User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 152

Archive 145

←

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

Archive 153

Archive 154

Archive 155

User:Wifione

There was a discussion about this here a while back that got a bit heated. I'd like to restart that conversation primarily by asking people to post a neutral summary of what is known and not known. I'd appreciate Wifione commenting here as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Any neutral summary of what is known and not known should probably begin with this 2010 complaint, so that parties could become familiar with what was contentious about Wifione's editing. - 2001:558:1400:10:1073:3733:209:EABC (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wifione has hidden content on his Talk page. Wifione has modified the IIPM article to indicate that Careers 360 (critical of the IIPM) is "poor in quality and shady new yellow journal that keeps doing illogical and brazenly false stories about IIPM", while simultaneously underscoring the IIPM's position that "it is an academically independent and autonomous body". Wifione removed information about how an IIPM legal suit against its critics at Careers 360 was dismissed by the Dehradun High Court. Wifione also removed sourced information that "Berkeley Haas school has asked IIPM to stop using the Berkeley logo on its websites and marketing material, and has asked IIPM to correct the language in the ads to clarify that participants will not get any credits from Berkeley." Wifione spent considerable time writing about a competitor to IIPM, but devoting approximately half of the content to a fraud controversy suffered by the competitor and the school. Wifione similarly worked to discredit another IIPM competitor. I hope this presents a neutral summary of how Wifione's editing seems to repeatedly take a pro-IIPM and an anti-IIPM-competitor viewpoint. - 2001:558:1400:10:4106:61B2:CFD:FA47 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Lest it be objected that these links are old, here are some more recent examples. On 24 January 2013 Wifione removed commendatory reference to Amity University with the comment "removed fluff piece references". On 21 February 2013, he removed "It has been alleged that IIPM engages in misleading advertising practices". As recently as August 2013 he removed information about a police case with the comment ("get multiple high quality sources for this exceptional claim"). The source was Times of India, which said: "In past few days several students have raised their voice against the institute's management in the city. They also sat on protest outside the institute demanding refund of fees, said reports." And in November 2013 he added disparaging information to the page about Amity University, a competitor to IIPM. - 2001:558:1400:10:4106:61B2:CFD:FA47 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well those are certainly very poor edits, and they certainly do not meet my expectations of what Admin editing behavior should be like. But isn't the allegation that he has a specifically financial conflict of interest? What is the evidence for that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Would anything less than a payslip or a P60 suffice? The issue here is that for several years an admin has removed any reference that things are quite wholesome in the "State of Denmark", that such references were and are legitimate is provided by a recent court decision that all advertising by the IIPM has to be court approved. John lilburne (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Would the advocacy Wifione is engaging in here be qualitatively better or worse depending on if he's being paid for it? I'm not sure it makes so much different in the end, though I would normally have said that the normal policies (NPOV, V, RS, etc.) would do the trick. In this case an (apparently popular) admin has been engaged in fairly "poor edits" for years, without trouble. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"...isn't the allegation that he has a specifically financial conflict of interest?" No, that is not the allegation. Let's just stick with what was alleged: that the administrator is making very poor edits, consistently to advocate a position in support of IIPM and against IIPM's competitors. Many Indian members of the Wikipedia community are dismayed by Wifione's editing history, so I am frankly a bit surprised that they have not weighed in here. Jimbo, do you think you could ask one or more of the India-focused WMF "outreach" staff to look into this, so that they might encourage some of the top India-based editors to comment? - 2001:558:1400:10:403F:8A37:AA72:A9AB (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In March 2012, I asked something similar User:Tinucherian, a respected member of the community and another Indian admin. "I discussed this with some other admins and active Wikipedians. Nobody wants to fight this case. The alleged institution has an infamous history of suing individuals for insane amounts, that too at the courts in the remotest parts of the nation. I did also inform some of the members of Arb Com. They feel that there is no credible evidence as such", he responded. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

While not confirming a paid relationship an IP belonging to IIPM did revert the blanking of Wifione's user page within two hours of it occurring. Either that was Wifione editing from IIPM or someone from IIPM was keeping a close eye on Wifi's user page. In both cases it suggests a close relationship between Wifi and IIPM.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified the two editors who had previously opined on this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, Coretheapple. Regarding the questionable editing pattern of Wifione I can only refer to my previous post on the subject (it is a big one including lots of diffs, so I won't bother reposting it). And yeah, the IIPM IP connection linked above, as well as this weird edit accidentally revealed, is pretty damning, and was seemingly only a small part of a [[long history of that editor using revdel or getting other admins to revdel innocous edits in order to hide past history for seemingly frivolous reasons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Just passing this along, since you wanted evidence:

After Wifione's careful attention the section on Careers 360 now reads on 11:05, 2 February 2012:

In 2009, IIPM filed a criminal defamation charge against Careers 360. According to Arindam Chaudhuri, Honorary Dean of IIPM, the courts in February 2010 had admitted IIPM's defamation cases against Outlook and Careers 360. In May 2010, the court upheld that the contents of the Careers 360 article were "prima facie defamatory" and issued bailable warrants against Maheshwar Peri, publisher Careers 360 and Outlook, and Mahesh B Sarma, editor of Careers 360 magazine. In September 2011, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Outlook Publishing Private Limited and Maheshwar Peri, publisher of Outlook and Careers 360, and "upheld the order passed by the metropolitan magistrate" with respect to a criminal complaint filed by IIPM's sister concern, Planman Consulting India Pvt Ltd. The Delhi High Court held Outlook Publishing Private Ltd, publisher Maheshwar Peri, Outlook editor Vinod Mehta and other petitioners (except the Directors of Outlook) "prima facie liable for publishing [the] derogatory and defamatory article."

Maheshwar Peri is particularly upset about this, given the way it misrepresents the chronology, and the legal judgments themselves.

It's striking that there's yet to be any comment whatsoever from User:Wifione. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor real lifed from 6 Dec 2012 to 8 Jan 2013, so why is surprising they're doing so again now? NE Ent 03:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor had a lot of chances to explain the situation but he didn't. He was active in the meantime. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I commented on this on several occasions previously, thanks for notifying me, Coretheapple. I don't think it is important whether Wifione edited for money or not, the problem is that in articles about educational institutes in India he knowingly tried to put some organizations and people into bad light while on the other hand he quietly promoted interests of others. The articles in question are: Indian Institute of Planning and Management (+ Arindam Chaudhuri, director of IIPM Think Tank) and its competitors, Indian School of Business and Amity University (+its founder and president Ashok Chauhan), the most frequently edited main space pages by Wifione. The difference and unfair bias is clearly visible when you check Wifione's edits to the articles Arindam Chaudhuri and Ashok Chauhan (my analysis here), but it is possible to continue - others did that above and in the previous note on this page and I can only elaborate further. Not long ago I proposed here to completely ban Wifione from editing articles on education in India, but - speaking strictly for myself - I also think that this editor is untrustworthy as an administrator on this project. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The larger issue is with Indian Institute of Planning and Management has been trying block all criticism about IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri and it went to courts in Silchar ,Gwaliar and Gauhati and secured court orders to block over 73 websiteshere and includes The Times of India,Outlook,Wall Street Journal,Indian Express.Indian Institute of Planning and Management is not recognized by the University Grants Commission and it says that IIPM degrees are Unrecognized as per UGC notice .

IIPM tried to remove all criticism in Wikipedia though socking .One Editor User:Makrandjoshi did fight and tried to maintain neutrality and tried it despite personal and death threats and Wilforne also got into dispute with the same editor on the same article the sock report on Wilforne was inconclusive . Based on this it is not possible to say that he was also part of the team of IIPM editors or just editing with a COI or POV . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors are even paid to vote delete and paid editing is not about merely writing articles. Who else abuses Wikipedia? You won’t be surprised. Even here one editor User:Justiciero1811 tries to maintain neutrality in the Derwick Associates but finally stops editing. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing useless discussion which is off-topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The wagons were circled a week or so ago. I don't think you're on the inside this time, Jimbo. Wifione isn't worried about what you know or think, so he'll probably not comment. The horses are long gone from the barn. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Clearly Jimbo makes a distinction between advocacy and paid advocacy, for reasons that entirely escape me, and he obviously hasn't thought through the issue in his usual careful and thoughtful way. Isn't the problem simply advocacy? Eric Corbett 18:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify that in case it seems like snark: a few rounds ago (weeks or months, I don't keep track), you (Jimmy) scolded an admin who admitted to doing some paid editing. He was vindicated on WP:AN, and there were no consequences for violating your edicts. You're absolutely correct about the need to counter paid editing with policies, but (AGF) you don't seem to understand that your "simple solutions" simply aren't going to fly with the people who actually manage Wikipedia. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I'll concur that those of us who want to curb paid editing in a meaningful way are in the minority. Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC) How do you draw that conclusion?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC) From participating in numerous paid editing discussions and seeing each policy proposal shot down in flames. I'm in that minority, by the way. Just recognizing reality. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I think the majority is concerned. My point is that it's a vanishingly small minority (especially of admins) that are buying into the bright line rule that Jimbo insists is already working. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC) There's been no consensus for any policy proposal. When the !votes come in, they are overwhelmingly opposed. I have not sensed any overwhelming concern, but rather the opposite. See [1] Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC) By that logic, there are a minority of editors who think RfA reform is needed, because proposals for change are shot down. I've made proposals for reform that have not been enacted, but I do not conclude from that experience that a minority of editors feel some changes are needed. My guess is that there are a minority of editors who fully embrace your preferred solution while there may be a larger number of editors who want to curb paid editing in a meaningful way.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I'd be more optimistic if the opposition wasn't so intense. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC) I'm not so sure about that, Corethe. You may be right. Specific proposals have been made to do with banning and restricting paid editors and these proposals have been shot down. But Philbrick may also be right. Analogy: not everyone who favours the legalisation of recreational drugs does so because they believe that the authorities should take absolutely no action. Formerip (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Appointments

Having determined that they met all the criteria for appointment, including having already identified to the Foundation, and in accordance with our longstanding traditions and their performance in the election campaign, I hereby appoint as follows:

1. 28bytes, a new arbitrator and a bureaucrat
2. GorillaWarfare, a new arbitrator and current oversighter
3. Seraphimblade, a new arbitrator who has done a lot of work at arbitration enforcement
4. Roger Davies, a returning arbitrator, back for his third consecutive term
5. AGK, a returning arbitrator, back for his second consecutive term
6. NativeForeigner, a new arbitrator and current checkuser
7. LFaraone, a new arbitrator and current checkuser and oversighter
8. Floquenbeam, a new arbitrator and longtime administrator
9. Beeblebrox, a new arbitrator and current oversighter.

All of these arbitrators will serve two-year terms, except Beeblebrox who will serve a one-year term.

Continuing their terms are:

1. Carcharoth
2. David Fuchs
3. Newyorkbrad
4. Salvio giuliano
5. Timotheus canens
6. Worm That Turned

Arbitrators whose terms are ending as of December 31 are:

1. Courcelles
2. Kirill Lokshin
3. Risker
4. SilkTork

I have fairly wide-ranging traditional powers to make policy by fiat, to hear appeals from the ArbCom, and to dismiss ArbCom and call for new elections. For those powers to be lost entirely from our constitutional arrangements would be unwise. As I wrote last year, "it is increasingly clear to me that we need those powers to be usable, which means transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change. One good example of this is the ongoing admin-appointment situation... a problem which I think most people agree needs to be solved, but for which our usual processes have proven ineffective for change. Some have asked me to simply use my reserve powers to appoint a bunch of admins - but I've declined on the view that this would cause a useless fight. Much better will be for us to put my traditional powers on a community-based footing so that we, as a community, can get out of 'corner solutions' that aren't working for us."

Subject to a majority vote in the community to approve the change (though in theory I suppose I could do it unilaterally) I am hereby expressing my desire to weaken my power to make policy by fiat. New policy will require me first to seek majority approval of both ArbCom (who will be asked solely to determine whether they think the issue is important enough to warrant a community vote) and the Community (who will have the final say) before making new policy. Therefore, this new arrangement is designed to handle only relatively rare issues, and not invite a general approach of majority vote instead of our generally very successful consensus approach which only sometimes fails to reach any conclusion at all on important matters, leaving serious holes in our progress. There will be no change to our existing consensus-based route to policy change.

It is my intention that once this is accomplished, we use the new constitutional arrangements to address some major issues regarding the falling size of the admin corp. If my proposal is rejected, then we fall back to the existing arrangement in which my powers are preserved as they have been. This is not what I urge, as I think the new approach is much more workable in terms of our ability to actually make real reforms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about proposed change

• So Jimbo, let me get this straight. What you're proposing is that the community try to work it out on it's own and if it cannot, then it asks Arbcom to elevate the issue to you where you will then, and only then, exercise your policy by fiat authority? You will propose said change and then the community will be required to support or reject it?--v/r - TP 14:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. There is no easy or obvious mechanism for the community as a group to ask ArbCom without yet another vote. But when it has become clear through multiple rfc's that we have a situation where neither solution A nor solution B (in a simple example) can reach 70% support, but it is also clear that remaining in infinite paralysis is worse than either alternative, I can ask ArbCom if the issue is important enough in their judgement to make a majority vote between A and B (perhaps to be tried experimentally depending on the issue) worthwhile. And if they agree then I can call for a vote.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, could you describe what such a vote would look like. Two options is likely going to produce a majority result. But what if there are 3 or 4 options like the recent discussion over COI editors. If no option reaches majority, what then? How would your proposal help?--v/r - TP 15:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, thank you for taking time to make new appointments quickly, during this busy time at year's end, as some have suggested moving ArbCom elections further back into November. I like the idea of transitioning some of your powers to require community majority support, as I have also witnessed others posting extreme hostility towards your, even wise, decisions when people imagined you were acting in a totalitarian manner (which often countered their attempts to force the outcome against broad consensus). However, I also fear too much reduction in your powers, so as others have noted earlier, if you decide to retain some full powers, then that might be wise as well. In general, most people tend to trust your long-term judgement, or otherwise, they would have ridden you out on a rail long ago! Things to consider. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikid, would you point me to a description of Jimbo's discretionary powers, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's discretionary powers equates to God of Wikipedia minus the things Jimbo has voluntarily given up. Everything left is his discretionary powers; essentially. In the beginning, before there was a community, Jimbo was the sole authority. He delegated that authority to much of the community as time progressed, but we've never come to a decision to limit the authority derived from the time before the community was capable of making decisions on it's own.--v/r - TP 15:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

My first comment here is that Jimbo never uses his powers aside from appointing arbs so they are not even being use now. Secondly, I think Jimbo's idea would be a good one if the community had any hope of passing changes, but the community has shown repeatedly that it is incapable of making these changes. The only time in recent memory that anything resembling a meaningful change was done by the community was the creating of the Template editor user right and the rejection of Visual Editor. For example, RFA changes repeatedly fail even after hundreds of hours have been devoted to the task of fixing it. So really, all we are going to see is more stalemate, more fighting and more decline The alternative is to give the Arbcom even more power which I wholeheartedly contend is absolutely not the right answer. This revelation is disappointing to say the least. Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You can add this week's creation of the Draft namespace there, but I agree, it's a depressingly short list. — Scott • talk 17:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Remember Lua with wp:TEDs & VE hidden: Don't forget Lua utility templates (cites/infoboxes), rewritten by community editors, made edit-preview 3x-4x faster since March 2013, plus 60 wp:Template_editors (wp:TED) have made hundreds of improvements to templates (reducing workload of tech admins), as just the beginning, while we advance into auto-correcting templates, beyond the 1950s-style error messages which rejected thousands of valid dates in wp:CS1 cite templates this month. Step 1 was gain permission to enhance major templates, and Step 2 is to shift into "smart templates" which are easier to use. Also, hiding VisualEditor was a major advancement, to overcome a too-soon release crisis of a mangled tool, by a community vote of 472 for Opt-in (wp:VisualEditor/Default_State_RFC). -Wikid77 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Although I do agree that hiding VE was a good thing I didn't include Lua because although it does offer improvements it also ensures that only a few people can make changes to them, mostly admins. We had too few people with the ability to modify templates, once they have all been converted we'll go from 20 or 30 that can edit templates to half a dozen. Since the template editor user right doesn't apply to the module namespace, its only a matter of time before the Lua modules completely eliminate the need for the template editor user right. Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• WP:TED editors update Lua but mostly 1950s error messages: The 60 wp:TED editors were also given similar mid-level access to Lua script modules, which although cryptic, mostly mimic the older 1940s-style templates, plus show 1950s-style error messages ("Invalid data - does not compute"). Few of the Lua modules are totally obtuse, and with enough "mental modelling" many tech editors have found ways to update those twisted Lua modules. I was hoping for powerful, smart Lua modules soon, but most just "re-invent the wheel" or the "paintbrush" as Luafied templates which people can copycat update as geekspeak modules, which seem arcane but bearable. Meanwhile, the navbox craze is a flash-in-the-pandemic now creating millions of tag-along navbox templates (invoking some Lua modules), which saddle many thousands of pages with hundreds of never-clicked wikilinks. But the prior millions of templates often just call a Lua utility module for faster wp:data hoarding of details, under parameter names only the obsessed can remember. I keep pressing for 1960s-style auto-correction of parameters, and 1990s-style automated grammar wizards, but the focus to re-invent Luafied templates has been the dominant effort. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"...transitioning them into a community-based model of constitutional change..." - while I wish you and yours all the best for the non-denominational festive tree season, and upcoming new year, I also think this is wise in terms of the 'What if Jimmy Wales gets hit by a bus' scenario. AnonNep (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No offense at all intended toward Jimbo, and I'm not saying it wouldn't upset the community, but we'd survive. We always have Newyorkbrad to fill Jimbo's shoes.--v/r - TP 15:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

