User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 182

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 175

←

Archive 180

Vision

I have a vision for Wikipedia to be devoid of typographical errors, and would appreciate it if you can actively take steps to work toward this goal. 104.207.136.27 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected your typographical error for you. Squinge (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

One small step for grammar nazis, one giant leap for mankind. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:-) Squinge (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed many times that Eric and I get sizable pay checks for our work, but to no avail. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Or should that be "cheque"? The biggest problem that I have come across is people arguing about which national version of spelling to use, which is covered at WP:PERENNIAL. Overall, the spelling on Wikipedia is pretty good, and better than some newspapers where the proof readurs seem to be working part time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The same IP posted at the the village pump with a similar concern. I posted at their talk page encouraging them to fix it themself. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Hi Jimbo. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at this BLP page. About two-thirds of the current article is focused on controversy. In comparison, in-depth profiles in Barrons and other local pubs[1][2] give her very different treatment. This diff has some links to my mostly unsuccessful solicitations for review of the article and/or my draft at BLPN, IRC and user Talk pages. I have my usual COI. There is some discussion on the Talk page that is ongoing, so I don't think I can quite claim to be taking advantage of your offer as a "last resort", but thought it may still qualify as the type of page and situation you may have an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 07:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

MBA section? Um. I hate he-said-she-said rehashings of events like this. Is there a single neutral independent overview we can sum up in a short para? Guy (Help!) 14:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I rolled up my sleeves and did a quick study. My first impression, reading our current article, was to ask myself "Is she even notable at all, outside of this one incident?" I had never heard of Mylan. But, as it turns out, Mylan is a company with over 6 billion dollars in revenue and 22,000 employees. Clearly the CEO is notable.

So our current article utterly fails to be a quality biography.

In your view is there a problem of POV pushing here, or is it just that someone eagerly came in and wrote up a lot about the controversy without really considering how it made the article imbalanced. I.E. do you think there is a problem here that will be made more difficult, or is it just a matter of someone coming in and fixing the article up?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Or, Jimbo, someone might have a different sense of "balance"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Who? Has anyone put forward any argument that the article with the huge section on the scandal and cursory other sections is balanced? It's one thing to randomly hypothesize that someone "might" have a different idea - but I haven't seen any actual arguments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Like you, I felt there was reasonable-enough consensus that there was a significant undue issue, especially given that there is already a dedicated article for the controversy and the summary on her page was half the length of the full, dedicated article, rather than following Wikipedia:Summary Style. Of course, the only way to address this undue issue completely is to fill up the rest of the article with her early life, job titles and claims to notability (female Fortune 500 CEO and lobbyist that pushed through a few notable pieces of pharmaceutical legislation). My sense is that the total body of literature positions her view that she did earn a degree as a borderline fringe view, so I do not contest NPOV the way one might expect; material on this subject should be significantly critical of her claims and explain, but not legitimize, her perspective.

The controversy does seem to be mostly focused on the actions of university staff. The internal investigation the college conducted found no wrongdoing on Bresch's behalf for merely inquiring as to her degree status, but said the college staff reacted to public pressure and the desire to protect an important alumni by manipulating records. Therefore, I am concerned that the dedicated article is named after her, whereas the primary focus is that of the college staff. However, since the subject of the article is her alleged degree, I have no better titles to propose as this is probably the title that makes the most sense for readers, even if it is unfair to a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering the school itself is more "involved" in the controversy than the recipient, apparently, maybe West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy might work better? John Carter (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter It might be worthwhile to start an article-naming discussion. I think naming the article after Heather is actually more specific/better, but it is a fairly trivial benefit to Wikipedia and a substantial opportunity for harm to a BLP. Probably consensus would just vary based on who shows up that day and how they feel about BLP issues. CorporateM (Talk) 19:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Just in case anyone has missed it: CorporateM is working on behalf of Mylan, and Bresch is Mylan's CEO: [3]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
So? Why the hostility? He disclosed did he not? The company and the CEO have a right to request a review of the situation to make sure the article isn't unfairly negative. Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, when an editor has a strong point-of-view and is unhappy about someone influencing an article to deviate from their viewpoint, they almost always focus on the editor, rather than the content. Passive observers may see Nomoskedasticity's comments as the kind of COI abuse that the PR industry is often complaining about, but the same hostility would be targeted against any editor that attempted to correct the page. Probably the same accusations of COI manipulation would occur even if the editor did not actually have one and it is even oten PR pros themselves that engage in similar bullying and allegations of corrupted motives, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take Nomoskedasticity's remark here as hostile. It is a fact that people should be aware of. CorporateM is acting here as a paid advocate for the subject of the biography. He's followed not only the letter of Wikimedia Foundation policy, but also the best practice of the bright line rule. I'll go a step further in praise as well. It would be entirely possible to follow both my bright line rule and the letter of policy and still be an annoying nitwit by wikilawyering endless on hopeless points. He isn't even doing that. So while we should all cut him some slack, it's also ok to make sure that all participants in the dialogue are aware of his status. If we are to have a credible sustained campaign against people doing things the wrong way, we have to laud and support people who do things the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM is good people. COIs are always openly declared, and where consensus is against, it is accepted with good grace. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I re-read Nomo's comments on the Talk page. Jimbo is correct actually. It was the speculation that minor copyediting items were some kind of intentional manipulation that made me feel mistreated, but this kind of thing is actually very common. I shouldn't have been so hasty to call his comments abusive. I think most of the discussions ongoing right now about article-naming/merging are areas where experienced editors may reasonably disagree and I will therefore abstain per my usual. I appreciate so many editors initiating thoughtful discussions and Jimbo proving once more that his Talk page is an effective board to draw attention to them. At some point (and there is absolutely WP:NORUSH, I hope we can take a look at the draft and get it GAN-ready like I do with most pages I have a COI with. CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Itchy trigger fingers. You're used to it by now I think :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Bresch article was ridiculously POV at the time that CorporateM raised the issue here. Better now. I'm not really bothered by the COI because look, this is a BLP, and anyone, including Bresch herself, would be within their rights to come here if BLPN didn't do anything, which was the case here. We do have bright-line rules but we also have policies of decency we have to follow on biographies, and it's ridiculous for this person's bio to be dominated by that controversy. However, it does have to be mentioned. I don't know about a separate article, either. That seems a bit weird. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy

Seriously? Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy? Who the hell thinks that's a good idea? This is a minor semi-public figure, and we have an entire article on a teapot tempest relating to her, just because people can't cover it in the main article without bloating it out. Which leaves the indelible impression that the main article exists only as a WP:COATRACK. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be retired editor HoboJones, who created the piece in 2008, as you are aware from the template you put on his talk page. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

For values of "me" that translate to Twinkle. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely insane to have a separate article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. It deserves good coverage but good coverage in the BLP would give undue weight to the controversy.

Jimmy, as Jehochman says, "...just because somebody is a paid PR person doesn't mean that they are wrong or that they are unethical." I've worked with CorporateM on a couple of COI articles, as have many other editors in good standing. In my opinion he's the very model of a "paid advocacy" editor. We're dealing with the opposite kind of COI editor in ArbCom right now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction free zones?

I know that by tradition this page is considered to be more or less exempt from some sanctions, as it is one of the places where people who are experiencing problematic misconduct from others can appeal to an authority. It has recently happened that Eric Corbett got a short two day block for mentioning the Gender Gap task force in passing at the talk page of WikiProject Editor Retention. There are already several people who have been, in a sense, "empowered" to remove disruptive or problematic comments on that page, me among them, who did not perceive that passing mention as necessarily being sanctionable. Also, in at least my opinion, I think some of the more likely individuals to post there regarding their concerns are editors who may be under sanctions of some sort and at a state where they are considering leaving the project, and preventing good editors, even those with some problems, from leaving is the primary purpose of that group. Do you think that there might be any way to somehow establish some page other than your user talk page which could be a sanction-free zone where editors could, well, vent, or safely express their concerns, even if doing so might violate some sort of existing sanctions, particularly thinking of editors who may be considering leaving the project if they can't find a place to do that? John Carter (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend www.wikipediocracy.com for all your whining and caterwauling needs... (Eric has been tossed from that site, or more properly, came to a mutual agreement to leave, so this doesn't apply to him). You will also find there are certain Wikimedia lists that are amenable to grumpy complaints about En-WP or Commons processes. A couple of those banned off En-WP in the Gendergap Task Force case have found a home of friendly friends at the WMF's Gendergap-l mailing list (Archive at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/ ). In the same vein but with a broader focus is Wikimedia-l (Archive at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ ). Both of these are amenable only to certain kinds of snarkiness or complaint, mind you, I recently got tossed off the former for trolling by the outgoing moderator (and would have a life expectancy there of 0.03 days with new moderators Lightbreather and Carol Moore), so that is to be borne in mind. But that is an option for the "I hate Arbcom because........" crowd who doesn't share the common orientation at Wikipediocracy. Finally there is always IRC, which has long been the home of backstage carping and machiavellian plotting... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the editors who are engaged in personal attacks about Gamergate above, while ArbCom is still working on the case, consider this talk page to be their sanction-free zone. I don't think that they would be at each other in the same way on Talk: Gamergate controversy or on an ArbCom talk page, with its notices that the ArbCom is there and will take incivility into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lua support on Wikimedia

I understand when it comes to helping beginners of Lua programming, no one alone is obligated to take all the burdens, but from my point of view, the support (teaching the beginners instead of giving them a readily working module without explaining anything) from veterans is, sadly, very lacking. I understand how to use if/else logical operator and the basic table (because they're if/switch in the more programming form), but still struggling to understand why and how recursion works (obviously it doesn't have any wiki markup equivalence). I don't know how to put the examples from external tutorials into Wikimedia and make them functional. Someone else asked in help talk:Lua debugging about how mediawiki's debug console works (because even in the current version the help page isn't helpful in any sense to beginners), but no reply from anyone for more than 4 months. I don't know either and that's why my checkered edit histories of all modules I have touched. It seems most veterans are working on some offline Lua application before submitting the codes to Wikimedia so the module is less likely to result in script error. Such routine is never mentioned anywhere in Wikimedia or MediaWiki. Honestly I don't feel home the first month Wikimedia introduced Lua, and it continues as is today. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Try asking folks at Wikipedia_talk:Lua. NE Ent 13:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And then still no one bother to explain how debug console works. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Specifically for the debug console, there is Help:Lua debugging which is linked from Wikipedia:Lua. For specific questions, the link provided by NE Ent is useful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Help:Lua debugging contains not a word scarcely resembles "console". How did that answer my question in the first place? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For the details of Mediawiki's Lua extensions and interfaces, you want mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual (about which you are correct in that it doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere for beginners that it should be), its talk page, and slides 36 et seq. of http://tstarling.com/presentations/Tim%20Lua%202012.pdf which go with the last half of the talk in the video at the top of mw:Lua/Tutorial. EllenCT (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I read those manual and pdf but things get not pretty when their examples have skipped a lot of details. I expect a full code like those examples in W3 SVG specification rather than a excerpt. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 17:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Trans people

Jimmy, I don't follow advanced Wikipedia drama much these days but I have seen some extremely disturbing signs of trans people being baited by people whose underlying agenda is, to me, extremely suspect.

You and I both know that trans people go through a living hell in order to arrive at a gender identity that they can accept. It is not a case of waking up one morning and thinking, oh, perhaps I'll change sex this week. Wikipedia is not therapy, but neither should it be a place where it is acceptable to bait and troll emotionally vulnerable people in order to try to provoke them into an explosion and get themselves banned.

Wikipedia used to be one of the most inclusive places around. I guess the rot set in before "sexology" and Manning, but we seem to have arrived at a much less tolerant position, and I don't think Wikipedia is a better place for it.

It's clear that at some point certain disputants are going to have to be dragged forcibly apart, but in the process I think it is worth considering whether there is a way of addressing the cultural drift, which is rapidly headed, I have to say, towards a place where only us white male heterosexual nerds have a hope of fitting in. I think Mike is right about this. I would like to see you take a stand on inclusiveness, because I really think it's under threat. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In the same general line - a Canadian news story 'Offensive and inappropriate': Homophobic Wikipedia edits lead to correctional service investigation shows the problems Correctional Service of Canada employees have editing Wikipedia.

But the CSC seems to be doing something about it, investigating with punishment likely to follow. "CSC employees are required to respect departmental and Treasury Board Internet usage policies. Those policies prohibit, among other things, ... sending abusive, sexist, or racist messages." I would hope Wikipedia would be able to do the same. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As a white, heterosexual man who due to PDD-NOS doesn't generally have an easy time getting along with other people sharing said traits, I would suggest this; framing the issue makes a huge difference. If I were to want to raise awareness of the difficulties autistics face on Wikipedia (of which there are many), I would ensure that the wording comes across as "Here are some of the more common problems autistics have, these are the things the autism community is divided on, here are some things we're still looking into, and here are a few things you can bear in mind if you run into one of us". The problem I see is that a lot of people with valid concerns about the treatment of transgender people on Wikipedia are screaming either "Here, let me educate you (even though I'm just a username on a website)" or "You're ignorant, here are the facts, how could you not know this you bigot?" Either approach lays out the same set of problems, but one is a lot more likely to garner receptivity. It seems like most of the time, users are using the most abrasive method possible. The old adage of attracting flies with honey rather than vinegar comes to mind. I'll let others comment on the very real issues JzG refers to above, but my own feeling is that there's some work to be done on the other end as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree and just wanted to say though it depends on what type of autism, for some people you cant tell the difference while others I agree have more difficulty. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For sure. These are different differences, though. People on the autistic spectrum exhibit certain behaviours which may mitigate against collegial relationships with others. I am reminded of Giano, who is constitutionally unable to offer the recommended level of politesse to those he perceives as idiots, but who is ably assisted by some good friends and really delivers the goods for the project. I'm not aware of anybody who has a religious abhorrence of the very existence of autistic people (I await with trepidation the evidence that such people exist). The issue here is that people who are identified as trans, especially, are subjected to obsessive behaviour by a subset of people who usually manage, just barely, to remain civil to gay Wikipedians. In the old days they probably went off to Conservapedia, but that place is even more toxic than an ArbCom case and in any case only three people read it, and all of them are form RationalWiki, so maybe they are mounting an assault on Wikipedia, emboldened by the Faux News narrative of ascendent wingnuttery in the US. Who knows. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely not to the same degree, but there are little barbs that get tossed around sometimes; I've seen comments along the lines of "you'd have to be pretty autistic not to understand the emotional component here" (IIRC, a Muhammad images discussion), and the anti-vaxxer loons pop up every so often. We definitely need to do better as a community at dealing with transphobic comments, and I think being more proactive in topic-banning people would help; posturing about it, which seems to be happening a lot more often, only leads to angst. And while I certainly think a polite explanation is reasonable the first or the second go-round, we should be quicker to deal with people who are unwilling to at least go along with the more commonly accepted ways of handling these issues. Obviously there are some things on which reasonable people will disagree, but there are a lot more which are fairly clear and should be treated as such. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)|

My feeling is that a significant part of the problem with the Manning case, and possibly with Gamergate, although I haven't really scrutinised it in depth is that Wikipedia's psychology is not good at adapting to trolling. In Manning, I think a lot of editors (including a lot of admins, who really should have been straight on top of those discussions) approached the whole thing with a mindset of being neutral, respecting freedom of expression, not acting without consensus and so on. Which effectively meant tolerating trolling and abuse, as well and bungling the resolution of the naming issue.

So, Guy, please don't misunderstand this as a veiled accusation, but if you are currently aware that trans editors are being baited, is there anything you can directly do about it? It there anything preventing from acting? I don't think there can be any way to deal with it other than by dealing with it. Formerip (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I know of at least two long-term trans editors that have been driven away from Wikipedia because of institutional transphobia. It's not a fringe matter, and goes against Foundation efforts to ensure that discrimination doesn't take part. ArbCom cases not only do not help, but actively harm trans people on the project. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

December participation metrics

The December 2014 participation numbers are now up at THE USUAL PLACE. The benchmark count of Very Active Editors (100+ edits in the month) stands at 3,056 — down 29 people from December 2013 (0.9%). For Q-IV we're showing an average of 2,988 for 2014, as opposed to 2,986 for 2013-IV. In other words, we're holding completely steady, despite the maelstrom of naysaying from various sides...

As for Article creation, what I feel is the other main metric of English WP's health, NEW ARTICLES PER DAY have tailed off significantly, down to 778 in December 2014 vs. 830 in Dec. 2013 (a fall of 6.6%). For the quarter the average number of articles created per day is down from 892 to 851 (about 4.6%). I reckon some decline is more or less inevitable as the lowest hanging new article fruit is picked off the trees... Total edits seems to show a roughly commensurate decline although it is harder to tell THERE due to the effects of rounding in the reported figures.

In all things appear to me to be more or less stable. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In the event anyone from WMF concerned with such things is reading this, would it be possible to start listing total edits out to a couple more digits — 2.878M rather than 2.9M? The rounding makes it difficult to see what is actually going on outside of very broad outlines... Even one extra digit would be informative. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lock for my own safety

Dear Jimbo,

I wanted to write to you with the greatest respect you deserve as any user. Due to the recent actions I have felt a great fear about global locks some great friends, so. Please, I ask you, sincerely, that you do not make me WMF perform a global lock to me for an unknown reason for my own safety.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this message. I understand if you can not answer it, because I know that you are a very busy person.

God bless you --Wilfredor (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein blog post

Hi Jimbo. I'm very concerned about the allegations raised in Mark Bernstein's blog post Infamous. If the allegations of who will and won't be banned, and why, are true (and based on my experience outside of Wikipedia of the GamerGate movement, it's very likely), then we need to stop the preliminary decision from being enforced in its proposed form. If the allegations are false (unlikely), then the community needs to address the claims made in the blog post. Just hyperlinking to the arbcom case won't work, as it's a tad tl;dr. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire situation is a poignant illustration of what happens when you lose any sense of proportion. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

For using terms like slander, I don't see much in the way of evidence from Bernstein, so it looks like spin and exaggerated distortion to me. It appears those "five horsemen" were colluding themselves to silence those they disagreed with[4][5] so I question Bernstein's portrayal of them as poor persecuted feminists. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that both sides were colluding in the way Bernstein criticizes from what I'm seeing of this. To an extent I wonder if such collaboration even can be kept out of Wikipedia at all. It seems like trying to ban guns or alcohol, there will always be a black market. Frankly people are always going to want to work together on causes. Part of me wonders if the anti-canvassing restrictions just lead to cases of sneakiness like this where the ones who get away with it are those willing to lie about it while accusing others. It's frustrating to play by the rules and run up against gangs of people working against you as seen here. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bernstein's post is very one-sided. Then again, the current Gamergate WP page is one sided, the on-wiki debate has been one-sided, the mainstream media coverage has been one-sided, the result of the "battleground" fight has been one-sided — so this is nothing new. In his criticism of the proposed decision he is peddling horsefeathers... There need to be POV warriors removed on both sides of this food fight and Arbcom is (imperfectly) doing that. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The real danger I see is not so much POV (since everyone has one, as long as one keeps it out of one's editing and just reports the facts) or even collaboration, but rather colluding to remove those one disagrees with. Then it becomes a free speech issue and results in dictatorships with biased results, where consensus can't be achieved because all those who disagree get eliminated. That's why I am so concerned about using objective standards to define what fringe views are, because I think that issue is one way discrimination occurs, resulting in removal of editors based on their viewpoints. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Much better to give every fringey fringe equal air time. Or, alternatively, using subjective standards! Drmies (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, 7157.118.25a, if you're User:Jzyehoshua then you're indef blocked for violating a community imposed topic ban and shouldn't be creating new accounts here. I guess you couldn't keep your own POV under control, huh? Where's Mabel? (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha, thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. You may want to block User:71.57.118.25 (or just keep an eye on Mike Huckabee for the next sock). Where's Mabel? (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Or, if you find Mabel, you can maybe ask her to log in to her regular admin-powered account, and she can take care of it! Anyway, I'm guessing the autoblock might take care of it--and if not, well, Jimbo has admin powers too. As for Mike Huckabee, I am court-ordered to stay away from him: I'm highly allergic to the man and his ideas. Post at RFPP if it gets out of hand. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason he's topic banned. Really he misses the entire point. In the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there should never be "5 horseman." Lots of people making small neutral edits keeps ownership and POV problems in check and prevents the anthropomorphization of any viewpoint. The target was created by problematic editors. NBSB has thousands of edits on this sole topic. That's a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason that there are "5 horsemen" is that anonymous trolls on 8chan decided to target the editors who were preventing them from slandering living people on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless Mark Bernstein is topic banned with very good reason. He accused User:Thargor Orlando of being part of a coordinated effort against him on 8chan, based on absolutely no evidence[6]. He implied that the thread was part of an attempt on his life (thereby implying based on 0 evidence that a wikipedia editor was part of a plot to murder him).[7] He has accused other editors of being pro-rape and women-beating.[8] He has accused User:Masem of being head of a complex 8chan cabal of GamerGaters, and of being a rape apologist based on an edit war he tried to solve.[9] He has shown complete disregard when advised that he may be causing more harm than good.[10][11] Mark Bernstein is the last person (excluding a few 100 or so pro-GG conspiracy theorists) any self-respecting journalist should have gone to for information about the GamerGate arbcom case. Bosstopher (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Mark Bernstein in this case. "Operation 5 Horsemen" was explicitly devised by trolls on 8chan. You want a link to the pastebin they put together to say "These five editors oppose our POV, therefore we should destroy them"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact that "Operation 5 Horseman" is an 8chan thing, hence why I started my comment with "nonetheless." The point I was trying to make was that even though what DHeyward is saying is incorrect, he's right that Mark Bernstein is topic banned with good reason, and is not someone (at least in this scenario) who journalists should be citing as a main source for information. Bosstopher (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bernstein got topic banned because he was boomeranged after an attempt to ban Masem, and by accusing him of being a rape apologist (or something I can't recall exactly). It is disingenuous to think he was topic banned for pushing an "anti-Gamergate" agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, DSA is the one who coined the "5 Horsemen of WikiBias" term and 8chan just ran with it. Most of the evidence in the findings of fact against the five appear to be mostly my evidence with some of Tutelary's evidence. Not sure where Tutelary's evidence came from, but the evidence I presented is basically all stuff I dug up myself and it seems the small bit of evidence I got from someone else (on my talk page) is not being used. Claims that 8chan is somehow controlling anything going on with this case are pretty meager. Only one piece of evidence I sent privately was from 8chan and that was more like a tip that I then investigated before e-mailing them. As of right now, it appears that evidence is not affecting the decision.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Your evidence was incredibly faulty and put forward in bad faith. You included several links to edits that were inherently not violations but you provided them entirely out of context to make them appear to be violations. That was clear from all of our rebuttals to the various links you posted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me every rebuttal you gave to my evidence was some variation of "It was an accident!" Given your tendency for "accidents" I am not sure that was the best defense.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sensitive BLP-related issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

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

No. I said that anything that you perceived as such was unintentional and not meant in bad faith unlike the fact that you deliberately posted a polemic statement on the article talk page of one of the victims of harassment and got nothing but a chiding from Alison.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to point out a potential BLP concern, but since explaining why it was a BLP concern would mean blatantly violating BLP I was in a bit of a quandary. Did I phrase it in the best way possible? Certainly not, but I still tried my best to raise a BLP issue without creating another one. You, on the other hand, do not seem to gather that drawing as much attention to it as possible in as many highly-viewed pages as possible is counter-productive to your stated concern. Do not respond to this, please, as that only makes it worse.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That potential BLP concern you obviously wanted to bring it up is an unfounded rumor as far as anyone knows. No one needed to be aware of any aspect of that concern because for all we are concerned the concern doesn't exist because it is a lie.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

