User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 158

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.

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

→

Suggestion for Wikipedia

two ideas that will make Wikipedia an extremely good web site:

A new font for Wikipedia, perhaps Calibri or a derivative of a easy-to-ready font.

in the View history section, add a new color purple to denote changes that both add and subtract bytes. Dark Liberty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

User-interface changes take years: Those are interesting ideas, but currently, large changes to the user-interface take months to approve and more to schedule. Also, Jimbo has noted the major impact of changing the way 500 million people are reading Wikipedia, and so a complete font change is unlikely. For the page-size changes +/-, the software would likely need to store the 2 counts of increase/decrease bytes, but it would be great to see combined +/- history counts such as "(+60/-68= -8)". In general, I have noticed how a small count, such as +4 or -3 bytes is almost always a small update of 1-3 areas of a page, whereas larger counts such as -53 often indicate several changes. Perhaps if there were 2 competing sets of user-interface designs, then Wikipedia's features could be improved in either interface within months, rather than years. Currently, progress runs at snail's pace, and common problems are typically not fixed, such as wp:edit-conflicts or the cramped page-format limit (wp:post-expand include size), while unusual rare things are altered instead, such as math-tag cache algorithms or writing music-notation markup (with tag: <score>). However, the authorization of the new wp:template editors has led to actual rapid improvements, with hundreds of templates recently updated after 2-3 years of stagnation due to lack of time/motivation to handle protected pages. -Wikid77 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really not hard to set font to be Calibri if you want. Just go to Special:Mypage/common.css and type the following:

p {font-family:calibri}

dd {font-family:calibri}

And save it, and you'll enjoy the, um, marvels of this font. (That is, provided you haven't set your browser to override the document font settings like I had, and forgotten about it...) For those who don't want to edit the css, just rub a little honey on your monitor and you should get the idea. :) Seriously, the way that Wikipedia minor format improvements ought to work is viral - you learn a little bit of CSS playing around with Help:User style, pass it on to your friends, once something gets some legs the devs can see about making it an option. Wnt (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Within a decade, not now. doesn't have to be Calibri, it could be a whole new entirely font that Wikipedia provides, that's up to the Wikipedia foundation. Dark Liberty (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a good idea for websites to be so prescriptive about the font used for it's "bulk text". Doing so would violate WP:Accessibility as users who have customized their browsers to use specific font types and/or sizes to accommodate poor vision would then have their setting overridden. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It's really very common for websites to suggest font-families - otherwise they'd all look the same. The browser setting can override this - for example, I had the browser set that way when I first tried using the CSS above and I didn't see any change at all. Wnt (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps responding to my excellency was a mistake, because I concluded that no font changes were necessary, and Wikipedia should stay as is, while reinforcing that any font change would not be browser-specific. We are not catering to handicaps, without any increase in filesize once the technology allows. Take it or leave it. Dark Liberty (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Death of a Wikipedian

February 20, 2014, during the protests in Kiev, Ihor Kostenko – an active contributor to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, journalist and geography student – died tragically.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is borrowed from James Alexander's mailing list post about Igor, but I find it fitting:

Whether our lives and our deaths were for peace and a new hope or for nothing we cannot say, it is you who must say this.
We leave you our deaths. Give them their meaning. We were young, they say. We have died; remember us.
--Archibald MacLeish

Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

See 2014 Ukrainian revolution, perhaps that gives some meaning. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy for letting us know. I recognize the name. I am sorry for his family's loss.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There was some argument about notability of the article on him - originally in the main space then moved to User:Ig2000. The Ukrainian Parliament (Rada) decided to give Hero of Ukraine status to all supporters of the revolution who were killed [1] but the decision requires the President's signature an so it can only becam the law after election (do not expect the ousted President to give orders to people who has ousted him). Since Heroes of Ukraine are inheritably notable it would remove the problems with notability. He seems to be a very good guy, quite active on Ukrainian wiki and helpful on en-wiki. Condolences to his friends and family Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I think there is a meaningful and enduring way to memorialize Ihor Kostenko worldwide. Imagine that, near the end of each calendar year, the WMF ran a banner on all projects calling for nominations for an Igor Kostenko Award to recognize a Wikimedia contributor who has diligently worked (for example) to document contentious social issues in a way that is deeply penetrating, professional, and comprehensive. You could arrange for a board of volunteers to select a winner, then create a press release in coordination with the editor that highlights and explains an ongoing social issue he was working on. If the editor desired, he could accept the award at a WMF event in a public way, but the news of the selection could always be released first on February 20, so that reporters covering these stories would always take a moment to explain who Ihor Kostenko was and what the day means. And just maybe, by educating more people before a conflict comes to a head, some day one of these award winners will have stayed some future sniper's hand and saved some other Ihor, even if we will never know it. Wnt (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Wnt's idea is a very good one and one that ought to be implemented. Prayers for Kostenko, for the other martyrs on the altar of freedom, and for their families.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that correct spelling of his firs name is "Igor"50.143.130.25 (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of these things myself, but List of people killed during Euromaidan uses "Ihor". According to Ukranian language, The Ukrainian language, in common with Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian, Belarusian and southern Russian dialects has changed the Common Slavic "g" into an "h" sound (for example, noha – leg).^[2] Wnt (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

the ninth day

Tomorrow, February 28, is the ninth day as Ihor died.

February 26, 27 and 28 mark the ninth day of death on the Maidan, with most of the dead being innocent victims.

Let us commemorate them.

Each of those who died for us is like the Lamb of God: innocent, with heart full of love, forever our intercessor before the face of God. The worth of each is equal to an armed army consisting of millions.

These days each is commemorated by tens of millions of Ukrainian citizens and by billions of mankind in the entire world.

Let us not forget that Forgiveness Sunday soon dawns on us.

— Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 16:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for making a free uncopyrighted encyclopedia A915 (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Paid advocacy editor donors

Jimbo, we know and support your firm stance against paid advocacy editors -- they have no welcome here at Wikipedia. What if a paid advocacy editor's company presented you a substantial financial donation to the Wikimedia Foundation? Would you accept that donation on behalf of the Foundation, or would you tear it up in their face? Signed, 97.68.110.99 (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should accept their donation and ban them from editing. And then spend their money on a full-time employee to identify and block undisclosed paid advocacy editing accounts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in a Wikipediocracy thread that someone is already performing this valuable service free of charge. I suggest a better use of funds would be the hiring of a few more experienced software engineers. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

that someone is already performing this valuable service free of charge Whom? KonveyorBelt 22:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I had the same question. I looked on that website and didn't see anything. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My answer was humorous but the actual proposal is not. I do think we should think about asking the Foundation to invest more resources in helping us to defend Wikipedia against the forces of darkness. That might take the form of engineering resources to some extent, but it could (and I think should) involve some community management resources as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. 2001 has an ongoing thread, about 11 pages x 50 entries long... Carrite (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mr. 2001 admits on a regular basis to sockpuppeting to secretly edit for his clients. I hardly think he's an appropriate person for the job.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, have you read that thread? It's pretty impressive work. (Of course he socks for clients as well. The point of the exercise on his part, I presume, is that paid editing at WP is massive, pervasive, and that he has been unfairly targeted.) Carrite (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's his point. We should also add that a big part of his work there is to attempt (entirely unsuccessfully because it isn't true) to show that I'm a hypocrite and allow friends/partners to engage in this sort of thing. But my point is: a serious discussion of this issue can't really start with assuming that Mr. 2001 is our best line of defense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The thread in question is this one. Easier for the gang to know what you're talking about when you add the link, Carrite ;-).

FWIW, Jimmy, having the WMF create paid positions to investigate paid editing makes waaaaaaay more sense than putting lynch mobs and/or unpaid (and uninsured) checkusers in charge of the effort. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, my friend, I think you and I both know why I didn't link to that, although your link is up for a little while without being revdeleted and you being hauled to ANI for a serious crime against the state... Obviously, you can't have identification of paid editors without identification of editors, which is why the whole notion of banning paid editing is a bit silly under existing "outing" rules. If WMF wants to get serious about Real Name Identification and Sign-In-To-Edit, then and only then will it be possible to chase and toss paid editors successfully. The level of support for that on-wiki is probably in the neighborhood of 5 to 10%, just guessing. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That message thread on Wikipediocracy is useful, but it's also grotesquely hypocritical, very much like the occasional message threads we have on this page in which paid editors bemoan the sorry state of ethics on Wikipedia and the terrible ethics of a founder. That Wikipediocracy thread's aim is to undermine the competitors of one particular paid editor. He's amusing, and certainly knows whereof he speaks, as well as a longstanding grievance that is not entirely unwarranted,but he has a commercial interest as well as a personal axe to grind. Finding undisclosed paid editors is not hard, however, because all that one really has to do is go through company articles one by one and look at their editing history. Coretheapple (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the real question is: is WP better off with or without the mass of company articles? Because volunteers aren't gonna write them... As I've mentioned to you before, one big takeaway from my oDesk ad seeking a paid editing gigs on WP is that paid editing topics are all very, very, very boring. You might even add one more "very" to that... For those topics to exist as WP articles, they're gonna be done on a pay-to-play basis, and that's a fact. So is WP better off with these pieces or without them? I'm not entirely clear on that myself. I think they're probably inevitable at this point, as is, by extension, paid editing. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe paid editing is "inevitable at this point". I think there are a lot of people taking advantage of Wikipedia to cash in and in some ways that's predatory behavior, especially if you consider that all content paid to be here is going to be deleted if discovered. Are these people having their cake and eating it too? Are they getting paid to contribute material bound to be deleted if uncovered and still keep the cash? Is stealth editing any better when honesty is thrown out the window in order to make a buck on the backs of honest editors?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark, you say: "especially if you consider that all content paid to be here is going to be deleted if discovered"? That is so patently false, I'm not sure if you're deliberately misleading the reader, or if you're just utterly misinformed. We regularly see paid content "discovered", and yet nothing at all is done to delete it, or even trim back the self-promotional tone. - Checking the checkers (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to mislead the reader? All I know is this, when a paid editor is discovered and confirmed to have been paid to provide content, I see it get deleted and then returned in a different form by others if it is relevant. Sure, I suppose there is no way for this to be true every time, but in most cases it is, because we are encouraged to remove all content from COI editors that violate policy and guidelines. The only thing is, COI and paid advocacy editing are not the same thing. A theatre producer who wants to promote his theatre and his work will stick the content into the main city page and fill it up with very promotional content, but he wasn't actually paid by anyone, he just has a financial stake in promoting himself. Sure, go after that editor too much and they will just accuse you of holding a grudge and almost all of that content remains on the article, but that is because of a consensus of editors that the COI was not enough to remove the content altogether. Now our standards have changed and that may no longer be the case, but the last time I confirmed a COI editor I was told to go ahead and remove all the content from that editor that was blatantly promotional...and I did.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuff that's overtly promotional is routinely (but by no means invariably) removed all the time, without regard to who writes it. But professional p.r. and paid editing firms, and the individual entrepreneurs who ply their trade on Wikipedia, have refined techniques that allow them to insert articles about their clients in Wikipedia, and/or elevation of articles about their clients to GA status, all the while remaining within Wiki rules. So they promote the hell out of their clients, creating neat little advertorials, all the while gathering garlands and atta-boys and barnstars by the truckload. They openly proclaim that they are paid, and if they feel like it they deign to disclose what they do to other editors, but absolutely never to readers. Readers think they've got an article by Wikipedia editors on their hands, but it's really a slick piece of p.r. So you have a cottage industry that has grown up over this, and the Foundation is, in its own chickens--t way, dealing with this exploitation of the Wikipedia brand. Sometimes they're not slick, but it doesn't matter because paid editing is permitted by Wiki rules, and articles prepared for purposes of promotion are hard to delete. Coretheapple (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"[P]aid editing is permitted by Wiki rules" It is? Could you elaborate on that please? I think I get what you're saying here but want to be sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it. I'm surprised you ask that. Take a look at WP:COI. It's just a guideline. Take a look at the TOU discussion on Meta, and the thousands of words that have been poured into discussions in RfCs of various kinds in recent months. I encounter paid editing every day, perfectly acceptable, admitted and permitted, It shouldn't be, but it is. You might have noticed my discussion with Carrite at the bottom of this section. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's true that only the most promotional articles on non-notable subjects are deleted. I commenced an AfD recently on an article about a product of marginal at best notability written by a person openly affiliated with the manufacturer, and it is by no means assured of deletion. In fact, it stands a good chance of being kept, giving that manufacturer an advertorial in the pages of Wikipedia, paid for by WMF donors, defended by Wikipedia editors. Pretty dreadful. Is that a reason to allow paid editing? On the contrary, it's yet another reason to ban it. Should we tighten up the notability standards for companies? Probably. But that deficiency is not a reason to sigh and say "paid editing is inevitable" and let that blatant corruption continue to taint Wikipedia content. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, see, here's the thing: you depict paid editing as "blatant corruption" and I think it is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that has always existed since WP got bigger than a breadbox, is currently existing, and will always exist. It is not corrupt on the face of it, any more than paying the neighbor kid $20 to mow your lawn is "corruption" of the landscapers' art. We do all agree, every one of us, without an exception, that WP articles need to maintain NPOV. We do all agree, every one of us, without an exception, that paid editors have a subtle or overt interest in "cheating" on NPOV and therefore need to be restricted in some way. The question is, how does one get rid of the problematic editing, if one assumes that paid editing is inevitable? Chasing paid editors around with whirring chainsaws just makes them hide. They need to be brought to the table, informed of the rules, and their output closely scrutinized. Carrite (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they need to put out of business, not treated like heroin addicts that you need to coax off the hard stuff. Paid editing is a parasitic business model, not a social problem. Banning it will effectively get rid of the paid-editing mills, because only the sleaziest clients, those without codes of ethics required of most companies bigger than a breadbox, would hire a firm to violate a website's Terms of Use. Yes you'll still have the would-be rock singers and corner restaurants writing articles about themselves, and you always will. But that's not paid editing, really, it's COI editing. Mr. 2001 and his ilk like to conflate the two because, you see, they are in the paid editing business. Coretheapple (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing is not a "business model" — it's the simple exchange of a service for cash, which is fundamental in all capitalist societies. Now, each of the big paid editing firms have their own business models, which differ one to the next. ODesk, for example, works on a commission system where they bring together sellers and buyers of free-lance writing skill and collect a percentage of the billable amount (adding 11.1% to the freelancer's ticket price so that they gross 10% of the total amount billed — it's an arithmetic thing, don't think about it too hard). That's their business model. I'm sure there are others. But paid editing is essentially a simple sale of labor-power to perform a more or less distasteful service — spending time writing about something really, really, really boring. Carrite (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The operative term is "business." If predicated on violating a company's terms of use, it is not a business I or any rational person would want to be in, or would hire. I would find another way to get my company's name before the public. A self-written Wikipedia article is a cheap way of getting one's image, crafted by the company, out on the Internet in a top-ranked Google search. Make it a "black hat" practice and I don't see companies bucking it. I happen to believe that American corporations and organizations, large and small, are fundamentally honest and want to do the right thing. Others view them as drug addicts who will find any way to get their self-written words into Wikipedia. Not my view. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the question that WP couldn't ban paid editing given standing "outing" rules if they had the will to try, which they don't........ Put yourself in the place of the owner of the ABZ Informational Solutions software company. Competitors A, B, and C already have Wikipedia pages — no way that Mr. ABZ will be taking "no" for an answer, and there is no way to get the GNG-compliant articles for Competitors A, B, and C out of WP. No volunteer in their right mind is gonna waste half a day gathering sources and writing up ABZ Informational Solutions, describing the history of their signature RebWarePro package or the company history, that big merger with DynamasticSynchTemp back in 2009. Oh, and the MacaVedian spinoff in 2011, I forgot that. Don't worry, there are sources showing for all this in the trade papers... Again, NOBODY is gonna write that as a WP volunteer. So Mr. ABZ has a choice: (a) Do nothing and face a competitive disadvantage against Competitors A, B, and C. (b) Put on a "black hat" and write the page himself. (c) Hook up with the neighborhood kid and pay him $20 to mow the lawn. You'll see a little bit of B and a lot of C. But you're kidding yourself if you think businesspeople surrender to their competitors to be polite, 'cause their competitors have already set what is now a long-established precedent... Carrite (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand completely your point but here is the problem with it: you say, no way that Mr. ABZ will be taking "no" for an answer and various other statements along those lines. Your premise is that Mr. ABZ is just obsessed with Wikipedia, that it is a big priority for him, so big that he might break Wikipedia rules in pursuit of this obsession, to rectify this so-called "competitive disadvantage" as you put it.

We are Wikipedia editors. We spend time on this site, working on articles, doing stuff like that. For some of us, our worlds revolve around Wikipedia. We are unusual. In the vast world out there, very few business owners are so obsessed with Wikipedia that they would violate Wikipedia's terms of use to rectify a "competitive disadvantage" that they don't have an article, or an article of sufficient depth and glory, on their company. For a businessman who runs a company, there are 10,000 things of greater importance in life. His life revolves around his business, not Wikipedia or the search results that he gets on Google. True, as I am acutely aware, at the present time we have large companies deploying p.r. people to massage their Wikipedia articles. But they do so in strict accordance with the Terms of Use. If the Terms of Use told them to be gone, they would be gone. For the owner of a business of any size to be so obsessed with Wikipedia to behave as you suggest, he would have a totally skewed view of reality. He wouldn't be fit to run an elevator much less a company.

So no, to respond to your scenario, unless he is borderline crazy, Mr. ABZ is not going to do any of those things. He's not going to give a damn. His PR man is not going to give a damn. If his PR man notices, and cares enough to try to fix his absence of Wikipedia coverage by hiring a Wikipedia firm, he will drop the idea in a flash if it turns out that Wikipedia doesn't allow that kind of thing. That is how a real businessman thinks. Coretheapple (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I've already bumped into this phenomenon first hand from real world, personal experience. I know of what I speak. If competitors A, B, and C are in WP, D is going to get into WP. And E. And F. It's not "crazy," it's the natural way that business people are wired. At a certain scale, it becomes somebody's JOB to have a presence on the web in the social media — and that means on WP. Terms of use? Might slow down a few, won't touch the big majority. That's sort of like trying to stop a departing football crowd from crossing the street with a new jaywalking ordinance. Carrite (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So first you talk about a business owner and now it's a some pimply faced social media guy in a cubicle somewhere? Some of them barely know how to wipe their rumps. Sure, they'll do black-hat and worse. Then they'll be discovered and fired. OR not. Doesn't matter, the Foundation has got to do what it's got to do. It has a franchise, and it has to protect it. Again, I have a lot more respect for corporations than you do and a great deal less regard for the allure of Wikipedia in the outside world. Sure, the Foundation has been letting an entire industry spring up to build up corporate brands at the expense of Wikipedia's reputation. Ending that is a survival imperative, because Wikipedia cannot afford to see its reputation shredded even more than it already has been. As for jaywalking ordinances: you may have read in the NYC papers recently that jaywalking results in traffic fatalities, and that jaywalking tickets are now being handed out in greater numbers. We have jaywalking ordinances even though people jaywalk. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

2nd-tier treatment for COI, resumes, or non-English

I suggest to avoid those COI or non-English pages. When trying to update thousands of articles for the wp:GOCE, the Guild members see many pages which are either tagged "COI" or wp:PEACOCK or read like resumes (CV) with lists of personal accomplishments or books written, etc. It is not unusual for copy-editing of a resume-style page to consume 2 or 3 hours (to rewrite as NPOV text or trim lists), so my response has been to re-tag pages as "{resume-like|date=__}" or "{cleanup|date=__}" for some rainy day years from now. Meanwhile, we have experts lamenting the quality of our core, wp:VITAL articles, while we have been polishing many resumes or corporate adverts. Likewise, numerous pages are half-translated, other-language transfers to enwiki, and because re-translation can be so tedious, I often re-tag those as {{rough translation}} with only partial copy-edit to reach minimal coherence. I understand how those COI pages cover notable topics, but we need to draw a line. Due to all the distractions from COI, resumes or non-English pages, I think more people should follow wp:5000 or other lists of major articles to be updated. Otherwise, WP is becoming a bottomless pit of Knol-wannabe adverts which should be given 2nd-tier treatment. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass restoration of URAA-violating files

Hello, Mr. Wales. In all my time on Wikipedia - and it's been extensive, I have never sought to rock the boat too much. However, I don't know how else to get the attention of the WMF, so I'm going through its former leader.