According WP:JIMBO, in the event of Jimbo's "untimely death or inability to perform [his] capacities", ArbCom is to decide what to do next, subject to communal majority-vote ratification. So in that regard we already have a community-based model of constitutional change, though I certainly don't hope for it to come into play any time soon. As an aside, I agree with TParis that we'd likely wind up transferring Jimbo's powers to NYB, or another "elder statesman" of the project. The importance of the founder role is greater than any one man, and I very much hope that, once Jimbo's tenure comes to an end (either due to retirement or to less happy circumstances), we keep the office in place (though I guess we'd have to call it something other than "founder"). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has voted NYB - or any other editor - into any kind of position to receive a transfer of special powers in a post-Jimmy situation. I severely doubt that the community would be able to create such a position, nor do I believe that we should. Jimmy's position is a legacy one, and does not need to be renewed. — Scott • talk 14:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing this argument that Rfa is a broken process. But how many qualified candidates that ran for admin failed to get the mop? Those that failed such as me simply didn't have the trust of the community or were unable to demonstrate a need for extra tools.--MONGO 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't just the rejected or wp:SNOW-closes of each wp:RfA, but the whole notion of a "named wp:attack-page" as with my wp:Requests for adminship/Wikid77, which was loaded with insults, including bizarre claims my attitude was off because I posted to Jimbo-talk(!), or I did not "understand the software" with 2 degrees in computer science (having graduated in the top of my class and written a million+ lines of source code), or claims I was too tempermental when I have been an official debate judge for years. As one user noted, who had been trusted to "approve equipment" used in jet airliners worldwide, but still could not pass RfA. The insult-ridden RfAs need to stop, and need to be moderated, redacted, with disparaging remarks blocked, perhaps with no-RfA-edit topic bans. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that qualified candidates are failing, it's that qualified candidates aren't running at all. Based on historical trends, we should have seen around 900 RfA filings in 2013, of whom about 350 would be promoted. Instead, we've had 71 candidates, of whom 33 were promoted. --Carnildo (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. In fact the only reason the number wasn't lower lower was because there has been ongoing discussions about RFA almost continuously all year long. That IMO is the only reason why this year broke the 50% less yearly cycle that had been seen for the last 5 years. Next year will likely be less and we could see our active admin numbers slip below 1000 fro the current 1400. Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been told I'm 'new' but even I know the acronym RfA is a Wikipedia 'in-joke' for 'Request for Abuse'. AnonNep (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's very true. In the one RfA in which I actively participated (Buster7) I was appalled at the grilling this highly qualified and mature editor received. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. I very much like your proposal here—essentially finding a way to use your powers to cut through communal gridlock, without sparking an insurrection by doing so—but I'm not sure how necessary ArbCom's proposed role is. It seems to me like you'd be using a supreme court as a governor's council. If you want some sort of advisory check on your ideas before you send them to an up/down vote, why not create a separate body for just that, an actual governor's council, a small group of veteran Wikipedians with whom you'd consult before bringing matters before the community at large, just to make sure that you're not way out in left field on the issue at hand. Since such community votes would be, as you say, a "relatively rare" occurrence, your advisors would be able to give you their undivided attention, unlike ArbCom, whose members often complain of an excessive workload. Furthermore, your shared power with ArbCom already creates a complicated relationship, and it's easy to imagine cases where giving ArbCom preëmptive veto power over your proposals could effectively beget a constitutional crisis, for instance if they were to determine that the community need not hear a proposal of yours for ArbCom reform (sort of like the question of who presides over the impeachment of a U.S. vice president). — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the convoluted pseudo-consensus supermajority electoral system used by WP is "generally very successful." It breaks down over virtually every controversial matter. It's as effective as a gridlocked and deadlocked bicameral legislature in assuring the maintenance of the status quo through inertia. If we're going to re-envision Wikipedia's governance system, let's give something called democracy a try. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, possibly a frivolous question, but is the "not" meant to be there in the sentence "Therefore, this new arrangement is designed to handle only relatively rare issues, and not invite a general approach of majority vote ..."? That sentence makes no sense to me with that word in it. Graham87 10:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your detailed reply on my talk page. On re-reading that sentence carefully, I realise that the word I'd failed to absorb was "general". So what you're saying is "We're still using the consensus system, except in these corner cases of particularly difficult issues (e.g. RFA)". That sounds like an eminently sensible way of getting out of these logjams to me, and taking "not" out of that sentence would indeed drastically change its meaning to one you hadn't intended at all! Thanks again for the clarification. Graham87 12:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think the proposal is a good one. However, I think the role of arbcom should be more than just to decide on whether the question is important enough. I think it should be asked to certify, on a number of heads, that the question is suitable for majority voting. For example, I think they should certify

• that there is reason to think that the question entails an issue that is unlikely to be resolved without subjecting it to a majority vote;
• that a yes vote would not fundamentally change the character of en.wp in such a way that a simple majority would not constitute a strong enough mandate (e.g. majority voting may not be used to introduce advertising);
• that the issue to be resolved is not one that can be fairly perceived as driven or championed by WMF staff or board members (because it would be problematic to empower a WMF board member so that they were able to smooth the path of a WMF proposal, besides which the WMF has existing means of imposing its will, which it should use where appropriate);
• that the outcome of the vote would not significantly affect projects other than en.wp (because the interests of smaller projects would be systematically prejudiced by majority voting);
• that the question is not unfairly double-headed (i.e. it is not trying to sneak through something that may not be popular on the back of something that is - important because majority voting would be less sensitive to nuances in community opinion).

Thanks. Formerip (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hopefully this isn't a dumb question, but what policies have been imposed by Jimmy's fiats in the past? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This does seem to be an "undocumented feature" of WP. I do seem to recall something a year or two back in which a formal page was revised, including in the new text JW's ability to override ArbCom decision. As for the unilateral installment of policy, I know for sure I've never seen that since I've been here at the end of 2008; nor have I bumped into any reference to that in the course of my playing around with WP history. I'd be very interested in a link to a WP constitution page. (Counting on you to have that, Wikid!) Carrite (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales is an information page, which seems akin to an essay. Not a peep about any unilateral ability to create Policy in this review of actual practice. Of course there are Wikipedia:Office actions to override content decisions. And I know about the power to appoint and override decisions of ArbCom. But that's not what is being talked about, at all. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting discussion, but it has always been so. The last time that I recall it happening was the child protection policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there written documentation of such a right? If so, a link would be informative. Carrite (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect to WP:Child Protection, help me out here. The policy started as (full edit history) an essay started by User:MZMcBride on April 27, 2010; almost immediately made an Information Page by User:Pcap; with an attempt by User:Alison on June 29 to unilaterally make it policy, reverted after 8 minutes by User:Themfromspace (questioning the unilateral approach); which started a bit of edit warring on June 29/30, 2010 about marking it as Policy (see edit history). Then User:Jimbo Wales stepped in on July 5, 2010 to resolve the edit war over the tag. That's hardly "creation of Policy by fiat," in my view — nor is any claim made to some sort of undocumented right to unilaterally create policy. It's an aggressive support of one side over another as to the type of tag to put on a community-written information page or policy... Carrite (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I think Jimmy gets credit for that one, but that was a case of a no-brainer policy being pointlessly blocked by process enthusiasts, and Jimmy just broke the log jam. I'm not sure how well that would work in the case of a genuinely controversial policy. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to figure out the rationale for how this is creating policy, one possible Power Politics reading would be as follows: Assuming that such a policy change was not obviously acceptable to a big majority of Wikipedians (as was Child Protection), but something which the majority sought to overturn — the only way to trump such a marking of policy would be to take the matter to ArbCom, which could theoretically rule 15-0 against the change and then be unilaterally overruled and dismissed by Founder authority and a new compliant ArbCom directly appointed. I suppose in this scenario there is a theoretical possibility of making policy by fiat under the current written rules, but I can't even start to conceive of the magnitude of the shitstorm that would result. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are trying to make about absurd hypotheticals that have never been relevant in any way. That I have always tried to be keenly respectful and slow and thoughtful about my exercise of theoretical powers is something in which I take great pride. I would not have "stepped in on July 5, 2010 to resolve the edit war over the tag" had I thought the policy was not widely supported by the community. But it was an exercise of my power - an effective and thoughtful one - in that there was no tedious policy-wide vote to support it. I correctly identified consensus and that was that. My point in my proposal is that this approach, while it is currently policy, is not sustainable nor scalable in the long run. It seems that you agree, so quibbling in an a-historical way about what has gone before strikes me as pointless. Do you oppose the notion that these powers be placed on a more formally democratic and consensus- based footing? Or do you support?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand the background of your assertion above that Founder status is associated with some sort of ability to make Policy by fiat. I know of nowhere on WP where such authority exists as part of the specific powers of the Founder (specific powers which include appointing ArbCom, a full set of buttons, checkuser authority, etc.) No one doubts that your "breaking of the log jam" with respect to how to mark the Child Protection essay-turned information page-turned policy reflected the majority opinion of Wikipedians concerned with the matter. If it did not, there would have been much wailing, and if it was antithetical to majority views there would have been a crisis. Bear in mind that I do not myself think that short-circuiting the normal process in this manner was either advisable or admirable; regardless, the fact is that it expedited the inevitable, and few would have a problem with the result. But it is a long ways from there to some sort of "Founder's Prerogative" to establish Wikipedia Policy by fiat. Like I say, there are hundreds or thousands of pages of internal documents about WP governance and you may well know about something that I do not. Please do point the way. I absolutely agree that any such individual fiat should not exist and that decision-making with respect to site policy needs to formally reside in the hands of the community. I just am not understanding your inference that this state of affairs has not already come to be. Is there some document instilling extraordinary powers to Founder status of which we are not aware — something specific that you feel needs to be changed? Is there an actual Wikipedia constitution or bylaws? Or a similar document for the Wikimedia Foundation? Carrite (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Carrite seems to have gotten the USA and Wikipedia confused. Jimbo has the powers that Jimbo says he has, well... because he says so. Carrite, we are not a practice in democracy or any other kind of government. When Jimbo speaks of "constitutional" he speaks in the manner of the British system rather than an American-style written document (please correct me if I'm wrong User:Jimbo) ""No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea". If Jimbo wishes to give powers and abilities to the Community as he has in the past then that's his decision. Im confused where Carrite thinks the Community received the abilities and powers it currently has... does he/she think that we gave them to ourselves, much like the legal fiction in the US that the gov't receives its power from "the people"? In no way can you apply the concept of "social contract" to Wikipedia, it's a website and it is not owned by you, me, or the Community; it is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.Camelbinky (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There is much to be said for this perspective. In short, if I don't misunderstand you: there is no constitution, there is no organizational law, there is no entity called "the community." Everything here is an illusion and we are just worker-bee saps who have bought into the idea of creating free content for an ownership group which instead of selling ads and extracting profit a la Facebook functions as a "non-profit" company with a salaried staff. The so-called "community" is little more than a legal fiction to keep WMF from having their pants sued off by disgruntled article subjects. JW's power (ability to make a decision and cause others to comply) is derived not from any pseudo-legal structure here, but from his place within WMF, which can, on a dime, change policy by fiat. Any policy. What's that you just gave me, the blue pill or the red pill? And why are we wasting our time discussing JW "transitioning" his authority, which it is actually a question of WMF's corporate bylaws and the practice of company succession? Carrite (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Short answer- yes. Long answer- No constitution. No organizational law. Yes there is a Community. Yes in a way we are worker-bee saps, we do this because we have fun not because we get paid, in that way we are saps. But we're happy saps. Yes we have bought into the idea of creating free content for an ownership group, that's why we're here... The WMF is a non-profit, not a "non-profit" and most non-profits have salaried staff, few of any real size work with having non-paid staff, that's ridiculous if that's how you think non-profits work. The Community does not shield the WMF from being sued, I know of no legal argument that could be made that could legitimately shield the WMF by stating "the Community did it!". Yes, the WMF can change policy by fiat. Yes Jimbo's powers are not derived from the Community but instead from his position as the guy who created the website and "sold" it to the WMF which he created. I gave you the red pill. We're discussing this because you commented. Next time don't.Camelbinky (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? WMF is all about religiously guarding their Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protection from liability of posted content. That's been quite clear to me and most everyone all along. You also might want to take a close look at the day-to-day practice of "non-profit" entities other than WMF and draw your own conclusions about how they change as the money involved increases. I've got a red pill for you, too. I do thank you for providing the solution to the great mystery that was puzzling me, depressing though it is. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

OMG, you're one of those jaded conspiracy types... do me a favor and don't comment on... anything... ever. If you cant be rational and scientific, instead of "this is what I came up with in my head from reading the internet and believing others who have simply thought up things", then you aren't needed here. I on the other hand will believe in science and professionals on what they are professions about and not assume I know better than them because I read "stuff" on the internet and I "thought about stuff" and drew my own conclusions. Camelbinky (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hint for the future: don't begin an effort at being erudite and dismissive with a Valley Girl "OMG." best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinky writes: Im [sic] confused where Carrite thinks the Community [sic] received the abilities and powers it currently has... does he/she think that we gave them to ourselves, much like the legal fiction in the US that the gov't receives its power from "the people"? Actually, yes we did. The Wikipedia community existed before the WMF. Some of the people you're talking to were even here at the time. — Scott • talk 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Scott- do you know what [sic] means and how it is used? First off- it is not to be used when someone CHOOSES to not use an apostrophe, Im is not an instance in which you need [sic], neither is an instance of capitalization, in which Community is being referred to as a proper noun. Your use of [sic] is being used as a personal insult attempting to make me look uneducated and that I'm making mistakes. I suggest you "stuff it" and on a note about your comments- you're WRONG. The Community did not give itself any powers prior to the creation of the WMF, Jimbo gave the Community the powers. Oh, and if you're going to imply I'm an idiot, I'm going to outright say it- YOU'RE AN IDIOT.Camelbinky (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Awww, come on, man, you completely blew your line: "......YOURE AN IDIOT....." (Sheesh, must I write everyone's jokes for them?) Carrite (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I have lost the confidence that I used to have in Arbcom. I don't know whether it's the system, politics on who gets in, the fact that their deliberations / discussions now appear to mostly occur in secret (making it subject to who-know-what group dynamics and groupthink, but their decisionmaking seems to be random or worse. Leaving anything to them is I think a bad idea. I much more trust rarely and carefully used infinite power in the hands of Jimbo.North8000 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Arbcom. But I do think that, as a general proposition, there should be one person responsible for making tough decisions if the community is at loggerheads on particular issues. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you North8000, I have lost all confidence in the Arbcom and I know that we are not alone in that statement. There are many others in the community and even among the admin corps that feel that way. I would much prefer Jimbo make the decision because although I may not always agree with that decision I generally think he has the projects best interest in mind. Unfortunately I feel that many of the Arbitrators and admins on this site only care about their individual interests and how said decision most benefits them. That is not what this site needs and it is crippling our ability to make things better. Kumioko. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree in general about ArbCom. But, realistically, we're stuck with that system for the foreseeable future. I really don't think we should be moving towards putting power in the hands of any one individual without checks and balances. That's not a comment on Jimbo's competence, but on how things should be set up so that they don't go wrong and so that they can be robust when push comes to shove. If Jimbo just acted alone, it would cause a lot of drama and, sooner or later, he would start having to back down in the face of community opposition.

To put a slightly different slant on it, I think the unreliability of ArbCom is the only real reason Jimbo would need to be involved at all, otherwise they could just do it off their own bat or in response to a proposal from any user. Formerip (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

FormerIP, that sounds like what I say 99% of the time. This is the other 1% because we don't have a good alternative. It's either to have the power in the hands of a proven-good king, or have it in the hands of a proven nasty random violent mob. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem of mob mentality (I'd put it slightly differently - I don't think ArbCom are necessarily vicious, I just think that the expectation that they will always exercise wisdom is unrealistic) is best dealt with by giving them guidelines as to what exactly they are deciding, as I proposed above. It's true that if you give them a broad remit they will be random. So don't. Formerip (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Per PinkAmpersand that's absolutely a horrible idea in that it combines judicial powers with legislative. ArbCom has already been placed in the untenable position of both appointing and being the review board for checkusers. Additionally the pool of volunteers is constrained by those whose real-world situation allows them sufficient wiki-time to do all that ArbCom does. It's commendable you (Jimbo) wish to transfer your role to a community based one, but if Wikipedia:Governance Committee is what's needed, that should be a separate group from ArbCom, with separate elections. NE Ent 12:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It always amuses me when the solution to failed bureaucracy is more bureaucracy. What we need is an honest and open discussion about our problems. Both honesty and openness seem to be the problem. Editors arn't willing to risk losing and so they arn't honest about each other and they arn't open about their concerns. A new body won't solve that. It'll suffer from exactly the same problem in no more than 2 years time.--v/r - TP 18:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Our problems (and they are big) are because of problems & shortcomings of the system. On average, wikipedia editors are good people, so the problems are created by the system. What worked 6 years ago doesn't work now. 95% of the problems are at English Wikipedia, and 5% are at the foundation. And one of those of the English Wikipedia is that the system is too random & unwieldy to fix itself. A small group of carefully chosen, very careful, very kind, very wise, and very wiki-wise people could fix it in 2 months. A larger group of similar people could fix it in 2 years. And the current system could fix it in 10 years, the first 9 of those to decide to do what I just described and pic the people. Maybe Jimbo could do the "first 9 years" part. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You're idea requires that 51% of Wikipedians are willing to write a blank check to a small group. Arbcom is evidence that an election is not a blank check. Even being founder isn't a blank check. Look at how Jimbo's fiats have been treated in the past. That's why it'll never work.--v/r - TP 21:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am certain that I am against any so called transition of founder authority. The member of that user group needs to be nearly omnipotent, with everyone else subordinate; utterly dependent on the founders benevolence. The office of that flag needs an established line of succession to guarantee its continuity in perpetuity! I say "nearly omnipotent" because I believe it is necessary that some extreme measure must exist where the founder can be forced out by imposing a mandatory succession. I have ideas on how this could be accomplished, but I'll reserve that discussion for later.—John Cline (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though I'm a libertarian, I'd much rather have a king that we know than be ruled by random mob violence, incapable people, gangs, warlords and and their possies, which is how Wikipedia often works now. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, since Jimbo doesn't fully understand the problems or solutions, the King would steer processes rather than micromanage. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I take the position that there are no reserve powers, that Jimbo's position, other than user rights granted him by the foundation (which in my opinion should only be granted to clearly-labeled WMF accounts, for purposes related to employment only, and should be withdrawn if there is no consensus that they should remain), or by community vote (smirk), is not really relevant to the work that goes on here. Accordingly, any discussion of such theoretical powers only serves to puff Jimbo, which he has shown himself fully capable of doing himself, from what I gather from the news coverage. I have not watched or read his for-profit speeches, lacking time for quality entertainment leaves little for something which is neither.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

circular plagiarism

Here's a funny story:

