, if we consider the full context. A completely fanciful example is if an ordinary Wikipedian is arrested for reckless driving and for some reason a reliable local newspaper reports on the Wikipedia connection, then going around smearing that person over and over by bringing up and linking to the article would be harassment.

In this particular case, I agree with MastCell in saying that a comparison to Brevik is not really helpful.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to compare Boyle with Brevik in any way other than examples of people whose Wikipedia usernames have been published in the press. As far as I can tell, Boyle and family were victims of a kidnapping. I deliberately noted the wording of our article because it implies that there is doubt about that, but I haven't seen that reflected in reliable sources. Thank you for your replies. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 00:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the issue of whether our article casts doubt on the kidnapping when no reliable sources do (I don't know) is separate from the "outing" issue and surely must be corrected right away. The "outing" question is one that I think should be resolved as well, hopefully in favor of recognizing that once something is published in a source like the New York Times, there is no meaningful sense in which "outing" is an issue.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Admins have often interpreted BLP rather broadly (and thus inconsistently), taking into account WP:HARM. For instance, see this discussion on my talk page, where a person whose case was discussed in the Washington Post and the link itself was revdeled (it was discussed only on the talk page, it was not even in the article). I disagreed with the decision at the time (I see the argument; I just disagree). I also know of a case (personally) where the name of a certain person was revdeled even when it was published by a well-known expert on Japan in a book; as well as being published in many newspapers. I even appealed to the Ombudsman Committee and they affirmed the revdel (for what I consider are wrong reasons, but whatever). So this case is definitely not a one-time thing. Kingsindian  ♝  ♚ 06:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, when something like a major newspaper "outs" someone, that's it. WP has no duty to pretend it didn't happen or that a privacy stake is left in the name when it's already broad public knowledge. It's exactly like a company losing a trade secret because they did not protect it, or a politician's kinky sexcapades turning into a public scandal. It may be uncomfortable for the party who's become more exposed, but they are and we didn't do it. By the "it still counts as outing" rationale, we'd have to remove all the birth names, like Winona Horowitz and Paul Hewson, of celebrities who use stage names or other professional aliases, since the exact same thing happened: some publication somewhere back when outed what their real name is.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe. Certainly bringing in a highly public outing in a newspaper as prominent as the NYT is definitely not WP:OUTING, but we may still have reasons for exercising editorial judgment and not including such information. In this case it's clear that the notability attaches to the real-world person, and it's not being used as a stick to try to gain an advantage in a Wikipedia dispute. When the Mail outed the person who started an RfC, that is a different matter, and akin to doxxing. We should not enable such things. Guy ( Help!) 15:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jzg that there may situations where a name is published in a reliable source but we choose not to include it in an article. But that's a totally different situation from the case at hand. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is my view as well. Guy ( Help!) 16:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

From the above it sounds like whoever did this 'oversighting' did not actually claim a power to censor source references, and I think it's important as a freedom of navigation exercise to verify that they have not done so: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/world/canada/canadian-american-hostages-daughter.html Wikipedia has significant censorship problems on a localized basis, but so long as editors are able to cite the underlying literature, the encyclopedia keeps hold of a rope to reality. Wnt ( talk) 00:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can think of an incident where a major newspaper linked an account to a public figure. The administrator/oversighter/checkuser involved in that incident no longer has any bits. Risker ( talk) 17:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Grant Shapps case? The account is named in the article. No one has asked for it to be oversighted as outing. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 19:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Risker is correct. The administrator/oversighter/checkuser involved in that incident no longer has any bits. [22] [23] [24] Also see This Signpost article and This BBC Report. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @ Guy Macon: I don't understand that situation, but looking just now I don't see any clear parallel. The newspaper wrote its article in September 2012. The first edit by User:Contribsx was in 2013. To my first glance, those edits seem highly biased and could be rightly described as "whitewashing" material. However, for an admin to come back and suggest a checkuser proceeding proved a connection to Schapps would require some standard of proof. I certainly did not follow the intrigue well enough to know he didn't have that standard of proof, but apparently that was ArbCom's position. Whether they were right or wrong, they did not take action against him for telling people here what the newspaper said. Wnt ( talk) 17:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Risker didn't say Arbcom took action against him for telling people here what the newspaper said. He said "I can think of an incident where a major newspaper linked an account to a public figure. The administrator/oversighter/checkuser involved in that incident no longer has any bits." that statement was 100% accurate.

The specific things that Arbcom (not just the audit subcommitee) said about him were:

• The email that Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry sent to the Guardian was not appropriate as it provided not yet public information in Wikipedia's voice to a third party, and created an appearance of favouritism and an appearance that the CU tool was being used to "exert political or social control".
• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was unable to provide sufficient justification for his use of the CheckUser tool.
• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry did not take adequate steps before taking public action (revealing the information to the Guardian, publishing the SPI and blocking the account) to ensure that the check and following actions were seen as neutral and unbiased.

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The advice that the OP got, and which we should be discussing instead of the above arbcom case, is here: [25] Does that bit of advice conform to our policies or doesn't it? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the oversight team preventing editors from deciding whether to discuss the user name in the article? I would hope not, although I could see admins saying something like, initially get consensus for it by just linking the NYT article and saying 'Hey, this NYT article discusses the subjects Wikipedia username, should we add that info to the article' then if the consensus is not using the info then oversighting. (See WP:BLPTALK) - it's a little more cumbersome but there you go. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems that now another newspaper has published a story about Boyle's editing, mentioning the username is no longer outing and the oversighting has been undone. Neither the sourcing nor the number of sources were stated as the reason for oversighting. The stated reason for oversight (that Boyle did not not voluntarily offer the information) has not changed. I've started a discussion about this situation on Talk:Oversight. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 00:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have been subject to a scam using Wikipedia and would like to make a formal complaint against the company who carried it out, but I am not sure how to do this in Wikipedia.

In summary I was contacted by a company called WikiServices claiming to be Wikipedia editors, using Wikipedia standards who said that I had reached a level of notability that I could be considered for a profile on Wikipedia.

The offered research and editorial services: requested an initial payment of $450 for research and a further $450 once the article had been written and published on Wikipedia. I paid both through paypal

Once the article on me was published, it was duly deleted by editors, because the writer was banned and the way it was written did not conform to Wikipedia standards. I have requested a refund and been refused.

Could you please advise if there is some formal complaints procedure at Wikipedia so that I can pursue this case ?

Thank you

Charles Doyle

I am attaching some correspondence to give you and idea of the case:

The company is called : Wiki Service Twitter www.wiki-service.org

From: CJ Doyle <cjadoyle@hotmail.com>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.25.98 ( talk) 21:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Some readers here may wish to know that some of the above text is copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 280#Charles J. Doyle. 134.223.116.155 ( talk) 21:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hiding the extensive correspondence, in order to avoid scaring away readers, though people can still see it if they want.

This is unfortunately nothing new to us. I'll be back with some more details, but in short you should forward all these emails, including headers, to the Arbitration Committee, *and* inform WMF legal. It will be difficult to get your money back, but you were definitely scammed. More later. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 21:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WARNING! To all AfC participants: You may be the target of paid editing scams. If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org immediately.

More info on the scam can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning which we created after finding two clear cut repetitions of the Orangemoody scam. To contact the Wiki Media Foundation legal department email legal@wikimedia.org

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 00:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried asking Paypal for a refund? (see the third paragraph) MER-C 12:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

People who have been scammed can also ask for a refund from their credit card company if they paid with a credit card. This is usually not easy to do, but be persistent. Some basic consumer self-protection would be even better: if you are making a large purchase check to make sure that you know who you are dealing with before you send money. Find out the company's real name, address, and telephone number. Do they have a place to file complaints? What is the real name of the person you are dealing with? Do they have any references? Ask at WP:COIN if anybody has heard of them. Better yet, just realize that essentially *everybody* who is asking you for money to write a Wikipedia article is a scammer or completely ignorant of our policies and guidelines. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 14:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy, @ Katherine (WMF), Doc James, Pundit, Raystorm, and Mdennis (WMF): I've made my position on this type of scamming clear several times, but it bears repeating. Even if the WMF does not have a legal responsibility to stop this, it does have a moral responsibility. It may be difficult to stop, but it is not impossible, reasonable steps can be taken. If we don't take these steps after knowing about the scam for at least 3 years now, people will rightly associate the scam with us. Our reputation will be dragged through the mud simply because we acquiesce to it.

The highest levels of the WMF, e.g. User:BradPatrick, have known about the general problem of paid editing since at least 2006 [26]. The WMF took minimal action in 2015 on the Orangemoody extortion scandal, but left most of the responsibility to unpaid community volunteers. Last summer, when I discovered that the Orangemoody scam was ongoing - a nearly exact copy of an Orangemoody email was posted on the internet - I informed all the right people at WMF and their response was clear. They didn't think that there was much that they could do about it.

Let me outline what I think the WMF can do about it:

• 1st - inform the press that we know that we have a problem and are doing something about it. At a minimum that should warn possible targets that there are scammers looking to rip them off.
• 2nd - actively gather information on the scammers. Much of that information gathering can be done in house and on the internet, but you'll need to hire a detective agency to get information on the ground. Get names, addresses, examples of emails and website text.
• 3rd - report that information to law enforcement, e.g. the FBI. This is a well-organized crime going on. It may or may not be "organized crime" in the sense of "mafia". But it is organized. The crime is fraud and in some cases extortion.

There are doubtless other steps the WMF or the community could take and we should all explore our options, but the above steps would certainly have some effect.

Please consider these steps carefully.

If anybody has any questions, feel free to ask here or via my email (on my user page). Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 15:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I started a list of known banned paid editing companies that are in breach of our WP:TOU back in Jan of 2017 here

The existence of such a page was fairly controversial when it began, but I think it is becoming less so as the wider community realizes the degree of the problems we are dealing with. Our wish to protect the anonymity of good faith editors should not guarantee the anonymity of those who wish to disrupt our projects and harm our readers.

Maybe we need to make this list more prominent so that those who are thinking about hiring one of these groups can realize more easily that it is likely a scam.

With respect to other efforts, we have consensus to form a group of functionaries to help deal with this issue on EN WP. [27] This was back in Apr 2017. We now need to carry this out. With a bunch of new arbcom members I will follow up again. I have brought this proposal to the board aswell. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Re. User:Doc James/Paid Editing Companies#Tony Ahn and Company: both accounts of Tony Ahn were blocked earlier today. Afaics he did however not remove the "Wikipedia article consulting" publicity from his website (yet?). There's a possibility they would try to operate under the radar, e.g. with PR efforts "outsourced" to thus far untainted accounts. Several of his PR articles inserted in Wikipedia have recently been deleted, or are at AfD with high likeliness of deletion soon: as he promises refund to clients that were hit by such deletion we might see complaints coming in if that doesn't happen. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:Smallbones I agree that the WMF PR people should be talking about the abuse of WP for promotion.

It is true that many people see WP as an essential platform for promotion. That perception has created an unmet need. Paid editing companies are meeting that need - their marketing material says stuff like this all the time - you can read MisterWiki's version here under "Why do I need a Wikipedia page?" .: . This is capitalism 101.

I had a discussion with the WMF's PR people. They were pretty clear about not wanting to talk about bad things like the widespread abuse of WP for promotion. They want to talk about the "happy happy" things about providing knowledge to the public and how fun editing is. No PR person wants to talk about bad things. It isn't what they do. They believe the happy-happy is what drives donations and participation which appears to be their main goals.

The metaphors from the environmental movement are right there to be used for this. WP is a public good, like a national park. Promotional content is pollution and paid editing companies and their clients are the polluters. "Give a hoot, don't pollute" yada yada yada. It would be so easy for the WMF to do PR around this.

Their boss (the executive director and ultimately the WMF board) would have to tell them to address this.

Their bosses are sitting on their asses on this issue, aside from making the occasional useless and mostly confused Very Stern Statements.

So our best means of directly influencing the market, is silent.

When the WMF PR people start trying to educate the public about the abuse of WP for promotion and about how black hat paid editors exploit the perceived need to gain visibility in WP - I will believe that Jimbo actually cares about this issue. Until then, the stuff he writes here about paid editing is just useless talk by someone who could be acting instead. Jytdog ( talk) 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Doc James have there been board discussions about WMF PR addressing the perception that WP is an important vehicle for promotion, and educating the public about paid editing companies' harmful marketing, which fuels that perception? Jytdog ( talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - I share some of your skepticism, but in general am a bit more optimistic. Why is it taking so long to deal with a fundamental problem like people using our site for criminal activity? Mainly, I believe, is that Wikipedia has a governance system that makes Anarchists of Byzantium seem well-organized. I've also talked to folks at the WMF Communications Dept. (at Wikimania this year) and I do think that they are not against a campaign to inform potential targets about these schemes. They would need direction from the top to do this, however. They would also prefer if individual Wikipedians or the community as a whole did the publicizing. That brings up another problem - how and where do Wikipedians organize to publish our objections to paid editing abusers and scammers? I've tried several variants on this, with a bit of success, but it is not easy. For now I'll just say that some journalists do read this page and they should feel free to email any participant in this thread (if you have an account, look on their user pages, in the left hand column for "email this user"). Isn't it crazy the hoops we have to jump through? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It is, to use a phrase familiar here, "fucking bullshit" that individual WP editors could do anything approaching what WMF PR could do. You received a blow-off. I will believe the WMF leadership is engaged on this issue when WMF PR starts addressing the perception that WP is an important vehicle for promotion. Until then stuff they say is just hot air and distraction. Jytdog ( talk) 17:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, when I am speaking of "WMF leadership" here i mean the ED and the board, per se. Doc James as an editor does a boatload to deal with paid editing on the ground and through community-based initiatives. Jytdog ( talk) 03:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Smallbones: Apropos nothing here, of course, but why don't we have an article on Anarchists of Byzantium?! >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 17:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Anarchists of Byzantium should not be confused with the Caesaropapists of yore. In fact they are quite the opposite. AoB is a modern group, still in the organizing stage, who can only agree that their name should always appear in red. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 18:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks. They sound like splitters to me... >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 20:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why not post in a box at the top of Main Page: Warning and advice: Caveat emptor. Experience has shown that one may well loose money payed to editors to create articles for you here – despite their profound assurances to the contrary and even though they may belong to an agency offering such 'professional' services. Editors are independent entities and the WMF has no legal responsibilities for their actions nor any contracts that they might invite you to enter into. To have a article created legitimately see here. Signed JW. Or something along those lines. Think any more verbiage in the box would lose impact. We (and that includes the WNF) may not have a legal responsibility but possibly a moral responsibly to inform the naïve. For, is it not, in our credo to 'inform.' If so, let us do it up-font and not bury it in what some might think as the small print only to be discovered and read after the event. Which also takes up many editors time with submitting so many AfD's. Aspro ( talk) 19:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We certainly do have our own resources to let people know that there are wiki-scammers out there. Maybe a banner that appears for each nonregistered viewer. I'm not sure Jimmy is the appropriate person to sign it, but I'm not against it either. Why not ask him? Putting anything new on the main page is always controversial and I doubt that is the best way to get through to everybody. I'd keep the text pretty short, and have a link to a full page announcement. On that page there can be links to WMF legal, arbcom, or even Internet Crime Complaint Center -wherever we think is best to report a scam. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 21:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Smallbones: These are good ideas, and please note my "blacklist" suggestion in the section below. With regard to Mr. Doyle's particular plight, I agree that he should not give up and that he should continue to pursue all remedies, including small claims court if possible. But I don't think his chances are very good. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

break 1

• For those wanting legal action, how will this help us deal with people outside the US?

As for the Wiki PR department, they need to be instructed that -- like everyone else at the Foundation-- their purpose is to help the volunteers build an encyclopedia not talk about the wonders of Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"legal action" might be misleading. I am not saying that the WMF should sue somebody when they come across an extortionist or a more run-of-the-mill scam such as the fraud shown above. I'm saying that somebody should report a crime if there is no other way to deal with it. The WMF is likely the best placed to do this and gather all the info and it would show everybody that they are trying to do something about it. Other people could certainly also report the crime, the victims themselves, or even a 4th party. It should be clear that reporting a crime is not against our rule WP:NLT, we simply cannot prevent anybody from reporting a crime without making ourselves complicit in the crime.

I believe that extortion and fraud are against the law in most developed countries, so reporting the crime should work in places other than the US, including the EU, and most if not all English speaking countries. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 06:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm outraged at the do-nothing attitude of the WMF public relations department, and the WMF management that gives the PR people their marching orders, which evidently is deliberately refraining from protecting the public. They could, at little or no cost and limited effort, issue a consumer warning as a press release and obtain its dissemination. But they won't. This is the kind of thing that makes me want to say "f--- you, WMF" and cease having anything to do with the paid editing issue. It is truly their problem, as it involves theft from well-meaning people, exploiting the Wikipedia brand. It is theft not just from the hapless victim but from the project. But instead they want to put their heads in the sand, preferring to emphasize "happy talk" publicity. I suggest that volunteers obtain publicity. Yes publicity against this particular company. But also publicity against the WMF for failing to deal with this issue. Coretheapple ( talk) 13:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Jimbo, could you please make the press release happen? Lately I have found that the only way to get a yes/no answer from the WMF is to post a nonbinding advisory RfC, but in this case that would be a bit like killing a fly with a bulldozer. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think Coretheapple's use of the term "outraged" is overstating it. Increasingly rampant paid editing, complete with scammers, points up the Foundation's lack of professionalism. The Foundation's oversight and direction, such as it is, is revealed as makeshift, cobbled together like cheap scenery and temporary stage dressing by people who have no grasp of what their real responsibilities actually are. The Foundation should be a professional grade operation demonstrating professional competency. – Athaenara ✉ 14:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I might have missed it, and maybe we don't want to "endorse" anybody, but are there ANY "legitimate" paid editors or companies out there? If people really want to pay for services (there should be a law against that ;), different discussion I guess), at least they should go, or be directed to folks who aren't going to rip them off by promising something they know they can't deliver, as in the OP's case above, who I advised that he really doesn't want a bio here...not easy.-- Malerooster ( talk) 15:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Malerooster, there are no ethics among the paid editors or their agencies. They'll say 'yes' to anything we demand, but when they leave the table, they just go back to business as usual. I've seen worse than the Doyle affair, a lot worse, such as a case I discovered regarding vile behaviour and extortion by a Wikipedia 'editor' concerning a very notable female minor. These scammers are scum, but as a community we tend to discuss it a lot and make suggestions, but effectively do little, or at least nothing that has a lasting, penetrating effect.