TDA, this is the bullshit that we are all tired of. You are the one who made the incredibly bad edit. Yet you are the one attempting to cast blame on me for pointing out that this edit was incredibly bad. This is ridiculous. You should not be chastising me for an edit you made in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of a bigger problem

The Arbitration Committee is probably the biggest factor to Wikipedia's disrepute, especially towards female and LGBT editors. I said so after Sexology, I said so after Manning naming dispute, I said so after GGTF, and I'm saying it again now after Gamergate. In all four cases, people who were trying to prevent specialised POV pushing from bigots were reprimanded severely and said bigots were given free reign in their topic areas. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes, ArbCom, no matter who is on it, seems intent on keeping and worsening the heterosexual cisgender white male systemic point of view. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sceptre. You may be looking at all this very narrowly. The big picture is that the current proposed decision is even-handed and includes:

no site-bans
eleven t-bans
endorses forty or so existing community sanctions and places them under ArbCom enforcement
endorses about a hundred community warnings/notifications and brings them under ArbCom enforcement
introduces discretionary sanctions for any gender-related dispute or controversy to fast-track problem editors
reminds editors of the existing BLP provisions to tackle drive-by abuse
tackles factionalism and blocs
invites neutral editors to participate
invites uninvolved administrators to participate
invites review of problematic articles

As we have no jurisdiction whatsoever over editorial content, and have absolutely no mandate to create new policy by fiat, I'm not clear what else we're supposed to do. Roger Davies ^talk 06:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the decision is "even-handed" is the problem, Roger. There are not two "equal sides" here, there is one side that has been responsible for vicious attacks on living people and endless attempts to depict living people in a false light, and another side that has worked tirelessly to prevent these falsehoods from appearing in the encyclopedia. Pretending that these are "equal" issues is the very crux of the issue that you continue to ignore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That is certainly the view of the partisans on both sides (though of course both portray theirs as the only valid view). Those not committed to one side or another are less convinced. The Manning case was a trainwreck with obvious enabling of homophobes and trolls, this one less so. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you've seen enough of what goes on in this topic area to make that comment, Guy, because the sources are pretty clear-cut. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, even if we accept the Gamergate proposed decision as neutral (it's not), there's still the other three cases. Banning Carol Moore but not Eric Corbett is inexplicable for any other reason than institutional sexism. Same with banning Andrea James but not James Cantor; in the latter case, Andrea James was rather uncivil, but Cantor is the very model of a civil POV pusher (and a dangerous one at that). Sceptre ^(talk) 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Arbcom, Sceptre, aren't you topic-banned from this topic that you are stirring up here now??? Carrite (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sceptre are you aware of the details of these cases or have you just skimmed over them and concluded the issue without any analysis of detail? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very aware of the detail of these cases, especially Sexology. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So you'll be aware of how extremely problematic Andrea James' editing was, then. I seriously don't see that it's useful to try to draw a line between these cases, but the most obvious one is that both involved editors trying to deal with objectionable content in mainspace. If civil POV-pushing works better than edit-warring, I'll have another glass. Formerip (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing Andrea James' editing was problematic, but the refusal of ArbCom to even topic ban Cantor, despite evidence of civil POV pushing/FRINGE advocacy for years, was perhaps more problematic than that. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it is disgraceful that he is not indefinitely banned from this topic. David Gerard wrote memorably on the subject and ArbCom would be well advised to ask him privately for his views: he is extremely well informed on the subject, IMO, and I don't think anybody could reasonably doubt his Wikipedian credentials. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I have seen altogether too much: my view is "a plague on all their houses", topic-ban anyone with more than ten edits to the article and get fresh eyes. But then, I freely admit to being deeply cynical about hysterical manufactroversies about video games, a subject which is slightly less important than which leaf will fall off my field maple next. Behaviour around Gamergate has been despicable, and the triviality of the root subject only makes this more shocking. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the general subject is of video game trolls is "trivial". However, the astounding number of edits related to the "trivial" that have had to be rev del because of gross violations of BLP from the importation of the offsite trolling moves the issue from beyond "trivial". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem here, JzG, is that Gamergate evolved long beyond any "hysterical manufactroversies about video games" into phsychological terrorism fairly quickly, considering someone's dog got killed within the past two weeks because of a false police report filed by someone in the "Gamergate collective" against a detractor. This whole concept of partisan sides is not representative of the actual structure of the controversy. One side is a group (per the vast majority of reliable sources published long since the "impetus") that has organized itself around being able to harass their victims into silence and the support group that formed around the initial victims of harassment. It is not like one side is pro-ethics and the other side is anti-ethics, which is what such terminology would want you to believe. People opposed to Gamergate as the erstwhile movement are opposed to a culture of harassment and threats of violence. You have a group of people who after managing to get a game already fraught with trademark issues and violent content back onto a distribution platform that they want to add their victims of harassment as killable options. I had stepped back from the greater topic area by the time the case had started and I don't plan on going back because the gift I received from one person means Gamergate advocates will constantly use that against me for even wanting to correct a comma on the page. Regardless of Mark Bernstein's original statements that are being parroted throughout the press, the proposed decision does indeed send the message that if you organize your campaign to disrupt Wikipedia offsite, there is nothing that Wikipedia users can do to stop you and they will in fact be banned for it instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, regardless of whatever else is right or wrong here, this definitely looks like a problem. Formerip (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree. A certain portion of the videogame fan community appears to have gone out of its way to prove tot he world that they are over-entitled arrogant pricks who think that causing real-world shit for people is entirely justified if their prejudices are challenged. I have been a victim of similar behaviour from other groups who cannot tolerate any challenge to their cherished beliefs, and others have too, outside the gaming nonsense. It's not new. The problem is that the whole area is a battleground, and neither side will accept the other being permitted the last word. I think the best way to fix this is for all the partisans to go away and non-partisans to take over. I am sure other ways could be found, but not without constant enforcement action. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The area is only a battleground because one side turns it into a battleground regardless of the forum of discussion. And I believe it is going to be extremely difficult to find non-partisan people who will want to get involved in dealing with the obvious partisans that aren't going to be banned right away, even with the new sanctions in place to prevent disruption from new and zombie accounts. And the obvious partisans who disrupted the arbitration case and yet go unpunished will be even harder to deal with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have always thought of you as clueful: just pretend for a moment that you're one of the other lot and see if you'd phrase that any differently. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

JzG, Gamergate literally calls its organized actions "operations". It literally has propaganda posters that it sends across the Internet. Some of these quite literally have been modified from ones in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the anti-Suffrage movements of the early 20th century. Because, from everything I've seen, they think that WP:NPOV means that they deserve a 50/50 split on coverage, then Wikipedia must present their narrative and completely ignore the extensive analysis of their actions in all media just so that there is no longer a sentence in the article that calls the very situation that caused them to organize as predicated on a lie, or utilize information culled from sources that are full of BLP violations and aren't even what we would consider reliable sources. There was discussion after discussion demanding that Milo Yiannopoulos's articles in favor of Gamergate be added to the page, and these are things with titles like "Feminist Bullies Ruining Video Games". Or you have Carrite demanding that something someone wrote with the pseudonym Gurney Halleck be given credence on the page and then his extreme indignation (which continues to this day) that people called him out on it that it failed WP:ELNO. I approached this topic area as a Wikipedian first and foremost, and that meant I told people that they didn't have consensus for such vast changes, they didn't have reliable sources to support their changes, and at least one editor I had to revert to remove BLP violations. I did not have anything remotely resembling an off-site presence with this subject until I was contacted out of the blue on my Twitter by someone who had a bone to pick with my academic background and my opinion when it came to this topic area. I had entirely intended to keep myself neutral on the matter, but the response I gave began the harassment I still suffer from to this day, which did color my opinion on the subject from then on. What happened at Gamergate controversy, and related pages, is the same as what happens to every other article on a contentious subject where one side of the "debate" as it were (this isn't really a debate anymore as it is a harassment movement) doesn't like how they're being covered on Wikipedia and don't like how the established Wikipedia users are responding to their unreasonable demands. There's threads like that on ANI like daily. You could probably go there now and find at least 2 such threads. But I don't think that Wikipedia has ever had to deal with anything like what's on the scale of Gamergate, with regards to its web presence and the net savvy nature of the fringe movement it's become. These are people on par with Obama birth certificat deniers, Holocaust deniers (they have some in their ranks too), and other such conspiracy theories, rather than being a consumer movement for better ethics in video game journalism, considering that all of their claimed breaches of ethics did not exist or their demands boiled down to "we don't care about story tell us if it plays well". Did I act inappropriately at times? Probably. However, I still maintain thati acted in the best interests of Wikipedia rather than the interests of any other group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're being strident with the wrong person. The issue is that both sides are totally uncompromising. One side are also first grade shits, but that's beside the point, because although in many case the truth is not an average between two extremes, it very rarely lies entirely at one or the other either. Some people have seen some merit in some statements made by gamergaters. Some reasonable people have seen evidence that the victims did have at least some case tow answer on some things. And when the issue is approached in the light of trying to expose the truth according to reliable independent sources (which do now exist, and are largely entirely unsympathetic to the modern-day /b/tards), then the wind is entirely removed from their sails. We fought off 4chan raids for years. It is interesting to speculate why essentially the same delinquents are now getting away with it. I really don't know the answer, but every defender of decent liberal values getting themselves banned probably isn't going to help.

I think it really is time to calm down and try to take a dispassionate view. Recruit some people who have no history with the issue, and leave them to it for six months, then see what happens. I fully support protection or other technical measures to ward off legions of "brand new users" (or people with three edits five years ago, which amounts to the same thing). I would think that a community appointed task force of editors with good records and no history, would be a way towards article content that is properly Wikipedian. I know we don't do that, but maybe we should. It sickens me to see people I like being provoked into explosions and getting banned. In the old days we had mates who would send email or calming talk page messages, but in the old days Wikipedia was not the number one most important place to get your POV reflected as truth. It is now, and we have to learn a way to deal with it. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me, Roger, having read quite a lot of the debate around the case, that you are supposed to ignore fairly egregious misbehaviour, such as clear edit waring, battleground and assumptions of bad faith because, on the one hand, the cause is noble, and, on the other, the trolls made them do it. Neither should be an excuse and I, for one, am glad that the committee seems to see it that way. GoldenRing (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

+1, GoldenRing. What the media seems to have gotten wrong, is that editors are not being sanctioned because of they are anti-GG, or whatever content they bring to the table. It's because of their conduct. It's shoddy fact-checking and reporting by the media, including trusting the opinion of an editor who has been topic banned from GamerGate exactly because of his conduct. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

hatting comment of user who is topic banned Avono (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

That the proposed decision of which I wrote is infamous, is an opinion widely shared. Yes, some of its most extreme measures might not pass and some additional, disposable accounts may be sanctioned to give the impression of balance. Whether or not widespread public indignation at its measures has played some role in that, I cannot say. But only hours ago, Arbcom was used to punish a prominent woman in computing through filing a specious case over whether allegations that she prostituted herself should be described as "false,"' following the NY Times, or as "unproven". Public deliberation proceeded for quite some time with sedate judgment by editors and arbitrators about characterizing this woman's sex life until, finally, someone realized that the page should be blanked. Wikipedia has been and continues to be used as a weapon against women in computing; I see little in either the proposed decision or the current revision that recognizes, much less remedies, this, and much that lends assistance to those who would like nothing better than the opportunity to intimidate women with the threat that their own sex lives might be the next topic for Arbcom publicly to scrutinize.(Posted under the terms of my own topic ban which permits participation in the Arbcom proceedings, and because my essays seem to be the subject here.) MarkBernstein (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As to your larger issue, I have nothing to add but as someone who watches Arbcom, on procedure, proposing a ban and having it be voted down soundly is a way to clear the user directly and openly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies more or less precisely correct details the actual content of the ArbCom decision above — but the so-called Reliable Sources all insist that ArbCom has made a retaliatory hit against feminist Wikipedians in its decision, in de facto lockstep with the Gamergaters. Now imagine (and this is easy to imagine) that somebody inserts this "fact" into the article and that you can't restore actual balance because five or so POV warriors are "tending" the article, that any newcomer to the article is banned off as a "single purpose" meatpuppet, that any long-term Wikipedian is voted down by the clique because "reliable sources" do not exist to demonstrate that what Roger says is true — or that if they do exist, they may not be used because they "violate BLP." There, my friends, you have in microcosm the essence of what has gone wrong with the Wikipedia Gamergate article. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Addenda: By "no site bans," Roger means "no site bans against the clique of editors who have engaged in battleground behavior to maintain House POV in the Gamergate piece." They are most certainly site banning off The Devil's Advocate, who crossed swords with them. Arbcom aren't even to be bothered with topic banning one of the leading clique members... Arbcom has pretty much punted the football on actually making it possible to fix the one-sided Gamergate article, truth be told... Carrite (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A larger problem is the willingness of editors to use sources that are not reliable. Op-eds, blog posts, and clearly polemical articles should not be considered reliable sources for anything beyond the fact that their authors have certain opinions (which will often not be relevant to anything - who cares what some random journalist or political commentator happens to think, perhaps echoing others?). If this means there are very few genuinely reliable sources for the Gamergate article, and the whole thing needs to be stripped right back, so be it. I'm not sure we should even have articles on such volatile current controversies, but if we do we should stick with whatever is uncontroversially established from sources that are genuinely reliable, such as whatever is said in straight news reportage, peer-reviewed academic articles (and better still, review articles and meta-analyses), academic monographs, publicly available government data bases, textbooks, established encyclopedias and other reference works, etc. The more we are prepared to use as sources op-eds, polemical articles, etc., with arguments about which ones to use on some pretext or other, and which to exclude on some pretext or other, the more it encourages people to use Wikipedia as a battleground in culture warring... and to forget that they are here to build a neutral, informative encyclopedia. I'm at least pleased to see that the arbcom seems to have taken a strong stance against battleground activity. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No I mean "No site bans". It currently looks as if TDA will be t-banned, Roger Davies ^talk 15:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, you really need to drop this "house POV" facade. You were called out for providing a link to a website full of invalidated and outright false claims about a living person on the article's talk page and then your "evidence" in the arbitration case that provided the exact same link was removed from the page because of WP:BLP violations. I am sick and tired of you constantly being somehow negatively affected by the fact that you aren't allowed to post a massive BLP violation by proxy. This has nothing to do with "tending the article". It's because anyone with half a brain can see that a website whose author is Gurney Halleck and whose page is basically the manifesto of every disproven talking point. There is nothing with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP that I had done wrong as far as I am aware. However, the same cannot be said for you, Carrite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh, you're the one being found to have engaged inedit-warring and battleground behavior, the one being topic-banned from Gamergate, the one put on a 1-RR for all topics across Wikipedia, and the one who has a block log as long as my arm replete with edit warring and ownership-related blocks. As they say in the NFL: "Scoreboard!!!" Carrite (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That isn't relevant. Your only contribution to the whole of Gamergate was to post a link that contained all of the false allegations that had caused it to start to begin with and all you've done since is whine that you got called out for it. You deserve a ban as much as I do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't obfuscate and mislead. I posted a suggested edit to a fully locked-down article on the talk page for an external link to a blog post in which the Gamergaters explain themselves and their issue most coherently. You and a couple of the other House POV Horsemen blew a gasket at my temerity. I have edited Gamergate a cumulative total of zero times, how many edits have you made??? That will be your final count, whatever it is... Thank god. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop using 8chan's terminology. We are not horsemen of anything. We are editors who were doing our damnedest to prevent the BLP violations found in every single page of that blog post you posted from being repeated on the website. What the hell made you think that a blog post authored by a Swordsmaster of House Atreides would even possibly considered a reliable source for anything. You waded into the topic area with a chip on your shoulder. My intent was to improve the article in good faith. Your intent was to push that stupid website of unknown actual authorship and editorial control. And you know what I did in regards to that stupid link you posted? Absolutely nothing. Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranof, Masem, and Strongjam responded to your ill informed proposal and as soon as someone said "This is a bad idea" you went straight to the arbitration committee to complain of bias rather than actually acknowledge the fact that it in no way meets WP:ELNO and is in direct violation of WP:BLP. Regardless of how bad MarkBernstein got his understanding of the debate, the community at large is seeing how incredibly wrong the arbitration committee has been in applying the bans here. My absense on the page, which has been in place since long before you tried to suggest that a blog attributed to a character from Dune could even remotely possibly be an acceptable thing to propose to be added to any article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

[redacted per BLP]

Well isn't that terrible. Look, I agree with Guy. Start afresh with new editors in that article, people with a sense of proportion on the shockingly unimportant subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's "shockingly unimportant" that living people have been subject to vicious slander campaigns using biographies and articles as a venue for character assassination? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is shockingly insignificant precisely because of the ridiculously disproportionate acts of partisans. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The only "partisans" are the slew of accounts dormant for years at a time revived to edit the page without having to deal with semi-protection and the brand new accounts swarming the talk page to drive the long-standing editors mad by asking the same questions over and over, using their numbers to unfairly sway consensus in their favor (the whole issue of having a POV tag on the article for example), and repeatedly editing the article and talk page to repeat the same talking points as when the whole controversy startedthat have long been debunked but they don't like how the organization that they're fighting exists as one of the sources that debunks their claims. Then there's the issue of this real world conflict involving more and more living persons into their target list. Someone else says something Gamergate doesn't like and that adds another article into the topic ban? Wikipedia should have taken a hard line on this before it got to this point. Or the committee should have less cared about recidivism of editors who have been on this website since before it had 2 million articles and instead paid more attention to the damage they mitigated rather than the damage that editors extremely biased in favor of a hate movement accused them of causing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. In fact, your very language demonstrates that it is categorically false. If you were ever objective on this subject, you aren't now. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a more basic structural problem with the ban votes. The situation now is that if ArbCom proposes 1-year bans on half a dozen editors in a case, the difference between who is banned and who isn't comes down to one or two votes. This means that either they are perceived as making a partisan slate of biased bans based on the ideological agenda of any one member who says ban A but not B, or else they negotiate an overall response like "no site bans" out of sight and are accused of cabalism... or both. To solve this, first I think that there is just too big a gap between a 'mere' topic ban and a 1-year site ban that is often effectively permanent, so there should be one or two intermediate positions. And I think that the strongest sanction should take more than a simple majority so it is less contentious when applied. It seems like ArbCom far too often becomes the problem by purging longstanding and highly productive editors when all that was really needed was for somebody to get out a roll of tape and mark the foul line so people can see where it is. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll repost this from the workshop page only because of how this wasted wikidrama and where time should be spent..."My point was that it's controversial by WP standards. Imposing 'the real world' is not doable but not because any POV is superior. Rather the constant complaints about 'POV pushing' from all sides is destructive. Here's a list: Hope Cochran, Stephanie Barish, Holly Liu, Emily Greer, Jessica Tams, Kate Edwards, Kiki Wolfkill, Amy Hennig, Lucy Bradshaw, Jade Raymond. For the blue links, kudos to those editors that created them. For the red ones, it would be nice if all the effort being poured into GamerGate by people interested in gamers, feminism and journalism would focus on people significantly more notable with a much greater impact on the real world (and yes, I know the standard response for asking why some stuff exists and others do not - it's also a great example of where POV interest really intersects the real world)." Google them They are all more notable that Youtubers and Indie game developers. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, you have to admit how incredibly patronizing you sound to everyone else. I could swear that one time you also said that people should spend less time arguing on the article and instead play some Halo or whatever game you came up with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be another of your egregious lies. Post it or STFU. I never said it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Another? How many "egregious lies" have I made? Regardless, your extremely patronizing message reminded me of another patronizing message I had seen someone post in regards to this, even if it wasn't you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out capable, strong and distinguished women that have managed to thrive and be successful is not patronizing. I'm sorry that they don't need rescuing by self-appointed wiki-guardians and therefore their story is not notable to you. Perhaps you need to redefine what patronizing is. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're going "stop working on this unimportant shit and look at this more important shit". That's patronizing when Gamergate has outed me to the world.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on what gamergate has done to you regarding 'the world.' My concern is how you and others are bringing the world to wikipedia. This is not your platform for justice or right great wrongs. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an entirely inaccurate depiction of the events. NBSB, Tarc, Tara, TRPoD, Masem, and myself were not using Wikipedia to right any great wrongs. We were preventing massive BLP violations from being perpetrated by people who either came to Wikipedia anew or had rediscovered their account and had a bone to pick. We did not turn it into a battleground mentality. The battleground mentality was imported by Gamergate, considering all of their terminology is intrinsically military-themed. We are not at fault here. The problem is that no one else on Wikipedia dared to help us when we recognized the problems for what they were and instead the people who were editing the pages in bad faith made the largest stink about it and spent all of their time posting every single diff they could out of context to present the case the way they saw fit and forced us to have to respond to the constant repetition of falsified information. Look at Talk:Gamergate controversy and tell me that you want to wade into that quagmire and tell the latest editor to get autoconfirmed that the allegations have been constantly decried as false. Except you have pushed for the very opposite by arguing that the allegations being described should be something completely different from what all the reliable sources discuss so they are actually true allegations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the "righting great wrongs" activity people are talking about. There are ways to handle BLP violations without making it a battleground, which is something you and others failed at, and that ArbCom didn't punish everyone who is the most guilty is perhaps more damning than anything else project-wise right now. There are plenty of editors in the space that do not want BLP violations in the article who also succeed at not acting the way you are here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong Please don't merge Masem into the same level of battleground mentality that is being exhibited by Tarc, NBSB and yourself. There are very clear distinctions. You've treated Masem horribly for not being polemic. Sorry but the Tbans are very well deserved and neither wikipedia or its policies will be weakened by them. Quite the contrary. --DHeyward (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

At the beginning of all of this, Masem was just as against the abuse of Wikipedia as the rest of us. I may disagree with how he's taken things but he had Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I can't think of anyone else who got involved who I can say the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Masem and the rest of us are still against the abuse of Wikipedia. That never changed. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a toxic as all hell topic area that no one wanted to get involved with considers that anyone with half a brain realizes that the offsite nature of the real world conflict will make their lives a living hell. Gorilla Warfare has found that out herself after everyone found out she rescinded her recusal from the case. And you're one to talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I regret getting involved in it as well. Alas, someone has to do it, right? And notice that I'm generally able to without being insufferable about it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about "Gamergate", but I do know that there is something a bit odd about "inviting neutral editors to participate", "inviting uninvolved administrators to participate", and "inviting review of problematic articles" when you're handing down a slew of topic bans against everyone involved. I have a feeling that any new editors won't be viewed as "neutral" for long, and you'd have to be very brave, stupid, or crazy to willingly step into that minefield. So I am a bit skeptical that the ArbCom's "ban them all" approach is going to produce any better results for the articles in question. Everyking (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The climate of fear ArbCom is creating is hardly conducive to bringing non-partisan editors to the area. KonveyorBelt 23:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, knowing that people will be sanctioned if they are uncivil, use Wikipedia as a battleground, insist on citing polemical sources, etc., should make good uninvolved editors much less fearful about editing some of the controversial articles. I'm very pleased with the stand that's being taken by the ArbCom. It sends a positive message to good editors that they have some redress if they're treated badly by POV-warriors. Editors who are capable of being civil, dispassionate, and scholarly in their approach, looking to build neutral and accurate articles, have nothing to fear from the ArbCom, though life can be made difficult for them by other editors. This is exactly why we need the ArbCom. As far as I've been able to follow, the arbitrators are doing a careful and high-quality job in sorting out who really needs to step away from certain articles. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If all that topic-banning really gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling (not to mention the ArbCom's long history of banning good contributors along with bad ones), well, I wish you the best of luck in strolling merrily across that minefield. As they say, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Everyking (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that some people here are taking BLP to an unreasonable extreme. We should not use op-eds, blogs, self-published sources as sources about someone else, that much is true. But they are always good sources about what they themselves say. When we cover an allegation or polemic citing secondary sources, we should feel free to cite the primary source also. We are not the Associated Press - we do not exist to play keep-away with the primary sources and make sure the reader finds it as hard as possible to find out anything more than what we say. We're for research above all, and research means knowing what notable parties to a disagreement actually say, and how they say it. Certainly an editor should never face sanction for citing a source for purposes of discussion that discusses the things said in an article, no matter how biased or poor it may be. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- Unreasonable extreme??? Have you seen the shit that had to be revdel across the multiple pages of the living people who have been targeted by one of the most vile harassment campaigns i have ever seen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't ... I do believe that would be the point of revdeling it. But I did see the page by Gurney Halleck and the "Five Guys" video that some actor tweeted about (as well as the subsequent retractions of two or was it three of the names listed). Sources like that are polemic and offensive, but they will bedevil their targets whether or not people link them during one of our discussions. Our job is to go through and see which sources are reliable and which ones have been retracted, refuted, or are unverifiable, and to give the reader an accurate impression of the current state of the argument. When I believe we should link to beheading videos how could I support censoring this? Someone said we should take a dispassionate view, and yes, a dispassionate view is a cold one. But you have to evaluate all the facts coldly in order for your emotional reaction to be meaningful. Wnt (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it true...

