This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is increased heat tolerance found in ant colonies in urban heat islands a textbook example of evolution?
Before I ask my question, thank you for your part in creating the foundation for the world brain H.G. Wells talked about. I think it's reciprocal given that the wikipedia foundation annually asks for money, that I ask you for money as well; it being a very economically Dickens holiday season. I would donate money if I had any, though I'd prefer the concept of money to no longer exist. Now onto my actual question; I've noticed that you created the page for urban heat island. I added a reference that ant colonies often show an increased heat tolerance in urban heat islands. Would this be a good example of more quickly observable evolution for the evolution article? CensoredScribe (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
A policy-based answer is that it is not a good reference. In order for it to be a good reference the source would have to discuss the question of evolution explicitly, but even then, as an empirical study, it would be a primary source per WP:RS, and a secondary source would be preferable. In fact there is an even better reason why it is not a good reference: the article explicitly says, "Currently, we do not know whether the difference between the heat tolerances of urban and rural ants has a genetic basis or simply results from plastic responses to environmental conditions." Therefore any attempt to interpret this as evidence for evolution would be original synthesis. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no knowledge and no opinion about this. :-) I believe I created the article back in 2001 with some very basic information because I wanted to learn more. I certainly have no particular qualifications in this area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Not just original synthesis, but pure speculation. Axl¤[Talk] 12:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Jimbo, it turns out that you didn't actually create the article in the first place. I've imported the relevant edit into the current Wikipedia database. Graham87 03:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia's obvious biases and prejudices
Partly Resolved: The map image has been deleted from wikipedia commons however, the issues with some editors remain with feelings still hot over this sensitive issue. Additional discussion along with a potential wrong unblock can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Nyttend's improper unblock.
No, many are disturbed that the filing editor was blocked and then unblocked by an involved administrator. The issue over the map was resolved very quickly through a consensus discussion on the talk page of the article that was then unprotected with that specific issue taken care of. This isn't about feelings. Wikipedia should be a safe place for people to edit without harassment or hatred actually supported by admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I clarified the header as to centralize the discussion, feel free to change or edit it yourself if you wish as I am not putting a signature on what has happened so far. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Status of gay persons.jpg
I noticed this image and it is the most flagrantly and flamboyantly biased, point of view, assumptive and political agenda pushing thing I have seen here yet. "Evolving"? "Worse"? Excuse me? This is wikipedia's official political stance on the policies of other governments now? I think there needs to be a major discussion and people need to see if this can be allowed here. 71.127.137.154 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It does seem to be OR. The description of the photo says: "Status of gay persons = (Human Development Index 2013 + Democracy Index 2012) + Legal recognition + (Gay Pride index 2011 + Gay visibility up to 10 + Political visibility up to 10) /3" Perhaps you need to approach Commons about taking it down. I don't know if the rules there are the same as here. Bielle (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an official political stance on anything. Besides that, that file is not used on any Wikipedia page other this one, since you just posted it here. You're making a fuss out of nothing.--Atlan (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've removed it from Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. It would be one thing if this was quoting someone else's assessment of the situation and we made it clear we were just saying what their opinion was, but I can't see how it's possibly appropriate for Wikipedia to be grading governments against an arbitrary set of criteria. Mogism (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not satisfied that this is what is being claimed and don't think a deletion from a discussion on Jimbos talkpage is exactly the right move. I will defer to the projects on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I also take exception to the what appears to b a rather insensitive header here. Really? "flamingly". Was that appropriate?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this is getting into potentially ugly territory. Gays and lesbians and the like have a right to be treated with the same respect, equality, and basic human dignity that everyone else enjoys. I fail to see how it is original research or synthesis to show...in an article titled "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality"... which nations of the world have state (e.g. Russia) or religious (e.g. pretty much all of the Islamic world) -backed institutional discrimination towards LGBT people. If the IP editor is demanding that the Wikipedia give equal airtime to bigots and prejudiced attitudes regarding homosexuality, then I hope this person is given a very cold and unwelcome shoulder. (Note the snide "flamingly" and "flamboyant" digs there, too). Tarc (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with that (I can't speak for the IP), but that's not what this map shows. It would be one thing to have a map showing the legal status of homosexuality, UN (say) figures on the rate of persecution etc as that would be citeable. "(Human Development Index 2013 + Democracy Index 2012) + Legal recognition + (Gay Pride index 2011 + Gay visibility up to 10 + Political visibility up to 10) /3", OTOH, is pure OR and SYNTH, since it's the OP assigning their own arbitrary importance to the various measures. What, for instance, is the difference between a "gay friendly city" and an "other friendly city", and why, for instance, is London "gay-friendly", Amsterdam "other-friendly", and Manchester, generally considered the most gay-friendly city in Europe, omitted altogether? (It can't be a matter of size, as relatively insignificant places like Reykjavik and Montevideo are singled out.) Mogism (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This graphic is a simple editorial matter. Can't we just steer the IP to the correct venue? As an aside, I noticed than the author of the graphic has proposed adding it to homophobia, which is problematic as it relies too heavily on original research and the legend is not very neutral. - MrX 23:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(ecx2)It is indeed "flamingly obvious" that the map is complete and utter bollocks. South Africa should be rated at the top of the scale, not the middle. It is one of only a handfull of countries where gay marriage is completely legal, gay people can adopt children, serve openly in the military, etc. It is also afaik the only country where all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is expressly forbidden by the constitution, not merely legislation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
So, no comment on the unusually biased manner in which it is presented here? I am not at all clear that this is original research to such a degree that it is against a policy or guideline as original research is allowed to a point in images. However this is relying on information to create it. They didn't pull the content out of thin air.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course it was presented rather emotionally, but it was definitely the author's interpretation and manipulation of the data the resulted in the map. I think it represents a bold and good faith effort, but it violates at least a couple of our policies. - MrX 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Geez, guys, way to assume bad faith here. The user has now provided the source of the maps and the data therein; OneEurope. So perhaps now we could leave behind all of the "just a newbie making stuff up" and now discuss whether this OneEurope's analysis of gay rights in various countries is a useful metric for the article. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Note that the byline on that OneEurope article is " Alessandro Vitiello | 26 Nov 2013". This looks rather similar to User:Aless2899, and in any case the article provides no source for the fomula used to construct the map. Who chose those indices in those proportions? DES(talk) 00:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
OMG! The Gays are at it! Seriously though, it took less than a day from file creation to it being a "flamingly" bad problem? As far as I can see this is a hopeless ambiguous representation of very complex attitudes. I would think the same about a similar image showing tolerance for different races and ethnicities. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
But this isn't a map showing tolerance for different races and ethnicities, its a map purporting to show views on sexual immorality / morality. Therefore, logically, a map of countries' attitudes toward bestaility, incest, pedophilia, and then judging them as "better" "improving" and "worst" countries using that as the be-all and end-all sacred cow criteria, would be a much closer analogy. 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That was really disgusting and way off. "The map shows the status of gays and lesbians worldwide, analysing democracy, development, visibility, legal aspects, political presence.". Period. I see nothing to support the IP's claims about "Therefore, logically, a map of countries' attitudes toward bestaility, incest, pedophilia, and then judging them as "better" "improving" and "worst" countries using that as the be-all and end-all sacred cow criteria". That sounds very much like a homophobic rant and nothing more.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, can't hear you, the right-wing doesn't play very well where science and rational thinking are needed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Not helping anything. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not like the way homosexual behaviour is now being actively and vehemently promoted in every country and in my country by a few foreign individuals. I deeply resent anyone suggesting that wikipedia is obliged support this sickness and adopt the same bias in the name of "tolerance" and directly label my country in opposition to my country's government. This will become a political issue with wikipedia and will then have to be pursued that way. So, yes, you could say I have bad faith with this poster. 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Someone should block the IP now that they have shown their true colors and we should all move on.--Atlan (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? Because you are attacking my government? Homosexuals have always judged the entire world through their sore tortured prisms, that's nothing new but they need to get their own wiki or their own pedia, this isn't the homopedia, this is everybody's wikipedia like it or not! 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
That's quite a leap. Explain to me how identifying you as a homophobe is attacking your government, whichever that is.--Atlan (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Atlan, every culture is different even though you may disagree you still should respect their POV and they should respect yours. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It's no wonder you have a "consensus" for such pro-homosexual biases and prejudices when you muzzle and banish everyone who does not share them! That's a false consensus though. 71.127.137.154 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I understand that you are upset and feel that your country is being mislabeled here, right now the image is being questioned so please do not go on the offensive here. Also understand that every country is different when It comes to dealing with the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I feel the image should be deleted, it hurts more than it helps. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is a Commons image so that would have to be done there. DES(talk) 00:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I have requested administrative attention here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks, at the very least it should be listed to establish a firm consensus as this is a hot topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Came here from Mark Miller's WP:AN posting. Atlan's comment is a textbook example of how we are nowhere near being neutral on the issue of homosexuality. In favor of pretending that homosexuality is normal/okay/etc.: you're normal and can participate here. Opposed: you're hateful and don't deserve to participate here. Let me remind such commentators that aggressive advancement of such a position is harassment. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Atlan's comments are a textbook example of how we are nowhere near being neutral on the issue of homosexuality? How so? He requested a block for homophobic bias and soapboxing from what it looks like to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes thanks Mark that's what I meant. The IP is being openly homophobic here in this thread, calling it a disease. It is not an inference on my part as Nyttend apparently makes it out to be.--Atlan (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Homosexuality is not accepted worldwide remember. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No, but neither is Judaism or being a Moslem, or having a different skin color or ethnic origin. It is longstanding policy that admins will indefinitely block active, position-promoting Antisemites, Islamophobes, or Racists. The classification of activist homophobia as acceptable somehow is jarringly at odds with those other standards. The IP is blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I for one generally favor "gay rights", but oppose this particular image, not because of any PoV it expresses, but as a violation of WP:SYNTH. DES(talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear to be so, as there is clearly a good deal of sources used. Can you demonstrate that these sources have been manipulated or used against policy or guidelines please.
Do the precise classification of countries on the map match what is in those sources, or are the classifications pulled out of the author's ass? (Honest question, I have not had time to go through them.) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that the user has selected indices provided by these sources, (selecting them from among various others that could have been used) added them up according to his own formula (weighting some as 1 and some as 1/3 for no given reason) and then rated the sums from best to worst on a scale again apparently of his own devising. I call that WP:SYNTH no matter how accurately the user has transcribed the various indices from the sources. DES(talk) 01:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If you are not clear on the exact formula used, can you claim it is made from their own devices? Is this utterly unfixable or is this something that can be corrected?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I am clear on the formula used, or at least the formula that the image caption states was used. But if there is a source for the formula beyond the user's own choice, that source has not yet been cited. DES(talk) 02:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest replacing "evolving" with "transitional" and "worse" with "nonintegrated". Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It still wont change the status of the countries and how they are labeled. I agree this is WP:SYNTH. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, do hope Jimbo jumps in, for usually in cases like this he has some nugget of wisdom that (for me at least) makes me say "Of course!" But for anyone who cares here's my two cents- Surely some professor some where has actually made a map or table of the world's nations attitudes towards the LGBT community... Has anyone researched if something actually exists that can replace this map?Camelbinky (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Setting aside the question of whether the image should exist at all, "evolving" and "transitional" both imply a direction, thus violating WP:CRYSTAL. Better would be something like "partial" or "mixed". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The original map provided on the article, File:World homosexuality laws.svg is the closest thing we have, although it identifies countries specifically by their laws alone. Perhaps, at it's core, the entire idea presented by the other map is flawed by attempting to show a "status". Not completely sure. Is "Status" intangible?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The map in question here was designed to define "status" as the weighted sum of various indices. It is not even clear that all of those indices had a Level of measurement permitting valid sums (i.e. are based on an interval or better a ratio scale). In the absence of that such a "sum" is mathematically meaningless. DES(talk) 02:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that the entire idea of the map was to define "status" per the above but it has not exactly be demonstrated. Can an individual index be picked out at random to show this?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not from the map as provided, it gives only a bracketed value of the sum "Status of gay persons = (Human Development Index 2013 + Democracy Index 2012) + Legal recognition + (Gay Pride index 2011 + Gay visibility up to 10 + Political visibility up to 10) /3" which surely looks to me like an attempt to define "Status of gay persons" as the value of the stated formula. Any user could of course find published data on any one of these indices, and create a table or (with more work) a color coded map from that data. Whether that would represent "Status of gay persons" is a different question. DES(talk) 03:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure they are two different issues. If it is assumed that "status" cannot be represented from any particular index used and is simply "assumed" I would think that enough to disqualify use alone. Accurate representation of what the sources claim is needed to create such an image. If, on the other hand, the indices are claiming a particular status, that may be enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
True, if an RS says "X index (or formula) measures the status of gay persons" or anything similar, then we can report that with proper attribution. If any source has said that about this or any other formula, I have yet to see the cite. DES(talk) 04:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Good point to raise here. Let me take a quick look and see if there is anything close to this available.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
From whose point of view though? Im sure there are maps out there but some may have people's opinions as a factor added to it. How can we find a neutral map? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
If a map is fully sourced to an RS, and any opinions it embodies can be attributed, then it is no different than a quote from a possibly biased source, properly attributed. DES(talk) 02:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi I have requested the image to be deleted but not bing practical with Wikipedia at all I just sent a deletion request. I don't want the image to appear on wikipedia anymore. The image is clearly not mold wikipedian. I just posted it at the beginning as I thought it wouldn't have appear immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aless2899 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Unblocked
The user who made the homophobic rant has been unblocked by Nyttend who is involved enough to not have clean hands. The original admin who made the block has requested that the block be reinstated and I do as well [1]. Clearly the editor deserved the block and the unblock request was unacceptable when it makes accusations against others. What the hell is going on here?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It's getting really old seeing discussion after discussion at the noticeboards where homophobia is okay and ignored or promoted by admin, while in the same position racism would not be tolerated from the first instance. If Wikipedia can't sort this out with a consistent policy then it doesn't deserve to retain LGBT users. We're not a punching bag for the homophobes who want to edit here instead of Conservapedia and AGF should be applied equally.
Jenova20, can you please link to a diff where an admin is promoting homophobia? I would be happy to bring that to the ANI board if you like. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@Jenova20: I agree. We have a few admins who really go out of their way not only to allow this type of behaviour, but to encourage it with twisted interpretations of our policies. I'm waiting to see how this issue and the WP:FagRfD issue is resolved to decide if I'm going to continue to contribute to a project that allows thinly-veiled homophobia from users with few, if any, contributions toward actually building an encyclopedia. I'm also really tired of the constant devil-advocating and strained incredulity of some of our users, but at least most of them are not admins. - MrX 15:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@Malerooster: How about the last time i was at ANI over a certain user who harassed and disrupted Talk:Homophobia for over a year, violating multiple policies, and has been able to get away scott-free despite using the same tactics on two articles since, at least one of which led to another ANI discussion? This user not only got to carry this out, but was ignored by Admins, unchallenged by them, and at the first ANI i took part in also got away with accusing the entire LGBT Wikiproject of being "activists" with only me challenging him over it.
There's no point having policies if they're not enforced and an entire section of the Wikipedia population is editing at a disadvantage. I'm not linking to any diffs as i have no idea where ANI cases from ~1 year ago would be stored. Nor do i want to link to the user. MrX will certainly know who it is though and confirm this as i believe he took part in the first ANI case and witnessed the year long trolling that led to it.
Jenova20, without diffs and not knowing what specifically happened I can't comment further except to say I am sorry if you feel you are being bullied or ignored, not to put words in your mouth. No group should feel harassed, ect. --Malerooster (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Bullying isn't the only issue, the issue is that racism = uncontroversial ban. Homophobia and transphobia = nothing in most cases or a controversial ban (Just like the Chelsea Manning issue again and this issue too). If this is the way the community operates fairly then AGF is useless and every LGBT editor is a sitting duck.
There's a reason so many people say the noticeboards and ANI don't work, it's because they don't. Personal opinion is able to trump the established rules unchallenged and LGBT editors deserve better.
The ANI consensus - not unanimous, but 80% or so - is that the unblock was improper, the block was ... perhaps excessive, but justified, and I have stated on ANI I will reblock if they offend again in a like manner. If they think they "got away with" something they are wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
That's something good from this but the fact that the discussion became a free-for-all to further attack LGBT editors is deplorable and aboslutely disgraceful. If Automatic Strikeout really has quit Wikipedia then we just lost one more editor to the homophobes. These incidents are becoming more frequent and worse. Thanks editors who have morals ツ Jenova20(email) 13:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a bad idea to label another group of editors. By calling people "homophobes" you are joining a battle. Wikipedia is not for battles of any sort. If somebody makes a bigoted remark the usual first step is to call them out and ask them to fix their remark. If their reply is more extreme, they might be blocked at that point. A sudden block without warning is only used in egregious cases where it's already clear that the user isn't attempting to work properly. JehochmanTalk 13:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
That appears to be what happened here. The IP made a remark, he/she were called out on it, and then the IP escalated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't intend to sugar coat it at all. If an editor feels fine to attack LGBT editors on the basis of sexuality then WP:AGF and Comment on the contribution, not the contributor have already been ignored. To put it bluntly, if certain editors can make homophobic remarks unpunished then logic follows that calling said editor a twat, or worse should also go unpunished. To punish the people being attacked further serves only to cause more people to leave in protest and encourage the behaviour to get worse. I'm currently mulling over leaving myself but am not quite at the point Automatic Strikeout is, although i was quite disgusted by the point the discussion was ended.
I was under the impression we were here to edit, not see how much offense we could cause and how many people joined in. I appear to have been wrong. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 14:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The remedy for speech you dont agree with is counter-speech, not "punishment." The reason for that is that the notion of "punishment" for "offending speech" is all-too-easily abused.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I meant blocking or community sanctions by "punishment". Thanks ツ Jenova20(email) 14:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Europeana infested with Bright Line Rule breakers?
Happy Black Friday, Jimbo! I am wondering if you saw the Wikimedia Foundation blog post from two days ago, about Wiki Loves Monuments and its sponsorship by Europeana? That got me to wanting to learn more about Europeana, so I turned to the most neutral reference I could find -- Wikipedia!
Did you know that in helping to create Wikipedia's wonderful article about Europeana, we received content assistance from the following users?
User:N.thirlby - a single-purpose account (SPA). No way to know for sure, but could be Natasha Thirlby, a marketing and advertising professional who is a member of the LinkedIn group "Europeana".
User:Raffaellasantucci - a user with a very limited range of interest on Wikipedia: Sapienza University of Rome and Europeana. Who knows, maybe this is Raffaella Santucci, who works at Sapienza University of Rome, which is a project partner with Europeana.
User:Lhmhopwood - another SPA. Surely just a coincidence that Michael Hopwood was a contractor with "Linked Heritage". (Get it? Linked Heritage = "Lh". Michael = "m". Hopwood = "hopwood".)
User:Aisulu Aldasheva - another SPA. We cannot be sure, but wouldn't it be weird if this user turned out to be Aisulu Aldasheva, who was working for Europeana for two years, "doing PR and editorial stuff"? I thought PR editors were not supposed to directly edit articles where they have a conflict of interest?
User:Marcorendina - not exactly a single-purpose account, but very nearly so. Any chance that this is Marco Rendina, who headed up a Europeana Fashion project?