Unfortunately, being scammed is like rape: people are too embarrassed and ashamed to report it. It never ceases to amaze me how people with Doyle's extraordinary intellect (and a specialist in marketing to boot) can fall for such con tricks. The sad thing is that Doyle, like the little girl (who incidentally didn't fall for a scam, but she and her parents were subjected to a disgusting form of blackmail), are genuinely notable. What we see at COIN is only the tip of an iceberg.

There are things that can be done, but everyone sits around waiting for someone else to take the initiative, and . As I mentioned on my sub page list here, one of the problems is the lack of a dedicated, highly motivated, cohesive workgroup and/or a specific user team with powers to take a more aggressive stance at paid editing, scams, extortion and blackmail, without all the pesky background noise from the antagonists who do their best to prevent a consensus being reached.

Just reading the the 11-year old plea by a former WMF (interim CEO) would be a starter. But the total irony in Brad's words is that it's the other way round: we need the Foundation's help. We need genuine support from the WMF which unfortunately has a vivid history of doing absolutely nothing when there is a crisis until it's too late. The Foundation is indeed not 'a professional grade operation demonstrating professional competency' but they very much like to think they are. Among us who do the voluntary work of building and protecting the encyclopedia and its users, however, there are some professionals, but we have no say in what the WMF does. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, thank you for your response, though it's quite disheartening. It is impossible to control what goes on "off" Wikipedia, but something needs to be done by the foundation to deal with this scourge and I, unfortunately, don't know what that is. -- Malerooster ( talk) 15:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)ps, I like your P/E subpage, good read, -- Malerooster ( talk) 16:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I can think of a number of remedies the WMF can engage in. For example, it can publish, and keep up to date, a blacklist of companies that engage in unfair practices exploiting the Wikipedia name. That blacklist can be publicized on Wikipedia itself in some fashion. It does not have to be called a "blacklist" but that should be its intent---to publicize the names of companies that unfairly take advantage of people who want articles. The WMF could do this right now. This minute. Put it on the PR Wire. It would be picked up. Potential victims would take notice. It would not resolve the problem but put a dent in it for sure. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

They won't do it, Coretheapple. They expect the volunteers to do all the donkey work, even down to writing the software and scripts that would help. There are a lot of things they could do, but they aren't able to do them professionally, and they have the strong tradition of avoiding sitting round the table with the community to discuss things properly. Smallbones knows this, they've tried at a Wikimania last year. I've tried at several. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Wikimanias.

Think Coretheapple, Athaenara and Kudpung are both being unfair and unrealistic. When an organization get to be the size of WP, it is true, that it can no longer turn on a sixpence anymore. That is nothing to do with professionalism nor the lack of. It is inertia, due to shear size (compare the criticisms of eBay/Paypal/Microsoft/FaceBook/ etc). The fact we are discussing this current issue shows a will and desire to make further improvements to an already now large, well thought out and practical set of polices but these changes can not happen over-night until we cross all the t's and dot all the i's. To do otherwise, (as a knee- jerk reaction) -would be unprofessional. Suggest this issue of castrating or nullifying paid editors and finding an appropriate non-intrusive way of advising the naïve be taken to a new level on a different page. Aspro ( talk) 16:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is a question of will, that WMF can take proper action but won't. Hence my disgust and recommendation that volunteers seek publicity exposing that problem. Coretheapple ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Malerooster, yes, there have been paid editors who have followed policy. It gets progressively harder, though, as we are making it very difficult for a paid editor to work openly, and by extension are making it far more appealing to go against policy and hide the paid editing. Accordingly, most of those doing multiple paid editing jobs who have tried acting within policy have ended up leaving, (either through choice or, if they make a mistake, via a block), and in most cases end up returning through socks. - Bilby ( talk) 00:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see the WMF invest in more action in this area, and both DocJames and I are advocates at the board level of a new resolution by the board in support of cracking down on paid advocacy editing in Wikipedia. I'd like to see a very strong statement from the community as well, but as is well known, there is a lot of complexity and nuance in this area. One of the first things I'd like to see is a clear exemption to WP:OUTING when the issue is corruption of this kind. I'd like to see a more prominent notice (in the footer of every page plus anywhere where someone who is thinking "gee, I should be in Wikipedia" or "gee, my company should be in Wikipedia" is likely to see. And finally I'd like us to examine our practices relating to how we react to people who are innocently wondering (often perfectly appropriately) if they can have a page in Wikipedia - i.e., we can help take the profit out of this if we make sure that we are responsive and friendly whenever someone who really SHOULD be in Wikipedia enquires about it.

And yes, a PR strategy is important here and it doesn't in any way have to be a negative message. The message is not "Oh no, Wikipedia is being taken over by paid editors". The message is "Don't hire these scammers, because Wikipedia hates them and it won't do you any good anyway."-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please focus on what you can do through the WMF. WMF should be educating the public that WP is not a vehicle for promotion and they shouldn't pollute WP with promotion. Just like the environmental movement educated the public with Woodsy Owl etc. It is the perception that WP is a vehicle for promotion, that creates the market for paid editors, and that paid editors re-inforce with their own marketing. That is a perception that WMF should be directly addressing and that nobody other than WMF can address. There is no voice countering the marketing of the paid editors. That is what WMF PR should be doing. Nothing else you say about paid editing really matters. I will be interested to see action from WMF, driven by the WMF board and ED... not yet more hot air about what the community should do. We are working on it. Jytdog ( talk) 19:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia Day Jimmy!

And thanks for helping to move this forward. I take 'I'd like to see a more prominent notice (in the footer of every page plus anywhere where someone who is thinking "gee, I should be in Wikipedia" or "gee, my company should be in Wikipedia" is likely to see"' as you saying that you'll work to put a warning against paid-editing scams in the page footer (plus). If that's the case, I'm sure the footer will get in. Of course, maybe only 1 in 10,000 readers actually look at the footer, but that should mean the millions of people will get the message on an ongoing basis. It's not a complete solution, but it's a major step. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 22:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, I agree with Smallbones, appreciate your voicing support, and would add that you could, by yourself, provide the PR required and it would have the same impact as PR emanating from the WMF, if not more so. So it is in your hands and the ball is in your court. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

A lot on Wikipedia do indeed hate it, but a significant minority work long and hard to prevent deletion of articles created by paid spammers. You know who they are and when it started. We need a speedy deletion category for articles created in violation of the terms of use, for a start. Guy ( Help!) 00:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My difficulty with relaxing outing is that, one we start down this path, we'll find that more non-COI editors are placed at risk. I've seen it happen with the current relaxation, where personal details of editors have been linked to claiming that they are paid editors, only when I followed the link I found that it didn't show anything of the sort. If we specifically permitted outing for suspected COI, it will be abused - it won't take long before someone maliciously targeting an editor will claim COI as an excuse to post personal details, or even non-maliciously someone links to someone's details claiming paid editing by mistake.

The current alternative - allowing personal details to be sent privately to arbcom or a CU - works, but we're seeing more indef blocks by admins based on private information that can't be checked by the community. If we are going to take this path - and it is probably the only means by which we can handle personal information - we need to treat it like a CU, with a very small group of trusted editors being vetted and providing their RL details to the WMF, in order to be allowed to work with personal details. But making those details public, as loosening OUTING would do, opens up a lot of risks that I think it would be better to avoid. - Bilby ( talk) 01:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh, from what I have observed, the moral panic surrounding outing leads to far more drama and abuse than posting links to public websites could ever cause. Rentier ( talk) 18:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing and the harm it causes is not a simple problem with a simple solution. There are different types of paid editors which represent different degrees of problems and are going to need different measures to address them.

• Here we have consensus to create a new group of functionaries on EN Wikipedia. Arbcom has not really been interested in taking on this work and I am not sure they have the expertise to do it. Two groups within the movement have the ability to create a new group of functionaries, Arbcom and the WMF. Jimmy and I have discussed this and discussions are currently ongoing with some members of Arbcom. I want to see significant progress by Berlin and the group live by Wikimania.
• A number of us are looking at WP:ORES related tools to help with detection of undeclared paid editing. The conversations include WMF staff.
• I am also supportive of efforts by the WMF comms team to inform the wider world to not "hire these scammers, because Wikipedia hates them and it won't do you any good anyway." Adding this to the footer of our pages is also an excellent idea.
• With respect to relaxing WP:OUTING, we now have this wording in the policy which is a significant step forwards "There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy." We should not allow bad faith editors to hide behind our policies which give good faith editors anonymity. Our readers also deserve protection.
• We also have a list of companies involved in paid editing that have blocked Wikipedia accounts. I view this as another perfectly acceptable exception to the outing policy. Should this list be giving greater prominence? Certainly. We could for example redirect all the main space articles for these entities to this list and move the list to main space with the hope that it will top google searches.
• We need to work with the market places were paid editing transactions often take place. We currently have a RfC on meta to facilitate this collaboration.
• IMO evidence of undisclosed paid promotional editing by a brand new account that already edits perfectly should be sufficient to justify running a CU. That they edit so well is evidence they are not likely a new user. That they are adding promotional content and are in breach of our TOU means they are disruptive. Well the wording of our CU policy currently allows this sort of CUs to be run, the CUs we currently have often will not run them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My only comment, is that having been involved in a little bit Industrial Psychology (which included how managers read things), I would say that people who get scammed most often are those that don't usually read footnotes below the main text. For the interim (as a temporary measure until the message gets spread and widely understood), think we ought to try out a headnote for their sakes. After all, who would sign up to a gambling site if a headnote pointed out, that however skillful they are, the house always has the statistical odds on its side and so in the long run the punter will always lose? A WP headnote will also indicate the WP is being as philanthropic as possible by being upfront about the dangers. This should not put off new editors joining us because it is not a negative but a positive - an illuminative. Experienced editors may squirm at a box pointing out the obvious – my point is, that their are many, (that whilst not unintelligent) are IT illiterate in this respect. Any fire fighter knows that combustion require fuel, oxygen and heat. Knowledge of this, presented in the right place, can prevent those three things getting together. Why can't it stop or mitigate paid editing? Aspro ( talk) 16:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A number of us have been adding Template:UDP, which shows on both mobile and desktop, to get part of that message out. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

2 choices

• I see 2 clear choices.

1: Enable a team of specifically selected admins to take discretionary and immediate ( if necessary) action against any suspected paid editing, up to and including bans and reverting all their edits, with the ususal appeal processes for the suspect or

2: Accept that there will be 2 parallel universes of editing, similar to the parallel universe there is now with "Do Gooder" organizations ( 1 being real charitable organizations and the other being vehicles for various Do Gooders to make a living or even make a lot of money ). Nocturnalnow ( talk) 14:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Smallbones, as James has already indicated, we're discussing a more global approach to promotional editing and PR vandalisms. This includes a special group of functionaries, such as in choice no. 1 above, but I think it may make more sense to make them more similar to stewards, rather than admins (as PR stunts often go across projects). Pundit| utter 14:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I regards to the team of admins issue, I think it is important to note that there needs to be a process and oversight, much like with CU. Admins are already taking discretionary and immediate action against suspected paid editing - the problem is that it is being done piecemeal, with no oversight and outside of established norms. Formalizing how we handle personal details that reveal a COI should involve a carefully considered process that incorporates significant safeguards, as such data goes beyond what a CU sees - and therefore should be treated with at least as much care. - Bilby ( talk) 14:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually all that's needed is a clearly articulated consensus policy. I would say that most of the current drama is fuelled by the fact that the policies as written offer at least qualified support for paid editing, and there is at least a significant minority view that is philosophically supportive of paid editing, as well as the much smaller group of griefers who cluster at the feet of one of our more notorious past offenders. Guy ( Help!) 15:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who is supportive of paid editing, but only for paid editors who follow the advice in Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. It is my considered opinion that if we do not allow paid editors to work within the system we will drive good-faith paid editors who are willing to follow our rules into hiding. Also, I encourage paid editors who follow the advice in Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations to tell their customers that, and to make a point that [A] their edits are far less likely to be undone compared to the ones who don't follow the rules, and [B] the organization hiring them is far less likely to get bad PR from the edits. To this end, as time allows, I help paid editors by reviewing their suggested edits and if they meet our policies, posting them under my name with a note to the effect that the edit came from a suggestion by X but that I have evaluated it and stand by it as if it had been my own work. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Amen to that. Prohibition only serves those who don't care about our rules anyway while punishing those who do. History teaches us that this rarely, if ever, produces the desired effect. Regards So Why 16:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with that reasoning is that very few paid editors (perhaps 5) have consistently declared their paid editing status; not before we required them to disclose it and not afterwords. And the very few who have declared always complain at great length that they are being discriminated against rather than accept that other editors may review and edit their work. The real problem with paid editors is that the text they produce is garbage (stronger word needed). If they wrote NPOV, well-written, well-referenced text you wouldn't be seeing so much opposition to them. But they don't - instead they drag out any proposed changes, deletions, etc. ad nauseam until volunteers have to give up because of time constraints, or until they get paid, at which point they just leave a garbage article in the encyclopedia. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Last time I looked, approximately 500 editors had disclosed that they were being paid to edit. While I agree that the most active disclosed paid editors have complained about being discriminated against, it should be considered that they are, in fact, being discriminated against, making disclosure a very difficult choice. - Bilby ( talk) 21:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd love to see your data. How many of these declared paid editors have created more than 3 articles? How many only declared once they were caught? We've got more than 1,000 paid articles coming in each year, probably several times that. Over the 3.5 years since disclosure has been required 500 sporadic declarations aren't much. Everybody's text gets edited, paid editors are not discriminated against. They just write lousy promotional articles and get caught doing it. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 06:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Once you've declared that you're being paid, you can be reasonably sure that someone will nominate almost every article you've created for AfD if it is remotely borderline - not particualrly bad, and no worse than the majority, but that paid tag means that it is going to have to be at a higher than normal standard if you want to avoid AfD. With Doc Jame's proposed changes, you will be required to link to your personal information to edit, you'll be regularly insulted by people opposed to paid editing, and if you do propose changes you'll need to wait for up to a month to see them considered - at which point it is likely they'll be turned down. Alternatively, don't disclose. Most of your articles will probably sneak through, most of your edits won't be spotted, and you won't need to disclose personal details. I find it surprising that people choose to disclose at all.

Stats in regard to paid editing disclosure aren't too hard to come by. Based on a sample of the self-disclosed paid editors, 24% have edited or created more than one article, and 8% have created more than 2 articles. 6% are blocked. - Bilby ( talk) 06:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• @ Nocturnalnow and Pundit: Nocturnalnow's 2 choices are more or less in the ballpark if we are focusing on specific actions, but I think there are always more options. Are we ready to focus and get something done now? I suggest 3 steps:
  • Make sure the Wikiscammers and extortionists (a subset of paid editors) know that they are in serious trouble. If we can't do this the Wikipedia movement has lost its heart and soul.
  • Form a site-wide committee or group of functionaries who can deal with the more general problem of paid editing on all WMF platforms. It should definitely be multi-lingual and international because the problem is clearly international. It would take a Board resolution to do it right IMHO but a general outline might be - a group of 5-10 trusted members, initially appointed by the Board, who can a) consider privately cases against ToU violators and other paid editors, and enforce their judgements on all WMF sites, b) preemptively ban companies (and their employees) from editing based on the companies' open advertisements and websites that encourage people to break our current rules; and c) publish their decisions without revealing the personal details of individuals.
  • Let's finally get a straight, simple, no-frills, no-games RfC on the Bright-line rule. It could be as simple as "Editors may not edit any article page in return for payment, but may make suggestions on talk pages." This idea has been in the COI guideline forever, but upe's and many admins(!) just ignore it "because it is only a guideline." In 2013 I proposed something similar and the gaming was incredible - 4 or 5 parallel policy proposals were started with the apparent intent just to confuse everybody. We need a clean up-or-down RfC on the Bright-line rule. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 16:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So start an RfC to introduce a CSD criterion for content created in violation of terms of service. That should, in an ideal world be entirely uncontroversial. I bet it won't be. Guy ( Help!) 16:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You already tried that a year ago, didn't you? I think the discussion back then contains plenty of good reasons why this is not a good idea. Regards So Why 16:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Still, consensus can change, and there is nothing wrong from trying again. !dave 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_66#New_criteria in September. Some admins won't even speedy delete spam articles created with a combination of UPE and page hijack vandalism (using somewhat sensible rationale that I nonetheless don't agree with) so good luck getting consensus. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never understood why people interpret the ToU's (paraphrases) Undisclosed paid edits are prohibited as @ SoWhy: but the undisclosed paid edits have to remain in the encyclopedia for several weeks to go through AfD. Does not compute. But I think that a site-wide committee or group formed by the WMF (see above) could easily deal with the undisclosed paid edits as part of their enforcement powers. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 18:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The big problem isn't with declared paid editors. The big problem is that undeclared paid editors are not declaring. Ideas to make it tougher on declared editors work AGAINST the overall objective. North8000 ( talk) 17:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editors never have declared, with very few exceptions - see above. The problem is that they don't want their garbage reviewed by unpaid editors. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 18:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my reply from above, there are currently approximately 500 editors who have disclosed that they have been paid. The vast majority are not ongoing, but your statement seems mistaken. - Bilby ( talk) 21:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Efficiency at WP:COIN seems to have increased significantly if you ask me. "... take discretionary and immediate (if necessary) action against any suspected paid editing, up to and including bans and reverting all their edits ...": already happens. Re. "...undisclosed paid edits have to remain in the encyclopedia for several weeks to go through AfD" – no they don't (at least not necessarily): I've seen a GA (candidate FA) being deleted summarily for WP:PAID (without disclosure!) reasons yesterday. RfC, "selecting admins", etc. seems to be running after the facts if you ask me. The admins who are active at COIN know their stuff, including a sixth sense to separate general cluelessness from wishy-washy PAID.
• I'd avoid sending a message to the general public which would imply that Wikipedia is defenceless against PAID editing: it isn't, and we shouldn't put the weight exclusively on the shoulders of those who might be tempted to hire paid editors (i.e., a "this will only stop if you stop giving them money" kind of message). Also avoid sending a message that implies that Wikipedia would not be "the place to be": it just isn't a place for explicit or implicit publicity. It could be formulated more positively: through greater coherence, stricter policies, and more efficient ways to have these respected, Wikipedia has heightened its defences against all sorts of PR intrusions: those who try to sell such services never had access to Wikipedia, or will, more likely than not, have lost such access by the time you pay them, and that includes the more complex scams that took more effort to dismantle. If they say they know how Wikipedia works and how to exploit loopholes they most likely have little experience where it matters.
• I see this rather as a task for the WMF to divulge such message via all sorts of PR channels outside the website, than unread smallprint at the bottom of Wikipedia pages, or, worse, banners at the top of them: "Don't give your money to others, they're impostors" one week, and then a few weeks later, when it's fund drive time: "give your money to us"... doesn't have the right look-and-feel, if you ask me. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• @ Smallbones: I think that the problem needs to be addressed across projects, not just on en-wiki. That's why the current functionaries may not be enough. Pundit| utter 12:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

this talk page

• Generally this discussion is the same shit being said by the same people, yada yada yada. Yes the community is doing a lot of stuff and we are discussing those things elsewhere, where they are actionable. In my view we should all be focused here on what Jimbo as our mostly useless figurehead can do himself to help deal with this.