Only going to create a mess

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

...that you don't like Wikipe-tan? I've only heard rumors. --DSA510 Pls No AndN 23:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Not all but a large number of women/girls are attracted to things that are cute and its no lie that cuteness sells. As for not liking her I feel that after the whole BS love story between her and Jimbo spread across the internet I would have a strong opinion as well at the time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not talking about that legendary diff preserved forever on Uncyclopedia, are you? --DSA510 Pls No AndN 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, if I saw that I would be upset as well, I mean here there was an innocent serious mascot idea and someone had to link it to Jimbo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A person is certainly entitled to their beliefs and I think the question is not framed in context. Wikipe-tan's representation is seriously clouded given the past sexualization issue, but more so is the fact that Wikipe-tan's depiction is the supposed embodiment of Wikipedia. I most certainly do not agree that Wikipedia's moe anthropomorphic character is properly reflected in a bubbly blue-haired french-maid stylized mascot. Even without going to a number of reasons and allusions which exist - Mr. Wales' personal, stance from years past, should not be the subject of criticism. Given the very nature of the matter, this innocent question is a troubling one given what is lurking just under the surface. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

True better to close it now, hope you dont mind Jimbo. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Acerca del bloqueo global a usuarios

Querido Jimbito,

Yo he querido escribirte desde hace algún tiempo, con gran placer y respeto como cualquier usuario. Debido a las recientes acciones en lo referente a bloqueos globales de mis dos grandes amigos. Yo he venido a pedirte que por favor, te suplico que no hagas que WMF me realice un bloqueo global por una "razón perfectamente lógica" de la cual no sea explicada para mi por mi própia seguridad, sin suministrar ninguna prueba y sin participación alguna de la comunidad.

Agradezco mucho que hayas podido tomar la ayuda de alguien para traducir este mensaje. Yo entiendo que tu eres una persona sumamente ocupada, así que si no me respondes, yo entenderé perfectamente.

Dios te bendiga a ti y a todos esos maravillosos mayordomos y colaboradores que hacen estos bloqueos globales.

Imagina un mundo en donde la fundación wikimedia solamente se preocupa por obtener dinero, manipular la información y usar superpoderes para bloquear globalmente para amedrentar a la comunidad. Eso están haciendo?

--The_Photographer (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:The Photographer. Intento al extento que puedo, pero necesito su ayuda. No entiendo exactamente que quiere decir "explicada para mi por mi propia seguridad". Habla de su seguridad phisico, como haya alguna almenaza contra su persona phisica, or es mas metafora?

@Jimbo Wales: I found this touching. I don't know what he's talking about, but he sounds very nice and seems to feel he and his friends have been mistreated. He asks that someone translate this for you, so below follows my crude attempt to do so. I hope it helps and that whatever he's on about will be looked into.

@Any bilingual who reads these words: please check the following translation and feel free to edit to improve it as it's still a bit incomprehensible at points and seems like it might be important. Chrisrus (talk) 05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo:—

I've wanted to write you for some time, with great pleasure and respect as an ordinary user, due to recent actions regarding global blocks of my two great friends [Russavia & DCoetzee].

I have come to ask you, please, I beg of you, don't let WMF globally block me for some "perfectly logical reason" not to be explained to me for my own safety, without any provision of evidence or any input from the community.

I fully appreciate that you have had the help of someone to translate this message. I understand that you are a busy man, so if you don't respond, I understand perfectly.

God bless you and all those stewards and their collaborators who make these global blocks.

Imagine a world in which the Wikipedia Foundation only cared about obtaining money, manipulating information, and using superpowers for global blocking to intimidate the community. Isn't that what they're doing?

I've hacked away on the translation a bit, but my Spanish is old and bad so someone fully bilingual needs to recheck. It seems to use sarcasm which I might be wrong about. The thread above ("Lock for my own safety") is a partial translation of this one. The author is a solid contributor at Commons from Central America, I believe. Carrite (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's sarcasm, if you're meaning the "butlers (lackeys)" part, mayordomos may have a particular context in the country this is coming from and would mean maybe more like majordomo in the sense of someone who stuffs themselves up as one, with a bossiness connotation; I'll fly this by some of my Spanish friends about that term. And the bit about personal security etc is very real, given the state of political strife and police-state nature of much of Latin American history, and events such as human rights and killings over mines and more; I haven't looked to see why and what about The Photographer is being menaced with a global block over but IMO most likely for defending something true or talking about something somebody else doesn't want to hear/see/allow.Skookum1 (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The whole post smacks of sarcasm, beginning with "dear little Jimbo." A mayordomo is a steward, in English, a majordomo. I take it The Photographer was referring to Wiki stewards. He is angry and afraid of being blocked. Yopienso (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked for an ANI to see what the dispute is; no comment it's out there somewhere I guess. "majordomo" carries a slightly different connotation than simply steward sometimes, but yes that's a better translation that the the connotations of butler (who might be in charge of stewards but is also a servant) or a [running-dog] lackey (aka lickspittle). Sounds all too familiar what he's on about, which is indeed which I wrote the following, which was predictably denounced as a matter of course by someone denouncing me for its length as a rational for not reading it and condemning me for writing it; seen this lots before and it's mounting as a tactic and issues of content are not being discussed, only "behavioural problems" (as if people saying that were from a council of psychiatrists running a court) and whatever other NPAish things get thrown to justify hounding and/or blocking someone. All too familiar.Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're going on about. I'm quite certain that by "mayordomos," The Photographer referred to Wikimedia stewards with the power to make global blocks. Yopienso (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Commentary on disinformation organisms/izations within Wikipedia

My sentiments exactly, that last passage and indeed something I've been subjected to myself in return for challenging propaganda campaigns and tactics these last months on several different subjects. Which I won't name here because of the habit of those trolls who hang out here with some pomposity and go after pages and subjects mentioned, or who launch personal attacks here as a way to "shoot the messenger, never discuss the issues" and given that's a recognizable propaganda/p.r. tactic, are quite (most) probably part of the organisms that are here to control wikipedia and drive away people who see what their game is.

Espionage and information war is a reality in this world, and the internet encapsulates and is one of the main tools used to conduct disinformation campaigns and political agendas, it's a given that Wikipedia, as one of the most visible and influential of all websites, would have their activities and their agents present....and built into its infrastructure and so-called "community" from the very start, and many are in entrenched positions. All would deny they are paid or funded but I've seen too much, way too much, to be as credulous about that as they demand that anyone challenging them on that must be.

There are some who are just what I call "wiki-Amish", who seem to revel in their power to block and shun and behave as wiki-elders with imperious judgements handed down - severe NPAs - and speak of themselves in phrases of "the community tires of this person...." as if they were the whole wikipedia community, and not just people who have made careers of hanging out on the boards and at RM/CFD/AFD etc and seem to do nothing else e.g. write articles instead of lengthy guideline claims and so on.....and some of them too, though many are IMO just "brats in a bubble" who lack any political acumen or sophistication of thought, are most likely part of the vortex of "disinformation networks" that IMO have come to be the plague of this place.

In one case underway right now, the user has opted out of the edit summary tool so it's impossible to see where his editing activity is focussed, or to find out where he really is....and "he" posts with such rapidity and persistence, overwhelming and barraging edits and talkpages and board discussions and more, that I have doubts that it is one person behind the account and may be a team effort; it's inhuman the volume I'm seeing...and the tactics and procedural arguments and synth-rule-mongering and imperiousness are the hallmark of a particular political culture I'm long familiar with. And disputing with him wound up with a vote-call to block me from another propagandist, albeit from a different-though-similar POV faction in this world I had crossed swords with over the truth vs suppression of same (all so familiar no matter what POV/COI it is), to do with another topic-are that is under a lot of pressure from those who would distort or repress and who, if you call them on it, scream guideline-violation and demand that you be blocked.

consensus is ineffective and tends to small-group tyranny and re ANI's kangaroo court milieu, is unproductive. That many people with admin powers (especially those whose adminship has gone to their heads and not only pontificate with a pretense to authority and who are so semi-literate that 40 words is called a "wall of text" as a pretense either to listen to what someone has to say, or to denounce them and call for a block or a ban. It's them that needs the bans...and their handiwork, extensive as it often is, should be deleted wholesale; but even for saying so I'm gonna hear them chorus about "there's that Skookum1 guy again"....kill him, kill him a witch, he weighs the same as a duck and he floats too, so he's a witch, kill him. Those who come here shouting at me for "walls of text" or alleging that I am confrontational for defending truth from those determined to undermine are warp it may be construed to be inherently part of all that, and necessarily - obviously - can be reckoned to be regular haunters of this page.

Wikipedia is too vulnerable to professional manipulators and funded campaigns (or masses of zealots who are "volunteering" their time on a "free" basis, as is known to the the case with certain political parties' via manuals and exhortations distributed to the membership or at special meetings about "getting on the internet and 'correcting' the message; there's press cites about that, but it's not limited to "just them" and I'm not going to lay those cards down here, only say that it's citable).

Lord knows I've had more than one person come out of the blue about me here or ANI I've never heard before and make all kinds of onesided claims about my conduct when their own is quite questionable (upon investigation, as I often do without saying what I discover) - yet have never had anything to do with any article or discussion I've seen before. So who are they? Well, I've been around the planet, and the internet, for a very long time.... I'm not blind.

Wikipedia's mounting non-wiki-ness - "wiki" now has become associated with increasingly long code templates, people insisting they be used, time consuming as they are, extensive instruction creep and complete fabrications about what a guideline or policy supposedly says, and other forms of rule-mongering. It it no longer "quick" or "easy", it is increasingly difficult and time-consuming to contribute to - and ordinary people should not have to deal with such complexity, nor the mounting imperiousness of those who enjoy making rules and enforcing them....and who use those tools to persecute those in the way of their agendas....or whom they have, "perhaps", been assigned to "go after" and get blocked, or eat up all their energy so they leave in frustration, disgust or as The Photographer says, because they feel intimidated.

You want more funds donated? Then make the place more conducive and encouraging to people with knowledge to contribute rather than let those intent on controlling information drive them away or frustrate anything they try to add. Or just say, OK, we'll take money from all the propaganda bureaus and public relations companies and the wealthy "philanthropists" and let them call the tune.... they are already all through the orchestra and hanging out backstage, and in the audience anyways and know all the ropes; in fact they helped design them, which is why e.g. RS is largely limited to major media, institutional publishing and official sources and much that is true and valid is not permitted because RS has been written to shut them out.

As The Photographer asks, why pretend anymore that they are not here? They so quite obviously are. It's a given in these times; to think that they are not or claim that is either pollyanna-ish or disingenuous; to claim Wikipedia has the tools and procedures to handle it wildly untrue and vainglorious; consensus is easily stonewalled and gamed, admin powers too liberal in being handed out, expertise derided, and the upper adminship is feeble and non-committal about taking meaningful action. Again, no surprise, it's a given that the disinformation apparatus has been here since the very start, as is of course the well-known case with where Facebook came from.

Who's in control of Wikipedia? Not itself, that's for sure. I could only chuckle upon reading the translators' "marvelous butlers (lackeys?) and collaborators" as to how very apt all three terms are, so very apt. Running-dogs and all. Brings to mind All Along the Watchtower and "all their footservants too...". Signing off, "off in the distance, a wildcat did growl" has said his piece.

Those who will no doubt condemn me for "yet another wall of text" (as they have so often before when not wanting to address the issues I raise, but to silence or discredit me) are part of the problem. Very literally, in most cases, also...as if by definition; in fact they probably helped launch that "guideline" from an essay to a too-common mantra-cum-rule. And that, yeah, you will condemn as a blanket personal attack, and launch yet another campaign to have me silenced and driven out of this "nest of spies". Which is what, by now, it is clear to me that a lot of "who's here" really are.....agents of one disinformation state or another, all here gaming the system...to win. This is just as much an arena for cyber-war as anything else on the internet.

Not as poignant as The Photographer's question....but all needed to be said; because no one else dares to - though there are many out there who think like I do. Which underscores exactly what The Photographer refers to re intimidation, explicitly so. And though I've never heard o Russiavia before, and seem to recognize (without any distaste as with certain usernames) DCoetzee, I'm gathering that they are probably fine and earnest contributors who have principles as well as knowledge. Such individuals are the enemy of anyone seeking to control information or an institution like Wikipedia managing information...... I like them already. ...The enemy of my enemy is my friend.... and while I have a lot of enemies, which as Churchill observed means I have stood up for something.... I know I have a lot of friends too; not all hate me, only those whose pretentions and falsities I have challenged.

I'm going to write a few needful though obscure articles now, and keep an eye on my pet propagandists, and consider what to do about them....since Wikipedia is incapable of doing so with any real moral authority or "intelligent action". I also have to think about where my lunch money and nightly rent is coming from tomorrow....unlike many here, I am not funded and am living hand-to-mouth......and shouldn't be spending my energy, and intelligent effort, on what is summed up by a meme that's around that I just added the other night to my userpage:

"Never argue with people who are committed to misunderstanding you". I do anyway, somebody has to...and other than figure out how to eat because I spend too much time here without funds incoming (while others most decidedly do), I've got nothing to lose...and we know what the song says about that.....I'm free, and not on anybody's agenda...other than as a target, and I'm on quite a few of those by now...and how. "It's good somebody outed this person. He's caused a lot of trouble for a lot of people" - first comment on the forum attached to the article that publicly outed me re the Adrian Dix matter on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. I've taken it as quite the compliment, in fact....especially since I know who exactly was meant, in droves....but it applies here also. I'm public about who I really am....many here are not...even when using their real names IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be naive to think the CIA doesn't monitor Wikipedia. Zionists offer classes on how to edit Wikipedia], government officials know the importance of disinformation. Google "cognitive infilitration," which was Cass Sunstein's idea to infiltrate groups like 911 Truth. See my Talk page for all the trouble I got into when I naively started editing Wikipedia. The biggest problem with Wikipedia is WP:RS and WP:Fringe, which I'll bet would have blocked findings by Galileo. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So do many others, and it's not just monitoring that they do....including who you've mentioned. You're welcome to write me privately to ask which others, but they span the world and all sides......Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course: The Illuminati, the Bilderberger, the Freemasons, the KGB, aliens, Space Nazis and lots of other I just can't name now, for I will immediately be put to death if I dare ;) --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Like the Queen and the Pope. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh no doubt a put down artist would arrive with that mantra....and branding someone a conspiracy theorist is part of the tool kit....as is saying they're insane, or need help, and all that jazz. OK, here's my "short list:

The People's Republic of China/Communist Party of China and its various propaganda and m-i arms
The Conservative Party of Canada aka "the Harper government"
- its various arms and allies (RCMP, CSIS, CSES, OSC) and ties with the military-industrial complex and "religious" organizations;
- The Public Affairs Bureau of British Columbia
The p.r. firms and consultants operating or contracting to or in alliance with the Canadian mining industry and the so-called "oil sands" lobby (that title is a demonstration of their POVization of Wikipedia by publishing and deluging sources to sway RS; to everyeone but the money industry, they have always been the tar sands;
The various arms of the Dept of Homeland Security and the Department of Diplomatic Security, NSA et al; and not just about overtly US articles; a link to OSAC exists within wiki histories to suppression of information on mining and other articles; COI abounds
- the group I call "the terror cabal" who push terror-agenda and terror-language; I have found these fabricating OR, citing sources but what's in the source does not match the SYNTH; their scope is vast across Wikipedia, and edit-warring, denial and more go on and on
Their Russian counterparts (yes, the KGB in its new format)
- the Ukrainian government (see above about NSA/CIA et al)
- ISIS

Now, you "conspiracy theory artists" can point to aliens and Mother Goose and say my listing what I just have is all made-up looney-tunes stuff; that's in the manual of political tactics circulated by the Pratt House and a group called Civitas about how to manipulate debate and is a standard troll-dodge...and pretty much a credential of a propagandist or p.r. artist.

Thank you for coming out of the woodwork and proving my point. Excuse me while I go talk to my alien masters for further direction....Skookum1 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly both the CIA and the Conservative Party of Canada exist. And clearly the both get up to things they'd rather people didn't know about. Your failure of logic however is to go from stating the obvious to jumping to conspiratorial conclusions without any further evidence at all - why do you think that the CIA (or Harper) gives a damn about what you do on Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your response is predictable, and typically Wikipedian, and also part of the standard toolkit of disinformationists and p.r. professionals and....lawyers and politicians: - putting words in my mouth to claim I meant something other than what I said so as to discredit me.....and not address the issues raised. You may only have comprehension problems and are not part of the entrenched disinformation bodies and groups at work within Wikipedia and on the whole of the internet. You may just be a grump and a habitual cynic and attack-monger spewing derision on those who raise issues you either don't understand or feel uncomfortable engaging, or something else. No matter, you serve as a case in point of the problems within Wikipedia in general; lack of comprehension, criticizing someone on false grounds, lack of political acumen or knowledge etc.

Somewhere in a side-page of MOS I found a passage "if you are not familiar with the subject of a discussion, please do not take part in it or vote on it". THAT should be at the top of all of the CfD, RM, ANI, AfD and other similar pages. But it's a given that all those boards are hung out on by people who do little else, and "bad votes" based on false information or supposition or faulty logics or distortions or incomplete understandings of guidelines that get counted, numerically, when they should be ignored, or told to go away; even when they are rebutted, the rebuttal is not recogznbie by many closers, who are in too much of a hurry and often say so to understand the issues and subject but feel some onus to intervene and close the discussion, wrongly. Backlogs are not a good excuse...and impatience is not community-oriented. Not everyone spends all day on Wikipedia or every day either; but there are those who do....so much so you have to wonder who's paying the rent.....

What I meant, and which is citable in even mainstream newspapers, is that the Conservative Party has published circulars/manuals for the party faithful and held meetings and holds camps and workshops exhorting the faithful to get on the internet and "correct the message"; camps often run by imported American "advisors" to the party; Preston Manning held forth about such camps in his mounting reservations of the hijacking of the conservative movement in Canada by the Harper Tories, who are a manifestation in Canada of the Tea Party in the US (who also engage in such organized campaigns).

I never said that Harper and the RCMP are monitoring me nor I am I concerned about that; Canada is part of the Five Eyes alliance and for sure all of us are being monitored anyway; I've been an environmental activist and critic of Canadian politics for a very long time; as of the Sasquatch Five terrorist bombing in the early '80s, all environmentalists found themselves being followed and are known to be on government and party databases as potential "radicals".

So I'm in that company and am no stranger to what Edward Snowden told the rest of the world (which was already obvious to many)...and by the way on various environmental articles I have worked to undo and take out a lot of highly POV language and peacockery, same as on various native articles; I behave like a responsible wikipedian interested in truth and fair presentation, and am opposed to soapbox/spam content of all kinds, including that of the environmental lobby or more radical indigenous contributors, though my political sympathies overall are on that side, I do not act in a COI manner and do not, unlike others here, pretend I am not affiliated to a political agenda whose interests they determinedly serve; and am inured to hearing charges about me being COI/POV by those who clearly are themselves; the Talk:Mount Polley mine disaster attacks and denigrations are a case in point. And there, too, there were calls for me to be blocked so as to get me out of the way.

More follows below in collapsed "rant" as you lot like to dismiss things you don't want to acknowledge the content of, or maintain is "anger"; really it's just more put-down, attacking the messenger rather than the issues the messenger is raising that they do not want discussed or allowed to affect the content. WP:WOT, WP:DIVA and WP:NOTHERE and other such essays and guidelines IMO should be deleted as offensive and inherently written for NPA purposes, and to thwart discussion or use specious criticisms to denigrate other editors; WP:TLDR has been invoked against me several times on discussion boards, and in one or two closers, even though it's supposed to only apply to article-space and not talkpages or discussion boards.

But I've learned that all Wikipedians are not equal, particular a sector of he adminship who engage in NPA and AGF and untrue allegations not just in board discussions but also in closes...then there's mis-wordings of something stated as you have done just above.... in the course of enforcing their version of "community norms", while persecuting others on the same grounds. ANI is a big part of the tools of the info-suppression crowd, and also of the mounting escalation of the problems of the adminship; it is an abomination of arbitrary justice, prone to rat-packing and is an "unwelcoming environment" where much of the worst excesses of NPA and AGF are committed...by those seemingly immune from being impeached for teh same "crimes" themselves.

Extended content

Native leaders and activists and anyone opposed to the Enbridge/Northern Gateway projects have been branded as dangerous radicals, protests equated to "terrorism" and enviro and social groups accused of taking money from foreign powers and organizations and are currently being subjected to invasive audits for "political activity" by industry spokesgroups and conservative "think thanks" that have huge budgets funded by foreign money (the Koch Bros very notably though them not alone) while they go completely un-looked at by CRA (Canadian Revenue Agency, our equivalent of the IRS) despite their activities and rhetoric being 100% political. The presence of moles from them has been clearly seen on the vandalization and POVization that was all over the Theresa Spence and Idle No More articles and mirrored exactly what Tory partisans and allied pundits were slandering Chief Spence with and including "lazy Indians" and other things; it was for that reason I came back into Wikipedia to fix at one point, after boycotting this place after being blocked for having the temerity to question the POV and spammy nature of the Harper government series of articles found in Category:Stephen Harper....right in the middle of an election campaign by people blockading and NPAing me in the AfD I launched....some of whom admitted to being conservative in orientation, albeit in Australia and Virginia and elsewhere.

In the case of the BC Liberal Party, the claptrap published about me, and wikipedia itself, on the front page of the Vancouver Sun during the last provincial election campaign was an unquestioning re-presentation of the lies and distortions (and demands for my head) re the addition of a virtually direct copy of a BC Liberal ad attacking Mr Dix on an obscure technicality during his time of Chief of the Staff to Premier Glen Clark years before; User:Sunciviclee, who is Sun reporter Jeff Lee and created that account to try to contact and interview me, says he "stands by his story" even though it claims I am and NDP supporter (which I am not) and made various claims about Wikipedia, including the headline which in its latest online form is "Wikipedia editors restore critical historical information about B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix".