I removed a bunch of copyright violations from the article Devyani Khobragade incident today. I noticed that one sentence in our article matched a sentence in a Press Trust of India article published in the Economic Times:

Wikipedia:

After four days, on December 10, 2013, the maid's husband and children were granted T visas, which allow certain victims of human trafficking and immediate family members to remain and work temporarily in the United States if they agree to assist law enforcement in testifying against the perpetrators.[2]

Press Trust of India:

Philip was given a T-visa, which allows certain victims of human trafficking and immediate family members to remain and work temporarily in the United States if they agree to assist law enforcement in testifying against the perpetrators.[3]

But then I checked Wikipedia's T visa article:

A T visa is a type of visa allowing certain victims of human trafficking and immediate family members to remain and work temporarily in the United States if they agree to assist law enforcement in testifying against the perpetrators. (last modified in 2010)

So the Press Trust of India plagiarized us (without attribution) and then we plagiarized the Press Trust of India... GabrielF (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's funny. That means we also used them as a reliable source, even though they used Wikipedia as their main (plagiarized) source to describe the T visa. This is becoming a House of mirrors. First Light (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.xkcd.com/978 -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_99#Glucojasinogen :) Wnt (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-functional search on WikimediaFoundation.org

Jimbo, the Search tool on your foundation's website doesn't seem to work comprehensively. If one searches for "David Friedland" everywhere on the site, for example, it returns no matches at all, even though the very first recorded WMF board meeting discussed: "The situation regarding the rights to use the logo is not yet clear. Jimbo is in contact with David Friedland (Nohat) about this. It was felt important that David would not have veto rights over where the logo is used." Could you please notify one of the WMF developers (maybe one of the staff working on Visual Editor) that Search is an important functional tool that supports transparency of foundation activity, and that maybe they should work on fixing that before adding more doodads to Wikipedia? Thanks! - Brooksville F (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Google works well. I don't think searches like this should be a very strong priority for the Foundation. We have 500 million users to worry about and 80,000-100,000 editors to worry about. I do think it should be fixed, don't get me wrong, but I don't think the Foundation should drop work on improving the user experience to fix a minor bug in the search on the Foundation website.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@Brooksville F:, see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Search for information about improvements to the search tool.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've filed this issue as bugzilla:58953. I'm expecting it to be marked as a duplicate of another bug report, since I would find it hard to believe that this has gone unnoticed. — This, that and the other (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But not that David Friedland. Neutron (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No; most likely one of these people. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 22:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas
	Have a great Christmas, Jimbo. Thanks for founding Wikipedia! --Jakob (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Subtle racism

How should wikipedia deal with editors who exhibit subtle racism, i.e. it is not obvious enough to qualify as racism with any one edit, but when their edits are taken as a whole, it might indicate in that direction. Such a particular user is careful not to explicitly contravene any wikipedia policies/guidelines to avoid being blocked. Pass a Method talk 09:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

DNA tests? AnonNep (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The same way we deal with everything else, ie: if it complies with policy then it is ok. I'm not keen on labels such as "subtle racism" because they are usually loaded terms: someone is either displaying an racist agenda here or they are not ... and until shown otherwise they should be given the benefit of the doubt. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was being facetious (above). Policy *should* cover it: due weight, balance, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. It doesn't but there are usually 'subtle' POV pushers on both sides of most arguments around here. AnonNep (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, WP:SYSTEMIC. We're pretty much all doing it at an institutional level. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We actually had an interesting discussion about this on the talkpage of an arbitration case a couple of years ago. I'm in transit today with limited access but I can post the link when I get home tonight or tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is a busy time of year for you, NYB. I hope that the reindeer and sleigh are bearing up ok ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, today we should deal with them by wishing them a merry Christmas.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Since Pass a Method's post here came directly after posting on my talk page, and after a string of edits on articles and talk pages on which we were interacting, I have reason to believe that I am the editor he is accusing of racism. For further discussion, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal for interaction ban between Pass a Method and StAnselm. StAnselm (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Brad may be thinking of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander, which dealt with a pattern of editing perceived as "consistently reflecting negative views of Jewish individuals and the Jewish people." That's probably the most relevant precedent, in that there was no overt anti-Semitism, but rather a subtle and prolonged pattern which raised concern. There was also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics, which was suspended indefinitely after the editor at its center retired. There's plenty of subtle (and not-so-subtle) racism on Wikipedia—just read through the archives of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin if you have a strong stomach—but there is no specific method for dealing with it beyond our standard processes. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What seems to have become policy (after a prolonged AE thread some weeks ago) is: let POV pushers duke it out with each other unless some ArbCom member doesn't stomach their particular POV. (Fell free to add this to you cynic's guide if it's not already in there; tldr.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Daily physical exercise routine

Some Wikipedians may wish to set for themselves the goal of a daily physical exercise routine, and thus be calmer and more alert when they edit Wikipedia. One possibility is the use of a treadmill desk, mentioned at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 146#Excessive sitting impairing health (October 2013). Also, males can use 5BX and females can use XBX.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Plus observance of relaxed schedules: Although I am using the terms "relaxed" and "comfortable", I want to emphasize the need to work at a calmer pace, and allow more people time to participate, especially at this time of year, with the start of Winter activities in far northern latitudes and start of Summer activities (with seashore and water sports) in far southern latitudes. We need longer wp:RfC schedules, in particular the recent RfC to transition Template:Convert to use the Lua script Module:Convert was wp:SNOW-closed and rushed into release over 10 days early, at 02:15, 11 December 2013, and still reformatting the final 7,000 of 554,000 pages (which use {convert} subtemplates) during the past 15 days, causing panic this season to check for mangled results when not compatible with the Lua Convert. Instead, we should delay an RfC which affects over one-half million pages, and allow more voices to determine a decision, maybe requiring a quorum as perhaps 30 people to voice opinions about a system-wide change, before rushing into action. Otherwise, rabid obsession to force massive changes has been very disruptive to other editors, causing them to drop broader activities and focus in crisis-mode over fear and panic of massive problems. In general, WP needs to coordinate with more users in a relaxed manner. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wikid77 You raise some pertinent points, but would, alternatively, stress the need for aerobic exercise as a necessity for holding the line against the various maleficent entities preying on the encyclopedia. Relaxation is good, of course, but this is work.

Happy New Year!--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I am saying is to remember many of us, this season, are already being delayed by "aerobics" to chop firewood, shovel snow, or catch some waves in the surf along the shore or paint the beach house this month. -Wikid77 19:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your personality

This isn't exactly scientific, but what is your so-called personality type? This website lists you as an INTP despite you supposedly scoring as an ESTP. If you're ever curious about personality quizzes, here's a link to the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, which claims to be "the most widely used personality instrument in the world". I'd take any results with a grain of salt because of how common it seems for people get different results when they re-take tests. Spellcast (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a big believer in these types of things except as convenient (possibly too convenient) frameworks for thinking about differences in personality.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#Wikipedians by MBTI personality type (August 2012).

—Wavelength (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

A discussion involving you on Commons has finally been resolved. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo on BBC Radio 4

Jimbo could be heard briefly on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, available on BBC iPlayer at about 13 minutes in (I'm not sure whether that works outside UK?). It's the "Must-listen" morning programme for many people in the UK, though probably their least-listened spot of the year: 06:13 on Boxing Day morning (day after Christmas). Today's show is guest-edited by Tim Berners-Lee, part of a season of guest-editors they invite at this time of year, and worth a listen. PamD 13:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What really is worth a listen on today's Today programme is the section with Navi Pillay, who (in accordance with the general assembly's recent unanimous vote) reminds us that online privacy is a human right, and draws a comparison between the international response to the Snowden revelations and the worldwide pressure that ended apartheid in South Africa. Writegeist (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Large, politically partisan anti-Obama ad in the middle of an article's body text

Jimbo, is the community really serious about this? Did any of you actually look at this ad? You not actually plastered a gigantic ad in the middle of an article's text, but a clearly partisan ad on a site that professes neutrality as one of its core principles? C'mon, this has got to be a hacker's hoax, right? I really wouldn't care that much about small banner ads at the top or on the side of the site, but this? This has got to be someone's practical joke. Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• It was vandalism to Template:Infobox Chinese/Footer, which has since been reverted. WilyD 16:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I figured as much. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Your license may applicable for your original work

In response to a recent discussion on COM:VPC, CC hard clarified that "in some jurisdictions releasing a photograph under a CC license will give the public permission to reuse the photograph in a different resolution."

See related updated in their FAQ:

What do the terms and conditions of a CC license apply to?

Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?

How do I know if a low-resolution photo and a high-resolution photo are the same work?

A good news for the "free culture"; but may be a "not so good" news for many photographers. See the ongoing discussion in Commons. There are some mixed responses. Some people think "we should discourage professional photographer who are only interested in using Commons to promote themselves. So it is good." Some people think "this change seriously damages Commons ability to attract professionals to donate downsized versions of their work."

Jimmy, we would like to know how you see it and whether it is good or bad for WMF projects. I see you are a director of CC too. Jee 03:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If this new interpretation holds legal water, where it is most immediately "not so good" is how we have been obtaining large amounts of material from content creators under what turn out to be false pretenses.

"You know how we told you that you could share a lower-resolution version of your images with us, thereby helping out the encyclopedia and providing a benefit to all humanity, while still preserving your commercial rights to high-resolution versions of your work? Yeah...we were kind of wrong about that. Oops! All your stuff is actually now under a free license, and nobody needs to pay you for your content anymore. Sorry about that!"

Either we've (and by 'we' I mean individuals with the Foundation and our legal advisors) wilfully and deliberately participated in deceiving people about the effects of the Commons licenses for years, in which case we are liars and cheats, or we've been pushing this license for years without understanding its legal ramifications, in which case we are incompetent chuckleheads. Neither option is "good", and I frankly don't see a third interpretation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, legal consensus on a matter can change, just as other forms of consensus do. There's no need for such a dichotomy. LFaraone 22:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it technically feasible to create a high resolution image from a low resolution copy? If not, isn't the owner still in control of the high resolution image by contractually protecting it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have many images here that are also represented by Getty Images. Clients of Getty get access to the full resolutions images as they work them into their projects and assist with design, layout, etc. There is nothing legally preventing these clients now from getting the full resolution image through Getty and licensing it from here as CC-BY-SA for free. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Then wouldn't you change your contract with Getty images, and they with their reusers, if not already protected by moral rights? Getty wants to protect its interest which you have assigned them, do they not? The reusers seem to have already acknowledged both your and Getty's interest, haven't they? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Saffron/Getty could probably sue the client who redistributed the image outside of their contract terms (which are very likely to forbid this) -- assuming they can find out who it was -- but they may well be unable to ask WMF/Commons to "take down" the image once it has been uploaded, since Commons would argue it has a valid copyright licence for the work. It is typical for Commons to completely disregard the contractual mess an uploader may get themselves into as "none of my business". Also, since this is merely a contractual dispute between two other parties rather than the All-Powerful threat of copyright infringement, I suspect WMF wouldn't be willing to hand over any identifying details of the anonymous user who uploaded the perfectly legally licensed image. CC have suggested commercial artists keep their high-resolution work under lock & key, which is utterly impractical if one actually wants them to be used. Lastly, for some to sue for damages, what would the loss here be? If the copyright work has been licensed for free use, then a judge may well regard the work as worthless. Just my guess. -- Colin°^Talk 17:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This sounds absurd. Cropping a picture (in an uncreative way) doesn't create a new work under copyright law either. By this reasoning, if you license the cropped image, anyone is free to use the uncropped image since they both count as the same work. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no making sense out of copyright law, or any law that infringes freedom of expression. I mean, we have the right to go around and take pictures of people. As long as they're in public. And they're not standing near a building. Or wearing a T-shirt. Or jewelry. Or clothes. (Or not wearing clothes, that would be "revenge porn") We have a situation on Commons (literally) where people will for now claim the right to upload a picture of someone wearing a necklace, but crop out just the part with the necklace and that picture would be a violation! It's not that we can't understand it, it's that it can't be understood. It's all a lot of mindless theory, after which whoever has the money wins. Wikipedians need to understand that creating this grand collaborative resource to show what people can do together was never just an end, but rather a demonstration that we are willing and able to throw aside the constant court evaluations of what we have the "right" to read or say or do. We can do what we can - and we must, even if we are regarded as dishonest for it, because it is far better to be scorned than to suffer the contempt we would earn from a featured gallery full of red links - but in the end there is no substitute for ending the entire concept of intellectual property altogether, and transitioning to a new economic system founded on better principles. Wnt (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• The copyright notice should restrict usage to "no alterations" as derivative works, to avoid retro-filling high-resolution details or juxtaposing for obscene or criminal activities. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That won't work. Legally, changing the resolution is not making a derivative work. Even if you don't permit derivative works at all, people are still permitted to change the resolution. 208.65.89.235 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wnt, can you at least explain one economic model that would allow photographers to participate here with CC_BY_SA licenses that would still allow them to leverage their own creations for economic gain? As to your right to go around and take pictures of people... well in some jurisdictions that is true, others it is illegal without consent, but in just about every jurisdiction there are restrictions on publishing and surely commercial use of said images. Now the CC 4.0 licenses force authors to give away those rights for themselves if they want to participate in ventures such as this. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I was focusing more on the prohibition on many kinds of manufactured objects, but true, I did not give an exhaustive list. An example economic model is as follows: a) abolish all IP. b) decree an income-based mandatory donation threshold that goes to fund artists, inventors, and other former IP creators, which each person has a free choice to appropriate according to basic rules: i.e. you can designate one or many funding agencies to dole out this portion of your income, or even designate recipients yourself, but each recipient is limited to a very small maximum share to avoid you and friends handing money back and forth. I will omit formulae; suffice it to say that though this is a heavy tax, the total amount should be the same as that currently spent on royalties (which being government mandates requiring intrusive enforcement should also be considered taxes, but largely go to middlemen! Fund pharmaceutical researchers, not drug ads; fund good musicians, not the guys who expect the blowjobs). However arbitrary or corrupt the results of individual agencies' decisions might be, could they be more arbitrary or corrupt than the IP lawsuits we've seen every year? Layer this on a more humane system that uses progressive taxation to guarantee the basic essentials of life to all, and you have a working economic system for a change. Wnt (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but I suppose I should have qualified that as something in the real world as opposed to free culture utopia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• The real world solution is very realistic - it's just unfortunate. We keep increasing bandwidth and storage until people pirate the entire Library of Congress on a thumb drive, and we watch various industries like news reporting, music, and photography become essentially amateur pursuits, until the "utopian" solutions become appealing because they are the only ones that have any chance to provide any actual money. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• @SaffronBlaze It isn't really up to us to come up with an economic model that enables professionals to participate here for commercial gain. But we should be able to show how people can volunteer here without impeding their ability to work professionally. So just as a professional proofreader is free to spend hours of their free time proofreading on Wikipedia with no detriment to their professional work, a professional photographer is free to spend hours of their personal time taking photographs that they then release under an open license. I would say that a professional photographer has at least three economic models open to them here. The first is to release a portfolio of quality photographs here, which they can then show to potential clients. The second is to compete in competitions such as Wiki loves Monuments, and the third is to say to clients that you can provide a better photograph of them or their product for a Wikipedia article. The first two of these are for aspiring photographers who are not yet established, but the third is open to anyone. A fourth option which I've heard of one retired photographer taking is to release your old images under an open license, and I can see that being attractive to someone who is more concerned at their collection still being used than earning more money from it. ϢereSpielChequers 11:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Wnt is taking this discussion into areas that belong in another section for another day. I agree with TenOfAllTrades this is a potentially hugely damaging result for Wikipedia and for Creative Commons. Discussion of the finer details and questions about it are probably best done at the Commons page. I would like to hear a response from CC as to why their publicity material advertises precisely the usage now deemed impossible (having different licences for the same artistic work at different quality/resolution/format). And I would like to know officially what Wikipedia has to say to the many professional photographers who have donated low-resolution images to Wikipedia on the understanding that their high-resolution images remained "all rights reserved". -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Never mind individual contributors. I think just about every cultural institution that has donated to the creative commons will have done so under false pretenses. I imagine that they will be pissed. Good luck securing any new donations in the future too. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

In general, I'm unaware of any of our GLAM ("Gallery, Library, and Museum") work which would be affected by this at all. In general, I think the the notion of CC-licensing a low-res version while retaining full rights to a high-res version is not very popular or important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion over at Commons mentions Commons:Bundesarchiv as one such donation – from the German Federal Archives, and involving more than 80,000 images – that appears to be affected.

In general, I think that it's very disappointing that you've adopted a laid-back attitude toward the way we have contributed to misleading content producers, even if (arguendo) their particular choices for contributing their work aren't in a way that you think is very important. Usually I'm impressed with what you have to say, but this time you're coming across as pretty tone-deaf. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as laid back. I just haven't yet been persuaded that this is a serious problem. I was unaware of the Bundesarchiv issue, and I'm surprised and disappointed if volunteers (or staff) have been giving people advice about legal matters of any kind. At the same time, an FAQ on a Creative Commons wiki hardly changes anything in the actual law.

