User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 193

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 190

Archive 191

Archive 192

→

Right to have your tweets forgotten

"Imagine how nerve-racking — terrifying, even — tweeting would be if it [tweeting] was immutable and irrevocable?" Twitter reportedly told the OSF. "No one user is more deserving of that ability than another. Indeed, deleting a tweet is an expression of the user’s voice." [1]

Curious how Big Internet protects individual privacy when it suits them (Twitter, above, many other when NSA back-office feeds were disclosed) and is against it when doesn't (Google on Right to be forgotten, Kotaku on hacking Ashley Madison).

How do these flexible standards fit with the movement's protection of privacy (WP:BLP and the NSA case)? And does it help to have notable proponents of the movement condemning "Right to be forgotten" (which be it noted is far narrower than Google or its mouthpieces implied)?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

Actually, Google results typically disappear if the author deletes them, so the RTBF is more like the right to delete somebody else's Tweet. But I bet that to a good enough hacker, Twitter's delete function probably looks about as sincere as Ashley Madison's.

The real solution to Ashley Madison is for employers in the U.S. to stand up and proclaim proudly that they are not going to discriminate against people for their private lives and thoughts, because they are employers, not wannabe gods! For example, they should say that:

We will not discriminate against people for a history of prostitution, prior work in the adult film industry, nor in the case that someone has posted “revenge porn”.

We will not discriminate against workers for their prior and off-time freedom of expression and political viewpoint, however opposed it may be to our own.

We will not discriminate against workers for their race, caste, or social class. We shall not use credit rating services in employment decisions. We will winot make use of social rating schemes, seemingly designed for the purpose of racial discrimination, which assess the socioeconomic status of a worker’s recorded contacts.

We will not track workers in their off-time, whether electronically or by other means, nor investigate their private activities; we do not represent ourselves as having any right to do so.

We actually have been through this issue when people tried to have User:Kaldari keelhauled for failing to censor tasteless humor on one of his offsite servers. WMF did the right thing then, but there is little reason to brag when one withstands such a weak attack. WMF should shore up that wall by developing a comprehensive list of things, like I've started above, that are simply beyond its purview as an employer, and seek to sign on other Internet companies and nonprofits to make the same pledge. I have been told that many of these things already cannot legally be used as a factor in employment/firing decisions in the European Union, so it should be easy to present this as a mere case of international compatibility, if one is feeling less than bold.

The best time to stop the Ashley Madison problem was in 1986, when the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the one that killed Aaron Swartz) should not have been passed. Had pimply teenagers playing games been allowed to humiliate CEOs, maybe the industry would have learned security. Failing that, it would have been when the courts should have salted and burned key escrow instead of playing whack-a-mole with the same regulations under multiple agencies, so the data on the site would be secure. Failing that, it would have been by defending and upgrading robust unowned networks like IRC instead of letting filthy money-grubbers take over their functions. But we can still stop it now, at the outlet, where all that data finds a chance to be abused, if only we collectively have the courage to stand up and say we are not God. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The only reason the over-reaching right to be forgotten exists is because Google has refused to take privacy concerns seriously, except when they have been forced to. Hopefully, the Wikimedia projects will be able to strike a better balance when it comes to information transparency vs. privacy. The WP:BLP policy was a step in the right direction, but it's definitely a tricky issue for the movement to navigate. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no right to be forgotten. It's a childish made-up concept to avoid responsibility. Since the dawn of human existence, there is an understanding that people are not perfect. Forgiveness is given, but it is not a right that others must forgive. "Rights" that require a compulsive act by another person are not rights. People cannot and should not be compelled to "forget." It does not matter if it's the internet or if it's purse snatcher or a snake oil salesman. People may choose to forgive them, but they should not be forced to forget them. Our BLP policy falls on different principles than "right to be forgotten." --DHeyward (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, see http://cachedview.com/ which shows how a web page is archived at various sources. The chances of getting rid of material from the web completely once it has been posted and reposted are practically zero.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

RTBF is a bad name, probably invented by the media.

"Rights" that require a compulsive act by another person are not rights. Nonsense. I have the right to compel you to leave my house. Or to stop standing on my foot. Or to destroy the pirate copies of my last novel.

RTBF does not force people to forget, it merely circumscribes their ability to publish, unchallenged, information about you that is "irrelevant, outdated or wrong".

Twitter on the other hand is allowing politicians to whitewash what they have said. I have little objection to Joe Public redacting something said in haste, but as public persons we are entitled to know what our politicians have said in public. There is more than one Supreme Court opinion specifically focussed on the concept of "public persons", one that sticks in my mind, though it may have been Learned Hand, emphasises the importance in respect to politicians, so that the electorate's information is not chilled. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC).

"It merely circumscribes their ability to publish". Otherwise known as infringing the freedom of the press. That I cannot support. But Twitter is the user's publisher, or posing as such, and so they are supposed to serve the user. (I realize the user is actually the product, and I imagine their data out the back end doesn't forget, but insomuch as you see this behavior you describe it is as I would want it to be) Wnt (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. RTBF is a very close cousin to libel law and false light defamation. In WP terms some BLP and UNDUE is thrown in perhaps.

As I understand it they (Twitter) are limiting the ability of others - specific others that are interested in politicians - to record what is said, using their API. These sites will, of course, use different methods to record the politicians tweets, so Twitter are shooting themselves in the foot (bad publicity for no gain).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

"Rights" that require a compulsive act by another person are not rights. (RF) Nonsense. I have the right to compel you to leave my house. Or to stop standing on my foot. Or to destroy the pirate copies of my last novel.

(RF) RTBF does not force people to forget, it merely circumscribes their ability to publish, unchallenged, information about you that is "irrelevant, outdated or wrong".

@Rich Farmbrough: I think you misunderstood. I should have said "compels a voluntarily act." You can force me to leave your house, get off your foot, etc, but I am only compelled not to act against you as I don't have the right to stop you. You don't have the right to make me build you a house, grow food for you, believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or forget something that you did in the past. Freedom of thought and expression are considered fairly basic negative rights that stem from the very beginning of the age of enlightenment. It would be rather over-reaching to create a positive "right to be forgotten" over a very clear and well-regarded right to freedom of thought and expression. Really, the only restriction is publishing "false information" in the form of libel or slander; or publishing media that is not owned by the publisher and is a form of theft. "irrelevant or outdated" is not an objective enough view to curtail the rights of people that don't think the material is "irrelevant or outdated." "Wrong" may fall on the libel/slander scale but that's already covered. --DHeyward (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples of limited expression in modern secular western thought:

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre
Verbal harassment
Threats of violence
Fighting words
Revealing trade secrets
Revealing privileged information
Revealing classified information (the UK Official Secrets Act may well go further)
Hate speech
Publishing information allowing copy-protection to be circumvented
Libel
Slander
Publishing copyright information out-with its license
Trespassing on trade-marks
Violating patents
Releasing viruses, worms and trojan horses
Various forms of cold-calling
Direct mail in certain circumstances
Contempt of court
Certain types of pornography (in Canada, it is argued, the act dealing with pornography makes itself illegal)
Conspiring to commit a crime
Uttering a false instrument
Gaining access to a computer system without authorization

That's just off the top of my head. Expression is ringed about with limitations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Those are all claim rights that require someone else to act to enforce them. The fundamental claim right to liberty means my obligation is only to refrain from preventing you from acting on your claim. The distinction of where claim and liberty rights exist is very entangling especially regarding knowledge. Your patent example is very pertinent because patents are required to be published. You cannot revoke your patent. It's published at application, not when it's granted so everyone knows of the invention before your right to exploit it is recognized. Public knowledge is free. The threshold needed to undo that is very high and creating a claim right to undo that would be extraordinary. Where would it end? Would patent holders be able to revoke their published patents and have a right to have that information forgotten? --DHeyward (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

They are all supposed to be moral rights - they happen to be mostly legally enforceable, those are the ones where it was not likely that you might quibble.

In the case of Poliwhoops, public persons are "unpublishing", with the connivence of Twitter - do you think this is moral behaviour on Twitter's part?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

The fraudulent citation of "fire in a crowded theater" that you cite dates back to Schenck v. United States (1919). In real theater panics it is rarely (if ever) possible to punish someone for yelling fire, since you don't know what that person thought he perceived. But the reality hiding behind the deceptive metaphor is that a man was being sent to jail for opposing the military draft, in a meaningless war where the wealthy of several nations got together to dispose of their unwanted lower-class men in a meat-grinder of conventional and chemical weapons. The decision has precisely the same moral authority as a rapist who gags his victim to keep her from screaming, and when we think of self-exalted Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., our limbic systems should light up the same way as when we think of a rapist who just posted such a video of himself on the internet. This decision led to Debs v. United States, in which the democracy of the United States was permanently damaged; I would say it was the forerunner of a particularly benighted age of Jim Crow and eugenics. And I expect as much whenever a new category is added to your list of errors. Wnt (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more explicit. Google and Wikipedia do similar things - I'm not sure, but I think you're suggesting that the RTBF include a process by which subjects can demand Wikipedia articles about them be removed, just as they can censor Google results. (That isn't actually in the French law at the moment, AFAIK, but of course if they are not stopped they will get bolder) But I had previously suggested that Wikipedia can be fragmented into a large number of independent sites coordinated via Usenet, i.e. Meta:Usenetpedia. Whether you think that's going to happen or not, I believe it is possible to do, so to be effective a RTBF law would have to censor Usenet for containing any article number for a private website that contains any statement about any of millions of people. Likewise it would have to censor significant real-world alternative search methods like Nutch and Jimbo's own Wikia Search. (I actually have no idea what went wrong with the latter; the article doesn't say - but it's one thing for a project to fail, another for it to be banned even in concept by state censors) Given enough time, and enough dedication to their 'principles', the censors would ultimately be stopping by any newspaper morgues and microfiche collections that still exist and telling them they have to cut out thousands of articles with scissors, or burn their archives. Wnt (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the principles at work here. There is a natural tension between free speech and protection of the citizen from injury. Free speech is not, as people assume, an end in itself, there are sound reasons, some enunciated by the Supreme Court of the US, notably "the competition of ideas". Having people thrown out of work because they were arrested (and released without charge) by some traffic cop making a quota may seem fine and dandy, but it seems an undesirable state of affairs to me.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

I don't understand the relevance of your last sentence. Free speech is both a means and an end - its accomplishments are all of civilization, yet it is an inalienable right that is self-evident and God-given. It is the prime meridian where we should begin drawing any moral map of the world. To be clear, yes, we may see huge problems surrounding it, but those problems are indicative of errors in how we do other things. The people of the Internet definitely made Ashley Madison possible, with strong crypto and The Onion Router and bittorrent; but I listed other things above that also made it possible. The answer isn't for us to step back and say it was wrong all horribly wrong and we want censors blocking all unmonitored and unapproved transmissions in the name of a harmonious society. It is to recognize that people need good, high-minded networks and forums of communication, genuine privacy, genuinely secure software, and above all, genuine protection from stupid discrimination in employment that damages both employee and the interests of the stockholders. We cannot lay out a framework for civil society that will prevent lovers from having quarrels over extramarital affairs, but we can design one that upholds the fundamental rights, both civil and economic, that permit people to go on without fear of anything beyond a personal nature. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Well there are a bunch of things going on here.
First lets dispose of "an inalienable right that is self-evident and God-given". There is no society and no religion or denomination that does not alienate the right right to free speech to some extent. Indeed two of the ten commandments limit speech.
Now we have various questions of "when to speak and when be silent" some of these are morally simple, some are morally difficult. For example someone knowing a secret that would have turned the Cold War into a hot war, if bruited about would have a moral imperative to be silent. Conversely someone discovering a cheap and effective treatment for colo-rectal cancer would have a pretty clear moral imperative to speak.
However if we know something to the detriment of a person, we are in a grey area. The greyness is darkened or lightened by the surrounding culture and legal framework (as well as the extent of our knowledge). For example a revelation of adultery in some cultures will put the adulterators in clear mortal peril.
In particular I think it's worth comparing the law regarding employment in the UK and the US, in general terms. Effectively in the US an employer can discharge his employees on whim - excluding certain narrow restrictions. Conversely in the UK it is hard (at least theoretically) to fire someone, unless certain fairly narrow conditions are met. In effect your "high minded employee" is high mined by legal coercion.
There are many cases of people losing their jobs in the US that would never happen in the UK - "donglegate" is a good example. If you read the book "Arrest-proofing Yourself" you will see many cases where people have been passed over for employment, or fired, because of an arrest which was totally without foundation and did not result in any charges let alone conviction. This is possible because of the combination of a liberal publishing of arrest data, and a liberal scope to fire people.
Now I was perhaps guilty of making too many points in my original post. Let me separate them here:

Kotaku linked to or published a lot of private details relating to the Madison Ashley affaire - essentially doxxing a large number of people, at least one of whom has, I understand, killed himself as a direct result. Kotaku were also active I believe in decrying the alleged doxxing that was part of the Gamergate controversy. This strikes me as hypocrisy of the first water, that can only be explained by their prime motivator being driving visits to their sites - i.e. money over people.
Big Internet, as represented by Twitter and Google seem to have a similarly ambiguous stance. Twitter need "celebs" to tweet, including politicians, therefore it pays them to cut off Poliwhoops' access which (presumably) allows them to archive tweets and find out when they have been removed. Conversely Google fights the misnamed "RTBF" because it affects their bottom line, and is not chary about engaging leading figures on the Internet to push its PR, which is grossly misleading, to say the least. (There are good examples of both Twitteer and Google aggressively censoring users too, when it suits them.)
By posting here I was hoping to draw a comment from Jimbo - does he still hate "RTBF"? What is his opinion of the Ashley Madison hack, and consequent publicity? Does he support Twitter in cutting off Poliwhoops? Does he distance himself from the commercial "Big Internet"? Does he still endorse WP:BLP?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

I won't try to figure out whether Kotaku has a consistent philosophy, but Twitter's justification for shutting off Politwoops' access is apparently, "because it can". [2] If Politwoops sets up a bunch of proxies and restores its service, the same justification applies. Doing political opposition research is a very low art, and the mistaken tweets of politicians shouldn't be overestimated in value; nonetheless, anyone who makes a business of having people pay attention to his every word is going to have this occupational hazard. I understand why Twitter would use any easy means it has to block this though, because they want more control over the data that is at the heart of their business. On Wikipedia, our policy clearly makes a "wikiwhoops" possible - indeed, it could be done ex post facto for self-reverts all the way back to the beginning. Since editors here put up, grudgingly, with the possibility, it isn't hypocritical for an editor to stick up for Politwoops. Wnt (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you don't think I'm hypocritical to stick up for Politwoops, and I'm glad you share my opinion, as near as I can tell on why Twitter did it. It has been a mildly interesting discussion, even if I didn't learn Jimbo's opinions. The question of slippery slope vs. competing rights is fairly well outside the scope of Wikipedia talk page discussions, I suppose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

Or Twitter could implement a variant of our BLP policy. Count Iblis (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Very Active Editor count up again in July 2015

The editing participation numbers for July are UP IN THE USUAL PLACE. Continuing a trend, the key metric, Very Active Editors (100+ edits in the month), is up once again in 2015. The July 2015 count (3,399) not only topped anemic July 2014 (3,024), but also beat July 2013, July 2012, and July 2011 — that is, a five year high for the month of July. No month has had a higher count of Very Active Editors on English-WP since August 2012. This further illustrates the lack of any provable connection between falling site traffic due to the Google Knowledge Box and rejiggering of some of their search results on the one hand and core editing participation at En-WP on the other.

The same general pattern for all projects combined is showing, with the losses showing in terrible July 2014 not only completely erased in July 2015, but with the July 2013 figure being eclipsed as well. Just about every language Wikipedia with 100 or more Very Active Editors showed a gain over previous month figures for 2014, with the Italian WP being the sole instance of decline. The growth of Spanish WP was particularly worthy of note, with the July Very Active Editor count at Es-WP (513) narrowly missing the all time high (July 2009, 522).

If WMF was actually tracking account names of Very Active Editors each month, we could observe whether there is new growth taking place or whether older, somewhat active editors are becoming more active. As it stands now, we can only guess. This is a longstanding complaint of mine, of course. —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

How long would it take to find the answer rather than complain about it? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC).

If you have the tech skills to create something like THIS every month (including IPs) and are willing to do it, let me know. I promise I won't say another word on the matter. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I used to produce that report (including IPs - note Singapore at position 287). However I am now restrained from doing any such thing by my colleagues at ArbCom. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC).

Is it just me that thinks counting numbers of edits by people is a pretty useless statistic? It reminds me of all those startup companies during the .com boom at the turn of the millennium that raised ridiculous amounts of capital ('ridiculous' based on the fact many of these companies were little more advanced than the conceptual stage and had produced nothing to date of any tangible worth - other than perhaps their initial venture capital debts) during their IPOs based almost entirely on the number of eyeballs visiting their proto-websites. Nearly twenty years on we now know, and have known for much of that time span, that eyeballs viewing websites is not indicative of anything that is very useful.

Likewise, it doesn't logically follow that lots of edits by someone means that particular editor has improved Wikipedia article space one iota. Some editors can produce an 8-10 paragraph article in one or two edits, while it might take other fat-fingered and poor-sighted editors who are unaware of the "Preview" function one input edit plus 19 subsequent "ce" edits simply to make a 3-line post on a Talk page such as this one. Furthermore, edits done on Talk pages such as this one all increase the edit counts being quoted above without a single article having ever been touched. I bet many of the editors that regularly post on this page (but that's all they do) would be listed as very active editors with more than 100 edits per month to their credit with, once again, article space never having been touched once by any of them.

There are many editors that spend all their Wikipedia time simply voting and commenting on internal processes such as AfD and TfD pages ... once again, lots of edits but absolutely no productive output. Unless, of course, you count the outcome of those AfD and TfD processes as output. In which case their productive output is highly negative because, in most cases, the result of their edits is that stuff gets deleted from article space. Lots of edits done in sandboxes; or adding new icons, templates and colors to your User page in order to let others know in no uncertain terms what a wonderful Wikipedia editor and generally nice person you really are; or sending all your buddies pictures of bowls of fruit and barnstars, doesn't achieve very much improvement of article space either.

Even when you start to measure edits done to actual articles, in addition to the fat-fingering and poor-sighted editors who take 20-30 edits to achieve what a half-decent editor can do in a single edit, there is also the issue that most articles grow in a 5-steps-forward 4-steps-back fashion, thus all your numbers are probably an order of magnitude higher than what is really being achieved in terms of expanding article space for that reason alone.