In my view his only remark about that, that WMF PR should say something like "Don't hire these scammers, because Wikipedia hates them and it won't do you any good anyway." is just yet more thoughtless posturing.

A PR strategy by WMF would need to be focused on changing the public perceptions that a) it is important for "visibility" and commercial success to have a WP article about you or your company or product and b) it is appropriate to use WP that way. It would also provide education about the difference between "white hat" and "black hat" paid editing without endorsing paid editing (for example, health authorities provide needle exchanges for heroin users and try to let heroin users know how to use safely). There are simple things that a customer can do to understand the difference.

Nobody but WMF can do these things effectively. The WMF is the public face of WP; it is who reporters call and people reach out to, etc. It needs to do the PR and do it effectively.

Jimbo and the WMF have done precisely nothing that has been strategic on this issue over the years. Providing occasional reactive one-liners to the media about it is not strategic or effective. The void has been, and is being, filled by the consistent marketing of paid editing companies that says "you need a WP article to promote your business/career/etc". That marketing has been effective and that idea is widespread. That is what needs to change and that is perhaps useful to discuss here. Jytdog ( talk) 19:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE - the big exception to what I wrote above is the change to the Terms of Use. That was a huge strategic thing the WMF did. Jytdog ( talk) 07:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read Jimbo's talk page, so if you feel that appealing to Jimbo is not effective, you are free to concentrate your efforts where you feel that they will achieve better results.

If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away his keyboard. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

He might merely be researching Wendy Carlos' take on various classics, for all we know. Guy ( Help!) 19:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing Jimmy and WMF can do is mandate policy that allows summary deletion and banning for violation of the foundation's terms of use. As I have said before, this is still not policy here. And people will actually go to bat to defend content created in flagrant violation of the ToU. Guy ( Help!) 19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is going to shock some people but I actually agree with Jytdog and was going to more or less post the same view. It seems that every time there is a discussion of paid editing it gets diffuse and unfocused. Jimbo made a very good statement above, so please people let us focus on that. Jimbo Wales will you commit to issuing a statement along the lines of the one that you just endorsed, saying what you said and listing the firms that engage in practices that in your view are unfair to people who want to have articles written about them? (I agree about the WMF but let's take yes for an answer and focus on Jimbo's comments above please) Coretheapple ( talk) 19:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad you are agree in part. As noted the quote is Jimbo shooting from the hip saying something "loud and proud" that he thinks sounds good. Jimbo tossing off a one-liner has no enduring value, of any kind, and is not what we need here nor what we should encourage. What we need is the WMF to run an effective PR campaign that has a strategy to influence the market for paid editing - that looks to change the perceived need to use WP for promotion. What Jimbo can do is commit to urging the board to instruct the ED to instruct the PR people to develop and execute a PR campaign. That is all he can do other than toss off one-liners. Jytdog ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not assume good faith and give him a chance to do something concrete and effective. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Now, if he doesn't do more than toss off one-liners then OK, that settles that. Like I said, ball is in his court. I request my fellow editors to keep this thread alive only so that it does not be archived, and that we otherwise hold our peace until and unless Jimbo responds with a commitment to do something concrete. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagree that this is all in JW's court. He may have created WP but it 'ours now' just as much as his. We have become its guardians too. We all have to sort this out and get consensus and not leave it all up to Jimmy. He may be our figurehead but he is not WP's godhead. There is a time to let go of even ones own children when they are ready to go out into the adult world and no longer need daddy's help to cope with the slings and arrows that life throws at us. JW is but one man but we are many. Aspro ( talk) 21:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I would suggest that on this particular issue, as with some others, it is entirely in his and the WMF's court. Otherwise we have the same discussion repeatedly. I understand Jytdog's frustration and am also losing patience. Coretheapple ( talk) 23:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

My alarm bells just went off. If we have the same discussion repeatedly and have failed to reach a consensus, that is an excellent reason for the WMF not to cast a supervote favoring ones side over the other. Remember, there is zero guarantee tthat the WMF will support the side you favor... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo can do or say whatever he wants. Your mileage may differ but I think his credibility hinges on whether he acts on this or just tosses off one-liners. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• The real reason that we are always chasing our tail on paid editing is because there is no control mechanism over registration. As long as anyone can generate 400 sockpuppets with a couple days' effort, there's no reason to get all worked up about banning paid editors or paid editing, because it is essentially an impossible task. Step one is to clean up the registration process. Then we can talk. Carrite ( talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That is true Tim. That is not going to change, as you know. The openness and absolute respect for privacy make all of this very hard to deal with. We rely so much on people being HERE, aiming for the mission. It has always been a crazy way to run an encyclopedia... Jytdog ( talk) 06:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You could implement a system that makes every user submit a DNA sample and undergo a background check and it still would not address the problem that some of us think that paid editors who follow the advice in Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations should be encouraged and helped, while some of us think that all paid editors should be banned. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Really? I think almost all would be fine, if paid editors generally did not edit in main-space, and disclosed on talk pages. There is no ease of enforcement here, but I think we need to realize that there is no ease of enforcement with practically any of our policies -- every minute our policies are being violated, and many of those violations last, and last. (To avoid being misconstrued, none of that means, we get rid of policies). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it important to note that pages like Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations can be rightly viewed as part of the problem simply because they are so weakly worded. There's a great section heading: "Don't edit articles". Then in the actual body of the text there is a complete collapse: "Don't make potentially controversial edits to articles related to your area of close association." Which is basically a gold-engraved invitation to insert all kinds of PR fluff. This is why I think it's important to recognize: yes, the Board/WMF can do something here. But as long as the community allows that kind of advice to persist on the site, good-faith PR agents are being given mixed signals.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Convert Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations (an essay) into a redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (the actual guideline, with less fluff in the wording)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to have the 'less fluff' in WP:PAID, that's where we should put stricter policy, if we are going to have it. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

For proposals to improve WP:PAID, please direct yourself at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. This policy doesn't seem "weakly worded" though ( Jimbo?). WP:PAID does however not seem like a suitable redirect target for Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations, which, at least according to its title, is not exclusively about the WP:PAID type of close associations (e.g. family members). So I'd still operate it redirecting to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and hash out potentially remaining fluff at that guideline there (or at its talk page). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the adoption of WP:PAID, COI (a guideline) takes ts direction on paid editors from PAID. (If what you are saying is that BEST PRACTICES and COI already say the same thing about paid editors, I would say you are right, so presumably the reason BEST PRACTICES is broken out, is because it just allows less TLDR) -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

BEST PRACTICES is broken because it no longer correctly summarizes WP:PAID: BEST PRACTICES allows exceptions that are no longer allowed under WP:PAID. BEST PRACTICES hasn't been updated in the last half year, while several loopholes were closed at WP:PAID in the last half year. It is thus no longer useful to direct potential WP:COI editors to BEST PRACTICES, as the picture there is much more lenient towards PAID editing than WP:PAID. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, fine. But what I think needs to be realized is given the history, which I can at another time go on about, no time now, we have to focus with the specifics of the paid editor. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, as a community would we not have to then confront the IAR dilemma? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Carrot and stick. The carrot is that if you follow the rules, your voice is heard. The stick should be that if you don't follow the rules, your ass should get banned and your spam deleted. Obviously the carrot bit relies on there being editors prepared to pick up the requests, but we are not bad at working uot tactical kludges that involve people watching stuff. Guy ( Help!) 12:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• There was once talk on this page about using artificial intellegence tools to help find and enforce, I have no idea if that is feasible but I also don't know if anyone with money (WMF) is researching it. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• One thing we should do is tighten alternative account policy in WP:PAID (someone recently argued that on the Admin Policy talk page that being embarrassed about being a paid editor is a good reason for an unconnected alt account - unbelievable, but there you go). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• On the point of sock puppets and multiply accounts. What may be useful is a flag. A bot could easily create a graph of accounts by IP Address ranges. They are split in to four block. E.G., 192.168.1.15. The graph doesn't need to identify the individual IP address just the number of accounts using those ranges in the 'last two' blocks. From what I can gather, sock puppets congregate in the last two blocks. This could be helpful also for occasions where a tutor wants her class to all create WP articles and could do some friendly advice from experienced editors. Personally, I think in this case, the class should be let loose first on their own local server hosting a Wiki in-order to learn wikicode etc. Saving us from AfD ing 30 odd articles that don't pass muster. Can't think of anything more discouraging for a student than to find that his or her article has got deleted on completion or even before completion of their set assignment. It may put them off editing WP for ever ! This graph may help editors that like to be our guard dogs, to zero-in on malefactorous accounts more quickly. A small step perhaps and I think a helpful one and easy to implemented. There is an old saying: Softly, softly, catchee monkey. JW voiced my unspoken thoughts when he pointed out the “complexity and nuance in this area”. We should not be bashing our heads against a seemly brick wall, rather let us work around it and take advantage of wisdom of the crowds rather than group think. Aspro ( talk) 16:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirect?

• Oppose redirecting Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Support copyediting the essay to remove any inconsistency with the guideline. It would be a good idea to go over Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and remove any inconsistency at the same time. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:SOFIXIT. If the "Best practices" & "Plain and simple" essays are not put in line with the PAID policy and the COI guidance they do no good to the project, suggesting as they are that a certain degree of wishy-washyness is OK if you're planning some PAID editing. This is more than embarrassment over an ill-written essay: this is harmful for leading to more PAID editing-related cleanup, attracting the kind of editors that are not the most beneficial to the project, maybe even deterring the ones that would be the better contributors. If the cleanup of these essays doesn't happen, better sooner than later, these essays will likely be redirected, or taken to MfD, tagged obsolete or whatever is most appropriate. An instance of a problem with the "Plain and simple" essay: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" [sic] – WP:PAID is a very firm rule, one of the firmest there is in Wikipedia, ask that any PAID editor who got hit by WP:COIN, so this sort of wishy-washyness should absolutely be removed from the essay: absolutely sends the wrong signal to the candidate paid editor. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Wales, wikidata suggests that some concepts have articles in dozens of non-English languages which are a red link on the English wikipedia. Is there any concept that you are surprised does not have a page in the English wikipedia? If so what is it? (Stalkers can answer as well) 92.6.190.38 ( talk) 10:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there a good link to Wikidata that would showcase this?-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The template /info/en/?search=Template:Infobox_deity uses "Major cult center" as one of its parameters. Considering the pejorative connotations of the term "cult" should it be changed to "NRM" so it won't fall foul of our NPOV policy? 92.6.190.38 ( talk) 10:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to see the value of an abbreviation few people know. However, it seems that "major worship center" might be an improvement. Also, not all deities are associated with new religious movements. Looie496 ( talk) 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cult has a specific meaning, though. For example, cult of saints in Anglo-Saxon England. Of course there is another meaning, e.g. the cult of scientology. Maybe it needs disambiguating? Guy ( Help!) 17:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems tricky to me. I don't think that 'cult' falls afoul of our NPOV requirements for two reasons. First, there is a difference between a "New Religious Movement" and a "cult". Not all new religious movements are cults. (And not all old religious movements are not cults, I should hasten to add.) Second, we follow reliable sources, and should use whatever terminology they do, with whatever qualifications might be necessary in case of a lack of unanimity. We can contrast Peoples Temple, which I think is uncontroversially called a cult by virtually all reliable sources, and The African Church, which apparently has not been. (Both examples are pulled from List of new religious movements.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the original poster either misunderstands the purpose of the template -- or is trolling. This template is used in articles about religious deities, & this parameter allows one to point out centers of worship -- otherwise known as "major cult centers". For example, in Apollo, the value of this parameter would be "Delphi". Now one could add this template to the article for one L. Ron Hubbard & set this value to "Clearwater, Florida", but I would expect this would lead to a lot of angry words, the edit permanently reverted, & the editor responsible sanctioned. In short, this parameter has about as much to do with NRMs as it does with baseball statistics, thus the question is nonsensical. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that the article New religious movement is in Category:Cults. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. They are closely related terms. Guy ( Help!) 08:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

More often than not, in my experience. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 00:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a desire to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but admin Iliev returns me all the edits, rubs my articles that are written by the rules and blocks me indefinitely. Is this normal? Here's evidence:

I use lots of bills because it blocks me and I do not vandalize.

170.78.75.32 ( talk) 15:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, I.P. 170.78.75.32, but what takes place on the Bulgarian Wikipedia stays on the Bulgarian Wikipedia; nothing we can do on en-wp. Cheers! -and good luck. >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 16:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I am banned from your official Wikipedia IRC helpdesk channel. I have no idea why, and have no idea how to appeal this ban. Help? 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 23:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I cant speak for the IRC ops but I am going to assume you were behaving poorly. If you want an unban you can try at #wikimedia-ops Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 23:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Tried; nobody home.

Incidetally, I don't think I behaved badly. But I can't find any way to appeal or discuss it (hence crying to Wales) 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 23:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello 86.20.193.222. You were being very disruptive to other helpees and failed to heed the advice of helpers asking you to stop. Appeals can be heard in #wikimedia-ops ^connect, as Zppix pointed out, which you did NOT try to do. Waggie ( talk) 23:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Waggie. Do you have any evidence whatsoever of those accusations? 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 00:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wales, these totally unproven accusations are absolutely typical of a dictatorial regime; I hesitate to say 'nazi' because it will provoke internet bile.

Your Wikipedia online live presence - on the help channel - is entirely unregulated, and under the control of unelected tyrants. 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

[29]

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon That is simply too funny. Lord David, Duke of Glencoe ( talk) 23:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Just now, I was in the help channel. Nobody had spoken for about an hour, and I typed a short random comment about the time of day. User:Huon took exception to that; when I pointed out how stupid it was to admonish me for it, he banned me from the channel - and then immediately left. There is nobody else there, so I have no way to appeal. 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 03:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the answer to your appeal: [ https://xkcd.com/1357/ ] I hope this helps. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I never pulled a 'free speech' card. The IRC help is an official part of Wikipedia - whether that is acknowledged or not. Yet it is outside the remit of wiki control, so their administration not subject to the norms of the wiki, and abuse is rampant. It's a disgusting little corner, which needs cleaning up. 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 06:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

IRC is not controlled by Wikipedia. Cries of rouge admin abuse are also unpersuasive. Guy ( Help!) 08:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So despite this being the wikipedia channels - directly linked from Wikipedia, prompted on Wikipedia in the same way as helpdesk or teahouse... it's somehow outside of control?

No appeal, no rules, just a bunch of friends promoting themselves and their buddies? 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 08:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The IRC channels are privately-run hobbyist channels that aren't administered by Wikipedia or the WMF, and Wikipedia has no control over how they choose to run their affairs. While there are "You can try asking on IRC" links on assorted Wikipedia help pages, they have the same status as the "Links to Google search results" buttons you see at the top of WP:AFD discussions, or the links to assorted mapping tools you see when you click on coordinates in Wikipedia articles. We could probably do a much better job of making it clear that the IRC channels are independent fan-run sites and don't have any kind of official status, but JzG is correct here; there is nothing Jimmy can do about anything that happens on IRC regardless of whether he wants to. ‑  Iridescent 08:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not just a bunch of friends promoting themselves and their buddies. Also occasionally they get assholes with a false sense of entitlement. Guy ( Help!) 08:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A) The links have the same prominence as those to helpdesk, admin noticeboard, teahouse, etc.

B) The channels are prefixed "Wikipedia-" and no-one else can register channels with that name.

C) If they are not official, they why can't we change the links to an alternative help channel? 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 09:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

They're not official, so unlink? >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 10:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Have we banned any refdesk trolls lately? Guy ( Help!) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#RfC:_Raising_NCORP_standards Jytdog ( talk) 02:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Question from the Help Desk, the whole of WP apears to have been lifted and redirected to adverts. Très curieux. >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

They are certainly violating our trademarks. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 00:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The text and images may be 'free' but surely the WP database itself is protected as a compilation? Wikilegal/Database Rights Aspro ( talk) 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I reported a trademark violation to the email address at wmf:Trademark policy#6.1 Reporting misuse. It is disappointing that there was no response. Extract from my email:

What appears to be a complete mirror of Wikipedia is at https://en.wiki.ng/

The site includes other languages such as https://es.wiki.ng/

and it appears to infringe the trademark policy.

Johnuniq ( talk) 01:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that our databases are just as free to use as our images and articles. We have always allowed (and tried to make it easy to) fork Wikipedia. The page Aspro refers to involves the use of other people's databases.