The WMF board recently passed a resolution stating that Commons did not need to complete a mass deletion of URAA files. Some users have taken it upon themselves to hold a "vote" to restore the already deleted URAA files, despite clear instructions from the WMF previously that such a thing should not be done.

The discussion is here: commons:Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Predictably, it is full of bad reasoning, most prominently a lot of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:JUSTAVOTE, and a lot of people misstating the facts on the ground (e.g., that it is a "misinterpretation" of the URAA to assume that these images are copyrighted, when the Supreme Court unequivocally just stated it is not). Seriously - I recommend you take a look at the votes in favor - the strong majority are very poorly reasoned.

Just as a judge is under no obligation to enforce a law which is plainly unconstitutional, so I am not under any obligation to recognize a community "consensus" which plainly runs counter to the aims of the project and WMF. And restoring copyrighted files without an OK from the WMF is exactly such a thing - and yet that's about to happen. This is really bad, because I am absolutely willing to use my administrator tools to make sure this doesn't happen - which will result in me wheel warring, and probably a successful request for my deadminship. Does the WMF really want to have to decide what to do when Commons decides to desysop one of its most prominent administrators solely because that administrator has enforced the WMF's rules and deleted copyright violations?'

And I am in fact a prominent administrator: I was recently elected a checkuser. Additionally, I have written and maintain by far the most prolific bots there - they have 770,000 edits between them. My bots are instrumental in helping the (very small number that we have of) page patrollers to find copyright violations and other out of scope material.

And make no mistake: Commons is already >< close to becoming a cesspool of unmaintained copyvios and duckfaced 11-year-old selfies. We are absolutely in a crisis. The number of deletions has been cut in half since only a year ago, despite the fact that the number of uploads has increased in the same period (source - and my personal experience tells me it's been even worse over a longer timeframe). If you want to see how many completely stupid pages we get and never take care of, take a look at one of the galleries that my bot maintains (link). You'll find literally hundreds of useless selfies and copyvios which are uploaded every day and never deleted (this is an unpredicted and unfortunate side effect of the new mobile upload tool, and the fact that the new upload wizard simply makes it easier for newbies to figure out how to upload copyvios).

As such, I strongly request that the WMF step in. If the decision is that we should restore URAA copyvios under some sort of US fair use clause, I can accept that. But I will not stand by while Commons willfully distorts a recent WMF statement to restore a bunch of copyright violations.

Thanks for your time. And please pardon me if I am unintentionally climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. If there is someone around who is sane and loves free content as much as I do, feel free to smack me with a trout.

Regards. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This all comes around, ultimately, of the question Why Commons? Is it an entity to coordinate the illustration of the various language encyclopedias? Is it an independent entity to curate the storage and dissemination of copyright-clear graphics files, which may or may not be used to illustrate the various language encyclopedias? Commons thinks it is the latter and it has selected a mission bigger than its capacity for administration. This completely independent of the philosophical question revolving around the slogan "Wikipedia is Not Censored" and the practical implications of that; and independent of the very real fact that Commons has accumulated a number of combative and problematic administrators, who are now entrenched in power.

I favor a radical solution myself: eliminate Commons altogether, let the various language encyclopedias host their own illustrations, and come up with new methods of inter-encyclopedia file sharing. Let the Commons Administrators so wishing fork and have their own Not Censored, Flicker Washed Utopia of Non-Germane Files. It's actually a reasonably simple way to go. Problem solved. Carrite (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the grounds for Magog's complaints. The uploads by new users are much nicer than I expected, not too many random snapshots and a modest fraction of copyvios. These cannot possibly be avoided in any image server that allows anyone to upload material. The decision to undo deletions based on URAA appears to be based, at least in part, on the belief that much material was deleted in error. If the WMF says there's no rush to delete the material, then there's no need to do it badly. Any practical web firm (Google, Facebook) puts a higher priority on allowing users to do things than eliminating all copyright violations proactively. Do you expect Commons to be the first fully sanitized server? WMF's efforts would better be spent on rallying users to support some new initiative to fight URAA in the United States, so that American content creators from the lone blogger to the Hollywood studio have the same freedom to vacuum up public domain material as their international competitors. Wnt (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(some are better than others; you may have looked at one that was patrolled. Try looking at the old version of this page, where about half of the uploads by users with only one contribution are now deleted: commons:Special:PermanentLink/117194043. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll concede that substantial numbers of images have been deleted, representing a lot of admin work [3]; nonetheless, even for the newest users, this is less than half the uploads, with many of the others being obviously valuable content that is well worth some administrative overburden. The bulk of the deletions [4] represent proactive copyright enforcement, which is sometimes simple copy and paste from the web, but also often that a new user simply failed to pull down and specify a license term and didn't look back, or presumptions based on deletion discussions, or out and out copyright lunacy like people not being allowed to take a picture of statues in the middle of downtown (or sometimes, even "artistically" designed stairwells or landmarks like the Eiffel Tower!). I can't expect new users to avoid all of that - nobody in the world can predict or replicate copyright decisions with any accuracy, whether they are made by a supreme court or a Wikipedia volunteer. Wnt (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, although half of the files were removed, this doesn't mean that all copyright violations have been removed. It takes a lot of time to tag and find copyright violations, and there might be several copyright violations left on that page. I often find several week-old or month-old copyright violations on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the problem is really with the deletions. The issue is that many people do not understand the WMF's position, or Commons policies, so they think the deletions are problematic when they are not. The unclear recent Board statement didn't help. --Avenue (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot has to do with the faulty policy that needs an immediate reform. Commons is the centralized repository used by ALL wiki projects from ALL countries. This one-sided view of it from the United States point of view is harming everything. The argument that it's hosted on servers in San Francisco is EVEN MORE problematic because EVERYTHING is hosted there, including the he.wikipedia.org and es.wikipedia.org (where 100s of PD-Israel photos were mass-deleted under URAA IN THE FIRST PLACE)! If the he wikipedia can upload their photos as public domain there, why is commons being overly anal about it? So much cherry picking going on it's crazy. As for the BoT reply, you are right. It seems to have been left intentionally ambiguous; that's not helping anything either. --CyberXRef^☎ 20:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Because of the way DMCA safe haven provisions work, the Wikimedia Foundation must not keep any copyright violations which the Foundation is aware of. Even if the Foundation happens to know about some violations, the Foundation must to pretend that it does not, and the Foundation must not recommend users to violate copyright law. Otherwise, the Foundation risks being personally responsible for some or all copyright violations on Wikimedia projects, and risks losing a lot of money if sued by some copyright holder. This is why all statements by the Foundation are so vague. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Which clearly doesn't help anyone especially when the reply is used to direct the community (Yes, I know some like to argue otherwise). --CyberXRef^☎ 23:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: this just was just published by the Legal Counsel of Wikimedia Foundation: m:Legal and Community Advocacy/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge, it's one more thing to consider as you continue to pursue your radical position. It's pretty clear we don't really know where to draw the line regarding URAA; Deleting anything that could possibly, under a clear sky, at just the right angle look like a URAA violation goes directly against the idea of pushing back against overreaching. --CyberXRef^☎ 04:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed several of the URAA deletions since this was raised at COM:AN a few days ago, and all of them were clear cut cases of restored copyright. According to meta:Legal and Community Advocacy/URAA Statement, which was posted a year ago, they should indeed be deleted. (Quote: "The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing.")

The more recent statements by WM Legal and the Board have muddied the waters only in that they say nothing about what editors should do, but only talk about deletions by the WMF itself (which would take place only under specific and rare conditions). People seem to be reading this as overturning WM Legal's earlier statement, but I don't see why. Maybe failure to distinguish between mass deletions (of 1000s of files) and bulk deletions (of 10s of files) might have caused part of the confusion, but that doesn't explain it all.

The truly radical position here is the proposal that we should knowingly host copyvios, despite a Supreme Court decision making it very clear that's what they are. --Avenue (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's clearly copyrighted and you can easily prove it, of course it should be deleted. No argument there. But many of the images were deleted even after there were strong evidence to the contrary. --CyberXRef^☎ 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an example (of a deleted URAA-affected image with strong evidence against it being a copyvio)? --Avenue (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

From that link I see:

"However, if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice, because these notices often contain information that is crucial to the determination of copyright status. Due to the complexity of the URAA, it is likely that only a small number of the potentially affected works will be subject to such notices. These guidelines differ from the more proactive systems currently used by the community for other copyright violations, but the complexity and fact-intensive nature of the URAA analysis makes a more active approach imprudent."

This tells me we want to keep unclear PD/URAA photos so that the legal team could see what's involved in such a notice. If such notice ever arrives. --CyberXRef^☎ 07:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There are a few issues which may make the URAA status unclear:

If a work is published in the United States within 30 days after its initial publication, then no restoration takes place. Photographs of important events are often published worldwide when the event occurs, so some photographs will be exempt from restoration because of this. There will typically be more photographs in the media in the country where the event took place, than in other countries. Therefore, not all photographs of important events will be exempt from URAA, only some of them. If a case goes to court in the United States, I assume that it is up to the person claiming that the work is in the public domain to show that it was published in the United States within 30 days, and that the person claiming to be the copyright holder doesn't need to show anything.
If a work is created by a citizen of the United States residing in the United States, then it is also exempt from restoration. For example, if a publication contains a photo by "an anonymous foreign tourist", and the anonymous tourist happens to be an American, then the photograph is exempt from restoration. Of course, identifying the citizenship and country of residence of an anonymous person is difficult.

I'm not sure if these are the "ambiguous" cases that the Foundation refers to. The uploader is typically required to show that one of these special cases applies, or else the file will be deleted. Another source of ambiguity is that the copyright status in the United States usually depends on the date of first publication, which is often unknown. For example, if a painting was drawn in 1922, then we don't know whether it already was published in 1922 (making it PD) or whether it was first published during the following year (making it copyrighted). It is very often unknown when paintings and photographs were first published as images tend to come from third sources which do not reveal the publication history. On Commons, files tend to be deleted if they impossibly can have been published before 1923 (or whichever other year the copyright status depends on), for example if they were created after 1922. In other situations, it is more complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page.
Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk)

May I ask

to put this graphic on your user page? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll just note that I put the graphic on Jimbo's user page about an hour ago. It was reverted and I explained to the reverter and put it back in. In any case I won't start an edit war about this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I like it, please add it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I just sent another email to you, saying, among other things - Thank you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Could this also be added on Image description? Paid_contributions_amendment, we might be able to get more people to give comment.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 22:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to tie it to a specific campaign.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, is it good? if someone didn't agree with this they may revert it. Thanks Jimmy.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 23:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Meh, too easy. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

May I update the image to an svg version with better clarity and a little better graphics?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Same design, better clarity - why not? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'll use the original SVG handshake (I was tempted to use the Editor retention hands but that changes the look too much) and copy the rest for a little better clarity and improve the graphics a bit but stay within the spirit of the original.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. When this graphic was mentioned months ago I put it on my user page too, and the new one looks much cleaner. Well done :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Mark Miller (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are awesome! Yoadi (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

I must say, it is quite an honour to be messaging you, sir. :) --What the Heck am I doing here? 05:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

What if you pay yourself?

Jimbo, is it paid advocacy editing if you're advocating for yourself? For example, this recent edit wasn't paid for by anyone, but presumably it could promote a greater income for the editor who made the edit. Do you consider that particular edit to be a promotional one? Do you presume that the editor is self-interested (considering the User name)? Is he placing his own goals before the goals of the Wikipedia project? Is it "advocacy" editing? We would like your judgments on this matter, because (as Carrite's recent comments show) there is still a lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes "paid advocacy editing". - Checking the checkers (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We've had rules about this forever, see WP:COISELF.

Now, I've got some questions for you. Are you editing for your own self interest? Are you a paid editor or are you editing as an entrepreneur (as your example might be described)? Are you a sock of the banned editor Mr. 2001? Why do you bother people who are simply not interested in your opinions?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer at the present time to define "paid advocacy editing" pretty narrowly to avoid wasted time talking about borderline cases - a classic rhetorical tactic of those who oppose reasonable measures to deal with the worst abuses. Having said that, I think best practice clearly frowns on edits of that type, and that if Mr. Kessler really did make that edit, it was inadvisable at best. (Note well though, the possibility of a Joe job).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum - I have removed a typical insulting and uninformative comment from Mr. 2001/Checking the checkers because it was nothing more than insult and ranting. I did not say, and have no opinion without looking into it - which I have not - this particular case is a Joe job. I do think that in every specific case where an individual real human being is being singled out for criticism, we have to look into all possibilities as a matter of thoroughness, dignity, and honor. If Mr. 2001 were to take the same approach, he'd likely not be so ineffective at every single thing he tries to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"So ineffective at every single thing he tries to do"? Even in the 'one lasting marriage' category? - Just sayin', that's all (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As I just mentioned, and I can understand why it was swept out along with the other comment, I think that Mr. CTC/2001/2006 serves a valuable function by keeping the paid editing discussion alive. I'm totally burned out on the subject and have long lost interest, but I'm glad he's still interested and is willing to keep the issue alive. Coretheapple (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason Checking the checkers isn't being identified by name is because that would be a violation of the WP:OUTING policy. I have a question of my own about "paid editing" vs. "paid advocacy editing". It seems to me that if the new Terms of Use are put into place, then "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." I wonder if Jimbo believes that for paid editors (note, not paid advocacy editors) a nice mutually beneficial ground would be for them to charge customers for writing high quality NPOV articles about their companies, with sources and verifiability, but for them to work with well known and respected wikipedians who are NOT being financially compensated to actually enter the articles into Wikipedia upon their own independent judgment? Back in 2006, a long-time Wikipedian once said of MyWikiBiz: "Since MyWikiBiz is open about the fact that he's being paid, we can have reasonable NPOV and AfD discussions and not have to guess about his intentions. ...He has been nothing but civil, so far." It sounds like self-disclosure of paid edits was actually Gregory Kohs' idea, and that Jimmy Wales (in October 2006) stomped on that idea. Now, in 2014, Jimbo is in favor of the idea of full disclosure again. I'm confused! - 70.89.23.178 (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I don't understand the desperation. You've been winning. Why not just let the status quo continue? Continually unfurling the banner of a paid editing shop isn't going to do you much good. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation versus the community

hi Jimmy: in this essay, a community liaison states that the Wikimedia Foundation outranks the community. regardless of your relevance to Wikipedia, some give your opinion enough weight that i am compelled to ask whether you agree with the Foundation employee who wrote the essay: does the Wikimedia Foundation "outrank" the community? Mister 2001 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Atually, a correct way to write this might be "In this essay, a Wikimedian, who later became a contractor and a community liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation, began an essay that stated that....". IOW, she wasn't a community liaison when she wrote it. Order matters here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction - the essay was begun by a WMF liason. it was not "written" by that employee. As with all articles on Wikipedia (including essays which are opinion and not fact) it was written by a number of editors as seen in the history. As far as the opinion of others, it may go one way or another, but yes....the Wikimedia Foundation is the sole owner of the site. The site and the domain names are owned by the foundation but your contributions still belong to you. Per WP:OFAQ#WHO:

Who owns Wikipedia?

Who owns the Web site? Wikipedia's tech framework is supported by a non-profit parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, which also supports Wikipedia's sister projects, including Wiktionary (a wiki dictionary), Wikibooks (textbooks), and others, and owns all of their domain names. Previously, the site was hosted on the servers of Bomis, Inc., a company mostly owned by Jimmy Wales. With the announcement of the Wikimedia Foundation on June 20, 2003, the ownership of all domain names was transferred to the Foundation. The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view.

Who owns the encyclopedia articles? The articles hosted on this site have been edited by many people, each of whom has (by editing the article) agreed to release their contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. As such, the articles are free content and may be reproduced freely under this license. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Readers' FAQ for information on how you can use Wikipedia content.

By law, the contributions are still owned by the people who donated them. These people are not bound by the license and can use their property in the way they like. However, media with multiple authors require permission from every contributor to use them differently from the terms of the Wikipedia license.