As a side note, one of the proposed solutions that some people have put forward doesn't strike me as plausible. One could, it is argued, license the low-res version under a CC license and if that means the high-res version is thus under a CC license, you just don't let anyone have it without imposing some additional contractual conditions. But that's really hard to do in a way that realistically restrains ultimate end users. For example, a photo might be on commons in a low-res format, and held in a photographer's personal secure archive until a magazine licenses it and publishes it. But then end purchasers of the magazine wouldn't be bound at all, much less people who happen to find the magazine blowing down the street.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Would that be so, if what is of value is not the printed (often altered) image per se but the high res. file itself, and whether it is technically feasible to protect that file? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It depends on what you mean by "serious" problem. Is it going to have a significant effect on Wikipedia in the long run? No, probably not. It is a "serious" problem for our contributors who relied on the assurances that we provided? Yeah, it may be a bit of a big deal for some of them.

JJ Harrison (who commented above, and who has generously contributed more than 300 featured, high-resolution images to Wikipedia) has probably never uploaded a low-resolution image and should probably be this project's poster boy for wildlife photography; it's worth noting that he still gets what the problem is, in a way that you seem dreadfully blasé about. While Harrison may be right that we will feel the biggest impact from large, institutional contributors, I suspect that the largest impact will be felt by the small, individual, amateur and semi-professional contributors who trusted us to get this sort of thing right. There's no sense from anyone at Wikipedia or the WMF – or, apparently, from you – that we are embarrassed or apologetic that we made a serious error when we described the impact of our preferred license. Even for the (majority) of content contributors who didn't rely on our posted statements about how licensing low-resolution versions still allowed them to reserve rights to their high-resolution originals, it leaves a sour taste. Seeing contributors told that their concerns aren't important or serious enough to worry Wikipedia, and that it's more important for the project founder to get a cover-the-ass "I'm surprised and disappointed if volunteers (or staff) have been giving people advice about legal matters" message out than to express any concern or regret for the contributors who may be affected, is...sad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. This "ruling" essentially makes liars out of volunteers who have convinced museums to donate low-res copies under CC licenses for use on WMF projects under the assurance that they would retain the right use a non-free license for the high res versions. That approach has been used for years, and until this was generally a good deal for all parties involved. Out of fairness, those institutions should be allowed to rescind those donations, because it turns out to have been a deceptive practice (if unintentionally).

Bear in mind also that a lot of "direct contributors" (volunteers with cameras, including professional photographers) also upload low-res versions with higher res available as all rights reserved. Quite a few even note this on their userpages and on the file descriptions. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you put "ruling" in scare quotes, but I think we can go much further: there has been no ruling of any kind, just an update to an FAQ on a Creative Commons wiki. It does raise what has always been an interesting issue, but unless someone comes forward with case law I'm not that worried about it right now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping for something better than "if someone feels they've been misled, they can always sue"... there's an ethical dimension here that one would hope the WMF and CC would take into account. The "so sue me" approach pretty much characterizes what you say about the current commons management just below.

Again, the split license (low/high res) has been commonly understood as standard practice by volunteers (both direct contributors and outreach contributors) for many years (at least since 2006, when I was "educated" about it), and suddenly broadening the scope 7 or 8 years later is disrespectful. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Museums relied on volunteers at Commons to tell them how to protect the Museums' rights? That seems illogical, even fanciful? Is any museum making such a claim, or even asking for their images back? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. But - and this is important - I think that Commons is (sadly) pretty ridiculous in their usual attitude of "nyah nyah too late you clicked a button" for people who regret contributions. There might be rare cases where such a fight is worth having, but in general I think it would be better for commons to be kind, decent, and generous. Those in leadership positions there have taken a different approach I'm afraid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Have you even read the work that has been going on with respect to issues regarding COM:IDENT and Courtesy Deletions. Some rather principled people would be disheartened by your slam. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree and unfortunately Wikipedia has similar problems with its leadership. I wish there were someone who had the power to do something about all that since its clear these 2 communities aren't able too..hint, hint, hint. Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no issue with Commons deleting these, but I am doubtful that it would actually make a difference in protecting the work, which is already out there and licensed, and Commons probably should not suggest to people they can put the genie back in the bottle if they cannot. So, as courtesy delete from Commons, if they ask but it is out there already in the ethersphere, isn't it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is such a thing as "damage limitation". It would make a big difference where Commons is the main repository for such files. Cuts off pretty much any future use. Please let's not make this some kind of "Evil Commons" argument. The actualities here are that Commons is behaving honourably and considering how to "do the right thing", which is more than can be said for Jimbo's talk page at present. Creative Commons and WikiGLAM (not to mention many Wikipedians) have mislead contributors for years and are now effectively saying "silly you, should have hired a lawyer" or "not interested until someone actually gets sued over this". -- Colin°^Talk 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I could say it any more directly than Colin has here. Being dismissive about this issue and taking unkind digs at Commoners in the process speaks more to the leadership here than it does there. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• I would say that Jimbo's assumption that Commons would be nasty and grabbing rather than "kind, decent, and generous" is reasonable (because a lot of admins and at least one now-ex-'crat are like that). However, Jimbo, you asked good people to work at Commons to improve the ethical situation there and some of us are trying very hard in the face of poor odds. And this is an example of where good ethical standards are on display. So your comment really hurts. -- Colin°^Talk 11:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If this becomes the issue I think it will be... one solution could be to allow the CC-by-NC-SA license. In essence we promoted the low resolution idea to diminish commercial use of the images. Given the conversation here so far, I suspect that will not happen until/unless the big donors make a big enough stink.Thelmadatter (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in this response from Jimbo. I'm not sure what you mean by "not very popular or important". Do you mean it isn't popular (liked by free-content advocates) or popular (widely used by commercial donors)? The "don't give legal advice" comment is not helpful as all sorts of statements can be construed as influencing someone's opinions, including widespread existing practice. How about Creative Commons' own publicity material "The Power of Open" which gives an example: "When completed, every aspect of the film will be released under two different CC licenses: BY-NC-SA for the high-resolution version, and BY-SA for the low-resolution." This is an example of a non-free licence (NC) for high-resolution material that the CEO and the Chair of CC "hope .. inspires" people to follow. The "solution" you ridicule above is actually one suggested by CC -- nobody on Commons thinks it is wise either.

If a professional wants to donate some of their work to Wikipedia and offers to donate 2MP images yet keep their 36MP images for paying clients, what would you suggest we say. Pay for legal advice? Or say nothing? Just let them stumble over the ambiguity in the word "work" that we've all mistaken all these years. BTW, I normally agree Commons is petty and unforgiving but in this case the discussion is actually more along the lines of "We'd better let them know and offer to delete their images if they aren't happy". I will try to get some better figures about how widespread this issue is, but it is a busy time of year. I wouldn't be surprised if some grumpy pro photographers write some angry blog postings or magazine articles advising people to never go near Wikipedia or CC licences again. -- Colin°^Talk 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jimmy above. I can't see why anyone would think that by licensing a lowres version of a image you could somehow not have also licensed the hires version. This is why I've always used the NC license to stop the commercial use of my photos. Now I can understand that amateur photog might be confused and misled but large institutions - I don't think so. There may be an issue where individuals have been making false promises to others but that is essentially the Artic Kangaroo issue that we had a few months back. It has nothing to do with WMF and is purely an issue between the individuals concerned. John lilburne (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The combination of claims being made here poses an existential threat to Wikipedia. We progress as follows: 1) CC licenses mean something other than what we all think they do. 2) Therefore, anyone who gave material while holding back a high res version can revoke contributions because the license itself may be invalid. 3) Therefore, no CC license is really valid, because who can know if the author of anything has a higher res version (or one which is otherwise superior)? 4) Therefore, no contribution to Wikipedia is actually licensed, and the site is plainly illegal. I hope that there are some legal people involved who can produce a WMF statement, update the article Creative Commons on the issue (it says nothing about it now), and analyze closely whether this is some chance ideological vagary or if the CC organization has been infiltrated by hostile forces with the deliberate intention of destroying the free culture movement. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Too much Christmas sherry? -- Colin°^Talk 21:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Snide comments don't change the fact that for Commons people to even be talking (however misguidedly I hope it is) about giving up their educational content - including a single batch of 100,000 free educational images, 0.5% of the total collection - would be a major failure for the CC license, and we need to ask seriously how such a dramatic failure came about. Wnt (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not our content. The copyright belongs to the copyright holders, who have generously licensed the images freely. If we have actively misled them about the license implications, we should take some responsibility for that. For example, if they ask us not to continue hosting the images, I think that we should respect their wishes. It doesn't come close to repairing the problem (which I agree represents a major failure, at least of communication), but it would help demonstrate that we did not mislead them intentionally. Besides the ethical aspect, there is the argument that displaying too grasping an attitude to donations may cause future donations to dry up. --Avenue (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

GLAM

Some examples of misleading GLAM advice (and one example of "correct" advice -- at least according to the new CC FAQ).

• GLAM-WIKI Recommendations (recommendations from the "GLAM-WIKI: Finding the common ground" conference held at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 6-7 August 2009.). "Law / Requests to GLAM / Consider offering a free-license for lower resolution/sized institution-controlled, in-copyright content (retaining full copyright over higher resolution)."
• Wikipedia:GLAM/Natural History Museum and Science Museum/releasing content. "If you are worried about losing commercial opportunities to license the images it is possible to release images under a lower resolution to Wikimedia Commons and keep the higher resolution for this purpose. The low resolution images may even increase the interest in higher quality images via the wider audience."
• GLAM/Case studies/WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge "How we convince institutions to share their knowledge....If an institution is selling rights on its art collection then it is maybe not a good idea to release the collection in Creative Commons attribution share alike; but if they only sell high resolution images, why not providing a lower resolution?" and later "Convincing institutions to allow commercial use of their content...Explain also that the license on digital images applies only to that specific image, at the resolution they decide to release it with. This means that they can release images with a lower resolution and keep high resolution images under copyright."
• 'An (even briefer) history of open cultural data' at GLAM-Wiki 2013 "Hybrid licensing models are a pragmatic solution for the current environment. They at least allow some use and may contribute to greater use of open cultural data while other issues are being worked out. For example, some institutions in the UK are making lower resolutions images available for re-use under an open licence while reserving high resolution versions for commercial sales and licensing."
• Open data for GLAMs / Choose your License Someone posts the query: "We'll likely use a combination of CC0, CC PD, and probably CC BY SA, but probably applied only to lower resolution versions of images for the web. At first, I imagine various entities at the institution will be worried about allowing our high res images to be so open. I might be able to convince people to license the high res as CC BY ND. Eventually, I hope we'll be able to open up our high res images as BY SA as well." this is actually correctly responded to with "don't make the mistake to publish high resolution under a more restrictive license than a lower resolution work. According to most copyright laws these works are to be considered the same! This means that the more open license of the lower resolution work can also apply to the high resolution works."

-- Colin°^Talk 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. I've commented out the first three examples, although the first also has a PDF version for which WMF copyright is claimed. I'm not sure what to do with that. --Avenue (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think strike-through would be much more useful than commenting out. These documents, although wiki-based, document thoughts at a point in time and recommendations from a panel of conference speakers. It will make it harder for people to find the "advice that mislead them" if people "change history". Better that we are honest about our mistakes and add a note saying "we were wrong". -- Colin°^Talk 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point; I've now struck-through the first and third examples instead. I think that the second (written in March 2013) still comes across very much as current advice, so simply commenting it out makes more sense to me (although striking it out and explaining the problem would also work). The old version is still there in the history,[4] and this discussion also gives the old version more visibility. The third example also initially seemed to me to be about a current project, but I might be mistaken about that. --Avenue (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Colin for finding these examples. Maybe Mr. Wales will "wake up" to the extent of this problem now, but I doubt it. He's pretty intractable once he gets his teeth sunk into a curiously unique POV. Is there any possibility that Diane Peters of the Creative Commons legal team is simply wrong about her modification of the FAQ? You know, while this interpretation of the license seems extraordinary, it may actually be in line with past practice by the Creative Commons. I recall when the GFDL was proposed to be "merged" into the CC-by-SA license, about 10% of GFDL license holders disagreed with the merge, but they were essentially told to go pound sand down a rat hole, since the more flexible CC-by-SA was what the CC and WMF wanted to railroad onto Wikipedia, regardless of how the license holders actually felt. Jimbo sang the night away when they pulled off that license switcheroo. Anyway, those are just my thoughts from little ol' Astatula. I'm sure someone who sits on the board advisory council of CC is way smarter than me. - 70.209.2.120 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Improvements for Wikipedia

I am proposing new requests. I first want a filtering system that prevents unregistered users and registered users that are minors to read such inappropriate pages on Wikipedia and have warnings that the following page is unsuitable for minors. Also on Wikimedia Commons, there should be an option to flag inappropriate images. There also should be a date of birth section on Wikipedia to determine the user's age - Ismael777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismael755 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PERENNIAL#Censor offensive images and WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is a world-wide project, and standards vary wildly between different communities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Just addressing the image filter and censorship: An image filter is not censorship, provided the reader is free to turn it on and off. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is, regardless of the default state. And there's inevitably going to be mission creep where "respect for a partner" comes under an adult content filter. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling here. Perhaps you could explain. "Censorship" to me is preventing someone from viewing or hearing something. How is a voluntary image filter doing that? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Given OP proposes to force unregistered users and minors (however the hell they intend to prove who is a minor, I don't know) to use the feature, I would say that this particular proposal most certainly is all about censorship. Resolute 16:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That'll never fly. But that doesn't explain Sceptre's assertion that an image filter controlled by the reader is censorship. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

People don't activate filters to protect themselves, they do it to restrict others. I don't mind a script or Special:Preferences that would allow people to hide, say, Muhammad pictures. But once we start categorising media or topics on subjective criteria (such as "suitability for a minor") then we start opening the door to things such as blocking-by-default. Not to mention that it would be a violation of NPOV to categorise on subjective criteria. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I do use safe search features - at work, in public, on shared computers, and often at home - for myself, not to restrict others. If Commons or en.Wikipedia offered an NSFW image filter, I'd use it for myself, not to restrict others. Your assumption that offering easy NSFW image filtering will lead to blocking-by-default and image removal is also mistaken. Nobody I know who supports an image filter supports censorship. Throwing up censorship is throwing up a straw man. The filter is the libertarian position: it gives readers more, not less, freedom. Opposition to the filter is authoritarian - "You'll look at dicks whether you want to or not, and if you don't like it, bugger off." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually went onto the Encyclopedia Britannica, to see how they dealt with subjects of anatomy: no filter, either for the articles or the images. And it's not a straw man if, time and time again, mandated filters have always led to censorship and mission creep. When Cleanfeed was created in 2003, we were told it was only going to be used as part of measures to remove child abuse images from the (shallow) web. By October 2013, David Cameron was bragging at PMQs that the security services could use the system against "extremists". Sceptre ^(talk) 15:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your slippery slope argument is hollow. The Wikipedia community won't slide from an optional image filter to censorship. That is so obvious that I really wonder what actually motivates the slippery slopers. I'm beginning to suspect you're on an ideological pro-porn, pro-gore, pro-sacrilege campaign. Normal people have normal sensibilities about such things. If they want to read about ejaculation, Muhammad imagery or torture without looking at it, and we can give them the option, we should. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Retract that personal attack now. People have very good reasons to be wary of filtering. Unless you can explain how an officially recognised associated organisation of a government party is "pornographic". Sceptre ^(talk) 14:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If I go to Human penis and find a picture blanked because I've enabled image filtering, I'll just click the image to view it. You're conflating censorship with optional filtering. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really, because optional filters without fail have led to, at the very least, filtering being the default option which is de facto censorship. Look at the news regarding BT's parental control filter; they're blocking political parties and churches as "pornographic" simply for not thinking gay people should have legal equality. Besides, I don't see how any of the proposed filters can match up with our policies; by putting images under the filter, you're making judgement calls regarding content, which we have a culture (NPOV, NOR) of not doing. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Expecting en.Wikipedia to do what BT does is just foolish, and, though we should get it as fit for purpose as possible, a rational image selection process doesn't have to be perfect if anyone can click on a blanked image to view it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not just BT: of the four biggest ISPs in the UK, three have parental control options, of which two have been in the news this past week for vastly overstepping. And of the one that's left... well, let's say they're probably tweaking it so they don't block themselves. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Their agenda can be predicted from their [5] incorporation of bans of information about "hacking" and "lock-picking" under their "obscene and tasteless" category. Anything that might let someone access The Pirate Bay must be banned if the parent bans obscenity; the next step is to force or threaten the parent into banning obscenity. This is the kind of censorship scheme that "filter" proponents want because it allows them to work their agenda seamlessly into the "consumer choice"! Wnt (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's a world wide project, but viewed by people of all ages. And those innappropriate pages and pictures are a concern of their parents and even, in some children, themselves . Ismael755 (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If there are things you don't want to see, you can use specialized software. Wikipedia, however, is not in the business of keeping information from people. —Kusma (t·c) 16:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It is actually possible for users to generate a highly effective and individualized scheme to block whatever images they want, as I have laid out in User:Wnt/Personal image blocking, without creating centralized censorship authority. But none of the censorship proponents have any interest in this, for exactly that reason. I once wrote up a little twelve-line Javascript program to block all the images in the Muhammad article as a proof of concept [6] - to my perhaps imperfect knowledge this remains the most functional filter ever created on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Wnt. That's exactly the point. Let me add:

• User:HectorMoffet made a similar proof of concept at User:HectorMoffet/OfferToHideImages.js, [7]. AFAIK nobody was interested, nobody used it.
• User:Anomie created a nice script that hides all images until you click on them. It is very fast, has good usability and it is prominently linked at Help:Options to hide an image#Hide all images until click to view. AFAIK, nobody uses it.
• In August 2011 the Wikipedia mobile WMF team provided a link to deactivate images on mobile [8]. I assume nobody used it; the developers decided that it wasn't worth the screen space and moved it to mobile Settings.
• Via adblock, anybody can easily create a personal image filter, see Help:Options to hide an image#Install the Adblock Extension (Firefox). You can even share your filterlist. Somebody in 2009 made a Wikipedia "Porn Filter for Roman Catholics" ("Just because it's on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel doesn't mean it can't be filtered."). AFAIK, pretty much nobody was interested.