The name Wikipedia and images such as the puzzle globe are protected, and we have never given anyone permission to call their fork "Wikipedia". so this is definitely a trademark (service mark, if you want to use the correct term) violation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I wouldn't expect an instant response from legal on a Saturday. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, saturday are for the boys, just saying. -- Malerooster ( talk) 01:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I emailed legal-tm-vio two months ago. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And no response at all? How much are we paying them? (Unless I am mistaken, in the interest of openness and transparency, we keep the amount of money we spend on the legal department a secret -- but I may be wrong; there are a huge number of places to look for that information.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the breakdown of how much we spend on different parts of the foundation. [30] Legal comes in at 3.6 million. Most of that however is not staff.

Agree that this is a trademark infringement. All they need to do is change the logo and name and than all will be cool.

They have duplicated all languages which is uncommon among our 100s of mirrors. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So Table #5: Expenses by Departments contains the total amount for the legal department, including salaries, outside legal consutants, any lawsuits we have lost or settlements we have made, minus any income from lawsuits we have won or settlements we have made, computers, furniture, coffee, building rental -- in other words the complete budget for the legal department?

BTW, 3.6 million seems quite reasonable. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is trademark infringement, but you'd have to serve someone first. Fees will go up, lol. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 03:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can others please comment on the belief of a Wiki Tribune contributor that his article there is a reliable source here: Certificate of life. I don't believe it is. User talk:AlistairKelman and an alt account. Thanks. Philafrenzy ( talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Even as we speak, the story is being pulled from WikiTribune, as it does not meet our standards by a very wide margin. You have my apologies for the inconvenience.

My sincere goal is that every story published at WikiTribune be suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. This means that every claim must be carefully confirmed by either another reliable source or evidentiary support, made as public as it can be made. This story did not meet that.

We are still exploring questions about whether or not to allow "essays" as opposed to hard news stories, and for me, this is another nail in the coffin for essays. The author should have published it on a blog or on Medium or something like that.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have commented on this particular case at User talk:AlistairKelman, but one aspect seems worth discussing here as well. Alistair Kelman wrote an essay on WikiTribune then cited that same essay on an Wikipedia article. Even if the essay itself was tjhe most well-cited material on the Internet, this would still violate our rules on WP:COI. From the standpoint of WikiTribune's reputation, Alistair made the claim "My essay in WikiTRIBUNE was approved by a professional WikiTRIBUNE editor. Hence it can now be used as the validating the earlier materials and as a source" [31] I would like to see a clarification posted by someone from WikiTribune.

Also, I just went back to checked my citations for typos and found that the essay on WikiTribune is now a HTTP 404. Jimbo, would it be better to have a custom 404 error page explaining why the page was deleted? Or better yet, return a HTTP 410 ("gone") with a custom error page instead? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I was the person who originally removed the offending content, and indeed, regardless of the source's credibility, one should not be citing one's own work. Dare I say that I did not consider WikiTribune a reliable source, but I'll keep what Jimbo said in mind in future. !dave 19:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Where would be a good place on WikiTribune to discuss my idea of using HTTP 410 instead of HTTP 404 when Wikitribune articles are deleted? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be feedback-on-everything-please Ϣere SpielChequers 10:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to square the circle here - I don't want to get into a flame war but the removal of my explanation from the Proof of Life article, which sets out the procedure used in the UK and the reasons why it is so used on legal grounds, is likely to cause harm to innocent third parties (such as pensioners who need to claim their EU pensions) who are faced with local authority bureaucracies that have no other source of reliable material on these processes. Hence my attempt to get it put back notwithstanding that it may breach a Wikipedia editing rule about citation sources. I raised the matter with WikiTribune and as a result Peter Bale the Launch Editor of WikiTribune has taken it down to investigate the matter which I am welcoming. If we are going to counter “fake news” then we need some way of working co-operatively with Wikipedia so that Wikipedia accepts content from WikiTribune as reliable and true. My take on this is that Wikipedia should treat an article on WikiTribune which has gone through its editorial processes in the same way as it treats an article from a mainstream broadsheet or magazine such as the Telegraph or the Spectator. To do that WikiTribune probably needs a hierarchy of contributors who are themselves rated for honesty, truth and reliability – a bit like an eBay rating system but operated by the WT professional editors. I edit and write under my own name. I maintain a public presence (www.alikelman.com). I am accountable for my actions and inactions. Just like professional journalists – except that they can write better than I can. AlistairKelman ( talk) 21:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo has stated that he plans on making "every story published at WikiTribune be suitable as a reliable source for Wikipedia" I have no doubt that he will accomplish that goal. What you suggest above is that instead of WikiTribune becoming a reliable source Wikipedia should abandon our policies on WP:OR and WP:V. That isn't going to happen. I have replied more extensively concerning your claims on your talk page, where this discussion belongs as well. Please reply at User talk:AlistairKelman, not here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Based upon subsequent WP:IDHT behavior, I have posted a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AlistairKelman -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A classic case of WP:TRUTH and WP:RGW. Guy ( Help!) 11:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to User:Jimbo Wales has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Should be updated to say you cannot edit the page anymore as its locked due to some reason I do not know it says semi protected 71.161.214.1 ( talk) 17:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The protection policy is explained at WP:PP. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 17:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of all the embedded Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter videos of the 2018 Women's March that I have been seeing in many reliable news articles.

Whereas, Wikipedia lives, yet still, in the Stone Age. What gives? Why accept only static images? Look at this great article I worked on:

• List of 2017 Women's March locations

It would be greater still if some of the awesome overhead static crowd photos when clicked would go to a video that pans the crowd further from above:

• https://www.facebook.com/nbcchicago/videos/10160466013820725

Why fear that Youtube, Facebook, or Twitter might introduce their videos with an ad? Why is that a problem? We link to many references that have ads on their pages.

One solution might be to embed the video on Wikipedia, but have it open up in a new tab at the original source of the video. We see the thumbnail on Wikipedia, and, when clicked, get sent directly to the video page off-wiki.

That way no ad mars the holy nature of our sanctified sanctuary of virginal white Wikipedia pages. ;)
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Our "Static" images are released by their creators to compatible copyrights, will the video creators do the same? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Category:Articles containing video clips. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia will never be able to compete in a timely way with the video storage capabilities and bandwidth/server costs involved.

That category is not for embedded, or linked, Youtube/Facebook/Twitter videos. "This category aims to show all articles using embedded or thumbnailed Wikipedia/Wikimedia-video clips. Do not add articles where external videos are linked, like YouTube or similar." -- Timeshifter ( talk) 21:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is related discussion here:

Talk:List of 2018 Women's March locations#Reliable Youtube sources giving crowd numbers, with aerial views

-- Timeshifter ( talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Advertisements are only one problem with embedded material.

The other, more significant problem, is the dependence on an outside provider.

Wikipedia is unlike more ephemeral news sources or blogs because it is attempting to build an encyclopedia that is freely available forever. (And embedding introduces both legal and technical hurdles. )

ApLundell ( talk) 23:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It is no longer a technical hurdle. There are many wikis that embed videos. And there are many sites outside wikis that embed all kinds of videos, too. And making a link open in a new tab, rather than in the same tab, is very old technology. So any ads would only show on the original page.

We are dependent on outside providers for references, and there are many dead links. So that is not a new problem.

The worst that can usually happen is that someone clicks on a video thumbnail in an article, and the new tab opens into a 404 error page.

It is not a legal problem, as long as we link, and embed, stuff uploaded by the creators. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that It is a technical and legal hurdle to the goal of creating a base of content that is freely available forever.

Obviously, it's easy enough to put the embed code in place. But we can't permanently integrate the video into our own content the way we can with a properly licensed photograph. It remains Google's content, and as such, has not helped Wikipedia's long-term goals. (And could possibly even hinder those long-term goals by discouraging or displacing content that is more useful to those long-term goals.) ApLundell ( talk) 00:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Other potential issues: loading a page would allow third party sites to immediately track it, most linked videos would be self-published. — Paleo Neonate – 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Timeshifter: Of course, we could always look for video available under compatible free licenses, Wikipedians can take videos and release them under free licenses, or we can ask the people who hold the copyright to release the video (or in a case like this, even an appropriate snippet of one) under a free license. Then we can upload them right to Commons and use them in the article, no issue. But free, reusable content is a part of the core mission of Wikipedia, and treating it as dismissively as you do with the totally unneeded snark here is not a great way to get taken seriously. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedding content from third party sites isn't the Wikipedia way of doing things, and there are various risks involved. If a video is CC licensed (most YouTube videos aren't) it should be possible to upload it to Commons and add it to the relevant article.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Timeshifter should try dialing back the sarcasm (it doesn't work here, but I am making allowances based on the possibility that his usual venue is Youtube comments) and instead start working on getting the authors of those videos to release them under a compatible CC license. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sure. Without embedded video we can't fulfil the mission of being the primary high-traffic news aggregator in the world. Oh, wait, that's not what Wikipedia is. Guy ( Help!) 08:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Overall comment. I used my snark to try to get through the almost religious nature of some Wikipedia beliefs. We have had this video discussion many times, and we never get anywhere. People say, try to get more CC video. Dream on. People say Wikipedia can handle the server and bandwidth costs if we truly were able to get lots of CC video. No it couldn't. That is way more expensive than Wikipedia's budget will ever be. Oh well, I tried to lead the sheep to new pastures. But no luck. /snark. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

And how has using your snark been working out for you? I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It may seem arbitrary and "religious" to you because you misunderstand the goal here.

Perhaps a non-wikipedia analogy could help : Imagine how much money "Archive.org" could save if, instead of archiving videos, they just used YouTube embeds! Additionally, they could get fresh new content that way instead of waiting for copyrights to run out! But ... would that help them achieve their goals? No. Their goal is to build up their archive; the YouTube videos could not form part of that archive, and would distract their employees and volunteers from building that archive.

Wikipedia is also trying to build an archive, and using Youtube videos would be just as counter-productive here.

ApLundell ( talk) 15:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

YouTube videos could be useful for articles 71.161.214.1 ( talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Or they could, you know, not. Guy ( Help!) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Most YouTube videos I run across seem to look like three dots on a grey background nowadays. I mean, five years ago while the bait was still dangling you might have had yourself a tempting argument, but nowadays YouTube partners with over 100 censorship organizations to make sure their content is reliably dull and incapable of changing the world, while Google uses its power to assemble world maps tracking where every router with the obligatory built-in wi-fi can be found. (Doubtless it is only a commercial accident that when NSA tracks stuff by MAC address they now could ask Google exactly where it is according to the GPS the users of their phones don't realize they're uploading to help the company assemble its scheme for world domination) So inflicting YouTube on hapless Wikipedia users, always a bad idea in philosophy, is now pretty much a non-starter on a practical and security level. If you want a YouTube video on Wikipedia, then (a) license or make a convincing public-domain argument, (b) use the latest "ripper" to try to extract the material from the maws of the company's copy-protection schemes, (c) see if you caught ransomware/viruses from the ripper, (d) upload to Wikimedia Commons, and (e) embed it in the article the right way. Wnt ( talk) 23:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You are Mike Corley and I claim my five pounds. Guy ( Help!) 23:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I looked up Mike Corley. I wouldn't be surprised if nowadays all you need to do to be regarded as a paranoid conspiracy freak is to read and comprehend two news stories from the past few days. After all -- fake news! Obviously there is nothing to worry about, the Master values your well being as he values all his property, pay no heed to any disturbing rumors from the next room where the guy with the pneumatic bolt driver will be seeing you. Wnt ( talk) 23:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo - back on August 7, 2017 I started the paywall discussion and while it didn't seem to be a major concern back then, it is getting worse. I just got the following message while trying to access an article at the Globe: You're using a browser set to private or incognito mode. To continue reading articles in this mode, please login. - and of course, you are then required to purchase a subscription. It really does need your undivided attention because if editors can't access websites, it could easily become an urgent situation. Please reread my comments & the discussion beginning August 7th. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 19:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You're suggesting Jimbo take on the forces of capitalism? If not, what? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN - please don't use profanity. In a nutshell, as a former volunteer at The Wikipedia Library, I acquired a few months experience as an account coordinator for AAAS & BMJ. Ocaasi, Sadads, Nikkimaria, Samwalton9 and the whole TWL team are pretty amazing at getting/maintaining free access to various resources. Why couldn't the WMF invest a bit of time & $$ into setting up bulk access accounts to paywalled RS like the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. for WP editors? It may not even cost anything if pitched properly to the right people - the biggest expense will be the time it takes to work out the details, get the system in place and the emails/phone calls to make the connections. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 20:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That could work. The WMF could set aside some smallish amount of money for this and give paywall access to users starting with the ones who have been active the longest and have made the most edits. It might not even cost all that much if we ask the websites to donate the bulk access accounts. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a simple business case for the WMF to pitch to these agencies. “If you grant us X access accounts then our articles are viewed by Y people, of which Z are lead to your website and of those N buy a subscription. Mr Ernie ( talk) 02:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem buying access for someone in the Global South, but most editors can find these resources for free at a local library and our efforts should go towards directing those editors to those resources instead of wasting donor money on redundant subscriptions and enriching private companies who paywall information with dollars that people donated to the cause of free knowledge. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this, for the most part, but I also think that offering payment is probably unnecessary. The mere argument "if you do this, you will get more links from Wikipedia" is probably incentive enough.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to expect content writers to get dressed and drive half an hour to a public library, pay for parking, and then work during the hours the facility is open. Besides, libraries don't let us eat Doritos™. We need to not have the attitude that every content writer from the so-called "Global North" is opulent and willing to (a) commute to edit or (b) spend large quantities of their own money for subscriptions. That's just not the way things are. Carrite ( talk) 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I too like to edit Wikipedia in my birthday suit, but I don't think that playing into the hands of large corporations, or indeed pushing our readers into the hands of large corporations, is acceptable for a site which purports to offer "free knowledge" that is verifiable. There are other options than using libraries to view paywalled publications. Other news outlets are available. We should just start tending towards citing free publications. nagual design 02:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

nagualdesign, as more online RS start adding paywalls, verifiable may be a bigger issue than first imagined. While I've got your attention, if you're not already a reviewer for WP:NPP and/or WP:AfC jump in the deep-end with us - we need help reviewing articles and verifying sources. Carrite the closest "real" library would be an hour's drive for me. Oh, and they dislike Cheetos, too. Worse yet, librarians get extremely angry if they find out the liquid in your sling beverage cooler is 80 proof. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 03:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I realize than paywalls are an ever growing issue, and I understand where you're coming from, but I think WP should do its bit to discourage that trend rather than play along. I also strongly agree with others that if it was necessary to hand donated income to private businesses it would be a major breach of faith. Talking off the top of my head here, but would it be possible (technically) for paywalled sources to drop the wall to incoming links where WP is the referrer? nagual design 04:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to right great wrongs, we're here to produce the best possible encyclopedia that money can't buy. I'd like every journal article to be free, Aaron Schwarz style, in an ideal world, but that's not where we live. There's stuff called copyright law, for starters, and all this licensing of information flows from there. But on the bright side of things, if you can see THIS, it means that some of that proprietary ownership of what should be public information can be at least partially repatriated to the public weal. best, —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 16:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

As for the "major breach of faith" argument, we are already handing donor dollars to private companies that provide airline transportation, private companies that provide motel accommodation, private companies that provide conference facility rentals, private companies that provide food services, private companies that provide document reproductions, and so on and so forth. You are not thinking through this line of reasoning, it would seem. Carrite ( talk) 16:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I was a bit distracted imagining you in the buff. I take your point. I mean, I hear what you're saying. nagual design 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is a good idea (and I generally think it is, although I can think of some reservations) then I can imagine a really neat technical solution. Much like 'Facebook connect', a 'Wikipedia connect' could allow anyone with a Wikipedia account to login to any resource that allows it. Just as "Facebook connect" is very easy for websites to implement, so could be "Wikipedia connect". In order for this to not simply become a popular way for people to evade paywalls (which would obviously make it highly undesirable for the publishers), the api could also hand back an edit count, so that publishers could use the mechanism to say "If you are a legitimate Wikipedian with 250 or more edits, then you can have free access". I made the number 250 up out of thin air as being a number that seems high enough to prevent annoying people from bothering to pop by to make a handful of relatively useless edits, but low enough that all serious Wikipedians would get it.