He is in that headline referring to IPs and SPAs who had planted the highly POV version of the story, almost a direct copy of the Liberal ad, and not to actual Wikipedia editors, who rallied around me and refused the call to block me (even ones who don't like me) as all I was doing was enforcing NPA. Mr Lee claims he "found it by accident and thought it was interesting"...almost verbatim what the pretext one of those IPs and SPAs had given and pretended to public responsibility by restoring, as was his allegation of my motives and political connections. He has yet to apologize for 'outing me' against Wikipedia guidelines, and no enforcement was taken against him.

Not that it matters, I've always been public about my real identity as a read of my userpage will show.... unlike many others here who do not admit to who they are; those BC Liberal activists denied any connection to the party or the government/ curious as they were sounding just like them, as was Mr Lee who also disavowed any connection between his paper and the governing party (which is a laughable denial but typical) or to the "Wikipedia editors" he calls the fly-by-nighters whose attack on me he furthered, and featured as though *I* was the bad guy, and they were being responsible citizens. A previous case of BC Lib wiki-activism was the triad of Erik Bornmann, Mark Marissen and BC Legislature Raids case, where socking by SPAs and more led to Mr Bornmann's blocking from Wikipedia under whatever of various names he was using, holding conversations with himself patting himself on the back for edits that were highly POV and yes very COI.

The ties between Big Media and Canada and the business parties are deep and incestuous, and RS in Canada are tainted by that connection, with a CanWest bossman boasting around 2000 that there wasn't a single liberal journalist west of the Great Lakes left; 99 of 100 major newspapers supported Harper in the last campaign; the one dissenting one was the Toronto Star which is allied with the capital-L Liberal Party of Canada; the others were all owned by two-only chains who also control the bulk of the small town papers and weeklies in Canada; a third Quebecor now controls all Quebec media and modelled itself on FoxNews, a knock-off of FoxNews was created as was SunMedia after a semi-secret meeting in New York between Harper and Murdoch and Quebecor executives while Harper snubbed a UN meeting entirely; immediately afterwards the Tories used their control over broadcast licensing to force SunMedia onto the lower-tier cable channels....... newspaper forums in Canada are heavily censored by "mediators" and are full of vicious trolls and hate-baiters a-plenty whose tone and attitude are decidedly "un-Canadian".

The very term "Harper government" has POV origins and is hotly controversial in Canada, where directives from Harper (a notorious control freak) to ministries and agencies were to stop using the phrases "the Government of Canada" and "Her Majesty's Government" and instead use - on letterhead and in all publications, "the Harper government". So clearly POV and yet wiki-waffling and personality attacks were used to condemn- and block - me and preserve the articles; the author of them claims he only "though Harper was an interesting subject" and so wrote his extensive series of rehashes of government statements and claims without any attempt at NPOV at all; some have been modified by others since; at the time they were all campaign literature, and though Harper had only just come to power the articles presented him as if he was one of Canada's greatest prime ministers.

Re the PRC< other than the ongoing onslaught to POVize my province's history on ethno-ideological grounds, with all kinds of deplorable anti-guideline behaviour impugning my honesty and experience of the overall subject matter and trying to reject any source the POV artisan doens't like, the case of the Tibet article suffices to demonstrate the activity of propagandists from the PRC.

All over and done with now, but that's an example of the combination of lack of political acumen/sophistication and the influence of partisan activists and the partisan agendas rife all over Wikipedia.....and their hostility to those questioning and challenging what they do and say. Needless to say there are Russian, Ukrainian - and CIA - intelligence influence over articles to do with the conflict there, the role of the "terror lobby" in the plastering of War on Terror propaganda articles and in warring over content about events and persons is obvious, as are the motives of those who recently sought to block me. Submit to unjust authority....or be blocked, or even banned and all your contributions potentially deleted; I submit that's exactly what should happen with the POVite stonewallers of all political stripes and factions, whether they be disinformationists for China, the "security state" and the terror lobby or the mining industry that seeks to suppress coverage of its connections to human rights abuses, the Russians, Ukrainians, MI6, Mossad, or the Martians or the lizard people.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"So long, and thanks for all the fish." Wasted words on those who will not hear, or just don't want to acknowledge or will condemn because they're part of what I'm talking about. Vogon Destructor Fleet is welcome to destroy this planet anytime now, it's long past its usefulness.Skookum1 (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Curious about the policy on this situation

Recently I saw some thing that could have been an unusual situation, but luckily some research showed it wasn't an issue, but if it had... So, the issue is this- a person who says his(?) family built and owned a historic barn at a NRHP site, claims that the name of the barn is misspelled at the site and he changed the spelling in the article. I was skeptical and searched, and saw that the historical society that currently owned the site does spell it the way he says is "correct", so I saw no reason to revert his change, as the "real" name by the current ownership is the same as what he claims it should be. No controversy. Now... what if there was a difference and a historical site ownership (state park service, historical society, etc) conflicted with a family name that can be "proven" by primary sources that the family name was some thing different. Just a matter of showing both sides and letting the reader sort it out is my opinion, but just wondering if there is actual policy/guideline to back that up, should a dispute ever arise with an editor over such a change to an article.Camelbinky (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt you can have a bright-line, all-encompassing policy for every such situation. Sometimes the folks on the ground...have it wrong, due to some tradition being distorted or invented, so you can't take "local" information as gospel. Furthermore, the orthography of the family name may have varied in the past; Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania is universally spelled that way, even though the miller there was named John Chads. On the other hand, the big government databases of historical sites, etc. have a huge scope and aren't always carefully curated. It would be equally foolish to treat them as the last word on the names of sites. (Indeed, the Great Unpleasantness at WP:NRHP, as you probably remember, stemmed in part from someone's dogmatism about these listings.)

Probably the best thing to do is not be a jerk. (Not that you were; just reflecting.) If someone shows up making corrections like the ones you've described, we should be polite and open-minded (rather than "rv. NRHP says...), explain to them that facts need sources, and ask for their help in finding a source beyond personal testimony. Google Books? Maybe a manuscript at the local historical society? Politely drawing out more evidence in support of such claims is probably the best way to deal with them. Choess (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

NRHP being wrong on a listing... this happens a lot more than you think it does. NRIS databases routinely get things wrong and forms from the 70s in particular show numerous listing issues. I have a handful of un-uploaded drafts that point out the issues from the NRHP listings. If it is minor - I note the error and move on, but we should never deliberately include false material just because it is verifiable. One fun issue is the road sign to Staten's Kingdom, correctly known as "Satan's Kingdom", but the town replaced the stolen sign with a deliberate misspelling of the street name instead to prevent repeated theft of the sign... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll just add that every reliable source makes some mistakes - either mistakes of fact or mistakes of emphasis - which is why having multiple sources makes sense. As far as spelling goes, please remember that there was no standard orthography in America until well after Webster's Dictionary in 1828, and that before that many individuals would spell the same word in multiple ways. If I remember correctly, there was a signer of the Declaration of Independence who spelled his own last name 3 different ways. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree with the broad advice that we should be nice to people in these kinds of situations. They come up fairly often in biographies of living people - and the results are sometimes sad when someone goes with an erroneous understanding that Wikipedia must always be about "reliability, not truth" and hollers at someone for how they spell their own name, etc. At the same time, there is of course a genuine difficulty in some situations where all the sources that we can find say one thing, and an anonymous ip address insists to the contrary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a few situations of that nature as of late - and not the BLP kind. I've even cited your words and note that we do not blindly follow sources. In one case I have confirmation, but kept it out due to policy, but more recently I've updated another with accuracy in a conflicting situation. The "reliable source" argument shows the ignorance of many editors - who blindly believe a publisher or author is infallible. I love to point out how many times The New York Times has screwed up, but common sense or evidence to the contrary runs into the "truth issue" where an editor of sufficient background cannot correct an obvious error - like WP:OTTO in its infancy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Source infallibility:

The New York Times:

An article last Sunday about the documentary maker Morgan Spurlock, who has a new film out on the boy band One Direction, misstated the subject of his 2012 movie “Mansome.” It is about male grooming, not Charles Manson. The article also misspelled the name of the production company of Simon Cowell, on whose “X Factor” talent competition show One Direction was created. The company is Syco, not Psycho.

The New York Times:

An obituary on Sept. 20 about Hiroshi Yamauchi, the longtime president of Nintendo, included a quotation from a 1988 New York Times article that inaccurately described the Nintendo video game Super Mario Bros. 2. The brothers Mario and Luigi, who appear in this and other Nintendo games, are plumbers, not janitors.

The New York Times:

An article on Monday about a recall election facing Colorado lawmakers who supported gun-control legislation referred incorrectly to one of the Republican challengers expected to face John Morse, the State Senate president, on the ballot. The candidate, Bernie Herpin, is a former city councilman, not an author of erotic novels. (Jaxine Bubis, a novelist turned politician, has dropped out of the race.)

The Huffington Post:

An earlier version of this story indicated that the Berlin Wall was built by Nazi Germany. In fact, it was built by the Communists during the Cold War.

Slate:

This review misspelled basically everyone’s name. It’s Hannah Horvath, not Hannah Hovrath; Marnie is played by Allison Williams, not Alison Williams; and Ray is played by Alex Karpovsky, not Zosia Mamet.

The Wall Street Journal:

A Bloody Mary recipe, which accompanied an Off Duty article in some editions on June 8 about the herb lovage, called for 12 ounces of vodka and 36 ounces of tomato juice. The recipe as printed incorrectly reversed the amounts, calling for 36 ounces of vodka and 12 ounces of tomato juice.(all from [12])

All of this within a single year. Collect (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's what I would call a "reliable source", because they correct errors in the open. Errare humanum est, but not to say so makes a source unreliable. And reliable has nothing whatsoever to do with infallible. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that such "corrections" are within a short period of time - they will certainly not correct the error from the early 2000s which gives the wrong date a company opened for business or some of my NRHP articles. The NYT makes over a thousand such mistakes a year, but when a correction isn't released or noticed because it is much smaller than labeling a candidate as an erotic novelist or misidentifying Mario? It is actually the small things which cause bigger issues because they go unnoticed and more so if you do not know of an error being corrected when you use a physical copy or database. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The notion of so-called "Reliable Sources" is a holdover from the Bad Old Days of "All we care about is Verifiability, not Truth." In actual fact there are some publications that are more reliable and some that are less reliable. A particular piece of information in a so-called Reliable Source may be wrong; a piece of information from a blog post may be right. What is important is Verifiability and Veracity — editorial judgment becomes important. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We had this problem over here: Monoamine_oxidase_A (the Warrior gene) and dealt with it (so no one would "correct" it) like this: 59% of Black men, 54% of Chinese men, 56% of Maori men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins.

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

Recent improvements

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

starts a new task, like opening the ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽ dialog: blue ,
takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation: green ,
might remove or lose your work, like removing a link: red , or
is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window: gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

Looking ahead

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill features for citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Let's work together

Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
Please help complete translations of the user guide for users who speak your language.
Join the weekly bug triage meetings beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. Contact James F. for more information.
Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 19:00 UTC.

Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Translations are available through Meta. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

You're awesome Redflorist (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CorporateM (talk • contribs) 19:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Open door policy?

Jimbo, I've read somewhere that "Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy". If so, why are you allow a few admins to protect your talk for weeks? Besides do you really believe that admins who write such edit summaries are stable enough to patrol your talk? 140.206.116.134 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The admin should know better than to have written that edit summary. It did make me laugh though, but that's why I am not, and never shall be, an admin. If he gets (or already has been) warned (and he really does need to be, in all seriousness, you cant go writing like that as an admin), I'll find a barnstar for him to balance out the yin-yang of the Wikipedia universe.Camelbinky (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in that edit summary. I don't mind if this page is semi-protected for weeks or even permanently. As an impediment to an open door policy, I don't think that's much of one, for the simple reason that the amount of time wasting trolling from a handful of persistent anons is high enough to be a net loss.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, and I'm sure he regrets it. Let's not judge someone who does good work overall by a single edit summary. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that edit summary will follow me round for a long time to come. For what it's worth, I was very disappointed in it too, that why I apologised. I stand by the sentiment—that driving off a good editor because he was slightly terse with vandals and POV pushers is counter-productive—but there was no need for the "fucking morons" outburst, which was no more productive than the conduct it was attacking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. As you probably know, I think the lack of civility is a major problem in the community and one area that needs a lot of work. And I also think that part of civility is forgiving people for random outbursts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked after the volunteers in the red t-shirts at Wikimania you probably saw, well, everywhere, so I was in the theatre when you gave your talk. I understand what you're getting at, but I so think you over-simplify the problem to some extent, and we should be looking at the atmosphere we want to create rather than punishing people for isolated outbursts (I hasten to add I'm trying to get myself off the hook for my own outburst). Imagine walking into a pub, for example, with an atmosphere of passive aggressiveness or low-level hostility where your motives are questioned and you have to justify every step you take towards the bar; then imagine a pub in which there is no such atmosphere but somebody at a table in the corner gets into an argument with their companion, loses their temper, and calls their companion something unrepeatable. Personally, I find neither particularly appealing but I'd be much more inclined to drink up quickly and leave in the first scenario. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And for your viewing pleasure, we have problems far beyond the odd outburst (warning: do not view while eating!) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

HJ, you have heavily qualified that apology both times you've offered it. In this case, you've qualified it to the point of rendering the apology meaningless. Do you know what a real apology sounds like? (Jimbo, I'm responding because I was one of the "fucking morons" HJ was referring to.) Townlake (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Townlake: The qualification was not meant to negate the sincerity. The apology is not for feeling that an injustice was done; the apology for the way I expressed myself, which was totally inappropriate and completely unnecessary. I apologise to you, personally, for calling you a "fucking moron". In the cold light of day, you are clearly not a "fucking moron", and neither are any of the other opposers, and it was (to put it mildly) grossly unfair to use such a term to describe your good-faith expression of your opinion in the RfA and I should have expressed my disagreement with your opinion in a more dignified manner. I can only say that it was an isolated incident (I don't have a habit of calling people "fucking morons") and I will try harder to keep a lid on my temper in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, HJ. In turn, I recognize that I could have raised my concern in a more polite and mature way. I apologize to you for my tone. Townlake (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP, you're right Jimbo does have an "open door" policy, however there has to be restrictions as such. With it being Jimbo's talk page it is subject to editors spamming, vandalising, trolling etc etc etc. Rather than play whack-a-mole, sometimes it is in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to lock the page for some time.--5 albert square (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Ignosticism
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Royal Mate1 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

note re revisions

Hi Jimbo. hey, I just added some material to your user page. I hope you like it and find it helpful. I just wanted to thank you for permitting others to edit your user page. I think that shows a real example of sticking to the best concepts of Wikipedia. I appreciate all of your hard work and effort in keeping this great idea and resource going. thanks so much!! see you. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Trolling?

This was posted on the Misc Ref Desk page. I took it to be trolling and deleted it without comment. Another user reverted my deletion. Before I find myself in an edit war, I'd like to get your reaction to it and see if you think I'm totally off-base in deleting it. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone is trolling the Reference Desk?!? I am shocked, simply shocked... Carrite (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this issue here rather than to the Reference Desk talk page, where a discussion is underway about questionable questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Because I want to know if Jimbo himself sees it as a trolling question, since it talks about him. And to avoid yet another troll-feeding on the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it tells a true story but in a very mixed up and error filled way. When Kira was born, she had meconium aspiration syndrome. The traditional treatment at that time was basically to give the baby support and hope they pull through it. However, we were fortunate to be in San Diego where a doctor associated with a nearby university was in the midst of a controlled scientific trial of a new technique, which involved as I recall, paralyzing the baby, stopping the breathing, rerouting the blood through a machine to oxygenate it, and then use a newly invented protein-based fluid to fill the baby's lungs and "rinse out" the lungs 4 times. This was not "no scientific basis known" - it was cutting edge science. The treatment worked immediately and Kira was completely fine, and remains so to this day. This did not give me the idea for Nupedia or Wikipedia, but it was a life-changing emotional experience as you can imagine, and it did provoke me to be decisive when I got back to work to rip up the Nupedia plan and install the wiki software, thereby launching Wikipedia.

It doesn't seem like the original poster was trolling, just asking a question based on a quite likely confused news report.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum. This appears to be the final publication of the study in question. I say that because it matches my memory of the treatment (although it seems like I had the number of lavage's wrong (3 not 4) and the doctor's name is there (Bernstein) and the year seems right. It's interesting to note that although this study concluded that the approach was promising, Wikipedia cites more recent research suggesting otherwise. All I know is that Kira is fine. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Should I restore the question and post your answer? Or should I just let it be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored & updated [13] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

What is "paid advocacy editing" and why is it bad? Kitty 56 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

'Paid advocacy editing', if I remember the definition correctly on how Wikipedia uses it, describes editing by people with an payed or otherwise directly monetary linked interest in pushing a certain angle in an article. Hope this helps.

PS: Any specific reason? Did you get accused of it/did someone get accused of it on a page? MicBenSte (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On the why it's bad question - Wikipedia is a volunteer run project to write a neutral point of view encyclopaedia. Authors and editors with an agenda to promote something can't reconcile that with the goal of writing a neutral encyclopaedia, and so are ultimately destructive. Although the same is just as true for unpaid advocates. Wily D 00:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Paid advocates can be extremely persistent because they have a contract to fulfill. Obsessive unpaid advocates are another problem. At least when unpaid they are still volunteers like everybody else. Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an explanation of paid advocacy editing at User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

w:pl:user:Michał Rosa

I am repeatedly banned and rebanned in PL wiki for things like this: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contribs/173.254.77.145

My edits are inocuous. Please tell them Jimbo Wales so you would help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.77.145 (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Censorship in Kazakh Wikipedia

Hello, Jimmy Wales. My name Eset Bibitalin. I am member of the Wikipedia project with 2 years experience and am writing this message using Google Translate, because I do not know English.

The essence of my message is that the Kazakh section of Wikipedia censored by the project administrators. I was first blocked for profanity words in my sandbox (I wanted to use for writing articles). Then, when I wrote an article about the Kazakh profanity words (link) and add the appropriate image in the article about sex, I was blocked for 1 year.

Administrators removed images from articles about sex and removed a piece of text from an article about profanity. In addition, they are deprived of all users except administrators to manage this article. The reason for this is the view of the morality of the majority of administrators.

Please pay attention to it. Thank you for your time. --Esetok (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I find it very interesting, and as is well known I have a particular interest in Kazakhstan and the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is unlikely that I can personally be of much help in resolving this conflict due to the language barrier, particularly since judgment calls about how exactly to deal with obscenity are very specific. Normally, it is a perfectly valid topic for Wikipedia to cover such words, and to be objective and neutral and high quality in discussion of sexual matters.

I wonder if you could give me your view on the way Kazakh Wikipedia discusses clearly encyclopedic but potentially difficult topics such as Vladimir Kozlov (politician).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you can not directly influence the process, but I ask you to recommend the Russian-speaking user who has the necessary permissions. This topic should not be left just like that. Today they remove unwanted images and phrases, and tomorrow will carry out the political and religious censorship. --Esetok (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I created a discussion in "Requests for comment" on Metawiki. --Esetok (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it appears an administrator removed sourced content in this edit, calling it what Google describes as "hooliganism", then protected the page. It appears to be a simple explanatory list of the terms and etymology. Does Kazakh's Wikipedia have a rule against admins using protect as a supervote to select "the right version" and override other editors? Do they have a policy against censorship? Wnt (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not vandalism and hooliganism, but simply a list of obscene expressions to the etymological meaning of the authoritative books on the ancient Turkic language. Similarly, such a list exists quietly in Russian Wikipedia (see ru:Казахская нецензурная лексика). --Esetok (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And it is not contrary to the rules of the Kazakh Wikipedia, which can confirm the administrator kk:user:Kaiyr --Esetok (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In 2013, I see that Esetok started two really short articles on oral sex and anal sex. Because these are indexed from the English articles as the Kazakh language versions, I think this is all that kk.wikipedia has on the topic. You can see that the same administrator Qarakesek who blocked Esetok [14] also stepped in to remove the image from the article,[15] after another user tagged it for speedy deletion as pornography. Kaiyr voiced a brief comment, which I would take as opposition to this, on the talk page. I see that there is presently a sort of discussion at [16] but between the failures of Google and the peculiarity of some of the arguments I can't actually follow it. I understand that the independence of Wikipedia projects needs to be respected, but I think this would indeed be an opportune time for the founder to speak up on the importance of covering topics like this seriously. So long as the existence of an article on the topic of oral sex remains in question, what they have will not be much more than a stub - and so long as it remains a stub, the article isn't going to talk about HIV and human papillomavirus and other such topics that have the potential to save actual human lives if people know more about them. Wnt (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of argument of admins who deleted article and banned Esetok based in religios, kazakh tradition, defend child from this information and not based in wikipedia`s principles. My objection is not answered by other admins and bureaucrat. There is no rules in Kazakh Wikipedia that prohibits illustration of articles about sex.--Kaiyr (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
violation of the principles given bureaucrat can I unban Esetok and undo edits of bureaucrat in articles about sex?--Kaiyr (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it appears Qarakesek can add content to a sexual-themed article... [17] Wnt (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Qarakesek added this text: «Homosexuality - is contrary to the laws of nature link between people of the same sex. This term is used only in men and women called the "lesbianism"». --Esetok (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo, Signpost subscription to your talk page?

Jimbo, may I subscribe you to Signpost talk page delivery? --Pine^✉ 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia in space

Wikipedia to be beamed into space so aliens can learn about the human race Congratulations, Jimbo, your website is now going to have an extraterrestrial audience. Everymorning talk 01:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I always knew there was a reason that our Star Trek coverage was so comprehensive... Carrite (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

poor aliens! They'd never understand how

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=%22The+neutrality+of+this+article+is+disputed%22 the neutrality of an encyclopedic article could be disputed]. Who's going to explain to them what the heck does it mean [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=5000&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22Citation+needed%22 "citation needed"]. They'd be surprised to learn that more than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=%22This+article+is+an+autobiography+or+has+been+extensively+edited+by+the+subject+or+an+institution+related+to+the+subject%22 a thousand bios are autobiographies or have been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject.] I think we all would be better off, if astronomers are to send the entire contents of Britannica into space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.33.154 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Except WP:COPVIO Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

How will the government try to collect royalties from extraterrestrials? Avono (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Contacting extraterrestrials seems like an awfully brave thing to do. I'm thinking that so far everything we've looked at seems dead. So on average, meeting any live aliens probably means dying. Sure, what happens might be better than that... or it might be worse. A lot worse. How about we get a little better at listening for the terrified screams of vanquished civilizations first?