User:Jpekel - a highly focused account, with more content contributed to the Europeana article than any other. Surely this isn't Joris Pekel, the Community Coordinator Cultural Heritage at Europeana!
User:FernieK - in April 2013, did nothing but edit about Europeana, especially to add a citation about "CARARE". We'll never know if that's maybe Kate Fernie, the technical coordinator for the CARARE project, which was funded by Europeana.
User:Kerstarno - an SPA who added into the Europeana article a link to the Archives Portal Europe. Strange, isn't it, how Kerstin Arnold is the Technical Coordinator of Archives Portal Europe, which acts as a domain aggregrator for Europeana?
Jimmy, is your Bright Line Rule message getting through to anyone, if even Wikimedia Foundation project sponsors can't seem to abide by your decree? Do you think maybe we should just give up on the Bright Line Rule and simply welcome users who contribute good content, regardless of their affiliation? That would seem to be the less embarrassing way forward. - 2001:558:1400:10:AC79:7A9:FAF6:9668 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you finally getting around to making a substantive point? I recommend that you either complain directly to the people involved or - as you seem to think they are doing nothing wrong - adopt a different strategy. All you are doing here is convincing people of the seriousness of the problem and the importance of the Bright Line rule as a best practice. If you don't realize that, I don't know what else I can do to help you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Complaining directly to the people involved would certainly relieve you of evaluating the evidence that Bright Line Rule isn't working, wouldn't it? My point was to suggest that we simply welcome users who contribute good content, regardless of their affiliation, as I said so above. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE already provide us with the necessary rule set to make Wikipedia as good as it can be at this time. If one follows those four policies and guidelines, it doesn't matter if money is changing hands, or if employees are providing content about their employer. (My point would also be coupled with abandoning your Bright Line Rule that doesn't really work, because it is too slow, doesn't provide a fair playing field against "non-paid" antagonists like disgruntled ex-employees, and isn't obeyed -- even by "insiders" who should be well-versed in Wikipedia editing norms.) However, it seems like you'll just dig in even deeper, though, stubbornly standing by your BLR that Wikipedians have failed to codify into guideline form, much less policy. Just this month we've exposed COI editing by Wikimedia Foundation sponsors, partners, and vendors by way of Europeana, Telenor, and Cooley LLP. Who knows what December will bring? Stay tuned! - 2001:558:1400:10:AC79:7A9:FAF6:9668 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, WP:V, are ideals; no page is perfectly neutral or perfectly verified. There are imperfections with every page, even featured articles. However, when an article is written with a serious conflict of interest, any such imperfection can reasonably be suspected as having been caused by the conflict of interest. This undermines trust. This is why the academic publishers have rejected the reasoning that serious conflicts of interest do not matter, even if content passes the normal reviewing and editing processes. Jimbo's rule keeps us within the academic mainstream, rather than holding onto a fringe position which has been completely rejected by our reliable sources for this topic. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 20:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe Jimmy himself and many of the Wikimedia Free Culture movement have repeatedly announced why traditional academia and traditional publishing will be going the way of the dinosaur. Yet, here you are saying that we should adopt the rationale of "academic publishers" to define how Wikipedia operates? How quaint! - 2001:558:1400:10:AC79:7A9:FAF6:9668 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not referring to just traditional academia. All academia, including the non-traditional outfits such as the reputable open-access journals maintain high standards in this regard. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 20:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you should leave it to Mr. Wales if he wants to hat this conversation. I just wanted to add that if there are any issues with the Bright Line Rule, they are complicated by the absence of a specific policy prohibiting such conduct, as well as widespread acceptance of such editing by many experienced Wikipedia editors and by administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I suspect a lot of the "acceptance" has to do with knowing how it would be impossible to enforce, particularly given the entrenched policies that would make it nearly impossible to do so. Frankly I'm surprised that the original post above hasn't been revdeleted or oversighted because it more or less violates the OUTING policy. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Sue Gardner weighed in on that very point on the Conflict of Interest Limit talk page. I thought her post was quite good, albeit a bit in the "too little, too late" department. As far as the article is concerned, I think the COI tag is potentially problematic and I've raised the issue on the COI noticeboard. I agree that the article has issues, but would be happier if the issue had been raised in a different manner by this IP editor. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Also looking back two days ago to another Wikimedia Foundation blog post, there is mention of a Wikimedia extension that "utilizes the free music-engraving program LilyPond". What better place to learn about LilyPond than Wikipedia, where the #1 contributor to that article (with over 19x more edits than the next-closest editor) is User:Pnorcks? His user page proudly proclaims, :"Hi! I'm here to improve the LilyPond page and to update release versions when appropriate.
Some other ways I am involved with LilyPond:
Maintaining PKGBUILD scripts (Arch Linux) for the development and git versions: [1], [2].
Reporting bugs.
Fixing bugs.
Tracking regressions.
General source code maintenance.
Improving the SVG backend [3].
Reporting bugs for the installer builder, GUB [4].
Check out LilyPond if you're interested in music typesetting.
It would be too snarky to ask if Wikimedia Foundation ever aligns itself with an organization that hasn't been exercising conflict-of-interest editing, so I won't ask that. - 2001:558:1400:10:AC79:7A9:FAF6:9668 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Uh oh... it would appear that "Pnorcks" in other areas of the Internet is one Patrick McCarty. Isn't it strange how Wikipedia's article about LilyPond prominently features a musical score by Patrick McCarty, uploaded by Pnorcks? - 2001:558:1400:10:AC79:7A9:FAF6:9668 (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
It's strange that a person volunteered his time to develop an open-source program and helped integrate it into MediaWiki software and also helped write the Wikipedia page? I think you are confused about what a conflict of interest is. This is no more a conflict of interest then someone who runs a Jane Austen reading group writing the article Jane Austen. There are no two interests which conflict. He's not given any tangle benefits by anyone to write on or promote LilyPond. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 21:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you know how foolish you sound, Atethnekos; but let me quote you the very first lines of the WP:COI guideline:
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests...
So, have you looked at the LilyPond article? I have. I see it failing the above "aim of Wikipedia" on several counts. Is the article neutral? I suppose it's close to being neutral, but it is apparent that the authors of this article painstakingly point out several beneficial features of the software, but there is not a single criticism or limitation of the software expressed. For example, one of the sources used as a reference in the article says of LilyPond, "The user doesn’t get the instant visual feedback that they would see with a graphical interface", but there is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article. Likewise the reviewer's comment, "the disadvantage that it is much harder to read, but what really bothered me was how long it took me to type all the notes", is not assessed in the Wikipedia article. So, the net result is that we really don't have a neutral article right now, and we can probably blame the COI editor for that.
Next, is the article reliably sourced? There are 21 sources referenced. Sixteen of them (76%) point to the LilyPond website, or to the related GNU project pages. Neither of these sites are the independent, third-party, objective publications that we would typically look for. The remaining 5 sources are to GitHub and a couple of rather obscure-looking document-sharing sites dedicated to code development, it appears. Which leads me to ask, has LilyPond ever been covered in any level of detail in any mainstream publication, and if so, why hasn't it been included in the article here? (FYI, there areseveralsources that could be used, but they haven't.) So, on this count of "reliable sources", I would say that the current article mostly fails, and we can probably blame the COI editor for that.
Finally, has the primary editor of the article "promote <his> own interests"? Without question! There were plentiful musical scores that he could have used as an example of LilyPond scripting, but he selected a composition of his own. That puts his own promotion before the goals of the Wikipedia project to produce a neutral encyclopedia. If you're not able to see that, then you're probably blinded by the "free culture" movement's objectives, which itself is a form of bias. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that I look so foolish. I can definitely say that I've not been blinded by the objectives of a movement of which I've never been a part, however. I agree, the article is not neutral. I don't see how it is a matter of COI, however. This user receives no tangible benefits in relation to LilyPond or an example composition to demonstrate LilyPond output. The "interest" in "conflict of interest" does not refer to just any interest that a person has in a topic. A user is a fan of Jane Austen and submits corrigenda to editions of Jane Austen. That doesn't mean that such a user has a conflict of interest for the topic of Jane Austen. A user who is a fan of LilyPond and submits fixes to versions of LilyPond, is a perfectly analogous case. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 22:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I take a dimmer view of this sort of editing than you do, Atethnekos, but agree that it is not a canonical case of the kind of editing that the Bright Line Rule as a best practice is designed to cover. The editor in question does not have a specifically financial conflict of interest, and therefore falls into a different category of advocate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, how do you know that the editor does not have a specifically financial conflict of interest? Have you investigated his paid occupation and ruled out how LilyPond promotion might enhance his career? For example, someone might use the LilyPond platform as a way to advertise one's self as an "SVG guru", and then participate heavily in a Linux project relating to SVG fonts, and that project may directly benefit his work at Intel, his paying employer. In response to Atethnekos above, I would say there's a big difference between a paid computer code developer working on Wikipedia articles about Jane Austen, and a paid computer code developer working on Wikipedia articles about computer code. Totally in agreement that the LilyPond example is not the worst we've seen in a while (that distinction would probably go to the Wikimedia Norway trustee using Wikipedia to enhance the reputation of his telecommunications company while simultaneously deprecating the articles about his company's competitors); but if we're not on the look-out for COI in our own backyard, and we're ready to say "it's not so bad, because it's a volunteer writing about a non-profit subject", then what's to stop Bill Gates from editing the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, or to stop you from editing the article about Wikimedia Foundation? A Bright Line Rule shouldn't have such exceptions, even if to avoid the appearance' of a problematic conflict of interest. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't be certain, of course. But it's highly unlikely. And I think you're going one step too far if you really think that it is problematic for a paid computer code developer to write articles about computer code. That's nonsense and destroys the entire concept of "conflict of interest". But certainly it is a conflict of interest (though unlikely to be a financial one) for a volunteer coder working on an open source project to write about that project. There are very good reasons why Bill Gates shouldn't edit the Gates Foundation article, even though it is extremely unlikely to bring him any noticeable financial benefit - that's grasping at straws. Here's the point I'm making: different kinds of problems are different. Zealots writing about their favorite subject in a biased manner is a problem - a big one - but a different one from professional PR firms engaging in unethical behavior. Open source advocates/coders writing about things they are involved with is a problem - probably not a big one, but a problem - but is also different from professional PR firms engaging in unethical behavior. It's important to draw these distinctions and to outlaw the obviously wrong things, without getting to confused and bothered about borderline cases or that our work won't solve all problems at once.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
If it's sensible to say that a paid computer code developer can be welcome to write articles about computer code, then maybe it's time we happily say that it's sensible for a paid encyclopedist to be welcome to write encyclopedia articles. Several of the paid editing services out there are not really PR firms at all. They are quite simply skilled writers of encyclopedia articles who (when you get right down to it) don't really have a vested interest in the subject matter. They're just looking to create a wholly acceptable encyclopedia article, get paid for their research and writing skills, then move on to the next client. Somebody above said that WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE are enough to keep Wikipedia on the right track. I agree. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 04:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That's naive or disingenuous and I'm quite sure you know it. We have plenty of evidence that it is absolutely false. You are (deliberately?) confusing issues by referring to people writing on behalf of a client as "paid encyclopedists". It would be very different - and something I would support actually, although there are a lot of things to work out first - if the Wikimedia Foundation hired people to deal with corporate articles. The Wikimedia Foundation would not charge for the service, and the authors would be paid for writing for the encyclopedia, not for writing for clients. This is something that could alleviate the dishonest suggestion that corporate pr fluff is better than nothing at all, or that people writing for clients would be neutral.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I was not being naive nor disingenuous. I have not confused any issues. Perhaps you feel the need to cast aspersions, calling me naive, disingenuous, confusing, or dishonest, because you are unwilling to take an honest and sincere look at the work of paid encyclopedists? If writers follow WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE, it doesn't matter if they are paid to produce the content or not. Paid encyclopedists develop a primary objective: create content that is compliant with Wikipedia's standards, so that it does not get attacked by other editors or deleted. If their work is deleted, their client is disappointed in their performance, and the author is disappointed in his or her performance. People naturally seek to avoid disappointing others or themselves, and so the content is written to be compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I was going to present to you a useful exercise, where I would give you three different articles about Internet wagering companies -- one written by a Wikipedian with no apparent conflict of interest, one written by an employee of the company, and one written by what appears to be a paid encyclopedist -- then ask you which of the three has best followed the rules of sourcing, verifiability, neutrality, and notability. Hint: only one of the articles will have included a section on the legal troubles that the company has suffered, and that was the work of the paid encyclopedist. However, I'm now reluctant to present these examples, because some Wikipedians will inevitably abuse one, two, or all three of the articles to make a point. I agree that there are numerous problematic paid advocacy editors out there. I believe there are even more problematic unpaidadvocacy editors at work. But I also sincerely believe that there are a few paid encyclopedists who are regularly recognizing how following WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE leads to successful and compliant content; and the primary reason they don't disclose what they are doing is because of the fact that other misinformed Wikipedians with an agenda of their own will then trash their work, much as you chose to trash my informed opinion as "disingenuous". - I'm not that crazy (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I maintain that this remains either naive or disingenuous. It is of course not hard to cherry pick counter examples but you cannot have seriously looked into this issue with any degree of thoroughness and come to this conclusion, which is directly the opposite of the facts of reality as recognized by virtually everyone who has looked into it. Your position is not a serious one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Neither is yours, Jimbo. Neither is yours. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Your disquisition is unresponsive to Jimbo's point. Undisclosed financial COI editors operate under the age old wisdom that 'she or he who pays the piper calls the tune.' This has been demonstrated in academic studies of disclosed COI, and in the (practically) universal reputable practice of COI policies in publishing, or profit, or non-profit organizations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In traditional publishing or academic circles, those who are offended by paid COI do not have the power to delete all of the work presented by the paid editor, regardless of the quality and accuracy of the paid editor's work. On Wikipedia, that power is regularly exercised, recklessly. Therefore, your comparison is faulty and can be disregarded. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
So, you agree that NPOV et. al., are not effective in dealing with COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying, Alan. I would agree that NPOV (etc.) are not effective in dealing with COI, when Wikipedians are lazy and/or arbitrarily sloppy in enforcing those policies. (For example, we see that when COI is problematic coming from editors believed to be paid encyclopedists, the response is vigorous, accounts are blocked, and articles deleted. But when COI is problematic coming from editors known to be Wikimedia chapter officers, the response is limp, no accounts are blocked, and article ownership is allowed to continue. Over the past month, we have had an actual demonstration of this; compare the responses to Wiki-PR and to Bjoertvedt.) We already have a solution to problematic COI editing -- vigorously apply WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE in an objective manner (i.e., don't soft-pedal the rules when Wikimedia insiders are caught pushing their COI POV). The last thing we need is yet another rule that drives editors away, or worse, underground. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Your imagining that other people can be perfect is absurd (perhaps, disingenuous or naive). Of course, we should say what is expected (no undisclosed financial COI editing) -- we do that with all our expectations -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Writers in the technology press have disagreed that the dependence on enforcement of RS, NPOV, etc. is successful in dealing with paid advocates: "If publicists were to overtake the voluntary editors, much of the site would become online billboards (perhaps with deceptively neutral writing). But as it stands now, the protection against biased writing — dogged hounding from voluntary editors, and disorderly debates — is narrowing the field of voluntary editors, and most likely turning off potentially valuable contributors." (Salon 23 October 2013 [2]) The techniques currently used to combat paid advocacy editing (automated tools like Stiki, aggressive enforcement of WP:NPOV and WP:V) are part of what is causing the decline. This was confirmed by Aaron Halfaker's assessment of the current decline in Wikipedia (MIT Technology Review October 22 2013 [3]). "Overall, the site’s community of editors has done a decent job of weeding out the worst self-promotional offenders, or at least moderating their contributions. But according to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia’s parent entity, the tactics being used to force content onto the site are becoming more advanced and more widespread ... It’s this type of “astroturfing” activity that Wikimedia is struggling to identify and contain." (Digiday 26 November 2013 [4]). --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I am pleased to see that the technology press agree with me, that Wikipedians are failing to properly enforce RS, NPOV, etc., and that their alternative (abusive) approaches to content quality are turning off optimistic editors. I really couldn't agree more. There's a certain "we're right, you're wrong" attitude displayed on Wikipedia that is extremely off-putting to intelligent, thoughtful people who have more real-world experience than the entrenched digital-world editors here. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
They are not agreeing with you. The implication made is that the enforcement of RS NPOV etc is not a productive method for dealing with the biased production by the financial COI editors, and that something else is needed. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions) 23:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Use of the term "astroturfing" is interesting; I had never thought of it in those terms and it is an apt description,in a broad sense. Coretheapple (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Writing articles is a struggle beyond paid advocacy: Beyond the problems, noted above, with paid advocacy, the general "dogged hounding from voluntary editors, and disorderly debates" (Salon 23 October 2013 [5]) is a system-wide problem which can drive away new editors, but also consider the sheer volume of articles to update. Bottomline: It is difficult to write, or expand, numerous articles with so many problems not controlled by wp:WikiProjects, while a few people continually carp or badger other users. Perhaps we should warn new users to beware the "disorderly debates" but we also need to authorize more admins who wish to moderate the conflicts. Just as some police officers are willing to work for low pay while they "serve and protect" the public, I think we could get more people to "carry a badge" and diffuse hostile discussions, but the related complaint has been "no power to enforce" which I think could be improved by issuing cumulative demerit points for improper actions which could total to multi-day or multi-week blocks when people continued to incur demerits for incivil remarks. On the other hand, look how the unfettered acceptance of adverts at Google Knol completely flooded the system with commercial pages, where wp:NPOV-neutral text was rare to find among the knol pages. If WP were pleasantly friendly to paid advocates, then the system could drown in the more than thousands of new articles for the 250,000 known footballers in the world. Beyond the harsh debates, there is the overwhelming volume of articles to update, unless harnessed by wp:WikiProjects. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
URBLP reduced below 640
The wp:URBLP unreferenced backlog has been reduced, from the November 1,387 pages, by over 750 pages, at a rate to fall below 500 by mid-December 2013. About one-third of pages remain in last month's category:
If each BLP editor fixes just 5 more pages, then the target 500 page backlog could be reached soon. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Some BLP deletions are continuing, but often those pages are about people with marginal notability, such as a singer/songwriter who never charted in any major music or song chart, with no evidence that self-released albums were well-received in reviews or sales, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone have any opinions about a "Signpost" type newsletter for distribution across the WF entities?
I hope that title kind of indicates the idea here, but for clarification I personally think it might help the development of some of the other WF entities, like WikiQuote, WikiVoyage, WikiSource, and others, if we could maybe get together a newsletter, similar to the Signpost, and maybe possibly distributed as a supplement to the Signpost among specifically wikipedia editors, and a similar mailing list for those who might watch talk pages of other entities more regularly, which might provide information on all those entities. I would think, possibly, that such might function best as a monthly entity or supplement to the Signpost, considering that those other entities might not have quite the level of activity, or visibility, or immediacy, as wikipedia itself. What do the rest of you watching this page think, and would any of you maybe be willing to provide a regular "article" on any of those other entities you may personally edit regularly? John Carter (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting idea. But how related is it to Wikipedia? Would this be better proposed at [6]?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd definitely read a newsletter like that, but I don't have the time to write for that at the moment. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No...I didn't mean meta or I would have suggested that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's OK. It wasn't bad and I knew what you were suggesting, but I just thought this was a foundation issue. Of course...I am generally wrong on those things. So use a grain of salt with my suggestion.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You mean something like Wikizine? Graham87 05:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
War Eagle, right?