Reservations that come to mind: there is an argument that as a service to our readers, we should prefer sources, other things being equal, that are freely licensed, and if not freely licensed, at least free to read. A free pass for Wikipedians makes it easier for us to link to closed sources. There is a counter-argument that such an approach feeds right into a lot of the advertising-only business model problems of encouraging clickbait business models rather than reader-supported business models. I'm not taking a stand on that, but rather noting that our impact on the ecosystem of the web is substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I do a great deal of editing our political articles where accuracy is of the utmost importance. I'm unable to use either the NYT or the Washington Post sites and it's causing me a lot of hardship. Editors serve as watchdogs of each others editing but when unable to read the source, one is unable to challenge or correct information. It should be noted that of the editors that commented last time around and now this time, only Atsme and I do regular political editing (if I remember correctly), perhaps one of our most difficult areas of editing due to strongly held differences of opinion. It makes our job all the harder when we can't even use, for example, the NYT which is perhaps the number one information source for us. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Most public libraries in the U.S. offer free access to the New York Times, including 72 hour online access codes for use at home. As a Californian, I have verified that Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland do. After 72 hours, return to the library website for a fresh access code. Perhaps the Wikipedia Library could make a similar arrangement with the NYT for our editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The NYT won't block access to articles when you visit them via Google News. Opening an incognito browser window should suffice for the Washington Post. Check your library, you might have unlimited access already. I have online access the entire run of both the NYT and the Washington Post back to the 19th century. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I do use Google News and I am paywalled from the NYT and Chicago Post. Also, my library does not offer an access service. Gandydancer ( talk) 02:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, it looks like they got rid of the Google News exemption for the New York Times. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia connect seems like an interesting idea. If this was a future direction, what may be challenging would be preventing the identification of editors who transparently connect. While this can be done depending on implementation details (if the destination sites accept the deal), what could not be avoided would be disclosing that the visitor is from Wikipedia (something which they already know for many people, including the article they come from, but not from people with custom referer configurations). — Paleo Neonate – 22:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, if a library can get free access to those news sources, why can't WP? Gamaliel, when I'm reviewing articles at NPP, AfC, AfD, RSN, GA, or FA etc., I don't have time to hunt for free access to verify RS, so when I click on the link provided in the article footnotes, I don't have time to deal with the pay-up pop-ups. I just want to verify that the material is cited to the source and reflects what the sources say. It's a major time sink to leave a page you're reviewing to login to a library (provided your city/county offers such a service) and hunt for the source. I gave already at the office, and shouldn't have to go beyond a click on the url and I'm there! The paywalls force us to use wizardry to bypass them, and quite frankly, they're beating us at our game. It's a major disincentive, and the aggravation is such that editors simply won't waste their time. I imagine that will eventually create some major backlogs where reviews are needed. Surely WP has enough clout to work the kind of deals we need for free access to these major news sources. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, it's a pain in the ass. A big part of my day job is guiding people through clunky or inconvenient access methods. But lots of editors have to log into lots of different sources all the time, and go to the library for books, or use interlibrary loan and wait long periods of time for sources. And many editors won't have access to these sources at all. I know your work here is important, but so is the work of many editors. So I'm wondering why we should use donor money for this particular time-saving measure above all others? Gamaliel ( talk) 14:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Short answer: because there is not a single thing in the world — not new software, not conferences, not national or local Wikipedia clubs, not local editing parties — that would improve Wikipedia more than making sure that the core group of 2,000 or so people who actually write the thing have access to the best available sources. The cost of achieving this to a $90 million enterprise is probably less than $1 million a year, to open up the entire banquet to any of these who desire it. And this is what the donors think they are doing when they write their $14.97 checks — improving the encyclopedia. Centralized public libraries are only a minor part of the solution. Carrite ( talk) 16:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

One thing that would improve Wikipedia more than devoting even more resources to the same 2,000 privileged Western hobbyists would be to ensure that more people contribute to Wikipedia besides 2,000 privileged Western hobbyists. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there are around 125,000 privileged Western hobbyists who regularly contribute to Wikipedia, and not all of them are privileged, Western or hobbyists, but your thinly-veiled disdain is duly noted. Thanks. nagual design 13:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you noted it, I worried I was being too subtle. Gamaliel ( talk) 14:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Connect" sounds like a good idea for editors who need a way to get into sites they frequently visit in order to find or verify references.

Other editors need to learn more about browser settings. I use Firefox. Its recent updates have made it as fast as Chrome. Set it to clear all history on browser closing. Set Flash control panel settings (Enable: "Block all sites from storing information on this computer".) Get the addon "Cookie AutoDelete." It deletes cookies at tab closing. Learn how to disable Adblock Plus temporarily on sites that demand it.

There are very few sites I can not revisit often. But websites are getting more sophisticated, and there is more and more browser fingerprinting going on.

My notes to myself on this stuff is here:

http://cannabis.wikia.com/wiki/User:Timeshifter#Cookies - Cookies section is near the top of the page.

Hopefully, websites that respect Adblock Plus idea of using less-intrusive ads may win out in the long run. That way the web's reliable sources stay useful to Wikipedia readers. But Adblock Plus needs to allow enough ads for these websites to make money.

Adblockers like Ublock Origin that block all ads are not good, and their use should be discouraged. We might even consider informing Wikipedia supporters about this too. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 04:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not on complete disagreement, I'd be careful to provide easy access to what is usually paid material. That's particularly true with newsources; when there are bias associated with the fact that they are not free. Besides, if someone rely on services offered by Wikipedia to give back to Wikipedia, hows that a stable strategy? And I agree that libraries more and more provide this kind of access. Yaḥyā ‎ ( talk) 14:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Uhm. This is a bit awkward Jimmy, but… Have you actually talked to your people recently? :) Ask the The Wikipedia Library team about the Library Card Platform. And while you're at it you could ask about the response they've previously gotten when reaching out to the NYT et al (even some of the big university publishers hold out on some things for short-sighted commercial reasons). Both the outreach guys (Alex and Sam spring to mind as prime examples), the volunteer coordinators (Nikkimaria deserves every barnstar there is, and a few new ones made for the purpose!), and the developers tasked with this project have done a truly spectacular job (ask them for an hour or two where they present the effort; you'll be impressed!). Best money and effort the foundation ever spent, and you need to be familiar with it! -- Xover ( talk) 14:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Connect" sounds like a better idea because it is simpler. It would go directly to the site in question to login. And acceptance would be automatic depending on edit count. Whereas, multiple steps are involved (from my cursory examination) with the Wikipedia Library Card Platform. It shouldn't require a waiting period to get access. People bounce around all kinds of references at all times of the day. They don't want to wait a day or two. They have already moved on to many other articles and references. Inspiration comes and goes. That is a big reason Wikipedia is so successful. No intermediaries. No waiting. No permission. Instant gratification. And near-instant reversion if you screw up. :)

I have wondered why many of the reference sites, especially journals, don't make access free to everybody after a period of time. Say, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, whatever, after the article is published. Many journals are read by very few people. All that knowledge locked up and wasted. They could still get subscribers who want access to the very latest material. That would pay for the website maintenance and staff costs. But the knowledge is liberated to all after a period of time. And then it is also much more likely to be used as a reference by Wikipedia. More people would go to the site, and they would get more subscribers. A virtuous circle. This needs to be explained to them, and that Wikipedia's readership is huge. Combine that with Wikipedia Connect for access to the latest material by editors with a certain minimum number of edits. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 16:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• While we are talking about paywalls and the prospect of WMF mass funding subscriptions (which I happen to think is a far better use of donor resources than spending millions of dollars on travel vouchers for Wikimania and subsidizing local user groups), I'll mention the most important paywall to knock down: the "Publishers Extra" section of Newspapers.com. A very great percentage of post-1923 newspapers on that site are paywalled behind a $130/year gate. Assuming that they could negotiate mass subscriptions at let's say $100 each, funding the 2,000 top content writers would run just $200,000 a year — and I do say "just" $200,000 a year, given the scope of WMF annual fundraising, which is heading fast for the $100,000,000 per year mark. Not exactly chump change, but a very minor line-item that could deliver maximum results for delivery of new, accurate, verifiable content. Newspapers.com currently has 219 million pages behind the gate. Carrite ( talk) 21:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We'll respond to this fully shortly, but just a quick note that Publishers Extra is available - see Wikipedia talk:Newspapers.com#Publisher Extra now available! - you just need to drop Cameron an email to get your account upgraded. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 00:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Meant to ping @ Carrite:. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 00:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's stellar! Thank you! Carrite ( talk) 00:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I work on The Wikipedia Library program at the Wikimedia Foundation and wanted to share our thoughts on this topic and to reiterate and clarify some points already made above about how we’re already doing some of this!

In terms of ‘Wikipedia Connect’ - we’re already building it! The Library Card Platform is currently in its first phase, whereby Wikipedians can sign up to all the resources we have available using their Wikipedia account via OAuth. This year we’ll be adding proxy authentication to the platform so that you can also access the resources using your Wikipedia account. Part of that integration will include the creation of a Library Bundle; a group of resources which don’t even require an application. Just as Jimmy describes above, any editor, from any Wikimedia project, who has made 500 edits and has had their account for at least 6 months, will be able to get immediate access to those resources. We currently have around 20% of our publishing partners, comprising more than 50% of our content, set to be in that bundle, and the number of users who will have access will be in the region of 25,000.

On the subject of paying for accounts (a quick admission that this is at least partly copied from a comment I’ve made previously), back in 2015 (when we had ~48 partners, we now have over 60) we estimated that the combined cost of all the ~7000 accounts we had available (we have even more now through expansions, even for those 48) was somewhere around $3 million USD. Doing some back of the envelope calculations, for 25,000 users with the current number of partners, the cost might be in the region of $13 million. Even if we could get publishers to agree to half their subscription cost, that still works out costing the entirety of the Community Engagement department’s 15-16 budget, and crucially doesn't factor in that we would still need to pay people to set up and monitor those subscriptions, in addition to someone to develop the library card / authentication infrastructure we'd need for ‘Wikipedia Connect’ anyway.

As Jimmy wrote above, the argument of “if you do this, you will get more links from Wikipedia” is a genuinely convincing argument to most organisations that we’re able to start a good conversation with. That we have over 60 partners, including some of the largest databases and publishers in the world, giving free access to their content, is testament to that, and we’re continuing to work on getting more partners all the time (we have a couple of really exciting ones to announce this year). If there are particular orgs or websites that you think we should focus on getting access to, please suggest them!

On the subject of paywalls more broadly, we’re also in a good position to discuss methods of making citations more open with the publishers who work with us. Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com already allow editors to make free-to-read snippings of their otherwise paywalled content, and we’ve made some progress in getting other partners to include similar functionality. We’ve also started having encouraging conversations regarding making all links from Wikipedia free-to-read, but this is a much harder sell!

The bottom line is that publishers are happy to give this access, we're getting ever more efficient and global at distributing it, and if we paid for accounts we'd still need to employ approximately as many people as we do now to manage it and build the access tools. As such I don't really see that there would be any benefit to paying for access as compared to the current model. You can read more about our plans at this blog post. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions about the work we do :) Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 04:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Good news, and keep up the good work.

To my way of thinking, there are at least two different ways editors interact with paywalls.

First there are editors who need a way access particular sites that they frequently use to create or check references. To these editors, the thought process "I use Forbes a lot, so it is no problem to go to a special Wikipedia page and request free access" works just fine.

Second, there are editors like me. I read a lot of different articles on a lot of different pages, and I tend to read the citations as I read the article. This occasionally results in an edit when the source doesn't support the claim, but mostly I just read the citation and move on. When I hit a paywall, I don't read the citation and move on. I am not going to bother doing something special to access Forbes, then do it again for NYT, then again and again as I run into other paywalls. For me, some sort of system that basically says "he has 39,000 edits and has been editing Wikipedia for 12 years; after he puts in a single request for it, automatically sign him up for every paywall site that agrees to participate in our high-edit-count program." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I need as well. Also, as a grandmother issues that effect our children are of special interest to me. I am currently working on the Racial views of Donald Trump and I want to be able to search for information without running into paywalls. Gandydancer ( talk) 20:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Guy Macon: That's definitely true, and we need to think about how best to address that kind of use. In the model we're currently aiming for, the process for you would be that you find a link you want to check, you click through and find yourself at a paywall. You'd then head over to the library card platform and search for that resource in our search system and - hopefully - we have it in the Library Bundle and you can click straight through after an automatic check that you meet the requirements. As you rightly point out though, even if you don't have to sign up for anything, this still requires you to go off-Wikipedia before circling back round to the citation. Ideally, you'd click the citation in Wikipedia and an automatic check would take place there, taking you straight past the paywall without you ever seeing it. That's something we're going to have to give more thought to, as it involves more direct Mediawiki work, but it's definitely something we'll discuss. Samwalton9 (WMF) ( talk) 21:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Samwalton9, I think a really good pitch-person could sell (barter) it to the NYTimes and WaPo for starters, (and whatever other major news orgs are behind paywalls or soon will be) because it will generate clicks for them. What if we start by getting click-thru access for admins and reviewers who work at WP:NPP, WP:AfC, regular participants at WP:AfD, and reviewers of WP:GA & WP:FA - they've taken on the obligation of verifying sources. Dropping the veil of anonymity in exchange for click-thru will probably keep the numbers low. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 03:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, would you sign this [32]? Thanks! 178.222.105.119 ( talk) 13:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So what is it and why should anybody sign it? Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 13:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a proposal of the Solution to the Name problem of the Republic of Macedonia in the UN. Not in the framework of negotiations of R. Macedonia with Greece, but by adoption of Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations extending the membership of the state provisionally referred as “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” under its official constitutional name Republic of Macedonia, instead. Macedonian people seams to support it. 178.222.105.119 ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mis-use of talk page. Please refer to WP:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages? for further guidance. >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 13:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You can always revert this, as a SPAM. 178.222.105.119 ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If this petition is really notable, by means of a secondary source, you might want to consider adding a mention of it at Republic of Macedonia? But a Talk page at Wikipedia, especially this one, is not really the place for political activism of any kind. Martinevans123 ( talk) 13:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I am truly sorry. Thank you for telling me that. Plese revert my comment. I will not consider adding a text of it at Republic of Macedonia nor Macedonia naming dispute. Thanks. 178.222.105.119 ( talk) 14:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's refreshing to see an anon IP editor here who is reasonable and apologetic. I'm sure no great harm has been done. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been longstanding confusion on this page and Wikipedia regarding Igor Janev, who is listed as the author of the change.org petition. Here was the last time I remember trying to summarize it, which referred back to my comments here It is possible there is something much more obvious to the joking going on that I don't understand, but we should be careful to avoid a careless response that makes us the butt of the joke. Wnt ( talk) 21:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the linked policy above is highly disturbing, and a much more serious issue than this section would have been. The policy is not a ban on "politics" in any general sense, but literally makes a ban on "offensive" political positions but not others; it is a call for arbitrary censorship. I would assume, for example, that it might be interpreted as cover for threatening editors with blocking if they promote Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, but not if they post pro-Israeli content, since everyone agrees, or will be persuaded, that Israelis are inherently good and Palestinians inherently bad (e.g. New Orleans) I am aghast at the language in WP:User pages, and approve all who defy it for any reason. Wnt ( talk) 21:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, it looks like "this is Belgrade calling" again. Sorry if my response was careless. So you don't mind if I plead with you, on your Talk page, to join the lovely Leanne in helping to build a democratic and empowered Wales?? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I can asure you all this hasn't to do anything with Igor Janev Counterintelligence guy from Macedonia, and I agree he is not relevant. I don't like him, and it was not my intention to make jokes. 178.222.105.119 ( talk) 03:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And I can assure you I'm fighting for a democratic and empowered Wales. Martinevans123 ( talk) 10:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Another petition on change.org Declaration ("Declaration #WeAreMacedonia Enough is Enough") by the same comedian/vandal/sock was signed by almost 23 000 Macedonians (practically same content of petition). 178.222.105.119 ( talk) 11:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Are petitions about naming conventions really off-topic here? I would suggest that a look through the archives shows there is some precident for them while agreeing that WT:COMMONNAME is a better place to ask. And the Belizian jaguar at the top of this page would expect us talk page stalkers to say so instead of recommending censorship in any case. 83.137.1.215 ( talk) 13:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions about naming conventions within Wikipedia, within certain bounds of people's exhaustion with a repetitive case, are of course on-topic here. The original request was for me to sign a petition urging the UN to pass a resolution on the matter. While urging me to take various kinds of political action directly related to the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation, or my broader interests in freedom of expression would be ok here, this one is a pretty big stretch.

To be clear: I will not be signing any petitions or making any public statement of any kind about the official name of the Republic of Macedonia at the UN. I am happy that Wikipedia follows our usual custom on common names, and that's the entire extent of my interest in the issue.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Which of these do you like best and why? In random order:

1. https://act.demandprogress.org/sign/investigate-any-illegal-political-spending-russian_copy/

2. https://stopbridenstine.com/billnye/chv/

3. https://act.demandprogress.org/sign/petition-stop-nsa-spying-americans-under-section-702/

4. https://www.battleforthenet.com/

185.13.106.217 ( talk) 05:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It's safe to assume that everyone on this talk page is bored with the Macedonia naming dispute, because it has been raised numerous times. Online polls mean very little and are ignored in the wider world. Getting close to WP:HORSEMEAT time here.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading the entry Religion in space but I was disappointed to see that we don't have the companion article Space in religion. Such an article would deal with how various religions deal with or have dealt with questions of astronomy, etc. Perhaps someone as equally amused with symmetry as I am will find it worthwhile.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Addendum - I did just find Astronomy and religion but it is quite short, and isn't quite the same topic as I envision.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That redlink is without form, and void. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 17:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And darkness was over the surface of the deep.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(...insert flame war because Jimbo just quoted the NASV instead of KJV or NIV here...) [33] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Splitters!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the reference -- surely this is based on this discussion. Wnt ( talk) 01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Insert {{ hat}} templates around the flame war. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 12:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We of course also have religious cosmology — Paleo Neonate – 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And of course UFO religion (humor intended) — Paleo Neonate – 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Overview effect addresses the topic of the human response to the vastness of space even though it does not do so from the perspective of the various large organized religions. Bus stop ( talk) 16:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jews in Space could be a decent article. I have seen several articles about religious observance and how it would be impacted by space travel. I started to do a search and found a few good links. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not at all sure what would be covered by an article on space in religion, and I think that might be one of the problems here. The role some stars and constellations play in religion could be one version, or the role that the vast universe has in religion, or maybe quasi-religious activities, like maybe funerals, in space, or something else. I dunno. John Carter ( talk) 17:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