The civilized way to contact aliens is you tune in a nice sharp image of their planet and see one of their telescopes looking back at you. Everybody waves. Wnt (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, a civilization as it continues to advance and reaches a certain point it is no longer broadcasting into open space (as we have been doing since the 1930s), and instead reaches a point where all telecommunications are directed from space-bound craft back to Earth (think about our cable and satellite TV and radio overtaking conventional broadcast TV and radio). A Dyson sphere is the ultimate form of this concept. So, basically it is important for our planet to intentionally broadcast these types of scientific messages, as our unintentional broadcasts become less prevalent. An advanced civilization out there should be theoretically as quiet as we were in the '20s and '30s. There's a small window of opportunity to get some thing from them. And they could have the same philosophy as Wnt and Stephen Hawking warn us about- be quiet and don't contact other peoples. It is possible by making the first contact, being of a scientific encyclopedic message, we might be the beginning of trust. But of course it is possible history will say Earthlings are the ones everyone else in the galaxy should have been worried about...? (I suppose Earthling is correct, but someone please let me know)Camelbinky (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ever seen a plaster or metal casting of an anthill or a termite's nest? Now picture Earth is the anthill, and self-replicating nanotech that polymerizes air, water and other materials in an exciton matrix as the plaster. Picture everything in the world just comes to a stop for a few hundreds of thousands of years as interesting pieces of your planet sits in a museum, then you get chopped up, duplicated, pieces of your brain interfaced with alien machinery while some alien writes a doctoral thesis on mysterious humanoid conceptions such as "pain" and what they might mean. You want to invite that over for dinner? Wnt (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to the typical scifi tropes, its possible we're on the cutting edge of technology in the galaxy. Older stars on the galactic periphery are poor in heavier elements, so civilizations living around them could be hindered in their potential for science and industry. Towards the core there are many more energetic events that could cause extinction. Our sun is among the older stars in the Goldilocks zone. Rhoark (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope this one and his relatives are friendly!--5 albert square (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As soon as the message is received, Klaatu will be on his way to put things right here: "...and so he determines that the planet must be cleansed of humans to ensure that it—with its rare ability to sustain complex life—can survive." Count Iblis (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The aliens will know everything there is to know about Pokemon, mushrooms, and Gibraltar. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought you would be concerned about them knowing the geographical coordinates, relative importance and what each and every National Register of Historic Places property and landmark looks like. Though if they are like the aliens from The Simpsons they will certainly be pleased with the corpus of celebrities and decide to spare us! Though in reality... the chances of an advanced civilization receiving the signal before it deteriorates, spending an inordinate amount of time in processing and decoding the corpus, and then reading and understanding it seems to be astronomically low. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson criticizes Wikipedia

At TED (conference), journalist Sharyl Attkisson criticizes Wikipedia as an astroturfer’s “dream come true” saying drug companies wp:own wiki pages. video --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

5:33: A study showed that “Wikipedia contradicted medical research 90% of the time”. What? Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that this comes from someone who interpreted a stuck backspace key as a sign that the government was hacking her computer, I would not be inclined to take this criticism - or, well, anything else from this person - seriously. Prioryman (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) She has long been unhappy that the Wikipedia article about her does not portray her anti-vax stance as her being a white knight saving the world. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So the kind of person whom you view their criticism as a badge of honour then, eh? Reso lute 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so much, more the kind of person whose past record of excessive credulity and conspiracy theorising makes one say "eh, whatever" to any criticism emanating from them. Prioryman (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, TEDx have fucked up again. In case you did not know, TEDx is emphatically NOT TED, and there has been a steady stream of cranks slipping under the radar into TEDx events over the years. Another teapot tempest will no doubt ensue, and the video will doubtless be removed from the main TEDx website, just like that by Rupert Sheldrake. So: Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans applies.

Nothing to see here, move along please. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So after listening to the whole thing, even excluding any potential mis-characterizations of the Roth incident, her premise is sound "Don't believe everything you read on the interwebs" - but that seems basic 4th grade common sense and not TED worthy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, it was a TEDx talk. Any group of people can organize a TEDx conference. I've seen some very flaky speakers at TEDx conferences. The presenters don't get approved by the folks at TED, they are often local people who are known to the organizers. Speakers for actual TED conference go through a rather intense, pre-speech preparation, where they work with the TED organization to create the best possible presentation. I've also seen some okay TEDx talks but, at best, TEDx can claim to be "inspired" by TED and nothing more. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Sharyl Attkisson is grossly mischaracterizing the Roth incident. First it was not Roth, it was an anonymous IP editor claiming to be Roth's biographer and it was reverted on the grounds that it was not sourced and contentious. The number of edits made? Two. In essence, while each and every case is unique and different - Wikipedia's system worked because the identity of the anonymous person claiming to be Roth's biographer is unknown. Seems as if Mrs. Attkisson's dramatization is another form of error that more or less represents another issue - veracity. Wikipedia criticism is great, but if you are going to cite examples - please let them be accurate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is one that can't be blamed solely on her. Everybody seems to report the Roth story inaccurately, such as David Auerbach this week in Slate. Gamaliel (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll work my butt off to find and correct and marking Wikipedia-originated vandalism because it gets picked up in poor publications and sources. Wikipedia has its faults, but some content I've contributed exceeds and corrects flaws from several publications by citing better sources that were not available two decades prior. I've found it difficult to correct simple errors when confronted by editors with an agenda, but such is life and the platform that is Wikipedia. Since I do not know a satisfactory way to correct such a problem - I hope some effort will come to pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: The "90%" statistic probably came from this paper, which was published last year in an osteopathic journal. While the paper itself is irredeemably poorly conceived and statistically unsound, it's acquired a sort of zombie-like immortality and keeps popping up anytime medical content on Wikipedia is discussed. The quality of the study notwithstanding, though, I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether Attkisson accurately conveyed its content.
In the end, I can recall few or no instances where a pharmaceutical company exerted undue influence on Wikipedia's coverage. In contrast, it's trivially easy to find instances where dangerously ignorant misinformation was inserted into Wikipedia by, say, the anti-vaccine lobby, of which Attkisson is a charter member. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that one. Did some clicking around and found a decent response to it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty decent. Sometimes I wish people could be sued for statistical malpractice. :P Note that the authors refused to release their raw data, which should be a huge red flag (not to mention that it prevents us from correcting any of the purported "errors" which the authors were so concerned about). MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

[http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia Actually the Roth story is reported very accurately]:

“

Dear Wikipedia,

I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all.

Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor—that I, Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” writes the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.”

”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.158 (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should see what was actually removed by an anonymous editor who claimed to be Roth's biographer:

Salon.com critic Charles Taylor argues that Roth had to have been at least partly inspired by the case of Anatole Broyard, a literary critic who, like the protagonist of The Human Stain, was a man identified as Creole who spent his entire professional life more-or-less as white. Roth states there is no connection, as he did not know Broyard had any black ancestry until an article published months after he had started writing his novel.

Edit one and edit two. The key part of the "controversy" is something that is really simple: Roth's biographer removed sourced content which included Roth's denial that there was no connection to Broyard. This is true by Roth's own admission, but no less than 15 sources including the New York Times claimed this connection. Wikipedia included the denial before, during and after this incident. Sorry - but the actual issue was more of weight and the anonymous editor was reverted because "source: private contact with Roth" is not an independently verifiable reference. Sounds silly, but the controversy is still largely a misconception that is perpetuated because of the misconception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also interesting is this IP's only edit, claiming, among other things, to be Sharyl Attkisson. Everymorning talk 01:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also this thread: Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson#Hello_IP_editor. Was the promised expose of Wikipedia ever published or was it overtaken by Attkisson (my spellchecker wants so badly to correct that name!) getting sucked into pushing Benghazi conspiracy theories? Prioryman (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

That’s interesting context. Apparently, this is the wp:selfpub Attikison was complaining about: [18]. Seems Attkisson’s complaints are along same lines as 2 recent BLP noticeboard listings regarding Robert Sears (physician) [19] and Category:anti-vaccination advocates [20] --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't currently cite that blog piece in Attkisson's biography; in fact, her anti-vaccine advocacy is described only in a single, well-sourced sentence. (While I personally think David Gorski's blog is incisive, well-written, and a beacon of sanity piercing the dark veil of ignorance which threatens to drown us all, I'm not crazy about using it as a source on Wikipedia, since it is, you know, a blog). The other two cases you mention seem to involve a person generally identified by reliable sources with the anti-vaccine movement, but who has come to object to that linkage, presumably because the tide of public opinion has shifted somewhat in the wake of the predictable but unfortunate consequences of the movement's work. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess it just seems surprising that Attkisson apparently had hard time getting the Gorski blog removed from her bio. Also, what struck me about the recent Robert Sears (physician) BLP noticeboard listing was it was started by an admin who was apparently unable to remove non-BLP compliant stuff [21], and it concluded with a different admin saying she was unable to steer the page away from being an attack piece because her changes were so quickly reverted [22]. I’ve never edited the Sears page, but the BLPN listing for it seems to maybe support at least some of what Sharyl Attkisson states as her Wikipedia related concerns in the above TEDx vid.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sear's page is full of issues - most annoying is the fact that it implicates Sears as being responsible for an "epidemic" of less than a dozen cases when a child patient caught a disease. Sear's was not even sole pediatrician and since when do doctors override the parents? Sears may be non-standard, but the lack of context here shows that Wikipedia is trying to engage in the conflict. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

From the editors: We want to know what you think!

News and notes: One editor faces likely ban for work on Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales awarded $1 million

In the media: Is Wikipedia eating itself?

Featured content: A grizzly bear, Operation Mascot, Freedom Planet & Liberty Island, cosmic dust clouds, a cricket five-wicket list, more fine art, & a terrible, terrible opera...

Traffic report: Bowled over

WikiProject report: Brand new WikiProjects profiled

Gallery: Feel the love

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia for Idiots?

I was wondering if any thought has been given to creating a guide to Wikipedia, perhaps as part of the "Idiots" (or "dummies" guide) series? We don't currently have anything like that, just a series of links in the welcome template and other things of that kind. A comprehensive guide for beginners would really help a lot I think, covering not just the basics (and why we have our rules) but also the more technical stuff, such as formatting references and copyright. Perhaps it's just me, but I sometimes find that even after a couple of years this can be a hard site to navigate. A published guide, perhaps a free e-book, with a good index, would help a lot I think and maybe aid in editor retention. Not volunteering for the job, by the way, as I am too much of a dummy myself, but I think this might be a good job for the Foundation to commission. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia: The Missing Manual is what you had in mind? Everymorning talk 17:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
https://idiots.wikipedia.org? (probably a redirect to en.wiki...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This comment wins the internet. I mean.. uh.... stop that! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: It took me to a missing page.Skate Shady - talk to me 17:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh that missing manual seems about right, thematically. Obviously it's far out of date. Also it needs a professionally written index. When I search "references," for instance, I get 29 hits. That's just too much. Coretheapple (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This might be the closest thing to what Coretheapple seems to be talking about. Everymorning talk 18:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
There is Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers. JohnCD (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as it kept to the technical aspect of how to edit, and stayed far, far away from things talking about the 5P, exact wording of current policies and guidelines (even long standing rarely significantly changed ones like WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS), stay away from abstract concepts such as "courtesy" and "respect". All of those things of course are important for newbies and the curious; but codifying into a manual some of those concepts and !rules would further the spread of dogma that "As Wikipedia is the moment I came in, is the way it shall be forever! Because someone wiser than me brought these rules down from upon high". We have enough of that crap going on now without an actual published book declaring for the world to see that these things are this way and that way they shall always be. We'll have some one classifying the 5P as the Wikipedia Constitution instead of an essay based on its inclusion on the front page of Wikipedia for Idiots (quite an apropos location based on the title for the 5P really, IMHO). Look at organized religion for what happens when you write a book.Camelbinky (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, at least technical. Look, maybe it's just me, but I had a hell of a time finding Help:Overview of referencing styles. It would be nice to have a comprehensive guidebook to point to when you encounter a beginner stumbling along. And why not include policies? It's hard at first to grasp why, for instance, we prohibit original research. It would be nice of a "dummies" guide to explain to beginners why that isn't allowed. The current policy pages don't get into the "why" aspect very much. They're not always self-evident. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that experienced, helpful editors visit the Teahouse from time to time. We answer large numbers of "newbie" questions there. The experienced hosts are good at pointing new editors In the right direction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a sincere follow-up question for User:Coretheapple, hope they don't mind- If we write a book, does it not give newbies the idea that if they see some one changing a policy, or if policy conflicts with said book, that the newbie would become confused at best, and possibly hostile to any changes in the worst case. We'd have endless debates, !votes, and downright nasty arguments over whether a policy can be changed from what it is said in the book. Also- this ties our hands on being progressive, a work in progress, and willing to always change with new consensus since debates on content will be full of "the Holy Book of Wikipedia said this! You can't override with a local consensus!" As User:Cullen328 pointed out there are good experienced hosts at the teahouse and other noticeboards who help reach consensus, that does not always stick to the letter of established policy. Even our own established policy pages are always going to lag what we actually do and our current consensus. A policy and guideline is simply- "this is what worked before, so we wrote it down to guide us for next time, but next time might be slightly different so consensus, while it should keep to this established consensus in spirit, the details may differ." Sorry, this may be a bit convoluted! Camelbinky (talk)

I think you're raising a good point, but actually one easy to deal with. Such book should say in bold type that the wording of the policies in Wikipedia prevail, and that this is just a general guide for the perplexed. For Wikipedia purposes it would have the strength of an essay. I think it's main function would be to help with all the technical details that, I have to say, still flumox me. For example, providing a good guide to all the automated editing platforms that we see out there. (Which is a roundabout way of saying that I personally would find such a manual useful.) Sure, the info is available on Wikipedia, but why not give newbies a manual they can use to quickly find the instructions if they want to give it a try? I'll bet the Foundation could get either a volunteer or team of volunteers to do that or perhaps just pay somebody 10K to do it. The important thing is an index, which to be done right costs about $1K. You can then revise it as often as you want. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I like where this is heading and I do now hope a book is written. I just have one more issue that I hope User:Coretheapple can solve- If the Foundation is willing to pay $10K to a person or group to write this book, is it possible we'd have a large group of editors claim "SCANDAL!" because the Foundation is willing to pay for the book to be written but is (generally) against editors being paid to edit?Camelbinky (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If anyone can't distinguish between the Foundation paying someone to write a guidebook and paying someone to edit, that's their problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh two other points I was going to make: first when I said "idiot's guide" I really meant the "dummies guides," the ones with the yellow cover, though I see there is a knock-off series with the "idiots" name. Secondly, I think a bound volume would be helpful with older people and retirees, who are underrepresented on Wikipedia and would respond well to that kind of help. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:CCC. EllenCT (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

MWhy do you need Wikipedia for idiots? Aren't there enough idiots on Wikipedia already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.192 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is true. Coretheapple (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, there are also enough intelligent volunteers that we have built a pretty darned good free encyclopedia with 4.7 million English language articles, which is improving every day. When we criticize this project's many flaws, it is always good to keep that in mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is true as well. I was engaged in a rare moment of levity. It won't happen again! Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Help:Desk is great but some prefer to see whole overview or dashboard

The Help Desk question-and-answer page (Help:Desk) is great for getting specific answers, but some users might prefer to read an entire overview page to see a more comprehensive view of Wikipedia, such as reading WP:About. In particular, I would suspect the "medical student" mindset would prefer to speed read an extensive overview of all major aspects, and then re-read (or re-scan) the portions which are related to specific issues of concern to them. It is always important to consider the needs of people who prefer to read textbooks cover-to-cover, and who might be frustrated by a "20 questions" interface of tedious dialog about the typical FAQ topics. Also, a wp:Dashboard for typical user subjects might be preferred by similar users. Currently, there is the link wp:Overview, as a redirect to wp:About. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes and another way of approaching it would be something along the lines of the old Yahoo! Directory. Remember that? It was an index of the Internet, organized by topics, and in the 1990s it purported to cover the entire Internet. That kind of approach might work as well. On second thought it occurred to me that an index (DMOZ is another example) or dashboard would not go far enough. It would be great for people who know the basics and for experienced users, but not for newcomers, who might need to be walked through the project. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Currently, wp:Index provides an annotated index of WP topics, with short descriptions of each related project page, such as for the source-reference citations. The page "Help:Overview of referencing styles" could be added into that index, as one common topic about using cites. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well you see, that strengthens my point. So many good resources on Wikipedia, but no central repository that can be found in a handy-dandy all-in-one reference! I see Jimbo just got a $1 million award, maybe I can humbly suggest he devote 10K of that to the "Idiots Guide"? Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

When I first started editing in Wikipedia I was staggered that there was not a Giant Index somewhere, in skeleton form rather than alphabetic form, so that users could orientate themselves at a glance on what Wikipedia contained apart from its articles. The Help pages are a nightmare to navigate (and sometimes to understand), and the Help Desk is an absolute necessity and brilliant resource. . ~ P-123 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting paper that could be useful as advice for new editors

Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
I discovered this study recently and I wanted to know if other editors thought its content seemed like good advice to offer to newbies. Seems like a good place for new editors to start. Everymorning talk 01:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What about a forced tutorial for all newbies?

How about doing what a lot of games force new players to go through, such as a non-optional tutorial? Something along the lines of putting newbies in a sandbox and having them follow pop-up instructions that guide them into creating new articles, adding sources, give them a sample page from a resource and show them "to write word for word is copyright infringement" and show them what is and is not acceptable in writing out the idea the source puts forward without being too far off in original research yet not so close as to be plagiarism. How to sign your posts on talk pages could be another easy step. How to bold and italicize and when it is appropriate. Basic markup and technical work.Camelbinky (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is to be a tutorial, either required or strongly encouraged, it should first be tested by volunteer testers who should consider whether it will itself be encouraging or discouraging to new editors. I have seen some training for various products that was rigid and annoying. If we were to do something like that (unintentionally - it is easy to think that training will be useful when it is in fact annoying), it would be editor-non-retention in advance. Any training should be scrutinized carefully. We should be friendly to new editors, but existing editors should be hostile to hostile training. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It does sound as if it might discourage people. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A truly mandatory tutorial would, moreover, require the end of IP editing. That's something the community has never been willing to do. I suppose that you could require it for people only after they first set up an account, but that would encourage IP editing which certainly isn't what we want to do. It might be implemented for IP editors using cookies or something like that, but that would nonetheless cause problems for those folks who clear their cookies every day. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a way, in theory, around the perverse effect about anonymous editing. That would be to require completing the tutorial in order for a new account to be autoconfirmed. IP editors are never auto-confirmed. Registered editors gain certain rights by being autoconfirmed, and completing the training could be a required condition. I do not recommend required training, or training that is required to be autoconfirmed, because I don't trust that the training will be useful. It is just as likely to be robotic, unfriendly, and discouraging. Who would be responsible for developing the training? Presumably it would be the development staff, who are known for their self-satisfaction and failure to seek feedback from non-development users. If we had an independent test function, it might be possible to develop required training, but I still think that there are other priorities with regards to new editors than forcing them to have training that would probably be robotic and discouraging., Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But I think any kind of tutorial would discourage people. What I think needs to be done is to make Wikipedia more user-friendly. Doing so has the institutional purpose of keeping the user base as wide as possible. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan David Prize

Congratulations! Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

yes congratulations!--5 albert square (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. I hope you get to keep this one! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a strange and sad week, what with the terrible news of the death of my friend and business partner, and then the welcome news of this prize.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, a few months ago you accepted an award from one of the Arab regimes, and were criticized for accepting it because that Arab regime as well as all other Arab regimes violate human rights You then pledged to give your award to a charity organization that fights for human rights in the Arab world. Now you were awarded by an Israeli organization. Do you believe Israel violates human rights as well, and, if so, would you use the money for a charity? Thank you. 172.56.39.59 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I wondered how long this would take. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Took longer than I thought it would @Gamaliel:! Surely people can just be happy for someone winning something?

Jimbo, I'm sorry to hear about your friend :(--5 albert square (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note that the Dan David Prize isn't awarded by the Israeli government, but by a private foundation. So unless you want to use that money for a charity that fights for human rights in Photo-Me International automated photography booths... --GRuban (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently he was notable (see Andrew Rosenfeld). Everymorning talk 22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Even more Gamergate ArbCom flak

(I'm taking a new section, as this could easily get lost in the relevant section above.) This article in Overland presents yet another inaccurate and unfair account of what went down with the ArbCom case on Gamergate. Probably nothing can be done about it, but once again a couple of points come out of it. First, Wikipedia is paying quite a price for maintaining its integrity and neutrality and other values... but of course it absolutely must do so. Second, note that Overland is quite a classy literary and political journal in Australia. Although it is left-wing and polemical, it has considerable academic and journalistic credibility. But once again, we see a piece written for such a supposedly credible publication echoing what has been said in other publications. Quite a narrative is now being created as the "reality". It's another lesson as to how this can happen and how cautiously we need to treat allegedly good sources when it comes to current political and cultural controversies. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the discussion had veered into areas where a person being discussed would have been denied a right of reply [23] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"First, Wikipedia is paying quite a price for maintaining its integrity and neutrality and other values... " I question this interpretation. There is nothing in the ArbCom decision about integrity or neutrality of the article, the ArbCom results are claimed to be purely about behavior. I am particularly not seeing any integrity of the project being upheld when the ArbCom bows to pressure from the Foundation to issue a "press release" in the midst of an ongoing case - and then shortly thereafter finalizing their decision in a manner which contradicts what they had stated in the press release. That all seems very much multiple examples on "non-integrity" and well deserving of outside scorn. (restored on -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC))

Also restoring my response if we are going to discuss the " integrity " of the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"when the ArbCom bows to pressure from the Foundation to issue a 'press release'" - this is nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=644757552

I don't think that overland.org.au is a reliable source. Anyone can create a website and I don't think that it is Wikipedia's responsibility to respond to, or cater to every non-reliable website. I've been on Wikipedia for a number of years, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard non-reliable sources complain that Wikipidia's articles are biased or non-neutral. Let me count the ways:

Wikipedia is biased and non-neutral because it reports that the universe is about 15 billion years old, not six thousand years according to the some literal interpretations of the Christian Bible.
Wikipedia is biased and non-neutral because it reports that terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11, instead of reporting it as being an inside job by the US government or by the Jews. (Building Seven! Building Seven!)
Wikipedia is biased and non-neutral because it reports that NASA landed astronauts on the Moon, and not that it was faked in some Hollywood studio.
Wikipedia is biased and non-neutral because it reports that climate change is real and not perpetuated by a global conspiracy of climate scientists.
Wikipedia is biased and non-neutral because it reports that the Earth's shape is spherical, not flat, because, well, f**k it. I can't keep up with every fringe theory).

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Overland (magazine) Would appear to have the pedigree to qualify as a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? So how do you explain how it got this story so wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I dont see "got it so wrong." "Late last month, it was reported that..." Late last month it WAS reported that ... In the article that made Wikipedia and the ArbCom look so bad that the Foundation pressured the ArbCom into making a press release in the middle of crafting their final decisions which resulted in the convoluted public statement that clarified nothing except that no one was being banned . And then the final decision was presented in which the ArbCom did in fact ban a user.