Note: There is not a huge demand by people to hide images from themselves. This issue always comes down to some people wanting a filter to hide some images from others: minors, other muslims, the whole country of Saudi Arabia or public morality somewhere else. As user:Kusma said: "Wikipedia, however, is not in the business of keeping information from people." --Atlasowa (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And it has to be pointed out that "Over 18" confirmation is impossible for any website to enforce effectively. There is nothing to stop a minor from lying in response to this question, and a website would be none the wiser when this happened. There is no substitute for adult supervision while using a computer connected to the Internet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a convenient argument, but not a true one, so we must be ideologically ready for the day it deserts us. An immense spy-industrial complex is more than ready to track serial numbers across the internet, install cameras/facial recognition, even sell fingerprint readers to a public that seems afraid even to think about their motives lest it look bad on their permanent records. Saying they can't reliably know each and every person accessing Wikipedia is a hope worth fighting for, sure... so was the Battle of Corregidor. We must defend freedom of inquiry not because censorship is inconvenient but because it is wrong. Wnt (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about a simple "click yes to confirm that you are over 18" or filling in an online form with date of birth. These are obviously prone to lying without detection. I can't imagine Wikipedia requiring fingerprint logins or facial recognition any time soon:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the DOB is a more effective idea than a checkbox. Even a 5-year old can click on a checkbox without hesitation, compared to a DOB, where they have to look at practically 100 years. ZappaOMati 19:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia wouldn't create such a mechanism. But if Britain or a large consortium of American cable companies introduces a way of marking their IP packets as under-18 or over-18 based on that kind of data, Wikipedia would immediately have access to that age classification with each incoming packet, and our virtue would be put to the test. Our experience so far has not been that these governments or corporations have any great liking for privacy. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What I would prefer is that there should be a special scanner to scan ID of internet users to identify the user before expecting to be in a site deemed inappropriate for minors and for registering. I mean, in real life, we need IDs to buy alcohol and tobacco, and that can also work for the internet, since people at the age of majority can have an ID Ismael755 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, coming from the U.S. I'm afraid I subscribe to the parochial notion that your proposal justified a terrorist insurgency. Wnt (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, actual COPPA compliance and ensuring that minors do not have access to features such as email, as child protection methods, have often been rejected in favour of knee-jerk ineffective policies. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps parental controls through auto-login usernames: I have proposed that the WP webpages could offer a parental-controls interface, perhaps with Special:MyPage/common.js and Special:MyPage/common.css which would have the software auto-login to specific username (stored on user's PC/tablet), but of course on other devices (or at libraries), the person would need to login to have the same parental-control settings. At least at home, parents would have the option to preset WP usage to suppress marked images (and text templates) controlled by JavaScript and CSS directives for the username. However, other COTS products could be acquired by parents to suppress data, although people have said most likely all of WP would be suppressed by some products (due to talk-page insults and trolling). Generally the Kids-Wikipedia is the best option, to offer 100-200,000 traditional topics, but block viewing of wp:ANI discussions or other horrific bullying. -Wikid77 00:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than join into the specific discussions here, I thought I should just offer some general thoughts on what I'd like to see happen in this debate in the future.

1. I think it important to note that there is virtually no one in favor of "censorship" and people who think we could improve our interface to allow end users better control will not find it persuasive to be called "censors". Since none of us supports censorship, it's not a word that really has any valid use in this discussion.
2. One useful approach to talking about ideas in this area will be to talk about NSFW. The idea of NSFW is that there are places and times where some kinds of images are not desirable for end users, as opposed to absolute and moralistic conceptions about what people ought to be looking at (or not looking at). Thinking in an NSFW framework helps to avoid getting into highly moralistic anti-censorship (or pro-whatever) mindsets that make it hard to seriously consider real options.
3. Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and me as minor public figure all have a very strong anti-censorship track record that we should all be proud of. We can safely consider solutions without fearing that this is just a starting point. Responsible editorial judgment and providing useful tools for readers is important and something that we're all actually very good at. So scaremongering about what the WMF might do to appease a "business partner" or something isn't really very helpful.

I am sure others could offer more in this same vein but the core is that I'd like to see people trying to generate light on the issues and minimize the heat. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, for the priorities. For years, people had claimed, "Content controls cannot be done" or "suppress truth" but finally we see how easily each user could select preferences, and the false claim, "It would be forced on all users" was refuted when I noted how a selected username could remain as logged-in state (such as extend 30-day login to 30,000) with viewer controls set to auto-hide the logout option by CSS-style to rename "logout" as invisible for that username. Then, future MediaWiki software could store "permanent usernames" in PC/tablet files outside of browser cookies (which most users leave for months/years anyway). The focus needs to be on implementation, and then if an "Occupy Wikipedia" protest were to claim WP is an "uncontrollable swamp" then at least the WMF could reply, "There are viewer-controls which parents can set" or the whole church congregation can set their usernames for image/text restrictions. We already discussed mature-content templates which could control sections of unviewable, uneditable text/images in controversial articles, by parser variables, such as check user's {{#viewcode}} = x-rated. As I noted, whole sections about Salvador Dali nudes (text+images) could be omitted by viewer-control sections to suppress template contents, in the same article read by any 12-year-old child, just as Special:Preferences image size > 220px reformats a page (within 7 seconds) to show larger images for the same article read by other people. Focus on how it would work quickly as a user-preference option, rather than claim, "It could only work if forced on everyone" (not true). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I believe Wikipedia is meant to be "PG" and open to all readers to all ages, but with inappropriate pictures and pages, how could we trust this site to be "child-friendly"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismael755 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, Ismael, there is nothing anywhere in the history of this site which suggests that we are seeking to create an encyclopedia which is "PG" (a purely American cultural concept), or "child-friendly". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
    • "PG" is not a "purely American cultural concept". — Scott • talk 16:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Indeed. It prevails throughout the English-speaking world - our readership.[9] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Jimbo that scaremongering isn't helpful, especially when it concerns the WMF, but I wouldn't dismiss some of the fears that have been expressed; anyone who doubts the existence of a slippery slope need look only as far as present-day Russia. Our ethical responsibility is to provide verifiably factual, neutral, comprehensive content to all visitors who seek it. Meeting that responsibility occasionally requires us to include content that some people find objectionable. This cannot be helped. It may be a "problem" for those people, but it really isn't our problem. Even if it were our problem, I don't think we could solve it without creating other equally serious problems.

  I cringe just as much as anyone at the thought of young children happening upon certain content, but I also cringe at the thought of adults seeking to keep information from older children simply because it conflicts with their own preconceived ideas of what is "appropriate". When I was of an age, I was lamentably ignorant and confused about several things, and my quest for answers was futile; the references available to me in those days were either silent on certain topics or (as I found out later) outdated, biased, and dead wrong. I'm sure I'm not exaggerating to say that if Wikipedia had existed back then, I would have avoided years of totally unnecessary desolation and danger.

  As for NSFW, I'd hope that employees in public settings would have the sense to avoid certain topics. If they don't, I don't think that's our problem, either. Rivertorch (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch, can we devise a filter that displays a blanked image when you click it, and that can be disabled by any reader? Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Was that a technical question? If so, I'm not a good person to ask. Feasibility aside, if I understand you correctly, I'd have no problem with such a filter if were opt-in and applied to all images (except WP and WMF logos, images embedded in templates, et cetera). If it were opt-in and cookie-based for IPs and logged-out users, I have no idea whether there'd be any point to it, though. Rivertorch (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"NSFW" is an interesting attempted dodge, but ultimately you're going to circle back to the question of which workplace, in which country, adhering to which cultural standards...which takes us right back to the same old morality debates over deciding what users should or should not be protected from seeing. Our responsibility is not to make every page on Wikipedia work-safe for every reader everywhere, but to make sure that every article on Wikipedia adheres to the 'principle of least astonishment'—that is to say, the reader who types Fargo, North Dakota in the search box should be comfortable anticipating that he won't encounter graphic or disturbing imagery, but the reader who types penis in the search box should be prepared to get exactly what he asks for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's nearly as difficult as all that. Standards of NSFW are not that radically different in most places around the world. And the point is that we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good. We can always imagine (probably wrongly, particularly if you know nothing real about (for example) Saudi Arabia) edge cases that are problematic, but they remain edge cases. In all parts of the world, there are images that people under the principle of least astonishment don't expect to pop up on their screen at an encyclopedia without clicking something first - and with perfectly good and non-horrible reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence—but the thing that they are clicking on is, for example, an article titled penis. We should be taking care to ensure our articles follow the PoLA, and we should be taking care to avoid mystery meat navigation and confusing or deceptive piped links, and we should be taking care to ensure that our images have descriptive filenames and captions where they are used, so that individuals who browse with images turned off can make reasonably informed choices about which pictures they click through to. (The latter is also a core part of making Wikipedia more accessible to the visually impaired, and thus doubly important.) We shouldn't be trying to decide for our millions of readers what constitutes NSFW content for them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

We already decide, for our millions of readers, the "crucial" differences between hyphen and dash (or balderdash), so filtering not-suitable-for-work would find many people to help. Plus, on the other hand, the user accidentally hit "p" when trying to type, "lenis" or "Denis". Consider the common student's spelling error with the plural for "spelling test" as "testes" and they do not need the illustrated wrong word. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Over on bad ole Commons we have already implemented a user optional NSFW "deferred image display gadget" for use on COM:FPC. It works well enough for our purposes. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that NSFW is a useful categorisation. It helps remove the allegation that the person wanting such a feature is a "prude". For "Featured Picture Candidates" it isn't acceptable to say "well you searched for 'penis' so what did you expect" -- because anything can appear as a candidate, though typically FP candidates are pretty tame. It was a fight, and the usually flawed arguments were made, but ultimately they couldn't stand in the way of users demanding something for themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 11:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

But Jimmy, isn't Wikipedia intended to be for all ages, despite the explicit articles and images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismael755 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If readers have a legitimate reason to consult Wikipedia and encounter various images incidental to this, employers should be able to understand that either they accept that or they hobble their employee's ability to find out what they need to know. If we want to make Wikipedia "safe for work", then the principal steps we can take are:

1. to arrange that (and arrange that people know that)Wikipedia has useful, relevant content which employees can help their companies by accessing. For example, this involves showing less hostility to editors' efforts to comprehensively cover all companies and all markets.
2. to offer to stand by any readers who encounter job discrimination due to legitimate workplace use of Wikipedia. For example, the WMF could allocate $50,000 to recruit up to 25 wrongfully fired workers and offer competing employers a $2000 "signing bonus" to hire them, plus some free good publicity in a news release describing the cases.

Wnt (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're being serious, or are trolling. The former appears to be an allusion to… something, and the latter sounds like a horrible waste of donor dollars. LFaraone 04:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Many lude websites have 1-letter differences from popular webpage names. As noted above, some students imagine the plural of "test" as "testes" and do not need the illustrated wrong word. Also, not every website named with "wet" is about swimming. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wnt, I think you are falling prey to some of the things that I was talking about. If you imagine that the only people who might have some concerns are employers who might fire someone for looking at something inappropriate in Wikipedia, or people who might file a lawsuit for harassment for the same, then you're not going to appreciate what the people who disagree with you are saying. You implicitly place them into a category of unreasonable people who must be appeased or ignored. For the record, I'm not particularly worried about someone getting fired for accidentally running across an inappropriate image in Wikipedia while at work - at over 500 million people a month using the website, I have never heard of such a case and such cases strike me as particularly unlikely. Therefore, this is not at all interesting nor useful as a productive line of inquiry.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, this proposal is not primarily towards workers, but primarily towards minors. Ismael755 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter a bit. The way user settings work at every other website, they are the same for NSFW and for minors. People keep imagining that we should do something more, or that if we don't do something at all we should do nothing. I don't think that's the right way forward. The right way forward is to give users control and defaults that are sensible.

I don't think we should imagine some arcane and unworkable system where people have to give proof of age to see mature images in Wikipedia - no one else does that, and for good reasons. At the same time, we should offer people the option to turn on warnings. Will they be helpful for some people in some situations? Of course, that's why people keep asking for them - people who aren't insane censorious prudes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I am very glad indeed to hear that you've never heard of someone fired for viewing a "NSFW" Wikipedia image. But doesn't that mean that every image we display right now is truly safe for work? I do think that we should have the option to turn on warnings -- I think we have it in user scripting as I've described above -- but for it to happen we need to see some people come forward who actually want the options enough to write some basic scripts and (more importantly) share and work together to maintain lists of all the relevant images. Wnt (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not mean that every image is "safe" for work. This is what I'm trying to explain to you: using extreme (and frankly silly) examples to make a point isn't very helpful. There are things that users quite reasonably are concerned about in some contexts that don't necessarily involve getting fired.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have an inkling of the line of reasoning you want me to follow; the problem is I think it does fall apart on close examination. There is far too much acceptance of rhetoric about images, information, and ideas that are "harmful" or "unsafe", when what is really meant (as in this case) is that they are awkward, embarrassing, surprising, disturbing, thought-provoking, or revolutionary. We shouldn't accept the idea calling an image unsafe unless you can point to a tangible danger. And even when there really is a danger, we should identify the source of that danger clearly and make it clear that it emanates from some group of people, rather than from a combination of bits in a file. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to prove any harm. You need to justify stopping developers from offering readers the one-click image filter. Your slippery slope is absurd. Deciding what to filter is going to be difficult and should be addressed with at least as much skepticism and care as we have devoted to the question of filtering itself. Don't you trust this community to implement a good image selection process? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But seriously Jimmy, is this an adult-only project or is it for all ages? Ismael755 (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance to that question. In some ways Wikipedia is for adults. In other ways it is for everyone. It is not primarily written for children but lots of children do use it. I encourage people to stop thinking in simplistic either/or ways and think about how we might accommodate people to the best degree that we can. This will require compromise and it will require editorial judgment calls. Both of those are things that, prior to Wikipedia, people thought were not possible for large groups of people. Turns out, we are actually quite good at both - that is, when we drop posturing about extreme concepts and really work to make things better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: "In some ways Wikipedia is for adults." Well, even most adults probably have trouble understanding some of the articles on advanced math, physics, or genomics. It's only so much so that some topics can be "dumbed down" without losing their meaning entirely. So, based on that line of reasoning one can ask "is Wikipedia only for geniuses/PhDs?" Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So Jimmy, if lots of children do use Wikipedia, then how would we protect them from viewing certain articles that are too explicit for them to view. Ismael755 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you gave an example. Also keep in mind that children also use the Internet more generally - they know about google and use that. So a robust example will show that a google search will find Wikipedia but also that the other sites found are not much worse than Wikipedia. That is, you need to account for the likely very common situation that a young person hears some slang term at school and googles it. If they get to Wikipedia first, I daresay they are likely better off than if they get to a porn site first, in the sense that they should get quite a dry dull factual explanation of what they are curious about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Google has a SafeSearch filter to keep explicit results from minors if you may have notice. Children also know about YouTube, and they use it, and there are some inappropriate videos there, but YouTube managed to set age-restrictions to not let minors and unregistered viewers to watch it. And as a founder of this site, you can take action and do the same thing; have a filtering system to keep minors from reading such articles. Ismael755 (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And are you telling me it is recommended for children to look up the meaning of profanity? Ismael755 (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

How does any filter Wikipedia chooses to use (or not use) alter whether or not a child decides to look up the meaning of profanity? What Jimbo was saying was that at least the top result on a search might lead them to an encyclopedic article. Yes, that article may have a naughty picture on it, but it could be worse. --Onorem (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Google's SafeSearch is about as effective at keeping exlicit results from anyone, especially children, as your arguments are at convincing anyone here that your proposal has merit. Resolute 01:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ismael755, would you rather have them use profanity without even knowing what it means? Keφr 10:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, they are not suppose to curse, but take note that some profane words have a sexual meaning. For example the F*uck means sex, S*it means feces and Dick, as a slang, means penis. Ismael755 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Google's activities illustrate everything that is wrong with the idea of "filters". First they presented SafeSearch as an option - then they denied users the ability to turn it off, instead requiring that they type various "explicit" terms which are likely to skew or limit the results of the search. After that they have rapidly been sliding down the slope (partially covered in Censorship by Google. They have joined a plan to warn users for searches that supposedly can only have illegal intent [10], have abandoned a previous effort to warn Chinese users when their illegal search terms were being censored, and unsurprisingly, report a tidal wave of new censorship requests from governments in response. They have simply failed to hold the line. And let's be clear about it: this slope isn't finished, and those of us who knew where it was going before can see where it's going now. That idiot Cameron has a whole slate of censorship plans, like a vague plan to censor "rape porn" (i.e. to make a picture illegal based on whether the imaginary character being played by the actor is consenting or not), and we know all too well that generally speaking lists that claim to be targeted at only child porn typically soon turn out to affect everything from gay rights to anti-abortion groups! That's not even getting into the black boxes and NSA/GCHQ spying, which is integral to the plan in that the exact same companies are involved and stand to profit on a censorship industry. But though they think they win, the only possible outcome that can reward those who persevere to the bottom of this slope is universal and deserved disaster. Wnt (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument that an optional image filter is the first step in an inexorable descent into censorship is weak. What makes you think we - you, me, Jimbo, Carrite, etc., the Wikipedia community - will go down that slope? If that slide were inevitable, likely or even possible (given the attitude toward censorship of even your strongest opponents) I would oppose a filter too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If you understood the importance of preventing censorship, you would implement the sort of entirely voluntary, individually controlled scheme I suggested above. There's no delay, no argument, no trouble doing that, and even if some aspect of it proves to be slow or inefficient, at that point you could propose very specific upgrades to allow user scripts in general to work better.