When would religious holidays be observed if you live on the Moon? How would you do daily prayers if you are in orbit? How would you reconcile verses that kind of preclude the possibility of space travel or even being a space to travel in? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think a basic problem is that space is irrelevant to religion and religion is irrelevant to space. Bus stop ( talk) 17:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Prayer in Judaism and Islam goes according to Earth based times and lunar orbits. If I'm in a ship orbiting the Earth, how often would I have to do morning prayers? When is the Sabbath, etc.? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the question(s). Those questions could be a component of an article. But if reliable sources supported another component, I think that other component would be an exploration (no pun intended) of a disconnect between religion and space travel. I hardly think the world's major, organized religions, devote a great deal of attention to space travel. Religion is definitely adapted and applied to contemporary concerns, but I don't think the adaptation is always smooth or continuous. Leaving the planet Earth entails a change in perspective as noted in an article such as Overview effect. Bus stop ( talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally would rather enjoy reading a well-researched article that covers things like how Jews can determine the exact start of the Sabbath on the moon, how Muslims can figure out how to face Mecca on mars, along with similar issues for other religions. And I would be very surprised indeed if religious scholars haven't devoted a lot of thought to this and written about it extensively. When something is important to you, you work out the details, even if it isn't important to others. Look at the thought that went into the Eruvin and the Qibla compass. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well I'm saying that these could be two different components of an article—how the religion does apply and how the religion doesn't apply. My suspicion is that the applicability of religion in space would be greatly diminished, not to mention that people sent into space would self-select for those inclined to leave their "Earth religions" behind. Bus stop ( talk) 21:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Religion in space is different from on the Earth. Here there is little agreement on the Omphalos or the Axis mundi or any of the places of creation or meeting of God and man. But in space there is little argument at all; the closest rival is HD 162826. On Earth you carelessly shake a stone from your shoe, but in space I fear a billion people die in the crusade to retake the place of that holy artifact. Because to be linked with the life, the stone, the sedimented history of a billion years of Creation, that is something people will fight for. Each cup of water scooped from Earth's reservoirs contains atoms of the Blood of Christ. The Creator made the Sun, only, to shine by day and the Moon to shine at night, no other, and humans to have cones and rods designed to see them and the beauty in them; only the Earth has a sky that is truly sky blue, no other; one planet was connived to have a history of an infinite number of random chances to lead to a perfect outcome that was intended by the Divine, while all the others were merely fellow travellers coming along for the ride as best they might. And only the Earth, of all the planets, lives beneath the secret shadow that all of its miraculous beauty and fortunate history is constructed not for its past nor its present dwellers but to the completion of some future prophecy in which all cosmos past and present is destroyed and created, toward which its inhabitants recklessly hurtle. Look, therefore, upon the Earth and see a world uniquely holy to all of the humanity that ever was or will be, a world whose most mundane and abused corner will have beauty and meaning to which no other shall aspire. Wnt ( talk) 23:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

We've all heard about the Gender Gap, and yes, there is an associated deficiency in female-centered content on English-WP. (Kudos to Women In Red, by the way...) Perhaps a bigger content issue, however, relates to the Racial Gap, with severe proportional underrepresentation of black editors and no doubt a very great associated deficiency in black-centered content. I'd like to challenge all the non-black content people reading here to step out of their comfort zone a little bit during February, Black History Month, and to research and write on one or more black-themed topics. It's really not hard to do and a little effort by a lot of people can go a long way towards making Wikipedia a more complete encyclopedia. Carrite ( talk) 02:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the U.S. renaming of terminology for blacks, from "negroes" or " colored people" then " African-Americans" as with " Category:African-American scientists" which should be a subcategory of Americans, in " Category:American scientists" (as done for " Category:African-American mathematicians" among other American mathematicians. So in the 2016 film Hidden Figures, the black calculation team is called " Colored computers". Of course other words are also renamed, such as " hidden digits" which Americans also called "hidden figures" for the digits rounded or truncated beyond the visible digits shown by a pocket calculator or electronic computer. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikid77, for the opportunity to study the disambiguation page, Non sequitur. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this ad-libbed? Is there any reason why he would have stopped being the founder of Wikipedia after 2001? Seems like a very strange phrase imho. Also there's a lot of background noise. Would it make sense to put that ish through Audacity or something and clean it up a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.139.99 ( talk) 05:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Jimbo invites people to edit his pages, so go ahead and do your best to improve the wording. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Founder" has a specific technical meaning on Wikipedia, which means that people holding it (e.g. Jimmy) have full view access to every edit on every Wikimedia project regardless of whether the edit has been deleted or suppressed and the (theoretical) ability to adjust anyone else's user access levels. ‑  Iridescent 09:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In that sense, Jimmy has been Founder since 2009 :) The wording doesn't exist in the page. The IP must be referring to File:Jimmy Wales voice.ogg. I think that's one of those things that Jimmy would need to do himself. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The phrase, "I have been founder" sounds Germanic to me, after the culture of Huntsville (AL), with Von Braun and all that. Because the German language does not have progressive verb forms, instead of a phrase such as, "I am walking along the street" an equivalent German phrase would format as, "I walk by and by along the Strasse" or likewise, "I have walked along..." to compensate for no progressive verb form as "am walking". I hope that helps to explain the unusual phrasing (by and by). - Wikid77 ( talk) 02:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think this sort of thing is ethical? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/heatmap-for-social-athletes-app-reveals-secret-bases-secret-places/ 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 23:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Which aspect of it do you mean by "this sort of thing"? A fitness app that tracks where you are so that you can see maps of your running routes and how you are progressing against goals seems perfectly fine to me. Storing that data on servers on behalf of the user - if disclosure is made clear - seems perfectly fine. Sharing that data with researchers is ok if disclosure is done appropriately, but here it gets trickier as it is hard for consumers to understand the extent to which their data will be in some odd ways personally identifiable. Publishing an article explaining that the data may put some military personnel and operations at risk seems 100% fine. Publishing actual details that could put people in danger - I wouldn't do it, if I were a publisher, unless there were some really compelling reason in a particular circumstance - I can't off the head think of an example, but I think there probably are some. I would assume that some soldiers are going to be in big trouble and there will be a doubling down on security/privacy training, because if you're exercising in some sensitive/secret/dangerous place, you are stupid if you are leaking data to commercial firms under terms of use that allow them to share it with researchers.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are not completely certain that such data can't leak, are you complicit in not objecting to storing it? 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Jimbo Wales: ^ serious question. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, strange that the US hasn't hacked into that system to give false information to ISIS and the Taliban about their bases. Count Iblis ( talk) 23:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Think of this as an ad. The "fitness trackers" have been spying on their dupes for years. Now it's time to cash in. So they release this preview that demonstrates various dangers of "aggregate" data. Here's a map of someone having a jog over the Mexican border. A jealous husband in a rural area (with one tagged customer) might look where the other end of his wife's jogging route goes. But obviously most of the military/spy people carefully being warned to the dangers of being tracked on their bases right now are going to be thinking, "how do I find out which dupe was jogging over the Mexican border?" And since that's against the Privacy Policy, I imagine they're going to have to pay a premium rate. Wnt ( talk) 03:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Wikimedia itself has some savvy people though - the trail from some errant thrall here is much weaker than that of the guy jogging into Mexico, and looks like just a passer by. (also, with all the trails in downtown Frisco, it's impossible to track where it goes on the preview without buying the professional-grade data set) Funny to see how one specific building is lit up like a Christmas tree at the Equinix/Verizon Federal server in Ashburn, Virginia... Wnt ( talk) 09:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Also what is happening here? https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180125/10243639084/dutch-approach-to-asset-forfeiture-will-literally-take-clothes-off-pedestrians-backs.shtml It feels like the surveillance state has turned in on itself and is chewing up innocent victims. This is like, a thousand times worse than net neutrality issues. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin can come to the rescue of these poor people. Since there is no capital gains tax in the Netherlands, any drugs dealer there can claim to have made massive, tax free profits buying and selling bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Count Iblis ( talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

They would lose a lot more than nice clothes if they can't substantiate their stories. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 12:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an injustice that Fidel Castro, having shown the world the standard way of dealing with alleged criminal assets, is not honored with large statues in American states ... and apparently, Amsterdam. But I suppose he robbed the wrong people -- stealing from the Mafia is wrong, and every Hollywood movie, without exception, will make sure to make that moral clear. From what I've seen, Mafia and cartel employees can only be displayed as wrong, or losing in a battle, if they are clearly identified first as disloyal rebel criminal elements. It's the modern equivalent of the Comics Code. Wnt ( talk) 03:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 12:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The United States embargo against Cuba, though initiated specifically on American assets, is often explained in terms of widespread asset forfeiture by Castro's people against Cubans, though apparently a fair amount really was against organized crime that flourished under Batista just as Castro said. As with American asset forfeiture, without any proper legal processes it is very hard to say how much was "stolen" and how much was "legitimately" taken. Wnt ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That is much clearer, and thank you because I had not thought of it that way before. I believe the perspective is valid even if it may be very unpopular with many in power; although I have had a hard time understanding what power wants over the past year. 185.13.106.116 ( talk) 16:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me help you with that: MONEY. Carrite ( talk) 04:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure it's only money and not relative wealth at the expense of others? 185.13.106.116 ( talk) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I am sure. [34] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the majority of the rich act as that article suggests they should? Charity and philanthropy generally result in about 6% of the funding considered necessary by democracies to sustain society, and that figure decreases as the number of poor increase. 185.13.106.213 ( talk) 12:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The article makes no suggestions as to how the rich should act. Please read it again, and address the actual words written in the article. Everyone agrees that making the poor richer is a good thing, and indeed the poor are becoming richer. Your "relative wealth at the expense of others" claim implies that there is something good about making the rich poorer while the poor neither gain or lose wealth. It also assumes that the rich become richer at the expense of the poor, but in reality the poor become poorer if the rich lack the funds to pay their salary, invest in their start-up, or buy the goods offered by their employer. You can argue (and many here will) for taking from the rich and giving to the poor but making the rich poorer without making the poor richer is just silly. [35]

Related:

• The top 50 percent of all taxpayers pay 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes.
• The bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent of all individual income taxes.
• The top 1 percent pay 39.5 percent of individual income taxes.
• The bottom 90 percent pay 29.1 percent of individual income taxes.

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No suggestions as to how the rich should act? It endorses the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is perhaps the most worn of all trickle-downer apologetics. 185.13.106.213 ( talk) 15:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to argue economy here (is it time for a new heading?) at least use real figures, not some random editorial. I've added an image from Median income to put a tether to reality here. But I must emphasize that we are talking about the " dismal science" --- figures lie, and liars figure. The figure makes it look like people have had a nice little perk in income over the years since 1967, but remember -- back then that income was just Joe Rugged bringing back his wage to Suzy Homemaker after a 40-hour union shift, whereas now things are ... complicated, and often in a bad way. On the other hand the recent drop in median wages may include more forced 29-hour maximum shifts so companies avoid mandatory health insurance under Obamacare, but those go to people who now are assured coverage of " preexisting conditions" on a marketplace or even, in Democrat-dominated states, can get genuinely good coverage under Medicaid for free. There are many opportunities for people of differing political stripes to spin this different ways, but the bottom line for the standard healthy 1967 worker is probably that he feels like he got a lot more in the old days. Wnt ( talk) 14:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Science was progressing far faster a half century ago. Back then we were leaping to the moon. Today the CEO of Facebook celebrates when his service is being used less because he knows how bad it is. That is not progress. 213.86.87.228 ( talk) 18:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

qwerty6811 :-) ( talk) 17:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, I sometimes see genealogical websites like Ancestry.com and FamilySearch used as sources for birth or death dates on biographical articles. For the most part these are simply copies of public sources, so they are primary documents. It seems like an accepted practice, but I don't understand why this isn't considered original research. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 00:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Aren't most of these user-edited? Guy ( Help!) 01:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia itself, they are a good tool to find sources, but we should cite the actual source, not the page that cites the source. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• You misinterpret the WP concept "original research," I think. Jimmy Wales is actually one of the originators of the idea, and here is how he explained it on the WikiEN mailing list on December 3, 2004:

"The phrase ["original research"] originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the web. The basic concept is as follows: it can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history..."

Every content writer at Wikipedia, 100% of them, does research gathering available information and contributes that information originally, choosing which facts to include or exclude, what to emphasize, what false information might be in the sources to exclude, and paraphrasing everything so as not to violate copyright. Don't be afraid of the notion that there is research to be done. There is. Prohibited WP:OR is simply this: novel interpretations of science or history. That's a no no. A birth date, a death date? Those are just facts. Gather them from the best available sources, just be sure they are correct. That's the main thing. Carrite ( talk) 08:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

How does one know that the "John Smith" in the public records is the right "John Smith"? World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 14:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

You should look at it on a case by case basis. There's a lot of user generated content one shouldn't rely on. Ancestry.com does do some special features on some famous people, which has probably involved some research at their end - fair enough. But the biggest problem with using public records is that there is no guarantee that you're looking at the same person. This applies to birth/marriage/death records, voting registers, company registers, military records, criminal/court records, and a lot of other primary sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY alludes to this, but it's really wider in policy as proper verification involves verifying both the fact and the person involved. If the reference doesn't properly uniquely identify the person then it's failed at WP:V. The fact is some people think it's sufficient to find a public record belonging to a person with the same name, but it's not. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

• if multiple secondary reliable sources do not include the information that you have found only at Ancestry.com or Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition— not important enough to include or may be a guesstimate made without using adequate or complete information. More info at Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#User-submitted contents.-- Moxy ( talk) 15:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons we shouldn't be using these sources.

• Genealogical websites are full of egregious errors. For every well sourced and meticulously cited webpage or family tree, there are 10 rife with mistakes and lies. Today I removed from a WP article a citation to a genealogical website. The website had cited as its source for this fact an email from "Anonymous".
• Original genealogical records are often themselves erroneous, with typos or information that is just flat out wrong. A single record is not always good enough standard of proof in genealogy, so it should not be so here. Information in that single record you found might be contradicted by ten other records you haven't seen. The source of the information, called the "informant" in genealogy, might be mistaken, going off decades-old memories, or just lying. Occasionally a census taker would use a random kid in the street as an informant about a neighboring family.
• Interpreting original records is the work of experts. It might be tempting to say they are just facts, but how do you know you are interpreting those facts correctly? Interpretation should be the work of historians and genealogists, not Wikipedia editors. Are you sure you have the right person? The editors of the article about Rose Agree thought they did, and turned an elderly librarian into a porn star. Names are not unique. I recently found two men with the same name down to the middle initial in the same state at the same time both with wives in an insane asylum. At first glance it seemed like they were the same person, it took further research to untangle that they were not.
• If you need to turn to birth certificates and original records for facts about a person, maybe that person is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Or maybe you didn't look hard enough for a published secondary source. Did you try a book from the library or a database from The Wikipedia Library? Or was it just easier to google up this birth certificate?

Gamaliel ( talk) 15:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see also WP:RSN. 185.13.106.99 ( talk) 17:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both Gamaliel, who is both pretty strict, and Carrite who says above "Gather (facts) from the best available sources, just be sure they are correct." The problem, of course, is that nobody can ever be 100% sure of any fact, but we can try to get as close as humanly possible.

An example from Find-a-grave might illustrate. I had trouble finding birth and death dates for Seth Kinman in the usual reliable sources, but Find-a-grave has a picture of his tombstone with dates that fit the known facts. Tombstone carvers have a pretty good (but not perfect) reputation for checking the facts. Ultimately, they usually rely on relatives, who also are not perfect, but are often the best sources. But how could I know that the Seth Kinman in the grave was the same one I was writing about? Well, the grave was about a mile from where he lived (according to documented RS) for the last 35 years of his life. His grave is surrounded by graves with the same names as his mother and children (with reasonable dates). During my reaseach other "Seth Kinman's" (e.g. a possible relative) were not to be found. Not accepting these dates would seem ridiculous. Finally, I did find a "reliable source" and it even gave the exact birth and death dates - to the day of the month. I did include these, though I'm not 100% sure they are correct.

Why can't I be 100% sure? Well Kinman was functionally illiterate and a professional tall-tale-teller. Since his tall tales were taller than everybody else's, I'll just call hime a professional liar. His dictated autobiography has contradictions and unbelievable tales on almost every page, e.g. taken at face value, his statements would be read as saying that he walked 4 times round trip from Illinois to California in 6 years, while doing many other things. So nothing is ever 100% certain, but please keep on looking until you've got something that will meet our standards. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 18:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Tombstone carvers bad source.....I pay I pick the date...zero fact check. Joan Crawford herself claimed 1908 (the date she picked on her tombstone),Scott Wilson (2016). Resting Places: The Burial Sites of More Than 14,000 Famous Persons, 3d ed. McFarland. p. 165. ISBN  978-1-4766-2599-7. Crawford, Joan (Lucille LeSueur, March 23, 1904–May 10, 1977) San Antonio born film star.... Her ashes were placed in the vault beside the coffin of her husband, with the crypt listing her birth year as 1908... but most modern biographers cite 1904 as the most likely year.-- Moxy ( talk) 20:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

there are potential errors in any source--it is not possible for WP to be perfect. We've never claimed we're a reliable source, and for good reaspn. It's rational to do the best we reasonably can, but not rational to expect beyond that. (Ithink this is all the the context of non-living people) DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Smallbones:, looking at the Find-a-grave site there is an image of the the tombstone which has only "1815-1888". The full date that they list (12 February 1888) is different than what Wikipedia has (24 February 1888). The Find-a-grave site is an unnecessary reference since his 1888 death and place of burial is easily cited to references already in use. I'm not doubting that the grave is the right Seth Kinman, but as a source Find-a-grave seems to fail WP:RS guidelines and should not be used. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 03:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, use of Find-a-grave is covered here. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 03:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The main question - to me - is that when I first wrote the article the Find a grave site was the only place I could get birth and death dates. With a photo of the gravestone and knowledge of the approx. time SK lived, the years on the stone looked sufficiently reliable to me. Actually "carved in stone." I didn't use the day and months reported elsewhere on Find-a-grave. When I found the U of Nebraska Press book I replaced the full dates in the article. But without that I'd still be happy with the "carved in stone" reference. Now Find-a-grave is only used as a reference for the location of the grave. I actually visited the cemetery several years ago - yes it is located where Find-a-grave reports it to be. OR? well "research" - yes, but not very original. Reliable? - good enough for me, good enough for the GA reviewer. And - within the limits of human knowledge - the cemetery is actually there. Wikipedia is flexible enough to accept this. Your link to Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave says "As a reliable source: Almost never." "Almost" is a very good word to use here.