All the edits of the "lamppost-widdlers" don't do very much to increase the quality or content of article space either, but I'm sure they work wonders for your July statistics. Just so you know, "lamppost-widdlers" are those editors that make a point of doing as many daily minor edits (such as changing an instance of "its" to "it's" or changing "date" to "accessdate" in a citation) on as many articles as they can so that they always float to the top of the most active editors list every single day of the month, until some other inspired editor notices this fact and awards them a barnstar for their "tireless and enduring dedication to the quality of the Wikipedia project." Their whole modus operandi is geared to simply letting other editors know they are in still in the neighborhood and have recently passed through this article - just take a sniff. Woof! You can always spot these editors because their user pages are usually full to the brim with a gazillion of the aforementioned barnstars.

I also bet that all the edits of the "turd-polishers" also work wonders for your July statistics. "Turd-polishers" are those editors who tirelessly rework the same three sentences in an article that is only four sentences long (in an attempt to make them read "a little better still") despite the fact none of those sentences are properly sourced, or sourced to deadlinks, or not even sourced at all, and the five pieces of information they contain are all factually wrong.

Then of course there are all the corrective edits done by the copy editing crowd to fix the spelling and grammar (not to mention rearranging some of the existing words into a different order) of the fat-fingering and poor-sighted crowd who still couldn't get their edits right after 25 attempts to do so. The net result of the combined efforts of all the copy editing types is that the newer version of an article sometimes reads a little better than it did previously, yet it still hasn't gained any actual content - which, lest anyone reading this not be very focused - is the actual goal of Wikipedia.

Talking of focus, I forgot to mention all the grammar nazis and arcane English usage zealots that post on Wikipedia with the King Canute single-minded objective of attempting to rid the world of ALL instances of their own pet phrase or word-ending - such as changing all instances of the phrase "comprised of" to something that looks, sounds. smells and feels remarkably similar, so it takes you six re-readings of the text simply to work out exactly what has changed, and when you do, you don't care a flying phuck! Such dedication to endless zealous pedantry is IMO only aimed at increasing the size of the author's ego rather than expanding the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia articles, but I'm quite sure it also makes most of these highly motivated pedants extremely active editors, however you measure their output - and, of course, it does wonders for the "Very Active Editor Count" in whatever month you take a gander.

Don't even get me going on bot edits ... or edits done with Twinkle!

So I strongly suspect that all your recent wonderful statistics re edits done during the months of July and August are actually telling you is that during the slow summer months, editors that cannot afford to go on vacation like the rest of us simply stay at home and spend their time home from work in front of their PCs engaging in a good old feisty bout of edit-warring on Wikipedia, which also has a zero net sum result regarding the improvement of any of the articles affected. Thanks for the update. — not really here discuss 02:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. No articles were updated during the posting of this message, but quite a few were probably harmed - do vandals also count as very active editors?

That's a very good job of accentuating the negative, Me? I'm not really here, but it does not address the issue of whether or not the number of truly productive editors is plummeting or increasing modestly. Carrite has shown that the number of highly active editors is increasing, and furnishes statistics. In response, you posit that some of these highly active types are drama board addicts, em or en dash warriors, edit count inflators, "turd polishers", and other varieties of obsessives that you have identified. However, you offer no statistics, but only your colorful (and probably accurate) anecdotes. All your negative types were highly active here 3 years ago, 6 years ago and 9 years ago. Do you have evidence that such unproductive types constitute a larger percentage of highly active editors in 2015 than in previous years? Surely, among the 3400 active editors in July, there must have been a few who.wrote or expanded an article or two? After all, somehow we have collectively created nearly five million articles, quite a few of which are worth keeping. That reminds me: participation at AfD often results in keeping and improving articles, rather than deleting them. I keep a handy list of the articles I have helped keep by expanding them, right on my user page. I commend that course of action to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I've only accentuated reality? Every editor's experience of Wikipedia is surely different - some are going to have a more positive one than others. Your mileage may vary. How does simply counting edits address the issue you state? It's as meaningless as counting the number of eyeballs viewing Wikipedia sites. I haven't seen Carrite's statistics - my response was simply to his announcement and the fact that any kind of store is being put by sheer quantity of edits. OK, it's quantity of edits by editors that are normally highly active, but unless you know why they are highly active it is all meaningless mumbo-jumbo. There's lies; there's damn lies; and then there's statistics. Now we can add a fourth and fifth category: eyeballs and edits done by highly active editors.

You have freely admitted that you concur with me that the certain types of "special contributors" I satirized were all "highly active" on Wikipedia 3, 6 and 9 years ago, and then you ask me if I have evidence that such unproductive types constitute a larger percentage of highly active editors in 2015 than in previous years? Do you have any evidence that they do not, or that they have all gone away? Right back at you. No, I do not have any statistics (that's what I came here looking for myself - see below), but my observations regarding all of those types (plus a few others I probably overlooked, such as the em or en dash warriors) come mostly from the past couple of years, so it would appear that these types are still amongst us, and probably in roughly the same percentages as in all of the nine previous years.

However, you are completely missing the point here - it is not just a question of filtering out "the obsessives" (your term, not mine; I would prefer the more Randian term moochers or leaches) from the list of highly active editors. Even if you could do that - and my point about Carrite's statistics is that he probably cannot, so he fails at the first hurdle - and focus in on just the highly active editors that actually expand article space, that still tells you nothing about the quality of what they are adding. Not only does counting edits tell you nothing useful about actual article expansion, it also tells you nothing whatsoever about quality of prose and factual content, and - God forbid! - how well sourced any of that stuff is. So IMHO it's just numbers for the sake of numbers. His posting sounds almost like the month's production figures being announced by the Ministry of Misinformation in some Orwellian state.

Furthermore, what would be much more useful IMHO (and if I'm understanding you correctly, I think this is also an issue that concerns you too), is some sort of statistics that track how many truly productive editors (i.e., very active editors with all of the "obsessives" filtered out and possibly some account taken of quality) leave or become dormant on Wikipedia every month. The attrition rate might tell you much more than the expansion rate about the real health of Wikipedia, if indeed this class of editors is even expanding (one of the points of my previous post being that it may just be some or all of the "obsessives" that are making the numbers bigger). It was in the hope of finding some such statistics to help me support some other related observations that I have recently expressed that caused me to read Carrite's OP on this thread ... and then my muse took over ... yes, yes, the Devil, she made me do it! — not really here discuss

Begging Rich F.'s pardon, because "there he goes again," we really can't say how many very active editors are content writers, how many are copy editors, how many occupy themselves with maintenance matters like the deletion process, how many handle purely administrative tasks, and how many are drone bees obsessed with talk page theatrics — because there is no list of Very Active Editors similar to THIS published each month. If we had that, it would be a simple matter of scientifically sampling and actually studying such a thing. I do think that you underestimate the value of pure copyediting and of working at something like AfD or the New Articles queue. The number of drone bees is probably minor. But I am guessing... Carrite (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And because we can't analyse edits by "type" - obviously this would be unfeasible to do in totality, but if the WMF were at all interested in content they would have been tracking some measures by now. Personally I'm entirely certain that the proportion of edits actually adding sentences to articles has long been in decline. The way to assess this (unquantifiably) is to look at lots of edit histories of articles that are reasonably popular, old, but still very poor. Lots of those around. Unfortunately there is another problem in that far too high a proportion of sentences added are to new articles - editors greatly prefer starting them to improving poor existing articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tim, please bear with me because I'm new here, but I don't understand your issue. If you can post a link to that report (THIS) then you have access to it. By now I have actually looked at both reports and both are pretty basic. My OP was triggered purely by your words and the fact that I intuitively know mere edit counts are meaningless by themselves; if I had actually read the Caveat lector section of the report first I probably wouldn't have made my post since pretty much all the points I make are covered there. So if you can see the data in the report that lists Wikipedians by number of edits then you have the data per se. What am I missing here? For instance, I can determine from the red links in it which specific members quit Wikipedia in the reporting period (which is daily, right?). So you can determine when users leave Wikipedia down to the actual day they leave. Although that only raises the question in my mind as to why they quit. Did they quit of their own volition (such as something much more important was going on in their personal lives) or did they feel under pressure to quit based on some interaction they had while editing (such as repeated confrontational interchanges with another editor or as a result of admin harassment)? Or were they simply kicked off by an admin because they kept flaunting the rules? Is the issue that the data in that report is daily and you only want it monthly?

WRT copy editors, my post was meant to be humorous as well as make the points that are also made in the Caveat lector section of the report, so maybe you are reading too much into how I presented my satire. But I will add this. Wikipedia is primarily an editing based experience so naturally it is going to have the most appeal to people who are editors by profession. Thus it probably attracts a hugely disproportionate number of copy editors relative to subject matter experts, be they professional experts or dilettante ones, who are much better able to provide the content. Wikipedia probably has in its membership an order of magnitude more copy editors, or folk that fancy themselves in that role, than it does subject matter experts with some knowledge to share (who are in the best position to create or expand article content). That sort of ratio just wouldn't work in a real profit-making business. If you take a typical software services company that makes its income primarily from the software it produces and sells, it might have one tech writer / copy editor for every ten software engineers, whose job is primarily to take the draft specs. that the engineers create and knock them into much more professional looking user manuals and system specifications that can be delivered to the client. So that would be a 1:10 ratio of copy editors to content producers versus on Wikipedia what might instead be (and I have no idea what the real ratio is, this is just a hypothetical) a 10:1 ratio of copy editors to content producers.

It might even be 100:1 for all I know. But let's just go with the 10:1 figure - relative to the 0.1:1 ratio in a real business that's a difference of two orders of magnitude. Now many copy editors can both create and manipulate content, particularly if the topic in question is non-technical, but many of the copy editors I know function best if someone provides them with the raw material to be copy edited into shape. Anyway, the bottom line is that, whatever the actual ratio is, there are probably far too many copy editors on Wikipedia relative to content producers, so article text tends to get continually worked over - along the lines of polishing turds - rather than usefully expanded with hard factual information. That's not to denigrate the skills nor the need for good copy writers on Wikipedia. It's merely a personal observation regarding the inverse ratios that exist on Wikipedia relative to the real world outside of it. If Wikipedia had to pay its members for their contributions it would go out of business tomorrow if only because of its unsustainable number of copy editors. — not really here discuss 16:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be very knowledgeable for someone who's created no articles at all.[3] Eric Corbett 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Because we all know that you can't have knowledge unless you've created articles? Deli nk (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you know, just as you have no idea what I know. Eric Corbett 17:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I have no knowledge of Wikipedia as well.... Mdann52 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? Seems to me that you've done nothing either. Eric Corbett 20:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@NRH. Edit counts are the best metric we have for protracted commitment. I used to think that there could be a metric counting the added characters of content to spot the content writer-types, but restoring a blanked page or section adds massive numbers of characters to the total count, so that's not a good measure. Not every edit is alike, obviously — changing "favour" to "favor" 400 times is of less value to the project than a single huge edit dropping in a finished article. But it's still the best metric we've got. We need to have a "Top 5,000 Editors for January 2016" (etc.) list published every month. That's all it takes; independent research will follow. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cherrypicking by editors re anything feminism involves itself in or is related to feminism

Hello Jimbo, I notice a high level of WP:OWN and WP:BLP-abuse by established authors and even a couple of admins (latest one in a long list is EvergreenFir) when it comes to anything feminism involves itself in or something which is related to feminism.

As I told you on Twitter, but you are completely ignoring me it seems - there's a lot of cherrypicking and WP:OWNing. A lot of articles see sources blocked which are acceptable in other topics, but when it comes to feminism, suddenly are 'not OK', even if said sources are used before by the blocking editors. Worse yet, several blocking editors have openly declared that 'the narrative for this page has been determined, and it's a dead horse to beat now'. Yeah. Right. Then they mocked other editors by saying 'if you want to change that, edit in reliable sources'. When that's done, then they change and suddenly say 'Hey, this is WP:UNDUE' or 'Not an RS'. In the meanwhile a few hundred books full of RS-links have been blocked and scrapped, yet when you complain about it, the old thing pops up that people say 'WP:UNDUE' when you attempt to give more room to the opposing view of what is being said in the Wiki article. It is really time to clear out this mess, because without it Wikipedia really becomes the opposite of it's goal - a Wiki for everyone to edit which is on the level of a real encyclopedia. Right now, for non-controversial topics it is in general, but for the rest, it is totally not, and especially when it comes to feminism. MicBenSte (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

To give an example, TRPoD and EvergreenFir are WP:OWNing the page about C H Sommers, and it's in such a state that it is completely against BLP rules. Sommers has complained about it before to Wikipedia, yet no action to date has been seriously taken to correct it, since TRPoD, EvergreenFir c.s. are cherrypicking which sources are 'acceptable'. MicBenSte (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your critique seems somewhat confused. EvergreenFir is not and never has been a Wikipedia admin, and TRPoD has been topic banned from CH Sommmers for over a month and is therefore in no position to WP:OWN the article as you allege. Also I've looked through CH Sommers' article and can't find anything that raises BLP red flags in my head. How is it against BLP rules? Brustopher (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think editors like EvergreenFir bring their own issues and beliefs to wikipedia which at times can manifest in disputes. I don't buy the argument at all that women are specifically targeted on here because of their gender. The reality is that most of us don't know who the other person really is in race or gender. As for WP:Own, I'm going to make a bold statement and say that it's often a necessary to maintain quality on the higher end articles. In fact if there wasn't an element of Wp:OWN going on on here then we'd accept all sorts of shoddy edits and POV from ips because we're "free to edit". If anything I'd argue in most cases it would be best for respected editors to expand an article to FA level and then lock them in place, especially for places like Paris which are subject to all sorts of trolls and canvassing from other sites. For an article like Paris it would be best to promote to FA and lock it IMO to prevent it degrading. It was once a GA article but was manically edited very worryingly back to a poor quality level with diabolical sourcing. Fortunately it has since improved and is more comprehensive but I'd never take it to GA or FA again unless it was locked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a few questions myself for MicBenSte. You put into quotes these words: "the narrative for this page has been determined, and it's a dead horse to beat now". A google search for that phrase reveals that it has apparently never been uttered before in the history of the Internet. So, rather than making up quotes, why don't you link to a specific comment that bothers you? Next, you quote: "'if you want to change that, edit in reliable sources" - again, a Google search reveals no results. I'm very happy to hear genuine complaints, but complaints that start with making up quotes out of thin air and not giving specifics aren't really actionable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, my bad on that one re EvergreenFir. Re WP:OWN - while the article itself is untouched by TRPoD, the talk page raises several red flags for me.

Jimbo, I misquoted it a bit.

It's "The issue, Masem, is that a 'right answer' has been determined- Gamergate is and has been since inception about the harassment of diverse voices and those who seek diversity in the gaming industry. :::Please stop beating the horse- you've killed it, it's dead, walk away. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)".

Then notice the following things:

"actually no, we do not use someone's self definition to frame topics. We frame the overall subject (in this case "feminism") as the mainstream academics frame it and place the subjects self description in the appropriate context as the mainstream academics view it of being mainstream or fringe or cutting edge or whatever. In this instance while Sommers has set up a view of "my good feminism vs their bad feminism"; that not a view that has very much traction in the mainstream analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)"

Yet when it comes to #GamerGate (controversy), Strongjam notes that WP:SELFSOURCE regarding Wu is good (and since another source has repeated her claim), while others also repeat what Somers say, but then suddenly they aren't 'RS' enough. Yeah, I'm totally not buying it.

Simarly on Sommer's talkpage:

"We're supposed to go by what the reliable sources say. We wouldn't edit Obama's page with a lede saying "some people have accused him of being a Kenyan Marxist" just because you can find a lot of links to add as sources about it. Likewise, just because you have an agenda against her doesn't mean you can smear CHS in her lede. 96.246.153.88 (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

those people aren't notable though. Critics of Hoff Sommers are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. 13:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC) "

Uh - the RS's who back her statement up regarding her status as feminist, are several academic studies, several RSes like CBS, and the favorite of TRPoD etc Jezebel. Yet somehow they aren't RS enough.

I'm utterly in awe in how things are twisted.

Regarding #GamerGate (controversy), other things are wronged like:

It is absolutely untrue that there is anything controversial in calling GamerGateva harrasment movement since that is how it is consistently described by reliable sources. also is there really an RFC that comes to that conclusion? Show me. Artw (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'liberal-leaning'? Spiked is a libertarian magazine, and as such both right-wing and generally pretty hardline anti-feminist. I don't feel that this opinion piece is particularly noteworthy, given that, in that it's from a relatively obscure author writing for a relatively obscure, non-mainstream source, saying exactly what we would expect an author there would say about anything that they feel touches on feminism or cultural issues. It's normal for a everyone in politics to say "this current controversy is really about my pet issues" about high-profile topics, but without a higher-quality sources backing it up, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to cover it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also the recent #SPJAirplay which dealt with ethics in gaming journalism, after Michael Koretzsky dug into info about #Gamergate (controversy), is interestingly absent.

A more recent example, which luckily got fixed more quickly since it drew a lot of attention, is the case of Tim Hunt - when I observed it (I didn't participate in it, I was logged out and wasn't in the mood to even try to make a change on that page at that time) it really was an WP:BATTLEGROUND, where the page felt like an attack/hit piece by the likes of Jezebel instead of an encyclopedic piece. And sad thing is - it's way too common. Someone screams 'sexism', and the page of the person accused if they are notable is quicker defamed then you can say 'yes sir'.