Then there is the history to take into account. As you well know you have progressed steadily from arguing to delete blurry penis pictures to PD pictures of Playboy models to snapshots from Mardi Gras, and now we're being told, right here, right now, that in order to be "nice" we ought to throw out several percent of our most important images, pictures from museums and art galleries that WMF actually paid people to work scanning! It's like a Viking telling me that once he gets in the city he's going to set up a nice little Viking quarter just inside the gate and I can come down and trade with them on Sundays. We may indeed have to flee this town and let it burn and leave it to the crows and ravens, but we don't have to delude ourselves about it. Wnt (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion, that readers who want to filter controversial images must create an account, log in, look at an offensive image and add it to a personal list on a user sub-page is so absurd that until now I haven't had the forbearance to address it. Really?

Regarding my progress on offensive imagery, Commons doesn't need blurry pictures of penises, I don't recall the Playboy discussion and that Mardi Gras reveler on the balcony photographed through a telephoto lens from across the street did not deserve to have her tits hosted on Commons without a model release.

The Vikings took control of Commons long ago, and you're one of their useful idiots. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you'd read my idea, you'd know it relies on transclusion (though there are several variations of that theme possible - JSONP, Lua module "require", etc.) The user would need only to place a line in Common.js linking to a script file in your user directory to copy your scripts, or transclude your blacklist file into his own, and he would be blocking everything you had - without looking at it. More importantly for the creation of the blacklist files, if he linked to five other user files, and they linked to five other user files, and so forth, then each user in a group interested in such blocking need only mark a few files in their own preferences to produce a comprehensive list.

For logged out users, a small refinement is needed: some way to say to use your script (or at least your blacklist) without the login. I'm thinking a generic way to add a script to Common.js using a GET parameter: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Main_Page?script=User:Jimbo_Wales/Blacklist.js for example. This would doubtless find many applications beyond image blocking, and it is a technical improvement I can support. Wnt (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmph. I rest my case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding NSFW filtering, until recently, if you read Human penis on Wikipedia, you viewed a drawing by a famous pornographer of a prepubescent girl with her legs spread exposing her vagina. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Human penis#Image for peeing while standing - again (sigh) Translation: Larry Sanger claimed in 2010 that a line drawing of a boy peeing standing up while some little girls pee sitting down in the background is "child porn". Yet somehow the image is still on the server, serving six languages of Wikipedia, nobody's been arrested, the sky isn't falling. How is that? Well, maybe it's because it's nothing but a droll little line drawing where the "vagina" is anything but obvious. Or maybe it's because the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down efforts to ban "simulated child pornography". Or maybe it's because even the police are tired of this sour-grapes crusade and have no more need to do investigations over this ancient axe-grinding than we do to censor our articles to accommodate it. Wnt (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is child porn. The little girl is not peeing, she's just sitting there with the pornographer (and viewer) looking up her skirt at her naked vagina. Whether the image is appropriate for Commons is one discussion. Whether it is appropriate for that article is another. It is utterly inappropriate for that article. I'm not a bit surprised you're defending it, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the image from the penis-article without reference to the discussion of why it was chosen in the first place, and then threatening topic ban for anyone reinstating it is not constructive. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. Answer me this though, will you permit me to easily filter this kind of image when reading Wilipedia, provided I can view any filtered image with just one click? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, your little stunt at the penis article illustrates all the reasons why this will never work:

1. We can't agree whether an image is a droll little line image or child pornography, so how can we agree on what is "NSFW"?
2. A specific image can be picked out as a cause celebre to mark as offensive, and that cause can live on year after year, not because there is anything special about the image (you could just as readily claim the statues proposed to replace it are child porn) but simply due to social/factional considerations.
3. Worst of all, the claim that there is, or might be, something wrong with an image immediately lends itself to suggestions that it be replaced! Which makes the "filtering" decision not just the impartial act of some net nanny somewhere, but a tool to win content disputes.

Now as bad as all these things would be for a community-wide image rating system for sexual content, they would actually be much, much worse for one like the mock-up filter from 2010 which had a category for "violence".

As contentious as this discussion has been, no one appearing here has yet shown the moralistic fury of an offended animal nut. I think it should be very easy for people to picture the wrath of one of them finding an image of an actress looking good in a fur coat, for example. "Why, how can you not call that violence? She is literally dripping with the hacked off body parts of brutally murdered little animals..." So you have a huge, rancorous debate between pro- and anti-fur about whether to mark the image as "NSFW" or not, then a compromiser suggests that we can just replace this with a lovely swimsuit image, and peace reigns. For about a day, until one of the pro-fur people says "doesn't she have a cameltoe?" and we're back to the races. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Stunt? I removed gratuitous child pornography from that article. You know why there was a pornographic upskirt image of a little girl's vagina in that article for a year? It shows a girl in the sitting position. Really. "Ideally, she should have been peeing too, just to show the difference [between boys and girls], but that image was the best I found on commons ... I guess I could try to make a drawing myself." [11] Really. You're not fit to deal with images on Wikipedia, Wnt, and neither are most of the idiots opining in that discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You're making up descriptions, and allegations, and saying we're all idiots. I assume what you want is some kind of cushy position, not just at Wiki Med but at some full-time censorship org so we can all hang on your every word of wisdom about how the image is child pornography but "I won't be calling for its deletion from Commons. I can imagine more than one article that it would be appropriate for." It's hard for mere mortals to understand such exalted reasoning, so I suppose it only makes sense for you to ignore them, then call them idiots [...] Wnt (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

To Anthonyhcole: Sure: If you can provide some consensus criteria for what constitutes child porn I'm all for finding a way to filter it (not that I would be much help, I'm not a techie). Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see that image you added is child porn, you don't have the necessary discernment to be trusted with images on Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole:, if you encounter child pornography on Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia site, the image should be deleted and mail sent to LCA. See meta:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies#Office_Actions § 5. That said, the works by the artist (NSFW) who created the image you referenced has been brought up before, see the encyclopædia article Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons. LFaraone 00:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

L, the image is not captured by the US legal definition (though it is by some Australian states' legal definitions). A lewd pornographic image of a child is inappropriate for Human penis but may be appropriate for Child pornography of Martin van Maële or another article - especially if the image itself has been the subject of noteworthy controversy, as in the cover photo for the album Virgin Killer. If no one can conceive of a legitimate educational use of the image then it should be deleted from Commons, of course, but I don't know enough about the artist or the image to make that call, and I'm not interested in finding out. I removed it from Human penis because child porn is inappropriate for that article, not because it is always necessarily inappropriate everywhere on en.Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It actually is true that in the Great Filter Debate examples have come up of apparent "legal child porn" on Wikipedia, e.g. works of Wilhelm von Gloeden, which potentially could bring to a head a real issue of whether the Miller test can apply to historically important works. There is also "virtual child pornography" that was protected in the U.S. But you can't have it both ways! Either there is a legal issue with an illustration, or there isn't. Don't go running around saying "This is child pornography. Do not restore." on one article, demanding that we remove it there not based on simple consideration of whether it is relevant, but some kind of concern about improper content, while telling us you have no real problem with the image on another. Especially when it just doesn't look like porn. Wnt (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's child pornography. Because it is child pornography it is inappropriate for Human penis. It may be appropriate for an article about child pornography, the artist, or the drawing itself (if it is inherently noteworthy). I'm sorry you can't see that, yet are allowed to edit here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

There is little point in trying to get the Martin van Maële image deleted from Commons, because the "ZOMG censorship!" brigade will turn out in force and vote keep as usual. The image is not suitable for use in Human penis, because it is taken from the 1905 work La Grande Danse macabre des vifs, which is not a serious set of illustrations for a medical textbook.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Human penis is about more than medicine and biology (or at least it should be) so images needn't be restricted to biological and medical illustrations. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Anthonycole: The statement "x is child pornography" should be qualified by IANAL if you are not a lawyer. All of the cartoons of children on Commons were checked in 2010 after Larry Sanger complained about some of them. In this area, we are recycling an old debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? I'm not making a legal claim. I'm talking about a lewd image of a little girl drawn by a pornographer, published in a porno book. Child porn. I'm not talking about what type of child porn is proscribed in this or that jurisdiction. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If the Martin van Maële cartoon actually was child pornography under U.S. law, the Wikimedia Foundation would not touch it with a ten foot pole and it would have been deleted long ago. Many people might find the image to be controversial and tasteless (I do, for example) but it remains on Commons because it has some historical significance.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disbelieve any of that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have some sources to cite to show that van Maele was ever charged with anything or about the prohibition of this or other drawings in any jurisdiction you really ought to add them to the Martin van Maële article. But no matter what, you're presenting one fallacy after another. If van Maele was a "pornographer", does that make some image he drew "pornography" if it wouldn't be when drawn by someone else? And if the image were some not-illegal form of "pornography" in the jurisdiction of Anthonyhcolia, how would that have any bearing on its utility for illustrating an article about the penis? Wnt (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't try to convince you that that image is pornography. It's a side issue. That image was drawn with intent to arouse pedophiles and/or to offend. It is shocking and the last thing a reader would expect to find in a general purpose encyclopedia article on the human penis. There may be a place for an image of a vagina as part of a description of the developmental trajectory of male genitalia away from female; or a depiction of male standing vs. female sitting urination, though I doubt it. But there will never be a place in this encyclopedia for that image, other than to illustrate an article about the image itself if one is warranted, or possibly an article about child erotica or that particular artist. Your "Shucks, it's just a little girl's vagina, what's the big deal?" stance displays ignorance of how normal people respond to such things. It is a big deal, and gratuitous use of it here is stupid and inappropriate.

May we have an image filter that any reader can easily enable and disable with one or two clicks, and that allows readers to preemptively filter sex, nudity, violence or sacrilege (according to the best categorisation system the community can devise) and allows the reader to view any filtered image by clicking a blank thumbnail with explicit alt text? If not, how do you justify that?

I realise "the best categorisation system the community can devise" will be tortuous, but because any filtered image can be viewed with one click, imperfections such as blanking a medieval masterpiece will be a trivial inconvenience, and as Jimbo says, we need not let perfection be the enemy of the good. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just read the recent comments and damaged my desk in the progress...

1. How do you know that the image was drawn with the intent to arouse pedophiles? Did you ask Martin van Maële in person or do you have a reliable source for this claim?
2. "But there will never be a place in this encyclopedia for that image..." Are you a clairvoyant or something like that?
3. You define what "normal people" think? Anyone that does not think like you do is abnormal or sick?
4. My justification: [12] (In my opinion Wikipedia and Commons are a library. EOD)
5. "... we need not let perfection be the enemy of the good." The irony is that we want to make Wikipedia perfect and that the image filter proponents see it as a perfection, which i see as the enemy of the good.

--／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 10:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't get why you keep going on and on about this supposed vagina (I don't even see one) when there is a statue of a naked boy peeing as the proposed replacement for the image. Penis, vagina, what's the difference? And there's a place in the encyclopedia for the image now, as a tasteful, droll illustration of how children discover one of life's injustices. I don't see why you have to sexualize children, so that even an innocent little drawing like this becomes the prelude to some kind of orgy scene in your mind. The only thing I picture happening after this scene is somebody stepping in a puddle of pee! For all your myriad assertions I say . Wnt (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, how about the image filter described in my last post? Are you for it? If not, why not? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read this thread? Even in your brief version, the key word is "clicks". I have said, it is possible, I have no problem, with the method I proposed which (if optimally developed) would allow a click and a word: the username of the person whose script you wish to use. But that word makes all the difference; it implies choice and a range of opinion; and for each user, a final arbiter, namely himself, rather than endless warring for power in a "community" debate. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wnt I've read the thread and about your proposal. The problem with your proposal is that it requires intimate knowledge of the system to implement it. People need easy to implement solutions.

As to the community debate, well, when people place "no censorship" as the only priority then no solution will be acceptable. The fight that raged over putting a simple template on NSFW images at COM:FPC had people crying that homophobia was winning and 1984 was less restrictive. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ease of use and ease of implementation are two very different things, but the user script solution should win on both when combined with a few impartial features (such as the ?script=somefilename.js option, which would allow you to bookmark a front page with the filter you prefer and start every day's reading from there). A one-click filter, and the blacklist file it uses, don't write themselves. The former is software much the same as a user script, and while the latter may sound like a simple matter, the warring over how to do so makes it less so. The user script approach merely solves this conflict by saying everyone can get their own (or copy and modify someone else's). That really is a way to make it easier, not harder. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Jimmy! What exactly is it that makes Wikipedia go round? Donations? Voluntary work? Is there any risk of Wikipedia having to close down in the future due to lack of funding? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia insiders who don't have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart receive kickbacks from the Foundation and from organizations dedicated to the (self-)glorification of Web 3.0 and all of those associated with it. However, there is plenty of money in the bank from these rich sponsors (to which it has been enslaved), so Wikipedia will not go down for lack of funding. It will, however, go down for lack of quality. Wer900 • talk 22:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

To Praxis: Wikipedia runs on volunteer work by many different editors like you or me. The servers (and a bunch of other stuff that I find worthless) are funded by monetary donations from various donators. No, Wikipedia is not at risk of closing down due to insufficient funding. If anything, it gets too much funding, given the amount of what appears to be wasted funds.... If you're interested in helping, improving encyclopedic article quality with high-quality sources and content would greatly help. Good luck!

To Wer900: Stop bullshitting. "Web 3.0" isn't even a defined term, and I know of no high-profile Wikipedia donors who champion themselves as "Web 3.0 supporters". Furthermore, none of us editors, not even arbs, receive anything from the WMF, so you can take your "kickbacks" nonsense elsewhere. A few WMF-affiliates receive (in my opinion) wasted funding, but that's it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I read Wer900 (talk · contribs)'s post as satire. LFaraone 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

If that was some humor, then please accept my apologies. Unfortunately, there are no facial expressions or body language to read on the internet, which makes discerning wit from sincerity sometimes difficult. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why the ;-) winking smiley, or small text ie. insert sarcastic/jokey/off-topic comment, should be used in such cases. Merry Christmas all, .<):-) Ho-ho-ho! 220 of ^Borg 02:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I was not joking. "Web 3.0" is a WP:NEOLOGISM that I coined to explain the (misguided) techno-libertarian nature of many organizations surrounding Google and Wikipedia, among other Internet firms, whose goal is the aggrandizement of the ideology promoted by those core firms. Even more respectable organizations have gone down this route: cf. Jimmy Wales's Neils Bohr Gold Medal in Engineering. The great physicist is turning in his grave. Wer900 • talk 06:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

When criticising stuff, it helps to know what you're criticising. According to UNESCO Niels Bohr Medal and Niels Bohr International Gold Medal [13], Jimmy Wales was not given the 'Neils Bohr Gold Medal in Engineering' by any stretch. For starters there's no medal with that name. And the only medal which fits that name is the Niels Bohr International Gold Medal which is given for engineering or more particularly "outstanding work by an engineer or physicist for the peaceful utilization of atomic energy". The UNESCO award which was given to Jimmy Wales was given for "special contribution to groundbreaking research in physics" or "researchers who have made outstanding contributions to physics – research which, furthermore, has or could have a significant influence on the world". You will see, no mention of engineering. Regardless of whether you feel the medal is deserved, knowing and being clear about what the medal is and why it was awarded is important in any argument. Nil Einne (talk) 08:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that Wer900 was joking. I'm not sure that other folks on this page are joking however, e.g above on this page somebody seems to be arguing that if we don't host kiddie rape porn we're going down the road where censorship will pretty soon close us down (I hope I read that wrong). That kind of logic, where every principle we have (e.g. we're not censored) is taken to extremes, could kill us. (We need to revive WP:IAR). Folks who use the site as pure social media or a debate society - rather than writing an encyclopedia - could kill us. As suggested above, I don't think that in the short-term a lack of donations will kill us. I'd guess we might be able to cut spending by more than half and sorta scrape by for a couple of years. There are always a few scandals every year - since everything we do is totally open and there are mistakes made around here - but I don't think that would kill us unless the scandal was so bizarre, strange, misinterpreted and overblown that nobody would donate for 3 years. A lack of growth e.g. into new countries could hurt as people desert the "same old countries" for some of the above reasons. Thus spending a bit of money to help new programs or editors in underdeveloped countries is probably a good strategy, even if some of these fall flat. I think that a takeover by commercial editors may be the worst threat. They never seem to understand the concept of "we're not here to provide you with free advertising," and sooner or later folks may get tired of donating to support giving free advertising to big corporations. But probably the biggest threat is a change in technology - leaving the internet as we know it behind - combined with a strange unexpected mix of all of the above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Too much money is a bigger threat to Wikipedia's health than not enough money. That opinion aside, there are no terminal menaces on the horizon. If there is ever an end scenario it will probably involve some entity forking the site and a massive editor bolt from here to there. But that would take a cataclysm that's not on the radar. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that, in general, the possibility of "one big fork" is a strength of the "Wikipedia movement". Let's say the "All-world Security Apparatus" (AWSA) closes down the entire site one day without notice. Within a week other sites, with almost the same software and 90% of the same articles will appear and editors and readers will simply move to them. Thus the AWSA would probably never think of closing the site down - what would it accomplish? Lesser difficulties might be solved in the same way - say it's revealed that Rupert Murdoch and Jimbo are identical twins plotting to take over the world and nobody will donate. Now this wouldn't be good for the WMF or its employees (and it would involve some inefficient spending of money - maybe a few million $) and that should motivate all of us to try to get this right. But having the WMF not owning the software and content is a strength for the movement, not a potential weakness. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wer900, don't worry about Wikipedia, worry about Homo robotum. Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to the other inaccuracies put forward here by Wer900 that have already been corrected by others, it is worth mentioning that the majority of the money donated to Wikipedia comes from ordinary people giving small individual donations (a few tens of dollars each), not "rich sponsors (to which it has been enslaved)". This has the advantage of further strengthening Wikipedia's editorial independence (which, unlike most online sources of information, already benefits from the advantages of not taking advertising). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right, Demiurge. The Wikipediaverse is editorially independent of people who want to protect children, experts in scientific, medical, and other academic fields, and generally any content writers. Besides, when I spoke of money in the WMF, I was talking not just about the WMF proper but about those associated with it: what about all of the publicity given to Jimmy Wales's new social network founded with Lily Cole or the $25,000 given to Sue Gardner's MuckRock project, or even closer to home the WMF "advisory board", a haven for log-rolling filled with techno-libertarians like Vinod Khosla's wife. And never forget the corrupt haven of graft and law avoidance that are the WMF chapters—why is a supposedly charitable organization giving millions of dollars to "outreach groups" which have had few, if any, real results?