A little background here. I wrote 85% of the article. I started researching it after seeing a photo at the Library of Congress - there's gotta be a story behind this! Googling in various ways brought up no reliable sources, but multiple unreliable ones - genealogical site talk pages, ebay (more photos), and a gun site discussion page are the ones I remember. I was able to work backwards from there to get to the real sources. Two Wikipedians were remarkable in sending me copies of stuff in libraries so I could read full versions of stuff I already quoted in the article(!) . Another guy typed out the manuscript autobiography (150 pages or so) in the local university's rare book room, and got it published by the local historical society. Ultimately, I learned to use Google Books for more sources. So, there are sources that you use, and sources that you cite in articles. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 04:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that if a better source isn't available it is ok to use a site generally considered to be unreliable. That doesn't seem like a good way to write an encyclopedia. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 15:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I find Smallbones' explanation to be entirely convincing. The cited guideline on Find-a-Grave says it can be cited for useful images --- such as a tombstone. The tombstone is, obviously, a written work that presumably underwent some kind of editorial process, albeit an unusual one - more than one set of eyes would have been laid on it before publication, put it that way. An image of a tombstone, whether uploaded or cited as a reference, seems a welcome addition to any Wikipedia biography. So I'm afraid, Lamest Critic, that you're living up to your name this time. Wnt ( talk) 19:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

YOou have misread the advice on Find-a-grave. The part about useful images justifies having it as an external link, not as a source. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 00:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In this instance it sounds like the source is the tombstone itself. The fact that a photo of the tombstone can be found at a certain URL is at most a "link". I mean, if I cite a defunct website and have a URL to archive.org so people can read it, is archive.org the source? Wnt ( talk) 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should have said "reference" instead of "source". It is not a reliable source so do not use it as a reference. World's Lamest Critic ( talk) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So you can use it as a link from the bottom of the page, but not if you provide it as the URL for a meaningful source?? Like, it would be OK to cite the tombstone by location and town, but not tell people where it is? That's just dumb. If that's really the way to read the policy, someone should change it, but in the meanwhile, ignore it. Wnt ( talk) 12:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It is not a source because it is not reliable - it's a user-edited site. It's included in external links because it's been added by dozens of users who like to include it. A bit like IMDB. It's decorative. Guy ( Help!) 13:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE specifically says that we can put things in the external links that are not reliable sources. "Links to be considered [...] Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." I would consider a tombstone carver a knowledgeable but not reliable source. ELMAYBE doesn't mean that anything goes though; see WP:ELNO. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the point that Smallbones is making, willy-nilly, is that a primary source usually, if not always, trumps a secondary one, unless it has been shown to be suspect. Dates on a tombstone should be considered reliable sources -- that's what professional historians & genealogists accept, because often that's all they have -- unless earlier scholars have reviewed the primary source & offered corrections based on expert opinion. (Pick a reliable historian, any historian: he or she will have made a mistake, which is flagged in the secondary literature.) In the case Smallbones offers, a genealogical website wasn't directly cited, but used instead to find a reliable source.

But on to the content of a genealogical website. While some probably contain reliable information, in my experience most are either unreliable -- viz., the information is not sourced, is not obviously trustworthy, or is likely fabricated -- or is useful only for finding a reliable source. Right now I'm wrestling with removing a chunk of information added to Wikipedia from a genealogical website to biological articles on Roman senators. (This information was added by a long-term editor about 10 years ago when standards were looser, & we weren't as informed about quality of sources about ancient history. We're more informed now.) I'm taking my time on this because the added information isn't obviously unbelievable, & I suspect some of it might actually be correct, & I have other demands on my time than editing Wikipedia, I regret to admit.

-- llywrch ( talk) 01:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I won't say one way or the other for the dead, but for BLPs the use of sources like these seems to fly in the face of WP:BLPPRIMARY. A genealogy site is basically just a collection of primary documents --often government documents-- which is really no different than court documents or other sources that may contain personal and private information about living persons (including but not limited to: dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, and other info covered by WP:BLPPRIVACY). Zaereth ( talk) 02:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Now there's a policy that encapsulates the Zeitgeist of this sorry age. When writing a biography, never cite a document that gives a date of birth, no matter how useful, because it is far more important for an encyclopedia to exclude truthful information than to provide truthful information. Meanwhile, the Gods above us present, in the case of the Strava thread above, exact location data on everywhere their thralls have walked, or in the case of WMF in the signpost, exact data on what articles everyone reads in what order, because they have a Need to Know. They just have to be very careful not to let us see too much past a general preview that demonstrates their awesome omniscience, because we are scum, useless, everything we know is a security threat just as everything They know is a chance to Make Society Better. Really, there is no proper solution apart from the physical extermination of all the vermin that would run around trying to know things without owning a corporation or at least a non-profit. The dreaded 99% all ought to be ground up into a hot dog and presented to Donald Trump as a hot dog for him to take a bite out of and throw away. Anything else would probably be treasonous. Wnt ( talk) 10:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for doxxing. HTH, HAND. Guy ( Help!) 13:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't crack that jargon, but WP:NOT does not (NOT?) contain "dox". Traditionally, doxxing refers to the release of someone's name, so presumably we should have a bot go through all our "BLPs" and remove the names from each. We can proudly feature an article about some politician whom we cannot name, born we dare not say when, died at a date attested by a tombstone we cannot cite, whose acts were all ... good, very good, nothing detrimental to report here at all. Such is a righteous article to write and to read for those whose whole lives, every moment, should be spent as a litany of prayer to the Beast who knows their every step and breath, whose every thought must be focused on that glorious Other that watches over what they do, who know that no sin of commission or omission in this holy task will ever be forgiven, but shall be visited upon their progeny of biogenic instrument consoles and sentient sewer-cleaning worms for a trillion years. Wnt ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Doxxing is publishing nonpublic data or data which can be used to target or harass a person. The data may (and usually will) come from obscure sources, rather than necessarily from security or privacy breaches. As a past victim I have strong views on this. My views are, I think, broadly in line with consensus: don't go data mining for BLPs, don't publish private data just because you can. Guy ( Help!) 16:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I realize there is a problem there, but do bear in mind I entered this discussion speaking about a tombstone from 1888. Beyond this, proper Wikipedia article subjects are already subject to more examination than the typical Wikipedia editor, and have the benefits of fame to compensate for its annoyances. Further, there is a legitimate general restriction on the use of "original research" to make genuinely new connections, which would presumably interfere with genuine "outing" on Wikipedia as opposed to merely the propagation of existing information. So I don't see the need for specific policies with unencyclopedialike demands. I should also note that both in regard to "original research" on social media and in regard to doxxing, the only heroes to be found are these folks who do proper " identity theft" and make fake profiles based on real people's names. With enough fake profiles like that, we as a society could reach a point where those discriminating in employment or anything else based on what they find in an online profile or posting are not only revealed as bastards, which we knew already, but also as idiots. So I certainly would like to say a word of thanks to those maggots on the corpse of social media, even if they do make it harder for a Wikipedian to do the original research he craves. Wnt ( talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

An interesting phenomenon I see is that people seem to think this is all something new, like none of these problems or policies existed before Wikipedia or the internet ever existed, the "Zeitgeist of this sorry age" and all that. In fact, Wikipedia has spent quite a bit of time reinventing the wheel (as it were) as well as incorporating new technologies and information sources into those policies at a mind-boggling pace. Every reliable source (if they are indeed reliable) has at least some code of ethics they hold as sacred, such as this from the Society of Professional Journalists. Albeit, a bit more succinct than Wikipedia policies, it clearly demonstrates that no journalist worth their salt would compromise a person's right to privacy, nor post links to sites that may possibly compromise that privacy, unless their was an overriding public need.

In putting this in perspective with other articles, see mine and others comments at BLPN. Wikipedia is not a secondary source that does original research, but a tertiary source that relies on others to research and interpret the primary sources correctly.

As far as I can tell, the internet is rather like the newspapers were shortly after the invention of the printing press, where they were really little more than self-serving blogs. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is already a good 200 years ahead, as if just entering the golden age of "journalism". Zaereth ( talk) 01:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This thread has definitely gone into the weeds without a compass. Returning to the original question, I believe these points need to be made:

• About the only information a genealogical website will have that can be used are birth dates, death dates, marriage information, names of family members. I don't see how any of this information by itself can be used to dox someone.
• I've used Ancestry.com. (I have a membership I need to cancel.) It has this feature where, if you are looking at a family tree you do not own or have permission to access, all information on living people is greyed out due to privacy concerns. (By "living people", IIRC this is defined to mean any person without a death date whose birthdate is more than 100-120 years ago.) So if you were on Ancestry.com looking at a family tree that included a living person such as Taylor Swift or Donald Trump, their information would not be visible. (And if it is relevant to an article, it will be available on a non-genealogical website. Or in one of those things known as a printed book.)
• Based on what I've found, the information in family trees on publicly accessible websites is compiled by volunteers whose skills range from incompetent to so-so. The information presented often lacks sources, is assembled without understanding the source material, fails to indicate speculative connections, cites Wikipedia, or is cherry-picked to support some fringe theory. (Examples of the last category are genealogical sites attempting to connect Charlemagne either to living people or aristocrats of the Late Roman Empire.)
• Where these publicly accessible websites are reliable, it's because they cite reliable sources. So skip the website & use the reliable source itself.
• As for pay-walled websites like Ancestry.com, I've found the family trees there have a number of errors, both major & minor. One must use the information there carefully & intelligently. And besides, most of the family trees at that site were created by amateurs. (Although Ancestry.com does enable access to sources not otherwise available.)
• There is nothing wrong with using primary sources when they are not impeached by relevant experts. If you want to state that the Athenians won the Battle of Marathon, why not cite Herodotus directly, instead of some secondary history? If the secondary history is reliable, its author will cite Herodotus; inserting the secondary history is only introducing an unnecessary layer of redirection.
• Lastly, WTF would anyone think a genealogical website have reliable information about notable living people in the first place? Genealogy is about people's ancestors. -- llywrch ( talk) 03:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you think this sort of thing is ethical? https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/heatmap-for-social-athletes-app-reveals-secret-bases-secret-places/ 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 23:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Which aspect of it do you mean by "this sort of thing"? A fitness app that tracks where you are so that you can see maps of your running routes and how you are progressing against goals seems perfectly fine to me. Storing that data on servers on behalf of the user - if disclosure is made clear - seems perfectly fine. Sharing that data with researchers is ok if disclosure is done appropriately, but here it gets trickier as it is hard for consumers to understand the extent to which their data will be in some odd ways personally identifiable. Publishing an article explaining that the data may put some military personnel and operations at risk seems 100% fine. Publishing actual details that could put people in danger - I wouldn't do it, if I were a publisher, unless there were some really compelling reason in a particular circumstance - I can't off the head think of an example, but I think there probably are some. I would assume that some soldiers are going to be in big trouble and there will be a doubling down on security/privacy training, because if you're exercising in some sensitive/secret/dangerous place, you are stupid if you are leaking data to commercial firms under terms of use that allow them to share it with researchers.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are not completely certain that such data can't leak, are you complicit in not objecting to storing it? 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Jimbo Wales: ^ serious question. 185.13.106.217 ( talk) 09:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, why would Jimbo's opinion on something totally unrelated to Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikitribune, or anything else he is involved with matter?

Secondly, the article says "Strava does provide 'opt-out' settings to protect users’ privacy, but apparently some users in the military are not changing those settings. In some cases, military users appear to be leaving the application on while engaged in convoys and patrols. As a result, those movements appear as bright lines on the Strava heatmap." Unless you have evidence that Strava somehow hides the fact that they publish heatmaps. where is the ethical issue? You just chose to reveal that your IP address is 185.13.106.217, which tells me that your wireless internet service provider is Lycatel Distribution Uk Limited and that you are somewhere close to Greenford in the UK. Is this unethical? No. You were clearly warned when you made your edit "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits." It isn't our fault that you chose to reveal your IP address. In like manner, it is not Strava's fault that those soldiers and NSA employees chose to have their movements posted on Stava's heatmap. Like you, they could have declined to have that information published.

Thirdly, the military and the NSA have rules forbidding such sharing of information. I have worked as an engineer on secret military projects where I was not allowed to say "good morning" or comment on the weather over the phone, because that would reveal something about what part of the world I was in. I expect that roughly 15 minutes after this news broke that those instructions were updated to include How to set the privacy option for Stava.

Again, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia or Jimbo. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

While I am not located were my ISP terminates my IP address, you are right that it is associated with my location. How secure do you think my IP address would be if I were logged in? Do you think it would be available to the Turkish government? To Mexican drug cartels? To Vladimir Putin? To ISIS volunteers? Are people who don't object to storing logs of such information complicit in the use of it? Is it more important to let researchers who promise to keep such logs secret have access to them, or is it more important to keep them from being used to control or chill speech? Which is more user-centered? Which has the majority of users' preference and consent? 185.13.106.218 ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your statement "Are people who don't object to storing logs of such information..." implies that you have given us a valid reason why such logs should not be stored. You have not. Furthermore, even if we said we would no longer store such information, I am sure that you would agree that you would be a fool to trust Wikipedia to keep that promise in an environment where it is possible for a government agency to force Wikipedia to break that promise without taking down the page where we promise not to do so. You need to secure your personal information yourself using a VPN or TOR instead of trusting some website to protect it for you. Unlike many websites, we do allow editors to be anonymous through TOR or a VPN, but you have to convince us that you can be trusted. I myself have that user right (not that it keeps me anonymous, seeing as how the name "Guy Macon" is on my birth certificate...) but I have been editing Wikipedia for 12 years and have made 40,000 edits with zero blocks.

You may ask why we log such things as IP addresses. We do so so that a banned user cannot simply register a new username or switch to a new IP address and continue editing. That would be Reddit... :) And we delete the information as soon as it becomes too old for that purpose. Serious question: have you carefully read https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy yet? It covers many of the questions you are asking. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's break this down. If Strava publishes the heatmap that has all the "aggregate" data, that's great, it's capitalism, they signed up for it, they deserved what they got ... but if Joe Schmuck looks at Strava's map of a base in Libya (even with their permission!) and says "hey neat, there are Americans jogging around a mile north of (some town)", then that is wrong and nobody should publish it, and presumably take action against him. This is because a Company is usually rich, hence inherently Good, while a Schmuck is usually poor, hence inherently Evil. And for no other reason whatsoever. Wnt ( talk) 00:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I Am not convinced that it is actionable, but doing that was wrong. They should have contacted Strava, gave them a chance to remove the information from their heatmap, and then published their findings without say anything that identifies the location of US soldiers. That's the ethical thing to do. I know you have a problem with capitalism, but I seriously doubt that anyone at Strava even thought that their heatmaps could be used in this way. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL! They can compile a God's-eye map of the whole world, brag about logging a billion hours of people's time, spend a fortune on it, produce a glitzy map-ad to show the intel/police agencies of the world all the trails that they could get broken down to dates and ID numbers with the right papers, especially those printed with images of dead presidents, but they can't possibly be expected to think of the utility of that information. They can distribute any data they want, sell any data they want, and as long as they don't think about what someone might do with it, except during marketing brainstorming sessions, that is just fine. But woe to the "unethical" person who notices that gee, this data might be useful for something --- provided, that is, he communicates it to peasants rather than a police agency or the marketers for a corporation he works for, because that would be responsible ethical conduct.

I think that these ethics are complete bullshit. Tailoring what you point out so that a corporation can avoid inconveniencing certain specific people in order that they only pick on "legitimate" targets with less social standing that aren't mentioned by a press campaign probably meant to make sure the spy-industrial complex knows the data is out on the auction block, is that virtue? Is pretending this map is just a plaything rather than an invitation to search-warrants for (say) that trail along the river I linked to that leads a little way into Mexico, is that virtue? Is calling deduction evil but surveillance normal virtue? I don't think so. Indeed, I am coming to doubt ethics have any redeeming value in general. To think that what's right for you depends on what you do, or what ID card you've been issued, what you're allowed to know and think, is that something to brag about? A person can follow "company ethics" to avoid getting fired from a job, fine. But don't pretend me it's a virtue. Wnt ( talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no one thing called "ethics," only sets of ethical preferences, which are often very strongly associated with individuals' situations, even though many if not most people claim that their ethics are the best for everyone. I certainly believe the world would be awesome if everyone had my ethics. My question is whether it is more ethical to stop logging personally identifiable information, even if it means many researchers will have to research something else. The benefits of avoiding the possibility of abuse and the weak security afforded by researchers in the free culture movement leave little room for doubt on the question in my mind. I would like to know what Jimbo thinks. 185.13.106.218 ( talk) 09:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not a true Wikipedia user. I don't even know how to use a computer well. I just wanted to contribute with some coat of arms of Brazilian cities here, as I saw many small, low-resolution, or childish-like awful representations of such symbols being published. So, I researched and made many .svg versions, tried to follow all copyright and templates requirements here. User Chronus began deleting all my contributions. I complained, telling him this seemed personal. He said I offended him and erased my messages on his talk page. I asked other editors help for mediation, and user Leon saudanha blocked me from Portuguese language Wikipedia for infinite time, also deleting my request for mediation from his discussion page.

I am being accused of being an attacker, offending an editor, and original research.

Who can I ask for mediation?

I don't know!

Since some editors forms a comradery chain, like in the example of these two users, who can check this situation?? My case wasn't even discussed, I was simply blocked, after trying to contact some editors to look at this issue!

SanSilva ( talk) 00:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@ SanSilva: unless Jimbo has become fluent in Portuguese language, then his requested intervention on the Portuguese Wikipedia (ptwiki) would likely be resented by admins there. Please note how the English Wikipedia is one of the few that has often tolerated contributions in other languages, but still limited to minimal non-English text.