(Note: that latter though is not only the case with anything feminism related, although most case it is feminism related)

MicBenSte (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I think I'll fix the terrible mixup of cases maybe tomorrow. MicBenSte (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

MicBenSte, I have no comment on this particular conflict, but you need to understand that this is how WP works in topics which have polarized viewpoints. Editors are constantly bickering with each other over which sources are "reliable," which ones are reliable but "undue," etc. The reason is because every almost every editor wants the article to fit their perception of what the "truth" is. Honestly, the only way to win these types of conflicts is to have the numbers on your side. If you're losing out in battles over sourcing and content, then go out and get more of your like-minded friends and colleagues to join you in editing WP. Wikipedians will try to tell you that this is isn't ethical, but will neglect to mention that they're doing it themselves, to varying extents. Cla68 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to do is to try to find reference sources, either recent "encyclopedia"-type sources or others, which discuss the subject at hand. Depending on the reviews, they tend to be among the most reliable sources out there. In some, OK, many, cases, they themselves will have some sort of inherent bias, but comparing the various sources which discuss it is often one way to determine what gets covered in main articles, what in spinout articles, and so on. Personally, I acknowledge that there is a clear bias in wikipedia. Actually, more than one. The one that most annoys me, unfortunately, is determining what is "scientific" and what isn't, because our policies currently are biased toward science. Unfortunately, there can be a lot of somewhat sensationalist science out there, particularly if a given POV on a topic has major governmental or corporate support behind it, which allows for the creation of a lot of "studies" which favor one side or another. Particularly in the upcoming US presidential race, I can and do think it likely that one of the party nominees or other will probably have a lot of studies miraculously supporting one of their positions almost as soon as they announce it, and, of course, they shall generally be "scientific" in nature. Personally, I myself would prefer us being an "academic" encyclopedia, because I think that helps reduce the amount of "favored" scientific POV in controversial topics. I acknowledge that this may not be a very common problem, and it probably isn't, but I tend to think it is in areas where there is an academic "mainstream" which denounces its opposition as unscientific. Also, unfortunately, as a computer based site, I think we might have a few more science geeks than the society as a whole, and that they tend to circle the wagons when facing dispute, like anyone else, and those two points together can make the environment here less than really friendly for those in the fields of academia which aren't necessarily "scientific." Sorry for the small off-topic rant there, btw. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Tit for tat for pointing out poor editing on Norwegian related subjects

I have edited about Edward Snowden and a 2015 award in Norway and details about his asylum application which are being uncovered (one month before local elections in Norway). After that has happened, one wikipedian who I have previously raised questions about on your page, is making negative waves (SPI). I would like to point out that edit "Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)" has indirectly given me a recommended reading list of wikipedia topics. And now i am being targeted for editing on some of those topics, by the first mentioned wikipedian. --Gazprompt (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me what this has to do with Jimbo? There are other areas where you can take this. Cassianto ^Talk 23:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It might interest Jimbo, the occurence of a pattern: When a touchy Norwegian related subject is edited, then a SPI is launched, and the accuser reverts contested edits, not for being faulty on its own in some way, but because of having been edited by "somebody I accuse of being a sockpuppet" [my quote].
(By the same reasoning I can accuse Cassianto of being a sockpuppet, and remove Cassianto's edit from this thread.) --Gazprompt (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you cease with your unfounded and totally baseless sock puppet allegations. Cassianto ^Talk 08:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, should make a unfounded and totally baseless meat puppet allegation instead. Nyth 63 16:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav -- the bottom line is that Gazprompt is "possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)" a sock of Sju hav. Let me note that the article on Fredrik Fasting Torgersen, which Gazprompt has massively edited, looks to me to be very far from neutral. I don't know enough about the topic to get directly involved, though. (Torgersen died on 19 June, so BLP applies here.) Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This page is even more eye opening. Nyth 63 22:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Shorter titles: more citations

"Articles with shorter titles tend to get cited more often than those with longer headers, ..."

In brief, papers with shorter titles get more citations, study suggests—Science (August 25, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The longer the title the more POV it may get. My opinion but...who knows.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that can be expressed succinctly tend to be more important. A natural concomitant of language development perhaps. And maybe smarter people use less words? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

I seem to recall a noted expert on style saying that brevity is better than sesquipedalianism or some such. In fact, on Wikipedia especially, too many articles are sloppily worded, using the "kitchen sink" school of editing. With a large number of users via "mobile", the old 100,000 word articles are a non-starter. As are the catenations of fifteen or twenty numbered cites for a single claim. Somewhere about 300 to 600 words is likely all we can expect people to wade through. Collect (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In The Elements of Style (1918), William Strunk concentrated on specific questions of usage—and the cultivation of good writing—with the recommendation "Make every word tell"; hence, the 17th principle of composition is the simple instruction: "Omit needless words." (I copied this from the Wikipedia article about the book.)

—Wavelength (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) and 04:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this means what you're thinking it means. Scientists hate to say something that's inaccurate, so if they prove something very specific, they say something very specific, even in the title. But they love to cite widely applicable results, not things that only hold during a certain phase of the moon. So a paper Pokemon causes cancer is sure to be a winner, but Cherry and Vanilla Pokemon cause cancer in non obese diabetic rats pretreated with methylformamide, not so much. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Rich's words were what I addressed - and my words were in direct response to his, so I fear your chastising me for an error of any sort is ill placed. Collect (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, the indentation of your post indicates that you were replying to me. I understand the study to have made a generalization, and I recognize that there is dynamic tension between brevity and informativeness. We can examine Category:Intellectual works > Category:Works by discipline > Category:Scientific works > Category:Scientific documents > Category:Academic journal articles > Category:Physics papers. That last category contains "B²FH paper" (about a paper formally titled Synthesis of the Elements in Stars), but it also contains "Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen" (English: "On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationary liquid demanded by the molecular-kinetic theory of heat"). (WP:CWW)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Another good article to read

I was reading the Science NYTimes section yesterday and came across a short essay, The Widening World of Hand-Picked Truths (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/science/the-widening-world-of-hand-picked-truths.html) that made me think a lot about several long-lasting disputes on the project that concern science vs. beliefs based in a person or group's experience and the "truth" they see. Here is one of the ending paragraphs:

"Altruism and compassion toward the feelings of others represent the best of human impulses. And it is good to continually challenge rigid categories and entrenched beliefs. But that comes at a sacrifice when the subjective is elevated over the assumption that lurking out there is some kind of real world."

I think articles like this are helpful in understanding these are not just content battles on Wikipedia but larger cultural shifts in accepting subjective reality over mainstream objective arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap Liz...you summed that up pretty freaking well! Mahalo!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is an excellent read, but in my chosen role as an encyclopedist, I will stick with "the assumption that lurking out there is some kind of real world", and will continue to rely on mainstream science as the best tool to understand the things within its realm. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The article was well-written but for me thoroughly depressing, suggesting that an extremely large proportion of people as a whole are detached from reality; this will probably always be the case. Wikipedia will no doubt continue to be widely criticised for presenting scientific fact as scientific fact. Rubbish computer 17:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tool against these types of thing - by which I primarily mean pseudoscience, and those attacking the science as oppressive, because it doesn't play into their desired narrative. It makes it much harder for people to support these various conspiracy theories, when the hard evidence is only a click away. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

With my background in engineering, I tend to prefer the real world also. Just because I believe that I won't get hit by a bus if step in front of it, does not mean I won't. Not exactly the definition of objectivism but some people have to get hit by the bus to see the truth, (and sometimes not even then). Nyth 63 16:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think the dilemma is interesting because it is really a battle between empiricisms, contrasting the "lived knowledge" or experience of individuals vs. the empiricism of scientific experiments. It's part of an ongoing public skepticism towards mainstream forms of authority and knowledge that has its origins in the 1960s if not before.

I remember I was part of a team in the 1980s that was preparing individuals for media interviews they might be called on to do and one overriding guideline that was impressed upon the individuals was to talk from their personal experience. Personal experience is, of course, quite limited but aside from psychological treatment, is typically not challenged or invalidated by others. Meaning, one person can generally not tell another person that they didn't feel what they believe they felt, that they didn't understand what they believe they understood. Most people make sense of information that comes to them via the news, TV, classes, conversations, etc. by how it fits into their understanding and life experience.

In the process of Western societies empowering individuals to question traditional forms of authority, it has had the byproduct of some people elevating their experience as being their "truth" which other information is measured against. People become experts on their own lives. I assume this will be an ongoing dynamic on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future as it's impossible to reverse cultural or societal changes, they just go through further modification and that's over a long period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff. This has strong connections to the "different ways of knowing" so prevalent among believers in quackery, pseudoscience and sundry other bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Who's bored?

Here's a biographical article in dire need of improvement with copious available sourcing out there: William Lawrence Scott. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This brings up a question I have had for a while: Is it a valid use of an article's talk page to post links to sources until such time that the information gets added to the article and properly referenced? Nyth 63 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the problem with posting sources on talk. The talk pages are for helping to improve the article. Valenciano (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I have actually been doing this on some of my userspace drafts for a while and currently have one article-space page with some. Carrite, perhaps if you could create a section on the talk page there named something like Additional sources, hopefully someone could pick it up for you. Nyth 63 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WikSearch

WikSearch (at http://wiksearch.com) "is an experimental interface for finding Wikipedia articles".
—Wavelength (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Wavelength: this appears useful and much faster and more thorough than using articles such as Outline of the United States, or categories, to do so. Rubbish computer 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Handling bad information in "reliable" sources

Would you allow me to pick your brain on an issue that has arisen with the War in Donbass article? Recently, a site called bs-life.ru (which has been claimed to be a "respected" news site based in Moscow) removed a section from a piece that suggested over 2,000 Russian soldiers had died fighting in Ukraine, a figure that wildly contrasts with much more modest estimates from Western experts. This was reported on by some Ukrainian outlets as the Russian government censoring an accidental leak of their long-denied involvement in that war and this was repeated in a Forbes contributor piece, prompting it to spread to numerous "reliable sources" such as The International Business Times and The Independent. Subsequently it was added as fact to the Wikipedia article on the ongoing conflict. Though it has since been modified to put it at the top of a range, Wikipedia still lends credence to the figure by including it in the article's infobox.

I feel it is crucial that here on Wikipedia we take care in how we handle this kind of information, especially as it concerns an ongoing conflict. One problem is the original source, bs-life.ru, is highly dubious. An Associated Press correspondent in Moscow dismissed the site as fake as did Bloomberg contributor Leonid Bershidsky, who previously ran several major business news outlets in Russia. None of the "reliable sources" reporting this claim have been able to independently verify the original claims made on the site, in part because the site is not providing its alleged sources. It appears the site's design is using a readily available site template unaltered and the site does not list any contact information, staff, or address, but instead has a contact form that has been answered by a single person via e-mail claiming to be a representative of the site. No outlet appears to have found any more details about the operators of the site, including any details about the "representative" of the site. StopFake.org, a site devoted to exposing false reporting on the conflict in Ukraine and typically biased against Russia, has done a detailed work-up declaring the site a fraud and stating the information is fake.

Despite all the above being pointed out in an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, established editors have insisted that because the casualty figures have been reported by reliable sources they can only be removed if other reliable sources cast the same doubts on these figures. They have also declared criticism of the reliability of this information on the talk page as engaging in "original research" and thus prohibited. For me the reliability of the sources reporting it does not negate the questionable nature of the original source given that its claims have not been independently verified and thus I believe the figures should be removed. Is it your opinion that these other editors are correct and, despite the original source's dubious reliability, the mere fact that reliable sources have repeated the figures means they should be given credence in a prominent part of the article on an ongoing conflict until other reliable sources rebut the claims?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a potential problem in many cases. We witnessed a similar problem (albeit on a much more inconsequential article) in connection to the Ashley Madison hack. Just because the New York time repeats information from an unreliable source, does not make the original information any more reliable. Numerous editors spent much time banging their heads against the brick wall of RELIABLE SOURCE. Nyth 63 21:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we have to report what the reliable sources say. If you think the Independent is a reliable source, we have to trust that they had enough confidence in the numbers to print them. Now if V.V. Putin says that Russian casualties in Ukraine are zero, because there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, I don't think we should take Putin as a reliable source, but if reliable sources want to report those numbers, then we could use them. Or if there are other reliable sources with different estimates and we think these are the mainstream estimates then we should print those estimate. But having an editor simply say, "I don't like those estimates, we have to remove them." is just nonsense.

One passge that struck me in the Independent was

"This webpage will presumably be claimed to have been forged," suggests Nixey, who is an expert on the conflict, "as has been the case with dog tags, passports, satellite imagery, prisoners confessing and other evidence seen. They argue it is Western propaganda."

Sound like a fairly good prediction to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: There is no obligation that we "have to" include or report what a reliable source says. We should double check, triangulate on what is verifiable, and possibly disregard what an RS says in favor of accuracy. We recently had a situation at the Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward page where the venerable Washington Post reported that the father of the gunman, "at one point was a dean at San Francisco State University," according to a neighbor of the shooter.[4] A Google search indicated this was not true. Instead what I found was that Vester Flanagan Sr. was with the director of operations at the City College of San Francisco, and not a dean at SFSU. That erroneous info was left out of the WP entry. A reliable source is necessary but not sufficient - the RS is just one part of a critical set of conditions that need to be met before facts are included in an article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Worth remembering is that no source is 100% reliable, and that the reliability of every assertion we add to the encyclopedia needs to be assessed in context, using our restrained and informed editorial judgment. I have cited articles in the New York Times hundreds of times, but would never cite one of their articles written by Jayson Blair or anything about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction written by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Judith Miller. Journalism in 2015 is rife with problems that obligate us to be cautious and conservative. Not "conservative" politically but in the old fashioned sense of being very, very careful about the reliability of sources we use about contentious claims. No one contests the sad news that Oliver Sacks has died but there are far more controversial assertions that require the highest quality sourcing. Newspapers commonly considered "reliable" all too often, these days, regurgitate "click bait" content from far less reliable sources. That reposting, as opposed to independent reporting, does not transfer reliability to a dubious source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everyone who is advocating for what I would call "editorial judgment" - holistically taking into account all available sources of information and making a reasoned judgment. I do not agree with the view that we simply write down what is in reliable sources, removing all judgment or opinion from the process - that's a naive and simplistic approach which would lead to us slavishly repeating errors. I sometimes think we still have a bit of a hangover from the days when "verifiability, not truth" was an oft-repeated mantra.

Now, it has to be said that encouraging thoughtful editorial judgment does not endorse us simply making up whatever we like, or excluding reliable sources just based on not liking what they say. Often there will be cases where editors can constructively disagree about what to do about conflicting reliable sources. Fuzheado's example is a good one, mainly because it's not filled with emotional peril. I would say that in that case, the proper resolution could be either to leave the information out completely (as he says we did) or to put in the correct information (from the primary source) despite it conflicting with the Washington Post. In that latter case, perhaps a footnote could note the discrepancy for future editors to ponder in case this bit of information does become more important someday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think in this particular instance there is some confusion over the correct status of the sources being discussed. The OP, TDA, is claiming that the site bs-life.ru has a reputation for being unreliable. His argument is that because the site is unreliable it cannot be considered to be an RS, and we must therefore treat anything it reports with an appropriate amount of skepticism, even if normally reliable secondary sources such as Forbes magazine repeated the story, and normally reliable tertiary sources such as The Independent repeated and reported on the original Forbes piece, as well as adding their own secondary source reporting of the actual primary source material on the bs-life.ru site.

However, to my way of thinking, the bs-life.ru site isn't the primary source in this sourcing chain. The putting up and taking down of the so-called "censored story" that had been "accidentally leaked" is simply an event that is being reported, just like a serious auto accident might be reported by a local newspaper. The primary sources of this story are the Ukrainian media outlets that claimed to have cached the posting and tearing down of this "censored piece" and which then made the decision to report this event to the rest of the world as a case of Russian censorship trying to cover up its involvement in the Dombass war. In which case, the reliability of the bs-life.ru site is as irrelevant here as the reliability of the Ford Fiesta involved in the auto accident reported by the local newspaper. Surely what matters in this instance is the reliability of the Ukrainian outlets that created the story being reported down the line by the secondary and tertiary sources. Because these outlets were not just passively reporting on the event as first hand eye-witnesses, they were also editorializing the event into something it possibly wasn't (i.e., a botched case of Russian leakage and subsequent censorship).

In fact, in the case of this particular story, the past unreliability of the bs-life.ru web site possibly adds to the credibility of the "censorship of inappropriately posted info." slant to this story rather than detracts from it as TDA claims. Because its past unreliability plays right into the hands of the Ukrainian outlets that are the true sources of this particular story. At no point has TDA considered the true origins of this story and how reliable the true primary sources are that sit at the top of the primary-secondary-tertiary source chain. Is it possible that the primary sources were motivated in some way to doctor the cached images (including the casualty numbers) they reproduced in reporting this event for a political aim of their own? In other words, do they have a possible COI regarding this story and how they reported it? The answer, since they are Ukrainian, is unfortunately yes. I'm not claiming they did; like everyone else I have no idea what went on since I wasn't there, so I am completely reliant on my sources. Thus I, like every other reader and potential Wikipedia editor, need to apply healthy skepticism to ALL of the sources involved in this story and not just tacitly assume that some or all of them are correct, particularly the primary ones.

Mention has been made, in the earlier comments above, how respected western newspapers such as the New York Times sometimes "regurgitate 'click bait' content from far less reliable sources" thus raising doubts regarding the trustworthiness of the secondary and tertiary sources involved in reporting this story, and TDA commenced his OP by questioning the reliability of the bs-life.ru web site. Yet he doesn't question the potential COI of any of the Ukrainian outlet sources for this story; he also appears to tacitly accept without question the analysis of events as reported by the Ukrainian blog site StopFake.org which also clearly has a vested interest in putting an anti-Russian spin on this story; and he lumps the normally very reliable British newspaper The Independent alongside the normally very flaky IBT when he questions the reliability of both of these media sources by ironically referring to them as "reliable sources" in quotes. All of these actions are questionable IMO if TDA wishes to approach the information content of this story from an NPOV perspective. The first step to achieving NPOV is not to have preconceived ideas about the reliability of your sources (e.g., western and Ukrainian sources OK, but Russian sources dubious) especially in a war situation where propaganda and counter-propaganda is likely to be used by both sides. Identifying conflicts of interest regarding the trustworthiness of sources and properly identifying the true source of a story are also both essential to pursuing an NPOV approach. And all of this before you have even written a word. — not really here discuss 12:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That is some neat mental ju jitsu! "Your history of being unreliable means that we should think that you are reliable now!" With that type of approach, the Weekly World News becomes our Bible!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I think the only person performing any "mental ju jitsu" here is yourself in your desperate attempt to put words I blatantly never said into my mouth, and to derive a conclusion I clearly never intended from the points made in my comment. One of the biggest banes of trying to do anything on Wikipedia is having to deal with editors with abysmally poor comprehension or no critical reasoning skills, and your posted remark is typical of such editors. My comment was merely a corollary to the last portion of Jimbo's statement: "It has to be said that encouraging thoughtful editorial judgment does not endorse us simply making up whatever we like, or excluding reliable sources just based on not liking what they say." I actually agree very strongly with the general issue that TDA addressed in his OP. However, the way he has supported his argument here by reference to what occurred in the War in Donbass article is somewhat flawed, and I tried to address those weaknesses in his presentation, particularly the possible perception that others may have that the only reason he thinks these numbers should be excluded from the article due to the questionability of the source(s) is because he doesn't like what they say.

A webpage that no longer exists or is universally inaccessible is NOT a primary source of anything, any more than a manuscript that no longer exists is a primary source for whatever it contained - such as the Gettysburg Address. Thus the bs-life.ru site isn't a primary source for anything regarding the Russian deaths and casualty numbers that eventually worked their way into the Wikipedia article because no Wikipedia editor working on that article has ever seen it. In fact, no western journalist appears to have seen what was posted for only a short while on that Russian web site. Since it isn't any type of source (primary, secondary or tertiary) for those dubious numbers the question of how reliable it is becomes a total irrelevance, and all the words TDA wrote in his OP to establish its unreliability were completely wasted. The primary source(s) of the dubious data are the Ukrainian media outlets that subsequently started publishing what was described in both of the example tertiary source reports (which TDA linked into his OP) as a section of the deleted Russian article that had been "archived" (see the IBT article TDA linked) or "webcached by the Ukrainian journal Novy Region (New Region)" (see The Independent article TDA linked).