--Mark Miller (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Without approving or disapproving of the details of the essay, I think the basic principle is both sound and necessary. There is way too much snark in the essay, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mister 2001's contributions history does not inspire confidence that he is looking to have a serious discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree but felt compelled to comment in as serious a manner as possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There is so much fear on the paid-editing gravy train that it's palpable. Imagine if finally the WMF did what it should have done a long time ago and simply banned paid advocacy editing. Here we have a common sense essay pointing out the obvious, which is that Wikipedia has an owner, and here we have a capitalist who makes his living in a parasitic business, saying that this is wrong and that a socialist communal imperative should prevail, Coretheapple (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...what?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm just noting that a certain well-known paid editor is going to great lengths to attack the TOU change, and I don't understand the panic. Coretheapple (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the "paid editor" to which you referred, but I am gravely concerned by the proposal for a change to the terms of use that describes edits as "deception" and allows anyone to make such accusations against any editor at any time. It is impossible for editors to prove they are *not* receiving some form of benefit. The examples of "benefit" (which the WMF has tried to obfuscate now that some people have noticed the expansiveness of the proposal) includes things like receiving a t-shirt or a meal (any "money, goods or services"). Unfortunately, there's a great deal of handwaving about paid editing, but very little evidence that there's any greater bias in edits that are paid for than edits that are not. A large number of the articles created in the latest paid editing "scandal" are still present, and many that were deleted still easily met our notability standards. There is not a good faith editor who hasn't received some sort of benefit or reward from their work on Wikipedia. Nobody has yet demonstrated that people who are paid do any worse at editing Wikipedia than people who aren't paid. Meanwhile, there's lots of evidence that people who want to push a point of view will not hesitate to accuse editors of being paid or otherwise having a serious conflict of interest (q.v., the Arbcom archives). The proposal is one more tool in the arsenal for people who are motivated to go after their opponents, and does absolutely nothing at all to improve the project. Risker (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is not a good faith editor who hasn't received some sort of benefit or reward from their work on Wikipedia." Such as? I trust you mean something other than "It's nice to improve the article on XYZ" or "It's challenging to fight vandals" etc. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Those intrinsic rewards are, I assume, what keeps you coming back. There's also community respect, as demonstrated by the granting of advanced permissions or other roles with special responsibilities, or the awarding of successful completion of audited content (FA, GA, FL, etc). That warm fuzzy feeling is a major motivator. On top of that is the very significant number of Wikimedians who have obtained paid employment or other benefits (grants, scholarships, etc) at least in part because of their participation in WMF projects; this goes all the way up to the WMF executive offices, and there are plenty of people who will at least privately acknowledge that working for the WMF is an objective. There are all the GLAM interns, for whom a sound knowledge of WMF projects is a job requirement. There are all the people who have received scholarships, those who attended Wikimedia-focused meetings (all of which are subsidized), all of the people who've included their volunteer activities on Wikipedia on their CV (the office will tell you, if you ask, that they regularly verify that User xxx completed xxx hours of volunteer activity, as well). You've received a benefit from editing, even if it's just the satisfaction that you've shared knowledge. We are all paid editors, because we all receive some kind of benefit or reward for being here. In fact, of all the studies that have been done, the one thing that's pretty much come through is that people don't stay if they do not receive some kind of recognition or reward. There's no difference between a line on your CV and a paycheck, and people who pretend otherwise are kidding themselves. In reality, the line on the CV is more valuable. For that matter, you're posting on the talk page of the user who has had the largest financial benefit from Wikipedia. I don't begrudge Jimmy a penny of it, because he reached into his own wallet back in the days when there was no such thing as fundraising, and kept this project alive in its infancy. But make no mistake, he's received well-earned rewards, both monetarily and in personal reputation, from his work here. Risker (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a massive drop of context. The problem is not "oh no someone might make money". The problem is "oh no client will expect advocacy for their money and there is always going to be an appearance of impropriety when someone is editing on behalf of a client - particularly when undisclosed". Let me make this point another way: Bill Clinton got very famous from being President and since that time has made a ton of money giving speeches. Whether you like him or not, whether you like that or not, it has to be agreed that it would be very different if a sitting President were secretly taking money from the oil industry to decide which laws to veto - and that's true even if the secret contract were to specify "This funding only compensates the President for the act of deciding, no matter which way he decides". We'd all very rightly regard that as a silly fig leaf to cover outright corruption.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's actually quite a big difference between you and Bill Clinton. For one thing, Clinton didn't begin his speaking tours until after he'd left office; you're still on the board and wearing the founder hat even as you write your response. In other words, you're still in an extremely powerful position, one that has the opportunity to put pressure on the WMF staff and your board colleagues for a WMF-wide policy when English Wikipedia hasn't buckled and implemented the policy you've been personally advocating for at least 7 years. I'm still trying to work out what happened between when WMF staff had WikiPR pointed out to them and the months-later media reports. Risker (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And well he should. He gets a lot of static from certain quarters for his speaker fees, his this and his that. Piffle. He created this and it's successful so why shouldn't he benefit? But that's why the Foundation (I can't speak for them, but it's obvious) is taking on paid editing. A brand has been built up, and there are people who want to take advantage of the brand, in parasitic fashion. The WMF has a right to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate use of Foundation projects. You can say "we're all parasites, we all benefit" and I just don't buy it. What they're trying to do is to distinguish from common-sense, appropriate "profiting" as you put it, from Wikipedia and, say, running a business of churning out advertorials. They seem to know or to begin to understand the difference, so good for them. It's a shame you don't. Some editors seem to get it but many, including a great many very senior ones, just don't and never will. That's why I always tell Mr. 2001 and his ilk that he should relax, as he is winning. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Coretheapple, the Foundation is taking it on because they mishandled the Wiki-PR case and now they feel they have to do something, and this is something, so it must be done. We have had paid editors (i.e., people who get money for edits) pretty much since the inception of the project. There are entire wikiprojects that, whether they realise it or not, are dependent on paid editors to maintain and update information in tens of thousands of articles. (I'm not going to provide further details because someone will then go around banning those accounts and reverting all their good edits.) There's no evidence that paid editors are "churning out advertorials" any more frequently than unpaid editors: in fact, our overall article deletion rate is microscopic compared to several years ago. And lots of publicists and other paid employees of article subjects only come to the articles because of vandalism, bias, errors in information, or serious BLP violations, or edit the articles after making serious attempts to have these issues addressed by the community; see Sphilbrick's post below, where nobody even bothers to respond to the people who are following our expectations. A lot of the articles attributed to Wiki-PR editors were kept, and a very significant proportion of them were unbiased and factual; in fact, a lot of the ones that were deleted easily met our notability standards. We have always had it in our hands to make paid editing unattractive or unnecessary, by creating more robust and responsive systems to work with article subjects, and by raising and consistently reinforcing notability standards so that what are now borderline organizations, people, and products (the ones most likely to attract paid editing) don't even make it through their first hour. We can do this without creating a system that tags edits that practically scream "revert me!" to recent changes patrollers. We can do that without making every editor vulnerable to accusations of deception and violating the TOU. We can do that without violating the founding principles of Wikipedia, which establishes that anyone can edit, including anonymously without registration. Tagging edits as "paid" isn't going to do a single thing to improve the project; it won't add a single copy edit, or vandalism revert, or article improvement. It will just change things so that *who* makes the edit is more important than the content of the edit. Risker (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your argument is really over a fundamental vision of Wikipedia, and as such is really with the proprietor of this page. If you look at my user page, I've concluded long ago that paid editing is really a management issue, not one that concerns individual contributors. I feel it's bad for Wikipedia, but ultimately it's not my call, or yours, because neither of us are owners of the website(s) involved. Coretheapple (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Risker's argument equating the intrinsic benefits of editing with being paid is pure sophistry. They may have a few things in common but being paid is different - you owe your loyalty to your employer, not to Wikipedia's mission. If you don't follow your employer's wishes, he quits paying you. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones, I call you on the sophistry and raise you an irrelevant metaphor. You remember when the press made a huge deal about people from Congress editing the pages of congressmen, and when the edits were actually reviewed, almost all of them were (a) cleaning up vandalism, (b) fixing errors of fact (c) updating factual information (e.g. voting records) or (d) removing BLP violations. Everyone got all upset about "congress" editing its own pages - until they realised that their interests were the same as our interests.(For the record - I personally reviewed about 75 of those edits and there wasn't one that I looked at that should have been reverted, but several that did get reverted and shouldn't have been.) There is no evidence at all that the interests of the average BLP subject is anything other than having an accurate, current, non-biased article on this project, or that paid editors are any less likely to produce such than anyone else. Keep in mind, we've been wiping off "spammy" articles from Wikipedia ever since the deletion button was created, and there's a lot less of them now than in the past, when nobody was waving big red flags and suggesting that the project was overrun by paid editors. It's not, and this moral panic is just that. You keep talking about using "common sense". Well, common sense would say that if deletions are well down, and "spammy deletions" are well down, then spammy articles are less of a problem now than they were before. Common sense says that tagging edits makes them much more susceptible to deletion without suitable review. Common sense says that we have no grounds to complain if people don't follow our processes when we in turn ignore them and fail to follow our own processes, too. Common sense says that when you change the focus on the edit to who made it instead of what it adds, then you've fundamentally changed the core activity of the project from creating high quality content to a social network with a convoluted hierarchy (but we all know that "paid editor" will be on the bottom). Risker (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you turned over the New York Times copydesk to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce you might get some really serious grammatical improvements in the process of destroying the institution. Coretheapple (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, we've had paid editors around here forever. Some of them are net positives. Some of them are net negatives. They're no better or worse than anyone else. But here's the core question: why would any paid editor label themselves as such? There's no benefit to it, because their edits are extremely likely to be reverted, regardless of their quality or usefulness. So why bother? If their objective is to edit Wikipedia, they're much more likely to be successful without tagging their edits or their userpage than if they do. There's no incentive here to follow the TOU, especially if people who receive different benefits are treated differently. Risker (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If they're ethical, they'll abide by the TOU of the websites they are using. f they're not, they'll engage in sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and maybe other forms of puppeting I'm not familiar with. So what? The WMF is engaged in an effort designed to protect its franchise. Personally I think that reading arguments like yours indicates that given the amount of misplaced angst that greets the WMF's half-measure on paid editing, it should just go all the way and show some guts and just issue a detailed rule saying what is proper conduct and what is not, and make the improper conduct contrary to terms of use. Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the WMF is engaged in a PR exercise. It will do nothing to protect its franchise, any more than having checkusers submit ID that is promptly destroyed does anything to protect user privacy. The WMF finally conceded that ID submission without retention was just security theatre and recommended that the Board drop the requirement to submit ID. This is just theatre as well. Creating an acccount, then creating and editing an article, is not sockpuppetry. There is no rule against segregating edits or even having multiple accounts if there is no overlap of editing. If a company hires 10 people to watch its articles, keeping vandalism out and factual information in, and those editors don't know who each other is, they aren't socking either. The issue is that there is no evidence at all that paid editors behave improperly any more frequently than any other editor; in fact, one of the reasons people and organizations bring in editors who are paid is because of the poor behaviour of "regular" editors who WP:OWN articles and actively prevent improvement of articles. Please see the scenario I wrote up here and comment on what the steps would be when someone is accused of paid editing. If the WMF really wanted to "protect its brand" it would require verified identification of all users, with data retention, and required registration. But that would be too hard, too expensive and would go too far to be accepted by the community; however, I'm very certain that lots of the random IPs who commented on the proposal think that would be the minimum and might well be surprised we aren't already doing that. Risker (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if you feel that the WMF is acting in bad faith, and is advancing a crock of dung with an ulterior motive, I suggest that you make that argument on the Meta page where this is being discussed, if you haven't already. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think the WMF is acting in bad faith; I think they're acting in a panicked manner without really working out the consequences of the proposal, they haven't really assessed the effects of "paid editing", and they're subject to the same kind of tunnel vision that anyone else can fall prey to. I actually think they're pretty good people on the whole, and that they got caught with their pants down on WikiPR and overreacted, and this is the long tail of that overreaction. I've made these arguments in suitable places, but it's just as important to make them here where other people are pretending that it will be a panacea to paid editing, when really it won't have an effect. The ethical people already flag their edits or their userpages. Many of them have taken a great deal of abuse and have been treated in an extremely hostile manner, having done so. The lesson the community has been teaching professional editors (if they're being paid, then they're professional, right?) is that being forthright is far more costly than simply editing according to the core editing policies. Risker (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But that's not true at all. Editors who openly proclaim their COI, and who know how to work the system, do extremely well. They are given chestfulls of honors, barnstars by the truckload, proclaimed as "content generators" and model citizens. Indeed, paid editors who announce their COIs are able to use Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle to varying degrees, and indeed there is one "paid editor disclosure" that is nothing more or less than advertising. Current policies do not require disclosure by such people, and if you think that's right then fine, I'm obviously not going to convince you. But I have to say that I'm surprised that a person who feels that way holds such high positions. Or maybe I shouldn't be surprised? Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See now, there's the personal attack I knew was going to come eventually to deprecate my opinions here. End of the day, I don't see any difference between people who get a paycheck for editing Wikipedia and those who gain some other benefit that is significant for them. I don't see the difference between being paid by a GLAM to highlight a collection and being paid by SortOfFamousCelebrity B to get rid of bias and BLP violations. In the past two months, three WP administrators have discussed their links to paid/benefit editing. One was roundly castigated and told his paid editing was obviously biased (it wasn't, based on reviews by a wider audience). One, who had directly linked to the COI edits at the time and discussed them on the talk page, was more or less granted absolution, although the mitigating factors included that the edits were factual or adding refs, and that the person making the accusations was out of favour. The third one wrote an article about his own product, based on third-party reviews which he had sought; he only revealed it when that fact was about to be published on an off-wiki criticism site. It seems he has been forgiven, which is unsurprising given his widespread popularity throughout the community. Three admins, three cases: (1) editing for direct pay, (2) editing an article directly related to one's employment and (3) creating and editing an article about one's own product; three different responses from the community. There is no likelihood that this TOU will be applied any more consistently or fairly. Risker (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not a personal attack. It is an expression of surprise that I found that I was interacting with a member of the Arbitration Committee. I have no idea if the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over this issue. I hope not. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Implying that someone shouldn't have certain rights or authority because you disagree with them on a specific issue is pretty intolerant. It's also a good summation of the issue: you're not expressing concern about the quality of the work I am doing, you're expressing concern that I shouldn't have the right to do it (regardless of how well I do it) because I don't believe the same thing that you do. For the record, I retired from the Arbitration Committee after my term was complete, in early January of this year. My editing philosophy ("Our readers do not care one whit who adds information to articles; they care only that the information is correct.") has been posted on my userpage since November 2007, before I became an admin or was elected to the Arbitration Committee; my opinions on this page should be no surprise to anyone. More importantly, my five years on the committee, and working with checkusers and oversighters and stewards during that period, have informed me a great deal about how this change would actually play out. It will be used to make the editing life of targeted Wikipedians very unpleasant, to out them, to accuse them of being something they're not, to link them publicly with their personal information. In fact, it's already happened during the course of this debate, much to my distress. From my work on Arbcom, I'm aware that there are several individuals who have expansive dossiers containing personal information on probably any registered user who regularly posts on this page; certainly they number in the hundreds. I'm aware that there are many occasions where personal information of editors was used to drive users away from editing certain articles, and I know that the only way to give this proposal teeth is to permit people to make paid editing allegations onwiki - and to be able to support them with whatever information they have, which will no doubt include personal information. I know that this proposal will require all "paid" editors to have registered accounts, because it would be extremely inappropriate to post "paid" notices on the user/talk pages of IP addresses. I know that people who want to edit without flagging that they're being paid will keep on doing it into infinity, absent a decision that ALL users be registered and submit proof of identity, as long as they are consistently following editorial policies and stay on the "not-marginal" side of notability. I know through my Arbcom work that there are many "sockpuppets" out there that at one point fell afoul of WP user rules and have reincarnated themselves, and unless their behaviour or quality of work raises red flags, we'll never find them. I know that we could eliminate a huge percentage of paid article creation with more stringent and consistently enforced notability standards. So, yeah, I'm a former arb. I'm still a checkuser and oversighter and administrator. My opinions on paid editing don't have anything much to do with those "credentials", but those experiences have been instrumental in the formulation of my opinions on this matter. Risker (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, what I'm "implying" is that you have a totally skewed attitude toward ethics in writing, which I frankly find shocking in an arbitrator, former or present. Again, maybe I'm expecting too much. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, Coretheapple, you're just making it worse; that really is a personal attack. You're now accusing me of having corrupted ethics, instead of accepting that we have different views of what constitutes useful edits. I suggest to you that you start really looking at the project and seeing that conflict of interest and serious bias is endemic throughout the project, whether or not money is involved. I'm all for curating toward neutrality, and it would be a darn sight easier if we had more stringent inclusion standards and better responsiveness to concerns from article subjects. But when I hit random article 50 times in a row, most of the bias I'm seeing is coming from fans, haters, and people who are pushing a point of view; not much of it involves money.

What about working with me and others to elevate the notability standards? How about participating in OTRS or responding to COI edit requests? Be part of the solution here. What's proposed here is a panacea, it doesn't do anything effective to discourage the paid editing you're concerned about, and it doesn't "inform the reader" either. We can do better. Risker (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for elevating notability standards, and I'd be happy to participate in that dialogue, if there is one. But I don't think that any of what you suggest obviates the need to prohibit paid editing, if the WMF has any concern about its reputation and its brand value. I think that you need to look at the ethical standards that exist in publishing and think carefully as to whether your position is consistent with it. Justifiably or not, people look to persons like yourself for leadership on things like this. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, you do realise that the proposal we are discussing does not ban paid editing, I hope. It's intended to "flag" paid editing. And for some weird reason there seems to be this notion that people hired by GLAMs (i.e., groups we like) shouldn't be considered "paid editors", which pretty much makes the whole thing silly. They're probably getting a lot better paid than the guys who write a one-off article on Barely Notable Corp; the latter would be lucky to get $300 while the former will have a guaranteed salary for a period, provided they meet the expectations of their employer.... Risker (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That "GLAM" thing is just a total straw man, completely bogus, and I think that that comment, along with your absurd comment that paid editors are persecuted, shows just how out of touch you are with the reality of the situation here on Wikipedia. Yes, of course, this TOU change is a baby step. It is not even really disclosure, because the reader will not know, only other editors will know that paid editing is taking place. So basically it is a kind of internal mechanism solely for internal use on Wikipedia. But it is a step in the right direction. Sometimes nonprofit boards become slumbering and complacent, and that is what has happened with the WMF. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're awesome, Risker. But you're not going to convince the two of them. I don't know what Coretheapple and Smallbones' personal stake is in the matter of paid editing, but they have continually acted to abuse paid editors, especially the ones that label their edits and are open about things. Really, from what i've seen of editing on both sides, the anti-paid editing editors have done far more damage to Wikipedia articles on companies by making them extremely negative (and subsequently biased) whenever a paid editor is involved than i've seen any of the paid editors do in the first place. Silver seren^C 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who is or is not awesome, it remains a matter of ethics. To most of the world, in serious writing, one discloses financial COI; to not do so is seen as dishonest. We do not generally or prophylactically prevent people from doing most anything against policy on this site, however, we do ask them to reflect on it and try to conform. So, the more users reflecting on the ethics of COI in writing, as with our other policies, the better. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

See now, Alanscottwalker, I also see an ethical issue. What I see is a foundation that is willing to abandon one of its founding principles because of some unpleasant media, instead of highlighting how those founding principles are of great benefit to the mission of the organization. To me, that's almost a classical example of situational ethics. Risker (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Situational" would be not addressing a situation because you find it uncomfortable to address. As for principle, the principle of honesty to readers is pretty fundamental. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Situational ethics" are ones where people insist the ends justify the means. Colleagues of ours in other projects have already considered and resolved this situation; some don't have any problem with people getting paid to edit, others have come up with very effective structures to accommodate it. This is not an effective structure. Other possibilities haven't even been considered within the community, nor have those options been given. And exactly where did Wikipedia ever say that anything here was reliable? Our disclaimer says just the opposite; Wikipedia doesn't offer any guarantees or warranties on the information it contains. The kind of "honesty" that readers think exist is that everyone who edits is known to the WMF. Most readers are shocked to discover that it is possible to edit without registering with a real name and real personal information. Risker (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First, your continued accusations that the WMF is acting in bad faith are without foundation; can you not imagine that their interest is ethics in writing? Anonymous writing has an established societal valued past, which can be done ethically. On the other hand, COI writing does not have an established past, which can be done ethically without disclosure of the COI. Thus, you may remain as anonymous as possible as long as you 1) don't write on subjects in which you have a financial coi -- a choice which many already make because of the ethics of it; or 2) disclose the conflict - which many already do, because of the ethics of it. Wikipedia aims to be a high quality encyclopedia, sure it may never get there but that has not been a reason, yet, to stop trying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, I do not think the WMF is acting in bad faith. I think they're overreacting (the time to have done this was 2002-2005 when paid editing took root, but back then the community was rather astonishingly welcoming to people editing with even obvious COI). And we're not talking about COI editing, we're talking about paid editing. Frankly, almost every source that is used on Wikipedia is the result of paid writing. There has never been an encyclopedia or other reference work written where compensation was not a desired outcome. And, this may be a huge surprise to you, but the biggest issues of bias on Wikipedia have always been those related to personal beliefs and values, where no money at all changes hands. I think you're quite out on a limb to say that writing for compensation "does not have an established past"; almost all writing is done for compensation, and has been since at least the invention of the printing press. In order for Wikipedia to become a high quality encyclopedia, we are entirely dependent on published works, and almost all published works are done for commercial ("COI") purposes. Risker (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