    But at a deeper level Wikipedia will not collapse due to a lack of money. It will collapse because the amount of cruft will grow to such an extent, and the content will be in such a decayed state, that Wikipedia will be written off by its donors (who are not "small users" at all but companies of the likes of Google and Facebook) as completely unserviceable. Wer900 • talk 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    • No, that's where Homo robotum comes in, stage right. This will, as time goes, become a project run by non-humans. And they will be tasked with not only fixing and maintaining pages, but also writing them. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia will not be killed by having lovingly detailed articles by people who value specialized topics. But deleting these things might just. Even an exponentially growing Wikipedia can fall rapidly behind an exponentially growing internet. And if human editors writing content free to all want to continue being serious rivals in the future against proprietary expert systems that trawl the web for content on demand, they'll have to become better at rejecting senseless demands to throw away useful information or mire it in endless bickering. Wnt (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting question actually. As automation takes over writing articles and maintaining the site, I suspect that subjective concerns about notability will diminish over time until people will one day wonder how it was ever a concern in the first place. When the site reaches a certain level of technological sophistication, such arguments resolve themselves. After all, why would anyone concern themselves with ridiculous notions of notability when ubiquity and ambient intelligence become the norm, and the Web and Internet of Things is commonplace? When everything is connected, everything is notable on some level. What we are really doing now is saying, some things are more notable than others, and we determine this based on how much attention the Old Media has given something. People will look back and laugh at this nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The Page-Reformat Crisis

As you remember, we began 2013 with the slow "Edit-preview Crisis" with 12-45 seconds to preview changes to most major articles, and now we end 2013 with The Page-Reformat Crisis, with some templates flooding the wp:Job_queue(s) with so many pages triggered, by updated templates, that it takes over 6 weeks(!) to update all related pages (which formerly ran within 2-3 days 5 years ago). The tedious Edit-preview Crisis was solved by fast-cite templates, now using Lua wp:CS1 Module:Citation/CS1, plus fast Lua-based Module:Navbox and Module:Infobox or Template:Weatherbox (etc.) to cut edit-preview of pages as 3x-4x times faster than February 2013. Meanwhile, the epidemic growth of ever-more templates (plus Lua modules) has bogged down the page-reformat queues with millions of jobs to re-re-re-reformat the same pages for multiple changes to whichever megatemplates they are using. A recent victim has been the above-mentioned Template:Convert, transitioned from 3,000 tiny subtemplates, to instead use a gargantuan Lua Module:Convert at 02:15, 11 December 2013, but still reformatting 7,000 of the 554,000 related pages, now 16 days later.

Potential solutions to page-reformat crisis: There are several possible options, but Step 1, is to beware people imagining, "It's not a problem" (no), because delays to 2-to-6 weeks to show results of updated templates is too long, even if people try to rationalize the mega-slow results. You might recall, when page "Canada" edit-preview ran 28 seconds or "Israel" ran 42 seconds, some people were saying not-a-problem and recommending to edit each major article by section only, but no longer seeing the whole page reformatted to proofread for typesetting. So, such solutions by lowered-expectations are a reluctant option, but would treat this website as a miserly operation. Instead, let's try to gain major performance improvements:

• Perhaps reformat most articles daily: It might be possible to reserve some job-queues to simply force every page to reformat daily (or within 3 days) rather than hope the regular queues finish within 2-to-6 weeks.
• Trigger reformat of major articles daily: Perhaps all major articles could link to a dummy template, to be edited every day (or two), and then process those 300,000(?) pages daily, which would by-the-way relink to any updated templates/modules which were enhanced during the forced daily reformatting.
• Add a job-priority option for major updates: With a privileged user-right, it might be possible to have an admin submit a requested major template update into a high-priority queuing status, so that a new feature, or major template bugfix, could be propagated system-wide faster by reformatting a million related pages within a week or such.
• Re-split large templates for use in fewer articles each: The sub-optimized design of the former, markup-based Template:Convert proved a feature could be added into one subtemplate and appear within 28,000 pages a day later. So perhaps some of the mega-templates could be split into forks which affected only 50,000 pages each.

Fortunately, most templates rarely change major features, and so people have not been complaining (much), as they wait for a new option to appear in the final 7,000 pages within a million. However, as we upgrade to have smarter, auto-correcting templates, rather than issuing 1950s-style error messages ("ERROR: Invalid data; DOES NOT COMPUTE") as busy work to hand-edit, I forsee the need to re-install system-wide waves of auto-correcting updates. In those cases, a high-priority of reformatting could post results weeks sooner, to check for unexpected consequences, and then re-release the next wave of smarter template within the week. Also, the flood caused by wp:data hoarding has multiplied thousands of minor pages with tedious data-table templates. Anyway, this is just a quick overview of the crisis, where corrections or updates to some major templates do not post current data for over 6 weeks of reformatting. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Things to do before Wikipedia becomes popular: In terms of overall priorities, the above Page-Reformat Crisis is an issue which should be resolved as Wikipedia grows larger, and the delay to reformat pages, after updating a mega-template, expands from weeks into months of waiting. A few years ago, some users imagined the English WP would not exceed 4.4 million articles, already exceeded in late 2013. Along with plans to fix the auto-merging of many wp:edit-conflicts, the faster reformatting of major pages is a primary issue which affects many users everyday, seeing the outdated results from old templates linger week after week, or month after month. -Wikid77 06:16, 27 December, 12:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mass reformatting slows updates for smaller templates: As part of the "ripple effect" from reformatting millions of pages for mega-templates, the changes to smaller templates cause their related pages to wait longer in queues, such as reverting hack edits which show adverts in popular templates. In prior years, an advert could be removed from a thousand related articles within an hour, but now it might linger for days due to waiting for each mega-template to reformat a million pages for 3-4 weeks. -Wikid77 05:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal statement relating to a comment on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) made by Mr. Jimmy Wales

I stand by my remarks. The ISO 639-1 language codes are highly politicized. The user who is criticizing me for saying so appears to be entirely unaware of the academic critiques of the ISO standards, and unaware that they did not originate in an academic process that we can or should trust implicitly. A cursory look at the codes and what is missing and what is there allows anyone with a modicum of knowledge to see the obvious problems which are, as far as I know, quite widely understood. Remember that the original codes come from the Summer Institute of Linguistics, a Christian Missionary organization with a particular view of the world. This academic paper offers some updated criticisms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The purpose of the following statement is to ascertain what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Firstly, however, allow me to underline that I hold no personal connection whatsoever with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is a recognized and accredited institution at its core, much like the UN or a university for example. The comment by Mr. Jimmy Wales that is subject to this response can be found here and I will also post Mr. Wales' comment below for clarity: There is a language committee. But many decisions predate the language committee. There was a time in which we trusted the ISO codes on the theory that this was an international standard with expertise behind it. Unfortunately, the ISO code turn out to be highly politicized and just wrong in some respects. You raise a lot of interesting questions and unfortunately there are not really easy answers to them. Some broad principles can be put forward, but it's tricky in the details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Now, I am convinced any truly savvy Wikipedia editor will be able to immediately spot what may be considered objectionable with the comment in question. A clue: Wikipedia is not supposed to be a breeding ground for original research as clearly explained. Thus, Wikipedia is not entitled to portray itself as an authoritative entity holding an independent opinion. The reason behind this is clear: Wikipedia is not an accredited scholastic institution that requires its members to undergo a certain academic training in order to partake in scholarly discourse, polemy and research. As much as one may desire, one cannot simply waltz around calling him or herself a doctor without the proper background, and not everyone is permitted to carry out surgery for obvious reasons. As such, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to merely advance and present a scholarly and factual view on subjects it may cover by relying on reliable sources. Hence, it is beyond Wikipedia's jurisdiction as an encyclopedia to participate in scholarly discourse, polemy and research on its own. Certainly, however, criticism and critical scrutiny is an integral part of scholarship, and Wikipedia is expected to convey to the greatest extent possible a nuanced and objective scholarly view using multiple sources. Thus, criticizing the ISO is not a sin, and certainly not prohibited, if based on scholarly scrutiny. However, Mr. Wales personal opinion is as irrelevant as my opinion would be to, let us say, medicine even if I happen to know my way around a stethoscope. As far as I can gather from the Wikipedia article on Mr. Wales, he does not hold a relevant degree or academic background that would entitle his view to be presented as relevant or notable in this regard. If I am mistaken, then Mr. Wales is more than welcome to cite an accredited and properly peer-reviewed scholarly work that he may have published on the subject himself. However, this would postulate a relevant PhD in a relevant area. Conducting research in physics would make little sense with a PhD in nursing or vice versa. This is the order of things, and thank heavens for that. What would it look like if everyone proclaimed themselves PhD:s simply because they feel entitled to have their say? And in case Mr. Wales cannot sport a relevant degree and scholarly publication of his own he is recommended to cite scholars which do. That is how Wikipedia in principle should function, being based on reliable sources for claims and statements advanced. Simply put, Mr. Wales, being the founder of Wikipedia does not grant you the right to use it to promote personal views as facts. Stick to sources! You are free to express your opinion but it cannot be used as factual material. Then we might as well go ahead and describe Harvard University as elitist or the UN as ignorant to human suffering, citing Praxis Icosahedron? In fact I have an opinion in most matters, so feel free to cite me. Wikipedia's stance on the ISO standard should be exclusively based on reliable sources, I am sure you agree on this. Having said that, I believe you should explain yourself. If Wikipedia should decide to distrust the ISO I surely expect it to be the result of something more than just "Jimbo's" opinion. I hope that a consensus was formed using reliable sources, and that the view selected was the view most commonly represented by those sources, avoiding giving undue weight to fringe theories. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC) I dont have a medical degree, but the ultimate decision whether to treat something on my body is mine. It is ultimately Wikipedia's to decide how useful ISO codes are and how much they will rely on them. Reliance on experts never is and never should be absolute.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC) So it's up to Wikipedia to singlehandedly decide what is useful and not without relying on sources? So editors with potentially no degrees are allowed to arbitrarily decide whether diplomas from Harvard are to be accepted or not? A consensus on Wikipedia is only subject to personal opinions, especially if coming from the chief? No sir/mam, in my world I prefer consensuses to be shaped by reliable sources. I don't want to hear your or Mr. Wales personal take on the matter, I prefer to go with informed experts (a.k.a reliable sources). Sorry if that offends you. I would love to have Mr. Wales opinion if he is not too busy, his answer might create a potentially dangerous precedent opening up for personal opinions to dominate articles. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC) My impression is that the above quote doesn't constitute Jimbo deciding anything, but just contributing to a discussion. I also assume he is talking about some research done by someone, rather than just information that came to him in a vision. In any case, is Wikipedia supposed to follow ISO standards on everything as default position? Formerip (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Well, needless to say, Wikipedia is supposed to follow reliable sources on everything as default position? When a majority of reliable sources declare the ISO standards as valid so should Wikipedia. Makes sense doesn't it? Minority views such as condemning the ISO standards as "politicized" are fringe at best, just like the "9/11 conspiracy".Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Standards are often political or have systemic bias: A broader study of standards organizations will likely confirm fears of political influence, or cultural systemic bias, especially if a nation's industrial infrastructure has been calibrated to fit some standard measurements which would offer an economic advantage if promoted as an international system of measurements. Often decisions for standards even run contrary to common sense, such as the early HTML markup standard to include tag "<center>" to adjust text to center-line, but no related tag as "<right>" to right-adjust text instead, despite decades of computerized text formatting which had typesetting directives to align numerals along a right margin. To know the "center" the computer already knows where "right" is located. Well, decades and yet no tag "<right>". At times, the whole world is stuck-on-stupid. Remember, people have a wide range of wiki websites, but wp:edit-conflicts have been accepted as if intelligent people had no solutions, when instead weave merge has been developed elsewhere (to merge changes to paragraphs which a prior editor had erstwhile moved!). If HTML design had been my decision, years ago, I would have added a format tag "<right>" to right-adjust text as with: <span style="text-align:right">...</span>. Some international standards are more political than proficient for actual use. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered putting something about the problems with ISO 639-1 in the ISO_639-1 article? It currently says nothing about this.

Also, a quick search brings up [[14]]. It seems there's a policy that uses such codes for some purposes on Wikimedia-related wikis. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; you can't start a new Wikimedia wiki in a particular language unless the language has an ISO 639 code. I would hope that the Language Committee would listen to the concerns of a linguistic community who genuinely feel (not for political or ethnic reasons) that they should be allowed to have a separate wiki, despite the lack of a specific ISO code. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever ones feelings about ISO 639-1 Language Codes if you don't use them you'll break the internet or at least make your web pages look silly. John lilburne (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia error. Paragraph stealing sentence from following paragraph

I don't know where to report this at, so I figured I'd just post it here. Sometimes even with a blank space between paragraphs, it moves a sentence to the wrong place. I am unable to duplicate it outside of one article though. Is there a place on Wikipedia to point out errors like this? Notice at [15] if you go to the part saying When discussing growing up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana, that sentence will be part of the previous paragraph. If you hit the "edit this page" tab, and look at that spot though, its got a blank line between that and the previous paragraph it gets stuck to. It should be in a separate paragraph. By moving the quote to a different line after it, I fixed the problem, after first trying something else. So, having a sentence with a quote in the same sentence, sometimes makes that sentence appear in the previous paragraph. Odd. Dream Focus 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You might have some luck at WP:VPT. LFaraone 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is inside {{quote}}, which sets a text style to span a blank line, unless ended by a line break (newline), which I have logged in the /doc page (see: Template:Quote/doc#Known_problems). Thank you, User:Dream Focus, for pinpointing the insideous bug in that common template. -Wikid77 07:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for founding Wikipedia! Ias28 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical Lyrics about to be deleted by the Ku-Klux-Klan

I've just added the above mentioned lyrics (http://www.magistrix.de/lyrics/2Pac/Changes-24920.html) to the discussion of the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" article(http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin). I mention this here just to make sure any attempts by the Ku-Klux-Klan or any associated minds and/or administrators to disrupt this effort will not go unheard.--37.230.6.126 (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as I said, someone of the Ku-Klux-Klan has reverted the constructive lyrics directly related to improvements of the article, stating "Undid revision 588047823 by 37.230.6.126 (talk) rv, talk page is for discussing improvements to the article" (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&action=history)... Apart from the fact that these forces have been trying to prevent any change or improvement on any articles related to the killing of Trayvon Martin, I suppose everything is in best order and faith, here at Wikipedia!--37.230.6.126 (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, unregistered editor. You appear to be accusing User:VQuakr of being "someone of the Ku-Klux-Klan" merely because they removed your copy-pasting of an entire set of song lyrics to the talk page of the article about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. (They were right to remove it, because it's not relevant to the purpose of that talk page, and it's also most likely a copyright violation.) This accusation is neither sensible nor acceptable. I suggest you don't repeat it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Insulting others helps no good purpose.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

MOS reading schedule

See also: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 151 § MOS reading schedule

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Reading schedule is ready for use.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC) and 02:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I really hope this is parody. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the Reading schedule should be listed in an essay, "wp:101 things to do when blocked" because many people, who have been blocked, really want to work more with Wikipedia, as they expand into other activities. -Wikid77 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• No way in hell is any new editor going to read and understand all of these MOS walls of text. If you're not going to be working with mathematics articles, you don't need to read the mathematical symbols MOS. The MOS as I see it should be referred to only when the situation calls for it, not as requires reading. KonveyorBelt 22:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Mighty fine mess you have here

(This discussion refers to User:28bytes's answer to a question from User:Carrite when 28Bytes was an arbitration committee candidate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC))