Consequently, the actual primary source for these numbers is a site such as Novy Region which published what it claims was a webcached copy of the information that was posted then quickly deleted. This site (or possibly another Ukrainian media outlet) is also the source of the speculative idea that these numbers were very real and the reason for the article containing them being quickly removed was due to Russian censorship coming from on high as these numbers would have completely undermined Putin's repeated stance to the outside world that Russian troops are playing no active part in the civil war fighting in Dombass. However, that is just speculation and the material could have been either mistakenly or intentionally false (which is also why it was quickly removed) or it could have been completely true but was removed quickly for one of many possible valid reasons other than the one of censorship claimed by the Ukrainian media outlets. As I pointed out in my previous comment, there is also the possibility that the Ukrainian media outlets doctored or even fabricated the webcached data in order to create a piece of propaganda that was damaging to Russia; since they exist in a country that is at war that is a very real possibility here. The web blog site StopFake.org provides yet another explanation for what really went on in this situation, which is also speculation, despite that speculation being logically very convincing.

The bottom line here is that if Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia it should not be reproducing speculation in its articles, even if that same speculation has been published in a number of respected and normally reliable secondary and tertiary sources such Forbes and The Independent. If it is felt that including the speculation still has some educational and informative merit - along the same principles that presenting information about minority viewpoints and fringe theories can also be justified as being better included rather than being completely omitted - then it still needs to be clearly identified and footnoted as being speculative information and why. Including this information as the upper limit on the estimated number of deaths and casualties among the insurgents most certainly does not meet that "clear tagging of speculation" requirement and TDA is quite right to complain about that. — not really here discuss 07:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Short of Wikimedia creating peer reviewed journals on political topics like this so that we can use really reliable sources, little can be done. Wikipedia does have good policies that can filter out some fraction of garbage, but if the sources are too contaminated we'll suffer from the garbage in ---> garbage out effect. Count Iblis (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why should we include material from a source such as the Independent? It's obvious that we have to have some limits on what we accept as a reliable source. The key is that they have a reputation for fact checking and for "getting it right." I believe that the Independent does have such a reputation, so if they present 2,000 as an estimate of deaths of the Russian military in Ukraine then it is acceptable for Wikipedia to do so as well. No, we are not required to do so, but according to WP:NPOV we should if it is one of several widely accepted POVs. Given the Russian military's obvious presence in a fairly hot shooting war, and given a fairly wide acceptance of numbers such as 400-500 as a lower bound, the 2,000 figure seems acceptable as an estimate of the upper bound of a range (as it was presented on Wikipedia).

But why shouldn't we question whether the Independent in this case is reliable? To a small extent, I think we can - if equally reliable sources question the number, then I think we don't need to include it. I haven't seen any such questioning from an equally reliable source. We don't need to include it if it sounds total unreasonable and nobody else seems to accept it, but I don't think this applies in this case. What we can't do is put ourselves in the journalist's shoes and say "what would I report if I had the information that he has?" Wikipedia editors are not professional journalists hired by reliable sources. To ask yourself how would you report this information at least borders on WP:OR. The reliable source has gained it's reputation because it knows how to do fact-checking and how to write up the information. A Wikipedia editor should not try to put himself in that place. Also reliable sources often have additional facts, based on additional checking that back up the story, but are not included in the write up. We have no way to evaluate this material.

Didn't StopFake.org debunk this article? Actually, I don't think of StopFake as a reliable source - having never heard of it before. And their article is presented as the opinion of a single author, not of the website itself. "This article represents personal opinions of the author."

Shouldn't we accept the estimates given by Russian sources? Sure, if they presented these estimates, especially if the Russian government presented official figures. But Russian sources do not present any such estimates, it is illegal (since May) for them to do so. In short any such estimates are censored. The Russian government refuses to provide official figures. In this case the Russian government is at fault if the estimates are one-sided, and we cannot considered censored sources as reliable.

So stick with what the reliable sources say please.

BTW I have never edited the War in Donbass article, but it did bring back unpleasant memories of the Assassination of Boris Nemtsov. If you remember back to February he was shot and killed the day before a big anti-war-in-Ukraine protest, after reporting that he was afraid that President Putin would order his death, and Nemtsov was investigating Russian troop strength in Ukraine. BBC Reuters

There is clearly an information war going on as well as a hot shooting war between Russia and Ukraine. It is very important that we evaluate what is a reliable source and what is not. It's very important that we not remove reliable sources simply because somebody "doesn't like it." It would be Pollyannaish for us to believe that the information war cannot spill over to Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It's very important that we not remove reliable sources simply because somebody "doesn't like it." — This is unfortunately happening and it is happening en masse. - [5]. Wikipeda does in fact work for a lot of topics, just not these politically sensitive topics. I think the same applies to the "respected western newspapers". The Assassination of Oles Buzina is a good example of whitewashing (You've probably never heard of him). - [6], [7] -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree in general with Jimbo's statement. As a general rule, the policy requiring multiple sources for extraordinary claims should suffice. If a columnist or reporter lacks objectivity, such as Robert Fisk of The Independent, that too is a reason to omit. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually claims of Russian casualties in Ukraine are not all that extraordinary. They are involved in a shooting war in Ukraine - so soldiers do get killed. A Financial Times blogger reported an estimate of 4,000 as of last year [8]. The Telegraph reports 120 Russian military deaths in a single attack [9].

What is extraordinary is claiming that Robert Fisk is not objective. Our article states "Fisk holds more British and international journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and has been voted British International Journalist of the Year award seven times."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Another factor apart from the veracity of the reported facts is the editorial choice in what to write about. Who decides what is news? If we assume for argument's sake that there are reliable sources that get the facts rights, then there is still the problem that these sources may decide to write only about certain aspects of some topic. What is written must have some appeal to the public, why else would people buy newspapers? This has the effect of skewing news reports toward popular perceptions. Especially the prospect of danger will create its own news stories, that's why the WMD issue w.r.t. Iraq dominated the news. Also, the same can be said about Iran's nuclear program, this was always construed in the Western press as a potential weapons program, it only ever entered the news that way. For Iranians this is not their reality, which explains the decades long standoff. But here in the West the Iranian claim that their program is only for peaceful purposes is/was never considered seriously, it only got mentioned in a small footnote saying that the Iranians claim that "their program is only for peaceful purposes" if at all. That's like covering a crime story from only the perspective of the prosecutor, and then saying that the defendant claims he didn't commit the crime. It may all be 100% factually correct, but it may totally misrepresent the story. Count Iblis (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Reliable" sources being wrong

Here's another scenario I've come across before. The source of the reports in the reliable sources has one fact wrong, and the author or connected person contacts us (through OTRS or other channels) to tell us that there is a mistake, and all our sources are actually wrong. What should we do then? Mdann52 (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, we should have deep respect for the subjects of articles and take such concerns very seriously. Again I think it is about examining, in a holistic way, all of the evidence. There are many factors to consider, such as: (1) if the detail is pretty trivial or meaningless in the subject's life, chances are they are just trying to be helpful, to us and to the world, by setting straight some minor point - whereas if the detail is a major point of their biography, their desired edit may be more contentious (2) if our sourcing is already pretty thin, and the sourcing for what they want us to say is even lower, then often we should simply remove the information until such time as we get better evidence (3) often times we should reflect on the quality of the sourcing not just for factuality, but also for salaciousness, and consider whether some story about someone that's been covered in tabloids extensively, but only getting a brief mention in more serious press, is actually encyclopedic (4) sometimes, a very thoughtful and kind further inquiry will result in someone who is initially simply insisting the sources are wrong learning enough about how we operate to realize that there actually is a source which they can either send to OTRS if it is of a more private nature (documentation of date of birth is the kind of thing I have in mind) or just give us the link (if we had overlooked an accurate source somehow).

My overall point is that there have been very unfortunate cases - far too many that I have heard about personally from people who find us frustrating - where we have not been as respectful as we should be, and we have not been as responsive as we should be. Here's the thing - I think cases were BLP subjects are simply POV pushing or trying to con us are actually pretty rare. They do happen, of course, but when we hear of a new problem, our first instinct should be: respect. Assume good faith. All those classic Wikipedia values that have served us so well over the years.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In short - Wikipedia has been abused by a handful of editors who seize upon (a person) as someone to have every snippet of derogatory innuendo placed in their biographies on the basis that if it were actually a libel, the person would sue, so by not suing they 'prove the editor was correct' in insisting on the derogatory material. Wikipedia has a Catch-22 reputation, alas. We should strongly encourage the careful writing of biographies, which we have allowed to get out of hand too often in the past. Collect (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and Jimbo. Rubbish computer 23:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"My comment was merely a corollary to the last portion of Jimbo's statement: "It has to be said that encouraging thoughtful editorial judgment does not endorse us simply making up whatever we like, or excluding reliable sources just based on not liking what they say."

A while ago, but not out of memory, there was a controversy over "verifiability, not truth", raising the question of what to do if something is verifiable, but we don't think it's true. There, Jimbo thought that just because something comes from a reliable source doesn't mean that we must include it. I think there's a conflict between that and what Jimbo's saying here; he's basically reversing his stance on "verifiability, not truth". Either "reliable source" trumps "I don't think it's true", or it doesn't. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo has consistently said that we should evaluate the sources, or as he puts it, "we are not transcription monkeys". I think that is absolutely right. 89.240.30.153 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

What good does it do to evaluate the sources if you're not allowed to exclude them "based on not liking what they say"? Any disagreement with a source can be characterized as "not liking what they say". Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you are 100% correct to point out Jimbo's double-standard on this issue, Ken. It's something that has bothered me for quite some time. In some cases it's not even simply an unresolvable choice between "verifiable falsity trumps unverifiable truth" versus "thoughtful editorial judgment holistically applied trumps verifiable nonsense transcripted by monkeys"! Sometimes there appears to be no trite and pithy guidelines to repeatedly vacillate back and forth between.

When it comes to determining what statements should or should not be included in a Wikipedia article one of four possible scenarios will apply ('a' and 'b' options are included for some of these scenarios listed below to indicate that there is a spectrum of possibilities within each of the four discrete scenarios):

(1a) The statement is true and easily verifiable (i.e., it is supported by multiple reliable sources).
(1b) The statement is true yet barely verifiable (i.e., it is supported by only one reliable source).
(2a) The statement is true but somewhat unverifiable (i.e., no reliable sources can be found to support it) - in these situations editors tend to compromise their standards and use less reliable sources instead; or include the statement unsourced (because they still believe it to be true), which is POV but probably justifiable on an "end justifies the means" basis since the statement is true.
(2b) The statement is true but totally unverifiable (i.e., no sources of any kind can be found to support it) - in these situations it can only be included unsourced (because an editor still believes it to be true), which is severely POV but still possibly justifiable because the statement is true.
(3) The statement is false (or its truth is indeterminate) yet verifiable while other truer alternatives are all unverifiable - in such cases statement inclusion might be justified on the basis that verifiable falsity trumps unverifiable truth; that is, we opt for "truthiness" over "truth" since we are unable to reliably source the latter.
(4) The statement is false (or its truth is indeterminate) AND also has verifiability issues - in such cases the statement should NEVER be included since it fails both the truth and verifiability criteria.

If every statement written in every Wikipedia article fell under scenario (1) editorial life on Wikipedia would be a breeze. At first glance scenario (4) also seems to be equally straightforward. How could anyone possibly justify including information in a Wikipedia article whose truth and verifiability were both questionable. Yet it is scenario (4) that best describes the situation that applies to the War in Donbass article. The legitimacy (thus possible truth or falsity) of the death and casualty numbers temporarily published on the flaky Russian web site is completely unknown, while the accountability and due process that we normally expect the Fourth Estate to adopt in reporting such information in these situations seems not to have been applied in this particular instance, with the reporting approach of the secondary source(s) concerned appearing to be more one of irresponsibly regurgitating "click bait" content rather than one of responsible well-established journalistic practice.

Yet despite the fact that (a) we cannot determine the truth or falsity of those numbers; (b) we have no idea of where they originated (such as from some Russian government office responsible for such accounting rather than simply being pulled out of someone's ass for whatever purpose); and (c) the chain of primary-secondary-tertiary sourcing looks extremely dubious and irresponsible, nevertheless they have been included in a prominent position (the Infobox) within the article according to the OP. So either scenario (4) isn't quite as straightforward as it initially appears to be, or the editors of that article that achieved a consensus for including those numbers do not properly understand the rules for proper sourcing chains and verifiability. My money would be on the latter. — not really here discuss 08:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Verifiable falsity" - if you've verified the information is false you have no business putting it in Wikipedia. Hand in hand with evaluating sources is giving a reason why you come to the conclusion you do.

On the specific question of dates of birth, Jimbo is saying it's safe to use what the subject says (they know better than anybody else and why should they lie?). However, someone has drawn up a policy which says different. According to this we cannot use IMDB as a source (I guess that stands for International Movie Database) because it is self - published with no editorial control. At Talk:Rene Bazinet (the last two sections) an editor is arguing this is absurd and I agree. It means that if you have an independently verified year of birth you cannot take the actual date from IMDB. See the recent shenanigans at Manish Dayal, particularly [10] and [11]. 92.25.66.96 (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The actual phrase is "verifiability, not truth" (see Jimbo's comment above) and it was for a long time a mantra on Wikipedia - probably still is amongst many editors due to this essay which is often mis-perceived as official guidance. It falls under my scenario (3) above, and its most common application is for statements whose truth or falsity is indeterminate rather than clearly false.

For an editor to truly work with an NPOV approach to what he includes in or omits from Wikipedia he must put aside his own personal opinions regarding the truth or falsity of statements (because that would intrude his own POV into the material) and work only with his sources. If ten reliable sources (e.g., major national daily newspapers) support statement A and only one or two normally unreliable sources (or perhaps no sources at all) support the contrary statement ~A, then good Wikipedia practice demands that the editor includes statement A in the article rather than statement ~A. This is relatively easy to do if the editor also favors the truth of A versus ~A, or even has no idea which of the alternatives is really true, but it requires much more self-discipline if the editor personally believes (based on his own life experience) statement ~A to be the truth.

Such a situation has been held up as the litmus test of real NPOV editing and only a minimal acquaintance with Wikipedia will reveal that few of its many editors would be able to pass it. Most of Wikipedia's NPOV results are arrived at by eventual consensus compromise between multiple editors with differing POV biases, or because the article topic was not particularly contentious to begin with. The weight of RS should act like the weight of evidence in a jury trial in arriving at the resultant NPOV view that is published, because without knowing the actual truth, this is the next best thing to it. At least that's the theory. In practice, there are many marginal situations where applying this guidance leads to A being chosen over ~A when A is actually false. Hence "verifiable falsity trumps unverifiable truth" in those particular situations. This scenario occurs much more frequently that you might intuitively think it would because the vast majority of human knowledge doesn't come conveniently tagged with a nice citable quote in last week's New York Times. This is Wikipedia's biggest flaw IMHO. Despite that fact, it has still managed to produce many extremely good and useful NPOV encyclopedic articles, so such an obvious flaw should not be treated as an excuse to take a purely "doom and gloom" perspective regarding Wikipedia's validity, pertinence and usefulness.

"Hand in hand with evaluating sources is giving a reason why you come to the conclusion you do." The way that is meant to be achieved is via the edit summary - at least initially. If you get into a confrontational situation then you need to elaborate on your editorial decision(s) on the article's Talk page as part and parcel of arriving at a consensual compromise with the other editor(s) involved. Unfortunately, 90% or more^{[fn 1]} of ES written violate WP:ES guidance and are therefore either totally useless WRT giving others any sort of clue as to the basis behind an editor's changes (e.g., ES that are blank or merely state "changes" or "update" etc.) or are highly misleading and state the complete opposite of the edits they are meant to be summarizing, or only address 5% of all the changes being made. IMHO blatant violation of WP:ES accounts for a good portion of the disputes and confrontations that arise on Wikipedia and if Wikipedia redirected some of its resources into enforcing good ES, thus nipping potential misunderstandings and disputes in the bud, then it would ultimately not have to put so many of its resources into the WP:AN/I and WP:ArbCom processes that only kick in once editors are really angry with one another. Unfortunately, that's just a personal opinion and I cannot source it to any national newspaper, thus if you agree with it, then it probably is an example of a statement that falls under scenario (2b) above, while if you disagree with it, then it probably falls under scenario (4) - OK to post as an opinion on a Talk page, but unfit to be included in any actual articles. — not really here discuss 00:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

^ Like 87.3952% of most statistics, that estimate was simply pulled out of my ass, but hopefully everyone knows what I mean.

A few years have passed...

A few years have passed.... Count Iblis (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide more details? I'm afraid I'm not sure what this is about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We had this user Linas around here, who made good contributions to math articles and was active on the Ref Desk. But he had a problem with staying civil in case of disputes. While this was not anywhere near the level of the notorious problem editors that we've seen here over the years, he did end up getting booted out of here. While I'm not saying that uncivil behavior should be tolerated more, I do think that in the escalation between the notorious problem editors and those who want to take strong measures against them (but fail to do so because the supporters of the notorious problem editors prevent a consensus for that), editors like Linas who are less invested in Wikipedia who don't have many editors who will vouch for them, end up leaving.

So, I think we need to rethink this whole civility issue more, there are obviously two sides to it. If I behave in an uncivil way, I create a bad atmosphere and I may chase away other editors. On the other hand, applying zero tolerance rules inconsistently where the worst offenders typically end up staying with a minor slaps on the wrists while lesser offenders in some cases end up getting kicked out, is not a good system. It's similar to how in the US poor people who make mistakes end up getting very long prison sentences while richer people who can afford better lawyers will often end up getting a far better deal. This undermines the system, you end up with bad results, the crime rate in the US is worse than in most other Western countries. Count Iblis (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Has Linas asked to be unblocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think he asks once every year. We have to keep in mind here that not everyone is the typical regular who can't stay away from Wikipedia for more than a day. We are used a lot more with dealing with the latter type of editors, our policies have evolved to dealing with them. So, they'll tend to beg for mercy while editors like User:Linas, User:Likebox etc. may just do other things, come back 3 years later ask for unblocking, be denied again because the haven't been begging hard enough, forget about it, come back 5 years later again etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that he asks every year? As far as I can tell he filed three unblock requests immediately after being blocked in 2012, which were declined because they were full of personal attacks (the same problem that led to the block), and has not filed an unblock request since then. His talk page is open for editing, so nothing prevents him. And nothing prevents you from asking what his attitude is, rather than making assumptions. Looie496 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The whole "Indefinite blocking/ban" is manifestly unfair. Once put in place, it is impossible for a minority editor to over turn it. I'm coming up to three years since I was "indefinitely topic banned" with no evidence at all. And no evidence has been provided when I have appealed unsuccessfully. The fact the I have been "indefinitely topic banned" is a life sentence. MOMENTO (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Your topic ban will last until the community is satisfied that you are no longer likely to be disruptive. The original ban was started here: [12], and the ban has been reset numerous times because you repeatedly proved that you cannot edit neutrally and peacefully in this area. However, an indefinite topic ban only means one without set expiration - it is only a life ban if the editor in question cannot fix the problem that led to its imposition. If you are saying that either you do not recognise the problem or that you can't or won't fix it, then yes, the ban will effectively be for life. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes Guy, we all know the harassment started under the reign of Will Beback but, in fact this "indefinite topic ban" was instigated on Nov 15 2012 by The Blade of the Northern Lights after I had made hundreds a good edits on Prem Rawat articles and who has never provided any evidence for the ban. As Sandstein noted "In the message with which they imposed the ban, The Blade of the Northern Light did not link to evidence of misconduct by Momento that would justify the ban". And since I cannot edit the Rawat articles I can never prove that I can edit it "neutrally and peacefully". So you see, my indefinite topic ban is a life sentence because of people like you.MOMENTO (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't know anything of the sort. We know that you were sanctioned and we now know that you refuse to accept the judgment of others that your edits were problematic, and that is why your appeals fail. And will continue to fail, if experience is any guide. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit it's a bit problematic when no one provides any diffs or evidence. As Sandstein noted "In the message with which they imposed the ban, The Blade of the Northern Light did not link to evidence of misconduct by Momento that would justify the ban". And as Cla68 said a few months before I was banned "I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point". Maybe, it was PatW and Surds who were indulging in "persistent battle ground behaviour"? MOMENTO (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit it's problematic when a user's every request to have a restriction lifted, attempts to relitigate the original discussion, rather than showing how the issues identified have been understood and resolved and are therefore no longer a problem.