When you accuse people of pursuing situational ethics, when there is just as good a reason to think they are interested in actual ethics, then that is an accusation of bad faith. And don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about what you claim I am out on a limb on. We are talking about disclosure -- paid writing is disclosed in all the situations you mention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no bad faith involved in suggesting that an individual, group or entity is pursuing situational ethics, and I don't understand why you would think that, unless your interpretation of "situational ethics" is a lot different from the standard one. Risker (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps you are unfamilair with the widespread meaning of the idiom you used to describe what you actually meant, when you used the phrase, "situational ethics." Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I know that the expression has been used pejoratively in certain situations; however, I wasn't basing my use on The Free Dictionary, but instead on the third paragraph of the Wikipedia article on situational ethics, which uses that phrase in a different context, identifying that there are indeed situations where people legitimately do believe that the ends justify the means, and applies to a large number of philosophical and ethical situations. That is an ethical debate for another page, though. Bit of a shame that page is somewhat out of date, but since I'm not gonna fix it, I won't complain too loudly. Risker (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not belief/emotion POV editing is a surpise to me (hint: it's not), its irrelevance here is plain; just because that other thing over there is an issue, does not mean this thing over here cannot be addressed -- and it is often the case that if one adresses one problem, others become easier to handle. After all, the antidote to such POV, always begins with disclosure of it, then discussion of it, and then the weighting of it. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, sometimes I wonder whether I'm on the same planet. Newspapers edit with COI. Conference chairs select presentations with COI. Books are published with COI, and I don't mean some commercial background, but a "real" COI like pleasing certain people, not damaging one's own enterprise, and so on. Wikipedia is no exception, and no rule will ever change it. WMF has of course their own COI when they try to paint Wikipedia in a better light than it already is. Not only are they overreacting, they are only reacting, based on some set of theories of what is wrong with Wikipedia. Unfortunately those theories are not well-tested, that's how every once in a while something is suggested (and pushed through) by the WMF that is entirely a bad idea. Hiring editors has the potential to become one of these, imho. --Pgallert (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic here. Newspapers and books also are published with errors. That does not mean that they can't try to correct errors. What I've noticed about this conversation is the view that there are inconsistencies within the administration of Wikipedia, that things aren't always done in a nice way, that sometimes there is favoratism, and that because of that there is no need to have any kind of ethical standards so we might as well let companies write their own articles. I just don't understand that kind of reasoning, if you can call it that. Can you imagine if the NY Times or the Encyclopedia Brittanica said, "We're cutting back on our staff, so subjects of articles are welcome to submit them, and they will be used in our news sections. But remember, they have to be neutral!" They'd be laughed out of existence, but I guess there are people on Wikipedia, some in positions of responsibility, who would say "So what's wrong with that?" Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, those organizations hire only experts to carry out their editing, carefully monitor all the published work by their editors, and in particular give absolutely no credence to the concept of crowdsourcing. Wikipedia is pretty much the opposite of those organizations in every way, by deliberate and intentional design. Now, it's quite possible that you don't think the central philosophy of crowdsourcing is a good way to build an encyclopedia, and you'd have plenty of support for that position. The theory of crowdsourcing acknowledges that errors will be made and within the crowd there may be bad players, but that the crowd mitigates those problems. (Yeah, I understand why some people have issues with that, especially when I look at article histories and see one substantive editor and 50 bot or AWB edits...) Our brand, though, is crowdsourcing. It's not scholarly expert content carefully massaged and edited for a general audience (that would be EB) and it's not up-to-the-minute news (that would be the NYT). Risker (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Being the "opposite of those organizations in every way" is not something to be proud of. Those two organizations have ethical standards which are high. At the moment, Wikipedia is the very antithesis of best practices on conflict of interest. The WMF is waking up to that but it has a long way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My logic is that you won't turn an unethical editor into an ethical one by forcing disclosure. The ethical editors will automatically disclose---for them there is no need to introduce instruction creep. The unethical ones won't do it anyway, or won't do it properly---warn them, block them indef until they post a message that they got it, ban them if it was a lie. Changing TOU in a way as is proposed is a completely unnecessary step that will alienate some ethical editors, and not change an iota in others. It will fundamentally change Wikipedia, as it would de facto require to publicly announce one's private information. Hiring editors to counter COI will also change Wikipedia fundamentally: Why should I continue to edit for free if others are being paid for it? Hope that clarifies my position. --Pgallert (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an error to equate paid editing with COI editing. One problem is that paying someone, especially remotely, imposes a knowledge gap that can come out in bias. For example, if the subject of a biography is free to edit his article directly, he may weigh the merits of trying to improve his image against the risk of bad publicity and Streisand effect, or even just being fair and acknowledging what is out there is out there. He might even add 'negative' things about himself that don't bother him. But if he pays someone to do the work, there are two options: either the employee allows through too much negative material, in which case he is fired, or too little, in which case... there is little complaint. I think the employee will steer nearer to Scylla. The other problem is that our society is now largely based on the idea that you can delegate responsibility. A company is by and large not held responsible if its subcontractor hires illegal aliens or works with recruiters who charge people fees to get jobs in sweatshops in Malaysia. In the same way, what might be a big news item about a CEO editing his own article will just be a brief apology "sorry, we thought it was a better firm than that" when worse is done by a hireling. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Who owns the Wikimedia Foundation?

The Wikimedia Foundation article doesn't really answer this question. Perhaps there is no easy answer (who owns the United States Congress? The 1%? Who are the real "power users" of Wikipedia? Do the employees effectively control the board, as many large-corporation CEOs seem to "control" their shareholders?) Wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As a nonprofit corporation, The WMF doesn't have "owners" in the same sense as a for-profit corporation. Its purpose is to serve the public, and it has obligations that for-profit companies do not have. Coretheapple (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This might help[5]. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's good background. See also the GuideStar reports. I haven't looked at any of WMF's forms 990. What struck me immediately though, was that they took in over $39 million in revenue, but had less than $29 million in expenses. Which seems odd considering the "if everyone just donated $X, this fundraiser would be over tomorrow; we need the money to keep the servers running" tone of the fundraising appeals.

Regarding your position that there is a "need to prohibit paid editing", does this mean that editing by Wikimedia Foundation employees would be prohibited, thus "office actions" would be banned? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I use "paid editing" as a shorthand for what is sometimes referred to as "paid advocacy editing," meaning editing by advocates for people/corporations/entities. On the revenue/expenses ratio, it's really hard to judge from those bald numbers alone. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"paid advocacy editing," meaning editing by paid advocates for people/corporations/entities is what I think you mean. Couldn't we consider WMF employees to be paid advocates, editing for the corporation or entity called the "Wikimedia Foundation" and its interests? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We could, and probably should. It depends on how the Foundation wants to define it. Remember that the Foundation controls Wikipedia, and has every right to define prohibited practices. I can certainly see that the WMF, to protect its intergrity, would want to include WMF employees in that definition. Coretheapple (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Re your correction to my comment: yes, that's right. Paid advocacy. People sometimes say that all advocacy is bad, and feel that the existence of nonpaid advocacy somehow justifies paid advocacy. I do not understand that logic (if, again, you can call it that). Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Holy Strawman Batman! Nobody has suggested that non-paid advocacy justifies paid advocacy. Only that seeking to ban paid advocacy when all forms of advocacy are already banned, including paid advocacy, is a sign that something untowards is underway. Wily D 19:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to run into a paid advocacy editor who conceded that he "advocated." They all view themselves as assets to the project, as do their supporters. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to run into a Wikipedian who thinks that murder is best described as an "incident". Oh, wait. This advocacy editor seemed to think that, on one of his first Wikipedia article edits. Coretheapple has this habit of saying "I don't understand". I think that most of us who are wearily tolerating his trollish argumentation have come to understand that what he really means is, "For the purposes of mindlessly dragging out this argument by failing to acknowledge the wisdom of my opponents, I'm choosing not to understand your point of view, even though most everyone else can at least understand it, even if they don't agree with it." This discussion would really be helped along if Coretheapple and Smallbones would cease contributing to it. That would also enable Coretheapple to get back to his advocacy against the word "murder". - 198.178.8.81 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In fact, that's actually why the WMF has to step in. The Wikipedia community has been so hopelessly muddled, confounded and generally FUBAR on this issue, so tied up in knots over semantics and so ignorant of current ethical practices in publishing, that some adult supervision is overdue. Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the "adult supervision" part of your comment is particularly helpful - and I am otherwise generally in agreement with you on the subject of paid advocacy editing. Neutron (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

But don't you ever get the sense that there is a yawning gap here, a lack of real-world experience, a total misunderstanding of what ethics means in a publishing context? That's been my experience. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not exaggerating I think. It's a frustrating conversation, and yes, I'm growing weary of it and running out of patience.Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The "sense" I get is that there are a wide range of views on the subject, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. But the point I was making was about how we express ourselves. Saying that the ethics of the publishing field require "X" is one thing. Saying that people who do not share your viewpoint are in need of "adult supervision" is another thing, and (in my opinion) does not help advance the discussion. It is much more likely to divert attention from the actual issue. Neutron (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Prisons are full of men who profess to be innocent, and yet somehow they're mostly double booked. Paid advocacy editors have very few supporters - it's pretty easy to show up at a discussion anytime someone is found to be doing it and see how quickly they're indef'd. Which still leaves the unanswered question: What's the upside in banning something that's already banned? If paid advocates not admitting they're advocates when advocacy is banned, how would it change when they'd still not admit they're advocates when paid advocacy is banned? Simple logic shows nothing would change. Which still leaves the unanswered question: What's the upside in banning something that's already banned? Tough question. No surprise there's no answer. Wily D 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that the premise behind your question is incorrect. Paid advocacy editing is not prohibited, and its practitioners are not banned as long as they follow the rules (no sockpuppeting, NPOV, etc.). If they can work the system and not directly edit the articles they are paid to create and improve, they are lauded and praised and coddled. What this WMF proposal does is disclose to other editors when a payment is involved. It won't ban a soul. It's about as minimal as you can get. Remember that at least four and probably several other paid advocacy editors already follow one major part of the WMF proposal, which is listing their COI articles on their talk page. (Two and probably several other company employees, and two people in the paid-editing biz.) Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Point of order: there are two reasonable axes of interpretation of "paid advocacy editing": edits [of any kind] made by an editor paid to advocate for an entity or edits constituting advocacy, made by an editor being paid [for any reason]. Under the former interpretation, Coretheapple is correct that it is not prohibited; under the latter interpretation WilyD is correct that it is already banned since "edits constituting advocacy" are forbidden under WP:NPOV. alanyst 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I didn't think we were going to get into a legalistic argument, but the former definition is the one used by the Foundation, and therefore I think it is the one that we need to follow. See Sue Gardner's statement at https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Sue_Gardner_statement_paid_advocacy_editing?oldid=94021 "paid editing for promotional purposes." That's why I'm not enamored of the phrase "paid advocacy editing." It implies somebody standing up on a soapbox, when all it really means is that somebody hires somebody else to rep them on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

When I read in that statement the phrases "when the edits are promotional in nature", "all material on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia's editorial policies, including those on neutrality and verifiability", and "companies engaging in self-promotional activities on Wikipedia", it seems it's the second interpretation that the Foundation intended. Can you point to anything in that statement that unambiguously supports the first interpretation? "Paid editing for promotional purposes" itself seems more susceptible to the second, as "for promotional purposes" and "paid" both modify "editing"—the act, not the person. alanyst 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd much rather that the operator of this page, or the author of the statement, step in at times like this. We're not Talmudic scholars, poring over ancient texts. We're on some guy's talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone paid to advocate who adheres to NPOV ain't doing what they're getting paid for. Any and all reasonable interpretations of "paid advocacy editing" will find that it's already prohibited. "Well, what if they don't advocate?" - well, then they're not paid advocates. Ditto if they're not getting paid (or if they're not editors). Simple set theory. Paid advocates already operate in secret, knowing they'll get blocked. They'll not list their COI/whatnot on their user page, since they will get blocked. That policy will make it a little easier for Gardner's next letter to be specific/direct in her next letter when Wiki-PR mark II gets one, and in the interim we'll find out who among us weighs the same as a duck. Wily D 11:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I can't argue with you because you're logically correct. Ms. Gardner should step up to the plate and clarify. I'll ping her. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's worthwhile to drag this out, but I rather presumed the term referred to the person's normal role in the real world. A public relations professional is a kind of paid advocate, but whether they advocate here is a separate issue. Though in some countries there is a different marketing culture where public relations professionals are seen as consensus-builders between companies and their respective publics, rather than advocates. I prefer to just use normal business language like "marketing" rather than Wikipedia jargon. But if you insist on labeling me as a "paid editor" I think I will start referring to others as "free editors" since working for free is actually the more unusual between the two (*snicker). CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Free editors will be proud to be called that. Shove your snicker. --Onorem (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am just inserting some comedic relief of course and not trying to be snarky, but someone should create an image we can put on user pages that says "will work for free" (or something along those lines) CorporateM (Talk) 02:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason paid editing is not rejected is that a large group of editors value liberty and do not want anything prohibited unless there is strong evidence to warrant the prohibition. However, there is a strong group of editors who recognize that Wikipedia works because people enjoy contributing to free knowledge—it is doing something worthwhile that is attractive. Paid editors are parasites exploiting the encyclopedia that was developed and is maintained by volunteers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. paid editors are users who happen to get paid for what they do. The problem is with advocates, either paid or not, who intentioanlly violate our rules to get what they want. Most people won't see the difference because they either don't want to, or don't care to, but it is very important to have it in mind. — ΛΧΣ²¹ Call me Hahc21 02:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A non-paid POV pusher is often more damaging to the encyclopedia. They are more persistent and edit more important articles. In fact, editors with extreme views about paid editing are often POV pushers themselves, who lobby the community for their perspective and make poor edits to harm/benefit paid editors as a way to express their viewpoint.

OTOH, some forms of paid editing are especially damaging because they are done at-scale and have adopted sophisticated techniques. There is also something especially offensive about intentionally violating Wikipedia's rules for cash that makes it more insulting than regular POV pushing, regardless of the extent of damage or any logical argument.

One reason these conversations go nowhere is because they tend to be about paid editing in general, rather than various circumstances individually, as each case is unique. Certainly we don't mind a paid editor removing vandalism on a BLP, but then we may ask that they not since they may have a skewed perspective on what vandalism is... CorporateM (Talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not quite correct. BLP policy allows subjects of articles to remove obvious errors. You're conflating COI editing with paid editing, which is one of the confusions that has prevented this issue from being addressed adequately. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That example was top-of-mind, because a PR rep just brought to my attention a BLP that was vandalized and asked that a non-conflicted editor address it. I have written both BLP and company articles for pay. The most significant difference I see is that it is very personal for BLPs, which makes it even more awkward. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy is very clear that subjects can remove obvious errors, so it is not necessary to ask a non-conflicted editor. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we mark WP:Editor Review as historical?

Currently there is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Editor review#Mark Historical? on whether or not to mark the board as historical. Please weigh in and add your !vote one way or another for the broadest community consensus possible. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

COI edit requests

I don't really think this page should become a general notice board, but I know there have been intense discussions about COI issues, and that issue is a subject of great importance to Jimbo.

We want people who have a COI to avoid direct editing, and instead, post a request for an edit on an article talk page. If they actually do that, we would encourage that behavior by responding reasonably promptly. We are not doing so.

I left a general note at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Edit_requests, but this page epitomizes the issue—I count eleven politely worded requests dating to early January, not a single one of which has (yet) been addressed.

We need to do better.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is yet another illustration of why banning paid editing is not a workable alternative to company coverage given the current scope of WP. Volunteers are not apt to "waste their time" on topics they don't find interesting, important, or stimulating at some level. Some topics are by their nature gonna have to be pay-to-play for them to exist at all. Short of an enormous change in notability rules for private companies, book authors, etc. and a massive wave of deletions, we are essentially locked into a future in which paid editing is inevitable. Best to simply monitor and regulate these contributions to make sure NPOV is maintained than to try to remake the wheel by WMF fiat. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to cover gaps like this, what do you think of a system that is *not* pay for play (which is inherently and inevitably corrupting) but in which people are paid (by the Foundation) to respond to edit requests of this type. The only valid argument that I have ever seen for a system of bribery and corruption is that it would help us get more coverage of marginal business topics (though at great cost to our reputation and integrity). Our goal is to create the best possible encyclopedia, and I don't see any actual harm in the Wikimedia Foundation hiring a handful of excellent and experienced editors to work on topic of importance but which have not been of sufficient interest to volunteers to fully cover appropriately, thus leaving open this gateway to corruption.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a very interesting idea. Coretheapple (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple thoughts—part of me wants to support Jimbo's suggestion, and ask where to sign up :) However, I just became aware of the COI category. As part of the response at AN, some others didn't know it existed, so one possibility is that we simply need more awareness. I'm exploring some alternatives at my talk page, and will propose them when I figure out where best to do so. It literally may be as simple as flagging the cat more clearly when it is backlogged.