I mean Huntsville has always been a northern outpost. You got to let us know. I've been wondering for years. Volunteer Marek 03:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, I notice that the Wikimedia Foundation entered into an October 2013 agreement with the Banglalink company to provide Wikipedia to wireless users in Bangladesh at no data charge. I wanted to learn more about Banglalink, so I turned to the source I know to be most reliable and most neutral in reporting about companies affiliated with the Wikimedia projects. Imagine my displeasure when I found the following editors working on Wikipedia's article about Banglalink!
User:Chorbes - spent June 2012 working exclusively on Banglalink, the user's only edits ever to Wikipedia. Included a spiffy logo for the company, and improved "Special discount on various restaurants, hotel, electrical and electronic device etc." to say "Special discounts at various restaurants, hotels, shops etc".
User:203.223.94.1 - looks like about 70% of all this IP's content added to Wikipedia was about Banglalink, and coming from a Banglalink IP location, too. Could be a customer, could be an employee. Seems strange, though, that a mere customer would add content like "banglalink delivers customer care using its call centres and customer care networks. Currently banglalink provides customer care services to its clients through..." So, let's go with "employee" on this one.
User:Russell310 - who could say whether this is Banglalink Digital Communications Limited employee Shafiqul Russell or not? Regardless, every single edit is dedicated to Banglalink, with great content like "ORASCOM Telecom (Banglalink GSM) Bangladesh Limited is introducing a premium brand Icon on 25th-November-2010. Icon is such a kind of mobile collection where you will enjoy the best facilities of mobile phone as well as different kinds of offer for an Icon Subscriber. As an Icon Subscriber you will be count as a member of exclusive group." That's good stuff -- no wonder Wikimedia Foundation sought to align itself with such a company that treats customers right!
As Wikipedia gets extended (for free!) to more and more customers of companies like Banglalink around the world, we can hope that Banglalink will also educate customers about your Bright Line Rule that is very important to keep Wikipedia pure and untarnished by PR hacks and corporate puffery agents. - 2001:558:1400:10:5A7:FD8D:4008:7F68 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Your diligence is much appreciated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Your praise is ample reward for my hard work. I have dutifully placed a COI template on the article in question, and I have warned the various editors of the problem. If we can just clean up Wikipedia, one Wikimedia Foundation affiliate at a time, we will achieve a better reference for the world to use. - 2001:558:1400:10:5A7:FD8D:4008:7F68 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm so glad you and a few other editors are so vigilant on this subject. I trust that you agree with me that the Foundation, if it is concerned about this subject, needs to adopt a Conflict of Interest policy. I agree with the view recently expressed by another editor that one can't crowdsource a COI policy. Are you on board, Mr. 2001? Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Mr 2001 would rather us drop the whole thing, if I understand his perspective, and allow the commercial opportunities for people like himself. He's of course wasting his time on that, which is something that amuses me to no end. Hence my slightly tongue-in-cheek praise. But your idea is a good one - among the other things that the WMF is doing, including preparing a statement that so far looks pretty strong to me, although the board is still working on it - it's pretty obviously mandatory that they adopt a COI policy for themselves and partners. As Gandhi famously didn't actually say "Be the change you wish to see in the world."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And by "partners" I hope you mean volunteers (editors included). Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, that isn't what I meant in this case, since I was more talking about the WMF setting a good example and encouraging others to set a good example, but as you know I absolutely think that paid advocacy editors are a scourge. I certainly don't consider them "partners" though. More like "parasites".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, I think his point is that people other than you--even people who are respected by the Foundation--don't appear to believe in your idea and/or find it so impractical that they can't do it. It's easy to dismiss the downside of a proposed policy when you don't have to suffer that downside. Foundation affiliates who would have to suffer that downside seem (as shown by their actions) to disagree with you and to think that that dismissal is premature. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, what I was thinking of was a COI policy to cover project volunteers as well. Setting an example is fine, but it won't mean diddly-squat to the very large number of editors who are either paid advocates or who justify/condone the practice. I agree with the view I saw expressed recently that a COI policy can't be crowdsourced, and that if the Foundation feels strongly on the issue that it needs to be enacted by the Foundation. Also I recently read an interesting analogy of paid advocacy editing to "astroturfing," which I think is apt. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this clarifies a real need. Whenever WMF makes an agreement with any private company, there's going to be a huge impulse for them to get involved in Wikipedia - it's only natural. So WMF needs to:
Put a clear requirement that the company issue a policy/notice about COI editing to relevant employees right in the agreement itself.
Post the company to some noticeboard alerting editors that we need an article about that company, since we're dealing with it and we want to make good decisions, and need to ensure we hold to best practices with it.
Have WMF personnel illustrate best practices by making "within the bright line" talk page suggestions of content to add to the article about the company concerning the WMF's deal with it.
A fair point. Yes, if companies enter into a relationship with WMF, it ought to be foreseeable that their staff will be informed about it one way or another and the likelihood of COI editing will be increased. WMF ought to take preemptive steps to combat this. Formerip (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Given how tech-averse most Bangladeshi companies are (we, the local Wikipedian community, have learned it the hard way), I highly doubt that even any mid level management in BanglaLink was involved in these spam. Perhaps it's the lower level employees or engineers doing it on their own. I suggest the promo text be removed completely and article restored to previous state. --Ragib (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
A bureaucratic nightmare
Does it never amaze you that we have used your concept and created red tape here of a depth and complexity that would never have been envisaged by even the most totalitarian regime? We have done it on purpose and by consensus. We have created what is probably the world's most complicated ants nest.
We must deserve this because we have done it ourselves, and we seek, sometimes, to create ever more layers of complexity and ever more rules for the unwary to trip over.
Am I the only person who is amazed at all of this? Perhaps this is one of those perennial questions! FiddleFaddle 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:IAR and WP:BOLD may bring you some happiness. Additionally, whatever we have made, we can unmake. Is there a particular rule that's bothering you today?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo IAR and Bold are dead policies. The only times their used are by admins and if some new editor uses them their blocked without hesitation. RFA is a nightmare, new users avoid Wikipedia even for research needs, abusive admins and POV editors are entrenched and can't be removed and the list goes on. The community is completely incapbale of doing anything even resembling meaningful change and the WMF has completely mishandled the implementation and development of changes. Need I say more, the list goes on. Wikipedia is a ship without a captain. The ones at the helm have no vision, their own agenda and no ability to think past their own petty needs. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
There's an interesting dynamic. When people gain experience they become more aware of the folly around them. At first they think the world must be going to hell, but eventually they realize that the folly has been there all along. Please don't worry too much about Wikipedia. It hasn't gotten worse; you've just become more perceptive or more informed. JehochmanTalk 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe WP has encountered a great deal of entropy: where there was once seemingly order in the eyes of the "old-school" editors, the is now seemingly disorder. However, a newer editor may still see order. Too bad WP:ENTROPY is a red link; I would enjoy reading that essay. Perspective plays a large part, too -- as does adaptability. Rgrds. --64.85.214.13 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually I am well aware of the ups and downs of Wikipedia and in almost every way Wikipedia was better 5 years ago than it is today with the exception of volume of content. People wanted to work together and formed projects with the goal of improvement through collaboration, now almost all of those projects are dead because the majority of the editors who wanted to work together have been driven from the project. The ones that remain have either become admins or are only interested in staying quietly in the corner and not drawing attention. RFA has become a nonproductive joke, almost every admin was promoted more than 5 years ago and almost every admin area is backlogged, some for months and some only survive because of the dedication of one or 2. If they leave, that's it. Arbcom and Arb enforcement are a joke where acceptance of a case means guilt; the WMF keeps trying to thrust broken and underdeveloped changes on the community because even they recognize the community is incapable of doing anything about it (although Visual Editor was a quasi exception to that) and the community has become so under control by abusive admins and editors that most are afraid to come out of the shadows for fear of being banned. Even admin and long term editors are leaving or being banned; 900 out of 1400 admins are largely inactive and there is no end in sight. Wikipedia is failing and its up to Jimbo whether he wants to go ahead and keep ignoring the problem and enjoying the fame or do something about all these problems and act. As it is it appears to me andn probably others as well that Jimbo is trying to distance himself from the project before it fails so it doesn't tarnish his good name. That way he can say I passed on all my powers years ago. Its not my fault. Its no secret that Wikipedia is just an advertisement for the for profit Wikia and the Wikimedia software. But it would be nice if this free advertisement didn't disappear from the earth do to benign neglect. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)[rant mode] Ah, it is no particular rule. We have admins, who ought to act only as if they have mops and buckets, but some of whom act as if they are more important than some minor deity. We have bureaucrats, and the term itself is astounding anyway. There are stewards, clerks, smurfs... wait, not smurfs... noticeboards where if you choose the wrong one for a problem all you get is a snarky "Not this one" but where no-one places the issue on the right one because of the smurfs... ah no, no smurfs. We have mediators, welcomers, editor retainers, article rescuers, and countless committees. And we have ArbCom who seem almost to equate to Lord Voldemort in that naming ArbCom on anyone's talk page in an discussion context is seen as a threat, and we leave for the Wikimines, never to reappear.
No, no rules irk me particularly. I am simply commenting on the great edifice, constructed in East German architecture from the grim period, (no, not the Brothers Grimm). How did we end up with this enormous and complex load of stuff to assist with(?) the construction of a simple encyclopaedia? Why did we design this? Who actually volunteered for it?
We have more systems to control us that to write articles and we have created them!
So, yes. Let's undo it, most of it! This one must be broken because editors are leaving in droves? [/rant mode] FiddleFaddle 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
and your not alone Fiddle Faddle. There are lots of editors who feel that Wikipedia has lost its way but the culture that we have developed here is also one that stygmatizes anyone who dares question the regime. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Re red tape and complexity - Sue Gardner made an astute observation that our very flat organizational structure is conducive to a proliferation of policies, guidelines and essays, while not making it easy to do an overhaul which would affect multiple areas simultaneously. I once considered an overhaul of our advice regarding copyright, and it was a project just to identify all that we have to say on the subject. Overhaul would require either massive collaboration or authority from a non-existent editorial board to streamline the material. I think her observation was on-target, and will require some significant changes to our structure if we want to address the red tape bloat.
Re IAR this is a good example of a meta rule that ought to be used less frequently over time, if we are doing our job. The rule allowed us to address situation where either the written rules were silent, or worse, suggested a course of action that was counter-productive. As we fill in the gaps, and modify rules to better address situations, there as fewer and fewer situations when IAR would be needed. The reduction is a sign of things working well, not a sign of failure.
Re RFA - while the process has some know problems, calling it a "nightmare" is not accurate. If it really was a nightmare, more editors would be supporting formation of a Wikiproject to do a comprehensive study of issues, and present reform ideas in an organized way. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually the statement that RFA is a nightmare has been stated repeatedly by a multitude of admins and editors. Even Jimbo has stated as such multiple times in the past so IMO that particular observation has been affirmed. In regards to the statements by Sue, that was a few years ago and its even more true now than it was then. What we have now is a culture where the most entrenched editors survive. Even once flourishing projects like military history are seeing steep declines in participation. I do agree that it would take action to change but that could occur in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is for the WMF to step up and establish some changes that would make this project viable although given their recent history the last couple years, involvement by them frieghtens me. As I stated above, no one there has any visions to make this project viable and sustainable. To do that we need a multiple of changes in multiple areas concurrently. RFA, article development, policy and we need to establish a group with the authority to police the admins. Overreaching and underdeveloped software like Visual editor and flow are not the answers. If the culture and policy drive people out or keep them from coming to edit then all the software in the world won't fix it. When this community starts doing something to address the admin abuses and destructive editors and wikiprojects then a step will be made in the right direction. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Regime was mentioned. But we are the regime. We love to apply rules. The rulebook grants us the authority and power over others. The Wisdom of Crowds creates lynch law and posses. We even style them with names. We have deletionists, inclusionists, and otherists. We have smurfs. Damn, no, we have no smurfs. We have elections. We have votes that are !votes and yet other votes that are votes. We form, laugh at, and spit in the eye of consensus. We are civilly obscenely rude to others. We pillory people and then pillory the people who pillory the people who pilloried the people. And we do this in a caring and sharing way. This is a mixture of Lord of the Rings and Lord of the Flies. And yet we can correct this, if we choose. Except,when we attempt it, those who are empowered by the rules choose that we may not form new rules, or may not repeal old rules. FiddleFaddle 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is a little video with the smurfs and what the culture here in Wikipedia is like to new editors and non admins...300 Smurfs. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Timtrentl, who I believe has hit upon the primary reason we are losing editors. I disagree with him when he says that the entire community supports this state of affairs, as I certainly don't. One cannot be creative and innovative in this kind of environment. People who want to play lawyer or politician should do it elsewhere. We should focus more on research and teaching each other how to break down barriers, not build them. This is especially true when trying to unify all knowledge across every disparate discipline into a coherent whole. Unfortunately, most either don't get this or are actively working to build walls between other editors and the ideas they work with in the articles. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Then it is time to change it, potentially suddenly and brutally. Things need to be ripped away. But the Wisdom of Crowds has been unleashed, and crowd behaviour is very different from individual behaviour. You want change, so does 'the community' but then consensus looms and we find that the most articulate usually prevails, at least sometimes, and sways the floating folk into their way of thinking. And building consensus is fun and often biased. Yes, the community supports change, but not as much as it supports the status quo. And the juggernaut rolls on, steered by no-one because it is steered by all. Except that 'all' really means the vociferous few who can be bothered to join in and steer. We consent to be governed by consensus even when we disagree, and thus we must adhere to its rules, and we do. And we do it more tenaciously than we adhere to laws in life. Which of us who drives a car or rides a motorcycle is not a habitual criminal by breaking the speed limit? Here we do not break it. Why? Because everyone is a policeman here. "That was your third reversion, Jenkins Minor. It's a block for you next. There are preventative, not punitive, you know." And so they are, until the block extends and extends and then is indefinite.
Yes, it is time to change; but what to change? Do we remove a load of admins? If so, why? WHat about some of the committees? Does ArbCom go? Why, if so? It is useful, isn't it? It serves a purpose designed by consent and consensus. Ah, let's kill off something useless, then. Only they are all useful. And so it goes.
If retention of editors is important then why do we have this enormous set of rules, guidelines, processes, and people who seem to be important in some way. Jimbo, you aren't important here, by your own choice, and you kicked this whole thing off, so why is it that others seem to be?
Or am I mistaken in this set of rants? FiddleFaddle 23:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Like—Smurfs at last ... and FiddleFaddle's last comment ["Regime was mentioned. But we are the regime..."] seems to be evolving from ranting to poetic prose—Like
As my own disillusionment from the PR of glossy professed egalitarian ideals to the 'better wear hip waders and have a HAZMAT suit at hand' realities of Wikipedia editing around litigious often obtuse bureaucratic cesspools of Vogon excrement and petty militant tyranny was kinda' harsh—I'm now careful not to recommend en.Wikipedia editing to anyone without extensive warnings and caveats.
What is portrayed and professed seems to me to differ greatly from actual practice and procedure at this point. One comes traipsing in merrily wearing the rose colored glasses they've been issued at the gate only to find at some point that their last turn on the path has brought them into a gladiatorial ring horribly underdressed. Massive gaps between de jure and de facto. Perhaps some consideration should be given to amending what is professed in the first place as this may prove more readily achievable than shifting cultural attitudes and community practice. Things wouldn't necessarily be any more pleasant day-to-day but at least they'd be more honest and new editors would have some idea of what to expect.
For instance 'Ignore All Rules' could be downgraded from the 'Five Pillars' as at this point bringing the term "context" into a discussion is generally greeted with blank glazed looks after which folks swiftly release a new wave of WP:[Insert Acronym Here] links many of which themselves contain context dependent caveats which are routinely ignored by those citing them. In present practice rules and guidelines are cited as laws and commandments regardless of assertions that the ideal should be otherwise. WikiLawyering seems to have become the norm. I suggest that we discuss changing the ideals to meet the practice. At the very least we should come out of the experience having had a good collective look in the mirror.
Ah, Kevjonesin, You mean "Welcome to Gladiatorpedia, where the last editor standing may prevail and then turn out the lights"?
If what we have today is what was intended, or even expected when it was initiated, then it is a huge and successful social experiment. But I cherish the thought that the environment here is not as was wished by our founder when he thought of the scheme. I polish that thought, sometimes, and this thread is my attempt to polish it in public. FiddleFaddle 00:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What a nice sentiment. I'd be interested to hear Jimbo and others who 'helped start the ball rolling' reflect upon it. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Notice the *continued* steady post-2009 policy-churn! I think that Jimbo gave us the hint already: whatever we have made, we can unmake. We still have the freedom we need, to choose wisely; we even have the *time* we need. We are lucky! There are two possibilities. Either active-editor-count will continue to trend downwards,[7] until the WMF is forced to sell out (to WikiPR? GOOG? NSA? EU? FB? MSFT? some combo? hardly matters). But then, editors can leave, and the copyleft license will preserve the content (text if not image), and then perhaps another URL will arise to host a new&improved Non-Totalitarian Community™. Of course, that's a pretty-much-worst-case scenario. ((The utterly-worst-case-scenario is global thermonuclear war combined with ten-kilometer-asteroid-strike.))
The better idea is to start the unmaking process today. First up: unmake WP:FLOW, it is the wrong design. Next up: unmake VizEd, it is the wrong design. This is not lowest-common-dedumbipedia. Then, concentrate on what will really help invert that downward-trending-editor-count: shake up the wikiCulture. From the bottom up, not from the top down. If you live in a society where there are a bunch of rules, but nobody enforces them unless you're really screwing things up, that's not good. But it's way better than living in a totalitarian society where everybody is a wikiCop, monitoring and spying on everybody else, an aristocracy of pull, where whoever knows the most draconian admin, whoever can hire the best wikiLawyer, wins. So I suggest we start small, and rather than overturn all the rules, simply... stop... enforcing all the bad ones.
If we really want to attract fresh blood, we start taking WP:IAR as the foundational pillar, in a countdown-system. Pillar five as our guiding star: ignore anything that interferes with improving wikipedia herself. That includes bringing in new people; if a rule screws that up, ignore that rule with a vengeance. Pillar four is the next-most-important-rule. FiddleFaddle speaks of "civilly obscenely rude" and it happens every day; ninja-reverts are a slap in the face, templates are spam, and snark-tags are sloth[citation needed] embodied. We drive people away, because we allow WP:PG to trump pillar four! Madness. Finally, we need copyleft aka no WP:OWN, NPOV aka stick to the Reliable Sources, and the cold hard fact of life that this is WP:NOT anything but an encyclopedia. But that, is the end. We've counted out the rules, all the way to zero. No more.
We counted down the only rules we need to run this place; now, liftoff. Those five rules, alone, are *field-proven* already: they grow the active-editor-count. The current instruction creep is also field-proven, to shrink the active-editor-count. Perhaps we should form the R.E.A. pedia-party, to put forth FiddleFaddle as an ArbCom candidate next time around? Ruled. Enough. Already. Vivalapedia! (with any luck... *this* time around we'll be more careful to strangle policy-growth earlier) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
But being a WikiCop is so much fun! At work I am a tiny person and always have my ideas slapped down. I cringe in corridors as the mighty walk past. Only our glorious (insert team name here) are recognised. But here, on Wikipedia, I can get my own back on those whose opinions differ frm mine. I an a subtle worm and can push my POV if I'm very careful. I am Wormtongue and the Stasi's child and I am important and a legend in my own Wikitrousers. I will make consensus go against you, my Ip friend. Mwhahahahahaha!