There are three obvious problems with your comment. One, it was you that brought up the 2009 "original discussion", not me. I was addressing my current ban. Two, the "issues" that supposedly lead to the topic ban of three editors were never "identified" as Sandstein and others have pointed out. And three, it is impossible to prove that the "issues" (identified or otherwise) have been understood and resolved and are therefore no longer a problem" if I cannot edit the Prem Rawat articles. And please don't bring up the old furphy that my justifiable irritation at the absurd Catch 22 of my situation is justification for continuing my topic ban ad infinitum.MOMENTO (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I DGAF about it, you see, I am simply advising you why your appeals all fail. And you are demonstrating that this approach is futile, and your appeals will therefore in all likelihood continue to fail. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I DGAF about your opinion. I know why my appeals fail. It is because there are more people who think like you than me. People who make three obvious errors about my situation in one sentence and refuse to acknowledge it. And as long as that remain a sad fact about Wikipedia, my appeals will continue to fail.MOMENTO (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This does raise the question of some sort of WP:AMNESTY. I have thought, and still believe, that we have lost many good editors for reasons, which do not make sense, and in some cases taken pains to irritate them into actions that decrease our likelihood of raising their indef. blocks. Not to mention breaking our own procedure, knowingly or unknowingly - when in these matters we should be particularly punctilious.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

I would argue for much more effort or resources being applied at the front end aimed at actually nipping potential problems in the bud (so that they don't actually escalate into problems in the first place) rather than further resources being applied at the back end in a "big government" approach when it is usually too late to solve anything from the perspectives of all of the parties involved - see my comment re edit summaries in the previous section. There would be no reason for a WP:AMNESTY policy at Wikipedia if due diligence was properly applied in the first place by some self-righteous and trigger-happy admins, and there was some level of accountability for what they do. I'm not claiming all or even most admins are this way - just a few, and probably then only infrequently when they feel threatened or somebody pisses them off - but it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the whole barrel. That is an aphorism that applies in spades at Wikipedia. The few - be they vandals, POV zealots, drama queens, or insecure admins with a consequent thirst for power over others - always manage to ruin the place for the majority such that some of them in turn also get dragged into the drama created, frequently as arbiters of an already lost cause. If these arbitration skills were applied at the front end of disputes when opinions on all sides were still quite fluid and much more open to change, instead of at the back end by which point many or all of the disputing parties are much more entrenched in their "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" positions, then perhaps they would have a different level of success rate.

Actually, I probably should not have included vandals in my list above - in most cases vandalism can be easily spotted and reverted by the next editor to touch an article and admins are not even needed to eliminate it. Vandalism is very annoying but most of the time it is just noise that can be easily dealt with. Much more pernicious is the problem of daily editorial disputes which bring admins into the resultant confrontation, as this only adds another POV in what is already an angry and tense situation. By definition there is only going to be one winner and one loser in such confrontational situations - after all, Wikipedia is American-based and "winner takes all" is the Great American way. Americans don't play sport for purely sporting reasons but only participate in competitive situations in order to win at all costs, which is why most Americans hate ties, draws, replays and the concept of "shared honors" or "joint winners" in their major sports. It is also why America will only ever have a two-party political system (with exactly one winner governing party and one loser opposition party) while many mature European and Asian parliaments consist of coalitions amongst multiple parties acting in both governing and opposition roles.

Nothing is ever going to change at Wikipedia to improve the place until it addresses its "winner takes all" competitive rather than cooperative culture, where one editor (often the better and more productive of the disputing editors) walks away and quits Wikipedia - either voluntarily or because they are blocked - while the remaining editors that disagreed with him all high-five each other and send barnstars and bowls of fruit to the "neutral" admin that ruled in their favor after looking at a couple of diffs. It's a ridiculously elementary school level solution to a problem that could and should be handled in a much more adult manner, especially given the collective brain trust that Wikipedia represents.

Many of the arbitrators on Wikipedia are quite skillful at what they do but they only get involved in situations once it is too late to be of any real use. A person skilled in arbitration and reconciliation should be the first person dispatched to the scene of an editorial dispute (when it can perhaps be resolved with everyone concerned accepting that perhaps mistakes were made on each side and it was all mostly one big misunderstanding) rather than only getting involved days or weeks later when the original dispute finally reaches ArbCom, and all of the conflicting parties have had plenty of time to pour vinegar and invective on the wounds of the others, and thus by this time everyone involved is now even further entrenched in their own particular intransigent positions. If we approached real life problems the same way Wikipedia approaches this particular endemic issue, we would dispatch paramedics to the ER theater where they are only able to witness the accident victim flat-line, instead of dispatching them to the scene of the accident as quickly as possible where they are able to save and stabilize the injured party(ies) and the application of their considerable skills actually makes a positive difference. IMHO Wikipedia needs to stop using policemen (admins) and lawyers (Wikilawyers) in front line dispute situations where it really makes much more sense to use paramedics (dispute arbiters). — not really here discuss 05:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely Rich. Wikipedia's "Indefinite Block/Ban" is as pernicious as "Mandatory Sentencing". An opportunity for the majority to persecute the minority. It doesn't improve society or the persecuted but it makes the majority feel strong and powerful.MOMENTO (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Francis but few people are going to bother to wade through all that material. Can I ask you to provide evidence of the "persistent battleground behavior" that was given as the reason for my current Topic Ban. Thanks.MOMENTO (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Is supply side trickle down any more reputable than homeopathy?

Jimbo has stated he isn't interested in this. Can I suggest moving this elsewhere if there are issues that need addressing? Mdann52 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Jimbo,

I've been thinking a lot about what you said, and while I sincerely and deeply appreciate you taking a firm stand against misogyny, I wonder if you can imagine how your words ring hollow when so many more women are harmed by supply side trickle down economics. Do you have any evidence that supply side economics are more reputable than homeopathy? Because it is my considered opinion that, firstly, they are identically reputable, and secondly, that your refusal to repudiate supply side economics damages far more women in far more pernicious ways. I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to say the same things about supply side trickle down as you have said about homeopathy.[13] EllenCT (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't write about economics. I don't speak about economics. My opinions about economics are irrelevant to Wikipedia. I hope that not many people are taken in by your rather strange and poorly supported misrepresentations about the state of the academic literature in economics. But, other than this brief response to you repeatedly asking me to make a public statement about it, I repeat: I don't write about economics. I don't speak about economics. My opinions about economics are irrelevant to Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) [Addendum: It occurs to me that I don't recall ever publicly endorsing or opposing "supply side economics". So this makes it even odder for me to be asked to comment about it now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)]

The crux of the issue seems to be the question as to whether I am affected by "strange and poorly supported misrepresentations" of the secondary economics literature. Please look through the Talk:Economic growth archives, where someone who believes supply side economics is true, and therefore income inequality is good, and User:Volunteer Marek and I have been discussing the issue extensively over the past year. For something with such wide-ranging implications about the situations, distress levels, opportunities, and outcomes of most people, it feels awfully cavalier to suggest that there is any ambiguity in the secondary sources unless you've looked very carefully, doesn't it? If you have looked, then you ought to be able to cite a peer reviewed literature review or meta-analysis which leaves open the possibility that the tendency toward income inequality is superior. EllenCT (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, and I don't know I can be more clear: I don't write about economics, I don't speak about economics, I don't edit Wikipedia in the area of economics, I don't make public political or nonpolitical statements about economics, I have not to my knowledge discussed "supply side economics" with anyone publicly or privately (other than this discussion) in a great many years, and my views on it (which you don't know anything about) are not consequential. To go one step further: I have no intention to write about economics, speak about economics, or edit Wikipedia in the area of economics. I do not intend to discuss "supply side economics" with you or anyone else. Leave me out of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think he might not want to talk about supply side economics. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Not for nothing is economics called "The dismal science". Strangely though, there is a Nobel Prize for economics, but not mathematics. Economic Sciences was not on Nobel's original list, and was added in 1968.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Nobel in Economics isn't a Nobel Prize proper, but the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. It's a Nobel Prize with an asterisk. (The economists got a "Nobel Prize" the way they usually accomplish things—by having bankers buy them their preferred version of reality. Subsequently, the Board of the Nobel Foundation decided that this sort of nonsense wasn't a good development, and that going forward they won't allow anyone else to ~~buy~~ endow new awards. Mathematicians got left out in the cold because the bankers had more money.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There's that urban myth that Nobel didn't do it for Math because his wife was having an affair with a Mathematician. Which isn't true seeing as how Nobel wasn't even married. Quite simply, Nobel didn't establish a prize for Math because he didn't want (and because Math is not a Science).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But then the economists started hiring mathematicians, so it worked out for everyone in the end. I mean, for everyone except people whose savings were linked to mortgage-backed securities... MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Economists have been doing math for a couple centuries now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ellen, I advise you to take a more "strict constructionist" approach to misogyny. If you label as misogyny things that most people would view as completely unrelated, you are likely to be dismissed as a crank. Looie496 (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's quite a restrained comment. Some might say, "misogyny", "homeopathy", "supply-side economics", WTF? DeCausa (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Because it is my considered opinion that, firstly, they are identically reputable" From reading the talk page for supply side economics I suspect your opinion can be safely ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you recently also tried to claim the Economist was not a reliable source. Suspicions confirmed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If I was a college professor of economics, I'd find out what each student valued the most and demand they give me half of it, then ask them how they feel about the situation. Actor Bill Murray once said the best way to teach kids about economics is to eat 30% of their ice creme. Just sayin.--MONGO 17:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would indeed be educational—epsecially if, in return for giving up 30% of their ice cream, the children received roads, public transportation, schools, libraries, police and fire services, free education, parks, medical care, the world's largest military, and the opportunity—if they're wealthy enough—to hire an accountant who will find a loophole to let them have all those things without giving up any ice cream. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  - Hence, why in my class I'd take 50% away from my students, so that would add those other things, like that school tax, gas tax, property tax, bus fare, cable and cell phone tax, sales tax, etc. to cover these things that were allegedly covered by the 30%. If I taught in Denmark my students would get the 70% lesson instead....but hey, they get to keep 30% so they can then have their once a week banana split truly split.--MONGO 18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    - But Denmark is among the world's most prosperous, most democratic, and happiest nations, despite their high tax rate. It's enough to make you think that maybe supply-side economics is a dangerously misguided form of ignorance, much like homeopathy or misogyny. Maybe Ellen was onto something after all. Repent, Jimbo!!!! MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      - Happier that they have a higher suicide rate than the U.S.? Maybe if the U.S. had the same business and personal investment freedoms as enjoyed by the Scandinavia countries then those higher taxes could work in the U.S. Northern Europe is socialist only insofar as their welfare state apparatus...Their business and personal investment climate is far more capitalist than almost anywhere else excepting perhaps Switzerland while the U.S. has amongst the worst corporate taxes anywhere.--MONGO 21:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
        I don't think your facts are correct. First of all, the US has a higher suicide rate than Denmark (12.1 vs. 8.8 per 100,000 people). Secondly, while the US does have among the highest statutory corporate tax rates in the developed world, the effective corporate tax rate is highly variable and much lower, as a result of the numerous deductions and write-offs in our tax code. In fact, the largest and most profitable US companies (such as General Electric) tend to pay no corporate income tax at all, as they have the resources to lobby for and exploit these loopholes. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
        As your link demonstrates, GE avoids taxes because it's profits are listed offshore. If the corporate tax wasn't so ridiculous, companies like GE and Pfizer and Burger King wouldn't nest offshore profits or relocate outright. Only New Zealanders have higher effective corporate tax rates and of 189 countries, the U.S. is the 15th worst...and aside from New Zealand, the worst in the free world.--MONGO 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I am reminded of the old joke: if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. Of course that's no longer true, since the gurus very often seem to start from one and work back form there. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That's true for the primary economics literature, but more than a third of the primary literature in medicine and psychology can't even be replicated. If you know of any reason to think that the secondary economics literature hasn't been unanimous on the issue of income inequality for almost twenty years now, I would like to read it. EllenCT (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Medicine is also squashy, and psychology doubly so. Most engineering and applied science research works every time. None of that impacts the validity of trickle-down, which is long since debunked. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 23:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Denmark. Homogeneous societies all seem happier than heterogeneous ones. Economics is not specifically the key ingredient. ([14] inter alia) Iceland was still "happy" during economic disaster. Bhutan in 2006 was listed as "very happy" under an absolute monarch. Collect (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

My name got mentioned somewhere up there. So... supply side economics? First, you got to be precise what you mean by that. Obviously pretty much every economist in the world thinks that stuff that happens with the supply of goods and services matters. So that by itself doesn't make one a "supply-side economist". In fact, the not-so-well known fact is that there's no such thing as "supply-side economics". The term and the movement were essentially invented by journalists, such as Jude Wanniski. It was never an academic phenomenon nor was it ever accepted by the profession (a few cranks aside).

What is "supply side economics" then? It essentially has two components. One is that increases in incomes/wealth of the rich translate into increases in incomes/wealth for the poor. The answer to whether that is true or not is actually "it depends". Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

The other part is the proposition that cutting taxes stimulates labor supply and capital investment to such an extent that overall revenue actually rises. This is known as the Laffer curve. It's an idea that's sometimes floated around that "tax cuts pay for themselves". This is actually a theoretical possibility - if tax rates are close to 100%, nobody wants to work or invest, so cutting them might increase tax revenue. However real world evidence overwhelmingly suggests that modern economies are nowhere near this "flip point" (see the article). So while theoretically possible, empirical data relegate this proposition to fringe crankery.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"...increases in incomes/wealth of the rich translate into increases in incomes/wealth for the poor.... Sometimes yes, sometimes no."

The secondary literature which we've been over several times hasn't said "most of the time yes" since tiny sample size studies in 1955. Inconclusive results haven't appeared in WP:SECONDARY sources since the early 1990s, and the rest of them have been "most of the time no" ever since. EllenCT (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm no clear on what you're talking about here EllenCT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The exact same thing we were discussing back in January at Talk:Economic growth/Archive 3#"summaries of peer reviewed literature reviews". Kaldor (1955) was the last literature review to suggest that trickle down works ("savings by the wealthy, if these increase with inequality, were thought to offset reduced consumer demand" as the article says.) Everything since the late 1990s has been conclusive in the opposite direction. Savings by the wealthy end up as cash demand deposits in tax havens these days, when just a decade ago municipal bonds were the more favored way to avoid taxes. At least those financed infrastructure repairs. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confusing two different issues here. One is a relationship between income inequality and growth, and the other is this "supply side economics". They're two different things. Also, as I've pointed out repeatedly, your characterization of the literature isn't entirely accurate and over relies on a couple of cherry picked papers, and a misunderstanding of a few others. Anyway, this kind of discussion belongs on the article's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd rather not discuss those accusations in a more public forum, because you were never able to substantiate them in the talk page discussions, either. I'll tell you the same thing I told Jimbo: If you think I've been cherry picking, then you ought to be able to cite a peer reviewed literature review or meta-analysis which leaves open the possibility that the tendency toward income inequality leads to superior outcomes. Can you? EllenCT (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Took me about 5 seconds to find these in Google: "Despite the extensive existing literature on income inequality and economic growth, there remains considerable disagreement on the effect of inequality on economic growth." [15]. "Since its beginning in 1978, China’s economic reform has led not only to rapid economic growth but also to a large increase in economic inequality." - [16]. That's just searching and clicking on a few random titles from reputable sources. Admittedly, that isn't what you asked for, so I then started looking for a "peer reviewed literature review or meta-analysis" that was published more recently. I found this: "In recent years there is a growing interest in determining the impact of inequality on economic growth. Theoretical papers as well as empirical applications have, however, produced controversial results. Although there is a considerable part of the literature that considers inequality detrimental to growth, more recent studies have challenged this result and found a positive effect of inequality on growth." That's from the peer-reviewed Scottish Journal of Political Economy. [17]

I'm already at risk of violating my above clearly stated intention of not talking about economics, and so I won't really comment. Again, my own views of the matter are irrelevant. My point is only to address the very narrow Wikipedia-centric question of whether we should regard it as completely settled in the way that the question of homeopathy is completely settled. And I have to agree with others that your reading of the literature doesn't seem plausible to me given even a cursory look into it. I don't want to discuss it further.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If maths is not a science, what is it? 92.25.66.96 (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's math.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Mathematics is the "Queen of the sciences" but is not a science itself as it is not empirical, it cannot be proven false. Following the Queen analogy, it rules the sciences, or at least contributes to the government of them, but is not one of them. Something like the pre-20th century queens imported from other countries to be the consorts of British kings. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Jimbo Wales: where would you like this moved? [18] and [19] are WP:PRIMARY, not secondary sources. May I suggest Talk:Growth accounting? I want you to know that I intend to hold you to your easily inferred goal to maximize the productivity of women, and I am sure you would expect nothing less of me. If I am mistaken, please let me know. EllenCT (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Special report: Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia

News and notes: Flow placed on ice

Discussion report: WMF's sudden reversal on Wiki Loves Monuments

Featured content: Brawny

In the media: Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage

Traffic report: You didn't miss much

Technology report: Tech news in brief

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! You're a founder of Wikipedia, right? Thank you.--Humanlog (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, co-founder, but generally close enough. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO & WP:RBI, close comments by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

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

The backstory is here: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 189#Your comment in Radio Times. That doesn't give Jimbo all the credit he is due - for some reason the final post in the thread (copied below) does not appear in the archive:

There is a very interesting book about people who changed the world. Jimbo is featured in it. It recounts how he had the idea of the online encyclopaedia which anyone could edit to bring together all human knowledge. It took about six months to get this together. He realised that the concept of the Wiki (which I believe was devised by someone called Cunningham) was the means by which this could be achieved. During that time he was worried that someone would have the same idea and beat him to it. To lead the project he hired Larry Sanger. They found that search engines were indexing the content. When they did, Wikipedia appeared high in the lists generated in searches, and every time this happened this encouraged more people to add content. This created an ever - increasing circle of growth. Eventually it was so successful the group realised that within a couple of weeks all the server space would be used up and disaster was averted by volunteers who compressed the files. Larry and Jimbo did not agree on how the project should develop and they went their separate ways. 217.44.56.219 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.66.96 (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's because it was rightly removed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi as nonsense. Graham87 07:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

a founder already strongly implies there are others; anyone not trying to bait Jimbo should be fine with saying Jimbo Wales is a founder of Wikipedia. Wily D 07:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO & WP:RBI, close comments by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

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

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is a problem editor. Bishonen had occasion to read the riot act to him/her recently. Publishers aren't in the habit of publishing nonsense. Do you have any source for your claim? I don't want to sound insensitive, but you say you have been blind from birth. Where are you getting your information from? On the brighter side, after 27 years you will no doubt have discovered that Perth is one of the world's finest cities with a population to match.