I do think User:Carrite has a good point that these types of edits may be inherently boring to most editors. However, I do a lot of edits (CSD, Prod, CCI) that are more boring, and most seem to get done, so I don't think the "boring" aspect convinces me there is no solution. That said, the wp:CCI backlog is not months, it is years, and those are boring. We just lost a very accomplished editor, Wizardman, apparently over CCI backlogs. If the foundation were interested in paying some editors for certain types of edits, I would want CCI cleanup edits on the list, along with COI edits.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Other backlogs include 1928 articles at AfC (some waiting since 2005),[6], 2900 articles waiting to be copy edited [7] and 1,605 articles waiting (some since 2009) to be merged [8] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@S. Philbrick. Totally agreed that if the WMF goes into the employing of Wikipedia editor business, that copyright cleanup needs to be included. I haven't thought enough about JW's suggested alternative solution above to have an opinion one way or another — I'm fairly sure there are unintended consequences associated with a move in that direction which may or may not prove worse that our current status quo. That said, kudos for a fresh idea, at a minimum. As I pointed out in the Norton case, the current CCI system is not scalable, best intentions and hard work of the handful of committed volunteers notwithstanding. Part of the problem has to do with the standards for accepting cases at CCI; part of the problem has to do with the totality-of-edits-of-problem-editors approach to investigations, instead of sampling to determine actual problem areas in terms of subjects or time frames. It's easy enough to open a CCI case and nearly impossible to close a big one the way things stand. That's a huge problem that needs its own thread, I doubt that too many people even know what CCI is at this point, let alone the size and intractability of the logjam. Carrite (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Jimmy, I obviously don't have the same concerns about paid editing that you do, so I don't have an inherent problem with the concept of editors being hired to deal with these sorts of problems. I do think, however, that if the WMF is paying people to edit, they're going to run into Section 230 problems. Frankly, most of the "marginally notable" companies could be addressed simply by raising the notability bar, which is something entirely within the scope of this specific community, although I have never seen you argue for that; maybe I just missed it. But hiring people to edit boring topics isn't the issue, it's the need to go in and clean up BLPs and articles about companies that are unbalanced that brings out most of the "paid" or "COI" editors. Nobody's fixing those problems, either; in fact, on several occasions where I've done so (as an oversighter, OTRS agent, admin or editor) I've generally been met with very significant opposition. I am more likely to try to delete articles about marginally notable people or organizations than I am to fix them, myself, but I'm often disappointed at my attempts. Risker (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- You have Section 230 exactly backwards. The whole point of it is that everyone is responsible for their own actions. The Wikimedia Foundation does not lose section 230 protection against whatever random people do, just because they also pay people to do good work. I urge you to study this issue before spreading FUD.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Nobody's fixing those problems, either". Now that is just exaggerating beyond belief. I just removed an image from a page that has been sitting there forever and was added to a city article by the producer of a play that has a financial stake in the production and only added the image to promote himself and his theatre. This guy has accused me of a personal agenda against him in order to demonize me and make himself look better. If you give up that quickly....you are more concerned about yourself than the project. And somehow....that doesn't seem to ring true with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  - - - Well, I don't usually give up, Mark Miller; thanks for recognizing that. But then I'm a tough old biddy who's been around here for a long time, and I've become inured to conflict, so I plowed through on those cases I mentioned, and I accept (sometimes with chagrin) the community's decisions at AFD. Then again, I have a rather hefty toolbag compared to the average editor. We have a lot of editors (someone once called them "exopedians") who just quietly work away and move on whenever they encounter resistance; their contributions are massive and vital to the project, and I have to respect their decision not to get involved in the drama machine that Wikipedia can become. Myself, I'm not sure I would have removed that photo for the same reason as you did; the article in question has far too many photos in it though, so it's entirely justified simply on aesthetic grounds. So I suppose that illustrates that people can reach the same conclusion though their trains of thought take different routes. Risker (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        Well it is a good point, but the original reason I removed it long ago (when it was just reverted) was that the city article should not contain images of a single production placed there by the producer himself as COI. He just slapped it back in and continued what some saw as ownership issues, but for me it was simple. It didn't represent the city or the arts community fairly or in a balanced manner and was not at all encyclopedic, but then it was just reverted by the COI editor thinking I could no longer bring up their COI or remove their contributions without singling them out. No, I just don't use their name any more at their own request...but I can continue to mention their conflict of interest. Small town producers are one thing of course and they still have financial investments in promoting their work...but then there are the bigger fish, the artists with major film credits using their own Wikipedia page as a political soap box AND tooting their own horn at the same time. Some of it is not worth any sort of fight or drama, but then if they are that notable...why do they have to fill in their own credits on their page? I see this a lot. One evening I was going through a very well known actors page and ran across large swaths that had been removed and was able to quickly trace the contributions to...his current wife who was removing information about the ex and then created her own page. It had all been reverted of course but anyone looking will be able to see the same thing. It is of no real benefit for COI editors to write their own information unless it is very well cited content and well worth the addition. If not they are placing their reputations squarely on the line just for...what...a longer Wikipedia page with their own name attached to the content? I don't know what is worse for them, the contributions that need not have been added and make them look self centered and egotistical or fighting the removal and putting an even bigger spot light on their themselves...and not in a good way.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        Or is the person posting the photograph a subject matter expert who had superior access? The town in question is widely known as a top "theatre" city, with one of the best local theatre companies west of the Mississippi, and a regular stop for visiting productions; this isn't really played up all that well in the article, curiously. Would we turn down personal photos from, say, Diane English, because it was of a project she was directing or producing? Nonetheless, as I say, we wind up at the same point through different routes. And that article really could use a cleanup all around. Risker (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        Oh, there is no doubt the COI editor has access to images, but not that no one else does. Much of what you say would be more appropriate on, say the theatre's page, his own article or even an article on the production itself if it were notable enough for an article, but for the producer himself to add his own production in the city article is a little farther than we generally accept. Now, I do agree that using a completely different route is still suitable as many times there are multiple reasons for the removal, but in this case the editor has a past history of overdoing it with images and edits about themselves. I would certainly agree that it is one of the best theatre companies in the west...but many other theatre producers in similar companies in the west don't seem to be adding production stills to their city articles. Sacramento has one of the largest theatre communities on the west coast but I don't see how adding a production still from any particular production would be an improvement to the Sacramento article. But with some editors, they are not just promoting their art but their political agenda. There are ways to contribute art to Wikipedia. There are ways to contribute political information, but if you are directly involved with either you stand in conflict of interest. Not that it is against the rules right now, just more of a strong suggestion.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  - The WMF seems to be well-funded, and if it wants to get into the business of paying people for doing scut work, well what's wrong with that? Personally I think it's better simply not to have marginal corporate articles. But if there is a burning need for them, and if donors don't mind, then I just don't see the harm at all. The articles for this paid system can be chosen at random from requests that are made in an open process. The only disadvantage I can see is that people will say stuff like "well what about X, Y and Z, aren't they more important to Wikipedia than an article on the Acme Finance Co.?" And they'll be right. Coretheapple (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
    - Coretheapple, if the WMF hires people to write content, it is very likely they will be considered publishers rather than hosts. That has major legal and financial implications: not the price of paying the editors, but the increased liability and risk that would come with it. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone would insure the WMF if it became a publisher, and speaking as a donor I'm not a big fan of having to build up an enormous war chest to defend against lawsuits that would range from the frivolous to the precedent-setting. Let's just say the editor legal assistance program wouldn't be sufficient. Risker (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      - True, that's a possible dealbreaker. Coretheapple (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
        It isn't even a remotely plausible objection. There is a common misunderstanding of the law (Section 230) which says that if the WMF is the publisher of any part of Wikipedia, it has to take legal responsibility for everything that everyone does on the site. That's false, and is exactly what Section 230 is designed to avoid. If the WMF pays people to write content, then it becomes legally responsible for any libel committed by those employees - but this is a very boring business risk taken on by every newspaper, magazine, etc. It is easily insurable and given proper training, is very unlikely to lead to any lawsuits at all. We aren't doing exposes here, we are writing encyclopedia articles which merely reference already published sources. The risk is virtually zero.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I actually had second thoughts along those lines and was going to retract my comment, but to be frank I'm finding this discussion to be wearying. I mean, we have the same discussion every month or so and nothing ever seems to get done. I do think that paying people is one possible way out. I guess that my main concern would be a feeling that other things warrant higher priority. Coretheapple (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy, I *might* believe that if it was coming from Geoff Brigham, along with a pile of case law to support it; but given the genuine problem areas aren't "boring" articles but BLPs, articles about geographic areas that are in dispute in the real world, and articles about corporations [in other words, subjects that correlate fairly closely with litigation threats], the risk is still very high. As I say, I don't know who would insure the WMF for editing there, and it would be fiscally irresponsible to proceed without some very expert legal advice and a formal risk assessment. Oh, and remember that many will believe that as paid editors they will be assumed to be presenting the WMF's point of view: after all, to quote others on this page, "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Risker (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

- The first priority for hiring paid editors to work on behalf of the WMF and the community needs to be BLP, if we want to be a responsible and respected organization. People have showed up at events and approached me in person asking for help with biography articles, which really brings it home that there are living human beings who appear in these articles. That said, Jimbo's suggestion of hiring editors might be worth some experimentation if it enables us to bring in people committed to building an NPOV encyclopedia to help moderate articles with a high potential for commercial COI. We'd need to select individuals who are knowledgeable as well as diplomatic and give them good access to paywalled sources for fact checking.
- And in general, if we could do something to ensure that we always have a few competent people on the job who are able to promptly to talk page concerns, (and consider giving talk page editors the option to flag posts that need a quick response), we could prevent a lot of drama. My impression from these discussions is that we may be reaching the point where we don't always have enough volunteers online with the skills for a moderator/oversighter role in dealing with BLP and COI. If this is the case, by all means, let's hire a few skilled people to pitch in. I think the problem here isn't a need to change our current policies on BLP and COI, it is that we need to build the capacity to respond promptly when there are problems. A new policy won't help if we lack the editors with the skill set needed to carry it out. We may need to consider time zone coverage when onboarding editors for this task, to ensure that our process works 24/7. Djembayz (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Already there is FUD being spread about the vagueness of the language of the proposed Terms of User modification, threats to out other people on the basis of paid editing, and revealing to all the world the names of people's employers for potential firing. It is worse given that it implies paid editors out themselves, almost akin to blocked editors being forced to put the {{blocked}} template at the top of their userpage and disclaim they are blocked, but this time with real life consequences. Wikipedia should not have to react to a crisis by setting up another one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: if the concern is as everyone calls it "accountability", why not just instate a policy requiring everyone to disclose their real life names before signing up on Wikipedia? Sure, you get to know their affiliations, close associations, friends, family, political orientation, the origins of their belief system, and especially what occupations they derive their income from - and then you get to explore the political and social ramifications of their COI, why they edit the way they do, what political beliefs they push for on Wikipedia, and why they are problematic to Wikipedia:Neutrality. The end result of this accomplishment would not only be publishing everyone's name on the Web for all to see, smear and attack (according to the CC-BY-SA allowing reuse for any purpose) but also potentially driving away a huge portion of the user base like myself who want to keep their identities anonymous. But by this philosophy, only those most ethically devoted to the accountability principle and the policies of this site would be willing to stay and contribute to Wikipedia anyway, despite their real names being published. Those who choose to leave for fear of publishing their real name, are acting out of their COI and wish to hide it, and should not be allowed to edit this site. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

On the idea of WMF paying editors

Forgive the new header but it's sort of a tangential topic. I spent a little time this morning thinking about JW's idea of WMF possibly employing editors to handle material which might otherwise run afoul of paid COI editing, made above. I've come up with a few potential issues, which I vet here. First off, a definition and a disclaimer: I am borrowing a word from the radical lexicon, "cadre," meaning in this context a trained, skilled Wikipedian, knowledgable in site rules, committed to the project, and capable of performing a variety of editorial and/or administrative functions. As for the disclaimer, I reaffirm a commitment I made off site to never "cash in" on WP myself — a promise I made to Mr. 2001 in most colorful terms that I can't repeat here owing to site rules. Regardless, I have no potential personal stake in this, that's what I want to say. I'm just brainstorming ideas here, which may or may not hold water...

Possible Problems

1. Discouragement of volunteer editors. — "If A, B, and C are getting paid for their contributions, why am I doing this for free?" A large scale move by WMF to employ content-writers is liable to have a detrimental effect on the all-important spirit of volunteerism.

2. Discouragement of donors. — Many donors give money to WMF because the venture is perceived as being strictly volunteer in nature, therefore deserving of support. A move to a paid content-writing staff might lessen the motivation of these individuals to open their checkbooks.

3. Removal of key cadres from the community. — To me this is the biggest concern. I've seen the number recently that 60 of WMF's hundred-and-some-odd employees came through the ranks of community editing and administration; double that number and the effect doubles. This has already had a bad effect. Just to give one example, User:Moonriddengirl/User:Mdennis (WMF) was one of the community's experts on copyright. She's now doing good work for WMF now, I'm sure, but more time there is less time here and there is probably a demonstrable relationship. The people who are most likely to be hired by WMF aren't going to be casual visitors to the site or newbies, they are apt to be important cadres. Moving them from what they are currently doing to paid work writing pages for marginal commercial and personal entities is apt to have a detrimental effect on the others left to do the job. Perhaps somebody at CCI can expound upon this phenomenon more fully.

4. Transference of a NPOV problem to a Notability problem. — I hope we all can agree that paid editors have a conscious or unconscious tendency to "cheat" on NPOV, adding the positives while removing the negatives. A paid employee of WMF would not have any such influence, in theory. However, I suspect that they will have an interest in "cheating" on Notability. Assuming a 6 hour workday in terms of productive time, there are probably enough hours in the day to write two, maybe three pieces. That's it. A good part of this time is spent rounding up sources. Now, if WMF assigns Company A and Author B to its (freelance?) employee, chances are that said freelancer isn't going to be in the mood to spend an hour gathering sources only to find out it was "time lost" because the subject doesn't actually clear GNG. There's apt to be a tendency to fudge it, same as there is now with the paid editing system.

That's essentially my take: the possibility of editor morale problems, donor morale problems, loss of key cadres, and an end result which is only marginally better than the current state of affairs. This is not to say that I'm necessarily against the idea of WMF employing content writers: grabbing the best of the current Paid COI editors and putting them to work for WMF might be beneficial to the project. It's possible. The thoughts of others would be interesting. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just thought of something else: 5. Once started, easily spammed. — As things stand, New Page Patrol is the main gate in front of spammy yuck pages. If an "official" content writer starts a page, there is absolutely nothing to stop a company employee or paid editor from jumping in and "improving" it... (nudge nudge, wink wink...). This would happen inside the gates and thus be harder to identify and remove. Carrite (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see these as significant potential problems. Paid editors should focus on tasks that the volunteers don't want to do or are hopelessly backlogged with. We don't need to pay anyone to submit low-quality articles about marginally notable people and organizations for creation. Others are already fulfilling that "need". Perhaps we need to pay editors to vet those articles, editors to find links for orphans, editors to patrol for copyright violations. We don't need to pay anyone to edit an article which is already drawing lots of traffic and edits. It seems reasonable to me for donors to want their funds to both pay for both server infrastructure and article quality monitoring and editing. A PBS donor knows their money doesn't just go to keep the transmitter on the air; it also pays for programming content. So, let me brainstorm a bit too. How about having the community decide (if consensus is possible) what particular tasks have overwhelmed the volunteers and thus need paid editors working to supplement the volunteer edits. Given that the Foundation seems to be sitting on a significant amount of unspent cash, there should be something available to support paid editing. But the Foundation, perhaps for legal reasons, doesn't want to be responsible for content editing. So, have the community take whatever funds that the Foundation chooses to make available for paid content editing and choose how to distribute those funds. Maybe, on a quarterly basis, vote to award the funds to the editors who have put in the best efforts and made the most progress working through the backlog of editing tasks that the unpaid editors don't want to do. I'd start any program of this sort out on a modest basis, tweak it based on results, with room for significant growth in such paid editing initiatives if they prove themselves to be valuable and successful. Editors wishing to participate in such a program would need to identify themselves to the WMF so that required tax information could be passed on to the appropriate government tax agencies in their home countries. They could be paid via Paypal or some other means. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Carrite and I don't see eye to eye on very much, but I think that these are valid points. I'd add another: if we're going to have paid editors for dreary tasks, why not pay people for vandal-fighting? Or creating the tools that make it possible to fight vandals, like STiKi? Etc etc. Paying people to write bios of half-baked companies is questionable, and is a kind of a cop-out as a way of combating paid editing. After all, another way of dealing with the problem is that, instead of paying people to write these company articles, you strengthen the notability rules so that you have fewer such articles. I think that those of us who don't see eye-to-eye on paid editing would agree that, as an interim solution at least, the notabiility criteria have to be strengthened in areas where paid advocacy editing is a problem. And trust me, it would not be easy to tighten the criteria. There will be a battle royale. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we might abstractly agree that the notability bar should be tightened for businesses, consultancies, etc. but in practice GNG will be defended to the last trench by content writers, and rightfully so. Then again, we have "high bar" rules for unelected politicians, so maybe some sort of SNG "high bar" for businesses might be created that doesn't touch the sacrosanct GNG. That's a hint and I leave that to you. Carrite (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a thought. This "paying editors" idea isn't really bad at all, if the difficulties can be overcome. But I'd much rather, for instance, pay the guy who invented our STiKI vandal fighter. He performed a real public service, totally for free, greatly aiding the project. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this system would really piss off the unpaid volunteers and would start a huge movement among the administrative caste that they all should be paid. I suspect strife between administrators and regular editors would as a result escalate. Just a guess, but looking at the chess board three moves ahead, that seems like a likely outcome. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would unpaid volunteers who have gnome-edited for years be "really pissed off" at the prospect that they might, if they voluntarily chose to participate in the paid-editor program, actually get paid some modest amount for their efforts? Especially if it was their fellow volunteer editors who decided who to pay? And I would have no problem with including tool writers in the program. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see how editors who are passed over for payment would resent it. It's human nature. This is not a frivolous or remote consideration. Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose some of these might be the same editors resenting their failed requests for adminship. There are probably volunteer editors resenting that their conventional job applications with WMF were rejected too. Editors resenting that they failed to become bureaucrats or arbitrators. I don't see how "fear of resentment" should be a reason not to do anything; otherwise nothing would ever get done. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

One issue that I'm surprised hasn't shown up yet (at least as I've seen) is the whole "money circle": In order to pay anyone, that money's gotta come from somewhere. Donations are fine for how we are now, but if we start to pay editors, that increases the amount of money that's needed. I don't know the exact numbers about the finances of the WMF, but I'm pretty certain that it's not enough to pay us. Even just paying the top few editors would start a slippery slope. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be the ultimate irony, would it not? An effort to stop the commercialization of WP begets the paying of "non-COI" editors which inflates the need for WMF money which requires the commercialization of WP to keep them paychecks a-flowin'.... The more I think about this concept, the less I like it. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Blood_donation#Donor_compensation appears relevant. And from the website of the Australian Red Cross: "Does the Blood Service pay donors for donations? No. The Blood Service receives only voluntary donations of blood. This is in keeping with international World Health Organisation and Red Cross policy that encourages the concept of voluntary non-remunerated blood donation to support safe blood supply." IjonTichy (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What really sours me on the idea is this: we'd be saying, in effect, that articles on obscure companies are more important to the project than other subjects that are equally if not more deserving of articles. In recent weeks I've been surprised at the subjects of great importance, far exceeding minimum notability standards, that do not have articles in Wikipedia. But no one has a commercial interest to write about them, so they don't get written about. So while my initial impression was that it was an interesting idea and worth exploring, on balance I have concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with almost everything you've said there, Coretheapple. There are lots of significant subjects whose notability isn't questionable that do not have articles, or have very short and obviously incomplete articles. However, I'll just point out in passing that there's neither commmercial interest nor volunteer interest in writing them. Even in our wildest imagination I do not think it is likely that anything more than 0.5% of articles that survive more than 24 hours in mainspace are written by paid editors. So at a minimum, the rest of us volunteers are writing at least 99.5%. (Actually, that would be a very worthwhile study to do...take one day's new articles and analyse, and another day from six months ago and do the same...) Risker (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

True, actually absence of interest, and Internet sourcing, is the main reason. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(By way of surreply: especially when minority people and others off the radar screen are concerned, I suspect.) Coretheapple (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia printed in 1,000 volumes

There are plans to print Wikipedia in 1,000 volumes.

Wikipedia 1,000-volume print edition planned—The Guardian (Thursday, 20 February, 2014)

I have these comments about the plan.

This might become a tourist attraction (with a QR code).
A reader might read an article in volume 123 and (instead of following a hyperlink) follow a plain reference to an article in volume 234. There could be physical exercise in walking and in climbing ladders.
Presumably there would be the usual imperfections in articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The preface for the 1,000-volume collection will note how wikilinks '[[__]]' will be termed "walkilinks" instead (sorry, I couldn't resist the joke). Perhaps Gates is behind the push for the printed version, trying to force, "The Internet is a passing fad" and all those 1995 wannabe predictions; email will be replaced by snail mail; the US Govt will re-order on its 600-year supply of punched cards. ;-) Wikid77 (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be intriguing, but with the editableness (if that wasn't a word, I'm making it one now) of Wikipedia gone, is it really Wikipedia? Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, how would it be funded? Would a printed edition still be free? A guy printed a single volume of 0.01% of Wikipedia and planned to sell it (don't know how far he got). See here. Jodon | Talk 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. When can I have youtube videos pressed on 33 1/3? Tarc (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's how 0.01% of Wikipedia would look in a single volume. I would think there might be a few strained muscles from such reading... Jodon | Talk 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the worst use of money anyone has ever thought of. Formerip (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There have been numerous news articles announcing this crowd-sourced fundraiser for $50,000 to print the English WP. A waste of time and trees in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope they pull it off. It's quite impressive, actually, and $50 a throw for one-off hardcover volumes is actually very, very inexpensive. Carrite (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Good news; but I wonder how they handle the attribution requirements, especially for media files. We have a concern about how Wikipedia handle it in printable versions, that we discussed; but didn't get a reply so far. J e e 08:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

They'll just do the same thing everyone else does: attribute everything to "Wikipedia"/"Wikimedia". Who's actually going to go after them with a lawsuit? --108.38.196.65 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Chicken George!