This is what we have created. We must want it because we have done it with extreme care. FiddleFaddle 09:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Naah. Nobody really wanted it. All along the way, people made careful, well-reasoned decisions. This is not just AGF, this is what I really think has happened. But when wikipedia started to get big, and started to get crowded, circa 2004/2005, there was a push for control. And as always, controls begat more controls. See also, Milgram experiment and Stanford_prison_experiment. It takes conscious effort to fight off authoritarianism, once it first happens. Anyways, I don't think that admins are bad; in fact, all they ones I've met are good, and trying their damndest to keep this place from falling apart at the seams. Same thing for long-time editors that insist on following WP:PG, and never — I means evah — violating the MOS by putting spaces around the emdash. ;-) Anyways, we have the social tools, and the software technology, to extricate ourselves... the question is, do we have the moral gumption. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, some people made well-reasoned decisions, but they were banned. I investigated the infamous dash/hyphen debacle, which forced dashes where 97% of the world uses hyphens, and found how people objected but used the loophole phrase, "as a preference not a rule" which was warped into "Support" and swayed the !vote to force an absolute rule. Afterward, a real-world grammar expert objected to forced dashes, not done by any professional typesetter guide, and was site-banned. When I discovered the balderdash of forced dashes, for "Michelson-Morley experiment" where even those twoscientists spelled their experiment(s) with a hyphen, then I was threatened with a topic-ban. I counted 9 people who objected to the 7 people defending the "dash consensus" but they were frightened away. Small groups of people have warped WP policies. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That is obnoxious. It's not that it's such a big deal, but... as far as I'm concerned the difference between hyphen and emdash is a font, not ocntent. If someone really wants to screw around with the title that way they should use WP:DISPLAYTITLE I think it is; seeing 'you've been redirected from X to X' is just confusing, and demands that it be kept up within the article are just annoying. Besides, if we let emdash activists take over the show we know what's coming next - endashes. And all sorts of funny rules about when to use an endash versus an emdash. Where did we leave that pot of tar and the sack of feathers? Wnt (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hate to rain on some good rants but, oh well. The world is complicated. People are complicated. So, a wiki should be uncomplicated? And its still pretty easy (if you have some small academic training) to write a sentence or a paragraph or whole article, and have it last on wiki. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sleepwalking with dreams and nightmares
(edit conflict) Looking at the bigger picture, there are major improvements as "dreams" along with the "nightmares" of related problems, but many editors are sleepwalking through Wikipedia due to the mind-numbing, staggering number of articles, images and templates to update and watch. Yet, we have numerous improvements:
In January 2008, the recursive descent parser allowed templates 2x-3x times larger.
Many quick Lua modules now make edits 3x-4x faster than back in 2012 (but some Lua modules are nightmares of complexity).
The new 59 wp:Template_editors have fixed hundreds of template problems during the past 2 months, which had been lock-protected for years.
New Special:MyFiles shows a user a list of images/media they uploaded.
The wp:WMFLabs file servers now run reports much faster than the old, slow wp:Toolserver computers.
For template updates, the new run-preview option allows previewing changes with any page which uses that template.
The wp:VisualEditor (VE) was hidden after data confirmed many botched files and usage was only 6-per-thousand edits after 4 months.
Policy wp:Consensus now emphasizes "compromise" in building consensus.
People are more aware of wp:Data hoarding, and so can be prepared.
Essay wp:Customize covers more features for users to see personal styles.
However, when some editors formed "their consensus" for new rules, many other Wikipedians were too busy to !vote in swaying the decision, even if those people had an obvious stated interest but were not reminded to respond due to fears of improper wp:CANVASing of other editors. We just need to keep improving the policies, and getting many experienced editors to join the consensus discussions, so that local-consensus groups do not continue to warp the decisions. But at the heart of the problems, there are many issues for the current skeleton crews of editors to handle, and so we need to remind other editors to focus on a variety of issues and join more discussions where their opinions could help reach a more-balanced, realistic outcome. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a very short cherry picked list all things considered, lets look at that.
The first one is from 2008, 5 years ago so thats hardly a recent improvement.
Lua modules was mostly a good improvement but there are some big downsides as well. First only a few people can program them so we eliminate a lot of editors ability to help out, second many are restricted so only admins can edit them, most of which are technically incapable of doing so, third its a problem for other mirror sites that don't use lua. Or perhaps that's a feature not a bug.
The template editor right was only needed because the Wikipedia culture doesn't trust its editors and the fact that hundreds of problems have been fixed in such a short time shows the project is losing, not the other way around.
most of the next several of inconsequencial in the grand scheme of things.
Labs would be an improvement if common tools were updated to use them. Even the drop down tool under gadgets for edit count (and several others) still hasn't been updated. I was going to fix this months ago but "I cannot be trusted" to do so and I also partially wanted to see how long it would take those that are trusted to actually fix it....still waiting.
some other things not on your list are; Visual editor ( a complete disaster in every possible way); abusive admins who are allowed to drag the project down unmolested; Arbcom and Arb enforcement are runaway venues that do more harm to the project than they help; Bots like ProcseeBot blocking thousands of IP's that have never even edited simply to ensure they can't edit; the well known RFA nightmare process and lots more.
There are so many areas that need to be addressed it staggers the mind. Yet the majority just turns their head and walks away or claims these problems don't exist. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Technical improvements allow those who like to play with software to play with software.
If I deploy WP:IAR or WP:BOLD too often a WikiCop will start to get upset and I will be blocked. But those are rules that are absolutely required at all times. FiddleFaddle 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Your absolutely right there. Just try adding an infobox to an article that falls under WikiProject novels or add a WikiProject United States banner to a USRoads "owned" article. You'll quickly get a barrage of hate mail describing in great detail just how you have violated some made up, project enforced policy. A policy that the projects do not have the power to create or enforce BTW but no one here seems to have the morale courage or desire to stop....and still no comment from Jimbo. Which doesn't really surprise me since this problem doesn't deal with the social elite. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Which brings me back to my original post here:
"Does it never amaze you that we have used your concept and created red tape here of a depth and complexity that would never have been envisaged by even the most totalitarian regime? We have done it on purpose and by consensus. We have created what is probably the world's most complicated ants nest.
We must deserve this because we have done it ourselves, and we seek, sometimes, to create ever more layers of complexity and ever more rules for the unwary to trip over.
Am I the only person who is amazed at all of this? Perhaps this is one of those perennial questions!"
It seems that I am not, but the silence is deafening from the regular posters here. FiddleFaddle 19:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of us are just rolling our eyes at your "tear everything down!" exhortations. --NeilNtalk to me 20:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I love that image. Do you wash them before you put them back into the sockets? Is it like playing marbles? FiddleFaddle 22:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Well then that's part of the problem then isn't it Neil. Too many people who advocate for all these unnecessary policies, procedures and red tape. Too many vested editors, trying to keep things unnnecessily complicated so new users can't contribute without spending significant time learning all of our editing standards. Too many layers of hierarchy designed to elevate some users to demi god status while keeping others down. That is not a good system and your sarcastic comment does not reflect well on you or the community neil. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a sarcastic comment, it was a truthful answer about why all your calls for revolution aren't getting much response. We have developed more policies and procedures over time because, in many cases, they lead to higher quality and more readable articles. Take for example WP:MEDRS requirements which preclude many new (and veteran) users from contributing to medical articles because the sourcing requirements aren't easy to grasp. But having such strict and defined requirements means content in medical articles is of a very high standard (in theory) which benefits people who use Wikipedia the most - the readers. --NeilNtalk to me 00:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yep, you hit the nail on the head there with "theory". Wikipedia in theory shouldn't work, in practice it does though. When we make it so restrictive to edit that few can do it, then few will and that will almost always lead to a handful of entrenched editors pushing their POV. Look at the Salem witch project, they can hardly make an edit without some conservative christian threatening to block them or delete the article. Same thing goes for other areas. The Mohammed article has multiple restrictions, Bradley manning and the list goes on, largely because one overzealous group didn't want to play nice. It was their way or the highway. So the way we fix that is we lock the article down and ban everybody. But those are only the extreme cases and most never get to that because some entrenched POV editor or admin makes sure that they run off anyone who edits "their" article. But no one does anything and some like you just stand by and let it happen. That is why people don't use Wikipedia, why our numbers are declining, backlogs are growing and the project deteriorating. Because their aren't enough neutral editors who are willing to stand up to make things better for the project and not necessarily for their POV. We neutral members get run out of town as heretics and lunatics. How dare we question the order and hierarchy of things. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Salem Witch - diffs please? Muhammad, Bradley Manning - restrictions put in place after much community input to stop the constant arguing. People don't use Wikipedia - try again? You seem to think new editors are some magical fount of content creation, superior to what we currently have. Let's deal in a specific. Are you advocating getting rid of WP:MEDRS? --NeilNtalk to me 01:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No what I am saying is that we need to keep the core ones, get rid of the crap ones (like WikiProjects not allowing infoboxes on "their" articles; or WikiProjects not allowing other projects to tag "their" articles). We need to consolidate like guidelines together instead of scattering them out across a dozen different venues ensuring people won't know them all. We need to do a review of all the indefinitely blocked IP's and unblock most of them. We need to stop autoblocking IP'swho have never edited with ProcseeBot. That's just a waste of resources. We need to fix the RFA process and start trusting our editors again. These are just a few of the things we "need" to do. And to elaborate more on what I said, less people are editing and using Wikipedia. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I had to laugh a bit when I read this because it sounds like, "I have the One, True Vision of Wikipedia and anyone who disagrees with me is destroying the project! Destroying it, I tell you!" To take your example, I'm generally in favor of infoboxes but I'm not arrogant enough to write off the views of those who think they do a disservice to readers on a certain class of articles by over-simplifying the content. If people who have knowledge of a certain topic get together and decide how information is best presented, they should be encouraged, subject to the larger community input when necessary. As for indef blocked IP's, I may be wrong but I believe I read somewhere that a few admins do regular sweeps of the list. You have a point with RFA and unfortunately I don't think anything will happen there unless Jimbo makes it a priority and uses his influence to push through reform. --NeilNtalk to me 03:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Neil, don't listen to 108, they are wrong, *I* have the one true vision!! :-)
I agree that not many folks are leaping to join the revolution. But that is not an indicator that revolution will fail to come. More like, it is a good indicator that folks who watchlist Jimbo's talkpage have heard all these boring old complaints before, and believe they are just more of the same whining, tell me a new one, whippersnapper, once you've got six thousand edits to mainspace under your wikiBelt. But wikipedia is qualitatively changed, just in the last couple years. If, instead of 3k uber-committed talkpage watchers, this message was being broadcast in mainspace to the ~20M people who at some point in their lives became editors, if only for a brief time, or even more widely, to the 500+M unique readers we get every month... do you predict that the same jaded cynical seen-it-all response would be the result? I predict the opposite.
Your point about putting rules in place "to stop the constant arguing" cuts to the heart of the matter. The rules work, for just that purpose, all too well. Look at Taiwan, with the citation for Taipei being the capital. No trouble there, eh? Totally neutral, article reflects the sources, sure. Ignore that hint of sarcasm. You like WP:MEDRS, eh? The one guideline which lets *wikipedians* decide which Reliable Sources to exclude as not really reliable enough for our purposes. You want to see what happens, how many people are driven away, when the applicability of WP:MEDRS-style rules are broadened and widened and deepened, come visit Rupert Sheldrake. Make sure you compare and contrast with the older version of the BLP-page in back in May, plus the now-deleted-n-merged page on morphic juices from back in May, not to mention the October versions of both those pages over on deWiki.
The rules we have now, were all put in place (99% of them anyways) with utterly reasonable intent... but like any bureaucracy, they attract a specific sort of editor, and they reward a specific style of editing. I submit to you, that such is not a pretty thing. I further submit, that driving away good faith editors, to "stop the constant arguing", or even to "protect the poor stupid readership from themselves", is a very redacted dangerous game to play. You glibly talk about the Salem Witch Trials, and laugh at the ranting you see here. Fair enough. It's just ranting, right? No kernel of truth, eh? No basis in wikiReality whatsoever! ...I mean, you know, seriously, this stuff surely cannot hold any truthiness at all... right?
Instead of scoffing at the ranting here, oh nohz teh end iz neer, try doing some empirical tests, and visiting two or three of the topic-areas that are under discretionary sanctions right now, and see if you like what you see happening there. No need to go straight to former Yugoslavia and former Palestine... nor even some tempest in a teapot like Manning. Pick something a bit more out of the way, with fewer confounding variables. Then, if you still don't see the problem, if you don't see the rules being abused to rubberize pillar four, and drive off anybody who disagrees, I'll be very glad; it means the times I've seen it are statistically improbable anomalies. But I don't expect you to come back to say everything is peachy. I expect you to come back to say, maybe we do need a small revolution, after all. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Take this instance: We are meant to take ArbCom elections seriously. So we ask questions of the candidates. Logic suggests that all candidates ought to answer the same portfolio of questions unless something is relevant solely to one candidate. Now see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013#questions_are_out_of_control and consider it. Is that a good thing to see or a bad thing to see? FiddleFaddle 11:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I also find the section lower down to be of direct relevance. It is another symptom of the fact the lynch law and posses happen here. FiddleFaddle 12:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It was obvious to me when I posted it that this would go nowhere. One editor may ignore all rules, but the posse closes ranks and reviles that editor. Ah well. FiddleFaddle 16:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia, as a social environment, has reached that point (or rather one of those points, assuming [rather theoretically] there is more than one in the development of a crowd-sourced, [mostly] unpaid editors' & free-to-read encyclopedia). The development process has coevolved the policies (as the environment) and selected the editors that dig them. Everyone trying to rock the boat better look for greener pastures elsewhere. It's clear however that Wikipedia is a useful product, which millions are willing to use and even donate money in order to keep available "as is". Not such a bad thing after all. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
We have what we deserve, then :) What a shame. I think we deserve better. FiddleFaddle 09:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "we" (in "we deserve"). I think you mean "I", meaning you of course. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I must be more generous spirited than those you are familiar with. This organisation is an undoubted success, but, does it not trouble you that we have created a massive bureaucracy with everyone a WIkiCop, and a lot of antagonism? FiddleFaddle 09:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Working with anyone anywhere involves disagreement. But look at the enormous pile of bureaucracy we have designed and invented to handle it. Are you never amazed by it? FiddleFaddle 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
And if you want an amusingly (or depressingly) epic example of how rules wrangling and antagonism go hand in hand, you need not look any further than the top current ANI thread: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Gryffindor. That's the kind of environment self-selecting for certain user traits. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I find such things amusingly depressing. They remind me that "Wikipedia as a social experiment" has succeeded beyond any psychologist's wildest dreams. "WIkipedia as an encyclopaedia" seems a fair product, but the rest of it is very depressing. Your Purple Allegory is highly relevant.
If it matters that Wikipedia is losing editors and failing to attract new ones, something I am unconvinced about, then I perceive our monolith of a bureaucracy to be one root cause. FiddleFaddle 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone is 100% correct. (Sorry, but WP:WEASEL alert goes off in my head when I typed that first sentence ;-) "The development process has coevolved the policies (as the environment) and selected the editors that dig them." But of course, FiddleFaddle is *also* right: the bureacracy is one of the key causes of our steadily-declining-since-2009-or-so number of active editors. enWiki just dipped[8] under 30k, and the 2011 WMF plan to grow all wikimedia-sites from 80k to ~200k has actually seen a slight *decline* in that total.
The million-ruble question is, does serving ~290M uniques/mo with only ~29k active editors *mean* that wikipedia is pareto-optimal? In that case, editors like User:Dennis_Brown who retire (the founder of WP:RETENTION ironically enough) are just old blood, no longer needed, since after all, we have bots to handle our sockpuppet investigations nowadays. Or more charitably, one could say that Dennis is no longer essential, because we've coevolved to be able to get along without them. Like an appendix, his remaining function is only to stay out of the way, lest he be removed. Needless to say: I redacted redacted disagree.
THE LAST POSTING ABOUT ME, PAUL BARRESI, MAKES OUTRAGES CLAIMS THAT CNN REPORTED I AM BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI. THIS IS FALSE.
IT ALSO CLAIMS THAT CNN REPORTED MY PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR LICENSE WAS REVOKED PERMANENTLY. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE. THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFAIRS, SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ALLOWS P.I. WITH REVOKED LICENSES TO REAPPLY AFTER ONE YEAR OF REVOCATION. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFINITIVE LIFE TIME REVOCATION. PLEASE FIRE THE EDITOR THAT POSTED THESE LIES AND FIX THIS PROBLEM FORTHWITH. I HATE WIKIPEDIA FOR ALL ITS VILE MALICIOUS SLANDER AND INACCURACIES.
Barresi After Pellicano
CNN has reported that the FBI and other agencies were looking into the credibility of various claims Barresi has made during the past three decades. CNN also reports that Barresi filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2010.[52] On January 7, 2012 Paul Barresi had his private detective license permanently revoked by the State of California due to falsification of evidence.[53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.13.75 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
These claims seem to have some merit; the latter is clearly not supported by the source, and the former seems like a complex story the nature of which is not clear in the article. I have removed the sentence about the FBI files, and removed the word permanently from the statement about the revocation of the license. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Over half the article is negative, which may be justified but is a kind of red flag. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Paul - I'm not sure you'll check your IP number's talk page if it changes, so I should point this out here: anybody can do Wikipedia editing. There's no "firing" to be done here - admins try to block some users, but it's way less than 100% reliable. You yourself can start an account very easily with the "create account" button at top right. (people who start off editing their own article can run into trouble with other editors under WP:COI, but that is meant to deter people from turning their articles into resumes, not to stop them from removing blatant errors and lies) I imagine that you must have all kinds of information that isn't very valuable monetarily but would be treasured on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons - routine photos you took of celebrities long ago, for example. And the way you talk about "all its vile malicious slander" makes me think you have some things in mind about other people that you could point out to us or fix yourself. This is an open club of people who just want to help lead each other through all the information available about everything. Wnt (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Paul has contacted us in the past about his entry, and he proved to be worthy of listening to. As he is viewed by some as a controversial person, his biography has been subject to contentious editing in the past.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
A horrendous set of WP:BLP violations indeed -- pruned a bit, but there is no reason for Wikipedia to become the Enquirer AFAICT. Likely needs more pruning, but allowing this to continue is violative of Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I think your edits were good. Sometimes when confronted with a god-awful mess requiring "bold" edits I tend to freeze and run to the talk page for help or place a tag. As for Mr. Baressi, I think that sometimes the anger of his comments elicit resistance and maybe even backlash from editors, when people ought to listen to what he is saying. Coretheapple (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Just another point I wanted to make, to connect this with our other discussion of paid editors: there's no question that article subjects very often have justifiable grievances about their Wikipedia articles. We need to deal with their complaints swiftly and sympathetically, even when they come across a bit aggressive as in this case. Sometimes they get annoyed. Well, wouldn't you be? I'm OK with that. This goes for companies and organizations as well as people. If they're treated badly, or if editors are picking on them or ganging up on them (and I'm speaking theoretically, not referring to the Baressi article), their grievances require attention. They or their representatives should use every means at their disposal to make themselves heard, and as Mr. Baressi I think will see, he is heard. But there's a difference between this kind of situation and hiring Wiki editors to polish your reputation or create an article so that you can use Wikipedia to get your message out via Google. That's wrong, and I think that (here's the commercial message coming) since Wiki editors are at an impasse on this issue, we need leadership from the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
but that is meant to deter people from turning their articles into resumes, not to stop them from removing blatant errors and lies
What happened to the bright line rule? Wouldn't the bright line rule mean that you can't edit your own article even to remove blatant errors and lies? Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
No. But it doesn't really matter, because at this point the Wikipedia community has no intention of enshrining the Bright Line Rule as policy, putting it in the hands of the WMF. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The bright line rule is for articles about corporations, while BLP is about people, but admittedly that is a facile distinction. The real answer is that I linked WP:COI, not the bright line rule, and the latter isn't really specified until it's truly enacted as policy. For example, in the final policy he might be immune because he's not being paid money to fix errors in his own article or for some other reason. I doubt it will be written to prohibit people from fixing errors about themselves. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this okay?