Of course, in a sense you are right. As soon as the web became operational people realised its potential and one writer put up a page explaining how an internet encyclopedia needed to be set up and how it should be done. The basic idea, lots of different people adding articles and checking them, was not Jimbo's, but that doesn't detract from his achievement in bringing it to fruition. 80.42.79.200 (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL User:80.42.79.200, "a problem editor"??? But not a blocked one. Good luck coming back with your next bunch of ad homs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps this would be a good time for Jimbo to publicly acknowledge the equal contribution that Larry Sanger made to the founding of Wikipedia? Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see: Jimbo's old company hired and paid Sanger, together they tried the Wikipedia model, and both were surprised that it succeeded quickly. Sanger almost immediately began chafing at the "anyone can edit productively" model, advocating expert editing and pre-approval of articles, and departed the project about 13 months after the start, when funding for his job ran out. He has been a relentless critic of Wikipedia ever since. Sanger went on to apply his ideas about how an online encyclopedia ought to work to Citizendium, a failed encyclopedia where John Wilkes Booth never encountered Abraham Lincoln. Jimbo stuck with Wikipedia, which now has millions of useful free articles in pretty much every language under the sun. And people still delight in trashing Jimbo for failing to give Sanger credit for an "equal contribution". Interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually perhaps this would be a good time for you to drop the stick. I have absolutely no clue why you hate Jimbo so much, and whether your obsession with the founder / co-founder issue comes fomr that, fomr some connection with Sanger, or just from the fact that you are wilfully contrarian, but it's old. Really old. I mean, really, really, really, dead, buried, fossilised, dug up, polished and turned into a small ornament of dubious aesthetic merit old. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If only we had some kind of page covering this situation... Gamaliel (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Détente?

This is interesting. It seems the WMF has relented with regard to Flow and has finally decided to take a more collaborative approach with the community. Of course, what form this work will take will be important and there is no indication how it will work out. However, the fact that, even if fully a year after the Media Viewer debacle, the WMF has decided not to force a massive breaking software change on the communities, is something to be welcomed. BethNaught (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"relented" is nonsense. Hostility like this is really distortionary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I think you suffer from much of the same blinkers that the WMF does in general regarding the community and its relationship with the development teams. The WMF's approach to tech has always (until recently) been one of 'you will have this and you will like it'. Given that flow is no longer going to be 'actively supported' (developer speak for 'abandon ship') 'relent' is a perfectly reasonable word to use from a community that is fed up of the WMF neither consulting, listening to or taking on board feedback from the wikipedia community. You use the word hostility, and you are right. But it is a hostility of the WMF's developers own making. The active hostility and condescension the community faced when attempting to point out very few of its 'products' were suitable for purpose was worse. In customer services this is called mirroring - you get back from your customers what you give them. Act aggressive and you get aggressive in return. Its basic call center training for phone agents, be calm and reasonable and the customer will start to respond in kind. Perhaps the problem here is that until Lela came on board, I saw very little acknowledgement from the WMF that the wikipedia editing community are their customers. The people who actively use the product (the editors, the maintainers etc) are the customer, not the average reader of WP. I felt nothing but relief knowing flow is being canned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Flow won't be "actively supported"; quite the opposite. I think many people are reading this announcement incorrectly (which I admit that I did as well, but sought clarification). This is about the team moving to focus on the "Workflow" aspect of the project.--Jorm (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jorm: Incorporating extant workflows into Flow was originally described as a "phase 2" of the project. Are you implying the WMF is merely rebranding Flow to avoid community opprobrium? BethNaught (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was Flow's principal designer, so take that for what it's worth. I determined very early on that a flexible workflow system was going to be essential in order to address all the ways that talk pages are used. I wanted to start with that but was overruled in exchange for doing "something simpler, like just conversation" (which aren't that simple but whatever). I don't know that the WMF is rebranding anything; I think I may be reading everything differently than everyone else because I'm not seeing the words "cancel" nor "abandon" nor "delete" or anything like that. "Refocus" is what I'm seeing, and the way it is described reads to me like that exact "phase 2" part of the project. I think people are hoping for cancellation and reading that into the commentary rather than what it actually says.--Jorm (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean, then, that Flow will continue to be in active development, but in different features, since discussion is approximately feature-complete. Thanks for the clarification; the "press release" certainly reads to me like the Flow project would be stopped and its developers reassigned to new, separate projects to work on meta-processes. If that's the case, my sentiments remain about the same: it's good that there ought to be more collaboration and no forcing Flow (in either definition?) on anyone, but we'll need to see the details. BethNaught (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly how I would interpret it. I think the word "maintenance" is the problem; the word means different things depending on context.--Jorm (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure we are even reading the same release. It says Flow is no longer in active development. Any software developer (outside of the WMF's walled garden of strangeness) knows that means its been shitcanned and its staff reassigned to more useful endevours (BethNaughts interpretation above is the more business-language friendly version). Maybe you have not spent much time in a professional development environment, but 'refocus' is a management buzzword that means 'stop what you are doing and work on something completely different'. Given the new boss has made it perfectly clear when talking to the public that Flow is no longer on any roadmap, that release is pretty clear that as an integrated product its been canned. If that is indeed *not* the case, then you need to have a word with Lila and whoever is writing the statements like the above as its either incompetance or intentionally misleading. Both of which the community has had to deal with on the part of the WMF for quite awhile now. Given my reading of it reinforces the new boss' statements, I am more likely to believe it is accurate as read. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Except if you actually read the mailing lists and actually talk to the development staff, you can see that it is not being shitcanned. There are very specific statements being made. But further, speaking as someone who used to try to communicate honestly: why would anyone at the Foundation engage at all when the only response to anything said (and I mean anything) is people complaining about their "incompetance" (sic). (I know, I know: "we wouldn't call you incompetent if you were competent" or whatever. Heard it before.)--Jorm (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mailing lists, I am sorry, I dont live in the 1990's. If your position is that Flow is not being shelved then I suggest you go have a word with Lila and the person who writes the press releases, because they have made it clear whereas you are just muddying the waters. There is a damn good reason no sensible software development operation lets it developers interact directly with customers and you are demonstrating it right now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an official clarification, which, unsurprisingly, repeats what I said.--Jorm (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

An open source project is never truly dead. Like a zombie through a jet engine, there's always a chance that some twitchy little bit will find a place in a new construction. The thing we should look at now is this: Flow didn't die due to bad coding, but bad philosophy. It broke with basic concepts of how we feel a Wiki page ought to work, and people hated that. As such, the place to start over is not with the coders, but with the community - we need to create a vision of what we want that coders can implement in a straightforward way. There are some no-brainers we might not have thought to mention before Flow, like that every Wiki page should have a history, every Wiki page should be viewable in its entirety from a static URL without Javascript, every ordinary page should be open to reversion to any previous version by an editor in good standing (though it may set off alarm bells), etc. Then there is the deeper philosophy, like that every editor should have a roughly equal shot to have his comments read and considered, and comments should only get highlighted if other editors choose to reprint or reference them in other places. And that archives are meant to be read and gone back to and re-referenced, even many years later; they're not just dustbins for comments to be shovelled into to be forgotten. This sort of proud, unrepentant Web 1.0 egalitarianism has no place on an Internet run by corporations whose business is selling your private data to help other companies control you; but it deserves its place on an unbiased encyclopedia that is free to all. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

If not built carefully with regard to these values, the new mw:Collaboration#Workflows could easily go the same way. BethNaught (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prolific article creation is disruptive?

I have been harassed, bullied, blocked, and now about to be banned from creating articles because another editor claims that I am creating articles only to gain a "high score" for article creation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dolovis and page creation problems). Such a claim is false and ridiculous, but is being supported by a small aligned group who have been harassing me for years. Since when has the prolific creation of sourced articles on notable topics been deemed a disruptive activity on Wikipedia? I am a good faith editor who firmly believes in the Wikipedia project. No wonder good editors are leaving Wikipedia in droves. Dolovis (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Except your articles frequently are not sourced to reliable sources at all, nevermind the fact that a huge number of them were deleted for indeed being not notable. That is part of what people are complaining about. If you would maybe eventually take responsibility for your actions you would not constantly be taken to ANI or the like. You have had your mistakes pointed out to you by a large number of people over a long period of time and yet you continue to create articles like this which literally only contains "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer." with only a staff bio as a source. Come on, you have been here enough years to know that is not an acceptable article, and when you multiply that by hundreds or thousands of articles it quite clearly becomes a disruptive problem. Frankly you should be happy you are looking at only a page creation ban and not the outright ban you probably should be getting when you combine all your other restrictions you have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Once upon a time, it was common practice for editors to start an article by creating a stub (such as the example in the previous comment). Over time, others would expand the article with more information as it was located and as they had time to work on it. We called this "collaboration" and it seemed to work pretty good, even if too many of those old stubs are still present. Now, it seems we expect the first editor to post completed articles that practically meet GA standards (or at least c-class standards), or they immediately get deleted, and we "warn" the author that they aren't being helpful to the encyclopedia. I think that something is wrong with how this latter process works (or rather, doesn't work). The example article shown above was expanded (before attention was brought to it here) and now looks like this: Marek Sikora (astronomer). The article likely still has issues, and given that the subject is a Polish astronomer, English-language sources may be more difficult to obtain than for other subjects, but that does not mean Wikipedia should not now or ever have an article about this person. Additionally, if the list of published works is accurate (I'm not disputing it, I simply haven't verified it independently), then I think a case can be made for notability of the subject. If this is a typical example of the articles started by Dolovis, then they should be classified as good faith effort, and the user should not be punished for not creating c-class (or better) articles. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It was only expanded when the user was warned about a prod on it weeks later. A single sentence stub was never considered good enough. A small stub is one thing, but a single sentence with no reliable sources is a whole different story. -DJSasso (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Understood. And, frankly, I don't want people going around creating six-word stubs. But this article was used as an example in this conversation, so the article's entire history was relevant here, and it was perfect to use as an example of the larger problem of new articles being PRODed or sent to AfD before they could grow into something useful. It's pretty well established now that there are fewer active editors than there used to be (citation omitted); and it's my opinion that deleting well-intentioned articles about notable subjects, rather than trying to improve them, drives editors -- especially new editors -- away from Wikipedia. As a side note, I have reviewed the report on Dolovis's page creation habits, and my comments here are not meant to imply that I am siding with that editor in that dispute. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It is extremely misleading to suggest the the “Marek Sikora” is typical of my article creations. That article was purposefully selected by DJSasso to highlight my very worst effort. More typical examples of stub articles I have created would include Santeri Vuoti and Vladimir Eminger. Look here for the full list of articles I have created. Dolovis (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What is misleading is how you are trying to present your actions here. What you aren't telling the people in your little Appeal to Jimbo is that I hauled you to ANI because in your quest to score an article creation high score, you have deliberately created articles on subjects you know to be non-notable. You have deliberately created redirects for subjects you know will be deleted. You have created cut and paste copyvios. You have used WP:SYNTH, you rely heavily on WP:CRYSTAL, you have misrepresented sources, and you have misprepresented SNGs. And you abuse WP:REFUND to regain your first edits after your premature creations that are deleted later become notable. You have lied in AFDs about the existence of sources to try and save articles, then vanished entirely to go create a half dozen more articles on marginally notable people rather than provide those sources. And this doesn't even touch your history of sockpuppetry and harassment that left BASC divided over whether you should have even been unblocked in the first place.

You have left a series of messes for others to clean up. And you are now desperately flailing about because some of us who have spent years cleaning up after you are tired of it, and others at ANI are agreeing there is a problem. But rather than look at your own behaviour, you're just going to rush about pretending to be a victim. The Maerk Sikora article certainly was one of your very worst efforts. It is also a very recent effort. For someone who brags about creating nearly 6000 articles, the fact that you did that is ridiculous. The fact that you only cleaned it up because it was PRODed is likewise ridiculous. You should have found your sources before, rather than just slapping a template on the article telling someone else to do your work for you. But you never do that because you always put in the absolute minimum effort you think you can get away with. Despite Etamni's claims, nobody is expecting you to create a GA class or even C class article. Bluntly, you are not capable of that. What we expect is that you stop wasting our time by expecting everyone to cleaning up after you. Reso lute 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Resolute: That's a bit harsh, do keep WP:AGF in mind. Telling someone "you are not capable" is not right; I am sure Dolovis is capable of that - through possibly, not willing :( . Anyway. I am the editor who prodded Marek Sikora, is it was clearly a WP:SUBSTUB. No experienced editor should leave such unfinished mess for others to clean up, so I prodded it - and Dolovis expanded it properly. All's fine on my end, as long as Dolovis remembers to finish up such substubs into proper stubs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact, and as someone who has spent half a decade cleaning up after him, my AGF ran out a long time ago. The simple fact is, that while his Sikora creation was an utter embarrassment that only got expanded because your PROD shamed him into it, that article had only one less sentence than most of his creations. But laziness is really only the least of his problems. We already have to routinely watch for misrepresentation of sources (assuming there isn't an outright lack of RS sources to begin with) and WP:CRYSTAL creations to grab first edits of not-yet-but-maybe-someday-notable people. But now he's demonstrating a cavalier attitude about ripping off other people's work without attribution. So now plagiarism and copyvios are a concern as well. That is why he is at ANI with only someone's scrutiny evading sock commenting in his defence. Reso lute 13:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The article on the United States Air Force started as

United States Air Force is the branch of the United States armed forces devoted to aircraft.

this is not about stubs (or as they are called these days, sub-sub-stubs) - or it certainly shouldn't be. It's about creating a large number of NN stubs, creating copyvios and other disruptive editing. I haven't been through Dolovis' contributions so I can't say whether the claims are valid or not, but I have read the claims and they are certainly grounds for concern if they are valid. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

My interest piqued, I'm going to look at half a dozen of these creations at random. 1. Stig-Göran Johansson is a Swedish hockey player in the national hall of fame [20]. Nice find. 2. Sergei Yemelin is a young fully professional Russian hockey player. That's an auto-keep at AfD, no problems. Single sourced but there are two links that could have been made into sources as easily. 3. Dallas W. Anderson is a medical devices entrepreneur. The piece has a bit of the gross paid editing smell and would be less than 50-50 at AfD, in my estimation. 4. Mikael Saha is a fully professional Finnish hockey player. Another auto-keep at AfD. 5. Lukáš Jašek is a fully professional Czech hockey player. It was created without diacritical marks, and I suppose therein lies the rub with some people.. Still, this looks like a legitimate content person who is helping Wikipedia and I see no issues either with the creations or the sourcing, at a glance. Carrite (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dolovis - Do you own PopChar or some similar program that allows the easy insertion of diacritical marks without having to memorize complex multiple key strokes? Highly recommended if you do not. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

God no, dont mention the D-word. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Creating loads of articles isn't disruptive. Creating loads of unacceptable articles when you have been warned multiple times and have enough experience to know better, is. Rubbish computer 20:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did, I'm saying what is and isn't disruptive. Rubbish computer 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Harrassment and bullying are very serious accusations to make. If you feel you are being mistreated, say so and present evidence at WP:ANI, where this is being discussed anyway. Coming to this talk page doesn't help. Rubbish computer 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm OK with a six-word stub, as long as it refers to two good sources independent of the subject that cover the topic in some detail, as per my take on WP:GNG. But in the interests of world peace and not drowning Wikipedia in junk, you should always come up with at least the two sources - safer to do more. We're not in a very good position to evaluate articles with only one source to see if that source is sane, and an encyclopedia's job is to summarize the world, not to uncritically mirror every single thing that has ever been published. To summarize and integrate the available data with any confidence you really need more than one source. Wnt (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the arguments you just provided above I am assuming you are also insisting on two good sources as that is your interpretation of the minimum number of RS that can possibly satisfy the "multiple sources are expected" requirement in this piece of policy guidance in WP:GNG:

"'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."

I believe that guidance (in some wording or other) has been in place since at least circa 2006, which is when that particular Notability guidance article was created. There have been a heck of a lot of stub and sub-stub articles created since 2006, very few of which have any sourcing. Presumably that is why they stay (sub-)stub articles; if the stub creator had had the information to be able to properly source it they would also have had more info. about the topic in hand to include in the article itself when they created it, so that it would perhaps have been a very short article rather than an unsourced single-sentence stub. Therefore, to claim that someone is violating WP policy because the stub article they created is unsourced seems a little circular and self-serving in this case, since being unsourced is an inherent quality of most stub articles. It's merely a tautological argument.

Most reasonable editors would object to sub-stub articles because they contain little or no useful information, which runs in direct contradiction to what an encyclopedia is meant to contain, so they have no place being part of it. With sub-stub articles lack of sourcing isn't really the issue because there is normally insufficient information in the stub to require any sourcing anyway - sourcing is only required for information that may be contentious and disputed by others. Thus if I create a stub article entitled "Sky" and write "The sky is sometimes blue" as its sole content, such an obvious and widely-accepted statement doesn't require any sourcing. Most editors would object to that kind of sub-stub article, not because it is unsourced, but because it is information content-free or tautological and thus, from an encyclopedic perspective, useless in its current form. Consequently, it has to be merged, expanded or deleted. Editing it to add two secondary RS citations that both verify that the sky is indeed sometimes blue would not solve the main problem with such a five-word sub-stub article as you claim it would.

The "Marek Sikora" article that simply states "Marek Sikora is a Polish astronomer" has more informational content than your completely circular rationale does for removing articles similar to it. The fact that he is a Polish astronomer could very possibly be supported by citing a single RS - which still would NOT satisfy your two RS minimum. I had no idea who Marek Sikora was or what he did until I read that stub, so now I'm two pieces of information more knowledgeable for having had that experience. So more power to Dolovis and long may he/she prosper. As for you ...