There are very few sources that get coverage of the details of Wikipedia's byzantine internal processes "right". And given the events like this mess, its no wonder.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"...the Foundation pressured the ArbCom into making a press relaase" - this is nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This probably stems from here where its clear it wasnt a unanimous decision to issue a statement. But I dont remember any comments anywhere saying it was WMF initiated... Easy thing to find out however just by asking. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I will strike the claim now about the foundation because I cannot currently locate in the sea of pages and comments and blanked discussions where the question was asked "Whose idea was it to put out a press release anyway?" and an ArbCom member stated "The Foundation" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

here it is " : In fact the impetus for the ArbCom (not Wikipedia, ArbCom) statement came from the WMF. User:Roger Davies 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC) " TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And in what strange universe does that translate into "... the Foundation pressured the ArbCom into making a press relaase" [sic]? The WMF offered valuable assistance at a very dark moment, and I'm very grateful that they did. Roger Davies ^talk 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"The impetus came from..." has a very different meaning than "The WMF offered valuable assistance". Not having access to the private discussions by the insiders, we can only go by what the insiders tell us. In this case the words of the insiders told us that the idea for the convoluted and unhelpful press release was pushed by WMF. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Though none of this confirms your imaginary claim that "the Foundation pressured the ArbCom into making a press relaase (sic)". They didn't. Roger Davies ^talk 14:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not truth nuff said. Avono (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So the WMF didnt pressure the ArbCom to issue a press release, the ArbCom came up with the idea on their own and with the "help" of the WMF drafted a "statement" that was convoluted, vague and provided misdirection. Either way, neither the Arbcom or WMF look good. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, you are saying that the assertion made about the background of the press release that you are all worked up about may well be false, demonstrably false, but because it was widely publicized and "neither Arbcom or WMF look good" in the aftermath, that somehow proves something. News flash: the Arbcom press release was made necessary only by the artificial shit storm stirred up by Mark Bernstein on his blog, which presented a false, demonstrably false, spin on the ongoing Arbcom case. But hey, The Guardian picked it up — reliable sources and verifiability not truth etc. No. false is false is false. Verifiability and veracity are our standards. And we shoot for fairness. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The last time I looked, the ArbCom was not writing an article for which they would be bound by content policies. Did I miss something? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And what I am saying, is that when the Arbcom was portrayed in an unflattering manner in a major news outlet, someone thought the portrayal was so bad that a response needed to be made before the decision was finalized. And then either 1) the WFM "impetus"ed the ArbCom to release a terrible and misleading statement in the middle of their decision, which made the Arbcom look worse for its clumsiness and even worse when the decision contradicted a claim that had been made in the statement that was issued just days before (and WMF looks terrible as well for "impetus"ing such an action); or 2) the WFM provided "valuable assistance" while the Arbcom crafted a terrible and misleading statement in the middle of their decision, which further made the Arbcom look bad for when the final decision contradicted a claim that had been made in the statement that was issued just days before (and if that statement is the result of the type of "valuable assistance" that the WMF gives in "dark hour", then the WMF looks really bad too). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I read the history: 1)press article containing misstatements about arbcom 2) press or wikipedians request for statement from wmf about false report concerning arbcom 3) request from wmf to arbcom to explain whatever they wish to explain so the wmf can issue a press release. 4) Part of the arbcom explanation was 'decision is evolving.' It's basically a mistake to understand as the Arbcom statement itself as a press release, when what it was, was an explanation of wikipedia process (the wmf does press releases - arbcom does and always will do statements by committee). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

" It's basically a mistake to understand as the Arbcom statement itself as a press release," that is a distinction without a difference. If the ArbCom thought is was so necessary to respond to the press, to WMF, to the wikipedia community with a "statement" in the middle of their deliberation, they could hardly have done worse in responding to any one of those constituencies than they did if they had tried. ("Valuable assistance" from the WMF notwithstanding. ) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, one thing is pretty certain, 'they could have hardly done worse' is the opinion of someone, whenever Arbcom does (or does not do) anything. 20:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Randall Munro has already explained this: citogenesis. It used to be known as the Jimbo's Birthday Problem. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the new age of journalism where reality is relative and reliability depends only on what side your bread is buttered on. Fox News? NBC News? CNN? Heck, the debate above is about a reporter relaying a study in a peer reviewed journal and the entire discussion is about the reporter, not the peer-reviewed journal. The reality is that all of our topics are like this but we can only find false statements in the ones we are familiar with. There are just as many false statements in "reliable sources" about virtually every topic covered by the encyclopedia. I find it astonishing that we blindly accept controversial claims by "reliable sources" when our own experience is "wait! that's bullshit!" We should have a "Wait! that's bullshit!" tag so every editor can raise the flag about bullshit claims. --DHeyward (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How to fund Wikipedia (tongue firmly in cheek)

Charge anyone who posts anything about "GamerGate" 10 cents per word added on any Wikipedia page. Collect (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please send $1.90 to the WMF, Collect. I would say more, but I can't afford it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to care about something when it just goes, on and on and on and on ..... Jimbo's User talk page has been hijacked as a forum for this issue. The whole topic should be banned from here and all discussion of such deleted. Nyth 63 01:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If that includes the article, I think the "Gamergaters" would be just fine with that. 104.207.136.115 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

February is Black History Month

A reminder that February is Black History Month in North America. If Wikipedia's gender balance between women and men is pathetic, we need new adjectives for the extraordinarily poor percentage of our active community who are black (if group photos of Wikipedia conclaves are a decent measure, which I presume they are). Whatever the complaints of systemic underrepresentation of female biographies and female-related subject topics no doubt also correspond to a systemic underrepresentation of biographies and topics of relevance to the black community. So please, content people of whatever ethnicity, do try to fit a new piece on a black-related topic (or three) into your writing plans this month. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is at a loss for finding a redlink, here are a few redlinked high schools from DeSoto County, Mississippi (pop. 161,300), part of the Greater Memphis area...

Center Hill High School (Olive Branch)
DeSoto Central High School (Southaven)
Lake Cormorant High School (Lake Cormorant)

And a couple from deeper in the Mississippi Delta region... From Leflore County, Mississippi (pop. 32,300)

Amanda Elzy High School (Greenwood)
Leflore County High School (Itta Bena)

From Washington County, Mississippi (pop. 51,100)

Riverside High School (Avon)
Simmons High School (Hollandale)

Carrite (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

While I can see where you're coming from: wouldn't that be risking creating BLPs which are, to say the least, doubtfull whether or not they even should be here? Especially since there's an tendency anyway as far as I known to create new pages about people anyway - although most of those are nowhere near an biography standard for an tabloid, nevermind an site which wants to be an encyclopedia. Just my 2 cents. MicBenSte (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

unless I'm mistaken , that's one of the reasons that high schools were suggested as a topic. But there are abundant bibliographic resources for biographies also, and the same caution applies to all bios, to make sure there are good sources before writing an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

High schools are topics that anybody can write and that are automatically notable. Why are these high schools still red links? What do Mississippi public high schools have to do with Black History Month? Take one on and see... Carrite (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And indeed, BLPs are generally where our coverage is widest. BDPs have significantly worse coverage, and better fit within the popular idea of history anyhow. Wily D 10:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Carrite on this one. After watching 12 Years a Slave I did articles on two of the African-American folk songs included ("Roll, Jordan, Roll" and "Run, N*****, Run") and I was shocked by how poorly the entire genre is covered. I'm absolutely certain that there are more spirituals and folk songs that should have articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

On a different note, we do have some high-quality content related to African Americans scheduled to reach the main page this month. Clarence 13X and Poetry of Maya Angelou are both scheduled for February TFAs, and POTD has had Ida B. Wells already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As for biographies, I wrote Shelton Johnson, and significantly expanded Betty Reid Soskin and Leon Jordan. I am especially proud of the third, since he was a fascinating man and the article was in very poor condition when I stumbled across it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

On the general matter (although perhaps not those high schools, sorry) Encyclopedia of African American History (Oxford 2009) ISBN|9780195167795 and ISBN|9780195167771, might support an article about it, and at any rate is a good resource (I wonder if there is an efficient way to compare their coverage to ours?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is also Journal of Negro History (1916-2001) / Journal of Afriican-American History (2001-2011) and Journal of Negro Education (1932-2011) that are part of JSTOR, for those of you with access or who know someone who has access... Carrite (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave this right here: Wikipedia:JSTOR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, from the far side of the big pond I've created a stub for Amanda Elzy High School, but not been able to answer the question which made me choose this one: "Who was Amanda Elzy"? Was she the youngest sister of singer Ruby Elzy, mentioned in this article? If anyone can help, please expand the article accordingly! So many schools, US in particular, are named after people; so few of the articles tell us who the person was. PamD 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't do many school articles, but the ones I've bumped into with arcane names like that are usually named after local educators, school board officials, or politicians, I've found. Which doesn't answer your query... Carrite (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From Pam's article: "In 2014 its students were reported as 100% "economically disadvantaged" and 100% "minority ethnicity/race". 98% of students were black, 2% hispanic, and 0.5% white (this last figure obscured in statistical rounding)." Show of hands: Who thought racial segregation was gone in American education? Carrite (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

From Pam's talk page note: "Unfortunately the school doesn't seem to have a website, nor the school district (well, there's a work-in-progress site, with "ipsem lorum" placefiller text, for the district)." Show of hands, who thought that such a situation was even possible in the United States of America in the year 2015? Carrite (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And a follow up question for people to ask themselves (and to maybe even try and figure out, because there is an answer): What the fuck is going on here? Carrite (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Um... I am not seeing those stats any where in Pams article. Where did you get them from? BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@BlueworldSpeccie: Second paragraph of Amanda Elzy High School. PamD 18:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh silly me I was looking at the Ruby article. BlueworldSpeccie (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, cracked it: yes, she was the singer's sister. Thank you, Google Books. In fact there should probably be an Amanda Elzy article, but for now I've added stuff to the school article and that's a redirect. Will give her a mention in her sister's article, too. PamD 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. The available online sourcing for Mississippi high schools is truly shitty, one of these days I'm gonna take a spring vacation to the Delta with a camera and am gonna sit in a few libraries... Carrite (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have always felt that BHM's appearant focus on civil rights leaders leaves so many other notable people in the shadows. In compiling the article, Kohler Distinguished Guest Series, I learned about many performing artists I never knew such as Leonard De Paur, William Warfield, Dorothy Maynor, Camilla Williams, Todd Duncan, and Hazel Scott just to name a few. These were very gifted and talented people who deserve more recognition than they get. They accomplished many firsts that most people don't know about such as the first African-Ameican woman to host a TV show, etc. Nyth 63 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why advertise this on Jimbo's talk page? Why not WT:AFRO or, since you're focused on schools, WT:WPSCHOOLS? Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with light, Carrite what do you expect Jimbo to do about it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting: a suggestion that the question of a group's under-representation in Wikipedia coverage, and among editors, should not be raised on this widely-read page. Hmm. (Declaration of interest: I am female but not black or American.) PamD 07:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Admins such as Ironholds coddling troll articles like GNAA's are the reason participation in Wikipedia is repugnant to People of Color. 50.183.59.64 (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Jimbo Wales, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
- T H (here I am) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Black History Month redux

So you don't want to write about schools? Okay, here's one for Black History Month that really needs some TLC: National Equal Rights League (NERL), the oldest black liberation organization in the USA, dating back to 1833. Flagged for SOURCES with only one footnote showing despite being a Wikipedia page launched back in November 2006. The words "unacceptably poor" come to mind. Carry on. Carrite (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

All your GNAA shopping needs in one convenient place... Carrite (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Again, admins such as Ironholds coddling troll articles like GNAA's are the reason participation in Wikipedia is repugnant to People of Color. If "nigger" is an appropriate title of an article for a troll group who are nothing more than internet-famous, then I will continue to urge a boycott. 50.183.59.64 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt that a signifw number of African-Americans are repulsed simply because we are accurately using a name of a bad (but notable) group of trools as an article title nor do I see that as a good reason for a boycott. Are you really suggesting that a large group of people are mad that we are not using a fake name instead? I am also not sure why you are accusing Ironholds as codfling the article since they have not even edited it at least as far back as Sept. 2013. I also don't see a single complaint on the talk page regarding the name stretching back to Sept. 2012, so I am not sure where you are getting the idea that the title of the GNAA article title has had any effect regarding African-American participation.--67.68.163.197 (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're in a book

According to the Wall Street Journal, there's a new book out called "The Infernal" in which you, Jimbo, are a prominent character. [24] Did you know about this? Everymorning talk 14:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, here's a quote from The Signpost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-02-18/In_the_media

"The Wall Street Journal reports (February 13) that in Mark Doten's

new dystopian novel The Infernal, Jimmy Wales is not the founder of Wikipedia, but "the inventor of the Omnosyne, a torture device that extracts information from victims before uploading it into a world network of knowledge called the Memex.""

and here's what David Roth writes in his review

http://www.believermag.com/issues/201501/?read=review_roth

"In our world, Wales is best known as the creator of Wikipedia; in

Doten’s, he’s a tech-savvy version of Hannibal Lecter, a remorseless multiple murderer freed from decades of solitary confinement to wring every voice from the suffering boy. The Omnosyne, too, is coming apart, as a result of which the child’s stories are shot through with gouts of random numbers and letters, encrypted data or mere noise. There, as throughout The Infernal, information overwhelms more than it informs. “We have everything—have it all perfectly,” Wales writes in his log. “But we don’t know where it is.”" 172.56.8.218 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That text is from a pre=publication draft of the Signpost While we welcome input on these drafts, they are not yet published and may significantly change before publication. That said, it's pretty much just a quote from the Wall Street Journal. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible ARCA precedent

It hasn't been confirmed, but an ARCA amendment request archived today may have set a precedent; it is possible the Committee has never declined an ARCA request by motion before. Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this: If Lightbreather is a problem, and her fan club keeps its distance, the deeper problem will soon become clear; if the only problem is the result of clashes between Ligtbreather and her fan club, and her fan club keeps its distance, there is no problem. Now, if Jimmy wishes to comment here he can, otherwise this thread will disappear into the archives in a day or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Still got my bowl of popcorn handy, apparently I will need it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo this is your talk-page if you are going to answer then please do, if not then I don't see why we need to be talking about a declined arb-com decision here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason being is that she was not pleased with the result and is raising it here. I will not comment further other then note that this is the second time in as many days that it has been attempted albeit it passive aggressively here and on her page. I will step out and now let the cooler heads do the talking lest I anger the ArbGods. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, I haven't asked a question that needs answering. I just thought the (co) founder of Wikipedia might like to know that it's possible that a precedent was set at ARCA. Lightbreather (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not just email him then? Just trying to save everyone a potentially long discussion here is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The long, passionate, dramatic discussion here is the point... Words for the day: modus operandi. Carrite (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Just more disingenuous forum shopping, I guess, but it is my understanding that Jimbo tolerates it. - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Carrite you are so full of blustery BS. Of the last 1,000 edits on this page, 24 were by me... and 98 - almost 10% - were by you. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So, do you all follow her around sniffling and screaming "Shut up ... lalalala" and stamping your feet? Is that how this works? Whine scared little men, whine. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you are so right, as usual, Anthony. Very perceptive comment. Thank you for your wonderful contribution. Carrite (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this the line for the prostate exam? . Buster Seven Talk 17:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, it's the line for the vaginal exam. Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate redux

Here is an interesting article from Slate.com by David Auerbach on the factually erroneous article seeded from Mark Bernstein's blog to The Guardian sensationalizing the then-ongoing Gamergate Arbcom case. "The Wikipedia Ouroboros: The online encyclopedia chews up and spits out bad facts, and its own policies are letting it happen." Carrite (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing is he's absolutely right. We have too much of a tendency to lean towards selective blog posts than news releases that have been fact checked and it just perpetuates bad writing. The essay on verifiability, not truth is an embarrassment for this project. If we can't have truth we shouldn't have anything at all. Wikipedia is a great place for articles on science or history, but much of our stuff on social issues or recent events is a mess. We worship the New York Times as reliable and then go on and cite their blog writers for their opinion, which amount to being little more credible than the Huffington Post or Breitbart (which we have banned for reasons that seem more political than practical). Will we even look twice at the Guardian after this fiasco? It will probably be as much as we second guessed the Lancet after they published Wakefield's bogus vaccine/autism paper. We should be much more strict on what we consider reliable sources and focus more on getting things done right, instead of fast. It's not like we're missing out on ad revenue if we don't add the latest news story the instant it comes out. This whole project could use a healthy dose of common sense and patience. Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone citing opinion pieces from The New York Times or anywhere else as RS for statements of fact is violating Wikipedia policies (see WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOAP). I've seen this done, with opinion pieces from The Guardian and elsewhere. People say "it's RS", but they don't seem to understand that opinion pieces that appear in reliable publications are different from factual news reporting that appears in those publications. The problem is not with "verifiability", but with people manipulating "verifiability" to suit their own ends. "Verifiability" means consulting RS, and that piece in The Guardian was not RS for statements of fact, nor is this piece in Slate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On this, I agree. There seems to be a lot of citing of opinion pieces for facts that then get asserted in the encyclopedia's own voice. Even worse, if there are opinion pieces tending to echo each other they can end up being treated as equivalent to a scientific or scholarly consensus on, say, biological evolution or the Holocaust. Op-eds and similar are nothing of the sort. As the recent media misrepresentations of the ArbCom show, we can't treat these kinds of topical, ephemeral opinion pieces on current controversies as reliable. If that means some articles have to be reduced to stubs, or even deleted, to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, so be it. Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Read the article more carefully. He doesn't actually criticise Wikipedia for recycling errors in the Guardian article in the Wikipedia article on Gamergate. I haven't paid enough attention to know for sure, but I am guessing that this is because we didn't. He teases us with "This is where it gets interesting", but then goes on to tell us that the interesting thing is that someone created a hoax article using the Guardian article, which got deleted after a couple of hours. So, not all that interesting, really. He does criticise us for having a policy of "verifiability not truth", but the thing is that we don't. So I expect we will be seeing a note appear at the foot of the Slate article by noon tomorrow explaining why it has been amended. Or not.

The criticisms of the Guardian article may be valid, but ropey journalism isn't really very remarkable in the 21st century. Journalism about ropey journalism even less so. But, in both cases it seems someone is willing to pay for it, so who am I to criticise? Formerip (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If we pay heed to everything that is said about WP, we will not have WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein would like it known, for the record, that he had no contact with or participation in the article in The Guardian. Please be more circumspect when discussing living individuals in a public forum. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but it still must be said that his inflammatory and erroneous description of the situation is what caused all this nonsense in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear... Carrite (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

threadjack

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

BTW why is Gamaliel allowed to speak(proxy) for a blocked editor? Avono (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If any editor unable to speak for himself feels he is being factually misrepresented, it is appropriate to note that, just as I would take note of such a thing if anyone contacted me with such a matter, whether he or she was a blocked user or the subject of an article or anyone else under discussion on-wiki. It is an administrative duty to insure that living individuals are accurately represented on the encyclopedia, both in article and talk space. Gamaliel (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we need to put a bullet in the head of the notion that "The important thing is verifiability, not truth." The notion of so-called "Reliable Sources" is a holdover from this justly discredited epoch. There are more accurate and less accurate sources, but ultimately there is an objective reality out there that we need to describe dispassionately and fairly for our readers. This whole Bernstein-Guardian fiasco is a microcosm of the way the mainstream media works these days — forget objectivity, the name of the game is clicks and ad dollars, and don't you forget it. It is up to us as editors to filter out the bullshit (whatever its source) and to honestly get to the truth. Verifiability and veracity. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The present era is the only discredited one, and there is no objective reality that Wikipedia editors must construct. You have no right to criticise establishment sources. They are the foundations of society, and Wikipedia must adhere to societal norms if it is to survive. It is not a political project, for such a politicking as you demand is an exercise in discrediting its work. What's more, you fail to distinguish between the opinion pages and factual reporting, as is demanded by our policies. The op-ed in question was never a RS for statements of fact, as Wikipedia policies state (see, for example, WP:NEWSORG). We simply cannot accept activism by self-important internet peasants. They must learn their place. Wikipedia is all too often a vehicle for their nonsense, prey to the frivolity of youths without material grounding. Thankfully, our policies are written to protect us against their assaults. People may choose to ignore them, but they will be shown their error in time. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Long live the establishment, bro... Carrite (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly enlighten us then how the hell bullshit news articles are going to be kept out then, including from what are considered RSes? Over the past 2 weeks alone I've already counted dozens of articles in mass media which have, either knowingly or unknowingly, contained plenty of factual inconsistencies. And those were not only re. GamerGate, but also regarding e.g. Greece, Ukraine, etc. As far as I could tell last time I checked their articles, there hasn't been any permanent vandalization through bad RSes *yet*, but considering the stupendous amount of RSes who publish outright lies or half-truths, there is going to be a moment that it cannot be avoided and that someone decides to make an case against Wikipedia because of it. MicBenSte (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@MicBenSte:, just curious, what source of information do you use to detect the "factual inconsistencies" in mainstream media? You must have alternative sources of information for you to judge these "bullshit news articles" to be wrong. Maybe you should go to WP:RSN and argue for the sources of information that you think are more factually true to be accepted in the encyclopedia. However, if you are judging these articles to be untrue based on your personal knowledge and experience, that is original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not how logic works. There are many mainstream news accounts that cannot both be true without any indication of which are accurate. There is no point in arguing which is correct. A simple review of the current events surrounding Brian Williams, the NBC News anchor, Reliable Source, and long time journalist. It sometimes seems that Wikipedia is like the benevolent, but hapless aliens in {{Galaxy Quest]] that use TV shows as the "historical records." --DHeyward (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As editors we have both the right and a duty to question establishment sources. Something that is verifiably false is not verifiable. The buck stops with editors and logical arguments, not the authors that we cite. Rhoark (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" is there for a reason. Every homeopathy shill in the world will claim that our article, which is fully verifiable from reliable independent sources, is nonetheless not The Truth™. Wikipedia cannot be the judge of truth, we do not have the subject matter expertise (or rather, we allow anyone to edit and explicitly do not restrict or weight that according to subject matter expertise). This is a foundational policy. Thus, if reliable independent sources are wrong, so are we, and so it has always been.

That doesn't mean we must include every factually incorrect allegation in a reliable source. We are allowed to look at how other sources view it, and draw sensible editorial judgments. If a climate denier (or a holocaust denier, or a creationist or whoever) manages to get an article published in a journal, that doesn't mean we set it against the overwhelming consensus view with the kind of false balance that bedevils news outlets. But accuracy and truth are separate concepts, and Truth™ is another again. We should aspire to an accurate representation of the consensus of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO, Auerbach is pointing out the extremely torturous WP process that created and perpetuates the GamerGate article even today. That it had to be described as "harassment and misogyny" because reliable sources said so. The Guardian was one of the most engaged reliable source on the topic. There simply weren't any reliable sources supporting "ethics in journalism" as an issue so rather than use common sense, we torched a large segment of upset gamers. Gamers complained but were drowned out by charges of "harassment and misogyny." The quest to banish the basement dwellers and rescue the damsels in distress was deemed righteous and good. Many battles were fought and many topic bans preceded ArbCom. And before the arbitration case was settled and before anything was final, the reliable sources that were torching gamers, turned to ArbCom and Wikipedia and shouted out "harassment and misogyny." Except this time we knew the reliable sources were wrong. It was error filled and loaded with hyperbole and was basically referencing a single blog written by someone that did not speaj for WP in either process or content as the source for its charges. No request for comment. No rebuttal. It really was a lesson in Ethics in Journalism after all. A number of years ago when the core of BLP was formed we looked beyond just "reliable sources" to damage to living people and made rules about "what not to write". The next logical step is to do the same with these hot-button social topics where vanquishing opposing viewpoints becomes larger than the goals of the project. We can't regulate off-site behavior but we shouldn't be blind to it either. If all the reliable sources still create an article that is so extremely polarizing that it fuels offsite threats, arguments and real-life harassment and fear, it simply can't be neutral by definition and perhaps shouldn't be written at all. --DHeyward (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate has to be described as harassment and misogyny for only one reason: the reliable sources show it to be exactly that. Doxing and threats of harm are not to be taken lightly. Those who were involved will in time, I think, come to be justly ashamed of this. I think many of them were caught up in a feeding frenzy. Others were deliberately and quite unapologetically vile, and I think history will not be kind to them. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the issue. Not a single, identifiable person has been named as GamerGate harassers but that's the narrative because there are identifiable victims that get coverage. On the other hand, those that are identified as GamerGate supporters by name are not harassing or doxxing anyone. Those identifiable people don't get their story told and the large number of people that are gamers are getting lumped into this anonymous group that are relentlessly attacked. "Ethics in Journalism" became a cliche as much as "Religion of Peace" is now used as a phrase to denigrate Islam. It's rather shortsighted to think that our "Reliably Sourced" article resembles reality any more than the Guardian article on Arbcom does. I'm sure the ArbCom members that banished all remaining feminists on Wikipedia will be "justly ashamed of this. I think many of them were caught up in a feeding frenzy. Others were deliberately and quite unapologetically vile, and I think history will not be kind to them." Except those ArbCom members don't exist except in Reliable Sources. Keep in mind that there are those that believe a billion Muslims will convert and will be ashamed if only more Truth about terrorism is published (and the overwhelming number of Reliable Sources today are not portraying Islam as a Religion of Peace but I hope you don't think this means Muslims will be ashamed and convert). --DHeyward (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me tell you a little story. Some years ago, a person took issue with my opinion on speed enforcement. They decided that my lack of opposition to enforcement of speed limits makes me a murderer (don't go expecting trolls to be rational). For over three years I was subjected to relentless harassment: phone calls at all hours of the day and night, posting fake "bad driving" reports with the number plates of cars seen outside my house, gleeful fantasies about stringing wires across cycle tracks to decapitate my children. It took me 18 months and about a thousand pounds in court costs and other expenses to find out, through a Norwich Pharmacal Order where I acted as litigant in person, who this individual was. The results of the Order were sealed by the court and can be used only in legal proceedings. The Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute because the person lived with their parents and all went "no comment" so any court case would have died on the basis that it's not possible to absolutely prove that it was this person and not one of the others in the house.