Me and User:Gogo Dodo were having a debate about whether to include the name 'Chicken George' on the Ben Vereen article and we wanted your input. He is known very well as Chicken George from the Roots TV series. Thanks. --Sålken Trøst (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about this topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The subject's name is "George Moore, not "Chicken George". The addition of the nickname should only be used once in the main article article and respect given to the fact that this is a real person with actual family existing today.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I also note that this doesn't appear to be discussed at all on the article's talk page Talk:Ben Vereen.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. Sålken Trøst was not just adding the character name in the Ben Vereen article...but in the infobox next to the actors real name [9]. We may have an issue here needing administrative intervention if this continues.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo is on it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure some people call Patrick Stewart "Captain Picard", too, but that's not his name. Neutron (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was standing next to this guy once in Sacramento at a local theatre I used to work for. It was Theodore Bikel and when I looked at him I said "Hey...your Worf's father"! He rolled his eyes and walked away from me without saying a word. True story. LOL!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the kind of thing that is best kept to yourself. And I suspect Ben Vereen had a similar reaction when Salken Trost and his friends saw him in the airport and started calling him "Chicken George", assuming he heard them. Neutron (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal from Wnt

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 158#Death of a Wikipedian. Could you take this up with the board or Sue? --Pine^✉ 21:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the idea of an annual award is an excellent one, Jimbo. Let's be sure that the award's criteria emphasize adherence to the neutral point of view. "Deeply penetrating" is a powerful and appropriate phrase, as long as it isn't confused with advocacy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes Cullen, lets start giving an award to honor the death of a well known and established Wikipedian—but first let's argue about Wikipolitics and paid advocacy before we honor his legacy. Jeez. KonveyorBelt 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The neutral point of view should always be a core principle, and really ought to be a unifying principle for all editors. I was not alluding specifically to paid advocacy, as I happen to believe that unpaid advocacy by those driven by ideology of any stripe is as great a problem as PR editing. If you don't share my mild concern about the phrase "deeply penetrating" in the proposal to establish such an award, then that's perfectly OK. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm extremely pleased that things are looking hopeful for this idea. But of course I realize there's a very good chance that Jimbo or the Board or others in the community would have thought of it anyway, and in any case they have by far the larger part of it to plan out and decide before it can become a viable reality. For my part, I feel that unpaid advocacy can be a good thing when Wikipedia is working properly - if people use their motivation to add and productively edit material rather than trying to silence an opposing view. Which is fortunate, because I also feel that every edit anyone makes to Wikipedia (if unpaid) is unpaid advocacy, whether it is about a movie or video game they like, a research topic or philosophical concept they find interesting, or a political cause they want people to know about. If people have no reason at all for wanting to take part in Wikipedia, they don't. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

We do need to be careful that an award isn't seen as an endorsement of any side of the Crimean conflict. However I think Wikipedia is supportive of freedom of speech; the killing of someone who is peacefully demonstrating for their political views, no matter what those views are, is something that I think we can all agree we oppose. --Pine^✉ 08:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reality check

The problem with the TOU legal approach, the "public embarrassment" approach, and the "Jimbo beatdown" approach is that it's an international issue. For example, this guy is easily seen to be an employee of this company, which happens to be offering Wikipedia Zero. Would the WMF sue him in a South African court? Would Econet be embarrassed that it's employee made "COI edits" on Wikipedia? Would they care at all about what Jimbo Wales says about them?

You had it right 10 years ago, Jimmy: anyone can edit, admins are no big deal, it's about writing an encyclopedia, and however we get to NPOV is worth the trip. How the heck did you get from there to here? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that now Wikipedia is one of the top ranking websites, and #1 for anyone who wants information on a topic. It is now ripe fruit, and it is being plucked. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's been "being plucked" for years; there have been paid editors on this project longer than most of us have edited. I've spotted paid and COI edits going back to 2002. And our deletion rate is lower now than it was in years past, despite much better new article reviewing processes, so there's no basis to think that we're getting more spammy articles or more non-notable articles in 2014 than we did in, say, 2007; quite the opposite, in fact. Inappropriate articles last under an hour on average. [Note on image: Namespace 0 = mainspace, Namespace 2 = userspace (draft), Namespace 5 = AFC (draft)] We'd make it even harder to add borderline/spammy articles if we raised notability just a tiny bit, particularly for businesses and people. Our low notability standards make paid editing a walk in the park. While we're at it, we could do something about really enforcing WP:BLP, which applies to all namespaces; and treating article subjects with respect and really trying to work with them. This is a collaborative project, after all. Risker (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess the paid editing thing mostly comes down to not fixing what ain't broke. The toxic culture that's discouraging the non-paid editors (who would in theory patrol the paid edits) is the real problem. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Azerbaijan?

Hello, Mr Wales, Are you aware of National Wikipedia Forum (http://wikimedia.az/forma/#.UxbAF_nV_X8) to be held in Azerbaijan by Wikimedia Azerbaijan (www.wikimedia.az)? Is this organization licensed with Wikimedia Foundation? Is the forum funded by Wikimedia Foundation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuintex (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 158. Graham87 12:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this forum, but that doesn't really mean much. I try to keep up with everything that is going on around the globe, but I can't. Wikimedia Azerbaijan is in discussion phase: "Writing bylaws / translating to english". The contact is User:Proger and will presumably have more information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Founder?

Is this the guy who created Wikipedia? TDFan2006 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's the guy who founded Wikipedia - many thousands of people have worked together to create it. Wily D 14:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sad to say Mr Wales but this is not acceptable behaviour/bullies

As amusing as I'm sure this is, it doesn't look like it is going anywhere very productive, and so I close it and invite the complainant to go through the usual channels.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A blitz accured on this page Valentich_disappearance to day and I did my best to return the page to the original stable edition before LuckyLouie went to town on it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valentich_disappearance&diff=598049807&oldid=598048151

And in came her henchmen... especially this gift to humanity, who seems to own wiki...

- NPOV does not mean that we give equal credibility to batshit-crazy claims by UFOlogists

- Read WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promulgation of credulous bollocks about UFOs, and attempts to present such material as an 'alternative explanation' for the disappearance of Valentich is against policy. I suggest that those who think otherwise find somewhere else to post their nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)"

This gang edit attacks on pages are not in good faith and target pages that don't fit the skeptics view. It is getting worse and in the end as it is not controlled will eat wiki. But no one is going to do anything are they. I have not got the time or energy to defend the page so its death by 100 skeptics... So after all these years my wiki days seem unfortunatily getting less & less as more & more of the bullies take control. Good luck Vufors (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

As the person responsible for the above, I'd like to ask Vufors whether s/he is aware of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy - and in particular, whether a person clearly affiliated with the Victorian UFO Research Society (VUFORS), and has engaged in promotion of said organisation [10] is in any position to criticise people who ask that articles comply with policy, rather than promoting batshit-crazy credulous bollocks about people being abducted by aliens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy your one of the most abusive admins on this site. Your name truly fits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyboy99 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Andy isn't an admin, but you're just a throwaway troll account so you don't care about accuracy. Please go away. --Onorem (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh well he acts like one and thinks hes an admin so it was close enough. Also i thought everyone was free to post on jimbos page, my mistake admins only i guess. It figures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyboy99 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WMF Benefactors and their Wikipedia entries

For your information below is the list of only few WMF Benefactors, Leading donors, Sustaining donors that have their Wikipedia entries. Some entries are tagged for different issues, some aren't tagged but still seem problematic, while some others look OK. Some entries were written by SPA.

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Newsmax Media
Yardi Systems
RetailMeNot
TheLadders.com
David Bohnett Foundation
Extra Space Storage
IndigoTrust
NerdWallet.com
Omidyar Network
comScore
EvoSwitch
LeaseWeb
No Starch Press
TeliaSonera International Carrier
Avago
AWeber
Yola (webhost)
BitKeeper
IPodRip
Stanton Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.10.202 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no current user on Wikipedia can edit these now.. conflict of interest and all, you know.. ;P -- œ ^™ 07:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Many Wikipedians can be presumed to have conflicts of interest with Wikipedia, but few with the Foundation, let alone its donors. I realize I'm being humourless, but the point ought to be made. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't at all clear what the point of the OP was to begin with.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think some articles from the list I provided should be deleted, others should be improved. For example EvoSwitch has a single reference to Wikimedia blog, and the only notability of the center is that it "hosts the Wikimedia Foundation's European hub as part of a €300,000 donation of in-kind support to the foundation." 67.169.10.202 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this has much relevance to this talk page. If you have specific proposals I expect they'll be well received in the appropriate places.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"appropriate places"?67.169.10.202 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

For example, if an editor believes one of the listed pages should be deleted, WP:AFD would be the appropriate place. If you have an actual proposal to make, the village pump would be the appropriate place, and so on... Novusuna ^talk 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also the talk page of the individual articles may be an appropriate venue for some concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

From the (actual) JTRIG Disruption Operational Playbook, slide 3, "Disrupt a company":^[11]

"Leak confidential information to companies / the press via blogs etc."

"Post negative information on appropriate forums"

"Stop deals / ruin business relationships"

Slide 2 doesn't look unfamiliar either, from a while back. No doubt (and none permissible) it is just convergent evolution that some folks here have the notion to put every company Wikipedia ever dealt with through the wringer; they might as easily have gotten the notion from SHAC. But wherever it comes from, it seems unfriendly. We should improve these articles, but without any air of moral condemnation, and with a friendly urge to retain whatever we can properly cover with a WP:GNG set of sources. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, writing articles about companies isn't boring, and it doesn't have to be commercialistic. Here's a picture of EvoSwitch's Virginia data facility with Comcast in the background and the FBI Northern Virginia Resident Agency nestled between them. It's amazing what you see when you look. Wnt (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

the beginning of the end

This site has been sliding into a toxic pit. Admin abuse editors with impunity. Arbcom is a complete failure and even the readers ate going elsewhere. When will the wmf start doing something to actually address the problem of this toxic environment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyboy99 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed the pageviews of many articles have declined in the past few years, but are readers getting info elsewhere or are the search-engine results not listing those WP pages as high this year? Previously last year, I confirmed ~50% of pageviews were due to Google clicks, but has that decreased? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Google info boxes are undoubtedly taking a huge toll. Of course, a good deal of their content comes from WP, so it's perhaps the same number of people seeking the same information, just many of the hits not being counted now since the information has been ported off site. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Now all we need is an edit button on those Google WP info boxes ;). -- œ ^™ 07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The google boxes are very small and basically just providing definitions. If people are satisfied with the google boxes, then they aren't going to read the rest of the article or become contributors. Since it reduces demand on WMF servers this seems like a net positive. Second Quantization (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to get away from the idea that people are going to read anything, and get more into the content delivery framework. There are already apps that use Wikipedia content to present it to the user, and this can be heard or even visualized. I just don't get this continued focus on Wikipedia as a traditional book-like encyclopedia. That's just not how people are using it. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Log in...create another account?

Uhm...is it really a good idea to have a button on the log in page to "create another account" if we are only really supposed to have one account. Now..I know some people have other accounts. One editor I knew had multiple accounts....but that is not common and the reasons for legitimate secondary accounts is pretty limited and not something explained when you click that button.

Is this just helping to make it easy to sock?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

OK...now its gone. LOL! Seems to be like my ever changing watchlist and all the color dots that come and go.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There must have been some foundation work going on as I kept getting logged out over and over.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

(insert WMF joke here). Carrite (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you create another account while logged into your first account (which is what I presume that link does), it'll create a log entry like this one, identifying who created the account, so it'd be pretty useless for socking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me like it'd be perfect for WP:SOCKLEGIT to create bot accounts. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you for responding!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Jimbo, I wanted to directly apologize for this edit. You were right, it wasn't funny, and I'll stay out of your userspace from now on. Jinkinson talk to me 02:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Faster reading with Spritz

Spritz is a new technology designed to make communication "faster, easier, and more effective".

About Spritz | Spritz

(The following attributive adjectives should be hyphenated: "Boston-based", "text-streaming", and "time-consuming".)
—Wavelength (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely an interesting idea, but what exactly are you suggesting? Turn Wikipedia into a Spritz-read encyclopedia? It'll take some getting used to and the scrolling up and down will be significantly more time-consuming, but I think it's really got potential. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am suggesting that adding the option of reading Wikipedia articles with Spritz might be beneficial, but I do not know enough about the technology to say much more than that.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So adding a "Read Spritz" tab next to the "Read" tab? I like it! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

13 ,

: .

:) Wnt (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What happens if you missed a word, because you were distracted? Major issue in a 70,000 character article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked at a demo of this yesterday and I was pretty amazed by it. I was able to comfortably read at a rate much much higher than my normal reading speed, which is quite high anyway. I also found that because of the way the words appear one after another, it forced me to pay closer attention. It is true that if the reader gets distracted, you have to back up some, and I don't know how the actual app handles that. Presumably a quick click to back up 30 words at a time or something like that would do the trick. I look forward to trying this for real on a long-ish block of text (like, a book) and I do think it's super interesting as a way of reading Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, the example on their site completely underwhelms me. The whole patent-pending idea is that they have an "optimal point" in a word that they keep aligned, rather than simply showing the words left-justified or centered (which I think should work about as well - I don't always find their optimal points to be what I would have said is optimal). But it still forces the reader to endure sentence after sentence of blather. Especially while editing Wikipedia, I don't read articles sentence by sentence, I read them by scrolling down or even clicking the scrollbar down a page at a time. It isn't at all unusual for me to click down rapidfire, stopping when I see "something interesting". What is interesting, I may not even know until a moment later. So I don't think this is nearly as good as proper reading, and even if it were, I would not want to invest brain architecture in a form of reading that is owned by some company. The color alphabet example I give above (I think the module documentation leads back to the original sources) is more intriguing, because it should be free and it allows a high-level view of a page -- but someone would have to invest a lot of effort to start seeing words and hearing letters in every color. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Getty Images

So this happened. I don't think anything is likely to change quickly regarding quasi-non-free content, but is there anything that needs to be said about where things are going?__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Getty are on Santa's Perpetual Naughty list. "Don't trust and verify." Do not touch with 10 foot pole... Carrite (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The BBC actually ran this story under the title "Getty lifts copyright on 35 million..." If media like this didn't make it such a pain to tell them when they're being dumb, I'd have told them, but it looks like they figured it out. For Getty to allow you to embed content on your page with text like <frame src="//gettyimages.com/embed/#12347567" width="338" height="507" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></frame> simply means that they've progressed to the point, reached by search engines in the 1990s, where it seems to pay off better to give people free results and monitor and control what they get than to charge them by the word. They're giving you free images, sure - that's free as in beer, not as in Braveheart. They're not just giving you the images but also the bandwidth to serve them. In exchange, you merely... turn over part of your site to them. Note that's not just an image src, but a frame src, in which they can put whatever code they decide they like: ads, warnings your PC is infected with a virus that can be solved with this download, product placements from the Syrian Electronic Army, whatever. And of course, they can't not be aware which addresses they're serving which images to. It is anything but a free image as we speak of it. Wnt (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Woop-dee-frickin' doo. That is about as free as an author posting one of his or her short stories on his or her personal website. In other words, not free enough for Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Question from a terrifically unsuccessful newbie

I am a good software developer, and work in the space I am describing. Independent of my own weaknesses, I find it hard to edit with trolls constantly nipping at my heals. It would not be terribly hard to use machine learning to characterize the behavior of editors, and attach labels to their identities. I know even this can be gamed, but the machines keep learning. I could even do the AJAX work to insert the icons. Of course this could be counter productive as well. Once they put a breathelizer near the door of a bar to promote sobriety, and everyone started to compete on how high they could move the needle. So maybe people will work harder to get a troll icon in order to be a more feared editor. But we do know from life that small social signals are highly effective in a culture, and that unfamiliar hostility is a means of creating a closed system, so perhaps there is willingness to engage me while not mocking my pig headed failure to make earnest edits. 24.16.135.152 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you might want to go to Wikipedia:Bot requests. Good luck! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 12:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to quote myself: Timbo's Rule 12. "Most vandalism is caused by anonymous IP editors. The only reason IP editing is allowed at all is that it makes vandalism easier to spot." ... Timbo's Rule 13. "Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose." I suggest you register an account and use that... Carrite (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see you seem to have an account already: User:Bob the goodwin/sandbox. Try editing on another unrelated topic and see how that works out. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You can also team up with an experienced editor through the Teahouse who can help guide you. -- kosboot (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Being called a "troll" by another Wikipedia contributor, especially a newbie, is almost as satisfying and validating as seeing your work as Today's Featured Article. It means you've arrived and the little people take notice.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point by ColonelHenry. Just because people are upset doesn't mean that you're in the wrong. --Pine^✉ 07:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Snuggle. Want to help develop it? --Pine^✉ 07:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LinkedIn

Hi Jimbo - regarding the WP LinkedIn group - there is a lot of spam. I've tried to get your attention by volunteering to be an administrator of that group to cut down on spammers, but I'm not sure you follow the mailings from it. I'm still volunteering my time - if only to get rid of the spammers. -- kosboot (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. I want to look into this and figure out what is best to do but I don't get emails from the group anymore (or they go to an account I don't check or something). It will take me some time to get to this. We should bring Philippe from the WMF into the loop as well, because he'll know who at the Foundation is responsible for looking after such things!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You may want to look at...

...this thread, as it concerns a WMF member acting in a very questionable manner. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like he's resigned the admin bit, and that's certainly the right thing for him to have done. Perspective is important - if I understand the thread, he made a single edit as a sock puppet, was discovered by a standard checkuser, and chose to resign adminship rather than go through an arbitration process that would have likely ended up in the same place. Thanks for notifying me. I don't see that there's much for me to do or say. (Some in the thread are raising issues about his employment but that's not something I am involved with nor something I can comment on.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

UK Peerage clean-up

Hi Jimbo. I have just nominated a bunch of UK Peerage biographies for deletion, specifically peers who succeeded to their hereditary titles post the House of Lords Act 1999 and who have not held a seat in the House of Lords. Further, the peers I have chosen to nominate do not appear to be notable for other reasons, nor do they appear to have received significant third party coverage (beyond peerage and genealogical publications). Sadly I could not find any clear notability guidelines on this, so I have tried to apply common sense in cases such as Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway, Rhodri Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids and Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers. However as one climbs up the aristocratic hierarchy I imagine there may be more opposition to my AFDs, such as that of Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton. I suspect that some may try to argue that Dukes are inherently notable, given that there are only 24 non-royal Dukes in the British Isles, however Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a source of genealogical information, and, title aside, I'm not convinced that the 12th Duke of Grafton is notable for other reasons or has been the subject of significant third party coverage beyond peerage and genealogical publications. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flaming Ferrari, you seem to have a very ego-centric view of the meaning of WP:N, beginning with the notion that peers not in the House of Lords are inherently non-notable. I created the page Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton, and I would certainly not argue that dukes are inherently notable, because we have no policy which says so. Do please read WP:N. Notability is not about being a deserving human being, it is about the availability of reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This subject is very old hat and has been raising its ugly, aristocratic head for years. I pose only one question, are English peers more notable than European, and should we have rrom for none (except those serving in the House of Lords) ie: should they all be guillotined? Giano (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have an article on every cast member of Big Brother 13 (U.S.)? Well, somebody dug up WP:GNG sources and made them happen. I would be pleased if they found more interesting interests, but that's not up to me. Meanwhile, guillotining members of the House of Lords would produce citable news stories to improve the notability of their articles, so I can't say I'm against it. :) Wnt (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone rollback all of Flaming Ferrari's AfD nominations? These are sufficiently sourced article per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, and nominations by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines. Further, I get the sense that Flaming Ferrari seems to be on a pointy anti-aristocratic Jacobin persecution the likes of which would make Madame Defarge blush. I really don't have the time to find and place votes for "Keep" on about 150-200 nonsensical AfDs...this is rather abusive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should rollback my AFD nominations quite so readily. The current consensus for some appears to be delete or merge, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury. I won't nominate any more for now, and will await community feedback. There are about 30 nominations in total, none of whom have sat in the Lords and none of whom seem to qualify on the basis of their career achievements in isolation. I was not previously aware of GNG which has been brought to my attention, but some of these articles are still up for debate. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, sniffing around briefly after the first I found a not very good source [12] and a not very clear source [13] that he is or was the owner of Picasso's Child with a Dove. My feeling is that it's better to consistently have articles about the high-level nobles of a country whenever anything about them, i.e. their succession, can be documented, even if it means bending GNG or BLP1E a bit. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, one thing that people new to this area and who haven't thought much about it often overlook is that these articles have to be considered as part of a series as opposed to merely being considered in isolation. It's valuable to have articles on all of them, even if some of them haven't done much of note.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Also separate articles avoid WP:UNDUE weight by notability: It has been tempting to make single-page annotated lists of people, but the problem arises when some of the people later gain in notability, attracting wp:UNDUE attention to other people in the list, until getting a separate article. It is easier, when suspecting a few will become more famous, to create separate pages about each person. This occurred with some of the Manson Family members. Of course, with people from decades ago, then an annotated combined list would be logical, as few among the list would likely increase in higher notability decades later. However, with the finalists in a competition, any among the finalists might become quite famous, often with the 2nd-place contestant gaining the highest coverage, long-term. In those cases, a separate page for each finalist would avoid wp:UNDUE attention to the others, who would not be covered in detail, side-by-side, on the same page, but each on separate pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Will beback appeals

I'm hatting this thread and quoting Newyorkbrad on the details. A polite and thoughtful discussion of ArbCom transparency, and also whether ArbCom bans should beyond 1 year in any other than very exception cases would be welcomed. Notice in particular that I said "polite and thoughtful". Insulting them is not helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Beback's appeal is under consideration and discussion by the Committee, although I should not say more here. It is obvious that this thread was opened by a disruptive banned user having no genuine or legitimate interest in Will Beback's appeal, and should not have been entertained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jimbo User:Will Beback was banned from Wikipedia about 2 years ago. He's never socked. He posted the appeals to his talk page. The appeals were removed and his talk page access was revoked. It is a very sick practice.