Congratulations on receiving this month's MOTO cookie award for services to circular reasoning beyond the call of duty by posting a completely tautological rationale for why we desperately need to rid Wikipedia of sub-stub tautologies. — not really here discuss 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Nay, you have it wrong. If you write "the sky is blue" and list two sources - two sources with significant coverage of the sky - then even though your puny stub text doesn't help the readers, the sources will. I think there's a sort of equipartition theorem where, on average, precisely 50% of the value of an article is held in its text, and the other 50% is held in the sources (including links, images, etc.). Sometimes, of course, the text is ahead, especially when the sources are neglected; sometimes it falls behind. I'd be OK if there were no text at all, given sources. An article with links to two humanly selected good sources is at least as helpful as a Google search, which means it is a decent result for a search here to return to people, and so we should keep it. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

First off, thank you for taking my comment (bonk on the head?) with the good spirit with which it was intended. The reason I ended up posting it was because when I initially read your post I found myself nodding my head in agreement. I actually concur with most - if not all - of what you have written in both of your posts. The real problem here is, as usual, wishy-washy Wikipedia guidance on this subject. Nowhere are the terms "stub", "sub-stub", "NN-stub" - and any other such terms someone might wish to come up with - unambiguously defined so that every reasonable editor can say: "Yes, that is a sub-stub and we need to do something about it ASAP. No, that one is a stub and we need to leave it be because if we do it will surely be expanded and eventually blossom into a featured article. And no, that article is already beyond the stub stage and is now a quite valid very short article."

When I saw your minimum of two RS requirement I re-read WP:GNG to see if it had any valid basis, and I fully concurred with your interpretation of the guidance which is why I quoted it. However, once you start looking at the sub-stubs created by Dolovis they aren't substantial enough (information content-wise) to require two RS - which is presumably why the term "sub-stub" was coined in the first place. They are mostly of the form / length of my hypothetical "the sky is sometimes blue" example. If you click on the internal link I provided with my second use of the word "tautological" and look at the cited sourcing that support the text in that article explaining Rayleigh scattering and why this causes the sky to appear blue, you will find this PDF source. The title of that source article alone ("Human color vision and the unsaturated blue color of the daytime sky") contains more information than my hypothetical "the sky is sometimes blue" text. So if I was the editor wishing to create my hypothetical "Sky" article and I had ONLY that single patarnott.com article to source it from, then I already have enough information in just the title of that paper alone to create a better stub article than "the sky is sometimes blue." I could have written instead: "The unsaturated blue color of the daytime sky is the result of how human color vision works." That would be a much better stub. If I actually bothered to read that source article beyond just its title, there is enough information in it to allow me to create an initial article that is way beyond the definition of stub - whatever that may be!

The sub-stub articles being created by Dolovis mostly all fall into this grey area. If you apply good faith to why he, or any other editor, creates a sub-stub article in the first place, then you have to come to the conclusion that they do so because they don't have any such sources to work from, since (as I just showed) the title of almost any possible source will usually contain more pertinent information than the majority of the resultant sub-stub articles do. Therefore your minimum of two RS requirement is inapplicable for such minimal sub-stubs - it's never going to happen. Hence the bonk on the head. :) OTOH, if you speculate that there are probably many other reasons why Dolovis (and others) create sub-stub articles - such as he's lazy; he's trying to game the system so as to appear to have created more articles than anyone else; he's incapable of creating anything with any substance to it; etc. - then you are clearly violating good faith guidance, and the admin Resolute was rightly taken to task for doing exactly that.

Dolovis has been accused of operating in a grey area of Wikipedia and exploiting loopholes, for whatever reasons. Exactly why is this Dolovis' problem? He didn't create the loopholes. If loopholes exist then they are the responsibility of the person(s) who created them, and more generally Wikipedia itself, NOT the person that exploits them, thereby bringing them to everybody's attention so that they can be fixed (if anybody cares to do so). If nobody wants to see Wikipedia turned into an exhaustive list of second-rate Finnish and Czech ice hockey players then the correct way to address that issue is to review the current thresholds for notability in the guidelines and perhaps modify them accordingly. Simply running pogroms against the person that operates in and validly exploits a grey area of WP guidance is a cowardly and lazy way to handle this issue. It also doesn't fix anything, because after Dolovis is blocked (should that happen) there will shortly come along someone else who will likewise exploit some or all of the same loopholes in badly written WP policy guidelines. Wikipedia needs to fix the actual problem and not simply use Dolovis as a scapegoat instead. — not really here discuss 20:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Authenticity

I first posted this on the talk page of the article Barefoot doctor, what I believe to be a significant article, at least potentially. It doesn't really belong there. I don't know where it belongs, but I believe it deserves a hearing. I copy/pasted it here, to see what you think.

[copy/paste from TalkPage of Barefoot doctor]

"Coco Dong is gone. Coco Dong made one edit, which was reverted, and never attempted to contribute to this project again. His writing was weak. He didn't copy-edit his work, and he left no spaces between sentences. Not ONE space, like many who are accustomed to blogs and email. NONE. Butted each sentence up against the period of the previous sentence. His contribution was his own personal observation. WP:OR, without a doubt. None of these things are acceptable in an encyclopedic article on this project. But his/her voice was authentic. Listening to it, you could almost smell the rice paddies. (Is that a racist remark? It's not intended that way. Maybe rice fields are more Vietnam than China. I don't know.) Coco Dong was never welcomed to en.Wikipedia. No explanation was given for his revert. Maybe I'm maudlin. Maybe not. Coco Dong spoke, wrote, and read at least two languages. Probably more. He could use a computer, or he never would have found this article. I find this unacceptable. In certain precincts there is conversation about encouraging new editors. "Don't bite the newbies!" I've heard more than once. I am a very stubborn, hard-headed person at times, and I got through my first edits/reversions by main force and muleishness. I started out blanking pages. That was not my intent, but I did it enough times that I believe I was blocked for a time. I persisted, and I learned. But I can speak and write (and read) tolerably well. I would argue that this is a LARGE project, with a LARGE need for manpower. I read messages on talk/project pages often which are written not much better than Coco Dong. I would argue that we don't know what training, what knowledge, what native skills and abilities he/she brought to the table, and now, three years later, we aren't likely to. Be patient with our ESL brothers and sisters. Try to spare them a little time. I once knew a family of Dongs. I assumed from the first that Coco Dong was a pseudonym, but possibly not. In south-central China the name may be quite common. "Coco" I don't know about.This is what he/she wrote [5Nov2012]:"+ What the most inportant things that barefoot doctors left fot us is the spirit of being a doctor.People in backcountry treat 'barefoot doctors' as angels because they are a group of people who really take care of poor people and serve them from the bottom of their heart.According to the medical institution in 21 centruy,wards of hospotals are more and more sumptuousness,fee of medicine is more and more high,this inappropriate medical institution makes the relationship between doctors and patients more contradiction.People around the world miss the spiritual core of barefoot doctor———sincere."This is not encyclopedic. It could be polished up and lipsticked, but it would still be WP:OR. But there is value here. I don't know where this belongs. Not on this talk page, either, but SOMEWHERE. We threw away Coco Dong. We shouldn't throw away this sentiment, as well. That's all I'm saying."

Thank you for your time and consideration. Rags (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

So any time a new editor makes an edit that messes up an article, the edit should be left in place to avoid discouraging that editor? Is that what you're saying? Looie496 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Coco Dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made exactly one edit, and it was over two and a half years ago. There is nothing we can do when someone makes one unconstructive edit and doesn't even attempt to engage. There is no handle or hook for keeping this user. What's the problem here? Are you a fan of Dr. Dong's work in real life or something? Guy (Help!) 14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ragityman:, I think you are reading too much into this. It is a shame when a contributor leaves because of Wikipedia, but you welcomed the user and explained civilly why they were reverted: nothing more needed to be done. Per Special:Statistics, there are 26,107,151 accounts registered with Wikipedia at the time of writing. Per Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed, last year only 1.4 million users were autoconfirmed, which usually means making 10 edits, and 4 or more days passing. So 90-something percent of people who register an account with Wikipedia make less than 10 edits, if any. Rubbish computer 17:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer:, No, you saw my welcome, which I copy/pasted YESTERDAY in case he/she ever revisits his talk page. I say revisits, but the page was uncreated. There was never a welcome. Maybe the policy is to welcome only after autoconfirmed. I don't normally welcome anyone, so I've never bothered to learn. BUT an instant, unexplained revert is a welcome of another sort. @JzG|Guy: no, if this person is a "Dr. Dong", I know nothing about it. What happened to "assume good faith"? Are we getting a little jaded? Maybe someone needs a wiki-break. I never knew anything about a "barefoot doctor" until I found the article yesterday, or the day before. The Dongs I knew were a chef and his family, who ran a Chinese buffet restaurant. You know, Big Ugly Fat Folks Eating Together. Buffet. But I did get the idea from them that there are others named Dong, possibly many others. Rags (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ragityman: As they've made helpful edits they can be welcomed. My point about autoconfirmed users is that the vast majority of users make very few, if any, edits, so a huge number leave all the time after making, say, one edit. You sort of have a point, this should have been explained on their talk page. There is an option with Twinkle to welcome users who make various types of edits that get reverted, including original research, so reverting and welcoming is often done. However, if the edit is unacceptable, it should be reverted. Maintaining, expanding and improving the encyclopedia is ultimately the most important thing here.

As for your point about the Dongs, I've heard of the name before in the context of it being a surname, rather than anyone's name in particular: the user is almost certainly someone you have never met or heard of, who has Dong in their name.

I assume I should ping @JzG:, as you appeared to be trying to do. However, JzG is not failing to assume good faith at all, he is simply stating facts, and questioning why you are so concerned about this user. It's great that you care and want to help, but we can't all worry about and examine events whenever a user stops editing, which has happened millions of times. I would say welcome new users if they aren't engaging in obvious vandalism, but need reverting, and explain why. Regrettably, this has not been the case in many instances, but all that can be done now is remembering that. Rubbish computer 20:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

P'raps you should ping a Dong too? Walks off whistling a refrain from a popular Chuck Berry song. — not really here discuss 01:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Me? I'm not really here: It reminded me of the Ding Dong Song. Rubbish computer 16:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that new users are finding Wikipedia to be an alien and inhospitable place. I have welcomed many using Twinkle, and try not to leave any new user behind. If they gave us a constructive edit (even just a minor punctuation edit from an IP address) I use that option in Twinkle, and if they were not being helpful, I use that option instead. I feel that, as soon as an account is registered, the account's talk page should automatically receive a basic welcome, without waiting for someone to notice. The links in the welcome template, if reviewed by the new user, can go a long way in educating new editors about how Wikipedia works, and can help make new users feel like this is a community to which they can belong. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 04:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a good study topic: compare retention rates of those whose first improper edits are simply reverted vs those whose first improper edits are reverted and an explanation/welcome posted on the page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are blatantly being ignored

The OP has been blocked. The restriction was put in place as part of Arbcom enforcement [21] and upheld by other admins and editors [22] [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A now inactive administrator setup a rule where only accounts with 500 edits could edit the talk page of an article. I've been trying to get a grasp on the situation, but out of nowhere the people who've been editing this article all seem to be showing up to defend this rule. They started this after I pointed out this rule they've been abusing to keep out new editors isn't allowed by the ArbCom ruling or discretionary sanctions they've used to justify it.

The only page protections allowed by the rules are full and semi-protection. The rules also explicitly say that new editors should be welcomed. Of course, they are saying all rules should be ignored in order to justify violating the rules.

If that is the case then I hope you can ignore all rules and rescind this unique and unjustified sanction. I have little faith that putting this on any sort of appeal board will result in a fair and open ruling on the subject because of the incredible briskness at which multiple involved editors magically appeared from the void telling me that I shouldn't even bother and that they can guarantee that the appeal won't be successful.

This guarantee is extremely odd in its certainty and certainly chilling to anyone else wanting to edit. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A place for everyone trying to derail the conversation on the actual rules being violated

:Quick question: Where were you recruited? 8chan? /v/? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Or a continuation of the intimidation campaign? Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a serious question. The only people who have complained about the restrictions - which do have ArbCom's blessing owing to the extreme disruption by (primarily) pro-GG sockpuppets - are those who're jumping into the topic area as new accounts. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

We can see that the new people from the various places to push their GG POV continue to be familiar with wiki-lawyering. Exactly the behavior that contributed to so many problems. Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

<popcorn.gif>--Jorm (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a slow moment a minute ago, I wasn't sure which article this was about. --Rubbish computer 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is about the Gamergate talk page. A single now-inactive admin made a 500 post minimum for new editors to use the talk page. This wasn't in concordance with the rules used to justify his actions. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely was in accordance with the rules. I know you feel the need to Right a Great Wrong, but this was exactly legal and normal.--Jorm (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Saigo no Yume: I don't know much about this, so I've got nothing further to say. --Rubbish computer 22:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that ignoring rules when necessary to ensure the functioning of the encyclopaedia is one of our rules, I can't see the problem... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This sanction was only put in place to protect someone who is now banned from the topic area for harassing people. The proper course of action, at that time, was to sanction TheRedPenofDoom, instead of letting him continue acting that way. Instead the admin decided to stop all new editors from editing the talk page - because that's obviously a smart idea. Of course, all the people currently editing the Gamergate article want to continue to keep out opposing views - this thread demonstrates that very well - even if it means violating wikipedia's rules and chasing away anyone considering editing at wikipedia. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, boy, if it weren't obvious before you were a recruited sock/meatpuppet, it sure as hell is now. We're quite aware of 8chan's vendetta against TRPoD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope. It was put in place because of the extreme disruption socks and new account unfamiliar with the policies for sourcing and WP:NPOV work. But please, continue to believe your fantasy version. Ravensfire (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No wonder you think everyone is a meat or sockpuppet. You are filled with confirmation bias. In fact, I only learned about TheRedPenofDoom from a link that another administrator showed me just today. But oh no, someone directly showing me that link today, which is shown in my history, couldn't possibly be the reason where I learned about him. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are a sock-/meatpuppet based on the fact that you're a new account who's railing against the GG talk page restrictions, who only appears to have edits related to same, who's wonking to try and get the restrictions which ArbCom has no objections to given the severity of the abuse removed, and who name-checks TRPoD, whom pro-GG has been trying to get sanctioned since before the GG ArbCom case. Where there's smoke, there's fire. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to edit the talk page. It didn't work. I asked for help. I gathered information during this phase where I asked for help. This is all documented by my earlier edits. You've decided I'm a sockpuppet based on 1) Wanting a restriction removed that affected me and 2) Using the name of someone who was linked to me by an admin earlier today. Apparently you guys accuse everyone of being a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. I've never edited the Gamergate articles before, nobody asked me to come here, I've never been to any of the websites you've mentioned except for Reddit. Do you ban everyone who uses Reddit or something? Give me a break. This is all confirmation bias on your part - or merely one of many ploys to keep people away from your articles. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but that's complete bullshit and no one is going to believe you. Your very first edit was to WP:AE. Your first. You're being coached; you're a meatpuppet; I lay odds that you'll be site-banned by EOD.--Jorm (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions

Page restrictions7.5

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template (

{{ds/editnotice}}

).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Remedies

"(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning."

Nowhere does it allow an administrator to stop entire classes of editors from participating in talk page discussions. In fact, the discretionary sanctions rules specifically say NOT to chase away new editors. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. The limits would not have been imposed if people didn't continually create or recruit sock- or meatpuppets to cheat the discretionary sanctions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words, the gamergate editors/admins defined anyone who had a different point of view on that article as a "meatpuppet," but since that didn't work a single admin decided that every new account is a meatpuppet. Very convenient. He used the ArbCom ruling to justify his actions, but Arbcom didn't allow his actions. If "IAR" lets you choose any sanction you want, even if it isn't allowed, then why bother having ArbCom rulings in the first place? Just let admins unilaterally decide to ban any class of person they don't want on their articles. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This restriction isn't serving to block different points of view. If you were to look at discussions on the Gamergate talk page you'd notice that there's a wide variety of people (bit short on women though), with a wide variety of views about what the article should contain. The one thing that unites them all, is that they've made over 500 edits to Wikipedia and therefore have at worst, a passable idea of how wikipedia policy works. You on the other hand have no clue what you're doing and seem to not even have read the FAQ.[24] Do you really think there is any point to what you are doing, or that you'd be able to do anything to the article if you were somehow granted access to comment? Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well apparently I'm the only one bright enough to notice that requiring 500 edits to use the talk page isn't allowed by the sanctions that were supposedly used to justify it. I wonder what else is being missed by new blood being bullied away from wikipedia? If the page needs to be semi-protected then that is allowed by the rules. What that inactive admin did is not allowed. It is very simple. Some people apparently desire a highly restricted set of users. Ban any old accounts that disagree with the "Gamergate is rape" narrative and then stop anyone who isn't OCD from participating in it? Bravo. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I will say it again: The Arbitration Committee has not attempted to stop the restriction from being enforced. In fact, its success with this topic area may lead it to be used in another one. You, on the other hand, seem to be desperate to hide any effort of your wrongdoing. Were I still an admin, I'd've already blocked you, sent you to the Checkusers, and have been done with it just based off of what I know about the on- and off-wiki goings on and the fact that you're so blindingly obvious the only reason you haven't been blocked yet is for the entertainment value as you flail about. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You continued attacks against me are unjustified nor do you listen to any explanation that conflicts with your worldview. Discussion with you is non-productive and will be ignored or collapsed per (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material). Thank god you aren't an admin anymore, but I assume you have many admin friends still. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but discussion of whether you're a sockpuppet or not is very germane to this conversation. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Start another topic in an appropriate area then. This is about the rules being violated by the Gamergate article gatekeepers. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And you, being obviously a sockpuppet, can't expect to evade scrutiny on a thread you yourself created. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I just came to this talk page on a lark and my primary focus on WP has been about Staten Island (my home town lately) but I have to say Jeremy that you have been excessively abrasive to Saigo. I understand that GG is a hot button issue but your disingenuous assertions do not help. EVERYONE on this encyclopedia has worth and their opinions have merit. If as you said Saigo is a GG sock he'd have been working in secret to get passed the 500/30 sanction so as to get to the GG page with no one the wiser. TMazzio (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what I never understand when this complaint comes up (as it has several times). There are now close to 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia. There are restrictions on this one article because of disruptions from sock puppets. It's also to protect new editors who were wandering into editing this article like a bull in a china shop and finding themselves quickly getting a topic ban or indefinite block. To be it bluntly, Gamergate controversy is not a good place for a new editor to learn how to edit on Wikipedia as it is full of pitfalls.