The following discussion is worth reading - I'm only hatting to reboot - feel free to continue below. NPOV summary: recently elected ArbCom member 28bytes (elected with a very strong vote) has been revealed to be an active insider at Wikipediocracy, a material fact which he failed to disclose during the election. He chose to resign as a result. In my statement to him here I have encouraged him to ask me to call for a special vote of the community to see if he can be reinstated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Newly elected ARBCOM member 28bytes has been shown to be a trusted insider at wikipediocracy. Hell might be other people (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC) How is that a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Just why is that a "mess"? Is there a policy that ArbCom members can't participate at Wikipediocracy? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC) There is, I hope, a principle that arbitrators shall have integrity and be open and honest about their doings that relate to Wikipedia. Iselilja (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC) In the kingdom of the blind there is an elephant... a one-eyed elephant. Is it really surprising that votes settled by a hundred votes can be tipped by any hostile outside organization that takes the time to canvass and isn't ashamed to do so? Wnt (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) If you have any evidence of such canvassing, Wnt, can you please present it here? And can you please explain what you see as dishonesty or lack of integrity, Iselilja? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Whose sock is Hell might be other people (talk · contribs) might be? Secret account 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Wnt's comment shows him to be the fool, because the trustees and members of Wikipediocracy discovered that 28bytes was another Wikipediocracy participant only after the ArbCom election was completed. How would one "canvass" for a candidate not even identified as the one you're supposed to be canvassing for? Seriously, Wnt -- you should just take a one-month break from Wikipedia and use the time to become a more functional person. As for why this is a "mess", just wait for Jimbo's response. He is almost certain to see this as a mess, although he will mask his anxiety with a "thoughtful" response. (Or, you can read the pre-scripted version from Jimbo's speech writer here, obtained from secret files released by Edward Snowden): "It is extremely disappointing and surprising that 28bytes' would participate extensively in a trolling site owned by a known stalker and harasser of Wikipedians, whose threatening fantasies have targeted especially myself and my family. The Wikipedia way of elections is based on honest disclosure to the electorate of any potential conflicts of interest, as well as disclosure of any outside matters that might bring disrepute to the project. I very strongly feel that 28bytes did not give the electorate the honest disclosure that they deserve. However, given the vote count and his obvious good contributions to Wikipedia over the years, it is hard to imagine that if a re-vote were taken now, that he would not again be voted into the position of trust at ArbCom once more. So, I am advising that we all take a loving, thoughtful approach to 28bytes, and hope that he makes wiser decisions during his term with ArbCom, which would first begin by renouncing any future participation on any troll site that is upsetting and damaging to so many members of our loving wiki community." - Sir Jimmy D. Wales That's all from North Carolina this morning. Be well, loving and thoughtful Wikipedians! - 70.62.126.68 (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC) So, the second interesting 28Bytes fact that has come to light after the election, following on from the belated WP:COI disclosure. Would we have known about any of it if someone somewhere hadn't done some digging? I'm not down on 28Bytes as a person, but I am on 'the process' that led to his Arbcom election before any of these issues were raised. What else won't we know about candidates until someone asks uncomfortable questions (about current Arbcom, previously, or in the future)? I don't think attacking the revelation, or hands over ears and 'La La La Not Listening', will resolve a possible broader issue of election legitimacy. AnonNep (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I guess the question for Jimbo is whether he was aware of the disingenuous nature of the statements made by 28bytes in his election campaign, when he appointed 28bytes as an arbitrator (on this page recently). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC) WP's anonymity rules are fairly strict, Demiurge. Have you publicly identified yourself and any possible COI's you might have? Cla68 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, I've identified all possible COIs I have. That's easier for me because, unlike 28bytes, I haven't been creating (or editing) articles about topics where I have a conflict of interest. As for "privacy rules", they certainly wouldn't have prevented 28bytes from privately informing Jimbo of the true situation before Jimbo made his decision. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC) How do we know that you haven't been editing with some COI? That is the issue, in general we don't know what outside 'interests' someone has that affects the article edits they make or way that they interact with others here. John lilburne (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC) First off, Jimbo's appointment of Arbcom members is symbolic and traditional, so don't think for a moment that any "what if he'd known beforehand?" would have had any effect on who does and does not take their Arb seat. Second, unless one is planning to point out specific postings by this person on an external website that one feels are problematic, then all of this is just twaddle. The fact alone that a person is a member of a Wikipedia criticism site is not a prohibition to Arbcom membership. As much as some around here like to insinuate that Wikipediocracy in on par with something like Stormfront or the Silk Road, it isn't. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Symbolic and traditional or not, it would be entirely within Jimbo's powers to decline to appoint someone to arbcom if he discovered they had misled the community in the course of trying to get elected to arbcom. Whether 28bytes' actions are viewed that way or not is still up in the air (his behaviour was certainly less egregious than that of, say, Essjay) but it certainly doesn't prevent the key question being asked here. Did Jimbo know when he appointed 28bytes to arbcom, that 28bytes had written in his election campaign that he was merely a regular reader of Wikipediocracy, but in fact was a regular poster there, was responsible for authoring some of that site's main front page content, and was involved in its invite-only behind-the-scenes forums where Wikipedia editors are "researched"? In my opinion, these revelations also bring into question some of 28bytes' actions as an administrator, but that's a separate topic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC) And I question some of your actions as a user, seeing some of the stuff I've seen from you. Secret account 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) The issue is how someone participates on off-WP sites - i.e. I try to stick to discussing issues (rather than editors) when I've posted on wikipediocracy or wikipedia review. I felt that if one were going to complain about editors, then that was definitely best done on wikipedia rather than off-site. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC) + 1. When I participate on those sites, i focus on issues and criticism, not those ousting posts that gave those sites, well a colorful reputation. Secret account 15:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) FWIW, at least two other arbs appear to be "contributors" to that site. Collect (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC) ... but they do so transparently (i.e. under the same username they use here, right?), and they don't engage in the misleading combination of contributing extensively there, while also saying in their election campaign here that they only read the site. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC) This is the latest example of the "Who was that masked man, anyway?" games that people are bound to play when identities are concealed on the Internet. Thankfully the Lone Ranger never became a member of ArbCom; someone would have outed him as John Reid very quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Both this site and Wikipediocracy allow alias accounts for a reason. His affiliations with Wikipediocracy are of no consequence here nor should they be. There was no requirement for him to notify the community of an affiliation to Wikipedocracy. Further, if Wikipedia didn't have so many unresolved problems that the community consistently fails to address (Toxic editing environment, abusive bully admins, commons being full of porn, etc.) then Wikipediocracy wouldn't have anything to discuss. SO if there is a failure here it is on the part of this community and this site not 28bytes or Wikipediocracy. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Don't like criticism, good, fix the problems. Kumioko (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC) You're missing the point that he actively, purposefully misled the community by giving a false answer during the ArbCom election that he was a reader of Wikipediocracy. If he wanted, he could have said, "I don't want to answer that question", or he could have told the truth, but lying by omission was not a valid choice. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC) He misled no one. He does read the site. He had no obligation to declare his identity with Mason, or that he is a regular anonymous contributor there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC) If there was some expectation that candidates must declare their full involvement with Wikipediocracy, then not doing so would indeed be lying by omission. But no such expectation existed. He did not lie. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC) He could even have answered "yes I contribute to that site but I try to keep it separate from my on-wiki activities so I would prefer not to disclose the account name" (which is pretty much what he's saying in his apologia on his talk page, though his actions both here and on Wikipediocracy don't really bear out the supposed separation). That option, too, would have avoided misleading the community in the election. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Good point. The truth is always a good enough answer. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC) He had no obligation to declare his involvement in Wikipediocracy. The first sentence in his reply to Carrite was, though, open to misinterpretation and his best course would have been to simply omit it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Well what does Wikipediocracy participation has to do with ArbCom, the same thing happened with User:Cool Hand Luke in the old Wikipedia Review, Arb also doing a "bad site". The whole WO is a bad site thing is pure nonsense with the exception of the occasional lets out an admin for no reason posting which can be safely blocked here (and should be dealt with in WO). Secret account 15:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) You're engaging in misdirection. It is fine to contribute there and here. It's not fine to lie about it, and to deceive the electorate. Jehochman Talk 16:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC) How I'm engaging in "misdirection"? So what he didn't mention his WO account in a truly irrelevant question? He didn't really lie about it, he decided not to expose it because of the conception WO has with the project. The most important part is his actions in WO. Was he participated in actions that ousted administrators or would be completely against Wikipedia policies? No, and that what matters. Secret account 16:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Like it or not, for many who dont greatly trust the arbcom already, democratically elected or otherwise, this isnt going to increase faith in it or its workings, IMO, as Jimbo is not alone in having been attacked by said site. If 28bytes had openly admitted being a significant contributor there I would have no issue with him as an arbcom member but that isnt the case♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Demiurge1000, above you say, "28bytes had written in his election campaign that he was merely a regular reader of Wikipediocracy" and, "the misleading combination of contributing extensively there, while also saying in their election campaign here that they only read the site." (Underlining mine.) You're the misleader here. Would you please strike the words I've underlined? Do you have on-wiki history with 28bytes or has Mason criticised you? If so, in the interests of transparency, would you please either declare it or recuse from this discussion? Same to you Jehochman. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Anthonyhcole, you are being weird. I don't remember ever having any conflicts with 28bytes that would give me reason to hunt his head. On the contrary, I voted for him. I remember the bad block that happened during the election, which I shrugged of a stress-induced mistake, and now I hear about blatant COI editing, and lying about his involvement in a site that specializes in harassing Wikipedia editors. This is all just too much to bear. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC) See, I think this is the main problem here: you have a misconception of Wikipediocracy. There are a wide range of people that post there, running the gamut from those who want to flush Wikipedia down a giant toilet to committed Wikipedians and even (gulp) sitting members of ArbCom and those with checkuser tools. It's a message board, not a disciplined political party or a cult. The number of people who read the site is substantially larger than those who post there. Your impression of the nature of the site and its function is very extreme and — in my opinion as a regular there and a committed Wikipedian — also incorrect. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I think you used Wikipediocracy forum BB code tags (ie. square brackets) instead of WP tags to underline. Just sayin' ;) AnonNep (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC) It's not at all misleading. He implied in his arbcom election campaign that he only reads the site. I've not used the word "lying" here; someone else has. And yes, 28bytes used his admin tools to block me because I considered one of his comments about how I should (or should not) comment about Wikipediocracy to be a personal attack, and told him so on his talk page. He had already consulted another administrator about my comment, but chose to issue a block himself after they did not find it necessary to do so. This was while he was involved in running (or however you want to call it) the website we were discussing - which he happened not to mention in the subsequent ANI discussion (where the length of the block was overturned, but not the block itself, since there was not a consensus that he was involved). I fully intend to ask 28bytes about this on his talk page to see what he has to say about it. I hadn't mentioned it here because it's appropriate to discuss it with him first. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC) He implied nothing of the sort. Would you also please strike "misleading" from "That option, too, would have avoided misleading the community in the election"? You're doing the misleading here, in Wikipedia's most public forum, about a named person. If the block occurred as you describe it, you have good cause to be very pissed off though. I'll follow that with interest. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you. As regards "misleading", your request is not as reasonable as you may think. Jehochman thought it was misleading. I thought it was misleading. User:Nick thought it was a "breach of trust" but not so serious that it warrants a resignation. User:Tryptofish thinks it was misleading to "a pretty small extent" and does not warrant a resignation. You, on the other hand, believe that it was not misleading at all. That's a difference of opinion. The way to deal with that difference of opinion is not to demand that those that disagree with you should have to strike their comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I'm sure 28bytes will do an excellent job at ArbCom. If we had more 28byteses and New York Bradses and Salvioses, we'd all be better off. Roll the "Haters Gonna Hate" gif. Forward and onward. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Roll the "Apologists gonna apologize" gif. Just sayin' I'm down wit dat and all your intertubes and lame slang. Jehochman Talk 17:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I'm going to be painfully honest here and some of what I say is going to piss some people off and hurt some feelings but most of us are adults so we'll deal with it. I don't want anyone under the impression I am a fan of Arbcom because I don't think 28bytes should have to resign. Arbcom has become a menace to the project. Like the concept of WikiProject's it was good in its time but it has evolved into nothing more than one bureaucratic piece of nonsense red tape that has become the norm for this site. It is one of the reasons this site has become more and more of a toxic environment. Arbcom is mostly used as a means by editors and some experienced editors to push their own POV on topics and get their opposers banned. Arbcom has further compounded the problem by doling out poorly worded "broadly construed" nonsense that causes more harm than good. It punishes both sides and gives the impression that anyone who submits to Arbcom will suffer...on both sides of the argument...so don't do it. With that said, 28bytes is by far one of the top editors on this site. To lose them would not only discredit the Arbcom but the site itself. Being an editor on Wikipediocracy has no more meaning here than editing Wikia, or custom sites or blogging. Since we don't care about peoples standing on Wikia or on blogs, we shouldn't care about their standing on Wikipediocracy. If we do anything we should dissolve the whole arbcom, not force one candidate out because of some nearsighted and "arbitrary" feeling of betrayal by a couple members of the community. Additionally we shouldn't punish 28bytes because Dan Murphy from Wikipediocracy can't be trusted to keep his mouth shut. He's a reporter by trade so we already knew that so the mistake by 28bytes in trusting him was already punishment enough. Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Acting when involved 28bytes made a controversial AFD close recently. In the closing statement, he commented on the "legitimate concerns raised over both off-site canvassing". He failed to declare that he was himself one of those making partisan comments about the article off-site — there were multiple postings under his different account name, which has now been revealed. His prior involvement in those Wikipediocracy discussions and the outcome of the close seems to be a breach of WP:INVOLVED. Knowingly concealing this involvement by posing as an impartial arbiter seems quite wrong. Andrew (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC) [alternative account of Colonel Warden] You going to confess your involvement, Andrew ? Nick (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC) It was I that pointed out the canvassing activity. The Wikipediocracy site then retaliated by doxing and outing me. 28bytes took part in that thread too, under his different account name. Arbcom is responsible for confidential information about editors' real identities. It seems important that the arbitrators should be trustworthy and respect such confidences. Andrew (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC) They didn't out you - you did that yourself, they noticed you being naughty with two accounts and they pointed that out. You're probably the last person that should be lecturing others about being trustworthy. Nick (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I was not being naughty as the accounts had been kept separate, using my real name for public activities such as GLAM editathons. And they did out me by pointing to other aspects of my real identity such as my employer and other online accounts with no connection to Wikipedia. Wikipediocracy seems to relish such activity and they do it over there because, if they did it here, they would be banned. Andrew (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC) As there was no canvassing activity, your claim that someone ID you're two accounts in retaliation for you pointing out non-existent canvassing is bogus. If there was retaliation it wasn't for complaining about non-existent canvassing, but for other reasons that are rather more pertinant. John lilburne (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Are you seriously going to get off topic here, Andrew you are very involved in both the AFD and with WO. Stop steering shit. Secret account 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC) But Andrew didn't close the AfD. 28bytes did. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Curious contrast: note that after eight years the murdering police of the Danziger Bridge shootings are still free, because of the alleged impropriety of prosecutors making anonymous comments to a newspaper forum that so far as I know offered no privileged information. I'm not saying that's right, but it's certainly ... different from this. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC) It's "different" to the point of being absolutely unrelated and irrelevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Colonel, I've just read his comments in that forum thread, and I see him mocking the article rescue squad, but I don't see anything there that would imply he is involved. Could you be more specific, please? Do you and 28bytes have history here, or has Mason criticised you on Wikipediocracy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC) What? 28bytes (as Mason) should not be participating in what was objected to as an off-site canvasing thread, and then come here, as 28bytes, to rule on the objection. That should not be difficult to understand. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Still struggling here; sorry. The colonel was right to raise his legitimate concerns about possible canvassing at Wikipediocracy, but I can't see any actual WP:CANVASSing there. Can you point me to it please, Alan? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC) You want to reargue the canvass objection. Why? What has that got to do with participating in an objected to discussion (in one guise) and then ruling on the objection (in another guise)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC) The colonel raised sincere concerns about possible canvassing, and it needed to be considered in the closing. But as far as I can see there is no actual WP:CANVASSing. Why should 28bytes recuse from closing when the colonel is obviously, in good faith, talking out of his arse? Should 28bytes have taken into account Bonkers the Clown's IP trolling, too? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Why should he recuse? 1) There was absolutely no need for him to close it -- he volunteered. 2) He participated in one guise in the off-site discussion objected to, giving him a personal connection to the matter and more than likely an interest in both how that discussion is viewed, and a decided opinion on the substantive matter; 3) He closed the AfD in another guise, ruling on the substance of the objection, and apparently (according to you) already having expressed personal opinions about Wikipedia Users, who participated in the AfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) There's a small amount of complaining about 28bytes being involved but not one bit of evidence (yet) to show it actually made a difference to the closure; ultimately the deletion review didn't overturn the closure and I don't think it's difficult to come to the conclusion another administrator could have come to the same close as 28bytes. Nick (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC) I don't recall anyone knowing about 28bytes/Mason at the time. So, the deletion review would not have dealt with that, but that is hardly the point given the compromised closer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Oh, shut up, there is nothing wrong with discussing Wikipedia affairs of-wiki; people here do it all the time such as on IRC or the mailing lists. It isn't a bit surprising to see the ARS crowd still carping about the Henry Earl deletion; they loath WP:BLP1E with a passion, and a loss on its basis is a particularly hard-hitting black eye. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC) The wrong is not the discussion, but no one said it was. But since it is you who are wanting people to shut-up -- it is obvious you are the one who is carping. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC) YTou're whining because you opposed the AfD result, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC) First, you are factually wrong, I did not vote in the AfD, nor had any knowledge of it when it was going on. I afterward opposed the procedure invoked in the close, via the DR. Now, there is more evidence of procedural irregularity, but it does not affect my prior analysis nor how in another AfD, without the procedural irregularities, I would vote, if I voted at all. Second, you are apparently in a glass house throwing stones. Look to your own considerable whine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Suppose 28bytes had openly declared somewhere in his election statement that he was Mason on WO. What would've happened? There would've likely been a thread on WO discussing his candidacy. Most folks on WO would've expressed their support. Then, it is almost certain that (some of) the same people who are now demanding 28bytes' head for not disclosing, would've engaged in an active campaign to discredit his candidacy as "tainted by off-site canvassing". I can see 28bytes having to travel between the Scylla of "tainted by off-site canvassing!" and the Charybdis of "you didn't disclose!". Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. In the end he seemed to have decided that he wanted his candidacy evaluated based on the quality of his Wikipedia contributions themselves, rather than these kinds of stupid Wiki politics. Had he the right to do that and was it the right choice? Not sure. Regardless, I understand why he made the choice.  Volunteer Marek  22:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) He has resigned, his resignation statement can be found on his talk page (User talk:28bytes). NativeForeigner Talk 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Permalink to resignation statement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Well, that is unfortunate; a person who would have made a fine Arbcom member hounded off by trolls and hypocrites. As the Miracle on 34th Street Santa said, "shameful". Tarc (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Hear, hear. — Scott • talk 00:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's an interesting way to frame the debate... Actually, 28bytes was the top votegetter in the recent election in both absolute and net terms. And this was sunk by a shrieking handful of venomous voices because they were bitterly offended that 28bytes did not answer a question which I did not ask. Of course, one's view of this is no doubt colored by one's perspective of Wikipediocracy, which I see as a very big net positive to the project for all its occasional excesses and errors. Large institutions need to be checked by countervailing power to avoid degeneration; WPO provides it. Carrite (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

[16] No popcorn, please. I don't think anyone's hungry. —Neotarf (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)