Jimbo, is it acceptable that the Program Evaluation Community Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation directly edited the biography of the Wikimedia Foundation board chair? Bright Line Rule not in effect in November 2012, or Wikimedia Foundation affiliates exempt, or just bad practice? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It would have been preferable to call the desired change to the attention of the community on the talk page. So I would say - it was bad practice to do that. However, the edit is extremely trivial and so other than the fact that you obviously have an axe to grind, is more or less beside the point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As much as I hate wiki-drama... its starting to look like that is the only way to get anything resolved! not going through established channels....Thelmadatter (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's refreshing to see such militant opposition to COI editing. Bravo! Coretheapple (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between a "COI edit" and a rather trivial edit made by someone involved with the same organization to update some factual tidbit. Don't we have better things to do? Drmies (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I was actually being sarcastic. I know, that was wrong, and unclear. My bad. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha, and my comment was really directed at the originator of the thread, I just used your words. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so I was a victim as well as a perpetrator of unclarity! Coretheapple (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, you sometimes loftily say that Wikimedians aren't applying a double standard at all when they apply different rules of sourcing to different articles on Wikipedia. The situation described here, where Smallbones spiffs up a WMF bio with a YouTube link produced by the WMF's paid staffing agency, and then removes a flag calling for better references (when the only three references point to press releases and a staff directory page), is really the height of double-standard operating principles. Do you believe that the Kat Walsh biography is up to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and notability? - 2001:558:1400:10:7D3D:EE03:C7FC:C86A (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Excellent point. We have refused articles about UN officials who negotiated to prevent nuclear wars, so below: "#Notability of WMF employees". -Wikid77 11:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm very proud that I made it to the summit of Mr. 2001's mountain constructed from a molehill. I'll just suggest to him - for the third time - that if he thinks Kat Walsh is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article start an AfD, but it's a slam-dunk keep. Do I apply different standards to commercial and non-commercial articles? You can bet your bippy on it. Start with WP:NOADSSmallbones(smalltalk) 21:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, the article could use some independent secondary sources. Given that this is an article about somebody who runs the operation that owns Wikipedia, we ought to be scrupulous about that. But this isn't "hypocrisy," it is just a content issue. That kind of personal attack is not warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't realize that Smallbones believes that it's okay to cruft up Wikipedia with poorly-sourced, public-relations fluff, as long as the subject person or organization works only in the non-profit sector. Now that I have that corrected understanding, I agree that "hypocrisy" was an unwarranted attack. I will refactor. - 2001:558:1400:10:7D3D:EE03:C7FC:C86A (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Now now. That's no improvement at all. But let me ask you: wouldn't you feel better if the Foundation adopted a COI policy that would apply, across-the-board, to both paid staff members and volunteers, including editors? I think that's a great idea. How about it? Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, if "articles about Wikimedia staff" is what's keeping you up at night, there could be something in the policy dealing with that somehow. At the same time, more importantly, it could outlaw paid advocacy editing. Sound good? Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's one PR person's take on the subject of paid editing: PR firms shouldn't do it. http://editorialiv.com/2013/12/01/the-pr-industry-should-surrender-the-wikipedia-fight-cut-ties-with-wiki-pr/ This is consistent with what I've argued in the past, which is that PR people are rational businessmen who know that butting into Wikipedia will bite them in their own butts. True, there are some that aren't so smart. I guess we've been exposed to that recently. Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Notability of WMF employees
For years, I have added sources to support wp:Notability of various people, but I would be tempted to AfD delete page "Kat Walsh" for lack of wp:GNG, especially since other people named Kat Walsh are more notable as college professors, or director of projects, or actresses, etc. After an extensive search, I could not find a "preponderance of sources" (wp:RS level) supporting notability, and so we need to find some sources which verify the general notability of WMF employees, in the world's attention. Otherwise, I would redirect the WMF personnel names to a "WP:<essay>" page which lists them by name and staff position, as a compromise between deletion and "legends in their own mind". In fact, it makes me wonder if WMF employees are getting an elevated sense of their own self-importance which could make them more difficult to work with in relation to Wikipedia issues. By contrast, many Wikipedians are secretly highly successful people, authors, professors, or scientists, perhaps in retirement, but not with an article in Wikipedia like some of their colleagues. As you know, 99% of names in Wikipedia are relegated to wp:BLP1E mention in another page, even when famous in news. I think the term "double standard" definitely seems to apply. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:09/11:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking through the WMF chairs back to Jimbo...Jan-Bart de Vreede, Kat Walsh, Ting Chen, Michael Snow (attorney), Florence Devouard...and the only one that has a shot of passing the standard WP:GNG is Ms. Devouard. Unless a case is being made that being the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the WMF is an inherently notable position, which I'm not sure would fly at AfD. I think the lot should be nominated to see where we stand on this. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The German wikipedia has a load of wikipedia related bios as subpages of a project page. They are obviously important from our limited perspective while their real world notability can be argued. They are certainly of interest for the history of the project. Agathoclea (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, these don't really pass the usual standards right now (though it's possible some research would turn up sources to meet the standard). If more sources don't get added, it would make sense to soft-redirect them to bio pages on foundation.wikimedia.org, and that way they or the people who know them can put in more details if they want without having to have published sources for everything. Wnt (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The group AfD could wait until January, but we need to stop the "double standard" where a news personality has 500 sources but only wp:BLP1E mention on a page, while WMF staffers get articles which President/CEO or UN officials cannot get. I suggest new list:
Then deletion at AfD would seem less painful, with alternate coverage in a list with job titles and dates. Also, psychologically, it would be good to remind people how wp:GNG requires more importance than being a top executive of a corporation for a few years, and relies on the world to write about someone, for months, as being influential or winning an award (or paid as a footballer!). We have many names which were very famous for one month, and only got a wp:BLP1E mention on a page. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If these bios don't pass GNG (I have no opinion one way or the other) they should be deleted, it's as simple as that. Their bios can be placed on the Foundation website, and can be linked from Wikimedia Foundation. We have to bend over backwards not to show favoritism. Coretheapple (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the notability of these folks (or at least, most of them) is highly questionable. No offense to them, it's just that we should have some sort of consistency in how we apply the notability guidelines, and it does appear that the reason we have these articles is because the subjects chaired the foundation that runs this project. (I am talking about article space here; they should all be listed, perhaps with short bios, on the appropriate page(s) in "Wikipedia space.") By the way, after reading Tarc's comment above I went to the article on Florence Devouard, and noticed that the article had (past tense, after my edits) the names and ages of her children, all of whom are under 18. I don't think the entire world needs to know this information, especially in an article about someone who is, at most, barely notable enough for an article herself. Neutron (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Potentially extremely serious BLP violations and issues of neutrality and accuracy
on a range of articles to do with living members of deposed royal families
Hello - just a few days ago I happened to come across an article, I don't remember which one, about a great-grandson or something of the last Emperor of Germany which states that this living person is "His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Somebody of Prussia" which seemed ridiculous to me as all German royal titles were abolished in 1919 and there has not even been such a place as Prussia since 1947. Looking around a little, I quickly found hundreds of such articles about living people on WP that state that so and so is the "claimant" to various abolished thrones. These articles do not give any evidence that the person himself makes such claims, the truth is that royalty buffs work out who would be "King of Hanover" now had that position not been abolished in 1866 and "style" them as such. This may seem eccentric but harmless in the case of German ex-royal families, although if the articles are not carefully phrased, they could be very misleading. However heraldry experts and genealogists etc. work out who would be King or Emperor of every ex-monarchy and label living persons as such, which is published here in articles on them. This could potentially be dangerous to some individuals of countries where there were revolutions to get rid of monarchs and a lot of people don't want them back. There are numerous issues with these articles, I have opened an RfC at Manual of Style talk on the specific issue of applying such "styles and titles" as "Her Royal Highness the Princess of Prussia" to living persons for whom such claims to abolished royal titles are made by others, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families. Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. In short, Smeat75 has apparently recently learned that the use of titles by German nobility is regulated by custom and has not official standing in German law. As usual, we base our articles in part on custom (what are these people actually called by reliable sources?) and not solely on law. (This is consistent with general practice: e.g., courtesy titles in the United Kingdom are used in official documents, which at the same time acknowledge that those titles hare bestowed only by custom and do not have legal standing.) Unfortunately, this is now progressing to the usual signs of mania: RfCs posted at many noticeboards, notices at many talk pages, forum-shopping to this page, increasingly grandiose claims of policy violation, etc. Additional opinions are, of course, welcome, although a certain terseness would be appreciated. Choess (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
...and he spammed 60 user talk pages with a message that violates WP:CANVASSING. :( -Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Only in that he gave his opinion in the notification making it a less than neutral notice, but there is no indication he picked editors only for support. I had made a BLP thread recently about an article on a subject claiming to be the King of Hawaii. My question was whether or not Wikipedia articles should be used to make claims on a throne. I also thought that the article's tone was less than encyclopedic. I am sure I was chosen based on that or my recent GA review of Charles I of England. But we have both already discussed the canvassing issue and I don't think it is enough to overshadow the issue Smeat75 raises.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been quite patient with him and tried to give him explanations from the real world and background history of royalty and nobility in Europe (I have some knowledge on this as I am a direct descendant of Warinus de la Strode); and some knowledge on Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV and RS and NOR. Im at the end of my tolerance for this. Unfortunately he was given some advice on his talk page to continue to try and find similar voices to his own and I think he may have misinterpreted it in a way that has caused him to violate our canvassing rules. This is quickly moving towards something that is going to need a topic ban.Camelbinky (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the original poster does raise a valid concern, and one which I think should be taken seriously. I think it would be a mistake to fail to take the concern seriously simply because it has been pressed in excessively dramatic and numerous places. It is undeniable that people sometimes use the word "pretender" and "claimant" when in fact the person in question is neither pretending nor claiming anything. And even when they are claiming something we need to be careful about what exactly they are claiming.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, the place in which I have seen him be the most persistent is at an article in which the person's noble title has been attested to in sources which show the British crown, the govt of France, and the prince of Monaco have all called him by that title. And also his wife who is a princess of Monaco and the heir apparent goes officially by HIS title, which is a title Smeat says has been abolished in Germany. One country abolishing titles in their borders does not affect the title itself as other countries can continue to acknowledge those titles. In this particular case, which concerns Hanover, the king was deposed when Prussia conquered it, any "contender" or "pretender" does not have to be affected by a law in Germany abolishing titles, because he was kicked out of his country illegally 50 years prior to the law. Hanover royalty and nobility, through its once personal union with the United Kingdom, is affected more by British law than German, descendants of Hanoverian royalty are still princes according to British law and to this day require the Queen's written approval on marrying another royal/noble for instance. If third party refers to a person as a noble or royal title in a reliable third party published source, I see no alternative but to call the person by that title or else doing otherwise is a clear violation of BLP. Have I missed something that you see otherwise?Camelbinky (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe you but it's problematic that I just have to merely believe you. Can you link to the example?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You see, this is why I feel we need to address this concern. Being called "Your highness" or "Prince" by royalty of other nations does not mean the person has that title or style. We are being told here that, currently, all the source has to do is refer to the subject in any manner and they are encyclopedically endowed with that "official" title. Each monarchy is different, but usually there is a particular manner in which persons are granted these titles and styles and, like any position, public office etc., you would want to know that even that reliable source's term is accurate and not just repeat or parrot the inaccuracies.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The difficulty with that approach is by what benchmark do you identify inaccuracies? Why is COMMONNAME not adequate as a guide for these cases? If we can have Screaming Lord Sutch, surely we can have Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born in 1954) (or whatever article it is we are talking about), provided that is reflected in a preponderance of sources. Formerip (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a name it's a title and style granted in some fashion and with some standard. The implication is more than some fancy word before a name. Through history we can clearly see the religious implications. Many in Japan still believe the emperor is their god. Even in the UK it is believed that the Queen rules through divine right as do many monarchies. If someone was granted such there will be a reliable source with that information. Its different depending on the one location to the next, but I believe the father has to acknowledge the heir and formally grant the right to a title and style, unless granted by a higher sovereign. And that last part is probably the biggest issue, in that these titles imply sovereignty. That isn't common or implied just because many believe it to be true.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It is clear that COMMONNAME is not really particularly helpful or applicable to people with royal or noble titles. There are clear reasons involving disambiguation, scholarly clarity, etc. that make it sensible and useful for us to title articles by more formal names in some cases. Reality is not one-size-fits-all in terms of naming conventions. (That is not to say that COMMONNAME should be completely disregarded, but that it is one of several competing concerns.) Additionally, it is also clear that titles can be legally recognized or not and still be valid in some narrower sense. We should, of course, make clear that some people with titles no longer hold them legally - it would confuse readers otherwise. But to ignore them, particularly if the subject and most media still use them, strikes me as equally mistaken. Things like recognition by other monarchs are factors to consider. Weighing up all the factors - editorial judgment - will not always be easy and will not always follow a simple formula, but can be undertaken in good faith and successfully. The specific concern that the original poster was raising is one that I share: there are sometimes enthusiasts/hobbyists who overuse the terms "pretender" and "claimant" to refer to people who are making no claim whatsoever. If someone actually is claiming a particular title, but there is some doubt about it, or there is some question about the legal status, then those terms can be fine to use. But in the past (we are sadly short on actual current examples in this discussion, I'm afraid) we have had some problems in this area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Since the area we're talking about is essentially titles whose legitimacy is disputed, I can't see how it makes much sense to suppose we can sort things out by deciding whether a particular title is legitimate or not. The only thing we can really look to is whether it generally recognized or not. Formerip (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Mark, you made the misconception that is causing this problem- you say the titles imply sovereignty. They do not! The British monarchy claimed the title of King of France all the way up to 1801 when France became a republic. The prince of Monaco still has titles to French territory that it owns, but owns in the same way that I own my property in the USA, there is no sovereignty with the title and land. The prince happens to own property that was once associated with a FRENCH noble title, and now the nation of Monaco has taken the title for its prince even though FRANCE has abolished the same title.Camelbinky (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The requesting of permission doesn't really have anything to do with royal status or lack thereof. It is because of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, providing that no descendent of George II (except princesses marrying into foreign families) could marry without the monarch's consent. This was really George III annoyed at his brother marrying against his will. I don't think it's been an issue since there were rumors the Queen might refuse her sister Margaret permission to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend in the Fifties. But that doesn't mean that the ex-Hanoverian royal family is recognized as royal by the UK.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Wehwalt in the official statement by the Queen, she does refer to the Hanoverian "pretender" by those very titles that those on Wikipedia claim the person does not legally have. If she recognizes him as such, then he is as such. And the govts of France and Monaco have also acknowledged his titles, in fact his wife is referred to by HIS title. How much more do you need?Camelbinky (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Elizabeth II issued the following Declaration in Council: "My Lords, I do hereby declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco...". Since their marriage Monaco itself refers to Princess Caroline as being Princess Caroline of Hanover since the title of her husband ranks higher than her own, even though her title is "real" and his "is not" according to some editors in this discussion. Again, some one please tell me how you decide that it is not a BLP violation to go against a reliable source mentioning what the Queen calls this man, and which the nations of Monaco and France have both also acknowledged as his titles. As far as I'm concerned if you try to ignore calling him by these titles you are violating BLP, it is that simpleCamelbinky (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
(In response to Mark Miller above, the formatting is getting a bit confusing) Click through to the divine right article, and you'll find that it hasn't been applicable to the UK since 1688... MChesterMC (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with that. It isn't a formal matter, it's one in regards to what many people still think and many people do still think that the Queen rules by divine right. But I really like Jimbo's more well thought out reply. Seems that this comes down to many factors and, more importantly, how we present the information, taking in all the sources and how they get their information and are using it along with all the other factors. I don't know about anyone else but I found that immensely helpful.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I got sick of arguing about this and have not looked at this page for days, but I am very glad to see that Jimbo Wales himself thinks I have a point. Would he like to take over arguing with various users, and one in particular, who will instantly revert any indication that so-and-so is not really "HRH His Royal Highness The Prince of Somewhere that Has Not Existed for 150 Years?" or that you cannot say that this or that person is a former royal because they're not former royals just because some government passed some law? or that it absolutely cannot be allowed to make any distinction between holders of titles that are recognised by the government of their country and those that are mere "titles of pretense" as the monarchist Bible the Almanach of Gotha calls them? If someone wants to battle with the people who watchlist these articles for two years or so, I'm sure the simple point that I was trying to make, WP should distinguish between holders of titles that are currently officially recognised and those that are not,could be carried, but it will be hard work.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
And Camelbinky I told you I was not going to try to edit that page about Ernst August any more and I have not, basically because it seems to upset you, it is not that important to me, and that is only one of hundreds, maybe thousands, of articles that present very misleading, or indeed outright false, information - "Styles and Titles -HRH The Princess of Somewhere" when there has not been an officially recognised such person for nearly a hundred years or more, all I wanted to do was put in a line like "These are titles that are sometimes used as courtesy, but are historical titles only and carry no official status", but it is absolutely not allowed.Smeat75 (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo says above "We should, of course, make clear that some people with titles no longer hold them legally - it would confuse readers otherwise." Would you like me to give you a list of the many articles on ex-German royals (only you are not allowed to call them that, they are not "ex" just because the government of Germany abolished royal titles, according to the royalty buffs here) that do not make that clear at all? And there is one user who will argue with you till hell freezes over that "legally" has nothing to do with it, titles are not regulated by law.I have not even looked at articles on ex-royal families of Russia, Austria, France, etc. And for an example of an article that uses "claimant",sorry Camelbinky, but please look at Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born in 1954), in the lead you will see it says he is the "claimant to the thrones of the former Kingdom of Hanover and the former Duchy of Brunswick." Does this person himself make any "claims" to the throne of Hanover (abolished 1866) or the throne of the Duchy of Brunswick (abolished 1918)? I would be insulted myself to see allegations published that I was so foolish as to make "claims" on non-existent thrones. These people are labelled as such by royalty buffs and genealogists and so forth, I do not see any evidence that they themselves make such claims. It is all a fantasy world, if people want to pretend, which is the revealing and accurate technical term used by experts in these matters, that titles that have been abolished 100 years or more still exist, I don't see why WP has to pretend along with them.Smeat75 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia....has been a claimant...and pretender to the titles Empress and Autocrat of All the Russias.... since 1992." Or see [9] "List of Bonapartist claimants to the French throne" where a living person is named as "Jean-Christophe Napoléon, Claimant (1997–present), son of Charles, appointed heir by his grandfather Louis." or a "rival" [10],this is the living " Orléanist Claimant to the French throne",Henri, Comte de Paris, Duc de France 1999-Today" and of course he isn't an officially recognised Comte or Duc and Maria V is not really a Grand Duchess either. How many more would you like?Smeat75 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Try to be careful when posting. You deleted my post by accident.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I am sorry, I think that was inadvertent due to an edit conflict.Smeat75 (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Pick your most reasonable opponent. Approach them with a proposal for BLP guidance on such "pretender" claims (eg 'it must be clear and sourced if they themselves claim it, and if not who does (by attribution) make the "claim" about them ) and go to VPP, and put the proposal you work out up for adoption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