This was an obviously unstable person displaying anger that went well beyond the rational, who knew where I lived, knew my route to work, knew that I cycled along those roads every day. I went in fear for my life daily, because it doesn't matter if a driver only wants to give a cyclist a scare, the consequences can be fatal. A friend is a barrister, one of his first cases was prosecuting a driver who tried to scare someone and ended up hitting them and dragging the body under their car for over a mile. The case hinged on whether the driver became aware of the victim being stuck under the car before he died. Death was not instantaneous, they think he lived for several minutes as the back of his skull was worn away by the road.

By your rationale, no harassment took place. That's also the assertion of numerous trolls who followed this person around. They assert that because there was no court case, there was no harassment. The judge granting the Order disagreed: in his view the behaviour of this person was "sinister" and deeply threatening.

Who's right, the judge or the trolls who assert no harassment? Your argument says it's the trolls. If you've never been subjected to harassment then good for you, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it's just someone needing to grow a pair, because I can tell you from personal experience that it is real, serious, and affects not only the persona harassed but also those around them. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal note. I, too, have been subject to harassment. Mine is related to Wikipedia edits. Though I can't say I feared for my life, the contacts to my employer were downright nasty. I am someone in favor of the BADSITES policy which apparently gives certain trolls the license to complain to my IP provider in the hopes that I may be fired or shutdown or otherwise removed from discussion. I was also a defender of early BLP policies which made me the hero to some WP trolls that didn't like their BLP while making me the enemy of those that wished to shame the trolls. My statement about GamerGate isn't that harassment didn't occur (it did). Nor is my argument that harassment isn't intimidating or threatening (it his). In your case, it appears you were able to identify the person. That is where it diverges from GamerGate. GamerGate would be like learning that a group of people wanted subcompact cars to accurately label curb weight as under 1000 kilograms, another group claiming that their 1500 kG car is subcompact and a third group that threatens 1500 kg car owners with rape and death. By your argument, the group that wants sub-compact cars to be under 1000 kG are really harassers and responsible for death threats. They were open and public about who they were and never threatened anyone. Yet because of an anonymous group of trolls that threaten a group of 1500kG car owners, anyone that wants a standard to be upheld are responsible harassment. Surely you can see that the person responsible is a single individual. Surely there are others that drive the same make and model of car that your harasser drove. But even though seeing that make and model on the road near your house might make you anxious, you wouldn't advocate the arrest and conviction of a totally uninvolved car owner simply because he drove Make X, Model Y, Color Z. The GamerGate campaign did exactly that. What do you think happens to the gamer that says Depression Quest is not a real game or expresses indifference to how certain women are portrayed in Grand Theft Auto or says they play games to escape reality rather than reflect it? The reality is that no one really cared that all GamerGate supporters were declared misogynistic harassers even though all the harassment was anonymous and the identified supporters were not. My car was hit by a blue honda. It would certainly be great to have the police stop and arrest every blue Honda near my house, have others call in blue Honda sightings as well as blue Honda wrongdoings and have the press write stories about all the evil blue Honda drivers. It doesn't change the fact that only the blue Honda driver that hit me should be charged and his allegiance to Honda and his favorite color are not relevant to anyone but Reliqble Sources. --DHeyward (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to the anonymous Gamergate trolls who have sent me death threats, attempted to contact me via work channels, attempted to dox me, out me and harass me, all very identifiably done on Gamergate-related platforms. Sorry DHeyward, but the truth is obvious to everyone at this point. (And if this is a violation of the topic ban, I don't give a fuck, because ArbCom has no power to silence me from speaking out about the very real impacts on my life that stem from working to defend living people from vicious attacks and blatant misuse of the encyclopedia. I'm fielding media interview requests as I type.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And who will you punish for that? "Are Gamers dead?" and deserve to do die because some unidentifiable troll harassed you and you blame gamers? I understand your anger but not how you broadly blame a wide segment of consumers because they dare share the same hobby (or more likely, they dare to dislike the same people.). --DHeyward (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just blatantly false and I demand that you stop putting words in my mouth. I blame a relatively-small band of sociopathic Internet trolls who are widely-noted in reliable sources as being responsible for vicious acts of harassment, not to mention repeated, blatant, terrifyingly-awful attempts at using Wikipedia as a weapon of character assassination. That this band of people has come to define "Gamergate" is merely a statement of fact. Discussing the matter further in this venue is pointless, never mind my topic ban, so I'll leave it at that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed the point (and yes, I have been harassed as a result of Wikipedia edits too, that was just the worst one because the person was clearly unhinged and lived nearby). The issue is that anonymous and pseudonymous trolls are, by definition, commonly not identified until somebody goes to a great deal of trouble and expense. Therefore the lack of identified individuals is completely irrelevant to the well-documented incidence of harassment in the gamergate case. OK, so maybe some of it was merely obnoxious, spiteful, vile and despicable, but some of it undoubtedly was harassment and a great deal of it was undoubtedly misogynistic. The independent sources give abundant evidence of this and it would be perverse of us to whitewash that out of "fairness" to some people who refuse to acknowledge how hurtful and childish their actions were.

Gamergaters are not like people arguing over technical minutiae of car labelling. They are people who contacted employers, made credible threats of harm, fantasised about rape and assault, and engaged in various other morally indefensible acts, some of which at least have been identified by the sources as probably illegal. Sub-compact cars are not in any way damaged if you argue whether they should be classified as sub-compact or not. People are harmed, emotionally, by being accused of being whores. Trans people are harmed, traumatised to the point of suicide in some cases, by people taunting them over their gender identity and disputing their right to self-identify as they please. These are not morally neutral things.

Trolling like that is sociopathic. It is indefensible, however badly the trolls may have been hurt in the feels. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A "relatively-small band of sociopathic Internet trolls" is an excellent description of an anonymous, small group of unidentified people that are harassing people. Unfortunately, that's not how our article describes the harassers of GamerGate - it calls the harassers a movement with coordinated attacks not separate from GamerGate supporters in general. NBSBs statements also nicely characterizes what I said about reliable source. There are a small number of misogynistic ArbCom members that banned all feminists from Wikipedia and it was widely reported in Reliable Sources^tm but RSes were wrong and obviously so - if you never name the bad people so there is not a face to go with the charge, it's real easy to say anything about them. You've had this conversation too, though, and when "GamerGate harassment" was proposed to become the narrower definition of a small, fringe group you changed gears and would not describe them as small and fringe and rather insisted it was the main view and cause for GamerGate supporters. Again, Reliable Sources^tm was used to create this non-reality. And yes it would be nice if the small, anonymous group felt bad and apologized for harassment. The other 99% of GamerGate supporters that didn't do anything of the sort, now have to defend themselves. Why?. --DHeyward (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That's like describing a mob as a small group of thugs with some hangers-on. Seriously, choose better friends. Gamergate was never about ethics in videogame journalism, the attacks started before that was retconned in. This is a group of trolls empowering each other, classic gang mentality. That's what the sources say, so it's what we say, and I strongly suspect that most of those involved will one day be justly ashamed of being part of it. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources claim this but no one has shown any track of evidence or chain of expert authority that proves this. (The closest evidence is the purported logs Quinn got from IRC but that's been put into doubt and do not have the magic bullet to prove this). They have made these claims based on current behavior and past experience in dealing with the 'chan nature, and I myself would be surprised if this wasn't the case. But as an objective, impartial work, we have to be careful in repeating statements that may be broadly shared by the majority of sources as fact if they are highly contentious with no clear chain of expert evaluation (This is what NPOV says right at the start). We don't call Westboro BC a hate mob in WP's voice, just how it is taken as one by the mass media; we don't call Global warming a fact, but an observation, but demonstrating the massive volumes of data backing up the likelihood it is happening, and so forth. In the case of GG, we cannot presume just because the press is convinced that the group is dedicated to trolling and harassment that that is fact if there are GG people that are stating otherwise. We have to be objective and impartial irregardless of any personal feelings about the situation, and that's what is just not happening here because of the nature of the topic.

Or the TL;DR version: while we can't go off what the sources say or state they are wrong, we can, as a tertiary source, make the determination when they are engaging in opinion verses objective reporting, and reiterate that in our articles by making sure all opinion statements are flagged as such in the article. And we have to do that keeping our objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality in mind. In the GG situation, there a lot of exaggerated truths out there and very much of lack of actual data to back that up from all sides of the issue, and so we have to be aware this has been a situation created by the lack of good information in this case. We can't misrepresent sources nor ignore the predominate opinion, but we are in no way required to take what they claim as a fact and repeat it as a contentious fact; in fact, NPOV policy strongly suggests we always take the more conservative route and attribute claims as opinions than facts if there's doubt. That's just not being done on the GG article. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't know any gamergate supporters or even gamers, nor do I know indie game developers or gaming journalists so it's not me that needs new friends. I am an outsider and my first reaction to this whole thing was not to cover it. I do know how to spot railroading though. All the bad guys are anonymous. It's an amorphous "they." Anyone can be a victim of "them." It's that kind of thinking, without putting real faces and lives on the evil opponent and having them remain anonymous leads to dehumanizing conduct. This happens a lot on the internet but we should be aware about writing articles that identify an "evil" group that is easily dehumanized with very strong and broad language. --DHeyward (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I see sources that call it harassment, I see many credible examples of what look to me very much like harassment, I see Twitter discussing new anti-harassment tools and policies as a result of what they see as harassment, I see people whose opinion I trust stating that there was harassment, and I see an some people who deny harassment, the vast majority of whom appears on the face of it to be advocating for the gamergate cult. Bring reliable sources on a par with those that call harassment, which exclude it. It's a bit like the "ethics in videogame journalism" thing: we have much better sources saying it had nothing to do with that, than we have sources saying that it was about that, so we show that the balance of sources robustly reject the claim, because that is the truth. And the balance of reliable sources judge that this was harassment, just as the victims claim. But it's not going to get sorted by us talking about it here, it's going to get sorted only by bringing more and better sources. That's the way we do things, right? Guy (Help!) 23:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, everyone sees harassment. What they don't see are harassers. I'll wait until you name one. All the sophisticated tools and IP tracking and what not - yet we have no names. I'm all for identifying, arresting and prosecuting them. But as this is Black History Month, I'm not really up for the "It's them" argument because you dislike a group. Start naming individuals or this is just prejudicial hate. --DHeyward (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

See above. It cost me hundreds of hours of work and thousands of pounds to identify my harasser. The harassment was not dependent on the identity being known. Harassment requires a victim and a perpetrator, the victim is usually identifiable, the perpetrator(s) very often not. Not identifying them does not mean they don't exist. When everybody sees harassment, it does not matter in the least whether those responsoble are fingered by name. This much is obvious. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach's article is beautifully written and entertaining, but he does buy into a common but clear misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. Despite what he suggests, primary sources are not prohibited; only their original interpretation in non-obvious ways is prohibited. As I said at one of these threads a week or so ago, we should never hesitate to link to the original primary source when secondary sources discuss it in depth - whether that is an essay by Gurney Halleck, a decapitation video, or the final (or not final) decision in an ArbCom case. The more accessible we make the record of what originally was said and done in any situation, the fewer misinterpretations will be made by ourselves or our readers. Wnt (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Practically, that doesn't work well in cases like this where the reliable sources got it wrong. Guardian, NYT, and Gawker all echoed the same thing. What do you write? It would be incorrect to cite the Arbitration page as supporting the conclusions of the secondary sources. So the next logical step is an EL. But then we are left with a primary source link back to the blog that started the incorrect stories sitting next to a link to Byzantine ArbCom voting. No one outside WP would get the "1st choice, 2nd choice but only if two other colleagues make this other thing their 1st choice, otherwise abstain." Bottom line is ArbitrationGate was deleted and rightly so. The article couldn't be written correctly so it's better not to write it at all. --DHeyward (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is an even slightly complicated question. The rule of thumb is don't put anything in Wikipedia that you know is false. In the event that there's absolutely no accurate information about something available in secondary sources, don't mention it, because it can't be very important. The "Arbitration Gate" article didn't really present a dilemma. It was just a straightforward case of a mischievous article. Formerip (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The entire GamerGate discussion is about what is true/false and what is in secondary sources. It's why it went to Arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is about malicious people waging electronic rebellion. RGloucester — ☎ 22:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Avono (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh come fucking on Gloucester. That's a misrepresentation and you know it. But I won't continue THAT discussion here on Jimbo's page... MicBenSte (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

On the note of RSes... For a reason e.g. Breitbart is no RS yet Gawker is (while Gawker is at bad when it comes to the truth, and has an even worse 'falsehood recognition'-attitude then Breitbart). There's a whole list of current RSes who've shown over and over again the past years that their news articles are on average at best to be checked for minor errors, and at worst flat-out known lies... yet I don't have the impression anything has changed ever in that regard. As I stated before as an example: the Second Gulf War. The majority of the 'RSes' stated massively Hussein had ready to use WMDs, the Hussein government said it did not. How did that mess at that time get managed? If it was the same at that time as the past months, the article was in one hell of a problem when it came to being an truthful enclyclopedia (there's a reason those in print take years to make and don't compound recent events which are still going on or recently ended without any post-mortem, so to say..) MicBenSte (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I would never use Gawker as a source, though it may be valid for some trivia of interest to its core readership. Feel free to propose removal of any source in any article which has no reputation for fact-checking, at least if it is being used as a source of truth. Breitbaret is spectacularly unreliable, and at an extreme in the continuum of reliability, but that doesn't mean that anything less unreliable than Brietbart should be acceptable. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the rev deletion? My comment is deleted yet is still visible O.o Avono (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

they have to revdel every edit after the bad one. They make an edit to the latest version to remove the bad information, then revdel every version in between so it doesn't show up in history. The fact your edit is still visible is an indication that your edit wasn't the violation. If they had more sophisticated revision control, they could extract the specific edit but they don't. I've always wondered if this method of oversight violated the TOS since comments attributed to individuals are no longer found in the history but I think they can unwind revdel's and oversights if it's necessary to identify who made a specific edit no longer in the history. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

Quite the revdel it must have been then... And quite speedy. *Shudder* Just for confirmation's sake - nothing harmful to anyone was up for long, no? (Considering 25,336 character removed - were that much old posts 'removed' and reinserted? MicBenSte (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would posit that the problem with the GamerGate Controversy article has nothing to do with the policy of RS itself, but rather, the biased application of the policy of RS. Yesterday a Spiked article which labelled 'GamerGate' in its people of the year 2014 was raised as a talking point. Spiked is accepted throughout Wikipedia as RS. Certain editors are scrambling to label it 'not RS' despite there being little harm in using that to say 'In Spiked's opinion'. Why? Because its opinion is 'Off Message'

In marked contradiction to this, many articles are sourced from numerous outlets such as Gawker which should be used to state 'Gamergate is commonly viewed by media outlets such as Gawker as being X, Y and Z' but which are instead used to draw 'factual' statements 'in the voice of Wikipedia' about those using the tag.

All of this considered, in addition to my great joy in lecturing the English and the billion or so who use en.wikipedia as a way to gain an opinion rather than thinking, I recommend you take a hint from 'us' on a more appropriate article in lieu of fixing fundamental editing problems: http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate

77.97.17.147 (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

77.97.17.147, at this point, the article has over 150 citations and every new source that is suggested on the talk page is critically evaluated for its reliability and whether it adds new information to the article. I hope you will contribute to this consideration and the evaluation of already used sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not even only that WP:RS is being interpreted very one-sidedly (Kotaku has investigated Kotaku and found Kotaku blameless despite related retroactive disclosures being added on some articles [25][26]). Some of the editors involved are even gaming which sources are being used by removing many articles and opinions that would be WP:RS from the fray as “irrelevant” while directly citing from other opinion pieces throughout the article.

Every single source that would dispel certain notions presented in the article or at least offer a different insight is being declined on spurious reasons, for instance User:Aquillion seems to have identified the libertarian publication Spiked as “anti-feminist” [27] while User:Liz is apparently surprised it is a WP:RS at all [28] and rejected its various related articles and opinion pieces [29][30][31][32].

The same is true for other publications like DigiTimes [33], Reason [34][35][36][37], Cinemablend which had a range of great articles on the topic that aren’t included [38][39][40][41][42][43][44] or GameZone [45][46][47][48] among various others like The Examiner and Inquisitr [49]

This takes some bizarre proportions when certain publications like The Escapist are quoted to describe GamerGate as “an unprecedented catastrof**k" and that silencing critiques of games harms games developers by depriving them of feedback” but the other 14 published interviews including by two notable CEOs of their own gaming companies like Brad Wardell and Daniel Vávra are ignored. [50] or a former member of GJP is cited as not considering it a form of collusion on Game Politics, but the two articles describing the movement politically on the same site are being ignored [51][52]

Some editors like User:Ryulong even went as far as to try and nominate a publication he identified as “GamerGate-friendly” like Adland for deletion [53] which said publication noted in one of their articles [54], but none of their other articles regarding the controversy are being used [55][56][57][58] while other editors like User:NorthBySouthBaranof were heavily involved in making Breitbart look less credible than even Gawker [59] so it couldn’t be included as a reliable source for any information in the article.

This aside from sources like TechRaptor, Niche Gamer, GamerHeadlines, APGNation, GamesNosh, Game Revolution, Bright Side of News, Pocketgamer, GoodGamers and similar, which provide a broader perspective on the whole issue but aren’t considered WP:RS even for interviews with industry veterans and if the involved editors have their say will likely never be considered such.

Considering the name “controversy”, the lede doesn’t make a point out of presenting two sides or what one part of the conflict is even about. What the editors in charge of the article are doing is basically refusing to include and choosing to eliminate any pieces they ideologically don’t align with as described above as WP:FRINGE or the “opinion of a single writer” (despite the entire article quoting opinion pieces of writers over and over as statements of fact) or not noteworthy, so at the end they can say that the very misleading and one-sided article represents “consensus” of the sources within.

For anyone watching this entire thing unfold from the outside, it seems like an unparalleled farce that is dragging the believability of the entire encyclopedia through the mud and makes it seem like it is ignoring WP:NPOV. 79.247.126.207 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who sees Dig and the rest of that lot being compared as equal to Columbia Journalism Review, PBS, New York Times is laughing themselves to death and saying "Yep these are the same people whose best attempt at being relevant shows a complete lack of understanding of what ethics and objective mean." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely you don't want to insinuate that an opinion piece clearly labeled as such [60] or a piece that is part of the New York Times Blog system [61] constitutes them being interpreted as facts coming from the Editorial voice for said publications or are less respectable than the opinions stated by equally respectable publications? As explained by User:RGloucester above [62] per WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.247.126.207 (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely I AM stating that anything under the NYT imprimatur is vastly more important, relevant, and higher quality than most of what you have linked. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the website "Spiked" and I don't think questioning whether it is a reliable source (and for which statements it is being cited) is controversial. It should be standard editor behavior.

What I question is why you have posted this lengthy piece (filled with lots of applicable diffs) on Jimbo's talk page, rather than on the article talk page where content issues are normally discussed. I think you have a better chance at arguing your point there than on this page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would anyone discuss it on a page that is as big of a scandal as the scandal itself? Posting the trite, sco.wiki is an elegant point. If you look at the Spanish, German, Norwegian etc. varieties you will find much more balanced articles that have considered RS and made very different conclusions to how that is applied. There is clearly a short circuit in en.wiki which is violating NPOV and causing bridgading on matters of RS and this has caused damage to the reputation of the encyclopedia.

My advice is simple. Avoid the tempting idea that claiming '150 sources have been RS'd' is in any way beneficial. The value of the encyclopedia has never been, nor will ever be in attempting to state it has all of the definition and answers to a problem. It is not an edited scientific journal and has no original research. Rather it is in providing sufficient information as a tertiary source to spurn users to delve deeper and reach their own opinion. Therefore, you should consider abridging the article to reflect equal opinion between available sources, if that means only using 4 sources per 'view point' and only covering the key topics then so be it.

In addition to this, I offer you a generous pro-tip: if you dislike #GamerGate and what it represents, then this will be ideal because at the moment this article is just adding fuel to the scandals fire.

Regarding why the conversation is here: IP editors are not allowed to edit the 'GamerGate Controversy' talk page (again). I guess they were inconveniently saying the whole article is embarassing and honesty hurts.

77.97.17.147 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The protection level for that discussion page is that only autocomfirmed editors can post there (at least for the next few months when it expires). For more information on how to become autoconfirmed, see Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users.

As for your "big picture" criticism, we work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as it is practiced on the English version and policies might be different in other language Wikipedias. In an article as carefully scrutinized as this one, it is best to have specific portions that you believe are not supported by WP:RS or you can present a reliable source that hasn't been used yet and make a good argument for why it should be incorporated. It sounds like your preference is for a complete rewrite on the article and, at this point, that's not going to happen. Change and improvement will occur, incrementally. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement 'A re-write of the article isn't going to happen' is an ownership problem. 77.97.17.147 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally quotation marks are used only when one is quoting, not when one is giving a tendentious bad-faith mis-reading. --JBL (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"A re-write of the article isn't going to happen" is a correct analysis unless there is somewhere a buttload of sources of the quality of BBC/PBS/Columbia Journalism Review that have somehow not been found and presented in the past 4 months. Sorry, but Dig is not going to change anyone's perception of how the mainstream reliable sources have viewed gamergate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have fallen foul to a facet of IAR: Rules are 'descriptive' not 'prescriptive'. Thus a statement that an RS is usually viewed as 'High Quality' does not neccesarily engender that the source is valid in all cases, nor has priority over other sources in any case. It is the responsibilty of the editors and administrators to apply IAR if a rule is damaging the encyclopedia.

In this case the overuse (and likely unintentional abuse) of RS has caused damage both outwith the project and within the project due to a consensus failure. Common sense would deliver a result very different from the rule as should be applied here and thats where IAR steps in. As before 'RS' is a good rule, however, I recommend one of the article editors steps up and invites someone with material expertise in the application of IAR in to the topic as a method of acheiving consensus and to improve the value of the Wikipedia Project.

I'm happy to invoke IAR rather than cry foul here, however, I just checked the French version of this article and was stunned to see that it was very well balanced and NPOV just like the Spanish and Norge versions, though the Scottish one is still the best for conciseness!