By comparison, I have had articles deleted from Swedish WP as not worded in colloquial form of mainstream Swedish speakers, although technically translated to Swedish accurately. Also, I have been asked to please not create any more articles on German WP because the German text was only 95% correctly worded, even though the page tables and images were correctly formatted for German WP templates (Vorlage). Working on Wikipedia can be very tedious, and in general, working with other people is often extremely dangerous (as evidenced by recent vicious wars), as you might be quite shocked what people have been saying about you behind your back. Try to limit your Wikipedia contributions to the level of how the current users think (the "wiki- Zeitgeist"), while hoping for better progress in the future. Good luck. - Wikid77 ( talk) 14:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just been listening to Larry Sanger expounding how he plans to put this encyclopaedia on the blockchain. [37] He appears to be planning to import a StackExchange rating system into online encyclopaedias. What do you think? 82.15.199.219 ( talk) 15:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Was there more video after the fifteen minute mark? Because if not, there wasn't much said. Ranking the "importance" of articles? Really? How do these blockchain voters know what readers are looking for? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Something smells about this. I mean, "Content found on Everipedia is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply." But "In connection with your use of the Service you shall not engage in or use any data mining, robots, scraping or similar data gathering or extraction methods. Any use of the Service or the Everipedia Content other than as specifically authorized herein is strictly prohibited." And "Company provides Services at a basic level free of charge to the public, but this may change in the future. Agency acknowledges that while Company will provide Agency with some Services and features for free, Company reserves the right to begin charging for the Service and features at some point in the future." The message I'm inferring is that they're going to try their level best to make the CC-BY content that people voluntarily contribute into their own valuable property to be accessed only by subscription -- which puts the whole concept of "free content" into question. I also fail to see how a "blockchain" figures into a public free encyclopedia at all - a mere GPG-signed email from a trusted editor listing checksums of recommended torrents seems more than sufficient. Wnt ( talk) 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blockchains are the new "Gluten Free". Just slap them on anything whether the label makes sense or not. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, blockchain is definitely the new "cloud"-style content-free buzzword. But given that they're copying massive amounts of content from Wikipedia, I wonder if their license is even compatible with the CC-BY-SA stuff they're copying. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Don't worry. If Larry Sanger is in charge, it will fail in short order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

+1 Carrite ( talk) 06:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sanger was the genius behind the online "encyclopedia" Citizendium, where Abraham Lincoln didn't do anything past 1863, and John Wilkes Booth never entered the picture. That website is now dead, which is not a loss to human knowledge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I kind of understand his thinking on this, but the problem is that rather than fixing the issue with Wikipedia's open model, he has consistently tried clever technocratic approaches that go way too far the other way, and as a side effect attract highly motivated rebuffed POV-pushers ejected from here. I'm thinking of people like homeopathy shill Dana Ullman, who wrote their article on homeopathy - which then had to be deleted because it was delusional bullshit. The same applies to Shitlordpedia, aka InfoGalactic, and numerous other attempts to "fix" the fact that, while it may be unedifying to watch its manufacture, Wikipedia's sausage is generally objectively verifiable sausage, rather than alternative sausage or conservative sausage or whatever. Yes, it's messy and involves endless discussion with people of varying degrees of expertise. That's a feature, not a bug, I think.

Blockchain of course is just buzzword marketing. Adding a rating system inna StackExchange stylee absolutely does not fix the huge weakness with Citizendium, which is that experts can be cranks just as easily as non-experts - and the cranks are much more motivated to find a way to have their beliefs reflected as The Truth™. This is not software, where expertise and reputation are easily quantified among a very large pool of competitive peers. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? At Wikipedia, it's all of us. In a Sanger model, hierarchical authority is required - and if we've learned one thing from the last year and a half it's that hierarchical authority is dead easy to subvert. You just target the top. Guy ( Help!) 14:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Much of the guidance and marketing of WP stems from the early days, when this thing was being built from scratch, and the emphasis was on attracting editors, getting content added... trying to create something from nothing. Startup mode, as it were.

While there are still many holes, and many articles are poor, many articles are very good even if they have not been put through GA or FA, and WP itself is a widely used reference work. WP is mature in many ways.

No quick pivots are possible in this place, and policies and guidelines have developed along with the community and with the content, but I am curious what folks think would or should change if we thought through all the policies and guidelines, and the marketing of WP, with this in mind. And what aspects of the spirit of the early days do we never want to lose?

As an example (just one), if WP:ACTRIAL turns out to be a net positive, adopting that would be such a change. Jytdog ( talk) 15:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be some unified sorting of the entire WP:BACKLOG by issue importance times article importance times its pageviews. All of the pages we have for onboarding new editors with lists of things to do are filled mostly with obvious trivialities. It's more fun to edit if you know you're working on the one thing that can improve the encyclopedia the most. 67.133.97.98 ( talk) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

See, that's just it. That big WP:BACKLOG has all the stuff that's not "fun to edit" in it. That's why it's a backlog. If this were fun stuff to work on, then there wouldn't be a big backlog. The "fun" stuff is making all those "valuable edits" that add to the backlog, such as writing about some fictional characters or a new startup company. Usually outfits need to pay people to get them to do stuff that isn't widely considered to be "fun". I'd love to play in the NBA but alas the Cleveland Cavaliers' fans wouldn't find it "fun" to watch my performance on their basketball court. The Wikimedia Foundation benefits from the fact that a lot of readers do find it "fun" to read the encyclopedic writings of our amateur collective. wbm1058 ( talk) 00:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• i was afraid of bringing an example as I was more interested in general thoughts... Jytdog ( talk) 05:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is becoming more & more like Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911: a snapshot of the world as it was somewhen around 2008–12. The 19,000 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating are only a tiny fraction of the ones that do in fact need updating. Those who come to Wikipedia now are by & large no longer here to altruistically "build an encyclopedia": unless in someone's (conflict of) interest to do so, few now will spend their days at the dull grind of updating shipbuilding statistics, city demographics, the careers of less-than-stellar people they don't know, or developments at midsize companies they don't work for. Where there is a COI – BLPs, companies and organisations, scientific research – we need to find ways to onboard the COI editors, encourage – nay, compel – them to identify themselves openly by username, and get them working constructively. With the number of articles we have now, well might they cry plaintively "If we don't write about ourselves, who else will?!" First step: require registration before editing and, at the time they register, tell them briefly and clearly what's what : Noyster (talk), 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• When is a Wikimedia official going to come up with a plan to secure permanent rights to editors' contributions so the projects don't unravel after 35 years? We're at the halfway point this year, and as it's a monumental endeavor to fix this in a sustainable way, the sooner the better. 71.218.25.29 ( talk) 10:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a lawyer. but on my reading of that a rather important provision is "In the case of an anthology, or joint work, a majority of the authors must execute the notice for termination." Good luck to anyone who tries after 2036 to identify a majority of Wikipedia authors and get them to sign something calling for the licensing of their Wikipedia contributions to be retracted and reassigned. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Facebook announced at the end of January that they are banning ads for cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, as well as Initial coin offerings, and binary options. See BBC. I've been hoping for awhile that Wikipedia will also ban advertisements for these and similar scams. We should at least be as upright as Facebook on stopping obvious scam ads. I know - Wikipedia bans all adverts per WP:NOT. But I also know (and Jimbo and most other readers here know) that we don't really ban them, and getting rid of obvious ads often takes weeks, if it can be done at all. Too many admins use the phrase "It's not too promotional - we can keep the article," when *all promotion* is banned. We've got hundreds of articles on cryptocurrencies, see Category:Cryptocurrencies, and everyone that I've read sounds like an ad.

If you hadn't noticed, bitcoin has been crashing since mid- December (see graph) going from over 19,000 to 7,000 and a dead-cat bounce to about 9,000 - let's just say a 50% drop. Lots of people have been saying it's a bubble (ala Tulip mania), such as Warren Buffet, George Soros, Alan Greenspan (they've been saying this for awhile) and more recently the chief economists at Goldman Sachs and the Vanguard Group. Given the above company, I'll go out on a limb and say that most cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, will be worth $0.00 within a year. (somebody should remind me of this on 2/14/2019).

France and Germany have vowed to introduce some type of global regulation proposal in mid-March at the G-20 meeting. Somebody is bound to be indicted for issuing an initial coin offering within the month since everybody knows that ICOs are just unregistered securities offerings.

What reminded me of the above unpleasantness is an article in Slash Gear Bitcoin aims for eBay and Wikipedia which appears to be saying that Wikipedia is somehow endorsing bitcoin by accepting donations in that so-called currency. It's only a one paragraph statement about Wikipedia that starts "Another high-profile internet company recently began accepting Bitcoin for donations. Wikipedia ..." It is wrong in both the big picture and in the details. Is there any way to stop accepting bitcoins or issue a denial that Wikipedia is endorsing bitcoin in any way?

@ David Gerard:.

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Brace yourself, a fork of Wikipedia may end up on the Ethereum blockchain, see here. Count Iblis ( talk) 04:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope that there are some people here who are not so far gone that "Facebook started doing this..." is not a way to get them to goose-step in line behind the Owners of the Internet. That said, I do feel skeptical of a currency many users are introduced to by ransomware, which is deliberately "mixed" in publicly viewable transactions to incorporate extorted money. And the volatility and other factors affecting Bitcoins do encourage some extra transparency on what Wikipedia does with them after they are received, i.e. donors should know when or if their Bitcoins are being cashed in for real money, what transaction fees apply, whether they have gained or lost value, if they are being kept in online "wallets" that might gain value or be drained out by hackers unexpectedly etc. Wnt ( talk) 07:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the articles in Category:Cryptocurrencies are crap. That's not unusual for computing topics, Category:Windows-only shareware is full of crap as well. Also, SlashGear appears to be largely low-quality journalism; SlashGear is a red-link so I doubt that whatever clickbait they publish should cause Wikipedia to change policies. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 08:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

More generally, in defense of Bitcoin: Bitcoin does have some value. It's a distributed time-service that is impossible to forge. If a message is included in block 501234, I know that it was sent on December 27th. With some basic cryptography, I can verify the content of a document signed at that time even if I don't get access to the document until well afterwards. It's also useful for money-laundering and drug trafficking, and nearly impossible to shut down, so I would definitely not expect it to go to $0 anytime soon. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 08:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. Crypto is junk, but why would WMF not accept it? Do we accept Indonisian Rupiyah? Ringgit? Pound Sterling, which is undoubtedly headed down the toilet? People have emailed the WMF for years asking to be able to donate in BTC. Charities are not like companies, we have no margin or cost of sales to worry about. Guy ( Help!) 13:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we are being used as an implied endorsement in the Slash Gear article, and cryptocurrencies and ICOs are essentially scams. Compounding that is an even more serious problem. Our articles on cryptocurrencies are adverts for the companies, very likely written by the companies. The ads leave the scam and bubble parts out. While we don't need to follow everything that Facebook does in prohibiting these ads, it is my contention that we should be better than Facebook in stopping the ads. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 14:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I assume you mean an article by Slash Gear, since we have no such article. We can't stop people from noticing if Wikipedia is eager to take donations from whoever else finds this method convenient. I'd say the money spends the same wherever it comes from ... but that's the question, isn't it? Wikipedia owes it to donors to tell them whether Wikipedia is going to have to pay $20 of their $25 donation to get it converted to something they can pay rent in. The question is whether fake donations should be allow to compete with real ones. Now looking at [38] it actually seems like the crazy transaction fees are down at the moment - though still multiple dollars - but how much can Wikipedia rely on that? Around Christmas it was over $50... does anyone know why it goes up and down? Wnt ( talk) 19:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The WMF should stop accepting Bitcoin because of its insane energy costs, and accepting it runs counter to the goals of its own commitment to reducing Wikimedia's environmental impact. Gamaliel ( talk) 15:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, hadn't heard about that facet yet. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The power consumption seems to be built-in to the idea of a blockchain. It is not a bug or something that we should expect to be changed. Rather, the idea of blockchain seems to require massive cryptographic calculations and massive reproduction of public ledgers. It might even be the case that the "miner" who can afford to use the most power gets the most newly created "money". Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 14:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of different stuff here. I think it is ok to have well-sourced articles on even fairly obscure cryptocoins, but it is absolutely NOT ok for them to be "advertising". I'd be supportive of a WikiProject being organized to hit them all pretty thoroughly for a cleanup.

The question of Wikimedia accepting BTC is an interesting one, and the point about the energy impact is a valid point. Is it sufficient? I'd personally need more data to be sure.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a bit on energy consumption the Guardian cites an industry source in the article "Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity a year than Ireland" - it also consumes more electricity than each of 19 other European countries. It consumes 30.14TWh a year. Compare to regular Visa credit-card transactions "one of Visa’s two US data centres reportedly runs on about 2% of the power required by bitcoin. Between them, those two data centres conduct around 200m transactions a day; the bitcoin network handles fewer than 350,000."

That's of course hugely wasteful, but I think other things are worse.

• the connection to money-laundering, which is difficult to quantify, but is very real
• the total myth that bitcoin is a new type of money. There are 3 things economists look at in defining money. 1)A store of value - when you accept a form of money you expect its value to stay fairly constant. With the recent drop by 50% for bitcoin, you just can't call it a store of value , 2) a means of transaction - well, you can donate it to the WMF, and there must be a few places that take it in real business transactions. When I can pay for a beer at the corner bar in bitcoins, give me a call, 3) a unit of account - do businesses issue their accounting statements in bitcoin? Do they have their primary price lists in bitcoin? Not that I can see. So if it's not money, what is it? So nothing is what it seems here - thesee folks are simply lying to the public. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 19:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The way to address advertising is to... wait for it... remove advertising, not decide to ban a class of articles because some dedicated editors have snuck in some advertising. If are going to be in articles on subjects with has been some advertising problems will have to ban articles on books… and movies, and bands in professional journals and… you get the point.

If we have multiple admin's using the phrase "It's not too promotional - we can keep the article," then we need to educate the admin's. I'm not saying that's never happened but I've seen a lot of reviews and I not seen that phrase ever used.

I've often felt that our finance and investment articles are substandard compared to say medical, biographies in general, and military history articles. My half-baked theory is that potential editors with the requisite expertise are too busy in real life, and an unfortunate proportion of those who choose to become editors are doing so for marketing reasons. That said, it may be worth poking Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment to see if they would take this on. S Philbrick (Talk)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I posted a concrete proposal here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Finance_&_Investment#A_proposal_to_review_crypto-currency_articles_in_a_more_organized_way-- S Philbrick (Talk) 19:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Or the WMF could mine Bitcoin by asking people who visit Wikipedia to run some special app that implements a collective Bitcoin mining effort. This may be less annoying than the fund-raising message we see regularly here. Count Iblis ( talk) 20:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert but I looked into this when one company facilitating it approached me to use it as a method of funding for WikiTribune. Even their projections, which I naturally assumed to be "best case", suggested that the amount of money per page view was quite low, to the point that I didn't see it as a viable or interesting option. I saw today that Salon is offering it as an option. It'll be interesting to see if they keep it up - but I doubt it.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fortune in You Can Now Mine Cryptocurrency While Reading the News estimates the cash-flow to Salon from using their readers to mine Monero at something like $600-700 total per month. Fortune also notes that "Monero has recently been associated with criminal activities." I hope Wikipedia never sells its reputation like that, and I certainly hope that they'd get much, much more money if they did try to sell their reputtion. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 01:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As a Salon stockholder, I guess I should look into that. S Philbrick (Talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

re: @ Sphilbrick:'s "The way to address advertising is to... wait for it... remove advertising, not decide to ban a class of articles because some dedicated editors have snuck in some advertising."

Actually, we've gone through this enough to know what happens with finance scam articles, e.g. binary options and retail forex. They sneak in articles when few people even know the industry exists using themselves, press releases and industry publications as sources and it takes a lot of editor time to remove even the least notable ones. A few very dedicated advertisers just wear out the volunteers trying to watch what's going on. After a few years it becomes apparent that the industry is a scam (with perhaps a few companies excepted as in retail forex) but it becomes almost impossible to remove the adverts - the companies are making too much money and the Wikipedia article is the one way that the companies can gain some "independent" credibility. As they start getting "too successful" law enforcement moves in and a rather slow court system starts working. By the time the scam is positively identified as a scam 5-10 years have gone by, with Wikipedia being one of the main sources of propaganda inflicted by the scammers on the public. IMHO we're responsible for letting ourselves be used like that.

But financial scams like this are not really that difficult to identify, even in the early stages. Usually there's a new broker or new "product" that is traded in unusual places or by unusual methods. Notability is suspect, sources are weak. We could just refuse to accept this type of article - certainly on the companies involved, but maybe allow articles on the industry. I'm afraid we don't have a system set up that would allow this type of screening done by the community within any reasonable time period. I think the WMF would have to set up something like a community committee to enforce a general rule. Something like "articles on financial companies offering new and unproven or exceptionally risky products may be disallowed by the x committee." The committee wouldn't have to prove that company y is a scam, only that the industry or product is unproven or exceptionally risky to our readers. If we don't do something like this we are costing our readers $10s of millions every year. For cryptocurrencies it's likely to be much higher. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo - I do not own a laptop or desktop computer and use Wikipedia primarily on my phone and iPad. I do not like the mobile site. In fact I believe the default on a screen size like an iPad should simply be the normal Wikipedia site. Is there any way to set the normal site as the default instead of the mobile site? Additionally, when you are browsing with the page preview option active, there isn’t an intuitive way to cancel the page preview once it pops up. Other than a gear button which takes you to some settings tab, there isn’t anything else to click on to remove the preview. You may consider adding a small X like most other pop ups. Finally when editing in the desktop mode the visible screen area does not track with the text position. Thank you. Mr Ernie ( talk) 03:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You should use a browser that allows you change the user agent, e.g. the Atomic Web Browser. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis ( talk) 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

He shouldn't have to change his user agent. This should be configurable in preferences. Perhaps the WMF can redirect some of` the millions they spend [39] fixing this. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The WMF has spent countless millions of dollars for many years trying to perfect mobile sites and mobile apps, and none of them work anywhere near as well as the desktop site on my Android smartphone, which I use for 95%+ of my editing. They should just rename the desktop site the "fully functional site" and shut down all those outmoded mobile money wasters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Brutal! Also, absolutely true. Guy ( Help!) 14:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Mr Ernie: Bug reports and feature requests should be made at WP:VP/T or preferably in phabricator. Leaving them here is the surest way to ensure that the right people won't know about them. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

...and wait 12 years for an answer...   :(

On February 3 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPCHA system discriminates against blind people. See [ https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T6845 ]

This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to discrimination lawsuits.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 20#I am visually impaired and can't edit articles without being asked to fill in the capcha

• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-April/037341.html

• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2013-January/065820.html

• https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-April/037309.html

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it. This resulted in Target paying out roughly ten million dollars.

I have been told that the proper way to present a proposal is through phabricator, but clearly this was not effective in this case. I do not consider 12 years with no real answer to be reasonable behavior on the part of the WMF. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an answer to your question above, Mr Ernie, so... If you're on an iPad (or phone, presumably), and are seeing the mobile site, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click the "Desktop" link. Your browser should remember the setting for some time, but it may occasionally switch back to the mobile version, so rinse and repeat. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 17:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

KITTENS <3

Lucauniverso ( talk) 20:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)