I'd like to ask you please why he and others are not allowed to have open hearings on their appeals? What the arbcom is afraid of? Why it is allowed to bully content creators?

Jimbo, I am asking you because

1.You were personally involved in the case.

2.You are a member of the arbcom secret list.

3. You like to repeat that to get unbanned is as easy as to follow the rules listed in Wikipedia:Standard offer 71.198.249.228 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Because Arbitration sanctions literally cannot be challenged with a standard unblock request; it has to be done via email. The standard offer also does not apply to editors banned due to an Arbitration sanction (though it does apply to editors banned most every other way). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Ban appeals. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They literally can, arbcom just choose not to. Second Quantization (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm always a fan of the "think of the content creators" pity plea. Reso lute 19:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolute, all I am saying is that the arbcom behaves as it is afraid of the truth. A few days ago you accused a few members of the arbcom of being cowards. It is much easier to behave as cowards, when nobody is allowed to see their secret communications. It is just wrong. All arbcom's proceedings that do not involve outing should be public.71.198.249.228 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Such is life in glorious Wikipedia. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This may not be the proper location for all this, but I urge the committee to lift ban on Will Beback at least on a probationary basis...--MONGO 20:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I brought up Will Beback's appeal only as an example. The point I'd like to make is that the arbcom's proceedings should be much more transparent than they are now. 71.198.249.228 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Will Beback's appeal is under consideration and discussion by the Committee, although I should not say more here. It is obvious that this thread was opened by a disruptive banned user having no genuine or legitimate interest in Will Beback's appeal, and should not have been entertained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What a clever observation! Of course my thread is not about Will Beback's appeal. It is about the transparency of the arbcom, and I have openly admitted as much just above, and you, Newyorkbrad, got yourself down to the level of that jerk. Tell me what I am getting wrong, and don't accuse me of disruptions with no evidences, coward, and remember Jimbo has an open door policy.76.126.140.150 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok lets try this again without some jerk removing. This case illustrates the lack of desire by arbcom or the admins on this site to let banned users come back. To say they can appeal is a joke and everyone knowd it. Its like saying they can appeal to jimbo. Hes not going to undo it and neither is the arbcom. So there is no benefit to followingvthe rules of the ban. Cause regardlesd of whatever they say, their actionsvshow their true intentions. Bans are forever and ever, period, the end. And to leaky, ignoring me does not make me go away, it just pisses me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalpadasnake (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with the concerns around the lack of transparency by arbcom. It however appears that many do not wish to speak out against this organization as they are concerned about future repercussions with respect to their ability to edit.

This concern appears justified as the little bit of evidence used to ban Will for more than two years includes this statement made on Jimmy Wale's talk page "Tell that to the ArbCom." as mentioned here under battleground conduct. Thus not surprised by IPs raising the concern.

Another interesting aspect of this case was of course that in it arbcom overturned a block by Jimmy Wales. I do not know if they asked his permission to do this before hand or not.

So being one always interested in solutions to issues what options are there for increasing arbcom transparency? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Just think about that: Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. It is March now, and he still got no response, and Newyorkbrad states that the appeal is under consideration. The arbitrators act as they ought to decide on a matter of great importance to the national security of USA and Europe combined. They simply look ridiculous. 76.126.140.150 (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So if we need greater oversight of arbcom by the community how do we bring that about? Arbcom is supposed to represent us as they are elected and if/when they do not we need to figure out what options we should put in place to 1) determine if they are not representing the community 2) what authority the community should be given to deal with it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't generally involve myself with Arbcom but in their defense I recently raised an issue privately with them and I think they handled it very well. This is not to say that everything they do is handled well but I have a bit of faith in them. I think if there were big problems in Arbcom we would hear about that in public from multiple arbs. The biggest problem I have with them is that they can be slow but that is to be expected given that they're volunteers and have a huge scope. If anyone has any constructive suggestions for improvement they can start an RfC. --Pine^✉ 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is sort of the direct I am looking at. Wish further decision before drafting a RfC though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pine. For info, ArbCom site-bans very few editors indeed and it's almost always for outing/harassment. We desysop and topic-ban much more liberally. Desysops can be overturned by the community via a new RFA; topic-ban appeals are heard publicly. This particular instance is, apparently, a sock of one community-banned user agitating on behalf of an ArbCom-banned one and is far from representative. Roger Davies ^talk 09:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Thank you. I don't plan to involve myself in the details of this user's case. --Pine^✉ 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AGK appears to be attempting to suppress discuss of an arbcom ruling as I have brought up here at AN [14]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears every substantive word in that sentence is false. When, I'm so sorry to have to ask, will you drop the stick? AGK [•] 22:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And not discuss the functioning of arbcom? Or are you asking that I not discuss your accusation that I am "editing at the direction of a banned editor"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like ArbCom has a hard time undoing their own decisions in such harassment cases, but is much more magnanimous in undoing regular admin actions in fairly similar cases. I can think of an intermittent harassment going on for ~6-12 months, resulting in an average of about one ANI thread every two months or so, where an approximately one month block was considered more than sufficient by ArbCom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You surprise me, Someone not using his real name. Both ArbCom and the community always take off-wiki harassment, outing, threats of outing, contacting workplaces and so forth extremely seriously. The usual outcome is a long ban. No admin engaging in such conduct would keep the tools. Is this the kind of conduct you're talking about here? Roger Davies ^talk 09:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thought you should know

Some people are pretty upset with the Ryan Kaldari situation [15]. Just a heads up. Hell might be other people (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So much so that they got pissed when called out for casting aspersions. Reso lute 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

B does not logically flow from A. The edit summary of motivation is pretty self-explanatory DIFF. And it's a content creator down the toilet as a result of these latest WMF shenanigans GRAPH. Brilliant. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand how it is "WMF shenanigans" - an employee made a single (right?) sockpuppeting edit and ended up resigning his admin bit when caught. I hardly think that counts as "WMF" shenanigans. It's a mistake - a real one, a serious one - by an employee, and what happens next needs to be between him and his immediate boss(es). I don't see any reason for anyone to retire over it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Who's responsible for the behaviour of WMF employees if not the WMF? Why is there no recognition that his behaviour (and I'm not just talking about his socking) reflects very badly on the WMF? Eric Corbett 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, every person's behavior is their own responsibility. The same applies to employees of Walmart, Microsoft, General Motors and so on; it's not the company's job to babysit the employees. If they make inappropriate edits, or engage in any other unwanted behavior (on- or off- wiki), don't blame it on their superiors. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You obviously aren't aware of the series of prosecutions that have resulted from the allegations of sexual abuse at the BBC for instance. The BBC is culpable because it failed to act when informed about the abuses, just as the WMF is now. Eric Corbett 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have inadvertantly answered your own question. There is a very justified anger and prosecutions have resulted from allegations of sexual abuse at the BBC. That's a very far different thing from a single edit as a sockpuppet which has been apologized for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you haven't been keeping up. Are you aware of snuffster? Eric Corbett 04:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo: There is a very large additional factor in addition to what is visible here. The OP links to a user page with a "retired" banner. This version of their talk shows the reason—an admin tells the user that they will be blocked if they reinstate a claim of "obsessions with dead-kid-porn". A link to an image claiming to show the website responsible for that claim was earlier posted here, see my request here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very justified reason to block someone because it was an outrageous allegation of a type that we don't allow on-wiki. And an allegation that, as far as I can tell, is entirely fanciful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but "fanciful" may not be warranted; see ANI (permalink) for the comment dated "10:42, 8 March 2014". Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fanciful" is most definitely not warranted, and anyone in any doubt ought to check out Kaldari's snuffster web site. Eric Corbett 05:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is as if the two of you are deliberately ignoring what is written in his comment. There is nothing there to substantiate - even remotely - a charge of "obsessions with dead-kid-porn". You should both be ashamed of yourself and I remind you of WP:NPA. To be clear, I think the website looked pretty stupid and offensive - a bad joke. But someone creating a bad joke several years ago, and other users making it worse, does not justify allegations that border on allegations of pedophilia. There is no need for such dramatics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's rather as if you have once again stuck your head in the sand, but that's just your way I guess. Eric Corbett 05:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "porn" was used metaphorically, as in "pornography of death". The issue is that Eric Corbett was falsely accused of "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian" (diff) by someone who runs a website dedicated to belittling the murder of children. Off-wiki stuff is rightfully ignored in general, but the issue should not be characterized as merely "from a single edit as a sockpuppet". Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

When making accusations, it's important to be accurate. Employing terms "metaphorically" doesn't help with that. Nor does describing a website as "dedicated to belittling the murder of children" when the website was quite clearly not set up for that purpose. The website was later used for belittling the murder of children; much like many other unpleasant websites that exist on the internet and that various Wikipedia people have been involved in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Motions for community sanctions against Kaldari are more appropriate for ANI than here on Jimbo's talk page. Motions for WMF to part ways with Kaldari are better discussed with WMF than Jimmy since Jimmy is a board member. I suggest taking complaints to Gayle. I don't expect Gayle to comment about Kaldari's specific situation but I hope she will listen and respond to general questions about expectations for WMF employees. I don't think anything more should be said here and suggest that Jimbo close this discussion. Further discussion belongs at ANI or with Gayle. --Pine^✉ 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why have you taken it upon yourself to speak for Jimbo? Is he unable to speak for himself? Eric Corbett 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment I made 2 statements that I no longer want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm not happy about the smearing of Eric Corbett by someone who was acting in a devious, underhand and hypocritical fashion, particularly as that person's wages are built in part on my contributions to Wikipedia. However, I do not wish to become the "poster child" of this dispute. My edit in which I said the correct place to take concerns is arbcom, not a noticeboard, was - despite georgewilliamherbert's interpretation - made in good faith and went out of it's way to mention no names. @arbcom will note that I myself did not email them: as distasteful as the site in question is, my concern is the sheer hypocrisy it demonstrated. I won't reply to any further comment and would appreciate being left to {{retire}}. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The core issue here is whether the following should be de facto Wikipedia policy: in order to be an admin, developer, or employee of Wikipedia, you must never have posted potentially objectionable content, nor have permitted it to be posted on any site you administer. If that's what people really want, maybe we can add it to the "Five Pillars" policy beside an image of Joseph McCarthy. Wikipedia would not be a democracy, an anarchy, or a bureaucracy, but a cyberbullocracy.

That said, I also acknowledge that "dead kid porn" is an extreme rhetorical excess, a personal attack and a continuing instance of "opposition research" per WP:OUTING but not a W:CHILDPROTECT issue (I disagree with banning discussion of child protection issues anyway). Punishing people for raising the issue is a very poor substitute for being clear that we support people's right to be secure from discrimination based on their outside writings. If we stand strong on that, people won't bother to raise such issues. Wnt (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Dead kid porn" is indeed rhetorical excess. "Tasteless attempts at comedy involving child sexual abuse and murder" would be accurate. And it's not sanctionable on-wiki, per BADSITES. I stand by my statement that this is a "WMF" issue, whether they want it to be or not. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And my point is that it shouldn't be sanctionable off-wiki either. We're talking about whether people have the right to decide what they think is amusing, or have to be told when to laugh and when not to laugh by some supra-governmental agency. When good people fought against McCarthyism, they stood up for the right of people to have real political beliefs in Communism at a time when Russia was the site of tremendous abuses and torture and tens of millions of people dead, and pointing thousands, then tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at the United States. That was a tough test of freedom of speech for them, and we applaud them for, eventually, learning to believe in it. Are we going to fail the same test because some people aren't amused over some web banter? Really???

When people try to track down and penalize people for anything they've ever said on the Internet, they're arguing for an Internet where everything you say is part of your resume. It is a place where the worst snoopers and busybodies set themselves up as princes, with GCHQ reigning emperor over them all. I don't just call that model a "cyberbullocracy" because it's ruled by cyberbullies, but because it is a place where the promise of the Internet - a place where you can chat with your friends, exchange mail, work collaboratively on innovative ideas - is all a bunch of cyber bull. You might pass the Turing test chatting with your friends online like that, but only if one of their kind of "human", a soulless and well-programmed corporate appendage, is grading the test. Pushing resumes back and forth with your networking partners isn't conversation to the rest of us! I suppose some paid editors edit Wikipedia with such composure - are they the only ones fit to be in charge of anything? Wnt (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a very nuanced view of the situation. Ryan Kaldari hosted a site for 10 years that was purposefully designed to be incredibly vile. He knew what he was hosting which is shown by his participation in the comment sections of many of the pages. I am ashamed that my donations employ someone who thinks that mocking the murder of a child is fine online joke fodder. I'm quite surprised and disappointed that you seek to minimize this 'beyond the pale' behavior as some kind of 'boys will be boys' shenanigans. Imagine what the parents would have felt had they stumbled on that page? Hell might be other people (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We all owe Death a visit, so we are all entitled to mock if we please. I fully support the right of sites like Bestgore.com to post as they wish; sometimes - as in the case that site was prosecuted for - it actually helps to solve the crime. So certainly I hold such a tame and modest competitor as Kaldari's within the inalienable rights of any person. Now you could claim that by agitating against Kaldari's employment that you are not violating his rights, but that rings doubly hollow. First, because, as with the original McCarthyism, there is no visible boundary of intent between a literal legal action and an effort simply to drive someone out of employment and obtain some kind of abject surrender by force, and second, because our society should do far more to uphold a right of employment, both by progressive social policy that provides economic rewards to hire all available labor (tax structure) until such discrimination is rare due to the scarcity of quality labor, and at least in the interim by specific safeguards against unreasonable discrimination based on race, sexual favors, or exercise of democratic rights.

We know full well that family members can be deeply offended by trolls like the Westboro Baptist Church. But the way to deal with that is not to censor them all, nor to give some a license to offend based on where they work or how they protest. (Though I feel funeral homes should be entitled to parade permits that give them more exclusivity than they sometimes have by law) And certainly I am not going to stand up for the right of a despicable individual like Phelps with a profit motive, while abandoning a good Wikipedia volunteer with a sense of humor you happen to disagree with! Because I do believe in freedom of speech, I can't even condone the resort to laws in some jurisdictions that might now (coin toss) prosecute people at Wikipediocracy for acting together to try to get Kaldari fired. This leaves only one philosophical option: to urge people to stop the cyberbullying directly by denying it the booty it came for. If that means some people get offended and leave Wikipedia, so be it.

I find it ironic, and all too typical, that this whole mess started with someone posting a message about being understanding and opposing bullying. I imagine many a school program against the practice similarly ends bloody. But now that the fight is fully underway, there can be only one acceptable outcome: showing that understanding. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap my head around the (tortured) analogy between the state-sanctioned persecution of political beliefs and associations with the statement of fact that their employee Kaldari's public tastes and proclivities are matter for WMF to deal with or not deal with, at their pleasure. Look, Jimmy Wales likes South Park, I like South Park, maybe you like South Park. Expressing the political views of South Park in something like the Private Manning naming debate was deemed sanctionable — or close to it — by the legal scholars and official guardians of public morality at ArbCom. Does that mean he or I or anyone should be sanctioned for having a taste in humor a bit rougher or cruder than "normal"? No. But the fact is, that site is out there. The fact is, it was Kaldari's creation. The fact is, Kaldari is a WMF employee. The fact is, there are people who are bothered by that. Good luck, WMF. That's all. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that analogy is your forte.

Reading your text makes me wonder if you are inebriated while posting.

Ryan Kaldari is partially supported by my donations. I cannot believe that this level of unprofessional behavior is actively supported by the WMF. I find his continued employment by a beloved charity frankly horrifying. I will not donate further. I am certain that I am not alone in this regard. Do as you will. Hell might be other people (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

HMOP: With 25 total contributions about Wikipedia process, most of them here, I think you've been through with Wikipedia, or them with you, for some time. And I assume your threat to "stop contributing" applies to every employee the diligent folks at that blog can research and try to dig stuff up about. Hmmmm - giving up donations from a banned user on one hand, or instituting a rigorous loyalty code on every administrative volunteer and employee for them to work and play, not just now and in the future but throughout all their past, according to your personal law? Get lost.

P.S. by restoring the comment about Jon-Benet Ramsay, how are you different from Kaldari? (Answer: he allowed it to be posted in a private forum; you chose to restore it to a public forum) That doesn't mean it isn't funny, though. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have donated every year for 6 years. I am not a banned user.

Your speculation is as accurate as your analogies. As I said, I do not think I am alone in being disgusted by these events.

Are you some sort of official spokesperson here on Jimbo Wales' talk page?

Are you a WMF employee, by chance? Hell might be other people (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that Wnt is not a WMF employee. Personally, I think Wnt is a twit, and the only sensible thing he's said is this; "there is no visible boundary of intent between a literal legal action and an effort simply to drive someone out of employment and obtain some kind of abject surrender by force".