I figure that an active editor can satisfy the 500/30 editing restriction in one to three months of active editing. Is this such an unbearably long period of time to wait, to learn Wikipedia editing policies, before starting in on a contentious article? If, on the other hand, you have no interest in improving the nearly 5 million other articles and only want to focus on editing this one article, then that is a sign that you are an editor this restriction was created to protect against. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You protect new editors from topic bans - by preemptively enforcing the topic ban. Isn't that like shooting a man to stop his suicide? Who's the kind of editor this restriction was created to prevent, POV pushers perhaps because it doesn't appear to have done that - at all. 104.238.169.86 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt the need to prove that you could run a google search on Liz's name other than to imply a threat. Is that a threat? An attempt to dox an email address?--Jorm (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dox an email address?" "Googling" as a threat? What are you on about? An unsupported accusation is a personal attack, I supplied support for my accusation, where is the support for yours? 104.238.169.86 (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obviously a project in turmoil, on its last legs. If this were a serious, vibrant project, I would expect much better quality trolling. Instead, we have this boring rehash (as well as a boatload full of people who need to learn the first rule of trolls). I give it six months until WMF decides to shut the whole thing down out of boredom. --JBL (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New paid editing scandal - How many more will there be until we take serious action?

In case folks missed it, see

Wikipedia blocks hundreds of paid socks (story at Arstechnica).
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Orangemoody long-term abuse case and COI cases
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody
WMF blogun
Tech Crunch
Fusion

One thing that is particularly notable here is the repeated use of the term "extortion" e.g. "charging prices of roughly $30 a month for what amounts to a protection and extortion racket" in Fusion.

What is described certainly strikes me as extortion or racketeering but I don't think anybody directly involved in the banning of the socks has used either term yet.

I'm sure there will be more soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, what can we do? This will always happen, unfortunately, this is just a side of Wikipedia. Maybe if we were more friendly to users with COI's and had a proper introductions shown to people as soon as they registered, then maybe disclosure would be more common. Of course, many people don't get how Wikipedia works, so unfortunately, even the above cannot combat the issue. Mdann52 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We could certainly publicize our rules better, let businesses know that their advertising and other forms of advocacy are not welcome. But just throwing up your hands and saying "what can we do?" strikes me as giving up the ship, saying we don't have rules against advertising, just write anything you want folks without any supervision or oversight. The people running the scams described certainly knew of our rules and went to great lengths to avoid detection. Being more friendly to extortionists doesn't impress me as a workable option. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact these rackets do, and will continue to do, shows that whatever rules we give etc., we can't really stop them completely, just stem the tide. The being friendly refers to the users who feel the need to go to these groups to get the article, mainly because we don't offer enough support or advice. I believe I was unclear, I apologise. Mdann52 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry that I mistook your meaning and jumped down your throat. "What can we do" about business and people who don't know our rules is a serious question and deserves a serious answer. Off the top of my head, we could do the following:

If you see one of those ads, articles or posts on the internet that purports to explain how you can gt your own page on Wikipedia, challenge it. Explain our rules as simply and directly as possible.
Participate at WP:COIN. Every little bit helps, and you will become more aware of what the particular problems are.
Help out at AfD. With some real money at stake, (presumed) paid editors can be very difficult to deal with at AfD. But if it becomes clear that their ads and other paid advocacy will be deleted, there will be fewer ads created in the future.
Clean up WP:AfC - Articles for Creation was used in the recent scam as a place to find customers and suckers. 1st we need a warning there that paid advocacy is not acceptable, and that scammers may attempt to contact businesses trying to get free ads.
Individual editors could contact businesses and others that they believe are advertising on Wikipedia, but I'd say unless you know them or have had some kind of contact with them previously, don't do it. It is best left to the communications and legal departments at the WMF. If you do contact such folks, please make sure that you explicitly state that you are not a paid editor soliciting business. Otherwise it would look very much like some actions used in the current scam.
Let the folks at ArbCom, ANI, and the WMF know that you you want them to take serious action on this.

more later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

- There are at least 16 more ideas at User:Doc James/Paid editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very wary of the language that Fuion uses "protection and extortion racket". If they mean "give us $30 a month or we will vandalise your article" then that is the correct language to use. Otherwise there are moral objections to what they are doing only if

it's snake oil - the articles will be protected sufficiently by the volunteer community
it's an unreasonably high price, and they can go nowhere else for the same product

There maybe ToS issues. But of all the CoI issues on Wikipedia, paid protection against vandalism is probably the least.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

At the very least, it is fraud. They cannot protect an article on WP. That would imply ownership of the article, as well as violating NPOV. The protection promised is not against vandalism, it is protection against enforcement of our rules.. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen their T's and C's - maybe by "protection" is meant the same thing as a bullet-proof vest being "protection". You can still be shot when wearing one, and injured, but that doesn't mean it's not protection.

In this case we have deleted 254 articles, regardless of out policies, which shows that nothing can guarantee "protection", even being well written, notable and NPOV. (Which of course, not all of them were.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

See also The Independent, PC World, Ars Technica, Wired, Vice, Le Temps, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Die Zeit. (stealing a list from Brianhe)

The Independent has the best article, tracking down individuals and businesses who were scammed. It makes it quite clear that the word extortion applies.

Rich Farmbrough - with all due respect, I hope that you will not be an apologist for extortionists. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not. I simply think that it is dangerous to make the news, and at the same time cite it as supporting one's interpretation of events. "In some cases, the requests for money amounted to blackmail, Wikipedia told The Independent." So the Independent is ignorant becasue "Wikipedia" did not tell them anything - either an editor told them, or the WMF told them. (I would like to know which and who.) If "our" view is that their actions are criminal, we should refer the matter to the police. If we believe they have commuted a tort we should decide if we (the WMF or some other group or entity) wish to sue. To say that they have been blackmailing, extorting or shaking down the subjects really requires detailed knowledge of the wording of their emails and other documents that I at least simply don't have.

On the other hand it is clear that they have violated the Terms of Service, and I would in principle be happy to see reasonable legal action taken against them on this basis.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) but I see your two posts above as being wikilawyering for extortionists. It is absolutely shameful. I don't want to get into any further discussion about this so I won't reply on this subject. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On review, this "best article" in The Independent says, "...Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia which is edited entirely by volunteers...", seems to miss the very point of its own story, that Wikipedia is not exclusively edited by volunteer. And further, "...Wikimedia – the voluntary body which runs Wikipedia...". So, Smallbones, according to your favorite source, we are to conclude that all of the good 250+ folks who work for Wikimedia are unpaid? Because that's what a "voluntary body" suggests to me. If The Independent's hack reporter like Glanfield cannot even get correct these basic understandings of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, why do we trust that she got anything else nearly correct about OrangeMoody? I'm happy that you won't be replying on this subject, because you're rather out of your depth. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:28EE:F9A:B8EC:5271 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Out of habit, I've got some secondary coverage of this:

Gizmodo
Ars Technica --Rubbish computer 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The latter of the two does nothing but regurgitate content from the WMF blog. --Rubbish computer 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

""give us $30 a month or we will vandalise your article" " Sounds like something SPECTRE would do, only the price would naturally be $1 million not $30 ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The dichotomy posited in the heading here is false. It is not a question of "paid editing scandals" vs. "serious action." Certain forms of prophylactic regulations do nothing more than drive the (inevitable) paid editing further underground, creating new scandals. Fanaticism on this issue is actually counterproductive, realism is called for. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO & WP:RBI, close comments by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

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

An editor warned months ago that Articles for Creation was not fit for purpose and should be deprecated. S/he proposed that the ability to create articles be restored to unregistered editors, bearing in mind that it was removed without the community's consent or even knowledge. To prevent abuse, s/he proposed that these articles remain within pending changes until the first edit by an autoconfirmed editor. The proposal gained consensus but was hatted by an administrator at the last moment and nothing was done. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes. I think that now is the time to pass this long overdue proposal to the developers for implementation. 92.25.66.96 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Two words: Siegenthaler incident. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That happened ten years ago and was a fiasco. But in Wikipedia terms, it is ancient history, and no one thinks it was the work of a paid editor. More like a garden variety troll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC is an incredible tool for keeping out a large percentage of the crap (especially promotional articles) from getting on to Wikipedia, if anything it will be strengthened not abolished. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note the closing statement for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes:

This entire thread was initiated and driven on by ban-evading sock IPs. No concrete proposals were presented and discussed by legitimate editors. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: ☼ 10:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The articles created by these socks are almost entirely companies and people too minor for Wikipedia articles. Virtually all have been speedily deleted. A business built on evading Wikipedia notability rules cannot be "driven underground," because by virtue of their business model they must be underground. If brought above ground they fail. Thus the only approach is the one taken by the Foundation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Every one was deleted, on the basis that it cuts off the funding from the paid editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

What was the Siegenthaler incident? An office worker with time on his hands thought it would be fun to make up spoof allegations against an American senator. The proposal addresses the concerns - until the text of the article has been vetted nobody will be able to read it. AfC is not magic pixie dust which can solve all Wikipedia's sourcing problems - 90% of all new articles in mainspace are deleted after new page patrol anyway. What this change will do is take away the ability of sockpuppets to extort money to get articles included and then extort more money to stop them getting deleted. Sisters are doing it for themselves is what made Wikipedia successful and it can make Wikipedia successful again. Only they won't have to do it all themselves - once their article appears in mainspace experienced editors with knowledge of the topic will be on hand to polish it up. 80.42.79.200 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Two were kept, and several are pending, according to the article list. They were speedily deleted on the merits, on the basis of existing notability criteria so far as I know. Are you saying that articles on worthy subjects were unjustly deleted? If so, if you are an administrator you should undelete and their merits can be discussed. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read carefully you will see that they were all deleted. Two have since been recreated as notable subjects. A blanket claim was made that that the average quality was poor (including NN subjects and copyvios), but the motivation and justification was to break the business model of the paid editors (or "shakedown" as it was described). I do not necessarily object to this, however I do think that consensus could have been gathered, rather than a cabalistic approach being taken. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
Figureofnine

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

In that case the articles should be restored and only deleted on the merits. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

An aside: some of the discussions above use the word "extortion." That is an overstatement. These were aggressive business practices, but not extortionate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I and several others agree with you, (see above, see also signpost commentary) that (unless there is sooper-sekrit evidence) "extortion", "shakedown" and "blackmail" are currently inappropriate terms to use. However there is a widespread social phenomenon whereby we do not apply the same standards of probity to comments about people we disapprove of. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

Indeed. By the way, Rich I notice that you removed one of my comments, which I have reinstated. I assume it was unintentional. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing is not a major threat to Wikipedia. A bigger threat is the numerous, upaid cabals of agenda-driven editors who chase so many of the casual editors away through hostility and bullying. For a number or reasons, Wikipedians get all up in arms about the paid editing boogyman while ignoring all the political cabals operating openly in their midst. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

We can manage disclosed ethical paid editing. Undisclosed, unethical paid editing is a big problem, as is rampant sockpuppetry, impersonation of administrators, retaliatory editing against articles about businesses that don't "pay up", and telling companies like ordinary wedding photographers that they are eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to Cla68: What made this episode different from "cabals" of like-minded editors was that a business was established for the purpose of violating Wikipedia rules. It could not exist if Wikipedia notability rules were followed. Its business model was to insert articles in the project despite their triviality, and then utilize that to pressure businesses. "Extortion," as it is erroneously called by some. All the while, sockpuppets were created in advancement of the central scheme. One can argue that a large number of trivial articles is less dangerous that concerted skewing of high-visibility articles. That's a valid argument, but it doesn't lessen the need to constrain commercial exploitation of Wikipedia by third parties. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you think calling the Orangemoody group's actions "extortion" is erroneous? Our article on extortion starts

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.

Isn't this exactly what they did? Certainly the report that revealed it used the word "shakedown." You might try to say that "coercion" involves violence, but that isn't correct, threats are also a form of coercion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Venezuela government controls almost all the newspapers and television stations"

Hello Jimmy. I'm watching your "State of the wiki" talk for Wikimania 2015. There you said that "Venezuela government controls almost all the newspapers and television stations". Where did you get that idea?

That is a typical hoax repeated in many places. Here I gathered some info into two tables, using data from Wikipedia articles.

National newspapers in Venezuela
Newspaper	Owner
Diario 2001	Bloque De Armas
Correo del Orinoco	State-owned
Diario VEA	State-owned
El Nacional	Miguel Henrique Otero
El Nuevo País	Rafael Poleo
El Universal	Epalisticia S.L.
Tal Cual	La Mosca Analfabeta C.A.
Últimas Noticias	Cadena Capriles

National television networks in Venezuela
Television network	Owner
Venevisión	Gustavo Cisneros
Venezolana de Televisión	State-owned
TVes	State-owned
Televen	Corporación TELEVEN, S.A
ViVe	State-owned
Globovisión	Juan Domingo Cordero
Vale TV	Arzobispado de Caracas
Meridiano Televisión	Bloque De Armas
TeleSUR	Public company

I hope that this data helps to clarify this topic. Regards. emijrp (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"The national airwaves are now almost entirely dominated by the government and its obligatory announcements, called cadenas." - Reporters without Borders
"In a 2015 report by the Institute for Press and Society (IPYS), over 25 media organizations had changed in ownerships between 2010 and 2015 with the new owners having "a direct relationship" to local governments and the national government that were linked to Chavismo.[21]" - see Media_of_Venezuela which links to news about report here.
"Under new ownership, the network purged its newsroom and stopped airing live speeches by opposition leader" - Washington Post

Control of the media need not take the form of direct government intervention - threats leading to self-censorship and purchase by government proxies is sufficient. I stand my my assessment, which is in agreement with every serious human rights organization I have seen write about the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emijrp: ¡Por vida! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela's situation is definitely a bad one - a cautionary tale that shows that even when freedom of the press is badly abused, abolishing it is a worse cure than the disease. Without suspending RCTV's license and persuading some of the other channels above to take a more 'neutral' position, Chavez still might not have faced another coup attempt; but by pursuing censorship online and off, he overthrew himself - the society he might have wanted was overthrown by one of excessive security and a failure to contemplate or compromise that has left them vulnerable in the oil downturn. For those abroad who wanted to turn back the Pink Tide, a bad leftism is far more useful than the complete overthrow of Chavez' government - indeed, one scarcely hears of the accomplishments of Uruguay, which has surged far ahead of the U.S. on that first press index, or of Bolivia or any other country that has shown that leftist politics can work, and work with democracy and human rights. That said, is the vague connection of the owner of Globovision with government interests really as close as that of Roger Ailes, who is CEO of Fox News? What about MSNBC, given the chumminess between Microsoft and the NSA? Even when you consider Ted Turner, definitely an independent media voice ... what does someone whose land has a higher GDP than Belize have to do with the legendary General Will? He may be independent of government, but what owner of large media is independent of the prerogatives and interests of wealth? I think it may be better to take a more remote, bottom-up view: what happens to you if you use a watt or two to broadcast your video on TV in your block, without getting it cleared by Somebody Better Than You? Then ask what country's media is free. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In all countries we should care a lot about journalistic freedom, and about what non-journalistic influences may be impacting what we see and hear and read. Having said that, I think it's unwise to make a comparison that would suggest that things in Venezuela are probably routine - they most certainly are not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not really my intent - I don't want to minimize censorship in Venezuela. The resignations at Globovision over their change in editorial policy are certainly a clue that something is particularly wrong there. Still, biased pro-government reports can occur anywhere when emboldened by a lack of competing voices to debunk false claims. Censorship is like Ebola - some people may just have a fever, while others are vomiting blood, and that matters for their prognosis ... but it is always the same virus, waiting for its next victim. I think that (because of the EM frequency licensing structure that Venezuela and the US share) the Internet offers the best alternative to biased, censored, or just "owned" news. For example, Wikipedia, a site where people can write and contribute directly, usually does far better at putting complex political issues in context than 99% of media reports. So it concerns me most when censorship is targeted at ordinary people on the Internet. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you assess the situation of Venezuela media using Reporters Without Borders (see #Criticisms of RWB) and The Washington Post... Well, then obviously you will have that impression. In the same fashion that you check who controls the Venezuelan newspapers/televisions, you should check who controls that NGOs and newspapers, and their interests.

I wonder if the world was worried about freedom of expression in Venezuela before Chavez/Maduro, when all the media was private in the hands of businessmen and there were no public ones. Obviously not, because the super-neutral mass media and NGOs didn't report about it.

For a real problem for freedom of expression, see Concentration of media ownership. Here is a table with the most linked mass media as references in Wikipedia:

Mass media in references [25]
Mass media	Links	Country	Owner(s)
BBC	386,665	United Kingdom	Statutory corporation
The New York Times	211,769	United States	The New York Times Company
The Guardian	107,524	United Kingdom	Guardian Media Group, Scott Trust Limited
The Daily Telegraph	55,543	United Kingdom	Telegraph Media Group, Press Holdings, Barclay Brothers
Washington Post	44,674	United States	Nash Holdings LLC, Jeff Bezos
The Independent	38,983	United Kingdom	Independent Print Ltd, Evgeny & Alexander Lebedev
Los Angeles Times	30,894	United States	Tribune Publishing
Time	30,791	United States	Time Inc.
ABC	29,968	Australia	Statutory corporation
Reuters	28,290	United Kingdom	Thomson Reuters, The Woodbridge Company, Thomson family
USA Today	27,024	United States	Gannett Company
Daily Mail	26,251	United Kingdom	Daily Mail and General Trust

Almost all them owned by rich people, big companies, holdings, banks, etc. I don't see any owned by the poor, do you? Where is their freedom of expression? --emijrp (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The funny thing is, as an exercise in debating, I could take that exact data and make effectively the inverse argument: that the English Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. The American right-wing (I'm American, so this is my frame of reference) pretty much considers all of those except maybe the Telegraph and the Mail to be leftie socialist rags, especially the top three in that table. And indeed, it's not hard to find right-wingers online complaining about how Wikipedia is a liberal propaganda machine. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emjirp: That's a good point about the rich being overly represented compared to the poor. However, the media's consisting of mostly 1%-controlled corporate outlets such as the above influences society as a whole, with Wikipedia simply using the most reliable sources available. --Rubbish computer 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a little more nuanced than that - we actually have a choice, and can make the right one or the wrong one. A biased media is not strictly a censored media, which is to say, there are exceptions that slip through. An editor can pick through these back-page stories like Noam Chomsky in order to get a much clearer overall picture of what is going on. The problem is that recently there has been an upsurge of editors insisting that it is not enough that a fact merely be sourced reliably - they want it excluded unless many or most sources happen to mention it. Which is to say, they don't want a comprehensive encyclopedic resource, but a consensus summary that accurately reflects both the facts and the bias of the majority of the sources, without including inconvenient facts that broaden the context. When people see this kind of thing they need to push back hard against it, or yes, Wikipedia might as well be run by some big company. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Er... I don't see anything to complain about when I look at Jimbo's edit summaries, at least in article space, which is where it is most important. —Kusma (t·c) 09:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

[1] Like 87.3952% of most statistics, that estimate was simply pulled out of my ass, but hopefully everyone knows what I mean.

[fn 1]