That is a good idea in theory, however it is what policy already is, we don't need it specifically spelled out for nobility. BLP and V and NOR and RS all require us to already source... everything. If Smeat shows me a noble or pretender to royalty whose title is original research and is not attested to in some source then I will be Smeat's greatest ally in changing that article, we don't need a policy change. I have been given no evidence that is what is being pushed at any of these discussions. When Smeat has been given evidence of someone having been called by in a reliable source a noble, or a pretender to a crown, the answer I have personally seen is repeatedly mentioning that, that country abolished noble titles so it doesn't matter. I actually am not one of the "royalists" here on Wikipedia, that's not how I joined this discussion, my thing in this discussion has been and will be simply following the !rules on BLP and sourcing. We follow what the sources say, whether we like it or not.Camelbinky (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not a good idea. Smeat75 is continuing to violate numerous Wiki norms, most flagrantly forum shopping. In addition, he tried to unilaterally and prematurely close this !vote, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families because it was obvious that his anti-titles proposal was headed to defeat, resulting in an admin being summoned to undo his actions. After being warned to stop massively canvassing, he said he would do so no more, then he came here and launched this I just don't like it obssession all over again to get you to weigh in on his side. No one individual has any business being allowed to indefinitely divert so many contributors' focus from editing articles to responding to what amounts to a prolonged tantrum. Jimbo, IMO only 3 factors are relevant here: 1. A Wikipedia footnote in the lede's first sentence has long said of, e.g., this Ernst August, Prince of Hanover: "In 1919 royalty and nobility were mandated to lose their privileges in Germany, hereditary titles were to be legally borne thereafter only as part of the surname, according to Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution." So Smeat75 is free to insert the same or a similar disclaimer in any article he feels warrants it -- without whipping up a relentless drive to impose his preferred form of global censorship on Wikipedia bios 2. What Smeat75 fails to acknowledge here is that when titles are attributed to pretenders (or others) in WP, it's because reliable sources (excluding monarchist websites) attribute those titles to them. Elevating this dispute to a BLP issue is a tactic to mandate that those reliable, current sources be ignored. 3. Smeat75 has gotten far more than reasonable due process in the various forums he's tried to influence his way -- to no avail. He's expressed his demand in several bios, on numerous talk pages, in multiple failed deletion requests, in one-sided appeals to dozens of individual WP editors, and by setting up an !vote on Manual of Style/Biographies. Yet he has repeatedly and overwhelmingly failed to convince most of his peers on these varying forums to agree there's a problem in need of fixing or to consent to his solution. So finally he appears here, in your face. Please don't reward such persistent disrespect with further encouragement. Content disputes belong in article talk space -- not in whatever kangaroo court a disgruntled editor can drag everyone through until he gets his way. FactStraight (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I gave you some advice on this dilemma, Smeat75, which seems like it has been disregarded (and I imagine others have weighed in with the same points I made). I find it baffling that I see nothing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on this topic that is of such great importance to you and these are exactly the editors who have the most experience and knowledge on the subject who could answer your questions. Like many other topics that are the subject of a WikiProject, this is a specialized field, I don't know if this is a subject or policy to be worked out on this user talk page. LizRead!Talk! 05:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, after making much of publicly asking for your advice and promising to abide by it -- he promptly escalated his multi-forum effort to overturn prevalent practice, dismissed the vast majority of editors who, as you note, have substantial experience with the matter at hand, and refuses to pursue the one obvious solution: editing in the disclaimers he prefers, and negotiating in good faith with other editors to get his concerns addressed. I have always been open to a compromise not rooted in the assumption that because I don't hold his POV I deserve to be verbally dismissed as some sort of "kook" and run over roughshod instead of reasoned with. FactStraight (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
FactStraight, I have never called other editors names or verbally dismissed them as some sort of "kook" that I can remember, please point out where I did so.Smeat75 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Please quote me correctly. I didn't say you called me or any other editors "kook", I said your approach here assumes that "I deserve to be verbally dismissed as some sort of 'kook' and run over roughshod instead of reasoned with". Examples? “All of this is just snobs' fantasy,” and (referring to a post of mine) “The above post is a lot of laughable and ludicrous folderol imo” and “That's all it is, pretenders making-believe that they are still something that they are not, if other people are foolish enough to indulge them in that, that is their business” and “it is exactly the same as if I said 'I think it would be nice if people called me "Your Royal Highness Mickey the Mouse"' and some people were silly enough to do that” and (referring to reliable sources that Smeat75 wants Wikipedia to pretend don't exist) “Now there are a lot of genealogy books and charts and websites and royal obsessives and so forth who just pretend that none of the abolition of these titles ever happened, so you can find sources calling them ‘serene highness’ and so forth, but it must be made clear every time that that is just the same as calling your dog ‘Prince’” Want more? FactStraight (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Also FactStraight I must point out that you discuss how I have broken a lot of rules, or my behaviour has been unreasonable, but do not address why it is OK to for WP to call living people "claimant"s to abolished royal thrones with no evidence that the persons concerned make any such claims. Monarchist websites may use such terms, but this is a website for general readers.Smeat75 (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
What I've been doing here & elsewhere is pointing out that you have waged an intense campaign to persuade Wikipedians to take action against prevalent Wikipedia practice and have consistently & overwhelmingly failed to prevail -- but you continue to insist something's wrong with others' approach, rather than your own. Once again, you try to change the issue under discussion (from whether historical royal styles documented in reliable sources but not based in law may be referred to in Wikipedia) to the use of the term "claimant" in bios. Fine, the noun prétendre is more accurately translated as "claimant" than "pretender" because the former is generally regarded as the more passive, less "royalist" term. And for good reason: You have noted that the Almanach de Gotha refers to outdated honorifics as "titles of pretence", but actually it refers to titres de prétence. The French verb "prétendre" (from which English "pretender" derives) is notoriously a false friend, that is, it has a different meaning and connotation than the English word to which it is cognate. Whereas in English "pretend" suggests that one is knowingly faking something, in French it simply means to assert a due interest in or right to something, i.e. "to claim". I don't know of a single ex-ruler or historical heir to an abolished monarchy who insists that s/he is a monarch. What they usually state (often in a family website or when interviewed by the reliable sources we cite) is that they are the current, natural heirs to the deposed dynasty's historical legacy which, to some (like Jacobites) includes a defunct throne, while to most it means main heir to the family property or headship of a family which may have recognized a pater familias for nearly a millenium. In cases like Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Luis Alfonso, Duke of Anjou, there are political and cultural groups ("legitimists") which genuinely attribute "rightful kingship" to these individuals and refer to them thusly ("Francis II of England", "Louis XX of France"), without regard to their personal preferences. But our articles do not call them by the reigning titles which monarchist advocates and fringe movements seeking to enthrone them do. Instead we use non-reigning titles for them because that is how they are prevalently referred to in reliable sources. So we already respect BLP limitations by not using titles the subjects don't use or claim themselves. The fact that royalists often vandalize these pages, interpolating legitimist terminology, doesn't mean the less partisan terms should be excluded, but that help is needed to patrol BLP articles for vandalism. FactStraight (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a fair point that we should explain that a third party has claimed XXX is a 'claimant' (explaining the jargon) rather than stating it in a way that should be confused. But RSes should be reported. Anyway, just make sure nothing you decide hinders the proper recognition of the American Imperial Court System bloodline from Emperor Norton to Nicole the Great. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
"It's a fair point that we should explain that a third party has claimed XXX is a 'claimant' (explaining the jargon) rather than stating it in a way that should be confused." Thank you, yes. FactStraight you are incorrect when you say I am just elevating this matter to BLP violations as a tactic, there are many issues with these sorts of articles and among them,I sincerely believe, are many BLP violations such as stating so and so is a "claimant" to an abolished royal throne with no evidence that the persons themselves have ever made such claims. It interests me that you refer to "outdated honorifics", yes, that is exactly what they are, I have been trying to clarify "outdated honorifics" from ones that hold current official recognition but have not been allowed to do so.WP:NPA says " Comment on content, not on the contributor" and I believe that is what I have been doing.Smeat75 (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You say "there are many issues with these sorts of articles", so why is it that you have tried to raise alarms on numerous bio talk pages, the deletion request forum, the Manual of Style/Biographies forum, the German WikiProject, the Notability (People) Board, the Neutral POV Noticeboard, the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, plus anywhere & anybody else you could think of, but you have consistently and overwhelmingly received responses which don't support your position? At what point do you accept that the vast majority of those you've chosen to enlist in your cause have declined, most explicitly disagreeing with your position? You say that you "have been trying to clarify 'outdated honorifics' from ones that hold current official recognition but have not been allowed to do so." Not true, you have worn out BRD, made whatever changes you want to articles, but you are reverted by those who disagree with you: that's how Wikipedia works. Instead of resolving such disagreement on talk pages, you have now adopted the strategy of trying to appeal to "higher authorities", throwing up multiple issues and disparaging the views of those with whom you disagree as tactics to compel others to leave your changes intact by changing entire Wikipedia policies on article content. That effort has been resoundingly rejected, yet you still refuse to consider that it is you, not nearly everyone else who's declined to take up your POV, who's out of line here. Enough. FactStraight (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
"[Y]ou have consistently and overwhelmingly received responses which don't support your position". That simply is not entirely accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it was unanimous, but not one of the 14 articles on royalty that Smeat75 proposed to delete at AfD was deleted as a result, and on most the vote against deletion was at least double that in favor. On the Manual of Style/Biographies debate, Smeat75's proposal lost the !vote 15 to 4, and the 4 included Smeat75 himself and you. Yep, I call that pattern "consistent" and "overwhelming". FactStraight (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
He did get support from Jimbo, so that's actually 5, but fair enough. Consensus can change and I think it might at least be an idea to answer some of the concerns. By the way...AFD? You're killen me Smeat75. You seriously tried to get the entire articles deleted? No wonder the support was lacking. This would surely look like beating a dead horse after all ofthat. I suggest we take the advice given by Jimbo. It was pretty good.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"By the way...AFD? You're killen me Smeat75. You seriously tried to get the entire articles deleted?" Those were mostly unsourced articles about the person who is "sixth in succession to the throne of Hanover" (abolished 1866) and such and did not seem to be notable to me.Smeat75 (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, please show me where Jimbo weighed in, supporting Smeat75 with a !vote, on that 15 to 4 consensus against him at Manual of Style/Biographies, because I can't find it anywhere :-) But I do agree that Jimbo's advice on the issue that vote addressed should be heeded, since in this thread Jimbo writes, "It is clear that COMMONNAME is not really particularly helpful or applicable to people with royal or noble titles. There are clear reasons involving disambiguation, scholarly clarity, etc. that make it sensible and useful for us to title articles by more formal names in some cases. Reality is not one-size-fits-all in terms of naming conventions. (That is not to say that COMMONNAME should be completely disregarded, but that it is one of several competing concerns.) Additionally, it is also clear that titles can be legally recognized or not and still be valid in some narrower sense. We should, of course, make clear that some people with titles no longer hold them legally - it would confuse readers otherwise. But to ignore them, particularly if the subject and most media still use them, strikes me as equally mistaken. Things like recognition by other monarchs are factors to consider." Couldn't have said it better myself. FactStraight (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just had an interesting example of this issue while tidying Aswathi Thirunal Rama Varma. The Indian media almost always mention his connection to the Travancore Royal Family, which has long lost its legal status as such, and they often use "royal" in their headline. But the guy himself downplays it. I must say, the downplaying seems to be something of an exception to the rule in India: most descendants still seem to evince a feudal-like respect among the general population of the area in which they originated (and outright sycophancy from the press). Some descendant socialites seem to play on this and the entire situation is often very tricky to handle (see, for example, the back and forths at Priyadarshini Raje Scindia). There are literally thousands of these descendants, many of whose ancestors ruled only a few thousand acres. -Sitush (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a rather odd situation in many cases that this is just kinda glossing over. Sitush makes a good point. As for FS, Jimbo began with:"I think the original poster does raise a valid concern, and one which I think should be taken seriously. I think it would be a mistake to fail to take the concern seriously simply because it has been pressed in excessively dramatic and numerous places. It is undeniable that people sometimes use the word "pretender" and "claimant" when in fact the person in question is neither pretending nor claiming anything. And even when they are claiming something we need to be careful about what exactly they are claiming.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC) " and was not a part of a !vote at any of the other venues but was weighed on right here in this thread. That is what meant and still consider it 5 when you count that. But hey, neither Jimbo or even I have fully supported the method, just that, that alone does NOT mean the issue is without any merit.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
No one failed to take the matter seriously. The wide-range & length of the debate shows that the matter was carefully considered -- and yet (whether you count Jimbo's "the original poster does raise a valid point..." posted to this board and not at the forum where it was underway, as a "!vote" or not), three-quarters of those expressing a POV on the matter rejected the solution for which you and Smeat75 so vigorously advocated. FactStraight (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't care. Vote or not I see his limited support as valid. I also don't care what the so called "solution" was that the OP had in mind, I think Jimbo made himself extremely clear on the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Also Jimbo said:"Things like recognition by other monarchs are factors to consider" not that it was absolute proof of a title and style. Every situation should be handled on a case by case situation and not just a flat out statement that any royal that refers to another as a royal automatically makes the subject a royal.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Except that Smeat75, who initiated this issue, strenuously objects to the notion that persons whose styles & titles are no longer recognized by law may nonetheless be appropriately referred to as such in Wikipedia, and he has repeatedly denied that other royals referring to them as such is relevant -- which contradicts both of Jimbo's points about the use of royal titulature. FactStraight (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to continue to discuss an editor...do it elsewhere...like on their page.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm discussing the rationale of the poster who initiated this thread on Jimbo's talk page, pointing out how the issue and solution he's proposing differ from those Jimbo has embraced. FactStraight (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
And in the spirit of the holiday and this thread...I think you are like a "Lord a leaping". Meaning you are leaping to conclusions. See what I did there with "lord" (title and the Twelve days of Xmas). ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Factstright says "Smeat75, who initiated this issue, strenuously objects to the notion that persons whose styles & titles are no longer recognized by law may nonetheless be appropriately referred to as such in Wikipedia". What I object to is people who are not members of currently reigning royal families and whose "titles and styles" therefore no longer have any official standing, being referred to in exactly the same way on WP as people whose "titles and styles" are officially recognised by the governments of their countries without any differentiation made between them.That's what I object to with regard to "titles and styles" of these people, there are other issues such as calling them "claimants".Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Even you have to admit that Mr. Wales was very respectful of your concerns. Ignore everyone else and focus on his very well thought out suggestions.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed he was. Thank you for your advice.Smeat75 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Smeat75 says, "What I object to is people who are not members of currently reigning royal families and whose 'titles and styles' therefore no longer have any official standing, being referred to in exactly the same way on WP as people whose 'titles and styles' are officially recognised by the governments of their countries without any differentiation made between them." No, because if that were all you objected to, when I pointed out to you that the article on the heir of Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II, Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia has 4 disclaimers about titles (including two in the lede and one in a section labelled "Titles and Honours") you would have acknowledged that those disclaimers aren't to be found in articles on reigning royalty, instead of complaining that there aren't more disclaimers. Why is the article written that way? Every style or title attributed to Georg Friedrich has multiple RS. Take a look at the English-language footnotes in the References section: do you think those sources include multiple disclaimers -- or even one? Wikipedia refers to people the way they are referred to in English-language sources, not the way the government says to refer to them. Note also that they write of him as the Kaiser's heir -- otherwise known as "claimant" when the hereditary legacy is (legally) no more. And the multiple discussions Smeat75 initiated to get that changed revealed that most editors here think that policy ain't broke & needs no fixing. FactStraight (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not an active wikipedian at the moment due to a complete lack of time. However, this is a problem that I have been trying to alert people to before, and it appears that once again the discussion is being derailed from the key point:
"A pretender is one who claims entitlement to an unavailable position of honour or rank. [...] The term 'pretender' applies not only to claimants with arguably genuine rights to the throne (as the various pretenders of the Wars of the Roses) who regarded the de facto monarch as a usurper, but also to impostors with wholly fabricated claims (as pretenders to Henry VII's throne Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck)."
For my point, these are the most relevant words of the lead to the article pretender. Not a single word about the possibility that someone might be called a pretender merely by descent or by being declared one by third parties. This is perfectly logical, as the etymology of the words "pretender" and "claimant" implies that such a person is engaged in some minimal actions, or at the very least in acquiescence to other people's actions, w.r.t. a claim for himself.
Among nobility buffs, "is a pretender to" has become a short way of indicating "could reasonably be a pretender to" or similar facts or opinions. In the light of the above definitions, this is deeply problematic for all those so-called pretenders who do not themselves claim to be anything other than an ordinary citizen, and even more so for those who may have renounced any such claim made by third parties. And there are lots of reasons to renounce such claims, e.g. being a socialist.
The claim that X is a pretender to (or claimant of) the throne of Y is a BLP claim that can only be supported with sources about X's words or actions.
Otto von Habsburg is a good example. People obsessed with nobility like to call him a pretender to the Austrian throne (besides several others) even after his formal renouncement of any claims. His actions in his last years actually did seem directed towards the creation of some kind of Commonwealth of nations formerly under Habsburg rule, ultimately (it can be assumed) under a Habsburg ruler. In this situation, whether he actually was a pretender to the Austrian throne in the proper sense was a key question. If he was a pretender to the Austrian throne, i.e. if he did not feel bound by his renouncement, then he was not allowed to enter Austria and the Austrian government had an obligation to prevent his political project.
My personal opinion is that Otto von Habsburg probably was a pretender to the Austrian throne in this sense, at least in his late years, but in no other situation would we permit such claims on living people to be based on this kind of conjecture by editors or other third parties.
Otto von Habsburg is dead, and apart from a category the article only claims explicitly that he became a pretender to the Austrian throne in 1922. It leaves open, as it probably should, whether in 1961 he stopped being a pretender, or whether he later became one again. An editor might insist on wording that indicates that Otto von Habsburg was a pretender to the Austrian throne from 1922 to his death in 2011.
The problem is not Otto von Habsburg but sourcing standards for "pretender" claims in general. Currently it's enough for some well respected (in the scene) hobbyist to claim that so-and-so is a pretender to some title based on no more than genealogical research. And that is simply not right. Based on these standards, an editor might insist on wording that indicates that Otto von Habsburg was a pretender to the Austrian throne from 1922 to his death in 2011 simply because some hobbyist is using a technical definition of "pretender" for which a formal renunciation bears no relevance whatsoever.