The more ugly Encyclopedia Dramatica groupies talk about Encyclopedia Dramatica style comeback against what Encyclopedia Dramatica friends of theirs consider unacceptable... the more ridiculous the protestations look. Let's have User:Tarc and User:Alison come right out here and say which things they condemn on Encyclopedia Dramatica. The same things as were done on the site that Kaldari was supposedly paying for? Let's hear it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to take cuts. What are you fucking dragging Alison into this for? What has she ever been on or off wiki other than totally professional? That's a really nasty move and I urge you to redact it. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You sound angry, Carrite, which is unusual for you. I'm surprised. Are you saying that Alison never had any connection with the Encyclopedia Dramatic website? That's not a really nasty move on my part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry broheim, but I'm going to have to topple these carefully-erected strawmen of yours; I withdrew from the likes of WR, WO, ED, and even /b/ last fall or thereabouts. It's easy to be ugly to people who (whom? I never know when to use that) you do not know via the internet, while it's much harder to be decent. Know what I'd like to see? I'd like Ryan Kaldari to pay a visit to John Ramsey, and I'd like for there to be a printout of the part of that snuffster website that mocked his daughter JonBonet. I'd like Mr. Kaldari to read that page out load to Mr. Ramsey. Do you think that will happen, User:Demiurge1000 ? Can he look a man in the face and ridicule his dead daughter? Being a sick human being isn't illegal, I get that, but it is probably about time to realize that the Wild West days of the internets are fading fast. Some blokes may get to ride into the sunset with at least a shred of dignity left, while others like dear Kaldari get shoved from the moving train. You reap what you sow. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Last fall, eh? Would you like to pay a similar visit to the victims of the websites from which you've now "withdrawn"? Can you be a man and apologise for what you did in the past? Or are you all too quick to want to focus on someone who can be "shoved from the moving train", while you ride into the sunset - as you put it. Why did it take you so long? Why don't you have apologies to make? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did apologize to several people whom I had bad interactions with, including someone you have also behaved vilely and despicably towards, namely Mbz1. It is unfortunate that you will likely never do right by her, given the resounding lack of ethical fiber you have displayed in this thread by acting like Kaldari's enabler and apologist. So please, my dear Demiurge1000, don't ever think you have the standing to call me out on any act I may have done in my past; I'm not answerable to the likes of you, as your own moral standing has been lying down for years. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly why I called you out for your hypocrisy on this. You and yours like to club together to pretend moral outrage based on precisely the same things that you spent years finding oh-so-funny. Please do stand in front of the victims and make your apologies. Please do actually make that effort. I would like to see it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I do not answer to people who are beneath me. Next time, my dear Demiurge, keep my name out of your mouth. I had no horse in this particular talk page until you unwisely pinged me. Now you know better. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I pinged you (and another) because I thought, in between your wild screechings elsewhere, you might really have the grace to admit that you did indeed engage in questionable behaviour in the past, and were willing to make amends. Not willing to scream about the supposed misdeeds of others. All too familiar. If you didn't want to be mentioned, you should've kept your mouth firmly shut. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Learn to read, Demiwit; I said I did apologize to people that I had wronged in the past. Do let me know when your balls drop enough for you to man up and apologize to Mbz and others that YOU have done wrong by. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to your old ways, eh Tarc? Carry on. You're seen for what you are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

After being dragged through the media for decades as notorious almost-alleged killers, and subjected to defamation suits for suggesting other people might have done it, I don't think the Ramsays would be shocked by a page like that. I would bet money that they would maintain their composure, no matter what version of events is true. Wnt (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I take it you aren't a parent? To borrow a phrase from the Blues Brothers, Mr. Kaldari would find it difficult to eat corn on the cob due to the lack of teeth. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're coming too close to defaming the Ramsays by suggesting that they are given to uncontrollable violence, when I am sure they have seen just about everything on the Internet about the girl already. Besides, you're suggesting an in-person confrontation that I'm sure Kaldari would never seek in the first place, over things he never apparently wrote in the first place. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, follow the misattributed-to-Mark-Twain's advice about fools, please. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps they have a more "nuanced" view (I didn't notice their comments but I assume they can want to have one site with one set of rules and another with another!) - but regardless, I support the right of all three admins to do anything that they could if they participated in no other site than Wikipedia. Even to be wrong. We must not compromise that principle. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is degenerating rapidly. The last thing we need here is for a handful of editors to use this sad situation to feud or try to score debating points. Even if you sincerely don't mean it that way, that is how the last couple of hours of this thread read to me, and I am sure to others. Please stop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I want to score debating points. If we let people drum out a WMF employee over personal postings on an unrelated site, after the sad precedents from before, and with the continuing threats against other admins here of doing the same thing, then it's already a "behavioral policy" that Wikipedia is not a place that anyone can edit, only a place where certain people who have never said anything that certain other people don't like can edit. A fundamental change of direction like that needs to be debated.

Now, if you want to rule out the conversation because rejection of WP:BADSITES is settled policy, and because dwelling on these editors' private activities is impermissible opposition research that cannot lead to a useful process, that I can accept, even applaud, but not a "neutral" rejection of the discussion. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring edit

I erroneously removed the following edit, believing it repeated information obtained through an an attempted outing. In compromise, to forgo edit warring, I agreed to reinstate the edit myself, if the suppression was declined. I'd like to thank Hell might be other people for the understanding he or she showed, in letting this run its course, for abundant caution; and to hopefully accept my apologizes for having erred regarding the matter. The edit, including its timestamp follows.—John Cline (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC):

I know this is distasteful, but what he hosted is well beyond the pale. [16] I thought you should know what was being discussed. Hell might be other people (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Jimbo, if instead of murdered children that site featured let's say deceased Wikipedians, would have you also dismissed it as just "a bad joke"?71.198.251.187 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
A rather good question. Much discussion was had recently regarding the Ukrainian Wikipedian who tragically lost his life in that nation's recent unrest. Would a website mocking him, and others in the project's WP:RIP members be written off as "personal postings on an unrelated site". Tarc (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For my part, yes! I don't hold this point of view, but I am not going to throw off every Russian patriot, or even every Russian sympathizer in Ukraine. I'm sure they have their own narrative about how the infamous Berkut snipers were doing legitimate law enforcement by shooting radical terrorists or something - a narrative far more offensive to those who knew the victims than any simple humor. Yet we should allow them to say it offline, and we should allow them to say it even in our own articles, provided they can provide such 'reliable sources' as Mother Russia has to offer. That is the business end of running a neutral encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The last Russian representative I saw discussing the sniper shootings suggested that they were actually American special forces or Blackwater. This was on a British TV news channel, and the interviewer openly mocked the Russian by asking if he also thought Dick Cheney was hiding behind the barricades. The mockery was not well received.

I've not seen any Russian representatives claiming that the sniper shootings were justified.

Perhaps more to your taste, Wnt, Russia Lenta.ru editor Timchenko fired in Ukraine row (BBC News), " "The problem is not that there is nowhere left for us to work. The problem is that there is nothing left, it seems, for you to read." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I added some of this to Dmytro Yarosh, and doubtless some other articles could use an update also. My impression is that at the time of the attacks, Berkut was described as an anti-terrorist unit and its snipings were explained as an anti-terrorist activity - see [17] for example. To be fair, I suppose that if a group of Stop Watching Us activists tried to take over NSA headquarters in protest against illegal spying, there would probably be snipers to shoot them as "terrorists" also. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! By the way, please could you point out the part of the page you linked where a Russian or pro-Russian source describes sniper fire on the protesters (some of whom were armed) as "anti-terrorism" action? I'm having trouble finding it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not easy for me. Most of the pro-Russian sources are in Russian. This site expresses the point of view of those honoring the dead that this is what was said about them. There are news mentions where the former Ukraine government called the protesters in general terrorists, and where the sniper fire was halted by parliamentary action ending "anti-terrorist" actions. [18][19] I'll admit I am not happy with anything less than smoking-gun primary sourcing for something like this, but the language issue makes that difficult, too difficult to do for an argument over a hypothetical example. Wnt (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So basically one side said that the other side called their side names? Hmmmm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The rhetoric and appeals to emotion that some Wikipedians seem to be espousing are some of the most illogical and immature arguments this community has to offer at times. There are really only two outcomes that can result from an accusation of pedophilia advocacy:

If the accusation proves to be true, the matter should be referred to the local authorities. And who is in a better position to contact the local authorities than ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation? As a volunteer, you're not going to waste time contacting the local police over some silly argument you had with someone over the internet. The only thing you might manage to do is cause a lot of uproar, scrutiny over any past allegations you had with other editors you disagree with, and (only possibly) a block against the editor should ArbCom find it within its remit to do so. Meanwhile, the offender still gets to operate freely in wherever they are and all they've done is received a block from editing over the internet from some website they aren't normally associated with anyway. Oh and congratulations, now there is an ANI thread about you, if you haven't started it yourself of course.
If on the other hand the accusation proves to be false, you've not only violated core Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Outing and the editor's right to privacy, you've also managed to potentially ruin an honest man's life and family by making wild accusations in a public fora that could easily take to the news. What good does that serve the encyclopedia, more articles? Congratulations, this is exactly the kind of administrative leadership this website really needs.

In summary, there has never been a reason to invoke ChildProtect as a reason for mob lynching when the private channels will do fine. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia donors and their related articles.

You might be interested in some of the 100+ responses to the Slashdot posting on the "bright line" of COI editing and Wikipedia's donor-related articles. Bielle (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also see this 71.198.251.187 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I glanced over it but is there something new in all that which I should be aware of?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Some guy whose first name started with G was begging people on a certain external website to create fake accounts to upvote it or parts of it, is that new? OK maybe not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

He said nothing about "fake accounts," just to be clear. You need to be more accurate. Carrite (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy is improving! Always! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Missing" items

Thread opened by banned troll --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Mr Wales, a friend of mine has informed me of an unpleaseant situation going on in London. A number of items have gone missing at Wiki-related events. To date 2 i-phones, a brand new apple laptop and a quantity of money. There are witnesses who have seen who is responsible. It turns out to be a well known Wikipedian. This same person "borrowed" and expensive SLR camera over a year ago from the Wikimedia UK London office and it has still not been returned. This Wikipedian is still attending London meetups and I have been informed that he intends to attend Wikimania. Personally I think this person should be banned from all Wiki-related events indefinately. What are your thoughts? John ^talk16:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about it, but if what you say is true it sounds to me like a matter for police. Have you reported it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note: this has been raised for discussion on the wikimediauk-l mailing list. Apparently WMUK's not missing any equipment, and also recommends contacting the police if there has been a theft from anyone here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do let us know if any police report related to this is subsequently recorded as occurring. The person reporting the crime would also receive a crime number, which you could ask them for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

.. does anyone want a cheap t-shirt? (not many blood stains) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know anything about this allegation of a Wikipedian being involved, but I notice that Wiki-related events in London often seem to take place at a pub in Holborn called Penderel's Oak. If that was the location of these alleged thefts, people might want to think twice about using it as a venue in future. That dump is a known location for thieves - last year a friend of mine's bag, with technology items in it, was snatched from under our table. The staff, when asked to help, completely did not give a shit. They'll never have my custom there again. — Scott • talk 12:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

For sale: used ladder, one careful (long-haired) gentleman owner. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I have been able to determine, this was just trolling and there's no truth to it at all. Still, if anyone is missing anything, they should talk to the police.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wales, these thefts did not happen at the Penderells Oak but at external events. I am reliably informed that they have all been reported to the Metropolitan Police (not sure about the cash theft yet still waiting for a response). if you need the crime numbers I can try to find out for you. I will email to you as soon as I can track the people down.

Mike I suggest your information is wrong. I have been informed by a WMUK employee today that the SLR camera was signed out by (Redacted) and never returned. I repeat my question: Is something going to be done by WMF or WMUK? John ^talk14:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wales, I assure you that this is not "just trolling". There are reliable witnesses who are known to the Wikipedia community. John ^talk 15:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be contradicting this statement by a WMUK employee... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to supress any discussion, but given the firm statement from WMUK staff I think it's inappropriate to name a specific user/person with such a flimsy allegation (i.e. lots of vague claims and promises of information) that lacks anything to back it up. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to ask has the camera been returned then? Wikimania2014 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Take the ' f ' out of camera." -- "There ain't no ' f ' in camera." -- "That's what we've been trying to tell you." --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@John4545: Hi Tecnoquat! Rgrds. --64.85.215.236 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Speech?

So there was a candidacy for an article that, in my opinion, contained false information. Then you go there, post your opinion and give your vote and what happens? Your voice is muted, your opinion humiliated? What the fuss?

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AKandidaturen_von_Artikeln%2C_Listen_und_Portalen&diff=128488758&oldid=128488303--Franck-Montgomery (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I await unblocking my account as soon as possible, cause I've done nothing wrong but giving a vote against an article that is overly one-sided and POV.

Bitte gib die folgenden Daten in jeder Anfrage an:

   Sperrender Administrator: Hephaion
   Sperrgrund: Metasockenpuppe oder -diskussionsaccount: + Sperumgehung
   Beginn der Sperre: 23:20, 13. Mär. 2014
   Ende der Sperre: unbegrenzt
   IP-Adresse: 202.137.230.204
   Sperre betrifft: Franck-Montgomery

   (https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AKandidaturen_von_Artikeln%2C_Listen_und_Portalen&diff=128488255&oldid=128486340)

   Block-ID: #997318

--Franck-Montgomery (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Expedition got my vote too at en-wiki. Not sure why you were blocked for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the english wiki's version of the Nimrod Expedition, but do all its references also consist almost to a third (79/280) of one single author (Beau Riffenburg) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod-Expedition#Einzelnachweise, who's also said to be a genuine admirer of that expedition's leader?--Franck-Montgomery (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But perhaps "wirken weder einschläfernd noch anbiedernd" a bit harsh? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just a genuine quotation from the German Wikipedia's rules on rating an article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kandidaturen_von_Artikeln,_Listen_und_Portalen#Nimrod-Expedition (first screen, lower right)... and I was about to add the fact that 1/3 of all the references is made by that single source... until they cut me out.--Franck-Montgomery (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So, Riffenburgh (2005) is the root of your difficulties there? - he gets 59 out of 94 at en-wiki. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No, for a repetition, primarily the fact that 1/3 of all the references in an article consist of a single source, which is not even said to be legitimate source of information, but a "genuine admirer" of the person to be described...--202.137.230.204 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Correspending with "Hephaion"

I've just started an inquiry with the one administrator who deleted my (free-speech) opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hephaion#Illegitimate_Block. Let's see whether he responds in a righteous way, or just ignores or deletes this legitimate query.--Franck-Montgomery (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me, how do you distinguish a "(free-speech)" opinion from other sorts of opinion? Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wales. What is your opinion?

Jimbo gave his opinion, and now he repeated it because you asked nicely! What more could you ask for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My original comment was lost in the melee that ensued. What is your opinion of Ryan Kaldari's site snuffster? Is it something that you find acceptable in a WMF employee? Hell might be other people (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo says up above, "To be clear, I think the website looked pretty stupid and offensive - a bad joke". So that's his opinion of it, I guess. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't what is "acceptable in a WMF employee" a matter for decision by the person's direct supervisor and the WMF management structure, rather than by a single (highly visible) member of the WMF board? If I am correct, why are you hounding Jimbo, who has already expressed a wise opinion of this particular website? Do you understand who is responsible for making management decisions at WMF? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 (and now Cullen). Please let Mr. Wales answer the question I put to him. I think I was clear in the section header and would appreciate it greatly if you would stop inserting yourself into every question that I ask him. If my questions and notices are unwanted, Mr Wales surely has the capacity to let me know. Thank you. Hell might be other people (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo can and will answer, or not answer, as he sees fit. Please note from the header above that Jimbo welcomes comments here from any editor here. That means that every editor acting in good faith is free to respond to tendentious questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not have a chance to review the site in detail before it was taken down, so my opinion is necessarily of a general nature. As I understand it, Snuffster was a parody of Friendster. Friendster, for those who don't remember, was an early social networking site not dissimilar to Facebook. The premise of snuffster was that it would be a social network of "people who have volunteered to be brutally murdered for the sake of art." So you'd post joke pictures of yourself in a crime scene.

After some time, people made (as they did on friendster) fake profiles for famous people. In this case, famous murder victims. Many of these postings, not made by Ryan Kaldari, were tasteless. Ryan didn't police it very well, and the site never really took off or got any press coverage or became much of anything. Just a not very funny joke in the end. Indeed, I'd say that as far as I have seen, that's the biggest complaint that one could seriously have about it: it's a parody that isn't very funny. What it isn't is some kind of perverted monstrosity requiring all civilized people to shun Ryan forever.

But let's also be very very clear about something. Mr. "Hell might be other people" isn't particularly interested in Ryan Caldari or his website. The faux outrage expressed in this line of questioning isn't genuine. This is about a hope that I will say something which can be taken out of context to prove that I'm somehow an awful human being, which is in fact Mr. Hell's primary goal here and, if I am correct about his identity (Mr. 2001) has been his primary hobby for several years now - cyberstalking and attacking me in every possible venue. It's a sad waste of what could be an otherwise productive and joyful life, and I wonder sometimes if he ever feels that it might be time to move on, that living in my shadow seeking constantly to lash out is really what he wants his time on this planet to be most remembered for by so many people. But so far, the obsession remains as strong as ever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as a very reasonable take, which is not to say there aren't people out there who are legitimately outraged. Also, while we may disagree with him over his choice of hobbies, it doesn't follow that Mr. 2001 is not having a productive and joyful life. Carrite (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Then again, we should remember the fact that "Hell might be other people" is not actually "Mr. 2001", so the sad obsession would seem to be Jimbo pinning that tag on just about every pseudonymous critic of his. Is he really so narcissistic that he believes there to be only one staunch critic of his in the world? - 50.146.142.198 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm narcissistic enough to believe there are dozens, when there are probably only 5 or 6. :-) If I've misidentified this one, I apologize (although I'm not sure to whom). The manner and style are close enough to have mislead me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What we know is that Kaldari has long been a productive member of the Wikipedia community and Jimbo is fully right to value him above the manufactured outrage spewed from throw-away accounts with no purpose not listed on Slide Three. Wnt (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, remember how outraged, and rightly so, you were when Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploaded a video of your portrait being painted by Pricasso who used his penis, scrotum and buttocks to paint it? Both Kaldari and Russavia are trolls, but what Kaldari trolled about is much worse. The WMF calls itself "charitable" organizations. It simply doesn't look good, when somebody as Kaldari is an employee of that "charitable" organizations.50.174.101.232 (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm entirely unpersuaded by that argument. I'm not aware of Kaldari trolling at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari was hosting the site, which was used to mock murdered children including Anne Frank. How else one could describe that site and its users? 50.174.101.232 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

One describes it as being a jerk and prat, like most of us were 100 years ago at time when all sorts of bizarre things seemed exceedingly funny after a night in the pub. Kaldari now has to live with this, Fortunately, for most people, it's not possible to fire people for actions in their daft past, so I suggest he's judged from this point onwards - one does not have to forget or even forgive, but one does have to move on and learn from mistakes. Giano (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What wouldn't look good is for any internet enterprise, non-profit or for-profit, to encourage people to put themselves online day after day, year after year, then turn around and say that any spy or spy wanna-be can pick a few things out of all that and get them fired. It is the duty of every internet enterprise to uphold and expand an internet bill of rights^[20] that repudiates McCarthyism/cyberbullying once and for all, denouncing all employment discrimination based on external postings and personal beliefs. Wnt (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaldari hosted that site – which is as much as we know. It was a bad joke to start with, which at some point became an awful joke. We don't really know or even suspect that it was Kaldari who pushed it quite that far. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and it's worth pointing that out to be fair to Kaldari - nonetheless, I should emphasize that my opinion would be just as firm if every word on the site were written solely by him. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Jimbo is honestly mistaken here. The "outrage" over the Snuffster site isn't (of course, and as he rightly says) genuine outrage at the site, but the Wikipediocracy thread also makes it clear that it's primarily about attacking the nearest and most exposed WMF staffer (in this case Kaldari) to discredit WMF, rather than any long-standing grudge against Kaldari and certainly not Jimbo himself.

People may genuinely be outraged by Snuffster (and again, rightly so) – but this teacup's storm is just "the island of broken toys" at WO, up to their usual frolics.Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he was mistaken. I have seen some discussing this that are indeed outraged that do not participate in the site. I also think that calling this nothing but an attack is dangerous ground to be stating here or, at the very least, uncivil and possibly even a BLP violation in itself. I hate the way people just assume that Wikipediocracy is nothing but an attack site. I know it has been an issue in the past...but from these types of comments...it's as if you are attacking them. . I suggest this just be hatted as it is going down hill fast. This just seems like nothing more than un-needed drama. Alright Andy...give it to me with both barrels. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia

Death of a Wikipedian

the ninth day

A barnstar for you!

Paid advocacy editor donors

2nd-tier treatment for COI, resumes, or non-English

Mass restoration of URAA-violating files

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March

May I ask

A barnstar for you!

Hello!

What if you pay yourself?

Wikimedia Foundation versus the community

Who owns the Wikimedia Foundation?

Should we mark WP:Editor Review as historical?

COI edit requests

On the idea of WMF paying editors

Wikipedia printed in 1,000 volumes

Chicken George!

Proposal from Wnt

Reality check

Wikimedia Azerbaijan?

Founder?

I am sad to say Mr Wales but this is not acceptable behaviour/bullies

WMF Benefactors and their Wikipedia entries

the beginning of the end

Log in...create another account?

Sorry

Faster reading with Spritz

Getty Images

Question from a terrifically unsuccessful newbie

LinkedIn

You may want to look at...

UK Peerage clean-up

Will beback appeals

Archives

Thought you should know

Restoring edit

Wikipedia donors and their related articles.

"Missing" items

Free Speech?

Correspending with "Hephaion"

Mr Wales. What is your opinion?