77.97.17.147 (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have fallen afoul of WP:IAR in the standard manner of missing the important conditional if it prevents you from improving the encyclopedia. Replacing NYT with Dig is not now or ever going to meet that conditional. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on your part, you should be aware that Pedantry and the damage it can cause is the sin for which IAR was designed. 77.97.17.147 (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

William Usher, now the most reliable journalist dealing with Gaming matters: http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/02/how-wikipedia-uses-false-information-to-defame-gamergate/ 62.254.196.200 (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out in a thread below, ET will soon be reading Wikipedia. So you have to wonder what ET would make of our obsession with Gamergate instead of more important issues. Count Iblis (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While the Gamergaters doggedly defend their right to moral outrage over [their cause celebre, something incredibly minor and trivial that User:5 albert square thinks is a BLP violation for me to mention even dismissively without naming any names: deleted], Wikipedia is today running its fourteenth Final Fantasy Featured article as Today's Featured Ad. $$$LOL$$$ Wnt (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately 5 albert square has displayed a chilling and dangerous habit of twisting any disagreement in opinion or minor overstep into a wikipedia wide block. There is rarely any attempt at discussion or consensus building. This is damaging to the encyclopedia and there are some serious questions here about the selection of competent, balanced administrators on en.wikipedia. 31.51.4.152 (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Your take on a women-only project

I would love to get your feedback on the idea of a women-only project. And by project, I don't mean a separate site like Wikipedia or Commons. I mean a WikiProject just for women.

I proposed such a space - WikiProject Women - on January 6 at the IdeaLab. The ensuing caterwauling didn't surprise me - the GGTF ArbCom was only recently closed, and the Gamergate ArbCom was underway - but it is nonetheless disturbing. And I'm continuing to take flak for having the chutzpah to pursue this idea.

One of the things that came out of the discussion is that the German Wikipedia apparently has or had something like a Stammtisch in a user's space. Since the proposal of a women-only project was so outrageous to so many respondents, I decided to try a Kaffeeklatsch area in my user space. This survived a lengthy MfD, in which LuisV (WMF) said the space does not violate the WMF non discrimination policy. Yesterday, I created a redirect,[63] and today a shortcut,[64] to the klatsch page, and this, too, has been called up for deletion,[65] and I've been accused of canvassing[66] because I invited women's projects[67][68][69][70][71][72][73] to participate in the discussion. To atone (although I don't believe my invitations were contrary to WP:CANVASS), I have also put a notice on the Men's right movement talk page.[74]

I would like to close by saying that my efforts to create a women-only space is done in good faith in an effort to help close Wikipedia's gender gap, although ironically, the community's lack of support must be looked upon by outsiders as a good reason to keep away. (I would have loved such a refuge when I first started editing.)

Thoughts, please? Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Jimbo Wales

@Jimbo Wales: I sure would like your opinion on this, I've heard these others before. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by others

Dear Lightbreather, since you ask for thoughts: is you very own phrase "the community's lack of support" not telling you anything at all? Personally, I and, I suspect, many others couldn't care if women have a 100 places or projects to call just their very own, and wish they would just get on and create these places and stop making so much noise about it. It seems to me that anyone who voices any dissent is accused of mysogenism, without a shred of evidence to back it up, which could explain why some are backing away from you. I'm unclear what any of us males here are expected to about the supposed gender gap? Go out on the streets and solicit women to join? I haven't seen many women doing that either. Personally, I suspect if the ratio of women to men is vastly disproportionate here (I'm unconvinced of that), it's because women have better things to do with their time, or as one woman of my acquaintance said "Bugger that! Writing for hours every week! If I'm going to work, I'd rather be paid for it." Which proves that besides being able to swear, women are quite astute and sensible too. So my advice is: stop winging and just go and create a project if that's what you want to do. Giano (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- [Anyone] who voices any dissent is accused of mysogenism, without a shred of evidence to back it up? DIFFS, please. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  - There you go again! Immediately confrontational and aggressive. Try listening/reading for once and you might just achieve some of your goals. Giano (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

However, since you ask for diffs, I think this one (it's actually me responding) to a post from an Arb, sums up how sick some of us are with this constant inference of mysogenism, where actually there is none. You and your female colleagues would achieve far more if you went about things in a less confrontational manner. Giano (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's of you responding. The post you were responding to - [75] - was addressed to one of WP's editors whose style is unapologetically foul-mouthed. I think that is a bad example upon which to declare that anyone who voices dissent is accused of misogyny. I will share with you something that I said to another editor that seemed to help him understand his own feelings about this issue.

I think a lot of the resentment on WP is a result of defensiveness. Most of the guys on WP are probably fine men, and among those fine men such sexism as might happen is unintentional. However, because of the defensiveness, it's hard to address. One thing I've heard a lot as an editor is "grow a thick skin," but when it comes to discussing sexism, even unintentional, systemic stuff, suddenly a lot of otherwise rational men become hypersensitive - as if they are being personally attacked. Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion a "women only" project is no more appropriate for the foundation than a "men only" or "whites only" project. It is sexist and shamelessly discriminatory. If you want a private forum then pay for some web hosting, Wikipedia is not the place to create a project that excludes half the population based on circumstances of their birth. Chillum 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As this is JW's talkpage. It might be best to allow JW to respond first? GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Does that ever happen? Chillum 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, to call the opposition to your proposal "caterwauling" is dismissive and disrespectful to the editors that posted there, and is a good example of what I see as you making combative posts. It's my experience that combativeness tends to be met with more combativeness, and perhaps that's part of the reason you're receiving so much flak. Ca2james (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic. Sometimes I use the intentionally combative style that is customary in this mostly male environment, and someone almost always calls me on it. However, if I do the same - point out someone's choice of words - I'm being thin-skinned, or argumentative, or something along those lines.

I used "caterwauling" because the style on this page, whether Jimbo means for it to be or not, is that of a bunch of guys talking at a bar/in a pub. Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, you appear to be dismissing editors' opinions by saying that the style on this page is that of a bunch of guys talking at a bar/in a pub, and again that comes across as disrespectful of other editors. If someone said that you were part of a group of caterwauling editors or that the style of the kaffeeklatsch was that of a bunch of girls at a quilting bee, you'd be very upset - and rightly so, because those statements would be derogatory, dismissive, and combative. Your statements are no less derogatory, dismissive, or combative because you're a woman. I understand that you feel attacked and that you feel like everyone is against you, but the words you've used and the statements you've made (not to mention edit summaries like this one, where you use what appears to be an infantalizing nickname for someone you don't like) escalate the problem rather than work towards fixing it. Being combative to make a point does nothing to change the atmosphere on Wikipedia. Instead, it comes across as disruptive and even more combative, which in turn leads to more combativeness. Ca2james (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying I'm accepting the fact that, here on Jimbo's page - many talk pages, actually - a lot of the posts, IMO, sound like guys talking at a bar - much, much more informal and "back at ya" than say in a formal setting with men and women present. And again, ironically, I get called on it when I use this language, when guys go on using it all across Wikipedia every day. However, if I complain about it, I'm being sensitive or stirring up trouble. Here are some comments that I find variously derogatory, dismissive, combative, infantalizing, sexist, and so on.

many here are sick to death of [the gender gap task force] and their Gestapo like posturing.[76]
I became totally sick to death of this ridiculous persecution of [editor], by a group of self-appointed feminists who would not know the meaning of the word feminism if it jumped and bit them on their over-rested behinds; and what's more if it comes to fanning flames, I suggest you look to the top of the Wikipedia tree, not amongst us twigs at the bottom.[77]
I tried to give a shit, I tried to salvage you as an editor. It is clear you are not going to allow that.[78]
Better luck next time and keep the fuck off my talk page[79]
You are on a mission, and missions on WP usually end up in tears, in my limited experience.[80]
Since [admin] says above that she is a feminist, she should back off on these related issues. She won't, of course, and I'd be surprised if she doesn't also have me firmly in her sights. If she does then she will "win" at some point ... and Wikipedia will lose.[81]

I'm not saying whether the editors who said these things are "good" or "bad"; some of them I agree with, some I don't. The thing is, look at the language. Ninety-nine times out of one-hundred - more often than that - I take the high road and keep my comments perfectly civil. But when I allow myself to talk like the guys, I'm asking for it by being "combative"? Lightbreather (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that you're choosing the editors who make the rudest and least civil statements and not only using their uncivil and combative comments to justify being uncivil yourself, but also painting all male editors (by using the phrase "the guys") as just as rude and uncivil. Most editors never rise (or sink) to that level of incivility and it's dismissive and combative to assume that they do. While I agree that civility, or lack thereof, can be a problem on Wikipedia, it seems to me that being uncivil, dismissive, and combative just because someone else behaves that way contributes to the problem instead of helping to fix it. I don't know why you get shot down when you take incivility to the noticeboards. I expect that part of the reason it happens now is that you have that history now and this, together with your own statements come across as combative, tends to beget more combativeness. Ca2james (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

As a practical matter we have no way to verify who is a woman on Wikipedia due to Wikipedia:Outing. If you have a women only area, there will surely be some imposters or worse, trolls, to stir up trouble. I recommend you start a forum off site, utilizing your freedom of association rights to invite and approve membership of whoever you like, verifying their identity however you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Hochman approximately once every month that has fewer than 30 days. This is one of those times. I've said it all along — there is nothing wrong with feminism, there is nothing wrong with political organizing, there is nothing wrong with commiseration and complaint (even angry commiseration and complaint), there is nothing wrong with coordinating investigation and positive activity... There IS a problem with politicization of Wikipedia itself. Wikipediocracy is your model. Take it off-wiki and run it as you wish. But Wikipedia is not the place for identity politics. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Bully for you, Carrite. However, whether you agree with political organizing on-wiki or not, it happens here everyday, and among more men than women. And when you take your work off-wiki, it immediately loses its authority on-wiki. No thank you. My intention isn't to create another off-wiki space to dissect and report about what's going on on-wiki. My intention is to create a space where women can talk among themselves on-wiki - just as men do here every day - without getting marginalized. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You can create a salon in your user space and exclude anybody you don't want to contribute. Editors have wide latitude to disinvited others from their own user pages. I suggest you not exclude men who are sympathetic to your cause. Keep in mind that there are some women who don't identify on wiki as women, and you shouldn't exclude them. Allowing a few men into the club will provide cover for the non disclosed women. Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@LB. Well, at least you are finally calling it what it is: "political organizing on-wiki." And dittoes again for Mr. Hochman's perceptive comment, which makes us both "Dittoheads" to some people, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite. So you're one of those people who twists others' words to support their claims, eh? Got it. Here's what I said:

My intention is to create a space where women can talk among themselves on-wiki - just as men do here every day - without getting marginalized.

If you want to reduce that to "political organizing," fine, but don't say that's what I call it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don’t agree with everything Lightbreather does or suggests and have mixed feeling on women’s only space, but I can’t help but notice the response to LB’s efforts seems extreme. Also, this statement from above stands out as a bit ironic: I suspect, many others couldn't care if women have a 100 places or projects to call just their very own, and wish they would just get on and create these places and stop making so much noise about it. Seems like much of the noise is actually coming from those opposed to LB’s efforts. I’ve never seen an MfD get so much attn before (actually I've never seen an MfD before) I’m not sure the answer, but It appears there are editors who spend significant time and energy acting as detractors of whatever LB is doing. If others really want LB to stop making noise and get on quietly with her wiki efforts and editing, seems like ignoring her more, which would include to stop talking about her elsewhere, might just achieve that. Just a thought. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hear, hear BoboMeowCat. Those worrying about me should follow they're own advice and go work on some content. I'm not "up to" anything that's going to do anything other than - maybe - bring in and help keep more women editors. Lightbreather (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If Lightbreather and the majority of her fellow female editors want a woman's Wikipedia only space then let them have one. It's unlikely to work for the reasons that Jehochman gives above. It will be renowned only for the heated debates of who is really a woman, what is a woman and demands for proof of womanhood - at least in RL, one has a sporting chance of spotting the female impersonator. There will also be huge demands for men only, gay only and God knows what only pages, but if our female editors really feel the need for such a page/group, then let them have it. If it all goes wrong and fails, then at least it's had a chance. Women are generally tougher than they look, they are likely to survive. However, if they get it, they should beware of acquiring a ghetto or bunker mentality, it cannot be an escape from the real world of Wikipedia - nor should it carry mass voting rights anywhere on the project. Giano (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, why not? These ideas hardly ever end badly, except when they are introduced on days with a Y in the name. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I sure would like your opinion on this, I believe I've heard these others before. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)You are on Jimbo's talk page, pinging him accomplishes little. Chillum 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Between my post to him and now how man of you have replied here? The notice of my original post has probably rolled into oblivion by now. But at any rate, your telling me that my ping accomplishes little... accomplishes little. I know y'all despise me. Why not just ignore me, and let me have a little one-on-one with JW? Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think that Jimbo's opinion counts for anything more than anyone else's, you are much mistaken. That is a fallacy that has led to many problems in the recent past regarding exactly the sort of thing that you have raised on this occasion. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion but if you intend to cite it in some way then you will find yourself "laughed out of court", so to speak. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, people come here asking for Jimbo's opinion all the time. Do you give everyone this lecture? This discussion is about my efforts to help close the gender gap, and unless you're here to contribute productively, and not just thumb your nose at me - which is your wont with me - I'd like it if you'd skedaddle. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

My comment was meant to be productive, advising you that Jimbo's opinion carries no more weight than that of the many other people whom you have canvassed. His is just an opinion but it is notable that you tend usually to canvass in a selective manner and, even then, hit problems. Your Kaffeeklatch has been mentioned far and wide over several weeks but as of now has received more opposition from self-identified women than it has signatories, despite various short bursts of invitation-postings, announcements and similar by you; for example: here, here, and with comments such as this. In fact, you've probably had more support from self-identified men than women, and they are excluded from the thing. It is these sort of responses from the very demographic among which you seek support, and your past efforts to gain his backing regarding the civility campaign, that lead me to the conclusion - perhaps wrong - that your intent is to quote Jimbo in order to bolster an initiative that is not gaining traction. You may or may not want to clarify the correctness of this conclusion but I felt it only sensible to point out that fairly similar recent invokings of The Word of Jimbo, including by yourself, have failed to make a blind bit of difference. Like I said, he is entitled to his opinion but so is everyone else. Given that your past invocations of The Word made no difference, the phrase "the triumph of hope over experience" comes to mind. I am sorry if my bringing of your optimism down to earth is upsetting but life does not always go how we would like it, and that includes when asking people to "skedaddle". I shall now bow out: feel free to have the last word. - Sitush (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Meant to be productive how? (Rhetorical) Your opinion means ZERO to me, but as a (co) founder of Wikipedia - and as someone who has always been polite with me - his opinion means a lot. Your dictatorial musings, although annoying, boost my optimism more than deflate them, though I won't go into details. And I shall have the last word - thank you for so generously offering - my intent is NOT to quote Jimbo. Is that why you follow me around? Maybe you're hurt because I haven't quoted you?[82] (Rhetorical) Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've unhatted this discussion. A separate section already exists for the cofounder to reply if he so chooses. This one accords with his open-door policy. Writegeist (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for unhatting. There's no such thing as a one-on-one on this page and the expectation that there would be struck me as strange. And @Lightbreather:, "I know y'all despise me"? Really? Someone disagreeing with your stance is not an attack. Even lots of people disagreeing with your stance is not an attack. Claiming people disagreeing with you despise you is so egregiously gross and is, honestly, a transparent attempt to cast yourself as a preemptive martyr to some conspiracy against you. And when you finally get your "proof" in the form of another sanction against you you'll laud it but somehow you're missing the whole the message you're trying to purvey. You want a more collaborative environment, I assume, yet your go-to action is exclusion or retaliation. Capeo (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the old Lightbreather casts herself as a victim argument, eh? No, the fact is that I am despised by many here. Anyone who says otherwise is spreading horseshit. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you really think people around here despise you then I don't know what to say. I'd certainly disagree that's a "fact". It's certainly true many people don't like your ideas or, at times, your tactics but that's a million miles away from despising you as a person. I'm quite sure I need not tell you that as well so it's tough not to see you using such strong rhetoric to serve a purpose. Capeo (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So, Lightbreather... Tell us about all the fantastic things that your Kaffeklatsch beta page in user space has accomplished... Has it coordinated production of any articles? Lead any joint investigations? Provided a venue for socialization and warm interpersonal relations among female Wikipedians, free from the oppressive burden of male patriarchy and patronizing interpersonal relations? Has it helped even one new female Wikipedian in any way? Or, rather, has it been nothing but a distraction and a cause of disruption and an attention generating mechanism for YOU, YOU, YOU? Just wondering... Carrite (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yes, Carrite. You've hit the nail on the head. And I'd like to thank you for all the help you've given to make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for me and for all women.</sarcasm> Lightbreather (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't overgeneralize, it's not the combative, warriorlike on-wiki behavior of "all women" that I have a problem with. Or "most" women. Or more than a very, very few. Carrite (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a project in your user-space? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LB: If you want a one-to-one with Jimbo, try email. PamD 06:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather:I'm going to have to echo this- it would be far more constructive (and you'd be met with a vastly politer reception) if you contacted Jimbo by email rather than his crowded talk page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather, you don't need anyone's permission to create a WikiProject; just create it. You cannot however restrict who belongs to it or who contributes to it (unless there is actionable behavior which needs to be reported at an admin noticeboard). If you really want to communicate with a group of exclusively women editors, I suggest forming an email list of trusted editors, or a creating a private forum (like a private members-only Yahoo forum), or etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender just brought up some thing that I've been wondering and thinking about since this thread began- you can't restrict a woman's wikiproject to just women. We don't restrict wikiproject:judaism to just Jews, neither do you have to live in Chicago or have any ties to that city to be in that wikiproject.Camelbinky (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I do appreciate the good-faith efforts to come up with solutions, but this off-wiki space idea has been discussed on various WP talk pages and at the IdeaLab talk page, where you'll find one of my responses. Lightbreather (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Folks, I hope you don't mind a few comments from me. Some time ago when I was moderating a web site and forum that probably had a similar male/female demographic to Wikipedia, a similar issue came up in which female users often felt a little intimidated by the approach of some male users, although nothing breached the site's rules. Some female members wanted to set up a female-only sub-forum, and a number of male editors objected - some quite strenuously. The solution we came up with was to open a female-oriented sub-forum, though not actually ban males from it but instead specify the fairly mild feminist scope of the board and welcome males who were happy to fit in with that. There was still significant male dissent, calling it unfair discrimination, so what we did was offer a similar male enclave for those who wanted it and apply the mirror-image rules. The result was pretty peaceful. The female forum went on to considerable strength, with males contributing from time to time and those not abiding by the rules ejected, and the male forum quickly withered with almost no contributions after the first couple of months - it appeared that female users genuinely wanted a forum to do female stuff, but the males who insisted on their own board really only wanted it to be seen to be equal. I've no idea if this is of any help here, but I thought I'd share the experience. Squinge (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Very sensible, but not what is being talked about at all. This is a proposal for women only, no male participation allowed on the basis of gender. Quite a different kettle of fish. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite different. I was just wondering if a different sort of approach might help. I suspect it wouldn't work here, however, as the forum in my example was moderated and so decisions were quick. The same kind of thing managed by consensus might be, erm, tricky. Squinge (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Lightbreather, have it your way. Start this "Wikiproject Women" or whatever you want to call it. Then see how much light it will create for women editors in proportion to heat. Warning: not much. Beyond that, as the great Jimbo Wales said himself, "Fork off!" No really, you can create an offsite forum similar to WO, or fork the whole project. I doubt any such initiative will be any more successful than one on-wiki, though. KonveyorBelt 17:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't see the harm of this, as long as it's understood that because of anonymity there is absolutely no way to ascertain if an editor is a woman. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Historically, Lightbreather, WikiProjects have focused on subject matter and not the status of editors (as I'm sure you know). Is there something that your proposed WikiProject Women would do that can't be done under the auspices of gender WikiProjects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers? Because it sounds more like a support group than an editing collaboration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE: This idea is not going to work because the fundamental premise of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit. If you want something exclusive or private, go somewhere else. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Great idea, How about a "Women only" Wikipedia too? ... The whole point of this website is that anyone can edit, Not just men, Not just women ... but everyone of all genders - Personally I think it's a pointless idea! (BTW I apologize for the comment before this - wasn't helpful!). –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lightbreather: Not sure if this is the place to ask, but interested in the answer. What does the German wiki Kaffelklatsch equivalent do? What sort of stuff to they discuss there? From what I can see all the conversation in the enwiki version has been mostly self-referential, so I was wondering upon what lines its likely to develop.Bosstopher (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I think a space here for women to talk is a great idea. None of the arguments against it hold water, and they sound churlish. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

One link: WP:NOTSOCIAL. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, what LB seems to be proposing is a gender-biased Esperanza. I also think she knew from the start that was not likely to be met positively, so I am not sure whether the purpose to this was anything more than to reinforce her victim complex. We all know projects designed to be discriminatory aren't going to fly. The better option would be to create a project or work group that focuses on articles related to women's history/issues or the like. I suspect most participants there would be either women or men sympathetic/willing to work on such articles. That would be collaborative, inclusive and of benefit to the project. Reso lute 18:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like some of the negative tone of the comments here. She should be welcome to ask for a space reserved for women; it's just I don't want administrators to deliver the enforcement support that this might be taken to imply. If after some prolonged argument an admin started going on with the "send me your ID card, send me a live chat, prove to me you're a woman and I won't sanction you" ... well, that's the camel's nose I don't want in this tent. If a precedent is set that an admin can make an editor prove he's worthy to contribute - rather than letting the contributions speak for themselves - then you're starting down a slippery slope that begins with a seemingly well-meaning effort to demand competence and ends in crony networks that make the project their exclusive property. But if you're willing to live without admin enforcement of the rule, it does no obvious harm to ask for a conversation among women. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Facebook and Net neutrality

Facebook is reported to be undermining Net neutrality.

Facebook's march to global domination is trampling over net neutrality—The Verge (February 13, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
[The expressions "undermining" and "trampling over" are synonyms figuratively but not literally.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)]

Given Wikipedia Zero's place in the net neutrality controversy, I'd be very interested to hear Jimmy's and others' views on free Facebook for the world's poor. Personally, I think a kind of a case can be made for Wikipedia Zero (though there are problems with it) but Facebook's behaviour in that space is all bad. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about Facebook Zero (launched on May 18, 2010), Wikipedia Zero (launched in April 2012), Google Free Zone (launched on November 8, 2012), Project Loon (launched in June 2013), and Internet.org (launched on August 20, 2013). (As articles about Internet services with zero-rating, they can all be categorized in Category:Zero-rating Internet services [red link now].)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC) and 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) and 17:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Vision

Heather Bresch

Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy

Sanction free zones?

Lua support on Wikimedia

Trans people

December participation metrics

Lock for my own safety

Mark Bernstein blog post

Part of a bigger problem

Is it true...

Acerca del bloqueo global a usuarios

Commentary on disinformation organisms/izations within Wikipedia

Curious about the policy on this situation

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

Recent improvements

Looking ahead

Let's work together

A cup of coffee for you!

Mail

Open door policy?

Invitation

note re revisions

Trolling?

Question

w:pl:user:Michał Rosa

Censorship in Kazakh Wikipedia

Jimbo, Signpost subscription to your talk page?

Wikipedia in space

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson criticizes Wikipedia

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Wikipedia for Idiots?

Help:Desk is great but some prefer to see whole overview or dashboard

Interesting paper that could be useful as advice for new editors

What about a forced tutorial for all newbies?

Dan David Prize

Even more Gamergate ArbCom flak

How to fund Wikipedia (tongue firmly in cheek)

February is Black History Month

Valentine Greets!!!

Black History Month redux

You're in a book

Possible ARCA precedent

Gamergate redux

Your take on a women-only project

Reply by Jimbo Wales

Comments by others

Facebook and Net neutrality

Happy Valentine's Day!!!