I don't know an article that actually makes a false BLP claim through this mechanism, but we have every reason to believe that such articles exist. Some people have been known to try to get rid of any remnants of nobility in their names. Politician Jutta Ditfurth, daughter of Hoimar von Ditfurth, comes to mind.
If, however, we want to use definitions of "pretender" and "claimant" that are not in line with our own article's definition of these terms, then we must be extremely careful about making this clear and, in particular, not including the misleading links to this article. I doubt that we can change the article pretender to use the other definition. Usually it's quite hard to source such secondary, non-etymological definitions of technical terms even long after they have entered the mainstream. And I am not even sure that this one has entered the mainstream. This usage just seems to be jargon used almost exclusively by nobility buffs. Hans Adler 17:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Homophobia on Wikipedia
What are your thought Jimbo. I am now rather curious.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
And while you're at it, a comment on the incessant whining about perceived "homophobia" might also be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a comment on the lack of sensitivity of others would be best. It seems that many here see the issue as whining. I on the other hand find their comments simple bitching.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(e-c)Carrite, that comment was out of line, seriously. Being insulted based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is NOT up to those of the majority. It is for us in the minority to let you know if it exists. I'm sorry if we "whine" when we have to defend our rights. Now, my question to Mark is- can you give real examples of homophobia on Wikipedia? Other than what we all saw from SOME FEW editors during the Chelsea Manning discussions.Camelbinky (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Spefically...Nyttend's unblock of a legitimate block of an editor who's comments even had to be edited on this talk page as "homophobic".
You know what I find offensive...my cooperation with Christian projects and Christian editors I know disapprove of me personally. I have never found this to be an issue until now.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo, you once said that you did not disapprove of off wiki canvassing to bring in fresh voices to an issue. I actually agree with that assessment but have never, ever attempted to do that. My question for you is this...would you object if I were to bring this issue to a number of LGBT groups off Wikipedia? I am not a very active Gay activist. In the recent past I have been a little more concerned about such things as my parents illness and my own personal needs as an individual, but this situation has involved me directly and I am VERY dissatisfied with the lack of movement, even with what appears to be a consensus that the unblock was bad.
I have already e-mailed you that you should not feel inclined to participate in the recent discussion unless you feel the need at any personal level. I stick to that and will not be the bit unhappy should you continue to keep your distance from the issue. However, with no reply I will take that earlier advice from you and bring up the issue at a number of LGBT communities for their suggestions. If this is done....would that place me in a position to be blocked? If so, I will not take that action.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Butting in here, but what would do you believe such canvassing would accomplish here? I as an individual might not completely oppose it, and it honestly wouldn't matter if I was, but I can see a bit of a problem in maybe issue a broad-based call to "comment" on an issue with "suggestions" maybe being seen as a call for a descent en masse of potentially disruptive editors. Also, would those editors necessarily be familiar with the policies and guidelines here, or might they ultimately just wind up making comments which might not be able to lead to real changes in either policies or guidelines and possibly, ultimately, just venting emotional responses in many or most cases? The latter probably wouldn't be particularly helpful. John Carter (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't see it as butting in John. You should see it as simply adding your voice. A rather strong voice at that, however, you do make a few assumptions of me and what I might do or how I might do it. I simply don't know that I would even try to do such. I want to see what Jimbo feels about it, but your comments are accepted and as always make me think.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark Miller, I have seen some of those ad hominem attacks, and I believe that administrators should act on attacks based on sexual orientation just as vigorously as on attacks based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin. I understand your feelings, and have been deeply disappointed by some of the behavior I have seen from a minority of editors and administrators here. My concern about inviting activists unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and internal culture to "jump into the fray" is that almost inevitably, they will not be able to debate on a level playing field, and will depart bruised and battered. I make no assumptions of you, Mark, other than the assumption that you've earned: namely, that you will conduct yourself in a responsible and thoughtful way. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
(e-c) I wasn't trying to make assumptions, but just indicating, based on what I saw, that I couldn't be sure what it was you were considering doing, and, not knowing the full details, kind of addressing some possible "worst-case scenarios." Personally, I would welcome myself some sort of way to maybe make the site as non-threatening to LGBT people as we have in some cases tried to make it for kids and others in minority or disabled or other communities which are often the targets of unfounded attack or aspersions, and would love to get some sort of input from anyone about specific changes we might make to be able to do that, but would hope that if you did request outside input it would be about more or less specifically actionable ideas or proposals which might have worked elsewhere or might be likely to work here. John Carter (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. If I were to off Wiki canvass outside opinion, it should be about how to improve the project and not just a call for more drama and more fighting. Let me be as clear as I possibly can...I have been a part of a number of situations to bring down the level of drama on Wikipedia...not increase it. When OWS was feaking out admin, I tried to be a voice of opposition to mass deletions. I started Project OWS as a place to teach and inform activist editors how to use Wikipedia within, not just the spirit, but the letter of our policies and guidelines....not as a way to allow more OWS information...but to limit the fighting and confusion of new editors that came to Wikipedia JUST to create a battleground. I don't have a Christian Barn star because I work against the Christian projects, but because I tried to work with them. That doesn't always mean people understand my position as some still think I am some conservative in sheep's clothing as when I attempted to GA review the Paul Ryan article after Project Conservatism nominated it. I was accused of attempting to rubber stamp it (that was the first accusation, however the legitimate issue was my edit count on the article and talk page). Hey...I have reviewed and listed a broad range of articles. Newt Gingrich and Al Franken are hardly similar people and I continue to get assumptions about my supposed agenda, including a recent GA review that was withdrawn because of I was the reviewer...and for no other reason. This site will always have such issues and I am willing to accept them as part of what occurs in such a mass of individuals with varying opinion....but I, myself strive to learn from my experiences here and not throw away lessons that I feel have helped shape who I am today. Yes, Wikipedia has had a huge influence on my life and I only hope I have had some small influence on Wikipedia. I just wish I had more influence here on this issue. I really do.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you know darned well that canvassing activists off-site would be all about stirring the pot and making sure the dramahdramahdramah keeps on rolling... The level of actual ongoing coercive, violent, threatening homophobia on Wikipedia in the actual historical sense is — zero. News flash: there are morons on the internet that will say stupid and offensive things. When they do, you give them the finger, and if they persist, they are gone. QED. Carrite (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk)
No actually I don't and neither do you. Clearly you simply assumed "activists" would be canvassed and not just "people". I find that pretty telling.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You say about yourself above in this very thread "I am not a very active Gay activist" and clearly suggest a need to solicit the opinions of more active Gay activists. I don't feel the need to "find anything telling" because you've just told on yourself, loud and clear. My suggestion would be that we should all drop the insecurity, self-pity, and whining and get back to work. Carrite (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You assume far too much and at no point have I ever stated I was going to canvass gay activists. You feel the need to lie and spit out vile. I suggest you stop. When you stop bitching...perhaps others will stop posting, but the whining is clearly coming from what appears to be a very spiteful...YOU.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
An idea off the top of my head, maybe WP:RETENTION should have an Anti-Discrimination Task Force. It could help address the issues of homophobia, sexism, racism etc. on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 03:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Carrite, my friend Tim, each responsible editor among us should, in my opinion, strive to reduce tensions in such discussions rather than make comments that might wind up the tensions. Isn't this a time for compassionate remarks rather than comments that might be misinterpreted and spiral up the hostility and misunderstanding instead? Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's important to distinguish between suppressing harassment and suppressing bad ideas. If some people believes in homophobic, racist, etc. claptrap, they should be free to document, discuss, and indicate their belief in such things in the abstract, general political sense - provided they are able to put them aside and work with other editors and article content in accordance with policy. True, that will be difficult for them, and people will tend to scrutinize what they are up to, but this is still an important line to draw, first because it gives a bigot a chance to begin a transition to an unbigoted POV one person at a time, and because drawing the line at that point prevents people from going further and looking at whether those who merely ask or write about such ideas can be censured/censored. Wnt (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course you're right, Jim, but after 1.5 million bytes of disruptive prattle in the Manning case — pro and con over a content disagreement that (shock! awe!) was the subject of a very long, very loud, BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS sequence — it's time to start calling bullshit on activist disruption. If anyone makes homophobic attacks upon an editor, they will be dealt with harshly. If anyone objects to a recent unblock by an Administrator with its (very concerning) rationale, there is a procedure for detooling that Administrator. There is no pervasive homophobia on WP, period. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, on this I agree. While I have concerns about homophobia being too well tolerated in some instances I am absolutely certain that homophobia is NOT a pervasive issue right now on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It's more the community attitude to LGBT issues that needs fixing, and fast, otherwise we're facing at best, failure in editor retention, at worst, outright discrimination against editors. The community should be thankful that this is a volunteer project with no HR or unionisation, because either would have a field day with this, and rightly so. I remember, between the Userbox wars and Bedford's desysopping, where we found expressing discriminatory viewpoints incompatible with creating an encyclopedia; what happened since? And by allowing this to go on, the WMF are arguably breaking their own non-discrimination policy. Sceptre(talk) 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting symptom is this discussion, not that it is being held, but some of the opinions expressed. Perplexingly there is a sister-discussion about a different redirect where more civilised discussion is taking place. The contentious one has contentious language in the title, the uncontentious one does not. This appears to me to be the locker room mentality and posse forming that I detest and despise. FiddleFaddle 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I tried to clean up some of this juvenile stuff over the last few weeks, from "Wikipedia:CUM" to "Wikipedia:Fag", to no avail. The mob mentality carried the day on the former, and seems likely to do so again for the latter. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Apparently some editors have a problem with simple consensus. KonveyorBelt 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I indeed have a very great problem with simple consensus, when it is used to run roughshod over basic human decency, yes. These were mob mentality rulings in the classic sense of the term, where individual common sense was subordinated to the collective pitchfork-wielding and torch-bearing. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Some very peculiar things have been created by simple consensus. It happens when those reaching the consensus lose sight of common humanity and decency. We need to be careful that consensus is not used in such a way that we tarnish our own and WIkipedia's morality and decency.
Like Tarc I have a problem with consensus unfettered by what I choose to call 'goodness', and I see such as posse and lunch law mentality. Yes, 'lunch', because that is what happens when we use rules for the sake of rules. Decency gets lunched. FiddleFaddle 23:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering Tarc's past behavior, a checkuser between IP and Tarc would not be unreasonable. Fool me once and all that.... --DHeyward (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
While there may be homophobic editors on Wikipedia those calling out others are just as bad. We have been through this already those who were homophobic have been blocked in the past as well as those doing the accusing with no evidence other than their personal rage to back up their claims. I am tired of seeing editors cry OMG HOMOPHOBIA! over things. What happened to WP:AGF? and WP:NPOV? WP:NPA also says to comment on content not other people. In the case of WP:FAG and WP:CUM they are acronyms that is considered content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't assume good faith when there is none.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm so saddened to hear from Tarc that CUM and soon, Fag, have been allowed to remain. Ridiculous that closing admins are treating this as a straight up or down !vote. !votes are decided upon by the merit and strength of each !vote, not every !vote counts as 1, some count more than others and some don't get counted at all because of the lack of any merit to the REASON. We need more forceful closes that ignore the mob and tell people- Your reasons SUCKED.Camelbinky (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is how Wikipedia works. if it were up to a select few making all the decisions then things would be very different around here and Wikipedia would not have such a wide user base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This is why it is difficult to assume good faith with you. Consensus is not a !vote and yet you purposely ignore that part of the post and re-write the discussion to fit whatever you want. It's disingenuous.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Did I ever say that consensus was a vote? I was responding to the forceful closes bit and the mob comments. The decision lies with the closer who takes each argument and weighs it if it is strong or weak and acts on that. So by mob rule does this mean the people with better arguments than you? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Did I ever say anything about mob rule? No. Again, disingenuous.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, the "mob mentality" vote was all mine, I'll take credit for that. Between that and latent homophobia, there was really never a justifiable rationale given as to why "Fag" should ever be used as a shortcut to a WikiProject here. And DHeyward, I suggest you watch it. I have never, at any time, posted to this project under any name, IP, or account other than this one right here. Unless you plan to present evidence to the contrary, you will kindly keep such accusations to yourself. Tarc (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I just wish you would have decided to stir the pot a little further from the topic you stirred using your alt personality experiment. I assume you believe you are doing good in another crusade but take your userpage to heart and build content away from WP:space. There are Red Sox and reality televison articles outside of the LGBT space that you experimented in not so far back. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not your social experiment. --DHeyward (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout." In this case both sides have been acting poorly and I can say that a few editors here are tired of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not concerned that a few editors are tired of "it". Many others are tired of other issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Well rather than making things like this here to invoke Jimbo's response WP:AAJ & WP:YOULOSE, why don't these issues be hammered out one at a time? Trying to deal with everything at once puts a strain on things don't you think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said, disingenuous. This is not about any quote from Jimbo Wales as he has not said anything to misquote and this is not an appeal to him because of being unhappy with a decision elsewhere. This occurred on Jimbo's talk page and therefore is why this was posted here. You are simply spamming with essay links that look good to you...but have no bearing on the issue at hand.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, you have been more vocal than even me so.....--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark you can carry this on and on and on, the discussion at WP:AN has been closed as no consensus, rather than going on with this why not settle with Nyttend? The only thing I see this section bringing is more jabs from both sides, who is a homophobe, who is not, who is acting in good faith, and who is acting in bad. What do you hope to come out of this discussion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be rather good at carrying on and on. Just what is it you are trying to get out of the discussion? It was you that jumped over to this discussion after the AN was closed! LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, Mark, Tarc, and Camelbinky, we're all screwing with you because we want to see you miserable. The discussions had a lot of people agreeing with one another, so that obviously points to unruly mob rule. There is a cabal. Or, you can just accept a majority of other people disagree with you and move on. KonveyorBelt 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about now? Again...I said nothing about a mob. Please get you information right or refrain from such posting. Not in the mood to be fucked with right now, OK. I am not involved in the "Fag" and "Cum" discussions.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I would guess that the intention was to achieve even more disproportionate representation here than is already evident to much of the world. But I only complained about an objectionable map on Nov 25, surely the entertainment can't be over already? I'm bored, please keep it going a couple more weeks! 71.246.159.98 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
When your attitude supports a debasement and degradation of other people based upon their sexual orientation, that isn't something that others "move on" from, I'm afraid. Being in the majority is not an entitlement to perpetuate obscene shortcuts to a project page. Tarc (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What, so now that you've lost the Afd and subsequent review, now the last resort is to call those who disagree with you homophobes and resort to the kind of name calling usually reserved for 3rd graders? The people who voted "Keep" are hardly trying to be bigoted or anything; they simply think it is an appropriate redirect. KonveyorBelt 23:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If you do not wish to be labeled as such, then it would be wise to not throw one's support behind the usage of a term that is blatantly offensive to many. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Physician, heal thyself. Formerip (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Who said I supported calling people fags? Here we go with the generalizations again. Just because I support an easy and the most logical shortcut to a page whose name forms an acronym doesn't mean I would like to abolish homosexuality. Have you ever considered that those who disagree with you may not be bigoted, biased people? They may have perfectly rational reasons for a Keep vote and they will express them as such. Name calling and jumping to conclusions won't accomplish any kind of precedent or consensus here. KonveyorBelt 01:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
So, "easy and logical" is the prime criteria, regardless of whether or not people take offense as to what the acronym comes out to? Say I wish to start a WikiProject to help editors with template syntax, the obvious name is the "Creation and Usage of New Templates". What's an "easy and logical" shortcut we could use for that, Mr. Konveyor? Tarc (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you might ask whoever made the creation and usage of media page, as whoever he is named the page as such and now the most logical redirect is apparent. KonveyorBelt 02:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion implies you have a COI editor issue with the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That is just not ok here. Editors argue against institutionalised homophobia and you create a carefully crafted usage of AIDS against one such editor. Even in jest that is not ok. Even in the schoolyard that is not ok. Even if you are attempting to use irony that is not ok. Indeed it stretches an assumption of good faith way past its elastic limit. Even if you meant no harm by it, note that your words are easily capable of interpretation in a highly different manner, that of a homophobic slur. Now I am pretty sure that was not your intention, but, as I said, the assumption of good faith has been overstretched here. Perhaps you would like to reassure us that you had no unpleasant intent? FiddleFaddle 09:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center [11] is an actual center and that the implication was that they (whoever they are talking about) may have a COI by being paid staff? Let's not get too carried away. Now...having said that...I ask that DHeyward to explain the comment to clarify as I simply do not understand where the accusation is coming from.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Not an accusation, but rather the inference of a name being an acronym for an organization (i.e. tarc) is a legitimate acronym for a real center does not mean that "Tarc" is associated with them. A crusade to eliminate acronyms because it can be asserted that it means something more is an over-the-top reaction. The Find-A-Grave acronym was never intended to associate the organization with the slur. Team America: World Police's "Film Actors Guild" was definitely intended to create the slur with the acronym. We can use basic judgement to determine intent and use, rather than just a reactionary "this spells that" approach. There is also Team America Rocketry Challenge that is not related to any of the above (the film, the slur or the editor). There is no reason to think that "Tarc" is related to any of these acronyms or that any of these organizations are related to each other. We also have the fag/fanny british/american English giggle factor that both sides of the ocean know the different connotations and use them for effect. My pointing it out is only to avoid being part of another social experiment of over-the-top reactions. Mind you, that "over-the-top" is not the legitimate distress expressed by editors that are reasonably offended by certain terms and usage but rather it's a cautious approach to being used in a grand social experiment. We, as a community of encyclopedia editors, can accommodate and understand offense. It's more difficult to discern legitimate offense from manufactured offense. History is our only guide. The experimenter that suddenly makes the cheese easier to find in the maze is not necessarily the ally of the mouse. I am cautious. --DHeyward (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Then I shall be as clear as possible so that you do not feel that my outrage is "manufactured offense". You just "inferred" that another editor has a COI to "prove a point" by stating it was a demonstration of the use of acronyms. Frankly, that was so full of holes it is pretty damned insulting in itself. If you feel used in some "grand social experiment" perhaps you should not attempt to drag another editor into a manufactured conflict of your own making. Thank you for the clarification, now please, don't dick around with editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this thread has come to a natural close now. I would like to thank Mr. Wales for his patience in allowing myself and others to express our concerns. I believe that moving forward we really need to remember many things. Remember those that blew us off and those that took us seriously as with any important issue on Wikipedia. This was never about an situation that was pervasive throughout the entire project but about an issue that confronted us right here on this very page. For that reason and that reason alone I posted here. Thank you Jimbo Wales for allowing it to play out.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you were mistaken about this having come to a natural close. I most assuredly agree that DHeyward made inappropriate remarks. Their explanation does little to restore elasticity to assumptions of good faith. I find, instead, that the locker room and towel flicking seem to be the order of the day. I see no valid nor serious point being made despite the explanation I asked for having been forthcoming. Such points can be made without the use of the term AIDS as weaponry, and without involving other editors' names in some sort of attempt at banter. At the very least I perceive that Tarc is owed a well meant apology. FiddleFaddle 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It appears you are correct. The one thing I have learned from the entire situation is to be sure and "warn" editors so that there is no excuse from admin that no warning was given before a block. In my opinion (surely to be disagreed with) the editor has clearly disrupted the project in an attempt to make a point.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
While I certainly regret where this conversation has gone, I believe my point still stands. The editors who !voted to "Keep" these redirects are not homophobes and should not be labeled as such. Name calling lowers you down to the true homophobes' level. KonveyorBelt 17:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding instances of name calling hard to see here? Perhaps you could clarify your thinking? I see behaviours that have been deprecated, but not people who have been diminished by name calling? FiddleFaddle 17:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the Fae case, editors should have the right to interpret behavior as homophobic, racist, etc. without a clear consensus that this is true; and (when not part of harassment, which can be done with or without bigotry) editors should be allowed to express homophobic and racist sentiments also. Attempting to balance the situation by infringing the rights of both sides doesn't actually help. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
There are some interesting threads to develop from what you say. I should be allowed to tell another editor that I detest their homosexuality, but not tell them that, as a faggot they disgust me. I should be allowed to express distaste for Islam to Muslim editor, but not be allowed to tell them that, a (insert suitable unpleasant adjective here) Muslim, I despise them. If that is what you are saying, and I am asking, not putting words into your mouth, then I agree with you. The one is a behaviour and the other an attack. I shoudl equally be able to do the reverse and approve heartily of the attributes. Oddly I may also tell the person that because they are homosexual a Muslim, or whatever, I approve of them, and I may make t personal.
But, if an editor here states that they approve of paedophilia (and here I need to make it crystal clear that I do not approve of it, and am not in any manner associating homosexuality with paedophilia either, though why I feel I need to say either thing astounds me), then they are blocked, banned or whatever, whether they abuse children or not.
In this world of wikirule and counter-wikirule it is clear that some things are approved of tacitly and others are not.
Rightly, we detest paedophilia and abuse of children, and we deprecate it, imposing sanctions on editors who mention it in any manner that appears to present it in a positive manner. Rightly, we detest Islamophobia, we deprecate it and and we do our best to prevent it. Rightly, we detest homophobia, except, well, we do not seem to do that with any particular consistency of approach. If we were consistent in our approach then much of this thread would not exist.
The foregoing are opinions stated for the purpose of logical discussion only. I am not homophobic, nor am I Islamophobic, and I detest child abuse. The first person singular has been used to present the argument, not as a statement of fact. FiddleFaddle 19:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo asked me some time ago not to argue the issue on this page; let's just say that the ban on pro-pedophilia belief per se is not a precedent I want to see followed! Your precise example - "they disgust me", said of an editor - might add up to harassment over time. You would have the right to say that homosexuality is abnormal, that you detest it, that you want a law against it, whatever, but not using this as a reason to dismiss or belittle another editor here or their contributions. Let's be clear though - you can harass an editor without crossing the sort of boundaries you describe. You could harass him for Muslim or for being gay, or for being fat or having poor fashion sense or having an issue with premature ejaculation according to his ex-girlfriend's comments on Facebook. We don't need a policy against deprecating premature ejaculators; we have a policy against harassment. Wnt (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clear what myself and another editor perceived, but I also know what DHeyward has said in their defense and believe their effort was a good faith attempt to address something in a creative manner. We cannot simply look at the words and expressions that offend us. We have to look at what is being said and why. For this reason I offer DHeyward an apology for my negative reaction to their comments. I think it may just be that the discussion has wandered a bit and gone off topic. I know Fiddle Faddle had a similar reaction, but I ask that we all try to have more patience in the face of our own perception and thereby giving editors an assumption of good faith even when we may feel their actions seem outrageous on the face of it. I do feel the thread has come to a natural close. I assume good faith on everyones part until they demonstrate a true lack of it. I don't believe DHeyward has demonstrated a lack of good faith effort on their part. --Mark Miller (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Another Bright Line Rule question
Jimbo, in January 2012, you said about an editor with a conflict of interest, "I see that you have not made any edits to article space (only talk pages) for many months - this is a very good thing indeed." However, less than a year before that, in March 2011, you made this direct article edit that removed sourced information from the biography of the spouse of your future spouse's former boss. In hindsight, do you consider your edit there to have been a conflict-of-interest concern, or is there sufficient separation between you and a future spouse's former boss's spouse? (Say that five times fast!) Do you feel that you exercised the best practice of the Bright Line Rule? Do you think you would today make that same edit directly to article space? Obviously, the Bright Line Rule has developed over time, and it will take additional time for it to become second-nature to everyone. Not trying to put you on the spot here; just seeking clarity in your interpretations of different COI situations. - 2001:558:1400:10:3175:670A:AA5F:9436 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Bright Line Rule is about paid advocacy editing - i.e. someone who is being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer. Nothing even remotely similar to that is involved here. While the edit might be legitimately be debated on other grounds, the Bright Line Rule as a best practice has nothing whatsoever to do with this kind of case. You knew that, of course, and are just trolling as usual.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, I realize that the IPv6 editor is tweaking you, but you reveal a fallacy in your logic. Because a client or employer (consider the Smithsonian Institution) pays someone to write on behalf of the organization (consider Sarah Stierch), that doesn't mean the editor engages in "paid advocacy editing". I think we would all benefit if you could be more thoughtful about the nuances of this matter, and not just ball up discussions and dismiss them as "trolling". - I'm not that crazy (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been extremely precise and clear about the difference between the two, in all cases and at all times including now. You are the one muddying the water. Of course the IPv6 editor is tweaking me - it's his lifetime achievement as far as I can tell. :-) Would it be helpful if I said "for the benefit of"? It means the same thing, and you and I and everyone in this discussion is already extremely clear on the distinctions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You have no idea what I'm not that crazy is talking about? You said, QUOTE -- "paid advocacy editing - i.e. someone who is being paid to write on behalf of a client or employer". Then you said you were precise and clear about the difference. Sarah Stierch was paid to write on behalf of her employer, Smithsonian Institution. By your definition above, that makes her a "paid advocacy editor". If you are saying that a Wikipedian in Residence, as a paid advocacy editor (by your definition above), should only ever make content suggestions on the Talk pages of articles, then your position is consistent. If not, then you are contradicting yourself. For the record, Stierch directly edited Wikipedia articles about her employer. - 2001:558:1400:10:D0CF:45B0:1484:CEA9 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh man oh man oh man. This is so amazing. Seeing this exchange here, I felt that I was transported back in time to identical arguments that I had in various project policy pages, except that instead of Mr. 2001, the arguments being advanced were being made by administrators with vaguely threatening writing styles and editors with 500 billion edits and a flawless record and no repeat no history of paid editing. As a matter of fact, one of the tactics Mr. 2001 employed just a few hours ago, questioning my editing history, was employed at least twice on this very page in recent weeks, once by an administrator who was and is an ardent defender of paid editing. It happens every time, I swear to God. Whenever paid editing is discussed, somebody of great experience, often an administrator I've noticed, trots out the "Wikipedians in Residence" and accuses me of conspiring to "ban" these virtuous people. As a matter of fact, it's happened on this very page not long ago. I can get the diffs. There is a culture here, one that is adopted by people who probably have no liking for Mr. 2001 or Wiki-PR, that is at variance with modern standards of conflict of interest. They actually agree with the cockamamie arguments advanced here, and have said so in the past. Sure we have many editors who want to deal with this problem. But Jimbo, I think you have to recognize that a far greater number of editors of goodwill, many stalwarts, simply do not want to ban paid advocacy editing and that is why it is not banned even though it has been discussed for many years. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Mr. 2001, what do you think of a Wikipedia Code of Ethics, that would put in one place all the various issues that seem to trouble people. In my case it's paid editors. In your case it's... oh I don't know, I guess pretty much anything that the Foundation or Jimbo does that seems slightly embarrassing in retrospect. For example, I notice that the Society of Professional Journalists has a pretty good code of ethics.[12]. In addition to mandating fair treatment for subjects, it deals with conflicts of interest in a very broad way, both real and perceived. Obviously Wikipedia's would have to be different in many respects, but I think the spirit embodied in this and other ethics codes makes good sense. Surely there will be some duplication with other Wikipedia policy pages, but I don't see the harm in that. What do you think? Sound OK with you? Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Barry Kort advocated that Wikipedia needs a social contract that covers ethical practices, and he frequently mentioned Lawrence Kohlberg's work in this area. I suspect he was really boiling it down to something like Kohlberg's sixth stage of moral reasoning: "Universal Ethical Principle — Individuals adhere to a small number of abstract, universal principles that transcend specific, concrete rules. They answer to an inner conscience and may break rules that violate their own ethical principles." So, a social contract for Wikipedia might say something like, "As a member of this Wikipedia community, I will be honest, respect the opinions of others, strive to gather and present factual information, and not condone others' violations of this contract." In such a utopian community, I could see paid editors announcing to their brothers and sisters, "I was offered $500 by XYZ Company to write a glowing, promotional article about their firm. I communicated to the company why I would not do that, and I negotiated a new price of $300 to write an encyclopedic article about their firm, proportionally representing the available factual information that honestly covers both the successes and faults of XYZ Company. They agreed to those terms, and without opposition, I will begin in the next few days." If the other Wikipedians were true to the social contract, they would likely respond, "Please proceed, friend. We look forward to this new content that will help fulfill the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. We will keep an eye out for your content, and bear in mind that we might advise in areas where you may not have adhered to your stated pledge to proportionally represent the facts." And the paid editor would respond, "Yes, thank you, I understand." Of course, Barry Kort was banned from Wikipedia, so good luck with such a social contract. - 2001:558:1400:10:4D84:2A43:5620:B633 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a code of ethics to me. It sounds to me like a parody of a code of ethics. But whatever floats your boat. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that you took my earnest example of a code of ethics as a "parody". I honestly did not intend it that way, and I will try not to take your assessment as something that would hurt my feelings. Perhaps I didn't communicate my example in a helpful way for you. So that I might better understand, do you contend that "honesty", "respect", "presenting facts", and similar objectives are not part of a typical ethical code? Perhaps you could provide an example of a code of ethics, so that we might understand your perspective? - 2001:558:1400:10:4D84:2A43:5620:B633 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Codes of ethics are not intellectual exercises. They are intended to prohibit, not to give a blessing to (as your example does) unethical conduct such as editing for pay. Therefore, I don't think it's serious. If it's intended to be serious, I appreciate it, but it isn't. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If codes of ethics are not intellectual exercises, then I suppose we should disengage our intellects before developing one. Just curious, Coretheapple... when is the last time you made a Wikipedia article edit that wasn't just a simple revert? Here is my most recent article edit; cleaning up a mess that Wikipedians such as yourself have presided over since 2007. Editing for pay is not unethical conduct, and your saying so tarnishes every single Wikipedian in Residence who has ever edited the wiki from their employer's venue. It would appear that you aren't here to discuss things rationally, but rather to just jam down our throats this notion that your view of paid editing (that it is without exception an evil practice) is the only possible correct view. You have fatigued me, and probably others. Congratulations. - 2001:558:1400:10:4D84:2A43:5620:B633 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
But your vision of a code of ethics is one that permits and sanctions paid editing, not of the "Wikipedian in residence" variety but PR companies hiring Wikipedia editors to edit articles about their clients. I wouldn't find that vision of a "code of ethics" to be odd, as it actually is a view very widely held within the Wikipedia community, if you didn't initiate this discussion with a very, very tangential, marginal, really non-conflict involving edits concerning the spouse of Wales' future spouse's former boss. A lot of people approve of paid editing, for sure, but I just find it strange that what appears to be the same person keeps popping up on this page to raise various ethical and quasi-ethical issues, while at the same time endorsing paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"the spouse of your future spouse's former boss": my gears jammed four times processing this, but the key word here is former. Generally speaking, people presumably would not be asked to adhere to a Bright Line Rule about former employers in relatively weak position to dispense good or harm. Eventually there would be fine-tuning of that against gaming ('Sure, I wrote the article for money, but I voted in the AfD on my own') but a lifetime ban on every employer, especially with all those extra indirections thrown in, is extreme. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If Mr. 2001 believes that there should be a restriction on editing of articles on "spouses of future spouse's former bosses" being covered by any COI or paid editing stricture, he should propose it at the appropriate place. Given his endorsement of paid editing it sounds like a rather odd approach to COI. But it's not for me to judge. Coretheapple (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It may also be helpful to point out that even after her employment with Tony Blair ended in 2005, the then-future (and now present) Mrs. Wales listed as a professional client the Tony Blair Faith Foundation Maternal Mortality campaign. Assuming that was a paid client-vendor relationship, we might say that the Wales family had a degree of "paid" COI regarding an article about Tony Blair's wife. It's a tricky thing, of course. Where do you draw the line? Suppose I am a property developer and my cousin owns a concrete company. He helps me win a huge contract to build an amphitheater at the municipal park, because he gave me his lowest possible price for concrete. A few weeks later, he mentions to me that his wife, a skilled public artist, would love to paint murals on the reverse side of the amphitheater. I hadn't planned to include murals in the design, but there is certainly money available in my large budget to pay a muralist for their work. Am I guilty of COI by hiring Mrs. Concrete to incorporate some murals into my new amphitheater? What if the muralist is my cousin's wife's best friend? Should I put the mural project out to a competitive bidding process? Or, should I just tell my cousin that I didn't intend for there to be any murals, so I cannot now create such a project, even if it would in fact enhance the appeal of the structure? One thing we do know is that the Wikimedia Foundation has repeatedly awarded lucrative outsourcing work contracts to "friends" of staff or trustees of the organization, without the contractor submitting to a competitive bidding process. Are they guilty of improperly handling their COI? In the past, discussions on that very subject were snuffed out on Wikimedia sites by WMF personnel. That typically speaks volumes about just how "open" or "transparent" they really are. - 2001:558:1400:10:4D84:2A43:5620:B633 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you take such a hard line on conflicts of interest, I think I may have a real soul brother here. How would you propose that the purported "conflicts" you outline above be dealt with in a COI policy or Code of Ethics? Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I already outlined how conflicts of interest could be properly handled in a code of ethics, but you mocked my effort as a "parody". I won't be arsed to provide you with another opportunity to twist my ideas into grotesque forms of counter-argument. Enjoy your day, as I am done with you now. - 2001:558:1400:10:4D84:2A43:5620:B633 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm just trying to make sense of your position. (see above) I certainly meant no offense. Anyway, what I was asking here wasn't about paid editing but how your concerns could be dealt with in a code of ethics. How would you deal with it? Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If I understand his position, it is that the world is entirely corrupt and so therefore we should embrace and allow it. His position has been rejected by everyone who has seriously looked at it, but that won't stop him. Particularly if he can engage in vague insinuations about me personally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say you don't understand the position he's advocating. Here's what I'm gleaning from the IPv6's comments. If editors are encouraged to disclose their potential conflicts of interest, and their content is watched through that lens but not unfairly savaged by "non-paid" editors, then that will lead to a less corrupt transfer of knowledge to the encyclopedia. For example, ABC News is not prohibited from reporting on its corporate owner, the Walt Disney Company. They disclose at the beginning or end of their report that they are owned by Disney. And viewers don't typically jump up and down and claim that the story is therefore prima facie unacceptable or evil or corrupt. I think the IPv6 is also saying that when any "rule" is imposed by an authority on other editors and organizations, it's very important that the authority hold itself to a standard of the highest interpretation of the rule they've imposed. How does it make you feel if you see an off-duty police officer going 15 mph over the speed limit, weaving in and out of traffic, because he's late for dinner? - I'm not that crazy (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an extremely weak and unpersuasive analogy. Wikipedia is not owned by Disney and the good people who write the encyclopedia as volunteers need not put up with the savage compromises that we see in other venues. A closer analogy would be for Disney to pay New York Times reporters directly to write stories about Disney. This is a problem that corporate-owned media has to cope with as best they can - it's a problem that we can simple reject, at the root, as being anathema to our vision for the world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The analogy seemed strong to me. Your counter-analogies are really the weak ones. You say "Wikipedia is not owned by Disney". No, its trademark is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, but Wikipedia doesn't produce its own content (Wikipedia is an inanimate collection of data), and the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't own the content on Wikipedia. The content is owned by the contributors, licensed to the public for free, under certain terms and conditions. Given that, the Wikimedia Foundation cannot really speak for the content, as an owner would. Disney can speak for the content of ABC News, as the actual owner. Contributors to Wikipedia can speak for the content, as the owners. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't really have much of a say in the content, only the hosting and the Wikipedia trademarks. The other analogy about Disney paying the New York Times reporters to write stories about Disney is very weak and unpersuasive, in that the reporters are already being paid by New York Times to write newsworthy stories about anything in the world, including Disney. No similar arrangement is in place on Wikipedia. And the Disney company already purchases advertising space in the New York Times, so by association, Disney is already paying New York Times reporters, and yet the world has not ended, has it? Many people have been trying to tell you, Jimmy, that your Bright Line Rule won't work in practice, unless the Wikipedia culture of aggression and disrespect and indifference to corporate concerns is completely reformed. Until then, there's too much incentive for paid editors (even paid advocacy editors, though they are probably in the minority) to disregard a Bright Line Rule and edit as a non-disclosed account, because that works more fairly for content creation than the Bright Line Rule. This is why no seriously proposed guideline or policy restricting paid editing in article space has ever been approved by the Wikipedia community. You can't have the Reward Board and Wikipedians in Residence, while simultaneously prohibiting paid editors from working in article space. Dismiss it as "trolling", but you might as well dismiss the sunset as "trolling" of a Bright Sun Rule. - 2001:558:1400:10:D0CF:45B0:1484:CEA9 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@JimboWales: I was actually going to respond to you when I was edit-conflicted by Mr. 2001, and I then had to run an errand. It's easy to dismiss outright the rationalizations, and tortured, self-serving arguments being dished up by Mr. 2001 and by User:I'mnotthatcrazy. But it can't be overemphasized that the rubbish being offered up here are the kinds of arguments that are made repeatedly whenever paid editing is discussed - not by IPs and shills for paid editing but by experienced editors and administrators. They are actually mainstream excuses for paid editing. I've heard countless times that paid advocacy editing is "inevitable," that it's "here to stay," that it has to be "recognized" and "controlled" so we might as well forget about prohibiting it. This argument treats paid editors like dope fiends who will be around no matter what, and that they will be "driven underground" if the practice is banned. This argument seems legitimate even to editors not on the gravy train because indeed some paid editors have violated Wikipedia rules and been banned. But it treats the PR industry as a social problem and not as a rational and generally ethical industry that will not violate Wikipedia rules if told to go away. Paid editors know that they've won (sorry, I strongly disagree with your comment to the contrary), at least when it comes to formulating policy to ban paid editing. That is why they're so afraid of the Foundation acting and why Mr. 2001 argued above that the Foundation has no control over content. But it can ban paid editing in its Terms of Use, just as child pornography is prohibited. As another editor correctly pointed out recently on Sue Gardner's page, a meaningful COI rule cannot be crowdsourced. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would've guessed the key word was future. Any COI policy that requires people to know who their future (spouses/business partners/employers/priests/whoever) is likely to be seen as unreasonable by most people. WilyD 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
mail
I resent the mail to your wikia email addy.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Partly Resolved: The map image has been deleted from wikipedia commons however, the issues with some editors remain with feelings still hot over this sensitive issue. Additional discussion along with a potential wrong unblock can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Nyttend's improper unblock.
. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Like—Smurfs at last ... and Fiddle Faddle's 
